20150714-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Premier of Victoria MR Daniel Andrews & VEC-Re COMPLAINT-Electoral Matters& Judicial Issues-Etc

1
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria

daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
10
Cc:
14-7-2015
Michelle Ainsworth michelle.ainsworth@news.com.au

Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Ref; 20150714-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andrews & VECRe COMPLAINT-Electoral matters& judicial issues-etc
15
20
25
Daniel,
further to my 20150610-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier Daniel
Andrews COMPLAINT re VEC, etc correspondence to which I may add you failed to
respond to my satisfaction, this as I do not recall having received any response at all I make
this further complaint.
Do understand that where I made an objection against certain legal provisions then the
legal provisions are and remain to be ULTRA VIRES unless a court of competent jurisdiction
against it to declare the legislation in challenge to be INTRA VIRES. This, to my knowledge
has not eventuated.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE
30
35
40
45
The constitution is the primary source of any legislative power and any legislation in violation to
the constitution therefore is ULTRA VIRES,
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
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
On 19 July 2006 In the matter of FAILING TO VOTE, I submitted in the County Court of
Victoria (exercising federal jurisdiction) that compulsory voting was unconstitutional. As a
CONSTITUTIONALIST I was well aware that the Framers of the Constitution (in which
the States in s106 were created subject to this constitution) provided for the embedded legal
principle of political liberty.
While it is not specifically stated in the wording of the constitution itself, even the High Court
of Australia in
p1
14-7-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
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 E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
(at 2) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
QUOTE
The Australian Constitution limits the power of parliaments to impose burdens on freedom of
communication on government and political matters. No Australian parliament can validly enact a
law which effectively burdens freedom of communication about those matters unless the law is
reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner compatible with the
maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of [government in Australia.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The term "implied freedom of communication concerning government and political matters" has
been well established in Australian constitutional discourse since the implication was first posited in
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills1 and in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth 2.
However, as Dawson J said in Levy v Victoria3:
QUOTE
20
(at 102-103) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 &
S179/2012,
QUOTE
Applicable principles
102
The Constitution provides for a system of representative and responsible government. Sections 7 and
24 of the Constitution provide that the two Houses of the Parliament must be "directly chosen by the
people". Section 64 requires that no Minister of State hold office "for a longer period than three months
unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives". Those who are elected
as members of the Parliament and those who are appointed as Ministers of State are necessarily
accountable to "the people" referred to in ss 7 and 24. Additionally, s 128 provides that the Constitution
shall not be altered except in the manner provided in that section; in particular, only "if in a majority of
the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors
voting also approve the proposed law". As the whole Court said in Lange4, it follows from these and
other provisions that "[f]reedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an
indispensable incident of that system of representative government which the Constitution
creates".
103
Because freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable

incident of the constitutionally prescribed system of government, that freedom cannot be
curtailed by the exercise of legislative or executive power5 and the common law cannot be
inconsistent with it. But the freedom is not absolute and it follows that the limit on legislative
power is also not absolute.
25
30
35
40
45
QUOTE
QUOTE
In the setting of the Australian Constitution, a system of representative government is the
constitutional imperative upon which the implied freedom is founded.
END QUOTE
We then have to consider also:
p2
14-7-2015
3
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999 )
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations.
Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter
approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words
that they used in the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional
interpretation, presented at Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly
in my opinion[53]:
10
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of
the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive
interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for 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 a particular way on a particular
occasion."
15
END QUOTE
.
20
25
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which
I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
The Framers of the Constitution having embedded legal principles that were not specifically
stated in the wording of the constitution itself made clear:
30
35
40
45
50
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE
The unwritten part being the legal principles embedded in the constitution such as political
liberty. Hence, the States are by this. (Again; section 106 of the constitution making clear
subject to this constitution and this applies to all legal principles embedded in the
constitution also, unless specifically otherwise stated in the constitution, such as s116, etc.)
It cannot be argued that the High Court of Australia in its Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The
Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012 decision in only deemed
to have this applicable to the Commonwealth of Australia and not to States/Territories.
While it is true that the Commonwealth of Australia, the states and territories can device their
own electoral systems, it must however be understood that those systems must be of a
regulatory manner without in any way undermining the political liberty of an elector to
vote freely, if at all. As such any system must be without any favouritism to any candidate.
In my view the AEC is totally incompetent to hold FAIR & PROPER elections, and we need
an ELECTION OMBUDSMAN.
The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/271241856/150711-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-AEC-ReComplaints-Etc
Is seems to me that electoral commissions are incompetent to conduct FAIR and PROPER
elections, and FRAUD is rife!
55

p3
14-7-2015
4
https://www.scribd.com/doc/271305920/150712-g-h-Schorel-hlavka-o-w-b-to-Aec-ReComplaints-Etc-supplement-1
5
10
15
The aforementioned are also included in:

Is the ROYAL COMMISSION - Re unions - placing itself above the rule of law regarding
Bill Shorten-etc?
https://www.scribd.com/doc/271420092/20150713-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-RoyalCommission-Into-Trade-Union-Governance-and-Corruption-SUBMISSION-supplement-01
What we have is incompetent electoral commissions that abuses are rife and for long I have
made clear that what is needed is an electoral Ombudsman who oversees the electoral
commissions running of elections.
.
In the past where I stood as a candidate in federal, state and municipal council elections I
found unlawful interferences with my elections including that by the electoral commission
without any resolve, regardless of my numerous written complaints about these incidents.
.
20
25
30
35
40
45
As a citizen I am entitled to vote or not to vote as an elector as that is within my legal rights in
political liberty and this I extensively canvassed before the County court of Victoria on 19
July 2006, to which none of the Attorney-Generals served with a Section 78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS sought to challenge any or all of my submissions. Indeed,
the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria made clear to abide by the ruling of the court.
As the County Court of Victoria upheld both appeals then the State of Victoria is bound by
Res Judicata principle and cannot ever litigate upon the same constitutional issues against me.
Hence the persistence by the Victorian Electoral Commission in clear violation of the courts
ruling, to purportedly issue an Infringement Notice and now further a Penalty Reminder
Notice Ref 3003460358996931, despite my 20150610-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to
Premier Daniel Andrews COMPLAINT re VEC, etc correspondence, then I view this
constitute stalking within the provisions of the Victorian Crimes Act.
The Penalty Reminder Notice Ref 3003460358996931 has on its flip side stating: You are
entitled to elect to have the matter of this Infringement Offence heard and determined in
Court.
And it states I decline to be dealt with under these enforcement provisions and want to
have matters dealt with by a Court.
The problem with this is that such a request/application would cause me to apply for a Court
to hear and determine matters which I have all along made clear the principle of Res Judicata
of the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria decision prevents any court to allow re-litigation
upon the same issues that were before the court between the same parties. As such, the option
provided is not a valid legal option, nor would I want to apply for a Court to hear and
determine matters where already I made clear no court of competent jurisdiction could invoke
jurisdiction.
As such, there is no lawful avenue for the VEC for the State of Victoria to litigate against me
on this matter in issue.
50
There is however another issue that is relevant.

The State of Victoria is bound by the legal principle separation of powers and cannot
appoint judicial officers itself. It can recommend the appointment of judicial officers to the
Governor who then is bound by the Office of the Governor to appoint
p4
14-7-2015
5
QUOTE 20150713-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and
Corruption-SUBMISSION-supplement-01
From The Age

5
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-ourcourts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
The corporatising of our courts

Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria
March 24, 2005
10
15
20
QUOTE
As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,
particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms
what they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with
politicians, but while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of
this court's independence.
END QUOTE
Clearly, the wording As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our
constitutional system indicates that this justice held there was a separation of powers within
state level.
From The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
QUOTE
The corporatising of our courts
25
Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria

March 24, 2005
In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous erosion of the
court's independence.
30
35
40
45
For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but exciting and
rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for much of that time I have had
to bite my tongue.
I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on the bench,
and especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change emerge in the
perception of this court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I want to speak briefly of
that now because I have been unable to say much about it until now and when my resignation becomes
effective, I fear that nobody will listen.
As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,
particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what
they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians,
but while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's
independence.
One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the decision on
remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the very purpose of freeing
both Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the decision-making process over judicial
salaries and so ensuring the independence of which I am speaking.
Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive
officer be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be
ultimately answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.
50
That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming
absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a
movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.
p5
14-7-2015
This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established as a court
of plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals, this court is
the third arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and the executive. Its role, inter alia, is
to control and to limit those other arms according to law and to that end to stand between those other arms
and the citizen. Hence the emphasis on the court's independence, especially from the executive.
Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe
- as "Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which
indiscriminately includes all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.
10
15
20
25
This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are
prescribed by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the
department at its discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in
this court, apparently in disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of
court.
And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the
department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily
avail themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But
access is possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is
the major litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.
Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision directly,
otherwise than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more insidious. What is
evolving is a perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary within the Department of Justice,
a perception which is inconsistent with this court's fundamental role and underlying independence.
Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court structure
and its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by some in authority as no
different from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is
simply not the case; yet the distinction between a court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over
the years, and it must be restored if the proper constitutional position is not 2to be subverted.
35
The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen to be,
impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed once and for all,
and ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including any other arm of
government. Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration tribunal. In contrast to a court, a
tribunal, properly so called, exercises administrative functions but not judicial power, and many things
flow from that. Such a tribunal may be an arm of the executive; its members may be appointed for fixed
terms, with the possibility of renewal at the discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see
that their remuneration is fixed independently of the executive.
40
You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred. While the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists mainly of members
appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the executive - and hence my alarm
when, in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was given some judicial power to exercise, for
the latter is altogether inconsistent with such a form of tenure.
30
45
50
There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is exercising
judicial power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional acting appointment to
this court for a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to institutionalise such temporary
appointments at the discretion of the executive. Judges of a court properly so called must have security of
tenure or, in a relatively small community like this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts
have been remarkably free from any taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be,
and be seen to be, impartial and so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to
conflict or the appearance of bias.
In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals
pass like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness
but in one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is
demanded of the appointee.
p6
14-7-2015
7
John D. Phillips is retiring as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. This is part of his farewell
address to the court.
END QUOTE
Constitutionally there is a division between the Judiciary and the legislators and executives.
.
10
It should be noted that the wording and for the due and impartial administration of
justice which Oaths the said Chief Justice or Judge is hereby required to administer
leaves it beyond doubt that the Chief Justice or Judge must for the due and impartial
administration of justice make an oath. As such the separation of powers in the State of
Victoria is enshrined in this Proclamation as the Governor cannot act otherwise nor so any
judge.
FOURTH SUPPLEMENT
TO THE
VICTORIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
OF FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1900.
Published by Authority
No. 2.] WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2. [1901.
15
20
QUOTE
follows :
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
IV. Every person appointed to fill the Office of Governor shall with, all due solemnity, before entering
on any of the duties of his Office, cause the Commission appointing to be Governor to be read and
published at, the seat of Government, in the presence of the Chief .Justice, or some other Judge of the
Supreme Court of the State, and of she Members of the Executive Council thereof, which being done, he
shall then and there take before them the Oath of Allegiance, in the form provided by an Act passed in the
Session holden in tile Thirty-first and Thirty-second years of Our Reign, intituled an Act to amend the
Law relating to Promissory Oaths ; ,and likewise the usual Oath for the due execution of the Office of
Governor, and for the due and impartial administration of justice which Oaths the said Chief Justice or
Judge is hereby required to administer.
END QUOTE
The Office of the Governor (Victoria) as per 2-1-1901 PROCLAMATION, that was Gazetted
requires that the Governor appoints independent judges! As such, any notion that there being
no separation of powers in the states utter and sheer nonsense.
Where then unions find that their union members and others are denied their constitutional
rights and the Victorian Parliament for example without authority of the State electors
purportedly referred legislative (and so judicial) powers to the Commonwealth of Australia
then one hardly can wonder that unions will seek to use their powers in whatever way they
deem fit and appropriate to try to address issues. I may not approve of unions doing so but
then the courts themselves should have acted appropriately and this I view it fails far too often
to do.
Workers (not just members) by this have been robbed of their constitutional rights of
contracts as was provided for by the legal principles embedded in the constitution, also
applicable to the State of Victoria.
QUOTE 20150713-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and
Corruption-SUBMISSION-supplement-01
Registrars are not judicial officers! Their orders cannot be enforced against a party objection
to the orders issued by the Registrar.
Hence to call the Infringement Court a court not supervised by a judge is an absurdity in
law.
While it might be claimed that the Penalty Reminder Notice Ref 3003460358996931 has on
its flip side stating: You are entitled to elect to have the matter of this Infringement
Offence heard and determined in Court.
p7
14-7-2015
8
And it states I decline to be dealt with under these enforcement provisions and want to
have matters dealt with by a Court.
This is a different matter as this gives an option to elect to go to a court (not specifying which
kind of court and using the title Infringement Court al.so then an ordinary person may
wonder which court is referred to1
.
10
15
The issue is that the Framers of the Constitution made clear (Again within s106 the States are
created subject to this constitution and so also the implied legal principles in this
constitution)
.

QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
20
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
END QUOTE
25
30
35
40
45
50
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
Hence, any legislation and any forms created within the legal provisions must be stated in
plain English language without an unlettered person needing to consult a lawyer (Who
himself/herself may not even grasp the correct meaning!) as to understand what is the
meaning of statements contained in legislative provisions and any forms created within such
legislative powers/alleged legislative powers.
If the word Court is not intended to mean or include Infringement Court then it is
implied that the so called Infringement Court is not a court at all! Then why use this
terminology to refer to it as being a Court?
As I discovered in 2011 when challenging the validity of the Infringement Court the Registrar
then simply dismissed my complaints appeal. Moment, the High Court of Australia made
clear that a registrars decision must always be reviewable before a judge, as otherwise it is
unconstitutional. Where then the Registrar himself refused my complaint/appeal then clearly
by this the Court was unconstitutional. (See Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9- (1991) 172
CLR 84 (17 April 1991))
In the Abbot Abbott case Kay J as a judge of the Full Court of then Family Court of Australia
in Brisbane on 24 & 25 October 1994 then made clear that there can be no time limit as to the
review of a registrars decision. His Hon our confirmed the same in Mitterer v Mitterer a few
years later at Dandanong.
QUOTE Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9- (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)) MASON C.J. AND DEANE J.
55
4. The recent decision of this Court in the HCF Case, which overruled the earlier decisions in Kotsis and
Knight, is quite inconsistent with the notion that the exercise of jurisdiction by judges to the exclusion of
masters and registrars is an essential characteristic of a Ch III court. In the HCF Case the Court held that
"court" in s.77(iii) of the Constitution means a court as an institution being "an organization for the
administration of justice, consisting of judges and with ministerial officers having specified functions", to use
p8
14-7-2015
9
the words of Windeyer J. in Kotsis, at p 91. Whatever connotation the adjective "ministerial" may have in other
contexts, it was plainly intended in the HCF Case to refer to officers such as masters and registrars.
5. True it is that the HCF Case did not go on to decide that the word "court" had a similar meaning in the other
sections in Ch III in which the word appears. But it would be somewhat surprising if the word were to bear a
different meaning elsewhere in Ch III, particularly in ss.71 and 77(i) and (ii). There are, of course, special
reasons for interpreting the word as referring to the institution rather than its members in the context of
s.77(iii). Those reasons are identified in the judgments in the HCF Case and in the dissenting judgment of
Gibbs J. in Kotsis and they are sufficiently encapsulated in the proposition that the Parliament cannot alter the
organization or structure of a State court as it exists under State law. Parliament cannot alter that organization
or structure, for to do so would interfere with the State's freedom to constitute and organize its courts as it sees
fit. However, as Gibbs C.J. pointed out in the HCF Case (at p 58), one would expect jurisdiction to be vested in
a court as an entity rather than in the persons who compose its membership, so that, in the context of s.77(i), as
well as s.77(iii), the reference to "court" should also be understood as a reference to the court as an entity.
Likewise with the vesting of judicial power in s.71. Indeed, it would be quite arbitrary to assign a different
meaning to the word in that section.
6. One other aspect of the decision in the HCF Case is important for present purposes. The majority accepted
that a State court may be so organized that its federal jurisdiction is exercised by an officer of the court. Thus
Gibbs C.J. (with whom Stephen and Aickin JJ. agreed) said (at p 59):
10
15
"The jurisdiction and powers of the court do not cease to be

its jurisdiction and powers because they are exercised by an
officer of the court, under the rules of the court. In the
present case the jurisdiction and powers which Master Allen
was called on to exercise were undoubtedly the jurisdiction
and powers of the Supreme Court. He was the officer of the
court by whom the jurisdiction and powers of the court in
the matter in question were normally exercised, and an order
made by him, if not set aside or varied by the court, would
take effect as an order of the court. Although he was not
a member of the court he was, in my respectful opinion,
part of the organization through which the powers and
jurisdiction of the court were exercised in matters of State
jurisdiction, and through which they were to be exercised in
matters of federal jurisdiction also, once the court was
invested with federal jurisdiction."
20
25
30
35
7. Now that it has been established by the HCF Case that some part of the federal jurisdiction of a State court
may be exercised by a master or registrar in conformity with State legislation, it becomes difficult, if not
impossible, to assert that s.71 vests the exercise of judicial power in the judges of the courts specified in the
section. It makes little sense either as a matter of logic or policy to require that the power be exercised solely by
federal judges to the exclusion of officers of a court when, in the case of invested federal jurisdiction, the
power may be exercised by officers of State courts. More importantly, as a matter of construction, it is not
permissible to read s.71 as speaking differently in its application to federal and State courts.
8. The difficulties which have invariably attended attempts to define judicial power in a comprehensive fashion
and to identify those functions which constitute an exercise of the power and those that do not provide yet
another reason for refusing to imply in s.71 a restriction limiting the exercise of all federal jurisdiction to
judges. It was pointed out in Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital v. Thornton [1953] HCA 11; (1953) 87 CLR
144, at p 151, that "(m)any functions perhaps may be committed to a court which are not themselves
exclusively judicial, that is to say which considered independently might belong to an administrator."
Subsequently, in Davison (at p 368), it came to be acknowledged that the exercise of judicial power included a
range of functions which might be given to courts or administrators. If a particular function can be entrusted to
an administrator, there is nothing inherent in the function itself which requires that it must be discharged by a
judge when it is entrusted to a court.
40
45
50
END QUOTE Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9- (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)) MASON C.J. AND DEANE J.
.
55
60
13. The judges of a superior court have power to delegate which they may exercise by rules of court, whether
pursuant to a general rule-making power or in the exercise of an inherent jurisdiction. They stand in no need of
a statutory power to delegate. However, the terms of a relevant statutory power may serve to restrict any
inherent power to delegate. In the present case O.36A, r.2(1) of the Family Law Rules (Cth) delegated to each
registrar certain powers, including "the power to make an order the terms of which have been agreed upon by
all the parties to proceedings": par.(n). This power was exercisable by the Deputy Registrar and his order
became reviewable pursuant to O.36A, r.7(4) which then provided:
p9
14-7-2015
10
"A court reviewing an exercise of power by a Judicial

Registrar or a Registrar shall proceed by way of a hearing
de novo but may have regard to the proceedings, including
the evidence given and any affidavit filed, before the
Judicial Registrar or Registrar, as the case requires."
14. The direction that the review is to be by way of hearing de novo plainly indicates that the jurisdiction of
the Court on review is not relevantly confined and extends not only to any issue which might have arisen
before the Deputy Registrar but also to any issue which might properly arise in the meantime.
10
END QUOTE Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9- (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)) MASON C.J. AND DEANE J.
15
17. However, in accordance with what we have said, the Full Court was in error in concluding that upon the
review of the Deputy Registrar's decision the Court could not have regard to the withdrawal by the wife of
her consent to the making of the order and that the Court could not treat the matter as a contested application
under s.79 which it was required to determine for itself.
18. We would allow the appeal.
END QUOTE Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9- (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)) MASON C.J. AND DEANE J
QUOTE Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9- (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)) DAWSON J.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
27. An order made by a Registrar is reviewable by way of a hearing de novo. That means that the court
reviewing the order begins afresh and exercises for itself any discretion exercised below by the Registrar. The
parties commence the application again, subject to any restrictions in the rules upon the calling of evidence or
provisions relating to the use before the court of evidence called before the Registrar. A hearing de novo
involves the exercise of the original jurisdiction and "the informant or complainant starts again and has to
make out his case and call his witnesses": Builders Licensing Board v. Sperway Constructions (Syd.) Pty.
Ltd. [1976] HCA 62; (1976) 135 CLR 616, at p 620; see also Reg. v. Pilgrim (1870) LR 6 QB 89, at p 95;
Campbell, "Judicial Review and Appeals as Alternative Remedies", [1982] MonashULawRw 8; (1982) 9
Monash University Law Review 14, n.3.
28. A hearing de novo may be contrasted with an appeal stricto sensu and an appeal by way of rehearing. In
an appeal stricto sensu the question is whether, upon the material before the tribunal below, the conclusion
which was reached was correct. An appeal by way of rehearing involves the rehearing of the matter as at the
date of the appeal, but upon the evidence called before the tribunal below, subject to a power to receive
further evidence. On an appeal by way of rehearing the rights of the parties must be determined by reference
to the circumstances, including the law, as they exist at the time of the rehearing. But an appeal by way of
rehearing does not call for a fresh hearing as does a hearing de novo; the appeal court does not hear the
witnesses again. See Builders Licensing Board v. Sperway Constructions (Syd.) Pty. Ltd., at pp 619-620;
Quilter v. Mapleson (1882) 9 QBD 672, at p 676; and Victorian Stevedoring and General Contracting Co.
Pty. Ltd. and Meakes v. Dignan, at pp 107-111.
29. It follows that in this case, upon the review of the Deputy Registrar's order by way of a hearing de novo,
evidence was admissible (subject to any restrictions imposed by the rules) of the previous consent of the
parties and of any subsequent withdrawal of consent as evidence of the satisfaction or otherwise of the
requirements of s.79, just as evidence of consent was admissible for the same purpose before the Registrar.
30. That I think is the consequence of the specific provision that the review be by way of hearing de novo.
But even if there had been no such provision the result would, in the absence of any provision to the contrary,
have been much the same. For where the function of exercising a discretion is delegated by a court, as it may
be delegated to a Registrar, the exercise of the delegated discretion cannot confine the exercise of the same
discretion by the person in whom it is primarily reposed: Evans v. Bartlam (1937) AC 473, at p 478; Blundell
v. Rimmer (1971) 1 WLR 123, at p 128; (1971) 1 All ER 1072, at p 1076; and C.M. Van Stillevoldt B.V. v.
EL Carriers (1983) 1 WLR 207, at p 210; (1983) 1 All ER 699, at p 702. Upon a hearing by way of review of
the decision of a Registrar the court is exercising its own discretion. There are not the same restrictions which
exist when there is an appeal from a judge to whom a discretion is confided, rather than delegated, at first
instance. In that event the appeal court must, before interfering, be persuaded that the judge was in error in
the exercise of the discretion, either by acting upon wrong principles, mistaking the facts, or by taking into
account irrelevant considerations or failing to take into account relevant considerations: House v. The King
[1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499, at pp 504-505; Norbis v. Norbis [1986] HCA 17; (1986) 161 CLR 513,
at pp 517-518. The underlying considerations giving rise to this distinction are well expressed by Herring C.J.
in Tidswell v. Tidswell (No.2) [1958] VicRp 95; (1958) VR 601, at p 605, where he was considering the
nature of the review of a master's discretion in dealing with a matter delegated to him:
"What was delegated by the Rules to the Master was
authority to hear and determine all applications and
exercise any of the powers conferred on the Court or a judge
p10
14-7-2015
11
under the various rules stated. And so it is that where the
Master has to exercise a discretion under this delegation,
he is exercising a discretion that in the first place was
conferred upon the Court or a judge. ...
the orders made by a Master under the delegation are orders
which are efficacious to bind the parties to the proceedings
in which they are made, without any confirmation by a judge.
And so it is proper to describe them as appealable, and it
is as such that an appeal is given to the judge in chambers.
The question is what is the nature of that appeal and how
far the incidents of an appeal from a primary judge to a
court of appeal apply to it. It has to be borne in mind in
this connexion that the position of the Master in hearing
applications is very different from that of a primary judge,
who exercises a power entrusted to the discretion of the
Court or a judge. The Master is given jurisdiction to
exercise that power by the rules referred to, but when his
order is appealed against, the appeal is heard by the judge
to whose discretion the power was originally entrusted. And
what more reasonable than that when this occurs, the judge
should be free to exercise that discretion for himself? To
treat him as unable to go behind the exercise of discretion
by the Master except when it is shown that the Master has
acted upon a wrong principle for example, would deprive
litigants of the benefit of having that discretion exercised
by the judge, to whom it was originally entrusted, a benefit
which it seems reasonable to suppose it was intended they
should have. The question is whether an intention to
deprive litigants of such benefit should be imputed to the
framers of the ... rules."
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
31. The provision in the Rules that the review of a Registrar's decision is by way of a hearing de novo serves
to emphasize that he is subject to the supervision and control of the court and that he exercises his powers as
a delegate and not pursuant to any independent authority.
32. I agree with Mason C.J. and Deane J., Brennan and Gaudron JJ. that the order made by the Registrar
continues in force unless and until the Court, after undertaking a review, makes an order that it be set aside:
Kinch v. Walcott (1929) AC 482; In re South American and Mexican Company; Ex parte Bank of England
(1895) 1 Ch 37. Indeed, O.36A, r.7(3) provides that an application for a review of an exercise of power by a
Registrar shall not operate as a stay of the order under review.
33. It follows from the foregoing that, in my view, the Full Court erred in holding that upon the review of the
Deputy Registrar's decision the Court could not take account of the withdrawal of consent by the wife and
was precluded from treating the matter before it as a contested application under s.79 upon which it was
required to form its own conclusion. I would allow the appeal.
END QUOTE Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9- (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)) DAWSON J.
While it may be argued that the Registrars decision remains in force unless varied/set aside,
this however cannot apply where a party from onset OBJECTS TO THE JURISDICTION
of the Infringement Court, AS I DID.
In such an instance the Infringement Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to hear and determine
matters unless it first has disposed of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
.
QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.
END QUOTE
55
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,
p11
14-7-2015
12
No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
10
15
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.

END 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 direct collateral attack.
END QUOTE
.
The High Court of Australia held that where a party pleads the non-application of a State Act
because of Commonwealth legislation then the State Court is exercising Federal jurisdiction.
(However only if the State Court can invoke jurisdiction, which VCAT cannot as it is not a
court!) Troy v Wrigglesworth (1919) 26 C.L.R. 305; 25 (1926) 38 C.L.R. 441; 33 A.L.R. 66.
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
39 Federal jurisdiction of State Courts in other matters
QUOTE
20
25
(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 all
matters 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.
30
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 jurisdiction
35
(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 the jurisdiction, 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.
40
END QUOTE
39A Federal jurisdiction invested in State Courts by other provisions
QUOTE
45
(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 federal
jurisdiction 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
50
(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 those
provisions), 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;
p12
14-7-2015
13
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 of
this 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
.
10
From the above it already ought to be clear that a State Court, subject to certain provisions, can
exercise Federal jurisdiction.
While the authorities below are USA Authorities, the legal concepts nevertheless are of a general
nature that can be applied within the Commonwealth of Australia.
.
QUOTE
15
20
JURISDICTION the power to hear and determine a case. 147 P.2d 759, 761. This power may be
established and described with reference to particular subjects or to parties who fall into a particular category.
In addition to the power to adjudicate, a valid exercise of jurisdiction requires fair notice and an
opportunity for the affected parties to be heard. Without jurisdiction, a court's judgment is void. A
court must have both SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION and PERSONAL JURISDICTION (see
below). See also territorial jurisdiction; title jurisdiction."
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION refers to the competency of the court to hear and determine a
particular category of cases. Federal district courts have "limited" jurisdiction in that they have only
such jurisdiction as is explicitly conferred by federal statutes. 28 U.S.C. 1330 [EDITOR'S NOTE: see
also 40 U.S.C.S. 255] et seq. See LIMITED [SPECIAL] JURISDICTION. Many state trial courts have
"general" jurisdiction to hear almost all matters. The parties to a lawsuit may not waive a requirement
of subject matter jurisdiction.
25
30
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE
35
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
40
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may 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.
END QUOTE
45
As the provisions regarding the Infringement Court doesnt provide for both parties to be heard
nor makes it required/mandatory for the informer to advise the Registrar that an accused has
OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION of the Infringement Court, then clearly even if it were
argued that the Infringement Court is under the umbrella of the Magistrates Court of Victoria, its
proceedings fails to comply with those required of a court exercising federal jurisdiction.
50
What Parliament (Victoria) did was to circumvent the constitutional right of an accused to
be heard as well as for an accused to OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the court. It
may have done so but by this it became unconstitutional and cannot carry any validity.
Annual Report on the Infringements System 2013-14 Executive Summary Infringement Activity 2013-14
QUOTE
p13
14-7-2015
14
The Infringements System
The State is responsible for managing the infringements system in Victoria. Infringements are issued by a
variety of enforcement agencies including state agencies such as Victoria Police and local government
agencies which include local councils, universities and hospitals.
Enforcement agencies are required by the Infringements Act 2006 (the Infringements Act) to provide
information to the Attorney-General twice yearly, including statistical data.
This report provides a brief snapshot of infringements issued during 2013-14. Where possible,
comparative analysis in relation to the numbers and types of infringements has been made with previous
reporting periods.
10
In 2013-14 there were 4.99 million infringement notices issued in Victoria, down from 5.82 million in
2012-13 (14 per cent decrease). As was the case in previous years, the majority of infringements issued
across all agencies continues to be for traffic offences (58.6 per cent) and parking offences (33.9 per
cent). Victoria Police continues to issue the most infringement notices, largely related to traffic offences.
Local councils issued 1.68 million infringements in 2013-14, which was a decrease of 1.6 per cent from
the previous year. The majority of infringements issued by municipal councils were for parking offences
(1.61 million).
15
Government agencies (excluding Victoria Police) issued less than 5 per cent of the total infringements in
2013-14, a reduction on the percentage issued in 2012-13. This year-on-year observation is partly a result
of electoral infringements issued by the Victorian Electoral Commission for failure to vote, which were
significantly higher in 2012-13 than in 2013-14 due to less local government elections in 2013-14.
20
A person can contest the initial decision to issue an infringement in court or request an internal review of
the decision to issue an infringement, and this appears to be a growing trend. By volume, around 1.5 per
cent of infringements (mostly for traffic offences) are heard and determined by the Magistrates Court.
Where an internal review was requested, 55.3 per cent of infringements were confirmed by enforcement
agencies upon review. Infringement notices that remain unpaid may be lodged by enforcement agencies
with the Infringements Court for enforcement.
25
30
35
40
45
Following lodgement, an infringement registrar may make an enforcement order to request payment of
the outstanding amount of the infringement penalty and for additional costs. In 2013-14, around 1.81
million enforcement orders were made, and 85,412 enforcement orders were revoked. Infringement
warrants are issued when an enforcement order remains unpaid.
END QUOTE
Annual Report on the Infringements System 2013-14
QUOTE
The infringements system is intended to provide a simple, speedy and efficient means of disposing of matters
in which the nature of the offending and the level of the penalty do not warrant judicial adjudication.
END QUOTE
While an issuing officer may hold it doesnt warrant a judicial adjudication to issue an on the
spot fine, nevertheless it cannot be held in the determination of an issuing officer alone. If a
party is issued with an on the spot fine doesnt accept this system then the issuing officer
cannot against the wishes of the accused nevertheless proceed with an Infringement Notice. It
then is for the issuing officer to decide to let it go altogether or to issue legal proceedings to be
heard before a competent court of jurisdiction.
It would be absurd to accept that an issuing officer lacking any proper evidence somehow
could violate the constitutional rights of a person by nevertheless issuing an Infringement
Notice as if his/her allegations are substantiated and by this avoiding to present acceptable
evidence before a court of competent jurisdiction.
.
50
As such it is for the accused to accept the Infringement Notice claim or to refuse this. If the
accused refused to accept the Infringement Notice claim, such as not paying the alleged on the
p14
14-7-2015
15
spot fine then the issuing officer can only validly deal with the matter with deciding to place the
matter before a court of competent jurisdiction or just let it go. One cannot have that the accuser
(the issuing officer) can determine the legal rights of the accused as such in absenteeism of the
accused! Many accused may not even be aware of the Infringement Notice having been issued.
Indeed as was reported;
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/nsw-drivers-stung-with-mistaken-citylink-charges/story-fn7x8me21226265158730
QUOTE
10
The embarrassing mistake came on the day the tollway's operator, Transurban, revealed a $96.7 million profit.
END QUOTE
15
20
25
Well, when Infringement Notices are issued against innocent people and then loaded with all
kind of cost and other charges where people may never even have been aware of the allegations
hardly can be deemed proper legal proceedings.
A person who is overseas and wrongly has an Infringement Notice issued against him/her may
never be aware of it until perhaps coming back from as overseas say year long trip (working, etc)
and then discover some warrant was issued against him/her. In my view, any mind of penalty
regarding an alleged unpaid on the spot penalty cannot be dealt with in the absenteeism of
the alleged offender. Nor can it be deemed an on the spot fine when an issuing officer send
it out by mail to an alleged offender. In my view any kind of system that is in place must be
equally applicable to ordinary citizens. As such where for example a government agency or those
employed to execute government duties and obligations then likewise should be subjected to on
the spot fines by citizens.
QUOTE
30
Mr. OCONNOR.-I think that the reason of the proposal is obvious. So long as each state has to do only
with its own citizens it may make what laws it thinks fit, but we are creating now a new and a larger
citizenship. We are giving new rights of citizenship to the whole of the citizens of the Commonwealth, and
we should take care that no man is deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law.
Mr. GORDON.-Might you not as well say that the states should not legalize murder?
Mr. OCONNOR-That is one of those suppositions that are against the first instincts of humanity.
35
40
Mr. GORDON.-So is this.

Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it is not. We need not go far back in history to find cases in which the
community, seized with a sort of madness with regard to particular offences, have set aside all
principles of justice. If a state did behave itself in that way, why should not the citizens of the
Commonwealth who did not belong to that state be protected? Dr. Cockburn suggested in so
contemptuous a way that there could be no reason for this amendment, that I got up to state again
what had been stated before.
Dr. COCKBURN.-Not contemptuous.
45
50
Mr. OCONNOR.-I know the honorable member meant nothing personal, but I thought it necessary to state
the reasons of what, had it not been for the honorable member's statement, would have seemed to be a
perfectly obvious proposition. Mr. Clark, of Tasmania, thought the amendment of importance, and pointed
out that it had been put in the United States Constitution. It should also be put in this Constitution, not
necessarily as an imputation on any state or any body of states, but as a guarantee for all time for the citizens
of the Commonwealth that they shall be treated according to what we recognise to be the principles of justice
and of equality.
END QUOTE
p15
14-7-2015
16
10
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 QUOTE
.

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
.
15
20
25
30

QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
Therefore, the Infringement System that circumvent equality and equal rights where the
government and its authorities can disregard constitutional provisions and rights and entitlements
of a citizens but then places itself above the rule of law is not a proper judicial system, and
cannot be accepted as constitutionally valid. You cannot have that a citizen is subjected to an
Infringement System so called on the spot fine whereas the issuing officer and/or the entity it
represents may be itself in violation of the same and yet exclude itself from the same
Infringement system application. There is nothing in it to pretend enforcement of law when
those using the Infringement System themselves blatantly violate the very same laws.
What Parliament did was to engineer some out of wack system (basically a tax revenue system as
former Premier Denis Naphtine was reported to have made clear it was.), called Infringement
Notice system, clearly violating the judicial system and undermining the same as an enforcement
of its dictatorship.
Take for example;
35
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSE
MBLY&speech=23716&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=7&date2=M
ay&date3=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'water'+%29
QUOTE
40
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave) - It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking Water Bill. This bill forms part of the
government's strategic approach to water management, with specific attention being paid to water quality and risk
management as matters of public health. It is worth noting that this is a debate about public health and about making sure
that each community across our state has access to the highest quality water. It is also worth noting that this bill has been
introduced by the Minister for Health as a matter of public health.
The bill has four specific objectives. Before going on to those I welcome the support shown by the Liberal and National
parties for this bill. Every endeavour has been made to try to provide as much information as possible.
END QUOTE
45
50
55
Yet, while GWMWater can allegedly use the Infringement Notice system against customers
where GWMWater itself violated this legislation for example in 2004, 2005, 2006 etc, then
somehow there is no way customers can apply the same Infringement Notice system against
GWMWater. As such, what Parliament did was to deny our ordinary judicial system and replace
it to an extensive way with a corrupt Infringement System where those accused are forced to
often incur cost and loss of income (where applicable) to challenge allegations if subjected to
false and misleading allegations.
Also, when a person is subjected to say a radar speed detector through the Court then the validity
or the lack of the legislation can be circumvented.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have written in the past , actually often, about the true meaning
and application of the constitution and that any s51 of the constitution concurrent legislative
p16
14-7-2015
17
powers become exclusive for the Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers the moment
the Commonwealth commences to legislate upon a certain matter.
5
10

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
15
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
20

QUOTE
Mr. REID
The object is this, that for some time to come it will not be possible for the Federal Legislature to pass
laws on these subjects, and it is necessary to have some laws on them-the state laws if they exist-until
federal laws are enacted; but the moment a federal law is passed on any one of these subjects, under
the provision under the head of "States" the federal law prevails over the state law.
25
END QUOTE
30

QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the
power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.
35
40

QUOTE Mr. REID:
We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points
enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two
laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal
criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any
complication of the kind.
END QUOTE
.
45
50

QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the
commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that 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 retire from
that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.
55

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will
be exercised.
END QUOTE
p17
14-7-2015
18
Hence, the moment the Commonwealth of Australia legislated as to weight and measures then
the States had to retire from this. As such any speed detection equipment by the State of Victoria
are unconstitutionally being used if not certified by the Commonwealth of Australia.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
We also have that for example municipal/shire councils are using the Infringement system as a
money grabbing exercise. Here we have a council issuing an Infringement Notice for failing to
comply with a notice. This is one of the most absurd claims. No court could accept that this
somehow could constitute a valid ground to issue a so called on the spot fine. Then the council
issue an on the spot fine for more than $1,473.00 for failing to comply with the notice. While
it may have been relating to a fire notice the Infringement Notice didnt state this. Moreover
another council issue an Infringement Notice to another person for $550.00. As such, the
amount of issuing an Infringement Notice is not at all related to the alleged offence. And further
the council issuing this Infringement Notice proved to be the worst offender with grass/weed
along the major highway in excess of 1 metre during high fire danger periods. As such, forget
about Infringement Notices being issue to enforce State laws as what it is for is the filling of the
coffers of those using the Infringement Notice for their own purposes.
And, where anyone issue an Infringement Notice as to enforce state legal provisions then the
monies should be placed in Consolidate Revenue Funds and not become so to say a private
hording of whomever. All and any monies raised for and on behalf of the State is liable to
scrutiny of public purposes and this clearly doesnt eventuate when it goes into the pockets of
whomever. Actually, the same is with the unconstitutional GST, as I discovered when seeking a
refund of the GST from the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) where I had wrongly been
charged the GST instead of it being refunded. The ATO making known it had no records as to
who paid what GST. Billions of dollars are being paid in GST and the ATO keeps no records!
As I discovered when challenging a then Perin Court order, the police officer had afterwards
altered details of the Infringement Notice but not the copy he had issued to me! As such, anyone
issued with an Infringement Notice will never know what really, if any amendment was made
after having been issued with an Infringement Notice unless somehow afterwards obtaining a
copy of the original. I discovered that I had been issued with an Infringement Notice claiming I
exceeded 80 km/h whereas the Infringement Registrar (then called Perin Court) issued an order
for having exceeded 100 km/h. As the police officer had afterwards changed the 80km/h on the
copy filed with the Perin Court to 100 km/h, this without any notification to me about this.
WHEN A POLICE OFFICER AFTERWARDS ALTERS an Infringement Notice then this
also may alter the demerit system points applied. Howe on earth can anyone argue that it is a
mere on the spot fine that doesnt require a judicial determination when any associated
demerit point system can cause a person to lose his driving license, etc?
I for one in 2011 challenged the Infringement notice on constitutional grounds, etc, but
nevertheless had the demerit system applied. Now what an utter and sheer nonsense to challenge
the system and this so called on the spot fine while being challenged nevertheless applies
demerit points. As such, a person who genuinely challenge the system is nevertheless seriously
affected in the meantime. And a person who may have already been near the limit of the demerit
points may just then find to have his license revoked or suspended, this even so afterwards the
Infringement Notice may have been wrongly issued.
When as a Professional Advocate representing Mr Francis James Colosimo against whom the
local council had issued an Infringement Notice it was clear that this was a gross abuse and
misuse of the Infringement system as well as against the legislative provisions itself. Moreover it
then replaced the Infringement Notice with another one. It then afterwards issued a notice of
compliance with legal requirements but nevertheless began to litigate about the Infringement
Notice without having withdrawn it. It then in 2007 (after the Infringement Act was applicable)
then instituted legal proceedings in VCAT and Mr Colosimo then represented by a barrister
p18
14-7-2015
10
15
20
25
19
found to be subjected to Administration orders also. He then got enough of the rot and got rid of
his incompetent barrister and instead requested me to represent him, as he was now also
subjected to numerous CONTEMPT OF COURT proceedings. Victoria Legal Aid in writing
Advising Mr Colosimo to purge his contempt. Well I did the contrary and challenged the
Administration orders successfully that they were set aside. I challenged the validity of the
CONTEMPT OF COURT proceedings and on my submission they were permanently stayed.
As I proved before Her Honour Harbison, which none of the about 20 lawyers involved in the
case seemed to grasp, that the Infringement Notices that were issued lacked any legal validity.
The sub sequent Notice of compliance underlined this. The then subsequent litigation within
VCAT was outside the legal provisions of the Infringement Act and also had no legal
justification and likewise so the CONTEMPT OF COURT litigation. Mr Colosimo had 2
suspected heart attacks during these proceedings, of one during the proceedings that they had to
be adjourned, leaving me stranded with Mr Colosimo with no assistance whatsoever, until I
managed somehow to get an ambulance to take him to a hospital.
QUOTE
END QUOTE
Well, this is an utter and sheer nonsense statement as when you are pushing a person for about 4
years through all kind of litigation, and only because of my expertise as a Professional Advocate
and CONSTITUTIONALIST was Mr Colosimo in the end win the cases against him, all
starting with the without legal basis Infringement Notices, then it only underlines how defective
this system is.
.
30
Where there is a warrant then I view this only can be issued as result of a judicial
determination in particular where the Sheriffs Office is to execute the warrant. This as Sheriffs
are in essence to enforce court orders. You cannot have that some system exist that a voids
proper judicial adjudication and nevertheless is used as if there was a judicial determination.
QUOTE
35
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
40
45
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may 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.
END QUOTE
Again Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything the state thinks
fit., and as such due process of law must include a judicial process where both parties are heard
and not some scam system where innocent people are subjected to unproven allegations.
.
50
We have a judicial system and this must be and be seen to be impartial. And in my view this is
not eventuating in the State of Victoria.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/nsw-drivers-stung-with-mistaken-citylink-charges/story-fn7x8me21226265158730
QUOTE
NSW drivers stung with mistaken CityLink charges
55
Greg Thom
p19
14-7-2015
20
From: Herald Sun
February 08, 2012 12:00AM
Thousands of motorists have been mistakenly charged for using CityLink. Picture: Mark Smith
Source: Herald Sun
A BILLING bungle has resulted in thousands of motorists being charged for travelling on CityLink
despite being nowhere near the toll road.
New South Wales drivers with the same registration plates as Victorians were stung up to $7 a trip for driving
on the network, despite being thousands of kilometres away.
10
While the toll operator has vowed to issue a full refund, Victorian drivers who thought they might have had a
free ride won't be so lucky.
They will have to cough up the cost of their trips.
CityLink yesterday was checking up to 10,000 interstate licence plates to determine how many people were
eligible for a refund.
15
The issue affects those who travelled on the toll road between mid-December and Friday, when it was
detected in a review.
The embarrassing mistake came on the day the tollway's operator, Transurban, revealed a $96.7 million
profit.
Related Coverage
20
25
30
35
40
45
NSW drivers charged with VIC tolls Courier Mail, 1 day ago
Victorian toll for Sydney drivers The Daily Telegraph, 1 day ago
Investors in the clearway Herald Sun, 1 day ago
Glitch delivers toll slug interstate The Australian, 1 day ago
Lynch has faith in Transurban drivers Herald Sun, 9 days ago
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

CityLink-generated revenue surged 8 per cent to $235.4 million in the six months to December, compared
with the same period in 2010.
CityLink general manager Elizabeth Mildwater said the problem had been isolated and refunds were on the
way.
"We apologise for the inconvenience caused and would like to assure affected customers that they will not be
out of pocket," she said.
"We are going through the process of reversing the incorrect charges and this may take a few days to come
through."
Ms Mildwater said it was believed only a small percentage of customers had been affected.
END QUOTE
9-2-2012 20.28 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B
QUOTE
As shown at my blog http://scribd.com/InspectorRikati I am challenging the entire Infringement Act 2006
provision as with NSW it is a clear example that innocent drivers not having paid the charges will be
automatically issued a $100 Infringement Notice for each day they allegedly used CityLink and then the
purported Infringement Court will by computer operated by City Compliance Victoria, a non registered entity,
issue court orders and even a warrant. This is how our police are participating in an elaborate rot against
innocent people. We can no longer rely upon the Victorian Police to maintain Law and Order where they
themselves are acting in such a deplorable manner.
Regrettably so many people give up to fight this injustice that it is an incentive for the government to perpetrate
these and other injustices.
END QUOTE
p20
14-7-2015
21
There is a lot more to it all and a lot have been published on my blog referred to above.
QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
Following lodgement, an infringement registrar may make an enforcement order to request payment of the
outstanding amount of the infringement penalty and for additional costs. In 2013-14, around 1.81 million
enforcement orders were made, and 85,412 enforcement orders were revoked. Infringement warrants are
issued when an enforcement order remains unpaid.
END QUOTE
It should be that any demerit system points can only be applied if the accused paid the
Infringement Notice fine.
If the Accused doesnt pay the fine then the matter must be either withdrawn or be placed before
a court of contempt jurisdiction. A warrant should never be issued by an Infringement Registrar
where clearly the accused has no opportunity to challenge any allegations made against the
accused. If the registrar were to issue an interim order then this must not be accepted as legally
enforceable but merely that the Registrar on the limited information before him concluded to
such orders without the accused having been given an opportunity to challenge the allegations
and therefore has neither consented to the making of the orders. This doesnt mean I accept the
validity of the Infringement Court but view that it could be an alternative for those who accept
having wronged then follow that path.
What this change makes clear is that where a person doesnt pay then it is up to the issuing
officer to address the issue and to serve the alleged offender with any summons, etc.
There is also a further issue and that is that there are people who legally own a vehicle but have it
used by others. The demerit system fails to apply to the owner of a vehicle who has not the
holder of a driving license. As such the system applies only to drivers and not particular vehicle
owners in the same way.
Why on earth would a driver desire to have demerit points recorded against his/her driver license
when all the person is to do is to borrow someone else vehicle who has no driving license and
then just pay the fine. The DEMERIT system in this regard then has nothing to do with road
safety, because the real culprit remains without demerit points against him/her.
The millions of Infringement Notices being issued themselves must underline the gross
abuse of them, where this is about the equivalent of one for each man, woman and child in
the State.
Annual Report on the Infringements System 2013-14 Executive Summary Infringement Activity 2013-14
QUOTE
40
The Infringements System

In 2013-14 there were 4.99 million infringement notices issued in Victoria, down from 5.82 million in
2012-13 (14 per cent decrease). As was the case in previous years, the majority of infringements issued
across all agencies continues to be for traffic offences (58.6 per cent) and parking offences (33.9 per
cent). Victoria Police continues to issue the most infringement notices, largely related to traffic offences.
45
50
Local councils issued 1.68 million infringements in 2013-14, which was a decrease of 1.6 per cent from
the previous year. The majority of infringements issued by municipal councils were for parking offences
(1.61 million).
Government agencies (excluding Victoria Police) issued less than 5 per cent of the total infringements in
2013-14, a reduction on the percentage issued in 2012-13. This year-on-year observation is partly a result
of electoral infringements issued by the Victorian Electoral Commission for failure to vote, which were
significantly higher in 2012-13 than in 2013-14 due to less local government elections in 2013-14.
END QUOTE
p21
14-7-2015
22
10
15
20
25
What the infringement system is about is the State wanting to get it hands on more and more
money by evading the constitutionally embedded legal principles to speed up matters and as
much as possible by prevent accused to obtain JUSTICE by as much as possible sideline the
judiciary to the maximum. Here the State placed the onus upon an accused to elect going to court
(not stating which court) and then undermining the accused to challenge the jurisdiction of the
court. To place the onus upon the accused so as to make it issue for an issuing officer to issue
without legal basis infringement notices, where then the accused has to perhaps lose income to
take a day of work and incur cost to attend, perhaps numerous adjournments or simply pay the
fine.
As the at the time Perin Court registrar made clear about 95% of people pays the fine as it was
cheaper then to take a day of work. As such this is what it is really about, the raising of monies,
no matter how immoral and deceptive!
QUOTE
purported parking offence and other related matters
Thursday, 4 September, 2008 4:44 PM
From:
"Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka" <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>
To:
enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
Cc:
inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Message contains attachments
080904-01.pdf (66KB)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Simon McMillan, Chief Executive Officer (Banyule City Council)
4-9-2008
http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au Fax 94991391
.
Cc; Cr Wayne Phillips (Mayor) & other councillors (Banyule City Council)
.
Ref; purported traffic/parking violation. Your ref BS30/01/004 Doc Id 480529
.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Sir,
Thank you for the 29 August 2008 response via Mr David Clarkson Municipal Laws Coordinator
albeit I do not agree with the content thereof in general.
I have attached my 4-9-2008 response.

I understand that in Banyule they do have primary schools and perhaps you may just have some of your staff
educated so they too may learn certain matters ordinary primary school children are deemed to have learned
during their journey through grade 1.
.
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka.
.
4-9-2008
.
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL 107 Graham Road Viewbank, 3084,
Victoria, Australia Ph/Fax 03-94577209 International 61394577209 .
"CONSTITUTIONALIST" and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain
constitutional and other legal issues.
Website; http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog; http://au.360.yahoo.com/profileijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH .
"JUSTICE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER AND CLOUDED BY HIS/HER SIGHT
DEFICIENCY" .
END QUOTE
p22
14-7-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
23
The following may also underline that after due consideration given to an appeal was sheer
and utter nonsense. Albeit the Infringement Notice was finally withdrawn, my wife and I since
then have been less than a handful of occasions been back to Greensborough, and only because
my wife had to attend to a specialist.
There ought to be absolutely no doubt that this alleged review never eventuated or simply the
person doing so was totally incompetent not even knowing that 2 hours 29 minutes is less than 3
hours. As I raised in the correspondence how many other motorist were likewise fined without
having exceeded the time limits? And, how often has been eventuating?
In my view there should have been a comprehensive investigation why the issuing officer
failed to calculate the time properly. How long has been doing the same?
Should a council use a 24 hour clock instead of a 12 hour clock so even issuing officers
lacking competence in code reading can perhaps perform a simple calculations?
But again, why it was that whomever was dealing with the complaint (appeal which really is
not an appeal unless the issuing officer is a judge of a court, failed to understand that 2 hours
29 minutes was less than 3 hours?
QUOTE 4-9-2008 correspondence to Banyule City Council
Obviously I am not the one who will seek the matter to have determined before a Court as after all I
made all along clear there is no jurisdiction for any court to deal with the matter, see also my previous
correspondence. The problem Banyule City Council also appears to me to have is that it claimed no further
appeal is possible because of Section 22(2)(e) and yet it now might finally realise it basically acted as a bunch
of idiots to decided after due consideration that the infringement notice was to be enforced. What on earth
is this due consideration if no one even bothered to check the time frame of 11.55 to 2.24 as to total time
being within or outside the 3 hour parking limit. Indeed, how many other innocent drivers have been
terrorised by Banyule City Council as to be issued infringement notices while lawfully parked? Is Banyule
City Council pursuing that albeit there might be a 3 hour parking limit nevertheless if the parking officer
desires that a vehicle should have been moved within the 3-hour parking limit then still he can vandalise a
motor vehicle with an infringement notice?
Are we next going to have Banyule City Council going to claim it made a typing error and that the 11.55 time
period ought to be say 10.55? (At which time my wife and I were still at home?) or some other time change to
try to accommodate this continuation of terrorism upon a driver?
END QUOTE 4-9-2008 correspondence to Banyule City Council
And let not overlook the fact that there was a disabled sticker on display which the issuing
officer allegedly neither had noticed. And this is the kind of harassment put onto motorist and is
claimed not to require a judicial determination? Or is it that the system is to prevent a judicial
determination over the scams employed with Infringement Notices?
What, if any training are issuing officers and those reviewing details have? After all the
issuing officer couldnt properly calculate time and neither see a disabled sticker. (A disabled
sticker allows for double the allocated time meaning 6 hours in this case) and so obviously it
was in the interest of the issuing officer to claim not to have seen the disabled sticker. Did
Banyule Shire Council refund all other motorist the fines they may have paid or pursue alleged
offenders through the Infringement Court nevertheless? What a scam! No wonder the judiciary
has to be sidelined by this scam system. The judiciary in my view cannot allow nor tolerate this
kind of scam system.
50
55
Your correspondence does state;

The explanation of having a disabled parking permit displayed on the vehicle has been
noted however the reporting officer has recorded that no permit was visible therefore
compliance with the 3 P parking restriction should have been adhered to. The reporting
officer has both recorded and advised me that the thread of your tyre was marked at
11.55am and the vehicle reported at 2.24pm after the officer determined that the vehicle
had not moved within this time frame.
p23
14-7-2015
24
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
I will now quote in full the 4-9-2008 correspondence, and it may be stated no apology eventuated
merely that the Infringement Notice was withdrawn. Then how much monies was scammed of
other motorist with such a scam, who even if they complained may still have been told that no
further appeal was possible, as I was advised, but then as I wasnt afraid to go to Court Banyule
City Council obviously realised their scam game was to an end with +me.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Simon McMillan, Chief Executive Officer (Banyule City Council)
4-9-2008
http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au Fax 94991391
.
Cc; Cr Wayne Phillips (Mayor) & other councillors (Banyule City Council)
.
Ref; purported traffic/parking violation. Your ref BS30/01/004 Doc Id 480529
.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Sir,
Thank you for the 29 August 2008 response via Mr David Clarkson Municipal Laws Coordinator albeit I
do not agree with the content thereof in general.
Regardless what may be alleged otherwise I know that I attended to my vehicle, as I normally always do but to
me this in itself is not an issue unless Banyule city council could overcome existing Direct and collateral estoppel
existing because of the decision by the County Court of Victoria on 19 7-2006 where I successfully appealed
decisions by the Magistrates Court of Victoria including that it had no jurisdiction.
If Banyule City Council is able to get the services of a competent lawyer in constitutional matters (If you can
find one that is!) he/she might be able to give the understanding that the High Court of Australia previously
determined that the States are subject to the Federal Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK)
because of the federation and being created as States by this. For this I reject any notion that the Constitution is
not applicable.
.
Under the Federal Constitution (and I successfully submitted that before the County Court of Victoria) there
are three levels of Government in the Commonwealth of Australia;
The overall British Parliament as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 19900 is a British legislation!
The Central Government being the Commonwealth of Australia for so far it was provided specific
legislative powers as set out by the Constitution. The Local Government being the State Government for the
residue of legislative powers not otherwise provided to the Commonwealth of Australia. Because of the colonial
Parliaments having accepted by federation that their colonial sovereign Parliaments would become State
constitutional Parliaments, as set out in previous correspondence extensively also, no State or federal
Parliament can amend their State of Federal Constitutions without the relevant referendums. It is obvious that a
State cannot somehow amend its constitution by giving away, so to say, legislative powers to the Commonwealth
without consent of the State electors by using Subsection 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution. Any reference of
legislative powers must first be approved by State electors within the provisions of Section 123 of the
Constitution.
Within Section 128 of the Constitution a federal election that requires the removal of certain legislative powers
or part of other powers of a state must be first approved by that State by way of State referendum.
.
I invite Banyule City Council through its lawyers to set out in details for example when any State held a
referendum as to refer its legislative powers as to CITIZENSHIP to the Commonwealth!
I invite the Banyule City Council through its lawyers or otherwise to set out where in the Constitution the
Commonwealth since federation had legislative powers as to define/determine citizenship! Where the
Commonwealth engaged highly paid barristers, etc and totally failed to defeat me in court on these and numerous
other issues I can assure you that before you seek to elect to litigate against me you better have done your
homework, so to say, as I have a Court decision in my favour and unless Banyule city Council can overcome this
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION it is bound by this.
.
As I indicated in my previous correspondence the vehicle used to have a DISABLED parking sign but that this
no longer was applicable, as such where then your correspondence indicated the parking officer could not locate
one it rather indicates to me that you failed to appropriately read my set out as I didnt claim at all I still had a
valid DISABLED PARKING SIGN for the vehicle and neither that it was displayed or an old one was used. If
therefore you cannot even comprehend a simple set out about the previous applicable disabled parking sign then
how on earth could you possibly comprehend highly technical constitutional issues?
p24
14-7-2015
25
Sure, it is my view that in light of the problems my wife has a disabled parking sign should be provided but that
is another issue. Just a reminder, there was this judge who got himself booked for parking in a limited parking
zone, as I understand it to be, and he got off because it was held the sign was not clear enough as to its meanings.
Still, regardless what the views may be not just of myself and/or of Banyule City Council it all is of no avail
where in the first place Banyule city council may have no legal position to enforce anything, as if it is an
unconstitutional entity then it has no powers to enforce anything, not even rates against ratepayers, regardless
what legislation the State government may have put in place.
.
When a referendum was held to include Municipal Councils as a form of Local Government in the
Constitution this was rejected by the people. As such, it was recognised by the Commonwealth of Australia that a
referendum was needed to be successful to give legal recognition to powers being executed by Municipal
Councils as a Local Government apart of a State Government being a Local Government.
It must be stated that lawyers are so far I understand it to be not taught during their legal studies the issues I
canvass in my books about constitutional issues rather they are generally brainwashed to accept whatever
FICTION they are taught. Again, they learned this in the 5-year litigation against me where they were
comprehensively defeated on all constitutional and other legal issues I raised in court against which not only the
Commonwealth lawyers but also none of the Attorney Generals were able to submit any challenge.
.
Before embarking upon the next issue of time calculations I must make it very clear that I use the calculations of
how I was taught in first grade of primary school when growing up in The Netherlands and perhaps Banyule City
Council may wish to enlighten me that my kind of time calculations is incorrect as to Australian standards, but I
doubt Banyule City Council will succeed in this.
10
15
20
.
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
I also noted that you refer to the time frame of 11.55 to 2.24 pm now lets see what 3 hour time frame this
includes;
12 hour clock
24 hour clock
11.55 am till 12.55 pm = 1 hour
11.55 am till 12.55pm = 1 hour
12.55 pm till 1.55 pm = 1 hour
12.55 pm till 13.55 pm = 1 hour
1.55 pm till 2.24 pm = 29 minutes
13.55 pm till 14.24 pm = 29 minutes
------------------------------Total time
= 2 hours 29 minutes
= 2 hours 29 minutes
.
Your correspondence provided a photo that clearly shows how your parking warded vandalised my motor
vehicle with having placed a sticker onto the windscreen allegedly because of exceeding a 3-hour limit parking.
Your correspondence also showed a photo of my vehicle parked in the parking bay in a proper manner without
being outside the while lines (rest assure my wife open her floodgates if I were to park incorrectly and so if
anything she is more a deterrent then anything else if anything to avoid a headache!).
Your correspondence also provided a photo with showing that your parking officer had vandalised my motor
vehicle by placing a mark on a tyre for which I gave no prior permission and in fact neither did the officer
request permission to do so.
Your correspondence does state;
The explanation of having a disabled parking permit displayed on the vehicle has been noted however the
reporting officer has recorded that no permit was visible therefore compliance with the 3 P parking restriction
should have been adhered to. The reporting officer has both recorded and advised me that the thread of your
tyre was marked at 11.55am and the vehicle reported at 2.24pm after the officer determined that the vehicle
had not moved within this time frame.
.
As such in addition to the above stated, the purported parking infringement was not issued because of exceeding
the 3 hour parking limit as only 2 hours and 29 minutes had passed to the knowledge of the parking officer but
because the vehicle had reportedly not been moved between 11.55am and 2.24 pm! I am not aware that there can
be some by-law that besides any compliance of parking restrictions one also can be incurring a parking
infringement because the parking officer simply desired to issue a parking infringement for allegedly not having
moved a vehicle regardless if lawfully parked.
.
You did state in your correspondence;
Council in accordance with Section 24(1) has reviewed the decision to serve the infringement notice and
after due consideration has determined the above vehicle was reported for an offence of overstaying in a 3 P
time restricted area at the Greensborough Plaza Car Park.
.
Woolworths v Crotty (1942) 66 CLR 603 at 618 (per Latham CJ)
p25
14-7-2015
26
The act should be construed according to its intention of the legislature. Where the legislature has stated the
mischief for which the common law did not provide, consideration of the nature and extent of that mischief is
relevant to the interpretation of the act.
.
Duncan 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 CLR 357) was
very briefly, and I regret to say, insufficiently argued and considered on the last day of the Sydney
sitting..... The arguments which now commend themselves to me as conclusive did not find entrance to
my mind. In my judgment that case was wrongly decided, and should be overruled.
.
Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 H.L.C. (per Lord Wensdayle)
In construing wills and indeed, statutes and all written documents, the grammatical and ordinary sense of
the word is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency
with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical or ordinary sense of the words may be
modified so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency but no further.
.
Powell v Trantor (1984) 3 H & C 458 at p461 (159 E.R. 610 at 611)
The golden rule of construction is, that words are to be construed according to their natural meaning,
unless such a construction would render them senseless, or would be opposed to the general scope and
intent of the instrument, or unless there is some cogent reason of convenience in favour of a different
interpretation.
.
Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes 8th Ed. p2;
Hotel Kingston Ltd. v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1944) 69 CLR 221; 28 Austin Digest 752
The first and most elementary rule of construction is that it is to be assumed that the words and phrases are
to be used in their technical meaning if they have acquired one and in their popular meaning if they have
not, and that the phrases and sentences are to be construed according to the rules of grammar; and from this
presumption it is not allowable to depart, where the language admits to no other meaning, nor, where it is
susceptible of another meaning, unless adequate grounds are found, either in the history or cause of the
enactment or in the context or in the consequences which would result from the literal interpretation, for
concluding that that interpretation does not give the real intention of the legislature.
.
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997
(1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson
Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration) Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a
bona fide and painstaking consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the
consideration was sufficient in law.
.
I also noted that you stated;
You are further advised Section 22(2)(e) of the Act states that an appeal application may only be made once
in relation to any one infringement offence in respect of the applicant.
Should you disagree with Councils review of the infringement the matter can only be determined in the
Heidelberg Magistrates Court on a date to be advised by summons.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
If payment is not received by the due date Councils normal collection process will continue and further costs
will apply. Alternatively you may stop the escalation process by completing the attached form, to have the
matter heard in Court, and return to the Council within 14 days of this letter. Council will then initiate legal
proceedings.
45
50
55
60
It is obvious that regardless of this correspondence by the legislation Banyule city council relies upon is has no
alternative but to institute legal proceedings against me for purportedly failing to move my vehicle between
11.55am and 2.24 PM even so it was lawfully parked within the 3 hour parking provisions, at least by your own
correspondence indicating this time limit, apart of what I have stated. Now fancy this that Banyule City Council
is going to appear before the Court not pursuing that I exceeded the 3 hour parking restriction but that I failed to
move my vehicle within the 2 hours and 29 minutes and noted;
All day parking is available on Levels A, E & G of the Multi-deck parking facilities and on levels 4A & 5 of
the Target parking facility.
Where Area parking restrictions apply, a vehicle must be removed entirely from the parking area prior to
reparking the vehicle and not just removed from one parking bay to another
.
Again;
p26
14-7-2015
27
All day parking is available on Levels A, E & G of the Multi-deck parking facilities and on levels 4A & 5 of
the Target parking facility.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
.
And again;
a vehicle must be removed entirely from the parking area prior to reparking the vehicle and not just
removed from one parking bay to another
.
As such a person would have to drive a vehicle out of the building and then renter the building just to move a
vehicle, say, from a 3 hour parking limit zone to an all day parking zone.
Or is somehow the rule of leaving the parking area not applicable when moving from a 3 hour zone to an all day
parking zone or visa versa? There are shopping centres that provide parking zone and loading zones that
specifically allows a person to drive a vehicle from the parking pay to the loading zone to load up item
purchased, albeit it remains within the same parking area and the loading zone has often a mere 15 minutes
loading time. If therefore one desire to load in groceries from a trolley and for this purpose were to drive a
vehicle to a loading zone and then find that the parking spot the vehicle was at previously is taken up by another
vehicle but another parking spot is available then on Banyule City Council reasoning the driver must leave the
parking area onto the street each time changing from parking/loading/parking locations. Quite frankly I thing a
person with common sense will question of Banyule City Council, so to say, lost its marbles. This kind of
application of parking restrictions may suit fund rasing as to fund this complex to be build in Greensborough but
would not have anything to do with looking after ratepayers interest. Now fancy this that a person who park in a
parking area of several floors must first drive onto the roadway and then re-enter the building to be able to park
on perhaps another floor level. Is that meaning that if you park in a parking area in a street you cannot move to
another parking bay that might be vacant nearby a store you wish to use to load your car but you first must leave
town and return to park nearer to the shop?
.
As I dispute the jurisdiction of the courts, not just the Magistrates Court of Victoria, then Banyule City Council
by the provisions of Section 22(2)(e) cannot take me before any Court but the Privy Council because none of the
Court in the Commonwealth of Australia have lawfully appointed judges/magistrates, etc. further they cannot be
a public entity of being a Court of law if they are part of a business entity as the State of Victoria is being
registered with an ACN number, as well as registered in the USA as a company.
Obviously I am not the one who will seek the matter to have determined before a Court as after all I made
all along clear there is no jurisdiction for any court to deal with the matter, see also my previous
correspondence. The problem Banyule City Council also appears to me to have is that it claimed no further
appeal is possible because of Section 22(2)(e) and yet it now might finally realise it basically acted as a bunch of
idiots to decided after due consideration that the infringement notice was to be enforced. What on earth is
this due consideration if no one even bothered to check the time frame of 11.55 to 2.24 as to total time being
within or outside the 3 hour parking limit. Indeed, how many other innocent drivers have been terrorised by
Banyule City Council as to be issued infringement notices while lawfully parked? Is Banyule City Council
pursuing that albeit there might be a 3 hour parking limit nevertheless if the parking officer desires that a vehicle
should have been moved within the 3-hour parking limit then still he can vandalise a motor vehicle with an
infringement notice?
Are we next going to have Banyule City Council going to claim it made a typing error and that the 11.55 time
period ought to be say 10.55? (At which time my wife and I were still at home?) or some other time change to try
to accommodate this continuation of terrorism upon a driver?
.
In my view terrorism is where undue and improper demands are made upon a person, with or without sanctions
of law, even so the person normally is not bound to do so.
.
As for signage of 3P on some police this can also mean part of 3 K , 3M, etc as many parking facilities have
poles marked in that way so customers can trace their vehicle to level 3 parking area K, P, R, etc. To
assume that every 3 P refers to a parking time limit is sheer and utter nonsense as then persons parked in level
three in an area marked P would be bound to remove their vehicle and leave the entire building precinct even
so it is all day parking.
.
If Banyule City Council were not to proceed with litigation against me despite that it claimed by rule 22(2)(e)
that this is the end of the appeals and only a court can deal with the matter then it would underline that it pursued
to terrorise me with stating further cost will apply even so that I have by its own parking restriction done
nothing inappropriate.
It did not state further cost may apply!
As such using the word will means that there is no other way out but further cost will apply.
.
p27
14-7-2015
28
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Not that I view that even if Banyule City Council could somehow manage to get this case before a Court, not that
I seek to imply it will, the judge more then likely is going to order some psychiatric assessment of Banyule City
Council officers and/or lawyers involved for having the audacity to present such nonsense before the Courts.
.
Unless there is a clear breach of law, something Banyule City Council would have to prove no court can invoke
any jurisdiction. Hence, unless Banyule City Council can prove in court that there is a law that requires a person
to move their motor vehicle from a 3-hour parking limit bay within 2-hour and 29-minutes because the parking
officer doesnt like it not to have been moved in that time, and the failure to not move it outside the building no
court could enforce such a sheer and utter nonsense regardless that Banyule city council claims to have given
due consideration.
.
Indeed, I question what due consideration stands for where it should have been very obvious that 2 hours and
29 minutes is less then 3 hours. I do not know what the level of education is required to be a staff member of
Banyule City Council but I would take it that my grand children once they passed Grade 1 at primary school
even they could have been aware that 2 hours 29 minutes is less then 3 hours.
.
If however we have a parking officer going about issuing parking infringements notices leaving people unaware
they were in fact lawfully parked and then people are under duress subjected to pay the purported fine then I
view there is a very serious issue.
.
Why indeed did the parking infringement notice not reveal the commencement time of the alleged offence?
Surely if a parking officer cannot even comprehend that 2 hours and 29 minutes is less then 3 hours then the
equipment he is provided with should be able to do it for him/her.
.
Also, I do not know if the Banyule City Council staff that applied due consideration are aware we have this
electronic advancement that they invented long ago calculators and computers which actually can calculate the
period between different times and as such assist the less educated with this.
.
Within the provisions of the Act Interpretation Act 1980 (vic) there is in fact also a provision that those who are
reporting an offence in fact cannot also fine a person, as this would set up the person as a judge and jury and any
alleged fine issued would be invalid (WITHOUT LEGAL FORCE).
.
Getting back to the 2006 County Court of Victoria litigation, the Commonwealth Office of Public Prosecutions,
just before the case was heard the COPP made known that because of new material I produced to them they no
longer could pursue the matter. All I did was to provide them with a copy of a correspondence of some 4 years
earlier, and as such was not at all new material but was actually old material they omitted to consider even
so for years they too were claiming to have given due consideration. It proved they had never done so.
.
The issue obviously is that because Banyule City council claimed that Section 22(2)(e) does not allow for an
further consideration of the appeal, etc, it now has no choice but to litigate against me as not to do so would be to
admit it attempted to deceive me as to what was and is applicable.
.
Fancy going to court with something like;
Your Honour the accused has done no legal wrong but nevertheless we are trigger happy to prosecute on
nonsense and seek the Court to waste its time for our abuse of the judicial system just so we can keep some
lawyers employed as otherwise they might be starving.
.
In my view a total review should be undertaken in regard of all and any infringement notice that was issued and
all checked as to the time limits that were actually applicable and ensure also that someone more competent is
dealing with complaints as I view any fair dinkum staff member of Banyule city council might consider it a
insult to have been included in council in the statement;
Council in accordance with Section 24(1) has reviewed the decision to serve the infringement notice and after
due consideration has determined the above vehicle was reported for an offence of overstaying in a 3 P time
restricted area at the Greensborough Plaza Car Park.
.
If this is the modus operandi of Banyule City Council to enforce purported infringement notices after due
consideration: under what I consider no less then a form of terrorism and blackmail that further cost will
apply as a menace to force innocent people to pay up instead of otherwise perhaps having to loose a days wages,
etc as to attend court then I view we would be better of with altogether scrapping municipal councils as this is
not for what municipal councils in the first place were created for. As I understand it municipal councils were to
p28
14-7-2015
29
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
provide for the better of a local community and not to use terrorism and some form of blackmail upon innocent
people.
.
As I indicated in my previous correspondence I seek an unreserved apology for having vandalised my vehicle
without legal justification and for the considerable upset it has caused in particularly to my wife. Indeed, she is
now concerned about any further appointments in Greensborough that further terrorism will be pursued and
vandalism against our vehicle, as proven by the photos provided by your own correspondence. Lets make it
clear that I do not fear the Courts, just object to their jurisdiction on legal grounds. We either have a Constitution
or we dont. And, while I obviously cannot prevent Banyule City Council to waste ratepayers monies on such
nonsense and on pursuing litigation I am however well within my rights to oppose this kind of abuse of the legal
processes and have every intention to do so.
.
As I view it basically Banyule City Council tried to extort $57.00 from me unlawfully and without legal
justification and now faces that this will be public as I can assure you I for one will publish it in my forthcoming
book.
.
Mr David Clarkson the Municipal Laws coordinator may perhaps have degrees from university in law, I
assume so, but would it not be better if he went back to primary school to learn to understand and comprehend
how one calculate a period between to set times.
Ultimately a lawyer with all his knowledge about legal matters will be wasting not just his time but also
ratepayers monies when embarking upon sheer and utter nonsense as to pursue some exceeding of time limits of
a 3 hour parking limit by not having moved a vehicle in 2 hours and 29 minutes. Why indeed have a 3 hour
parking restriction if in the end it will be reduced on the spot of whatever the parking officer (vulture) may make
out of it just to increase his issue of infringement notices. How many other rate payers were slugged in such a
manner?
.
To be honest, with my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION of Australian courts then I view Banyule City
Council would have, so to say, hope in hell to get a $57.00 alleged parking fine issue before the Privy Council.
Then again Banyule city council may just want to try to waste a lot of ratepayers monies in this manner as it
seems it is easy to increase rates to pay for it all. Then why manipulate the system to inappropriately fine people
for alleged parking infringements if it is to fraudulently increase Banyule City Council revenue to perhaps pay
for the monument it intends to build in Greensborough? Obviously, I question the management of Banyule City
Council to have enabled this kind of utter and sheer nonsense to eventuate! If people are in a job and are not
performing up to standards and/or are not even competent to understand that a 2 hour 29 minutes parking period
is not exceeding a 3-hour permitted parking time limit then I view we better get rid of them and engage people
who do not abuse and misuse their position to try to enforce purported infringement notice without legal
justification.
Does Banyule City Council at all comprehend what the meaning of due consideration stands for? It is a legal
term and perhaps Banyule City Council may do better to engage some lawyer who can explain what is required
when using such a term. It certainly aint to disregard relevant facts relating to the alleged incident!
.
Nothing in this correspondence must be perceived and neither is intended to indicate that I seek to indicate to
accept the validity of the Infringements Act 2006 (Vic) as I maintain my objections to the validity of
appointment of Members of Parliament, and as such any purported legislation they claimed to have passed, as
has been extensively canvassed previously by me before the County Court of Victoria and so successfully.
.
Awaiting your response,
G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA

p29
14-7-2015
30
Again, it is clear that I objected to the validity of the Infringement Act 2006 and while Banyule
City Council subsequently (finally) withdrew the Infringement Notice nevertheless my objection
remained on food. After all, where no further appeal was possible then how then could Banyule
City Council withdraw the Infringement Notice, after having made clear it no longer could be
appealed?
.

QUOTE
Infringement offences are prescribed in more than 60 statutes and are administered by a wide variety of
enforcement agencies including state and local government agencies, which include local councils, universities
and hospitals.
10
Infringement notices or on the spot fines may be issued by enforcement agencies for a range of offences
including parking, traffic and public transport offences. Fixed penalties apply to offences to provide a person
issued with an infringement notice the option of paying a fixed penalty, rather than proceeding to a court
hearing. The value of a penalty unit for a financial year is fixed by the Treasurer under the Monetary Units Act
2004 and usually increases on an annual basis in line with the Consumer Price Index. The value of a penalty
unit for the 2013-14 year was $144.36.
15
Key features of Victorias infringements system include:
20
a common process for issuing and enforcing infringement notices across enforcement agencies
the option to elect to have an infringeable offence heard and determined by the Magistrate Court
the right for a person to have an infringement notice reviewed by the issuing agency where there may
have been a mistake of law or identity, or where special or exceptional circumstances may apply
(refer to footnote 1 for exceptions).
a recognition that people with special circumstances (i.e. people with a mental or intellectual
disability, disorder, disease or illness, a serious addiction, or who are homeless) should not be dealt
with through an automated enforcement process
the availability of payment plans for people experiencing financial hardship
30
strong enforcement measures against people who refuse to pay their fines.
35
If the infringement notice is paid, the payment will expiate the offence. No further proceedings may be
taken against the offender in respect of the offence the subject of the infringement notice, and there is no
conviction recorded against the person. Payment of an infringement is not an admission of guilt. Further
information on the Infringements System is provided in Error! Reference source not found.. A list of
enforcement agencies is provided in Error! Reference source not found..
25
END QUOTE
This option is not available for infringement offences under:

Sections 89A to 89D of the Road Safety Act 1986
Sections 215C of the Transport Act 1983
Sections 61A and 61B of the Marine Act 1988
[Regulation 11K Infringements (Reporting and Prescribed Details

and Forms) Regulations 2006].
p30
14-7-2015
10
15
31
Regardless if a Registrar holds that a constitutional issue is not relevant (Then what can one
expect from a person who is not a judge when neither having been appointed as an impartial
judge and so not having made such an oath where even judges often do not even
understand/comprehend this?) to the issues before him/her in the end jurisdiction must be
considered in an appropriate manner. The moment a Registrar makes a decision and issued
orders without first having determimed the jurisdictional objection then all and any orders are
NULL AND VOID, and so WITHOUT LEGAL FORCE.
Regretfully the way the Parliament/Government has screwed the system the Sheriffs Office
will nevertheless pursue matters with a disregard to the constitutional and other legal rights of the
victim.
Held that a State Court exercising federal jurisdiction when it erroneously applies
Commonwealth Act to subject matter before the Court. Commonwealth v Cole, (1923) 32
C.L.R. 602 and Commonwealth v Dalton, (1924) 33 C.L.R.. 452; 30 A.L.R. 85
QUOTE Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns [1999] FamCA 64
(2) The Court always has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for the purpose of and up to the point
of deciding whether it has jurisdiction to make the orders sought in the proceedings.
20
25
30
35
(3) In carrying out that limited exercise of jurisdiction, the Court is required to determine any essential facts
upon which the existence of its jurisdiction to make the orders sought ultimately depends (the jurisdictional
facts). That determination is a function which is incidental to the exercise of the jurisdiction referred to in
(2) above.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns [1999] FamCA 64
(6) Once a respondent challenges the Courts jurisdiction to make the orders sought, the Court, before
considering the adjudicational facts, must find the existence of the jurisdictional facts, on the balance of
probabilities.
END QUOTE
The following are examples how a Court must deal with an OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION.
https://www.fwc.gov.au/search/documents/results?query=asmar&indexes[0]=1&start=0&page=0&keys=asmar&sort
=mtime%20desc&order=desc&filename=/documents/decisionssigned/html/2015FWC3359.htm
[2015] FWC 3359 FAIR WORK COMMISSION DECISION Fair Work Act 2009
QUOTE
[11] On 27 October 2014, at the commencement of the hearing on the Terms of Inquiry, Mr Morrissey, senior
counsel for Ms Kitching, requested that I provide a decision in relation to the application to amend the Terms of
Inquiry before proceeding further. A decision on the amended application necessarily involved a ruling being
40
delivered on the jurisdictional challenge that had been made. I stated as follows:
"I am mindful of the potential implications and the sensitivity of these matters. However, I am not sure
when I will be able to give full consideration to the jurisdictional arguments that have been lodged and
issue a decision in this matter. I consider that the more appropriate procedure is to commence to hear the
evidence in this matter, and I will endeavour to give proper consideration to the arguments at the earliest
45
opportunity."
[12] Counsel for Ms Kitching advised that an application would be made to the Federal Court challenging the
decision to proceed in the absence of first determining whether the Commission had jurisdiction. In those
circumstances, I adjourned the matter to enable the parties to make application in the Federal Court.
p31
14-7-2015
32
[13] On 28 October 2014, Ms Asmar and Ms Kitching filed an originating application in the Federal Court
challenging the Commission's jurisdiction to proceed with the Inquiry and seeking interlocutory and permanent
injunctions against the Commission from proceeding further.
[14] On the same day, Beach J granted an interlocutory injunction against the Commission restraining it from
proceeding further until it had first ruled on its jurisdiction to proceed. 1 The further hearing of the originating
application was adjourned to 17 November 2014 for directions.
[15] Later that day, I issued the decision in relation to jurisdiction and found that the Commission has
jurisdiction to proceed, relevantly stating as follows: 2
"[28] As a matter of legislative interpretation, the principle of construction arising from the Anthony
10
Hordern case does not lead to the conclusion that the general power to revoke a permit, implied into s.512
by s.33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and provided specifically in s.603 of the Act should be read
down because of the terms of s.507. It follows that the Commission has the power to consider whether to
revoke the permits under s.512 and/or s.603. It is not necessary to consider whether other alternative
sources of power apply to the current circumstances.
15
[29] When the President made the direction for me to deal with the matters, the power to revoke the permits
under s.603 and implied into s.512 by s.33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 applied to the Inquiry that
I have commenced to undertake. The jurisdictional objection raised by Ms Kitching and supported by the
officials must be dismissed."
[16] On 29 October 2014, at the hearing of the matter I indicated that I would commence to take evidence.
20
Counsel for Ms Kitching and counsel for the officials sought an adjournment of proceedings so that they could
file an application seeking an interlocutory injunction against the Commission that until the hearing and
determination of the Federal Court proceedings concerning jurisdiction, the Commission be restrained from
proceeding with the inquiry. I granted the application for an adjournment.
[17] Later that day Ms Asmar and Ms Kitching filed an interlocutory application in the above terms. On 30
25
October 2014, Beach J granted the interlocutory injunction in the terms sought.
[18] The Federal Court proceedings were heard on 5 December 2014. On 29 January 2015, Beach J issued a
decision in which it was found that the Commission has jurisdiction to proceed with the Inquiry. Beach J said: 3
"100 In summary, it is not possible to say that the Act confers only one power, such as to confine the
generality of s 603. The statutory provisions are not perfectly reconcilable, but three key points persuade
30
me to the view that s 603 applies. First, s 603(3) makes no reference to Pt 3-4. Second, I can see no
compelling policy or coherency argument that necessitates the result of the Commission being denied the
power of its own initiative to revoke a permit based on an innocently or fraudulently procured incorrect
factual foundation. Third, on my view of the proper construction of both ss 507 and 603, there are
overlapping spheres of operation, but with each also having their own independent operation and work to
35
do. In my view, s 603 applies to s 512.

p32
14-7-2015
33
101 Strictly, it is then unnecessary to consider whether s 33(3) of the AIA applies. But as I have said
earlier, if s 603 applies, then s 33(3) may be excluded by s 2(2) because of the existence and application of
s 603 which covers the field. If it is not excluded, then it adds little because s 603 does the necessary work
in any event. Alternatively, if s 603 does not apply, then s 33(3) of the AIA is excluded by s 2(2) thereof for
similar reasons to those that justify the exclusion of s 603.

102 The Commission has jurisdiction to proceed with the Inquiry.
...
104 The applicants' originating application will be dismissed."
10
END QUOTE
What appears to be clear is that the Infringement Court, at least to my knowledge, is not
a court invested with federal jurisdiction!
15
20
25
30
Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK)

QUOTE
77 Power to define jurisdiction
With respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last two sections the Parliament may make laws:
(i) defining the jurisdiction of any federal court other than the High Court;
(ii) defining the extent to which the jurisdiction of any federal court shall be exclusive of that which belongs
to or is invested in the courts of the States;
(iii) investing any court of a State with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
Also the issue is what constitute FAILING TO VOTE, as the High Court of Australia is on
record that voting is something that is done in secret and that mere attendance itself is
sufficient.
QUOTE 20150610-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier Daniel Andrews COMPLAINT re VEC, etc
Besides this, my 82 year old wife attended to the polling station accompanied by me and I did enter the polling
station albeit was not asked for my name and left through the other door subsequently.
Below my wife walking to and entering the polling station.
35
Image taken 29-11-2014 1.11PM
p33
14-7-2015
34
10
15
The image taken at 1.22 was after I had walked through the polling station. Having spent about 8 minutes in the
polling station itself.
While most people may vote for any crook I am very selective. As has now been proven Mr Daniel Andrews
deceived the electors to claim that the East West road link was not worth the paper it was written upon, whereas
now it is claimed a compensation bill (obviously at cost of taxpayers) could be as high as $1.2 billion.
.
The Liberals were also misleading the electors by not having revealed that it signed a special guarantee for
compensation. As such swindling electors as to what they were facing.
.
I am neither for or against the East west road link but as a CONSTITUTIONALIST hold that candidates must
act honestly in election campaign and where there is any doubt then an elector is entitled to exercise his/her
liberty not to vote.
Will Tony Abbott show leadership in the Melbourne East West link debacle?
20
25
30
35

https://www.scribd.com/doc/253135692/20150120-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Mr-TONY-ABBOTTPM-Re-Melbourne-s-East-West-Link-etc
While I hold that the Former Coalition Government failing to have obtained any Appropriation Bill passed
through the Victorian Parliament to legally provide for any compensation payment, therefore legally had no basis
to sign any agreement for compensation, I hold it to be my constitutional right to express my dismay and
disapproval as to this kind of conduct and to refuse to give any vote to those I view are deceiving the electors.
The right to vote or withhold a vote is clearly as to the electors view who, if any, candidate can be trusted, and
earned the vote.
To force me to vote for anyone no matter my opposition to such contemptuous conduct to deceive the electors in
my view would be in violation of my constitutional rights as well as what I have indicated a CONTEMPT OF
COURT.
IT IS VERY CLEAR that the Victorian Electoral Commission is failing to pursue FAIR and PROPER
elections, where the major political parties can swindle/deceive electors without having any accountability by the
VEC as to this conduct. Hence, as an elector where I suspect there is a gross deception going on than my right as
an elector to withhold my vote is to show I disapprove of this conduct. Because the preference requirements to
vote would automatically ends up for the coalition or the Labor/Green parties I have no desire to have my vote if
cast to end up for either combinations.
40
The Victorian electoral c omission has an obligation to hold FIAR and PROPER elections and I view this
includes to hold any candidate which may have been involved in deceptive/misleading/fraudulent conduct
accountable. Such as to have the election declared invalid and a new election being called.
p34
14-7-2015
35
10
15
Where however the VEC fails to do so then ultimately the electors are left to cast or not to cast their vote.
A compulsory vote would clearly undermine the right of the elector to disapprove of any candidate and so his/her
conduct and also would cause the elector to so to say financial contribute towards the monies per vote paid to the
primary selected candidate. As such this is a financial reward for dishonesty. The associated payment per vote by
this violate also my constitutional rights to a FAIR and PROPER elections this is because generally
INDEPENDENT candidates cannot budget for a huge financial election campaign, whereas the major political
parties can expect millions of dollars and so spend ahead on the election campaign outdoing ordinary candidates.
END QUOTE 20150610-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier Daniel Andrews COMPLAINT re VEC, etc
One may also question how many of the ALP candidates (Australian Labor Candidates) may
have failed to declare they had donations and other assistance from unions as now has been
born out by the ROYAL COMMISSION into trade union governance and corruption.
But what is clear is that I did attend to the polling station and spend some time in the polling
station.
It is also clear that both major political parties had so to say swindled the electors regarding
the East West road link project.
It is also clear that more than likely either one of them having a candidate would take the seat
of Ivanhoe. Therefore, no matter who I may cast a vote for in the end it would be the Liberal
or the Labor Party candidate that would end up with my vote where I were to vote.
20
QUOTE
Mr. WISE: I can see no other course. It has taken 100 years for the United States to pass a Civil Service
Act, and now it is not of very much value. If we get a party system, and follow it out in the appointment of
civil servants, we will be initiating a system of corruption which would gain strength every day.
25
END QUOTE
30
It is for the Parliament to design an electoral system in which I can exercise without fear or
favour my right (not duty) to vote. Where however I am placed in a position that no
matter how I place my vote so to say one of the two crooks will get it then I am entitled to
refuse to participate in such a SCAM ELECTION.
.
35
40
45
Any election must be that all candidates have the same equal rights as a candidate, and this
clearly doesnt exist for numerous reasons as outlined in my past writings also, and many are
published on my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
There is no such system to vote for a Premier, as this is false and misleading and yet the VEC
(Victorian
Electoral
Commission)
did
nothing
to
stop
this
rot
of
deceptive/misleading/fraudulent advertising, as it neither did in the past. As such electors are
swindled into a scam election.
HANSARD 9-9-1897 Constitutional Convention
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria)
There will, of course, be no funds in the commonwealth at that stage; but I apprehend that the
governor-general will act in the hope of being recouped any expenses afterwards to which he may be
put.
END QUOTE
.
50
55
20150329-Hobsons Bay City Council v Gibbon & Ors [2011] VSC 140 (12 April 2011)
QUOTE
5 At the conclusion of the first case the solicitor for the appellant applied for costs comprising legal fees of
$1,470.26, service fees of $91.10, filing fees of $66.60 and a courtesy letter of $23.10. The solicitor deposes
that these were a true calculation of the amounts properly incurred by the Council in the prosecution of the
case.
p35
14-7-2015
36
6 After the Magistrate awarded costs in the sum of $180.80[1] he was asked to give reasons for his order. He
then stated:
The application for legal costs is refused on the basis that I think that theyre disproportionate to the
criminality of the defendants conduct. I believe weve had this discussion in the past Mr Prosecutor, but the
same reasons apply. It seems to me to be unfair to award costs based on the defendants bad luck in being
prosecuted by a council rather than by the police as a matter of principle, it cannot be or should not be the
defendant that incurs the additional liability of substantial costs based on who prosecutes. It strikes me as
unfair that an award of costs against the defendant when thieves, drug traffickers and other wrongdoers who
do far more harm than the defendant has, are not asked to pay costs. Additionally, citizens pay rates and taxes
for services, including the cost of prosecuting, supervising and imprisoning wrongdoers. It seems to me that
principle ought to apply to this prosecution as well and as I also say that the costs are disproportionate to the
criminality of the defendants conduct (sic). In the exercise of my discretion, the application for costs is
refused.[2]
10
7 At the conclusion of the second case the Magistrate again received an application for costs consisting of
legal fees of $170.50, filing fees of $42.10 and a courtesy letter of $23.10. The solicitor for the appellant
again deposes that the costs for which application was made comprised a true and correct calculation of
amounts properly incurred by the appellant in the prosecution of the case.
15
8 The Magistrate refused the greater portion of the application for costs on the same basis as he had refused
the greater portion of the application for costs in the first matter.[3]
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
END QUOTE
With the numerous constitutional and other legal issues involved it would be a travesty of
justice if the VEC was to litigate merely because so to say it can get away with it using public
monies (taxpayers monies).
As I made clear I hold that the VEC is in CONTEMPT OF COURT with the 19-7-2006
County Court of Victoria decision and no Infringement Court or Magistrates Court of Victoria
and not even a County Court of Victoria can interfere with the rights I obtained by the courts
decision. So to say this case was decided upon the evidence before it which was my extensive
material including submissions and none by any of the Attorney-Generals.
.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html
Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)
This case makes clear that any official acting for the state nevertheless can be held in
CONTEMPT OF COURT where acting in violation to a federal court order. In this case the
Attorney-General was imprisoned for violating a court order, by obtaining a court order to
undermine an existing court order.
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
As such, any official claiming to act for the State Government of the State of Victoria who
seeks in any manner to undermine/interfere the County Court of Victoria (exercising federal
jurisdiction) of 19-7-2006 and so with it my rights and entitlements obtained by the courts
decision I view may be held liable for CONTEMPT OF COURFT.
The various ministers also could be held liable where they in some manner are responsible
Ministers but failing to act as to allow this unconstitutional and other illegal conduct against
me.
QUOTE
p36
14-7-2015
37
Mr. HIGGINS.-Then all crimes should be left to the Commonwealth?
Mr. BARTON.-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing crime to the
Commonwealth, but you do give power to the Commonwealth to make special laws as to alien races;
and the moment you do that the power of making such laws does not remain in the hands of the states;
and if you place in the hands of the Commonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have
described you should not defeat that regulative power of the Commonwealth. I do not think that that
applies at all, however, to any power of regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we
do not give any such power to the Commonwealth, whilst we do give the Commonwealth power
with regard to alien races; and having given that power, we should take care not to take away an
incident of it which it may be necessary for the Commonwealth to use by way of regulation. I have
had great hesitation about this matter, but I think I shall be prevented from voting for the first part; and as
to establishing any religion, that is so absolutely out of the question, so entirely not to be expected-
10
Mr. SYMON.-It is part of the unwritten law of the Constitution that a religion shall not be established.
15
END QUOTE
While the Framers of the Constitution embedded the legal principle that criminal matters
could only be dealt with in a state court (exercising federal jurisdiction) as to guarantee a trail
before ones peers, the federal courts can however deal with CONTEMPT OF COURT
matters, as that is a contempt against the authority of the court.
20
I object to the ongoing harassment and stalking by the VEC as it should have been well aware
of my numerous previous writings there is NO CASE TO ANSWER and it engages in a
conduct that it abuses and misuses its powers to pursue me.
.
25
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all
details/issues.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
(
30
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B.
(Friends call me Gerrit)
p37
14-7-2015

20150714-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Premier of Victoria MR Daniel Andrews & VEC-Re COMPLAINT-Electoral Matters& Judicial Issues-Etc

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

20150714-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Premier of Victoria MR Daniel Andrews & VEC-Re COMPLAINT-Electoral Matters& Judicial Issues-Etc

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria

Michelle Ainsworth michelle.ainsworth@news.com.au

Because freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable

We then have to consider also:

The document can be downloaded from:

The aforementioned are also included in:

There is however another issue that is relevant.

From The Age

The corporatising of our courts

Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

"The jurisdiction and powers of the court do not cease to be

"A court reviewing an exercise of power by a Judicial

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

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

39A Federal jurisdiction invested in State Courts by other provisions

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. GORDON.-So is this.

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

From: Herald Sun

February 08, 2012 12:00AM

Source: Herald Sun

Investors in the clearway Herald Sun, 1 day ago

Glitch delivers toll slug interstate The Australian, 1 day ago

Lynch has faith in Transurban drivers Herald Sun, 9 days ago

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

The Infringements System

I have attached my 4-9-2008 response.

Your correspondence does state;

END QUOTE 4-9-2008 correspondence to Banyule City Council

Annual Report on the Infringements System 2013-14

the availability of payment plans for people experiencing financial hardship

This option is not available for infringement offences under:

[Regulation 11K Infringements (Reporting and Prescribed Details

do. In my view, s 603 applies to s 512.

similar reasons to those that justify the exclusion of s 603.

Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK)

Image taken 29-11-2014 1.11PM

Image taken 29-11-2014 1.11PM

Image taken 29-11-2014 1.13PM

Image taken 29-11-2014 1.22PM

The document can be downloaded from:

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Awaiting your response,

(Friends call me Gerrit)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi