20140205-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM- Re Metrology National Measurement...

8/13/2019 20140205-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM- Re Metrology National Measurement Institute Depa

1/54

p1 5-2-2014

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1stedition limited special numbered book on Data DVDISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI seriesby making a reservation, See alsoHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Mr Tony Abbott MP 5-2-2014

[email protected],[email protected]

Cc: Mr Clive Palmer5

Palmer United [email protected]

Victorian Police Chief Commissioner of PoliceVictoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA10C/[email protected] OBL 1106575301

D. Napthine MP Premier of Victoria [email protected] FaceyDirector, Infringement Management & Enforcement Services (Sheriff)

[email protected] Grey Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria233 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000, C/[email protected]

Dr Richard Brittain LLB, Executive Officer, Legal Metrology, National Measurement Institute, Department ofInnovation, Industry, Science and Research Email:[email protected]

M Hoyle, Quality and client support Coordinator , Civic Compliance VictoriaGPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC [email protected]

MrRobert Cl arkMP Attorney-General [email protected]

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAILEmail:[email protected]

Ref: 20140205-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM- Re Metrology National Measurement Institute Department of

Innovation, Industry, Science and Research -etc30

Tony,despite what stated in his email to me dated 18 November 2013, I do not agree with certain

claims he makes. For your information I have below reproduced his email to me as I view this isappropriate to do so.

35I will reproduce below my 29-12-2013 correspondence as to indicate that I sought also DrRichard Brittain LLB to be aware of my position in matters and he may have opted to rectify hismisconceived statements..

It should be understood that while by convention the Commonwealth may have allowed the40States to continue to legislate, this however cannot overrule constitutional embedded legal

principles, and as such I urge you/request to ensure that the Minister for Metrology NationalMeasurement Institute Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research address

the issues appropriately..45Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector General of Government HCT-00-CV-M A-593-2003

QUOTE
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/54

p2 5-2-2014




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

END QUOTE.

Hansard 14-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates(Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)5QUOTE Mr. O'CONNOR:

The very principle of the Federal Constitution is this: that the Constitution is above both Houses ofParliament. That is the difference between it and our Houses of Parliament now. The Federal Parliament must

be above both Houses of Parliament, and they must conform to it, because it is in the charter under which

union takes place, and the guarantee of rights under which union takes place; and, unless you have some10 authority for them to interpret[start page 592] that, what guarantee have you for preserving their rights at all.It is very necessary to insert this provision in the Constitution, because if you do not do that then thesequestions are questions of procedure between the two Houses in which undue pressure may be brought to

bear at any time on one House or other for the purpose of vetoing a law and doing injustice to the Statesrepresented in that House in the different ways in which the States are represented. As to the inconvenience,15there are thirty-two different subjects of legislation here which may be dealt with by the federal authority, andin regard to any one of these if an error is made which takes the law outside the authority which is given tothe federal power it is invalid-absolutely void-no matter what inconvenience may follow.

Mr. ISAACS:That is not a rule of procedure; that is jurisdiction.

END QUOTE20.

Hansard 8-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. ISAACS.-The court would not consider whether it was an oversight or not. They would take the

law and ask whether it complied with the Constitution. If it did not, they would say that it was invalid.25They would not go into the question of what was in the minds of the Members of Parliament when the lawwas passed. That would be a political question which it would be impossible for the court to determine.

END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates30QUOTE

Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but

the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the

question of ultra vir esarising after a law has been passed.

[start page 2004]35Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultr a viresof the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 6-3-1891Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. THYNNE:40

The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for

the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the

whole of these colonies, and they shall be so.From[start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federalconstitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of theseveral colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures,and the45royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be

practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states,they will be charged with thefull power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodiesthat will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each

assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey50again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority

conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of

such authority.END QUOTE.55I am not seeking a change of law I am rather seeking the proper enforcement of relevant (and soconstitutionally valid) legal provisions, commencing with the embedded legal principles in theconstitution the source of all our subordinate laws..

Despite that from onset, even before the purported Infringement Court order/warrant were issued60I challenged the validity of any court to hear and determine matters to my knowledge and


3/54

p3 5-2-2014




understanding neither the police, the Sheriffs office or others bothered to have this constitutionalissue determined appropriately.On 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia, after a 5 year epiclegal battle in the County Court of Victoria. One fatal error then the Commonwealth had madewas failing, being the prosecutor, to place the matters before the High Court of Australia. The5

prosecutor wrongly assumed that it was for me to do so. It appears that now with the VictorianPolice/Sheriffs Office it to makes this fatal error.

Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rightsprovides:"Everyone charged with a penal off ence has the r igh t to be presumed innocent unti l pr oved guil ty10according to law in a publi c trial at whi ch she/he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

.

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.

15Despite that the High Court of Australia in Harr is v Cali dinemade clear a Registrars decisionmust always be reviewable as otherwise it is unconstitutional, nevertheless the Registrar of theInfringement Court refused to allow a review before a judge, as I requested. Hence hissubsequent issue of a warrant is of no legal value.

20

Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal(1852) 3 II,L.C. 759QUOTEThe fundamental rule of English (Australian) law is that " No man can be a judge in his own case". It haslong been held that if there is bias or the appearance of bias such as to deny justice or create the impressionthat justice has not been done, then that bias, or apparent bias, is sufficient to invalidate the decision of25those who made the decision.

END QUOTEReg v. The London County Council(1894) XI .L.R. 24Sharp v. Carey(1897) 23 V.L.R. 248 Austin Digest 17.Reg. v. Moleswort(1893) 23 V.L.R. 582 Austin Digest 17.30Black v. Black(1951) N.Z.L.R. 723Ex Parte Blume(1958) W.N. (N.S.W.) 411Austin Digest 93,339,457,458

In Re O (infants)(1971) Ch 748,754 and 755

QUOTE35In my considered opinion the law now is that if an appellate court is satisfied that the decision of the lowercourt is wrong, it is it's duty to say so and act accordingly.

END QUOTE

Marriage of McJarrow Fam LR6, 746 (1980)40QUOTE

In my judgment the signing by the registrar of an order is irrelevant to the question as to whether or not an orderwas made. The signing and sealing of an order is no more that an administrative act passing and entering theorder into the records of the court. Once an order has been pronounced by the court then there is in existence anorder which can be appealed pursuant to S94 of the Act.45

END QUOTE

In Preston Ice and Cool Stores Pty Ltd. v. Hawkings(1955) V.L.R. 89; (1955) Austin Digest 337.QUOTE

It was held that where there is a review/appeal the party having sought such review/appeal is not bound by50the grounds used in the original hearing but may refer to other grounds even so, such grounds had not beenupon which the original order was based.

END QUOTE

As I was denied to attend to any hearing or purported hearing then my request for a review55couldnt be limited merely by the fact I was denied any submissions from onset, as the reviewmust be DE NOVOand before a judge.As the court (Magistrates Court of Victoria never pronounced any orders and the Registrar uponhis own violation, without disclosing to me what evidence, if any, he relied upon, signed the


4/54


5/54

p5 5-2-2014




In order to resolve this appeal and to determine the relevant principles, we have had to look at aconsiderable number of additional reported decisions as well as a variety of text books, many of whichwe have had to find for ourselves with the invaluable assistance of the researchers engaged by the Court.

END QUOTE.5Hansard 2-4-1897Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:

I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important

questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.

END QUOTE10 .QUOTEMain v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

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

END QUOTE15

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

Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven

END QUOTE

QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,20

No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.

END QUOTE

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

Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.25END QUOTE.

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 direct30collateral attack.

END QUOTE.

QUOTEYunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns[1999] FamCA 6435

(2) The Court always has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for the purpose of and up to the pointof deciding whether it has jurisdiction to make the orders sought in the proceedings.

(3) In carrying out that limited exercise of jurisdiction, the Court is required to determine any essential factsupon which the existence of its jurisdiction to make the orders sought ultimately depends (the jurisdictionalfacts). That determination is a function which is incidental to the exercise of the jurisdiction referred to in40(2) above.

END QUOTEAndQUOTEYunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns[1999] FamCA 64

(6) Once a respondent challenges the Courts jurisdiction to make the orders sought, the Court, before45considering the adjudicational facts, must find the existence of the jurisdictional facts, on the balance of

probabilities.END QUOTE

QUOTE.50

FAMILY LAW RULES 20042003 No. 375 - RULE 3.05

Objection to jurisdiction(1)If, in a Form 3A, arespondent objects to the jurisdiction of the court, therespondent will not be taken to havesubmitted to the jurisdiction of the court by also seeking an order that the application be dismissed on another55ground.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/flr20042003n375190/s19.05.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/flr20042003n375190/s19.05.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/flr20042003n375190/s19.05.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/flr20042003n375190/s19.05.html


6/54

p6 5-2-2014




(2)The objection to the jurisdiction must be determined before any other orders sought in the Form 3A.

END QUOTE

Di rector General, Department of Commerce v Cianf rano and Anor [2008] NSWADTAP 56 (24 July 2008)NEW5SOUTH WALES ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNALQUOTE

3 The Tribunal decided, contrary to the Departments submission, that it did have jurisdiction to determine the

adequacy of search question:Director-General, Department of Commerce and anor(No 2)[2006] NSW

ADT 195.The matter was listed for further directions. The Tribunals orders were as follows:10

1. First Respondents objection to 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)15QUOTE

1. 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 with the matters contained inParticulars (a) (i),(iii), (iv) and (vi) of Exhibit 1.20

1. I make orders accordingly.END QUOTE.

Watson v D ir ector-General, Department of Services, Technology and Admin istration [2010] NSWADT 44 (12

February 2010)25QUOTE

He also stated that, if the Tribunal agreed this view, he would seek an order that the Respondent pay theApplicants costs occasioned by the objection to jurisdictionon an indemnity basis.

END QUOTEAnd30QUOTE

The orders to be made

64 For the foregoing reasons, each of the applications constituting these proceedings is dismissed for want ofjurisdiction.35

65 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 vacated.END QUOTE40

Act I nterpretation Act 1901; (Cth)

15A Construction of Acts to be subject to Constitu tion

QUOTEEvery Act shall be read and construed subject to the Constitution, and so as not to exceed the legislative45

power of the Commonwealth, to the intent that where any enactment thereof would, but for this section, havebeen construed as being in excess of that power, it shall nevertheless be a valid enactment to the extent towhich it is not in excess of that power.

END QUOTE.50The High Court of Australia held that where a party pleads the non-application of a State Act because ofCommonwealth legislation then the State Court is exercising Federal jurisdiction. (However only if the State Courtcan invoke jurisdiction, which VCAT cannot and neither is a court!) Troy v Wr igglesworth (1919) 26 C.L.R. 305;25 (1926) 38 C.L.R. 441; 33 A.L .R. 66..55Held by the High Court of Australia that the expression Court or judge of a State does not include a Judge sittingin Chambers exercising the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Wil cox v Donohoe, (1905) 3 C.L.R. 83; 12 A.L.R. 54.
http://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://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://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=


7/54

p7 5-2-2014




.

Held by the High Court of Australia that the federal jurisdiction which is conferred on a State Court by the section issubject to any limitations imposed by the laws of the State upon its state jurisdiction, unless otherwise expresslydeclared. Federated Saw-mill Timberyard andGeneral Woodworkers Employees Associati on v A lexander, (1912)15 C.L.R. 308; 19 A.L .R. 22.5.

Held by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland that the police magistrate exercising Federal jurisdictionis not an officer of a Federal Courtwithin the meaning of this paragraph (Section 39 of the Judicial Act 1903) R.v. Archdall and Others; Ex parte Taylor, 1919 St. R. Qld 207; 13 Q.J.P.R. 22 C.L.R. 437 in which the High Court(Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy and Ricch JJ ; Griffith CJ and Barton J dissenting) held that a Judge of an inferior10Court of a State invested with and purporting to exercise Federal jurisdiction is not an officer of the Commonwealthwithin the meaning of s. 75 (v) of the Constitution..

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

Held by the High Court of Australia that under this section the Courts of the several States have federal appellatedjurisdiction, as regard the matters enumerated in ss75 and 76 of the Constitution, to the same extent that, and subjectto the same conditions as, under the State laws they have appellated jurisdiction in matters to which State laws20apply. Ah Yick v Lehmert, (1905) 2 C.L.R. 593; 11 A.L .R. 306.

Held by the High Court of Australia (Williams J.) that under this section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 the Attorney-

General for the Commonwealth or a State may apply for the removal into the High Court of a cause or part of acause whether or not he is a party to the proceedings in which the cause arises, and if the cause really and25substantially arises under the Constitution or involves its interpretation, the court MUSTgrant the removal as ofright notwithstanding that the matter is apparently concluded by authority. Any distinct and divisible question may

be part of such a cause within the meaning of this section. In re an Application by the Public Service Association

of N .S.W. , (1947) 75 C.L .R. 430.30PerEvatt J. ; Each question as to the limits in ter seis involved where State Legislature is challenged on the

grounds that it contravenes s. 90 of the Constitution.Hopper v Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board (Vi c),(1939) 61 C.L.R. 665, at p 681; A.L.R. 249, at p 255.

PerEvatt J.; Each question of the validity of the Commonwealth legislation in s51 of the Constitution (and a35fortioriin s. 52) necessarily raised a question as to the limits of Commonwealth and State powers. Ibid at p. 682C.L.R. and p 255 A.L.R..

Held that a State Court exercising federal jurisdiction when it erroneously applies Commonwealth Act to

subject matter before the Court. Commonwealth v Cole, (1923) 32 C.L.R. 602 and Commonwealth v Dal ton,40(1924) 33 C.L.R.. 452; 30 A.L .R. 85.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

39 Federal ju ri sdiction of State Courts in other matters

QUOTE45

(1) The jurisdiction of the High Court, so far as it is not exclusive of the jurisdiction of any Court of a

State by virtue of section 38, shall be exclusive of the jurisdiction of the several Courts of the States,

except as provided in this section.

(2) The several Courts of the States shall within the limits of their several jurisdictions, whether such

limits are as to locality, subject-matter, or otherwise, be invested with federal jurisdiction, in all50matters in which the High Court has original jurisdiction or in which original jurisdiction can be

conferred upon it, except as provided in section 38, and subject to the following conditions and

restrictions:

(a) A decision of a Court of a State, whether in original or in appellate jurisdiction, shall not be

subject to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, whether by special leave or otherwise.55


8/54

p8 5-2-2014




Special leave to appeal from decisions of State Courts though State law prohibits appeal

(c) The High Court may grant special leave to appeal to the High Court from any decision of any

Court or Judge of a State notwithstanding that the law of the State may prohibit any appeal from

such Court or Judge.

Exercise of federal jurisdiction by State Courts of summary jurisdiction5

(d) The federal jurisdiction of a Court of summary jurisdiction of a State shall not be judicially

exercised except by a Stipendiary or Police or Special Magistrate, or some Magistrate of the State who is

specially authorized by the Governor-General to exercise such jurisdiction, or an arbitrator on whom thejurisdiction, or part of the jurisdiction, of that Court is conferred by a prescribed law of the State, within the

limits of the jurisdiction so conferred.10END QUOTE

39A Federal j ur isdicti on invested in State Cour ts by other provisions

QUOTE

(1) The federal jurisdiction with which a Court of a State is invested by or under any Act, whether the

investing occurred or occurs before or after the commencement of this section, including federal15jurisdiction invested by a provision of this Act other than the last preceding section:

(a) shall be taken to be invested subject to the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of the

last preceding section; and

(b) shall be taken to be invested subject to the provisions of paragraphs (c) and (d) of that

subsection (whether or not it is expressed to be invested subject to both or either of those20provisions), so far as they are capable of application and are not inconsistent with a provision

made by or under the Act by or under which the jurisdiction is invested;

in addition to any other conditions or restrictions subject to which the jurisdiction is expressed to be

invested.

(2) Nothing in this section or the last preceding section, or in any Act passed before the commencement of25this section, shall be taken to prejudice the application of any of sections 72 to 77 (inclusive) in

relation to jurisdiction in respect of indictable offences.

END QUOTE.

From the above it already ought to be clear that a State Court, subject to certain provisions, can exercise Federal30jurisdiction.While the authorities below are USA Authorities, the legal concepts nevertheless are of a general nature that can beapplied within the Commonwealth of Australia..

QUOTE35

JURISDICTIONthe power to hear and determine a case. 147 P.2d 759, 761. This power may beestablished and described with reference to particular subjects or to parties who fall into a particular category.In addition to the power to adjudicate, a validexercise of jurisdiction requires fair noticeand an opportunityfor the affected parties to be heard. Without jurisdiction, a court's judgment is void.A court must have

both SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTIONand PERSONAL JURISDICTION(see below). See also40 territorial jurisdiction; title jurisdiction."

END QUOTE.

QUOTE

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION refers to the competency of the court to hear and determine a45particular category of cases. Federal district courts have "limited" jurisdiction in that they have only

such jurisdiction as is explicitly conferred by federal statutes. 28 U.S.C. 1330 [EDITOR'S NOTE: see

also 40 U.S.C.S. 255] et seq. See LIMITED [SPECIAL] JURISDICTION. Many state trial courts have

"general" jurisdiction to hear almost all matters. The parties to a lawsuit may not waive a requirement

of subject matter jurisdiction.50


9/54


10/54

p10 5-2-2014




nursing home to sign warrants this even so she was legally not entitled to do so and neitherunderstood this. I do not know how often the Victorian Police obtained a warrant in such mannerand may still do so but obviously such a warrant would have no legal validity in law and couldhave officers involved being guilty of perverting the course of justice, etc. Also, any evidencethey may obtain by such unlawful warrant would not be admissible in court. Many a person who5may have been convicted at the time and now become aware they may have been convicted asresult of unlawfully obtained warrants may very well have their convictions overturned. Anddamages awarded against the police..

We can do well without such perversion of the course of justice and it is therefore essential that10those seeking to enforce the law actually do so in a lawful manner.

In my view the Commonwealth cannot allow/tolerate a court exercising federal jurisdiction to goabout in a manner to violate constitutional legal principles embedded in the constitution..15HANSARD1-3-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitutionwe will have to wipe it out."

END QUOTE20

HANSARD 8-2-1898Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right insaying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if25they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.

END QUOTE.

As I did set out, and so also contrary to the Kable doctrine, the State of Victoria dictates theRegistrar of the Infringement Court (using the Magistrates Court of Victoria letterhead) dictates30the Registrar to issue orders/warrants and by this I view interfere with the judiciary powers. This,as effectively the Infringement Court is dictated that it must issue a orders/warrant upon the

presentment of details by the prosecutor, without allowing any opportunity to the accused tochallenge this purported evidence, etc.http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mistrial.html 35

Definition Save to FavoritesSee Examples

Erroneous,invalid,nugatorytrial,so declared and brought to an end by the trialjudgewithout adetermination on themeritsof the case. Mistrials are caused byfundamentaland incurableerrorin following thedue process,seriousmisconductduring trial, or where ajurycannotunanimously agree on theverdict.The trial must start anew, with theselectionof a new jury.40

Read more:http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mistrial.html#ixzz2mtTA3U6W

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/presumption-of-innocence.html Definition Save to Favorites

45 Fundamentalprincipleunder which everydefendantwho enters a criminaltrialis presumed to beinnocentundercommon-lawsystem(prevalent in the UK, USA, BritishCommonwealth,andsome othercountries). Thispresumptionremainsvaliduntil he or she is proven guilty in thedue

process of law.It is the prosecutor's (government's)burdento prove guiltbeyond a reasonabledoubt,the defendant is under noobligationto prove his or her innocence except in therebuttalof50theevidencepresented.

Hansard 8-2-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mistrial.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mistrial.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/invalid.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/invalid.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/invalid.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/nugatory.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/nugatory.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/trial.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/trial.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/trial.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/judge.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/judge.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/judge.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/merits.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/merits.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/merits.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/fundamental.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/fundamental.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/fundamental.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/error.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/error.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/error.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-process.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-process.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-process.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/misconduct.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/misconduct.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/misconduct.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/jury.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/jury.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/jury.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/verdict.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/verdict.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/verdict.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/selection.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/selection.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/selection.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mistrial.html#ixzz2mtTA3U6Whttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mistrial.html#ixzz2mtTA3U6Whttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mistrial.html#ixzz2mtTA3U6Whttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/presumption-of-innocence.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/presumption-of-innocence.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/fundamental.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/principle.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/principle.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/principle.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/defendant.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/defendant.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/defendant.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/trial.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/trial.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/trial.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/innocent.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/innocent.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/common-law.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/common-law.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/system.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/system.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/system.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/commonwealth.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/commonwealth.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/commonwealth.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/country.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/country.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/country.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/presumption.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/presumption.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/presumption.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/valid.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/valid.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/valid.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-process.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-process.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-process.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-process.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/government.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/government.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/government.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/burden.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/burden.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/burden.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/obligation.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/obligation.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/obligation.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/rebuttal.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/rebuttal.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/rebuttal.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/evidence.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/evidence.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/evidence.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/evidence.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/rebuttal.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/obligation.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/burden.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/government.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-process.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-process.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/valid.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/presumption.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/country.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/commonwealth.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/system.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/common-law.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/innocent.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/trial.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/defendant.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/principle.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/fundamental.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/presumption-of-innocence.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mistrial.html#ixzz2mtTA3U6Whttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/selection.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/verdict.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/jury.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/misconduct.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-process.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/error.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/fundamental.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/merits.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/judge.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/trial.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/nugatory.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/invalid.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mistrial.html


11/54

p11 5-2-2014




Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on thepoint. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must beheard.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.

Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principlemay be[start page 689] anything5the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person

accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a

first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.

END QUOTE

Again, despite my objection to jurisdiction before any hearing or purported hearing was held by10the Registrar of the Infringement Court part of the magistrates Court of Victoria I was deniedDUE PROCESS OF LAWand denied any knowledge what the Victorian Police actually filed

before the Infringement Court, nor was advised of any date of an open court hearing as well asdenied my legal right for a review before a judge.The fact that the Sheriffs Office nevertheless fully made aware of this and numerous other15matters continue to be like a terrorist to abuse powers to try to extort from me monies I view isvery serious and never should be tolerated..

This is not merely a Victorian legal matter as from onset I raised constitutional issues, includingthe question as to the measurement being within Commonwealth exclusive legislative powers20and as such it is and remains a federal issue.

QUOTE 29-1202013 CORRESPONDENCE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Victorian Police Chief Commissioner of Police 29-12-201325Victoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIAC/[email protected] OBL 1106575301

Cc: D. Napthine MP Premier of Victoria [email protected] Brendan FaceyDirector, Infringement Management & Enforcement Services (Sheriff)[email protected]

Ian Grey Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria233 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000, C/[email protected]

35

Dr Richard Brittain LLB, Executive Officer, Legal Metrology, National Measurement Institute, Department ofInnovation, Industry, Science and Research Email:[email protected]

M Hoyle, Quality and client support Coordinator , Civic Compliance VictoriaGPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC [email protected]

40MrRobert Cl arkMP Attorney-General [email protected]

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAILEmail:[email protected]

45COMPLAINT Ref: Measurements-etc

Sir,As you may recall from my 23-2-2011 correspondence I objected to the alleged speeding

claim by the Victorian Police. It should be stated that so far after nearly 3 years the VictorianPolice still has not provided me with details as to the instrument it claimed was used to measure50the alleged speed. No details if the camera, if that was used, was fitted onto a motor vehicle orother vehicle or was mounted on a pole, etc. No information was provided to me, as to if theinstrument was certified to be in accordance with the legal requirements of the National
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/compose.exe?id=018d0b78196cdf8fe2bb44167860ae6efc21&new=&xsl=compose.xsl&[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


12/54

p12 5-2-2014




Measurement Act 1960 and so which person purportedly provided such certification/verificationand to which applicable legislative provision.

InAgar v Dolheguy & Anor[2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) decision the Supreme Courtof Victoria held that the State parliament of Victoria validly could legislate as to speed detectionequipment where the Commonwealth had not done so. Despite what Dr Richard Brittain LLB5Executive Officer, Legal Metrology National Measurement Institute Department of Innovation,Industry, Science and Research stated in his email to me dated 18 November 2013, I do not agree

with certain claims he makes. For your information I have below reproduced his email to me as Iview this is appropriate to do so. Indeed, I have certain serious concerns as to some of the contentof the National M easurement Act 1960 (as amended) but will not at this time go into those10details as I intend to follow through with the Federal Government about certain issues. Save tosay that as a CONSTITUTIONALISTI hold the view that no matter what the Commonwealthmay or may not permit a State to do it cannot do so in violation of the constitution. Despite Agarv Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) I maintain that the Framers of theConstitution were very clear about matters and as an example they stated:15

Hansard27-1-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth

legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.END QUOTE20


Mr. BARTON(New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states willnevertheless remain in force under clause 100.25

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 makeno new laws,but the necessity of making these new laws will be

all the more forced on the Commonwealth.END QUOTE30


Mr. GLYNN(South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the Convention to an

apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not yet been made. The word35"exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on the coming into being of the

Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal Parliament, may mean, and I believe does

mean, that the power of the state to legislate ceases.On the question of whether the exclusive power

under this provision comes into being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the

attention of the leader of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive40power arises the moment an Act is passed.It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs duties

being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph says-

But this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have been imposed

by the Parliament.

It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at once, and the45position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this clause as it[start page 255]stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to Chinese.

Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediatelyon the establishment of the Commonwealth.


13/54

p13 5-2-2014




END QUOTE


Mr. GLYNN.-There seems to be some doubt as to whether the exclusive power arises upon the5establishment of the Commonwealth or on the exercise of the power of legislation. The doubt seems to

be removed by clause 84. It is said that if we put this provision in clause 52 the exclusive power may bepostponed until legislation takes place. But may you not then have a concurrent power, and may not the

competence of the local Legislature to legislate in the matter be continued as long as the legislation is not incontradiction of federal legislation?10

Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point.

Mr. GLYNN.-Yes, and there is still a vagueness in the word "exclusive." If it is doubtful whether theexclusive power commences with the foundation of the Commonwealth, and if it is possible that it may onlycome into being on the passing of legislation, may it not still be said that on the passing of exclusivelegislation the power of the local Parliaments to legislate is extinguished, but that on the passing of15concurrent legislation that power does not cease?

Mr. REID(New South Wales).-I think that enough has now been said on this subject by honorable

members both sides of the chamber, and I have only a very few remarks to offer. It appears that if thesub-section remains where it is state laws will be valid until federal legislation, but the states will not be

able to alter or improve those laws during the possibly long interval between federation and federal20legislation.Under these circumstances, as we leave to the states for an indefinite time the power of

maintaining the laws they have, we should grant to them the power of improving those laws. It would

recommend the Constitution more to a large number of persons if we put the sub-section in clause 52,

thus enabling each state to legislate on this matter until the Federal Parliament comes in and legislates

for all.25

END QUOTE.


The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the30 power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE.

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. REID:35We 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 any

complication of the kind.40END QUOTE.

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEThe Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the45

commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this

power 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 retirefrom

that field of legislation.50END QUOTE.


Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will55be exercised.


14/54

p14 5-2-2014




END QUOTE

Section 109 provides for existing State legislation that was enacted prior to the Commonwealthhaving commenced to legislate on a subject matter and this includes any Colonial Act that wasamended after federation, whereas s108 of the constitution applies to any Colonial Act in force at5the time of federation but not having been amended since then but provides for the right of aState to amend such Colonial law.I am well aware that the general misconception is that s51 is concurrent powers in that both the

State and the Commonwealth can legislate on the same subject matter and in any conflict thens109 applies, however this is misunderstood because as the Framers of the Constitution made10clear no new laws and as such the concurrent legislative powers only exist until the

Commonwealth commences to exercise its legislative powers. When it does then it becomes anexclusive legislative power and the States must retire from this field/subject.No new laws must include no amendments to existing legislation that was on foot prior to the

Commonwealth commencing to legislate. In Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (1115November 2010) decision the Supreme Court of Victoria THE Court completely failed toconsider the above issues and as the High Court of Australia itself stated:.QUOTEDuncan v Queensland(1916) 22 CLR 556, 582 (per Griffith C.J.)

That case (a previous decision of the High Court, Foggit, Jones & Co v NSW(1915) 21 CLR20357) was very briefly, and I regret to say, insufficiently argued and considered on the lastday of the Sydney sitting..... The arguments which now commend themselves to me asconclusive did not find entrance to my mind. In my judgment that case was wrongly decided,and should be overruled.

END QUOTE25

Therefore the court may upon proper presentation of relevant details reconsider its position andaccept that indeed Victorian legislation is unconstitutional, regardless even if the Commonwealthwere to permit for State legislation, as the Commonwealth cannot overrule the constitution!

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)30 QUOTEMr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the

Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in eachstate might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, fromthe Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the35Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate

provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be

amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this

provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers

of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to40occupy a few minutes in discussing it.

END QUOTE

I find it regrettable that Dr Richard.Brittain LLB seems to me to lack the proper understanding ofthe true meaning and application of the constitution, and in error goes along with this kind ofcharade of inappropriate usage of measurement instruments not appropriately certified/verified.45

As the National M easurements Act 1960 makes it an offence for usage of measurementsinstruments, including the supply of it, not approved appropriately I hold it important that policeofficers are not unwillingly left to use measurement instruments where their superiors fails to

protect them against this.

As you may be aware the Infringement Court is part of the Magistrates Court of Victoria and the50High court of Australia has already held that a Chapter III of the Constitution Court (as theMagistrates Court of Victoria is) must be an open court. The Infringement Act doesnt


15/54

p15 5-2-2014




provide for specific details as to an accused to be notified of an hearing and so the ordinaryMagistrates Court Act provision must be deemed to apply. No compliance eventuated anddespite the High Court of Australia ruling that a Registrars decision must be always reviewable

before a judge (Harri s v Caladine) as otherwise it is unconstitutional as a Registrar is not anofficer of the court,5

THE QUEEN v. DAVISON[1954] HCA 46;(1954) 90 CLR 353

QUOTE

4. It appears from the facts stated in the special case that in spite of its form, the order was made by the deputyregistrar and not by the court or judge or under the actual authority of the court or judge. The circumstance that Mr.Hartstein was a deputy-registrar and not the registrar of the district is of no importance. Section 12(2) says that in10each district there shall be a district registrar and such deputy registrars, official receivers and other officers as arenecessary. Sub-section (6) of s. 12 says that the Attorney-General may by order direct that any specified deputyregistrar shall have and exercise any or all of the powers and functions of a registrar. The Attorney-General made anorder which though it did not exactly follow the words of the sub-section may be taken to have conferred on Mr.Hartstein the powers and functions of a registrar. It must not be supposed, however, that the registrar or the deputy-15registrar are officers of the Federal Court of Bankruptcy or form part of the staff or organization of the court. In itsfirst form sub-s. (5) of s. 12 did provide that the registrars and deputy registrars should be officers of the court andshould have such duties as the Attorney-General directed or as were prescribed. The expression "the Court" wasdefined to mean any court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy or a judge thereof: s. 4. An attempt was made under s.

18 as it then stood to confer jurisdiction in bankruptcy on a number of courts of the States. In Le Mesurier v. Connor20(1929) 42 CLR 481, it was held in this Court thats. 77(iii)of theConstitutiondoes not enable the Parliament tomake a commonwealth officer a functionary of a state court and to authorize him to act on its behalf and administer

part of its jurisdiction and thats. 51(xxxix) does not authorize the reconstitution of a state court invested withfederal jurisdiction unders. 77(iii)or of the organization through which its powers and jurisdiction are exercised.Accordinglys. 12(5)andss. 23and24as they then stood, were held ultra vires and void25END QUOTE

Therefore all and any orders/warrants issued by the Registrar of the Infringement Court Imaintain are without legal force and so ULTRA VIRES. It also means that police officersassisting the Sheriff Office to stop and retain motor vehicle drivers for purpose of thoseunconstitutional orders/warrants to be enforced in my view is aiding and abetting and a30

conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, etc.There are various parts commencing with section 18 of the National M easur ements Act 1960(asamended) which makes it an offence to use measuring instruments in the manner that appears tome the Victorian Police is using it.

While it appears to me that the Victorian Police, the Sheriffs Office, and others may not care less35as to breaches of law in the end where this matter ultimately be adjudicated upon by a true courtof law then no excuses can exist for the Victorian Police a, the Sheriffs Office and/or others asto that they didnt know. Indeed I have spent nearly 3 years so far to try to get some sense into

everyone but it seems to me that even Dr Richard Brittain LLB is not able or willing to be openminded and consider the details I provided.40.

QUOTEAustralian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia(1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278The oath of a justice of this court is ' to do right to all manner of people according to law' Our sworn duty isto the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all. If, then, we find the law to be

plainly in conflict with what we or any of our predecessors errornously thought it to be, we have, as I45conceive no right to choose between giving effect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, Itis not, in my opinion, better that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should be ultimatelyright..Whatever else may be said with respect to previous decisions - and it is necessary here to consider the

principals upon which a court should act in particular cases - so much at least emerges as is undoubtedly50beyond challenge, that where a former decision is clearly wrong, and there are no circumstancescountervailing the primary duty of giving effect to the law as the court finds it, the real opinion of the courtshould be expressed.

END QUOTE
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1954/46.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1954/46.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1954/46.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281954%29%2090%20CLR%20353http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281954%29%2090%20CLR%20353http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281954%29%2090%20CLR%20353http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281929%29%2042%20CLR%20481http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281929%29%2042%20CLR%20481http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s77.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s77.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s77.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s77.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s77.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s77.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s12.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s12.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s12.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s23.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s23.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s23.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s24.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s24.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s24.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s24.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s23.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s12.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s77.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s77.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281929%29%2042%20CLR%20481http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281954%29%2090%20CLR%20353http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1954/46.html


16/54


17/54

p17 5-2-2014




iii. Providing means by which measurement can be made and shown at law to be made interms of Australian legal units of measurement when it is necessary to do so i.e. that they are legally traceable.

iv. Facilitating the national trade measurement system in Australia by requiring inter aliathat all measuring instruments in use for trade are verified i.e. shown to be correct by being checked against legally5traceable standards in compliance with section 10 of the Act. A precondition of verification of measuringinstruments in use for trade is that they are of a pattern that is approved for use for trade. The net effect of this isto make all measuring instruments in use for trade subject to a mandatory metrological control system under theAct consisting of pattern approval and verification.

10 v. The Act also provides infrastructure for the metrological control of legal measuringinstruments i.e. measuring instruments used to determine physical quantities for law enforcement purposes,

demonstrating compliance (or non-compliance) with a threshold or limit set by law (Commonwealth or State orTerritory) or that are or maybe a relevant issue in legal proceedings. This consists of pattern approval andcertification that can make these instruments certified measuring instruments under the Act and its regulations. 15This metrological control system is not mandated by the Act as legal measuring instruments are not regulated bythe Act or the NMI. It is made available to regulators other than the NMI as part of the fulfilment of Australiastreaty obligations wrt measurement.

State Traffic Legislation20

8. Whilst the national measurement legislation provides facilities for the pattern approval of legal measuring

instruments operated under State law. It is not mandatory and its absence neither vitiates the measurement made bysuch instruments nor does it render them inadmissible.

259. The situation described in paragraph 8 i.e. the absence of pattern approval under the Act does not constitute aninconsistency between the requirements of the Act and State law contrary to section 109 of the Constitutionitmerely means that the full suite metrological control provisions in the Act are not available to legal measuringinstruments in this situation. This and my previous point has been confirmed in several recent Supreme Court

judgements including in Victoria.30

This e-mail is entirely without prejudice and nothing in it is intended to constitute legal advice express or implied.Notwithstanding this I trust that these comments are of some assistance to you.

Yours sincerely35

Richard

Dr Richard Brittain LLBManager, Legal Metrology Authority Appointments40Legal Metrology Branch

National Measurement InstituteDepartment of Industry

________________________________________45

National Measurement InstituteBradfield Rd, West Lindfield NSW 2070, AustraliaPO Box 264, Lindfield NSW 2070, Australia

Ph: 61-2-8467 3645 Fax: 61-2-8467 3899Mobile: 0408 617 43850

Email:[email protected]: http://www.measurement.gov.auABN 74 599 608 295

END QUOTE 18-1-2013 EMAIL Dr Richard Brittain LLB55

While in Agar v Dolheguy & Anor[2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) decision the SupremeCourt of Victoria had its conclusion you may check the reason of judgment, which is supposed toexplain upon what consideration the court arrived at its decision, and nothing really indicates any
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


18/54

p18 5-2-2014




consideration to the legal principles embedded in the constitution, as quoted some above. Hence,I view the decision cannot be relied upon.

HANSARD18-2-1898Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)5QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,END QUOTE.

HANSARD 17-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates10 QUOTEMr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitutionwill have been made by the

Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the

provisions of this Constitution,the principleswhich it embodies, and the details of enactment by which

those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.15END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an20Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,

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

END QUOTE.Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National25Australasian 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:END QUOTE30

HANSARD9-2-1898Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.

END QUOTE35

.HANSARD1-3-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitutionwe will have to wipe it out."40

END QUOTE


QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN(Victoria).-The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I45allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.

END QUOTE

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA

27 (17 June 1999)50QUOTE

Constitutional interpretation

1. The starting point for a principled interpretation ofthe Constitutionis the search for the intention of itsmakers[51].That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutionalinterpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or55enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used inthe historical context in which they used them[52].In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented atFordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/


19/54

p19 5-2-2014




"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - theauthors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have calledconstructive interpretation[54].It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people deadfor centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event -someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a5

particular way on a particular occasion."

END QUOTE

Do keep in mind that after a 5 year epic legal battle I comprehensively defeated theCommonwealth in FAILING TO VOTEthat it was unconstitutional to compel anyone to vote,10in the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006. As such, despite that about everyone still hasthe notion that voting is compulsory, the truth is that I defeated the Commonwealth upon this..

HANSARD1-3-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE15

Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitutionwe will have to wipe it out."

END QUOTE

Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National20Australasian Convention) (Re Section 96 of the Constitution)

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.

END QUOTE

As I disputed the validity of the Infringement Act 2006 then the legislation is ULTRA VIRES25Ab Initiounless a court pronounces against it. Hence the current enforcement in disregard of thiscannot and shouldnt be maintained.Hansard 8-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vir esof the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid. 30END QUOTE

It appears to me that the Victorian Police, so to say, should come clean and provide the

relevant details I requested long ago. Also, when did it serve me with a summons to attendto court (the Infringment Court), etc.35


Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the point. Allthat is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be heard.40

Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principlemay be[start page 689] anything the state

thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person accused will have an

opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in criminal law

now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.45END QUOTE

Below an indication that all Commonwealth law must be uniform and cannot allow for

State legislation that is non-uniform as part of Commonwealth law!50

HANSARD 28-1-1898Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER

It has been thought well that there should be a uniform lawthroughout Australia in respect to the citizens of

Australia, and it was considered that this provision should be put into a separate clause giving exclusive

powers, in order to emphasize the fact that the Federal Parliament should legislate upon this matter. 55

END QUOTE
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=


20/54

p20 5-2-2014




Hansard11-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE

Mr. BARTON(New South Wales).-I have prepared an amendment with regard to this sub-section, which puts thematter into a form which would express the intention of the Convention, whilst avoiding a difficulty. Honorable5members will recollect the difficulty that arose over the construction of words equivalent to " uniform throughoutthe Commonwealth" in the United States of America. Although no actual decision has been given, a doubt has beenraised as to the meaning of the word "uniform." The celebrated income tax case went off as to the directapportionment of taxation amongst the people according to numbers, and this point was not decided, but a great deal

of doubt has been thrown on the meaning of the word in the judgment of Mr. Justice Field.I think that although the10 word "uniform" has the meaning it was intended to have-"one in form" throughout the Commonwealth-still theremight be a difficulty, and litigation might arise about it, and prolonged trouble might be occasioned with regard tothe provision in case, for instance, an income tax or a land tax was imposed. What is really wanted is to prevent adiscrimination between citizens of the Commonwealth in the same circumstances.

END QUOTE15

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all issues and or

details and neither has anything been stated in order of priority.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call meGerrit)20

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

.

(Our name is our motto!)

END QUOTE 29-12-2013 CORRESPONDENCE25

In my view the Commonwealth cannot stand idle and let this matter being ignored as it relates toconstitutional issues and also Federal legislative powers which are violated by the State ofVictoria..30In my view the State of Victoria had ample of time since my objection of February 2011 to placethe matter before the High Court of Australia as to seek to obtain a ruling as to jurisdiction butfailed to do so. It is so to say the bully that seeks to use inappropriately its powers to pervert thecourse of JUSTICE and this I view the Commonwealth cannot tolerate, in particular where itundermines Commonwealth legislative powers.35It should be understood that numerous persons are subjected to the terrorism demands of theSheriffs Office and so aided and abetted by the Victorian Police which often stop motorist for nomore but to check if they have a warrant outstanding, an abuse of police powers. The courts have

been clear that the police can only intercept a motorist for lawful purposes, such as checking thevalidity of a person to drive a vehicle under his/her charge. What we now have however is that40the Sherriffs office is directing for the refusal to continue the registration of a motor vehicle forrenewal not because the vehicle concerned is unroadworthy but as a terrorist conduct to force

people to pay up to unconstitutional court orders/warrants.As I challenged the validity of the Infringement Act 2006 from onset, then the act remainsULTRA VIRES unless the High Court of Australia were to determine otherwise, and this the45Victorian Police/Sheriffs Office failed to pursue.

QUOTE10-8-2011 ADDRESS TO THE COURT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Magistrates Court of Victoria 10-8-201150Ground Floor, 277 William StreetMelbourne Vic 3000C/o: Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court of VictoriaC/[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


21/54

p21 5-2-2014




Cc: Acting Chief Commissioner of the Victorian Police C/[email protected]/o Victoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA

Civic Compliance Victoria5GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC [email protected]

Ethical Standards DepartmentVictoria Police Unit, Victoria Police Centre, 737 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3005Phone 1300 363 101, Facsimile 9247 349810

Ted BaillieuPremier of [email protected]

Ref: Infringement Court case Number 115821049515Infringement Notice Number 0201683566

ADDRESS TO THE COURT

Sir/Madam,20a limited set out is provide d below as to why the purported Infringement Notice

Order is null and void and should be revokes/set aside as being ULTRA VIRES, etc.


QUOTE25

Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but thegeneral courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question ofultra viresarising after a law has been passed.

[start page 2004]

Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultr a viresof the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid. 30

END QUOTE

.

When I first received an infringement notice (which commences the legal processes tosubsequently lead to litigation if persisted with by the Prosecutor) I responded with to challengethe jurisdiction of any court that would be dealing with the matter. This is a tactic that obviously35was never contemplated by the legislators but nevertheless because it is legally appropriate toobject to the jurisdiction of a court then the entire legal process ordinary contemplated to beapplied by this got stuck by this unless and until a court was to dismiss the objection to

jurisdictiongiving a formal ruling and reason of judgment as to why it dismissed the objectionto jurisdiction. Obviously, a computer that purportedly acts as a decision maker cannot deal with40this and so the very computer program designed to simply enforce any Infringement Noticeallegation as a matter of fact now was legally n

20140205-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM- Re Metrology National Measurement...

Documents

Transcript of 20140205-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM- Re Metrology National Measurement...