110223-victorian police--obl 1106575301

7/30/2019 110223-Victorian Police--obl 1106575301

1/13

WITHOUT PREJUDICEVictorian Police 23-2-2011Victoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA

C/o [email protected]

Cc; Civic Compliance Victoria

GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001

Ethical Standards Department

Victoria Police UnitVictoria Police Centre, 737 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3005

Phone 1300 363 101, Facsimile 9247 3498 Ref: Obligation Number 1106575301Sir/Madam,

It may not been known to you but in recent State elections I was a candidatepromoting very much the (federal) constitution because this is the basis of all Australian law.After all it is within s.106 of this constitution that the States are created out of the colonies..

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I consider it essential that we do adhere to the constitution andso its true meaning and application as to do otherwise would invite dictatorship, tyranny andanarchy and surely the Victorian Police would not want to promote this?.

Within the constitution we have the embedded legal principle of CIVIL RIGHTS and as the

Victorian Police is noted on the Infringement Notice to The Operator (0201683566) thenobviously you refer to the Operator of the vehicle concerned and not to the owner. I admit Inever had any formal education in the English language and neither was English my nativelanguage but to me the term Operator is the person that actually controls the vehicle where asthe owner may be a person who may not even drive any motor vehicle at all but has others doingso. So, the issue is if you forwarded the Notice to the Operator or not. Obviously the issue thenis who is the person (Operator) referred to. Well It refers to SCHOREL-HLAVKAGERRIT H I am not aware such a person exist by such a name. I am Gerrit HendrikSchorel-Hlavka and within my CIVIL RIGHTS I am entitled to have people using mycorrect name and as such if you are referring to some fictional upper case name then have yourlitigation against a fictional person but if you do mean to refer to me then kindly refrain frominterfering with my CIVIL RIGHTS as to the usage of my surname. As the Infringement

Notice does indicate that under the Crimes Act 1958 (which carries a maximum term ofimprisonment of 10 years) to provide false or misleading information then whomever concoctedmy surname in all upper case letters clearly gave misleading information!The legal doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur action (You cannot come to court with dirtyhands) denies any remedy to a litigant (including a prosecutor or defendant) who does not cometo court with clean hands. As such the Victorian Police cannot go to court to pursue properenforcement of law against me when it violates my CIVIL RIGHTS to be referred to as Ihave my name and that is Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka. After all unless and until the

police does appropriately refer to my name it has no position to go to court in that regard because

p1 23-2-2011INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVDISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax

0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail [email protected] See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


2/13

it would indicate to the court it TAKE THE LAW INTO ITS OWN HANDS and so has noposition then to seek the court to enforce the rule of law..

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I also am well aware that the Framers of the Constitutionspecifically devised a democratic system based upon the Magna Carta and other provisions!.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50QUOTE

Constitutional interpretationThe starting point for a principled interpretation ofthe Constitution is the search for the intention of itsmakers[51].

END QUOTE.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the

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

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

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

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

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

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

END QUOTE.


QUOTEMr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten ,

END QUOTE.


QUOTEMr. DEAKIN.-What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-theliberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter ofliberty 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

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

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to

claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.END QUOTE.

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

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


QUOTE




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50mailto:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


3/13

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

END QUOTE.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power?

Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly

any law the citizen has his right.END QUOTE.


QUOTE

Mr. OCONNOR(New South Wales).-I have mentioned before the reasons, and they appear to me to bevery strong, why these words should be retained. The honorable member will not deny that there shouldbe a guarantee in the Constitution that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property

without due process of law. The simple object of this proposal is to insure that no state shall violate what isone of the first principles ofcitizenship.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. OCONNOR.-With reference to the meaning of the term due process of law, there is in Baker'sAnnotated Notes on the Constitution of the United States, page 215, this statement-

Due process of law does not imply that all trials in the state courts affecting the property of persons must beby jury. The requirement is met if the trial be in accordance with the settled course of judicial proceedings,and this is regulated by the law of the state.

If the state law provides that there shall be a due hearing given to the rights of the parties-

Mr. BARTON.-And a judicial determination.

Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, and a judicial determination-that is all that is necessary.END QUOTE.


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. SOLOMON.-Most of us, when we were candidates for election to the Federal Convention, placed great stress upon it

as affording a means of bringing justice within easy reach of the poor man.

END QUOTE.

As you may be aware the State of Victoria has abolished unsworn statements and as such wecannot have that some alleged speed detection device gives evidence as to an alleged offence

because it must be sworn in or give an affirmation that it will tell the truth the whole truth andnothing but the truth (well to that nature) and I must be able to cross-examine the speed camera ifit took the alleged picture of me when it really was aware of the true facts. After all, we haverecords showing that many motorists were wrongly booked for speeding when it was discoveredthat someone had wrongly set the camera. Well, it is for this essential that the speed detectiondevice, being called speed camera or whatever is cross-examined as to give evidence in whatcircumstances it allegedly took a photograph of my vehicle, not that I concede it did!).




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/mailto:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


4/13

After all, anyone could have tampered with the speed camera unbeknown to the persons whoordinary deal with the camera and so we need to elicit from the camera itself if it was violated ornot. We cannot have that we assume that no one interfered with the camera!Also, it is well known that the police when apprehending an alleged law breaker has the right todetermine if it will or will not issue an infringement notice. Obviously it is important that I crossexamine the speed detection unit (speed camera) if it did apply this kind of reasoning and if notwhy not as we cannot have different kind of standards applied. Fancy a police officer accepting Ihad a valid excuse (not that I concede or imply I was exceeding any speed limits) to speed andthe camera denies me the same courtesy. We would have then two different kinds of standards oflaw enforcement and that in my view would be highly inappropriate.So, I will have to question the speed camera (Ok by now you know I am referring to some speeddetection device) as to the weather conditions, the possibility of being side tracked to othermatters that could have caused a misinterpretation of details. After all we do have speed cameraswho recorded trees to be speeding at 78 kilometres or more even so neither the tree or the camerawas moving and we wouldnt want to have this kind of error causing an injustice, would we? So,I better cross-examine the speed camera as to if it has such kind of malfunction. We all arefamiliar with computers and the blue screen a computer at times causes to provide and socomputers are vulnerable to all kind of problems and I am well entitled to verify with the speed

camera, and obviously under oath or affirmation, that the various elements didnt interfere withits operation. Obviously it would be beyond the knowledge of someone else to give suchevidence because that is like me trying to give evidence how you feel and say the migraine youmay already have developed just reading this correspondence and you still havent come to theend of it..


QUOTEMr. KINGSTON.-How would you define the word "citizen"?Mr. SYMON.-I do not think that it is necessary to frame a definition of "citizen." A citizen is one whois entitled to the immunities of citizenship. In short, a citizen is a citizen. I do not think you require a

definition, of "citizen" any more than you require a definition of "man" or "subject."

Mr. ISAACS.-Would you include a corporation in the term "citizen"?Mr. SYMON.-Why not?Mr. ISAACS.-Well, in America they do not.Mr. SYMON.-I do not see why a corporation existing in one colony should not have the rights of acorporation in another colony. Otherwise you defeat the objects of this Constitution.[start page 1783]Mr. ISAACS.-I agree that that ought to be so, but the word "citizen" will not include a corporation .Mr. SYMON.-Well, in my opinion it should. I

END QUOTE.


QUOTEMr. KINGSTON.-How would you define the word "citizen"?Mr. SYMON.-I do not think that it is necessary to frame a definition of "citizen." A citizen is one whois entitled to the immunities of citizenship. In short, a citizen is a citizen. I do not think you require a

definition, of "citizen" any more than you require a definition of "man" or "subject."

Mr. ISAACS.-Would you include a corporation in the term "citizen"?Mr. SYMON.-Why not?Mr. ISAACS.-Well, in America they do not.Mr. SYMON.-I do not see why a corporation existing in one colony should not have the rights of acorporation in another colony. Otherwise you defeat the objects of this Constitution.[start page 1783]Mr. ISAACS.-I agree that that ought to be so, but the word "citizen" will not include a corporation .Mr. SYMON.-Well, in my opinion it should. I

END QUOTE.




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5


5/13

In Macleod Lord Halsbury L.C. quoted (at p 458) the remarks of Parke B. in Jefferys v. Boosey (at p 926 of HLC (p725 of ER)):QUOTE

(T)he Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects, that is, persons natural-bornsubjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the Kingdom.

END QUOTE.

It is important to be aware if the speed camera would be a person as if the speed cameraprovided false and/or misleading evidence could it be prosecuted for perjury or conspiracy to

conspire where it works in tandem with another speed camera? After all we found many HumeHighway infringement notices to be defective as one of the cameras was wrongly set and so was

bearing false evidence..

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

In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give goodcause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.

END QUOTE.

As such, we need to establish if the camera is accountable under provisions of law to anyfalse/misleading evidence it may have provided because if you do not apply the same sanctions

to a camera whos evidence is relied upon then you are preventing a fair and proper trial toeventuate..

All persons giving evidence must be bound by the same laws and legal consequences..

If a person is going to go up in the witness box to give evidence about the speed camera then thiswere to admit the speed camera cannot be cross examined and for this cannot be construed to bea credibly witness. Indeed it would fails the first principle of law that it is not a person that can

be accepted to give unbias evidence because it would be subject to any person who may wronglyset the camera..

I am also a bit surprised that the Infringement Notice states that I can obtain a image at a

payment of $7.50 as I understood that in law no witness can charge for giving evidence as to thefact but may claim to the court for expenditure to attend, etc. So, I will look forwards for thespeed camera to make its own application to the court for cost it incurred. If the camera cannot

produce its own images but this is to be done by some other computer system then oh boy nowwe get it the camera isnt bearing witness at all because it has no control over who print animage. So, we now have perhaps some other computer system coming to court to give evidenceas to that the particular image is that as provided by the speed camera. More evidence and I thenhave to cross examine the computer as to how did it know it didnt misinterpret any transfer of

bytes (that is how ordinary computer language is used) or other computer related programs. Wecannot merely assume that this doesnt occur because again the darn blue screen on computersare evident it can happen to anyone. And we can hardly have a police officer giving evidence thisdidnt eventuate because how would a police officer know that the bytes of one computer wasntmisinterpreted by another computer program and by this incorrectly printed out an image?.

I had this incident, way back in 1996, when I purchased an old computer and discovered therewas such things as hidden files on it. Ok, not then knowing what it stood for I assumedsomething secret and here I was with one of my sons printing it all out. Boy, did the printer havea job. In the end we couldnt find anything secret in it and so deleted the lot. Ok, now wediscovered the darn computer no longer wanted to work with certain programs and having the

print out I had to recreate the hidden files and well after weeks of slogging it out we finallywere able to get it going , hidden files and all. I learned from this that no matter if you know




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5


6/13

nothing about computers it was obvious that I (and not to forget my son) was able to recreatecomputer files. So, it is then obvious that I desire to cross-examine the relevant computer if it hadany kind of tampering/replacement of its files that may have affected its print out?.

Also, why on earth should I have to pay $7.50 for a print out that besides not reliable is allegedlyevidence against me? Surely if the speed camera is alleging I was speeding (not that I concede Iwas in breach of any laws and neither that I was the person referred to in upper case letters) thenit must provide the evidence free of charge. As any accused is entitled to be made aware of what

purported evidence is used against him/her..

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (The Constitution)

QUOTEPart VPowers of the Parliament

51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [seeNotes 10 and 11]The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power tomake laws for the peace, order, and good government of theCommonwealth with respect to:

END QUOTE.

QUOTE(xv) weights and measures;

END QUOTE.

Oops, I will have to cross-examine the speed camera and the computer if they both were actuallyapproved within the legal provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia as to measuring, etc..


QUOTEMr. 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.

END QUOTE.

Therefore, unless the equipment used was confirming with and approved under federal laws thenthe alleged speed infringement notice is of no value for this also..

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

(The Constitution)

QUOTEPart VPowers of the Parliament

51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [seeNotes 10 and 11]The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power tomake laws for the peace, order, and good government of theCommonwealth with respect to:

END QUOTE.

QUOTE(xii) currency, coinage, and legal tender;

END QUOTE.

QUOTE115 States not to coin money

A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold andsilver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.

END QUOTE.




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5


7/13

This means that the offer of paying by Infringement Penalty Payment Method obviously isneither constitutionally valid because it fails to comply with constitutional provisions.Look, the Victorian Police as a law enforcement agency obviously must itself comply with theRULE OF LAW and not disregard the proper application of constitutional meanings and

provisions (embedded legal principles or otherwise) and so we better make sure that theVictorian Police itself follows proper legal procedures as permissible under the (federal)constitution! Obviously, we have also the issue of the Imperial Act Interpretation Act 1980 (Vic)which makes clear that no fines can be issued before conviction.Moment, are you claiming that some court convicted me without judicial determination andwithout having heard first both parties?I like to have a print out of the evidence given under oath or under affirmation by the relevantspeed camera and any computer used to produce the said image, if that was at all printed out atthe time for the purported court hearing. So, I better get the full transcript of the entire hearingso I can establish what the legal process, if any, was and how it followed constitutional legal

principles, etc..

I am concerned as to the demand of payment BEFORE CONVICTION BY A COURT OFLAW and the inclusion of FURTHER COSTS WILL BE INCUIRRED IF NO ACTION ISTAKEN BY THE DUE DATE because it is basically an act of terrorism to induce/cause a

person to pay up in disregard to his/her constitutional rights. Surely this kind of what I perceiveto be BLACKMAIL to extort monies from a citizen without DUE PROCESS OF LAW of aJUDICIAL DECISION after hearing both parties cannot be sanctioned and neither should theVictorian Police as a law enforcement agency get involved with such a practice of sheerterrorism because it then has no credibility as a law enforcement agency..

In case you now may start to claim that those laws were enacted by the Victorian parliament thenI got news for you. On 19 July 2006, after a 5-year epic legal battle I comprehensively defeatedthe Commonwealth on FAILING TO VOTE as to show to the County court of Victoria thenregardless of whatever the Commonwealth Parliament may have legislated the Framers of theConstitution refused to give the Commonwealth powers to make registration and voting

compulsory. So, the existence of legislation itself doesnt mean anything as if it is beyondconstitutional powers it is a nullity.Ok, this is about speeding and not about FAILING TO VOTE but if you carefully check the 50odd submissions I placed before the Court and of which none were challenged by theCommonwealth and/or any of the State Attorney-Generals, even so they were all provided withcopies of my NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS then you find that I actuallychallenged the validity of any lawyer, judge, police officer, parliamentarian, etc, to be validlyappointed. You see all those appointments rest with any or all of them having a nationality ofAustralian Citizenship and the problem is that constitutionally no such nationality exists!While the 1988 Royal Commission assumes that the Commonwealth could legislate as to anationality of Australian citizenship the truth is that the constitution doesnt provide for anyamendment to the (federal) constitution but by way of s.128 referendum. As such if you aregoing to claim that the 1988 Royal Commission can assume about australian citizenship as anationality then I will assume all speed cameras are my person property and I cannot beforced to give evidence against myself..

It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; Britishsubject, to make persons subjects of the British Empire., with the consent of theImperial authority, What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. Thatis to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the

dual citizenship., we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. We have a High Court of




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5


8/13

Australia that appears to me being political motivated to try to alter the Constitution by stealth inthe Sue v Hillcase by endorsing a substitute Constitution! The question is if the judges of theHigh Court of Australia committed TREASON?.


QUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under theoperation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a

citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of astate to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dualcitizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There maybe two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a

citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual

citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen

of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and thosewho say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do notexpect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, indealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of thisCommonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision andclearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to

place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, theright of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such athing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than 1,000 a year should

be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest thisConstitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a

citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or

restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to

disabilities, as aliens, and so on.

END QUOTE.

Ok, now that we are onto amending the constitution, and again I am aCONSTITUTIONALIST, then lets have a look as the Victorian Constitution. Did you knowthat no State constitution can be amended but by a proposal by the State Parliament to the Stateelectors by way of State Referendum to amend the State Constitution?.


QUOTEMr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to thepeople 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.HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter ofthe Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but underit; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-

the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the

Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution ofthis kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions , then by slow

degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5


9/13

guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, thecourt you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal aswill preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of

constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphereof the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE.


QUOTE

Dr. COCKBURN:All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentarysovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throwparliamentary 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, theparliaments 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 dispensedwith, 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

.Hansard 15-9-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to refutation if I amwrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but, indisputably, the great bulk of them, aresubjects on which no question of state rights and state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is,as the right hon. gentleman admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be leftfor all time to be determined in a purely states house, or by a state referendum, when those questions are notstate questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on national lines, and by a nationalreferendum.

END QUOTE.

If therefore the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975, etc, was not approved by a Statereferendum then it has no constitutional validity at all. It means that then neither any purportedlegislation enacted within this purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 has any validity.It also means that it is so to say up the creek as to who is validly appointed to be legal

practitioners and indeed lawyers, judges, police officers, etc.Further, within our constitutional context all and any legislation must be enacted within the

provisions of the Crown. That is what a constitutional parliament only can do. It has no powersto do otherwise. It also means that any charges are to be made in the name of the Crown. NoState has the constitutional powers (see above) to twist or infringe upon the true meaning of theconstitution and as such unless any claims are made in the name of the Crown it holds no legal

basis.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (The Constitution)QUOTE117 Rights of residents in States

A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subjectin any other State to any disability or discrimination which wouldnot be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queenresident in such other State.

END QUOTE

This means that where the Infringement Notice claims that I have Demerit Points: 1 thenunless this is applicable as such to every other citizen in the Commonwealth of Australia whoallegedly committed the same offence (again not that I admit to such an offence having




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5


10/13

eventuated) then this too is unconstitutional. After all each state has its own point system and bythis the application of a demerit point to a Victorian driver is not applied likewise to certainInterstate drivers and as such by this is unconstitutional. And, again such a fine, as it is

perceived to be a penalty, cannot be applied unless there was a judicial determination afterboth parties were given the opportunity to present their respective cases..

I then wonder why the Infringement Notice refers under 3 refers to Have the matter heard anddetermined in Court as this implies to me the Victorian Police so to say is operating some kind

of shonky business of an extortion racket to terrorist motorist/owners of motor vehicles, etc, as topay up on an alleged fine without any judicial decision and so without DUE PROCESS OFLAW! Fancy this to be called LAW ENFORCEMENT!.

Hansard 17-9-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEThe Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER (South Australia)[4.10]: I have none of the fears of my colleague, who has just

resumed his seat. The safety-valves he spoke about are created in the governments which we know asconstitutional governments by providing judicious checks on hasty legislation. My hon. friend has just

been arguing that these most necessary and legitimate checks are in themselves dangerous to society,

likely to produce rebellion, and to land us in civil war.

END QUOTE.

You may find plenty of lawyers in any Parliament but none are CONSTITUTIONALIST as Iam but they might also be plenty of rock stars, sport stars, etc, and none of them having a cluewhat is constitutionally appropriate, applicable and permissible. And I recognise the VictorianPolice may continue this charade against me in the courts and then faced I will OBJECT TOTHE JUSRISIDICTION OF THE COURT because of what is stated above as well as uponwhat was before the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 and so the Court cannot proceedagainst me but in the alternative I also am aware the Victorian Police can instead apologise forwriting my name incorrectly, making unsupported allegations against me and withdrawing its

purported Infringement Notice 1106575301unconstitutionally and will not pursue the matter everagain against me because failing this I can assure you I will defend my constitutional rights and

the Victorian Police may also have to realise that it could ill afford to be comprehensivelydefeated as then all other persons may likewise rely upon this.




5

10

15

20

25

30

5


11/13

QUOTEIf You Don't Take Action

If you do not pay your fine and you ignore all reminders, the matter becomes more serious and costly. TheInfringements Court may issue an infringement warrant, giving the Sheriff power to enforce that warrant.

The measures the Sheriff can take to enforce an unpaid infringement warrant include:

theseizure and sale of your property

suspension of yourdriver licence

suspension of yourvehicle's registration

non-renewal of your vehicle's registration

wheel clamping of your vehicle

yourarrest

END QUOTE

With a RULE OF LAW to be upheld I have concerns that a so called Infringement Court isnot a court that is constitutionally valid and I urge you to avoid anyone, not just myself, to bedenied our constitutional rights and privileges. After all if the Infringement Court is not a courtthat facilitate for a proper and fair hearing and doesnt provide for a judicial determination uponhearing evidence of both parties then it is unconstitutional and lacks any enforcement powers! Asindicated above if the above purported provisions do not apply likewise to Interstate motorist,then they are unconstitutional! And, as the Victorian Parliament has no legislative powers overInterstate drivers to have their interstate drivers licence cancelled, their vehicle registration not

being renewed, their vehicle being wheel clamped in another State, their property being seized




5

10

15

20

5
http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=49&s=1&l=107-49http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=49&s=1&l=107-49http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=110&s=1&l=107-110http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=110&s=1&l=107-110http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=48&s=1&l=107-48http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=48&s=1&l=107-48http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=108&s=1&l=107-108http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=50&s=1&l=107-50http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=51&s=1&l=107-51mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=49&s=1&l=107-49http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=110&s=1&l=107-110http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=48&s=1&l=107-48http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=108&s=1&l=107-108http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=50&s=1&l=107-50http://online.fines.vic.gov.au/fines/Content.aspx?page=51&s=1&l=107-51mailto:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


12/13

and sold or hey being arrested interstate then all and any such provisions cannot be enforcedupon Victorian motorist either. This is the problem not having a CONSTITUTIONALIST as amember of parliament because rock stars may have rocks in their head but certainly are notCONSTITUTIONALIST, They can sing to the tune of the Government of the day and play tothe tune of the government policies but it still will not be constitutionally valid.The Marshal or for that any other purported law enforcement authority may in that regard be thelawbreaker! Now, is this the kind of terrorism we should be subjected to?.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE 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.

Those who are wheel clamping, etc, may just discover they are in violation of constitutionalrights of the motor vehicle owners/drivers and may just discover that they can be personally suedfor doing so. As the Neurenberg trials made clear that claiming to following orders is no excuse!

We have a constitution and we are bound to act within its provisions!.As for making an application to go to court, now isnt that darn silly? I object to the jurisdictionof the Court and as such cannot make an application that undermines my objection. If theVictorian Police pursues this matter then it must be by now aware it and it alone has to take thematter to court as the legislation cannot be constitutionally valid to place the onus upon me toapply to a court for the prosecutor to litigate against me. That is the job of a prosecutor andfailing the prosecutor to take the matter to court there is in that case neither any jurisdiction forany court under whatever name it may purport to operate to invoke jurisdiction..

The above stated must not be perceived and neither is intended to indicate that I in any wayimplied or otherwise conceded to have been in breach of law and/or that this is the totality of

what I had to state because it must be obvious that my reference to the 19 July 2006 decision ofthe County Court of Victoria regarding constitutional and other legal issues then also is nowrelied upon by me and the Victorian Attorney-General at the time, despite having been given anopportunity to dispute my submissions didnt do so and neither appealed the courts decision andas such the State of Victoria, so any law enforcement agency, is bound by it!.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL.

(Our name is our motto!).

.Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka




5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5


13/13




5

110223-victorian police--obl 1106575301

Documents