20151012-g. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Infringement Court Registrar Re Case 1564277756-Vec, Etc

1
MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA

INFRINGEMENTS COURT C/o help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au
12-10-2015
Cc; Victorian Electoral Commissioner Email: complaints@vec.vic.gov.au

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Ref; Infringement Court Case number 1564277756
10
15
20
Sir/Madam,
it is sicking how when it comes to the Government or those operating as an enforcement
agency are misusing and abusing the legal system relentlessly, whereas for example where the
SRO (State Revenue Office) acknowledged that the Government wrongly was paid more than
$218 on overcharges water charges (at settlement of the sale of a property) then somehow the
Infringement Court is not a venue to deal with this acknowledged debt to my wife. As such, the
Infringement court is not at all an impartial administration of justice as required by the
Letters Patent published in the Victorian Gazette on 2-1-1901 and hence is not a valid court.
Because the Magistrates Court of Victoria is a Chapter III of the constitution court as to operate
with for example federal issues, where a person raises a constitutional and/or federal legislative
issue then the Infringement Court cannot act in defiance of this. Hence, any hearings, or
pretended hearings must be conducted in open court.
The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
25
30
35
40
THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVENING NEWS (1880) N.S.W.
LR 211 AT 239.:
QUOTE
The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice of
sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day,
would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be
rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
END QUOTE
It is not relevant if the Parliament of the State of Victoria enacted legislation such as the
Infringement Act 2006 to have hearings or purported hearing conducted by some private
company by computers pretending to be a court, as the State of Victoria derived its existence
from section 106 of the constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK))
subject to this constitution and this applies also to all and any legal principle embedded in
the constitution. (See also Wakim HCA 27 of 1999 authority.)
Now lets consider the following (embedded legal principle in the constitution)
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
45
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.
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
p1
12-10-2015
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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
2
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
10
15
20
25
Now it seems to me that first of all the Infringement Notice was issued in defiance of any proper
litigation. It merely is that the VEC (Victorian electoral commission) made allegations and
despite my complaints proceeded to pervert the court of justice, by concealing from the
Infringement registrar my objections and more over that the Infringement Registrar has
absolutely no legal powers to undermine or otherwise interfere with my legal rights obtained by
the orders of the county court of Victoria on 19 July 2006, when I successfully opposed 2
convictions for FAILING TO VOTE to which the then Attorney-General for the State of
Victoria Robert Hulls stated to abide by the Courts decision.
It must be clear that where I successfully defeated not only the Commonwealth but also the
States upon constitutional issues that compulsory voting is unconstitutional then it is unlawful if
the State of Victoria via the VEC seeks to act otherwise a blatant violation of the County Court
of Victoria decision.
As ought to be clear is that (Wakim HCA 27 of 1999) that the same parties cannot re-litigate the
same constitutional issues already settled previously before them. The VEC exercising delegated
powers for the State of Victoria (s114 of the constitution) therefore cannot re-litigate something
to which I on 19 July 2015 in the County Court of Victoria comprehensively defeated the State
of Victoria. (Including a S78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.)
It must be noted that none of the other parties appealed the courts decision to uphold both
appeals.
All documentation regarding the 19 July 2006 litigation before the County Court of Victoria can
also be located in my books published on 7 July 2006 (nearly 2 weeks prior to the hearing):
INSPECTOR-RIKATI & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights ISBN 0-9751760-2-1
30
CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC

The issue was not that I had voted or not, as even the book makes clear I had not voted, but the
issue was that compulsory voting is unconstitutional.
35
40
45
50
55
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
I was a candidate in the 2001 federal election but still didnt vote as I held that I didnt want my
vote to end up with someone I stood against. After all, why should I stand as a candidate if I held
other candidates or any of them were suitable?
While the Parliament can legislate as to the process that one has to follow is one exercise once
rights, such as if a person walks along a road it must as a pedestrian follow certain rules. The
p2
12-10-2015
3
same with if one drives a vehicle one has to follow certain rules. However the Parliament cannot
make it compulsory that a person having the right to walk along the road, or to drive a vehicle on
a road then must walk or drive merely because the Government desires this.
If I desire to fly a kite with a grandchild then I can do so provided I follow rules governing kite
flying but it would be absurd to hold that the Parliament can legislate that a grandparent must fly
a kite. I would rather respond that the politicians can go fly a kite, albeit this would have another
meaning.
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
With the 2013 Federal election Mike Mr King electoral Officer at Heidelberg was amazed to
discover I was actually voting. As I explained to him I held there was a candidate that deserved
my vote and so I decided to vote.
As such I am not against anyone exercising their democratic rights to vote but I am against
compulsory voting!
My writings during 2014 was too many Members of State Parliament as to what I view the
leeching and fraud committed by many and therefore my right to protest against this is my right
to withhold my vote to be used. After all, why on earth would I wasnt my vote to end up being
used by someone to claim to have a mandate where I never intended to vote for that person but
the system is set up to fraudulently use my vote in such manner.
For example Daniel Andrews as I understood it was going on (such as using a bus) to vote for
him as Premier, this even so electors do not vote who shall be Premier. It is a prerogative power
of the governor to decide who shall be commissioned to be Premier. While the Governor may
consider the leader of the party/parties holding most of the seats in the Parliament ultimately the
Governor is not bound by this.
As such, as I made clear to the VEC it allows fraudulent elections to be conducted.
When I was a candidate in state/council elections I had my fair share of complaints against the
VEC, as I view it is incompetent to conduct proper elections and it should be subjected to
independent scrutiny. Yet, nothing was done, and VEC officers were actually involved in
undermining my elect ions as an INDEPENDENT candidate.
It would therefore be absurd for the VEC to pursue me to vote in violation to my constitutional
rights! And this in particular where the matters were litigated for about 5 years before the courts
and I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth and other parties. None appealed and as
such are bound by the courts decision.
As a matter of fact I view it is CONTEMPT OF COURT for anyone to act in violation of the
courts decision to undermine my rights, and this includes the Infringement Registrar.
.
40
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
.
45
50
QUOTE In the marriage of Smith v Saywell (1980) Fam LR 6 245 at 258

Where a case pending in a federal court other than the HIGH COURT or in a court of a state or
territory involves a matter arising under the Constitution involving its interpretation, it is the duty of the
court not to proceed in the cause unless and until the court is satisfied that notice of the cause, specifying
the nature of the matter has been given to the Attorney General of the commonwealth and (a) if the
cause is pending in a court of a state - to the Attorney General of that state; or (b) if the cause is pending
in a Federal court and was initiated in a state - to the Attorney General of that state, and for a reasonable
time elapsed since the giving of the notice for consideration by that Attorney General or by those
Attorney General, of the question of intervention in the proceedings or the removal of the cause to the
HIGH COURT.
END QUOTE
.
55

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.
p3
12-10-2015
4
END QUOTE
10
Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) (Re Section 96 of the Constitution)
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. If any
Act were carried giving monetary assistance to any state it would be unconstitutional, and the object
sought would not be attained.
END QUOTE
https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=61502
QUOTE H. L. DEMDEN v F. PEDDER High Court of Australia
The Commonwealth and the States are, with respect to the matters which under the Constitution are within
the ambit of their respective legislative or executive authority, sovereign States, subject only to the
15
restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or
implied. Where, therefore, the Constitution makes a grant of legislative or executive power to the
Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is entitled to exercise that power in absolute freedom, and without any
interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.
20
END QUOTE
Again; , either expressed or implied.

Speech The Rule of Law and the Future of the Sector
From: Attorney General's Office and The Rt Hon Jeremy Wright QC MP
25
30
35
QUOTE
I do not want this speech to be a historical overview of the rule of law but the English philosopher John
Locke made the point in 1690 that Wherever law ends, tyranny begins. The classic modern definition of the
Rule of Law and by modern I mean 1885 - comes from the jurist and constitutional theorist AV Dicey. I
wont read the whole of what he said but two parts of it are of particular importance to the success of the City
of London and its commercial and legal sectors. Firstly, Dicey said that the rule of law meant that no man is
punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law
established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land. He also said that when
we speak of the rule of law we mean not only that with us no man is above the law, but that here every
man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.
END QUOTE
40
45
https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=67680
Esber v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 20 (03 June 1992) (Mason C.J., Brennan, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ.)
QUOTE
Clearly, the Commissioner must act according to law. If he took into account a consideration that was
irrelevant, for instance the colour of the appellant's eyes, he would not have acted according to law.
END QUOTE
http://www.nswbar.asn.au/docs/professional/prof_dev/BPC/course_files/Dealing%20with%20unrepresented%20litig
ants%20-%20Pulsford.pdf
QUOTE
Duty of the court The court has a duty to give persons who represent themselves a fair hearing, and it may
be appropriate for the court to give some assistance to such persons in order to fulfill that duty.
The exacting nature of the task imposed upon the judge in civil and criminal trials has been well summed up
50
by Bell J of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13.9.07)
[139]-[141] where his Honour said:
p4
12-10-2015
5
Every judge in every trial, be it criminal or civil, has an overriding duty to ensure the trial is fair. A fair
trial is the only trial a judge can judicially conduct. The duty is inherent in the rule of law and the judicial
process. Equality before the law and equal access to justice are fundamental human rights specified in the
ICCPR. The proper performance of the duty to ensure a fair trial would also ensure those rights are promoted
and respected.
Most self-represented persons lack two qualities that competent lawyers possess legal skill and ability, and
objectivity. Self-represented litigants therefore usually stand in a position of great disadvantage in legal
proceedings of all kinds. Consequently, a judge has a duty to ensure a fair trial by giving self represented
litigants due assistance. Doing so helps to ensure the litigant is treated equally before the law and has equal
10
access to Justice.
The matters regarding which the judge must assist a self-represented litigants are not limited. The judge must
give such assistance as is necessary to ensure a fair trial. The proper scope of the assistance depends on the
particular litigant and the nature of the case. The touchstone is fairness and balance. The assistance may
extend to issues concerning substantive legal rights as well as to issues concerning the procedure that will be
15
followed.
Where the interests of justice and the circumstances of the case require it, a judge may:
Draw attention to the law applied by the court in determining issues before it;
Question witnesses;
Identify applications or submissions which ought to be put to the court;
20
Suggest procedural steps that may be taken by a party;

Clarify the particulars of the orders sought be a litigant in person or the bases
for such orders.
(The above list was not regarded as exhaustive and there may well be other interventions that a judge may
properly make without giving rise to an apprehension of bias.)
25
The LexisNexis commentary14 provides:

A breach of these guidelines may result in procedural unfairness, which may in turn require a re-trial: See
S v R and the Childrens Representative (1999) 24 Fam LR 213; FLC 92-834. See also In the Marriage of
Sadjak (1992) 16 Fam LR 280; (1993) FLC 92-348 per Nicholson CJ, Nygh and Purdy JJ where the
particular needs of litigants whose first language is not English are discussed. See also In the Marriage of Su
30
and Chang (1999) 25 Fam LR 558; FLC 92-859 (FC).

END QUOTE
Even Wikipedia cant whitewash the great truths behind Magna Carta and its important place in history: Lord
Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times the foundation of the freedom of the
individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".[5] In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as the "first of
p5
12-10-2015
6
a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status", [6] the others being the
Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Act of Settlement (1701).
Algernon Sidney, a man who was revered on both sides of the Atlantic, who greatly influenced our founding
fathers, wrote as follows:
There must therefore be a right, of proceeding judicially or extra-judicially against all persons who
transgress the laws; or else those laws, and the societies that should subsist by them, cannot stand; and the
ends for which governments are constituted, together with the governments themselves, must be overthrown.
10
If he be justly accounted an enemy of all, who injures all; he above all must be the public enemy of a nation,
who by usurping power over them, does the greatest and most public injury that a people can suffer. For
which reason, by an established law among the most virtuous nations, every man might kill a tyrant; and no
names are recorded in history with more honor, than of those who did it.
15
They know how to preserve their liberty, or to vindicate the violation of it; and the more patient they have
been, the more inflexible they are when they resolve to be so no longer.
Those who are so foolish to put them upon such courses, do to their cost find that there is a difference
between lions and asses; and he is a fool who knows not that swords were given to men, that none might be
slaves.*
20
25
It therefore must be clear that where the County Court of Victoria upheld my constitutional rights
and none of it what challenged by any of the other parties then it is so to say set in concrete that I
have my constitutional rights to decide to exercise my right to vote or not. As such not only the
violation of the County Court of Victoria decision is to be considered but also the defiance of my
constitutional rights.
.
30
While the State of Victoria may have abolished the DOUBLE JEOPARDY rule it cannot affect
my constitutional rights!
It was open to the State of Victoria at the time of the 19 July 2006 hearing before the County
Court of Victoria to challenge my numerous submissions including a S78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS, and as such where the State of Victoria not only didnt seek
to pursue an appeal but in fact made clear to abide by the courts decision then the VEC cannot
circumvent this, so to say have a second bite on it, exercising State delegated powers (s114).
35
And lets also consider the following:
40
QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780

If they are given no reason they may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice,
bias, or caprice. In such a case not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
END QUOTE
45
50
55
QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780

As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes the
appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made in the
lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the
respondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the
absence of reason for the magistrates decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded
for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal process, there is the
basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to
controvert the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they lost. If they are given no reason they
may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case
not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not mere ordinary
trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of responsibility which administrations of
the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail.
[Baker v Baker (1906) 95 LT 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and again in Cobb v Cobb (1900)
p145] it was stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is the duty
of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his decision, but to give the reasons
p6
12-10-2015
7
for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required, but the
reasons which lead the magistrate to make his order must be explicitly stated.
END QUOTE
Now what we have is not that the Registrar held there was no legal justification for me but that
the VEC simply decided that it didnt accept what I had comprehensively explained in my
writings, and so the Registrar merely rubberstamped its decision. No reason of judgment given.
As such, a total failure of any FAIR and PROPER hearing that is constitutionally required.
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give
good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the
conspiracy.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE In the Marriage of P.N. and J.S. Axtell 7 FLR 931

The test of judicial bias as laid down by the high court is whether it has been established that it might
reasonably be suspected by a fair minded person that the judge might not resolve the question before him
with a fair and unprejudiced mind
END QUOTE
QUOTE
An appellated court has to consider whether on a reading of a transcript it should conclude that a fair
minded person would consider that the husband did not have a fair hearing and that the issues raised by his
case were not fairly considered.
END QUOTE
Clearly no appellated court could consider what transpired before the Infringement Court unless
computers have been provided with the ability to speak out and have recorded what it was stating
about the evidence before the court and upon what consideration the evidence of one party
should be held more reliable than that of the other party.
As such I view that the Infringement Registrar purporting to have acted as a court has in fact
committed serious crimes against the constitution.
It is no use to try to claim that the Infringement Registrar relied upon the Infringement act 2006,
this as in 2011 I then already informed the Infringement registrar that I opposed the validity of
the Infringement Act 2006 and so the Infringement Court.
Lets look at the absurdity of the purported order:
40
The ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICE states for example:

UNPAID INFRINGEMENT PENALTY
AND PRESCRIBED COSTS
45
50
55
60
INFRINGEMENT PENALTY:
PENALTY REMINDER NOTUICE COSTS:
LESS AMOUNBT PAID TO AGENCY:
$74.00
$24.00
$0.00
UNPAID AMOUNT: $98.50

LODGEMENT FEE: $53.00
ENFORCEMENT ORDER COSTS: $28.60
_______________________________________
ORDER MADE FOR
.
(AMOUNT DUE): $180.10
_______________________________________
The Infringement Penalty I view is CONTEMPT OF COURT because it seeks to punish me for
exercising my constitutional rights despite this having been upheld by the county court of
Victoria on 19 July 2006.
p7
12-10-2015
10
15
20

(Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention),
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
An Infringement Penalty without any evidence, merely an allegation by the VEC which seems to
dictate what the Infringement Registrar then has to issue as an order. This clearly defies the legal
principle for an impartial administration of justice.
It should also be noted that I challenged on 4 August 2005 for the electoral commission to use
averment and the Magistrate in the end ruled that the prosecutor would have to file and serve
all relevant material it desired to rely upon. The Prosecutor then argued that this would be
truckloads of ballot papers, etc. As the Magistrate made clear if the electoral commission desired
to rely upon evidence then it simply had no choice but to prove its case and arranged with me
how it would file and serve the material.
QUOTE Bringinshaw v Bringinshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361,362
Not inexact proof, indefinite testimony or indirect inference (By prosecution)
END QUOTE
.
25
QUOTE Re: Ratten (Vic Full Supreme Court) (1974) VR201 at 214
Fair Trial Present Evidence
END QUOTE
.
30
QUOTE The Victorian Police Guide Fifth Ed. 1969 P156 2nd last Paragraph:
Accordingly where the person does not regularly plead guilty, all the material allegations of fact and of law
are put in issue or in question
END QUOTE
.
35
40
45
Clearly not only didnt I plead guilty, as no opportunity was provided to even attend to any
open court hearing as in fact I challenged the jurisdiction of the Infringement registrar as I
view that a Registrar has no judicial powers to overrule a county court of Victoria decision and
even having purportedly done so should be charged with criminal offences including
CONTEMPT OF COURT. If a registrar shows a blatant disregard to the decision of a higher
court then how can it expect to enforce its own orders?
And as is clear from Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9 a registrars decision is always reviewable,
no time limit for this, and failing to allow for this then the Registrars decision is unconstitutional.
Yet, this precisely did the Registrar way back in 2011. As such it is not just a once of that the
Registrar has violated my constitutional rights but has persisted to do so.
Moreover, seeks to punish me for merely standing up for my constitutional rights by including a
PENALTY REMINDER NOTICE COST as if my right to persist upon my constitutional
rights now is punishable, despite a 19 July 2006 County court of Victoria decision to uphold both
appeals where I pursued my constitutional rights of not being compelled to vote in an election!
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation, which
would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125:
50
55
The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. Kansas 230 F 2nd
486, 489:
For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no sanction or penalty imposed
on one because of this Constitutional right. Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:
If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the case must be
dismissed. Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42. The Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a
Reasonable Doubt.
p8
12-10-2015
9
Lack of Federal Jurisdiction can not be waived or overcome by agreement of parties. Griffin v. Matthews,
310 F supra 341, 342 (1969): and Want of Jurisdictionmay not be cured by consent of parties. Industrial
Addition Association v. C.I.R., 323 US 310, 313.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)
QUOTE CCH 92-217 page 78485 (1991)
The Court could not make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties
consent to it..
END QUOTE
.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/9.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="otherwise%20fell%20outside%20its%2
0jurisdiction%20"
Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)
QUOTE
The Full Court on appeal from Maxwell J. held that the review of the Deputy Registrar's decision was
confined to an inquiry whether the parties did in fact consent to the terms of the order and whether the terms
agreed upon were in a form appropriate to the type of order sought and were enforceable. But the order made
by the Deputy Registrar must have been made pursuant to s.79 - the section which confers power upon the
Court to order a settlement of or an alteration in the property interests of the parties. The Court could not
make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties consented to it
and it follows, a fortiori, that a Registrar, exercising a delegated power, could not do so. Thus, for instance,
under s.80(1)(j) of the Act the Court may make an order by consent, but only in exercising its powers under
Pt VIII. Section 37A(1)(g) allows the delegation to the Registrar of the power to make an order by consent,
but only where it is a power of the Court. And O.36A, r.2(1)(n) delegates to the Registrar the power referred
to in s.37A(1)(g).
END QUOTE
I clearly didnt consent to any hearing by the purported Infringement Court and as such the
registrar never had nor invoked jurisdiction. This means the purported orders are I view a
criminal offence of a form of terrorism upon me.
Moreover, neither the constitution nor legislation were ever specifically enacted to serve just my
person, and that means that the Infringement Registrar having in 2011 been made aware that I
challenged the validity of the Infringement Act 2006 and the Infringement Court then all and any
decision made since then were I view in blatant disregard to what is constitutionally and
otherwise legally appropriate. Where I succeeded in that compulsory voting is unconstitutional
then the same applies for everyone else in the commonwealth of Australia. It means that every
alleged order upon anyone else for FAILING TO VOTE is a blatant disregard for proper
compliance with the legalities as applicable.
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
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
55
60
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
The absurdity of an ENFORCEMENT ORDER COSTS is that this is yet another

unconstitutional charge because it seeks to relate to enforcing what? If there had been a prior
order that was to be enforced than that is one thing, but to charge for ENFORCEMENT of an
p9
12-10-2015
10
Infringement Notice is like to accept that the Infringement Notice itself is a court order, this
even so it is not at all and is no more but an accusation by a so called enforcement agency. As
such, is it now that the enforcement agency is deemed to be judge and jury and executor?
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
QUOTE
As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his
clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he
honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is
paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or
his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is
the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly
conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support
it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client
discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the
specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
END QUOTE
Did the VEC reveal to the Infringement Registrar that I had objected to matters such as
jurisdiction, etc?
And as for the LODGEMENT FEE is this the cost of electronically transferring an allegation to
the so called Infringement Court?
I am well aware there are people who have mental deficiencies but surely someone in the
Parliament ought to have been with enough brains to work this out to be unconstitutional. Or are
all those with law degrees in the parliament so incompetent to understand what the constitution
stands for?
Then kick them out.
Then again, considering how I view Daniel Andrews fraudulently conducted the election and so
to say stole the Premiership and so also the government then little is a surprise to me. After all as
I understood it his claim that the contract of the east-West road link wasnt worth the paper it
was written upon, somehow nevertheless cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE
.
50
And as I indicated in my writings the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is not a valid
constitution. As such if the State government desires to litigate against me well we see the out
some. The Court may have to determine if there was actually a valid election in the first place or
that the VEC acted incompetent not to stop the fraud/deception perpetrated upon the electors.
.
55
And as I indicated in past writings to the VEC and to Daniel Andrews and others the State
Government is unconstitutionally allowing councils to charge a land tax (called rates) in addition
to charging for garbage collection, etc, and yet the Infringement Court doesnt Allow me to
litigate as to institute legal proceedings because it is a Government Infringement Court that can
in my view be compared to the STAR CHAMBER COURT/KANGAROO COURT system.
p10
12-10-2015
11
QUOTE 20150903=23-32-vec-AILEEN DUKE Automatic reply
Email received
From
Aileen Duke
To
admin@inspector-rikati.com
Date
2015-09-03 23:32
Your email has been received and will be followed up as soon as possible.
5
Yours sincerely
Complaints Manager
10
vec.vic.gov.au
facebook.com/electionsvic
twitter.com/electionsvic
The VEC acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land.
15
20
25
______________________________________________________________________
The content of this email and any attachments may be private and confidential, intended only for use of the
individual or entity named. Information in it may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it
has been sent. If you have reason to believe that you are not the intended recipient of this communication,
please contact the sender immediately.
The VEC respects the privacy of individuals. For a copy of our privacy policy, please go to our website
(www.vec.vic.gov.au) or contact us.
Please consider the environment before printing your emails and attachments.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
____________________________________________________________________
END QUOTE 20150903=23-32-vec-AILEEN DUKE Automatic reply

QUOTE 20150904=01-05-vec-AILEEN DUKE Automatic reply
Email received
From
Aileen Duke
To
admin@inspector-rikati.com
Date
2015-09-04 01:05
Your email has been received and will be followed up as soon as possible.
30
Yours sincerely
Complaints Manager
35
vec.vic.gov.au
facebook.com/electionsvic
twitter.com/electionsvic
The VEC acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land.
40
45
50
______________________________________________________________________
The content of this email and any attachments may be private and confidential, intended only for use of the
individual or entity named. Information in it may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it
has been sent. If you have reason to believe that you are not the intended recipient of this communication,
please contact the sender immediately.
The VEC respects the privacy of individuals. For a copy of our privacy policy, please go to our website
(www.vec.vic.gov.au) or contact us.
Please consider the environment before printing your emails and attachments.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
____________________________________________________________________
END QUOTE 20150904=01-05-vec-AILEEN DUKE Automatic reply
Well, forget about getting any further responses, as the wording Your email has been received and
will be followed up as soon as possible. Will never result to an appropriate response.
.
p11
12-10-2015
12
Likewise correspondences that were forwarded to Mr Daniel Andrews, such as but limited to:
20150610-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier Daniel Andrews COMPLAINT re VEC, etc
10
CONTEMPT OF COURT by the VEC to seek to enforce unconstitutionally compulsory voting

in violation of the courts decision.
The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/268259540/20150610-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-PremierDaniel-Andrews-COMPLAINT-Re-VEC-Etc
20150714-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andrews & VEC-Re
COMPLAINT-Electoral matters& judicial issues-etc
15
The unconstitutional Infringement Notice system to undermine and circumvent judicial

determinations.
20
The document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/271549748/20150714-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Premier-ofVictoria-Mr-Daniel-Andrews-VEC-Re-COMPLAINT-Electoral-Matters-Judicial-Issues-etc
25
QUOTE 20150714-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andrews & VEC-Re
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria
10-6-2015
daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc:
30
michelle.ainsworth@news.com.au
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Ref;
35
40
45
50
55
20150610-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier Daniel Andrews COMPLAINT re VEC, etc
Daniel,
this is a formal complaint against the VEC as to its conduct I view of terrorism and
extortion despite of my writings of 12-3-2015 (quoted below)
I do not accept the authority of the VEC to so to say overrule a County Court of Victoria
judgment and I view the conduct of G Fraser for the VEC (Who issued the purported 1-5-2015
Infringement Notice 3589969) is nothing less than CONTEMPT OF COURT.
I didnt provide any explain merely explained that it was CONTEMPT OF COURT for the
VEC to seek to undermine the rights and benefits I obtained in the County Court of Victoria as to
my right to vote or not to vote as I desire. As below is set out the than Attorney-General Robert
Hulls stated that the State of Victoria would abide by the court decision!
G Fraser (VEC) or for that anyone else has no legal authority to undermine the County Court of
Victoria decision to uphold my constitutional objections in both appeals that compulsory voting
is unconstitutional. I do not need to select to have the matter heard before a magistrate or other
court because the courts decision of 19 July 2006 cannot be re-visited because as the High Court
of Australia made clear in HCA 27 of 1999 Wakim that parties involved in a constitutional
matter are bound by the courts decision and cannot re-visit the same again.
As such there is NO CASED TO ANSWER and neither has the Magistrates Court of Victoria
nor the Infringement Court or for that the County Court of Victoria any judicial powers to seek to
undermine my legal rights obtained by the County Court of Victoria 19-7-2006 decision. As such
I object to the jurisdiction of any court to seek to re-litigate the constitutional issues that were
decided in my favour on 19-7-2006, to which the State of Victoria (so the Victorian Electoral
Commission) is bound by.
I request a full and independent investigation as to why the Victorian Electoral Commission
pursues this kind of terrorism/extortion to try to force me to pay monies, contrary to my rights?
p12
12-10-2015
10
13
Do keep in mind that to litigate against me may mean other electors may also become aware of
the County Court of Victoria 19-7-2006 ruling and then well electors may in droves decide to
exercise their constitutional rights not to vote either if they do not hold a suitable candidate is
standing to vote for.
As my 12-50-2015 correspondence was a COMPLAINT and not to pursue to provide some
excuse then it questions why G Fraser (for the V EC) instead has dealt with it as some excuse
and the VEC clearly failed to deal with the matter as a COMPLAINT, hence I view it no
longer should be permitted to investigate matters of COMPLAINTS internally (in house) because
clearly it is a scam and not properly considered and dealt with. One has to ask; How often the
VEC railroads complaints in this manner?
END QUOTE 20150714-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andrews & VEC-Re
And
15
20
25
QUOTE 20150714-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andrews & VEC-Re
I take it very serious that as I view it the VEC is using terrorism and extortion to seek to
undermine my rights. Lets be clear about it, I challenged the validity of compulsory voting and
the County Court of Victoria in both cases upheld my constitutional based objections. The State
of Victoria or for that any other Electoral Commission cannot go behind this decision of the
County Court of Victoria. It should also be understood that where the State of Victoria were to
litigate against me then those involved could face CONTEMPT OF COURT proceedings
against them because it is a mere matter of fact that even an Attorney General (in the USA) was
held to be in CONTEMPT OF COURT when blatantly violating the rights of a successful
party.
Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)-ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CONTEMPT
QUOTE
While there is no rule permitting a person to disobey a statute with impunity at least once for the purpose of
testing its validity, where such validity can only be determined by judicial investigation and construction, a
30
provision in the statute which imposes such severe penalties for disobedience of its provisions as to
intimidate the parties affected thereby from resorting to the courts to test its validity practically prohibits
those parties from seeking such judicial construction, and denies them the equal protection of the law.
The attempt of a State officer to enforce an unconstitutional statute is a proceeding without authority of, and
does not affect, the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity, and is an illegal act, and the officer is
35
stripped of his official character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
The State has no power to impart to its officer immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the
United States.
40
END QUOTE 20150714-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andrews & VEC-Re
There can be no doubt that I made my objections known and requested an investigation but this
clearly was denied.
45
Hence those who are involved in this elaborate scam to terrorise electors and using this
unconstitutional Infringement Act 2006 for it should in my view be thrown into prison!
p13
12-10-2015
14
.
It is to undermine our democratic rights of proper governance.

5
I wrote ample to Premier Daniel Andrews, the VEC and others but they simply couldnt give a
darn because they seem to hold they can hide behind their positions and let the taxpayers fund
litigation. Well I got news for them all!
.
10
15

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
.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Any conduct by the purported Infringement Court and/or others including the Government and/or
the VEC to persist in this line of conduct to deny me the rights obtained by my successful
appeals and to undermine and/or otherwise interfere/violate with my constitutional rights will be
resisted, this including anyone who seeks to act for and/or on behalf of the aforementioned.
In view of the above stated and the content of other writings, such as some referred to above, I
request you withdraw this purported ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICE as well as any
ENFORCEMENT ORDER! I do not accept it has any legal validity and again refer also to
Wakim referred to above.
It should be understood that Premier Daniel Andrews for some years was made well aware by me
that I challenged the validity of the Infringement Act 2006 as well as that of the Infringement
Court, but it appears to me he couldnt care less because the system is set yup to ignore such
legal challenges. And he is supposed to be a leader? In the end it doesnt alter the fact that I made
my numerous objections and hence it remains ULTRA VIRES where the courts have not
pronounced against it to be INTRA VIRES!
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice nor to
refer to all issues/details.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
55
(
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit
p14
12-10-2015

20151012-g. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Infringement Court Registrar Re Case 1564277756-Vec, 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

20151012-g. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Infringement Court Registrar Re Case 1564277756-Vec, Etc

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA

Cc; Victorian Electoral Commissioner Email: complaints@vec.vic.gov.au

CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC

QUOTE In the marriage of Smith v Saywell (1980) Fam LR 6 245 at 258

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Again; , either expressed or implied.

Suggest procedural steps that may be taken by a party;

The LexisNexis commentary14 provides:

and Chang (1999) 25 Fam LR 558; FLC 92-859 (FC).

And lets also consider the following:

QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780

QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780

QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

QUOTE In the Marriage of P.N. and J.S. Axtell 7 FLR 931

The ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICE states for example:

UNPAID AMOUNT: $98.50

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

The absurdity of an ENFORCEMENT ORDER COSTS is that this is yet another

The VEC acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land.

END QUOTE 20150903=23-32-vec-AILEEN DUKE Automatic reply

The VEC acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land.

END QUOTE 20150904=01-05-vec-AILEEN DUKE Automatic reply

CONTEMPT OF COURT by the VEC to seek to enforce unconstitutionally compulsory voting

The unconstitutional Infringement Notice system to undermine and circumvent judicial

The document can be downloaded from:

20150610-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier Daniel Andrews COMPLAINT re VEC, etc

It is to undermine our democratic rights of proper governance.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

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

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi