Legal Service Board Etc

Page 1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Legal Service Board 30-5-2011
C/o Varsha Patki Email: admin@lsb.vic.gov.au
Re; investigation
Sir/Madam,
I received a correspondence from John Mazaris which seems to me to be drooping about
breaches of the Legal Practitioners Act 2004, etc. regarding my 19 May 2011 correspondence to the
Legal Service Board and I understand that the issue raised by John Mazaris now will be placed
before the Supreme Court of Victoria by Mr Ray Vella of Great Body Works as being an unlawful
interference with his rights upon my assistance, and so the conduct of John Mazaris is considered
to be an obstruction to the course justice, as now being pursued against me, as he was directed to
file his objection to jurisdiction by 9 June 2011. As I understand it Mr Ray Vella of Great Body
Works will inform the Supreme Court of Victoria that I had challenged the legal validity of any
investigation and that the Law Institute of Victoria and the Legal Service Board had failed to
obtain any order of a competent court of jurisdiction to authorise an investigation.
I am not going to canvas the content of the 19 May 2011 correspondence he refers to because quite
frankly if he desires to make an utter fool of himself then so be it. Sufficient to state that the letter he
refers to in my view doesn’t indicate what he claims and again it would be in my view better he goes
back to kindergarten to learn the meaning of words, etc.
As to his comment; “It would be more appropriate for Mr Ray Vella to engage an experienced
person on this issue.” It is a meaning less statement unless he refers to it has to be a legal
practitioner. In the end my knowledge and experiences as a CONSTITUTIONALIST may just
again show that as I did with Mark Grant Fleming submission to object to jurisdiction that he lacked
understanding and competence to the relevant constitutional provisions, etc. As the objection to the
jurisdiction is also based upon constitutional issues well beyond the grasp of most lawyers then
clearly I am the most appropriate person dealing with constitutional issues. And if he desires to
challenge me on constitutional issues then we can see how competent he is in that regard.
.
Just to make clear that so to say I mean business just consider the following and then ask
yourself if your own appointments and the legislation then can be applicable. I do not think so!
QUOTE 30-5-2011 correspondence to Premier Ted Baillieu
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Ted Baillieu Premier 30-5-2011
ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au
C/o Victorian Police
Victoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA
heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au
Cc; Civic Compliance Victoria
GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com
Ethical Standards Department

Victoria Police Unit, Victoria Police Centre, 737 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3005
Phone 1300 363 101, Facsimile 9247 3498
Page 1 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting 30-5-2011
A book about Australia’s federal election issues & rights
ISBN 978-0-9751760-3-0 was ISBN 0-9751760-3-X (Book), ISBN 978-0-9751760 -4-7 was ISBN 0-9751760-4-8 (CD)
PLEASE NOTE: You may order any book issue, such as INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of
life- really? by facsimile 0011-61-3-94577209 E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Page 2
Ref: Obligation Number 1106575301
Re: COMPLAINT
Ted,
Is it too much to ask if “Law & Order” is to be applied according to law?
.
I received an infringement notice in the mail upon which I responded that if the police desired to
pursue the matter it could elect to take the matter to court. I did not receive any response to my 23
February 2011 correspondence and neither so to my 23 March 2011 correspondence as to if the
police would take the matter to court. I did receive however a new infringement notice (Which itself
is not instituting legal proceedings as such in a court of law.) claiming I had failed to respond and
now with an increased penalty and a warning that wheel clamps may be used, etc.
I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and also Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RUKATI® series
on certain constitutional and other legal issues and can assure you that as the States are created
within s106 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then this kind of government
sponsored terrorism upon me isn’t going to work.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that DUE PROCESS OF LAW is where there is a
“judicial determination” after both parties have been heard! As such, it is not relevant what
alternative legal processed the Parliament of Victoria may have provided for because no Parliament
can overrule the constitution! Now, if you got some police wanting to take the matter to court then
that is up to the police concerned but unless and until they do so I have no legal responsibilities as
the Imperial Act Interpretation Act 1980 prohibits a fine before conviction and certainly increasing
a fine before conviction.
.
While the Infringements Act 2006 legislation refers to “infringements registrar” and warrant
issue, etc, lets make it very clear I hold this kind of legislation is unconstitutional and so is and
remains ULTRA VIRES unless and until the prosecutor can obtain a ruling otherwise.
As such, if the police prosecutor cannot obtain an order to declare the legislation and/or any part
thereof to be INTRA VIRES then the legislation is not enforceable from this moment.
And this means that the Infringement Act from now on neither is enforceable to any other citizen
within the State of Victoria either. I will not make this correspondence of great length as neither is
there any need for this because the same argument was litigated by me previously extensively in the
Magistrates Court at Heidelberg on 4 December 2002 and in the end on 19 July 2006 the County
Court of Victoria upheld both my cases against the Crown!
.
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#fn50
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51].
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I allude
might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
Where the Government persist in its conduct to even deregister my vehicle and to cancel my driving
licence without due process of ;law as is guaranteed by legal principles embedded in the constitution
then I will not accept this as being valid in law because you may not like it but we do have a
constitution and I for one will consider such kind of conduct unlawful!
.

Page 3
As the High Court of Australia in HCA27 of 199 Wakim case made clear that Mr Gould could
disregard an unconstitutional court order. Likewise it is not relevant to me if officers may claim
they are acting within the provisions of the Infringement Act because as I have challenged the
validity of the act upon constitutional grounds that as the Framers of the constitution made clear then
the legislation from then on is ULTRA VIRES AB INITIO and it is for the Crown to prove
otherwise by obtaining a declaration it is INTRA VIRES.
.
Too often speed detection devises are malfunctioning, as there are ample of court decisions in regard
of this and it is not that I have the onus to prove equipment is malfunctioning but for the police to
proof it was not.
If the Government through any of its agencies or private businesses were to deregister my vehicle
and/or to cancel my driver licences then from then on never again do I need to hold a drivers licence
or to register my vehicle or for that any other vehicle because the Government will have shown that
it acted contrary to the purposes for which a person has to obtain a drivers licence (competence in
driving) and/or to register a vehicle (roadworthiness, etc) and so has defeated its own legislation by
this. A group like UPMART would more then likely welcome this because it as I understand it sells
its own number plates.
You campaigned upon “Law & Order” and now elected are bound by this and not just use it as
some gimmick.
If the police desires to pursue me for an alleged infringement then so be it as they then can take the
matter to court and face a horrendous obstacle courts in litigation as the Crown discovered in the past
of a 5 year epic litigation battle and then lost in the end. However, let no one try to act
unconstitutional because as I have now challenged the validity of the Infringement Act 2006 your
legal advisors, that is if they have had proper education in regard of constitutional matters, will make
clear that the Infringement Act 2006 from now on is no more unless a court of competent
jurisdiction can prove declare otherwise and only if the prosecutor can prove this.
.
QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,

Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
END QUOTE
QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,

No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.
Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer
no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.
END QUOTE
Act Interpretation Act 1901; (Cth) 15A Construction of Acts to be subject to Constitution
QUOTE
Every Act shall be read and construed subject to the Constitution, and so as not to exceed the legislative power
of the Commonwealth, to the intent that where any enactment thereof would, but for this section, have been
construed as being in excess of that power, it shall nevertheless be a valid enactment to the extent to which it is not
in excess of that power.
Page 4
END QUOTE
.
The High Court of Australia held that where a party pleads the non-application of a State Act
because of Commonwealth legislation then the State Court is exercising Federal jurisdiction.
(However only if the State Court can invoke jurisdiction, which VCAT cannot and neither is a
court!) Troy v Wrigglesworth (1919) 26 C.L.R. 305; 25 (1926) 38 C.L.R. 441; 33 A.L.R. 66.
.
Held by the High Court of Australia that the expression “Court or judge of a State” does not
include a Judge sitting in Chambers exercising the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Wilcox v
Donohoe, (1905) 3 C.L.R. 83; 12 A.L.R. 54.
.
Held by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland that the police magistrate exercising
Federal jurisdiction is not an officer of a Federal Court within the meaning of this paragraph
(Section 39 of the Judicial Act 1903) R. v. Archdall and Others; Ex parte Taylor, 1919 St. R. Qld
207; 13 Q.J.P.R. 22 C.L.R. 437 in which the High Court (Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy and Ricch JJ
; Griffith CJ and Barton J dissenting) held that a Judge of an inferior Court of a State invested with
and purporting to exercise Federal jurisdiction is not an officer of the Commonwealth within the
meaning of s. 75 (v) of the Constitution.
.
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
.
Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:
END QUOTE
"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to
law in a public trial at which she/he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."
END QUOTE
The legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur action” denies any remedy to a litigant (including a
prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands.
If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with “Dirty Hands” best
not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!
It seems to me wheel clamping, as I noticed on 29 May 2011 in a (private) car park on private
property may be unlawful. Did the Sheriff office then obtain permission to do so in the private car
park or merely ignored to check it out to obtain permission?
Wheel clamping I noticed was applied to cars which were unlawfully parked on nature strips and as
such what is eventuating is that the Government is using the sheriff’s office to pursue payments but
in the process flaunts the law itself as by immobilising vehicles as it prevent the vehicle being moved
to a place it can be legally allowed to park. More over when vehicles are parked in a car park then it
is taken that the vehicles are movable and do not so to say clog up car parking spaced because they
are needed for other motorist. As such, if parked cars are immobilised then the government actually
is causing traffic problems, traffic congestion and robbing traders of their business because a car
immobilised is a denial of opportunity for a trader to have a customer parking there. Indeed, when
Page 5
the immobilisation results to the vehicle to be there longer then permitted by parking regulation then
the Government itself is defeating the parking limits. We never can tolerate a situation that a motor
vehicle is immobilised and by this preventing the motorist of the vehicle to comply with legal
provisions to remove the vehicle because to have this kind of situation eventuating then the
Government is above the RULE OF LAW and hold its own financial issues above proper
application of laws. It may be that a person hires a motor vehicle and is unaware to the motor vehicle
being during that time deregistered and then the motorist of no fault of himself would be driving an
unregistered motor vehicle.
The same we have the problem that a motorist could violate laws within the State of Victoria but
then moves Interstate and then be free from any sanctions while a motorist in the same situation
residing within the State of Victoria would have wheel clamping applied. This too is unconstitutional
because any law of a State cannot be applied only to people of a certain State but must be to all
people regardless of which State they are as such even if it was held wheel clamping is lawful, not
that this is conceded, then nevertheless the wheel clamping is to be applied to any motor vehicle
regardless of which state the owner resides in an and not that a vehicle registered in another State
doesn’t attract the same penalties and deregistration, etc.
But the fact that wheel clamping (immobilisation) itself causes a vehicle to become un-roadworthy it
of concern because it also is of large banners being glued onto windows which makes by this also the
vehicle un-roadworthy.
In my view the government cannot authorise the deliberate conduct to make a vehicle that is
roadworthy to become un-roadworthy because it effectively is contrary to road legislative provision
and to do so would in effect advertise to others that they do not need to comply with having their
vehicle to be roadworthy because the government itself sells its sole for money and not concerned to
the RULE OF LAW.
.
Indeed, if it were to eventuate that a motor vehicle was immobilised and the motorist prevented to
make an emergency dash to the hospital then the government could face severe legal consequences
because Parliament may legislate as it likes but in the end legislation is only valid if it is within
constitutional boundaries and as the Framers of the constitution made clear that the embedded legal
principles were to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. 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 National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown in
prosecuting criminals are.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Page 6
Mr. 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
And;
Convention)
QUOTE
let us set our face once and for ever against the creation of anything like a military despotism.
END QUOTE
It means that being it the purported court or otherwise cannot validly endorse this kind of conduct
because it is contrary to the legislative provisions that exist otherwise and indeed would cause
confusion amongst the general population if road rules and other legislative provisions are applicable
or not. While no doubt the issue of collecting payments from repeat offenders may be an issue
nevertheless it never can be sufficient to sanction breached of constitutional embedded legal
principles and one is that one must have a “judicial determination” and after both (not just one party)
had been heard. Therefore the former PERIN COURT itself was unconstitutional and so any
replacement of it. Moreover the issue of an alleged offender having to pay $7.50 to see a photo also
is sheer and utter nonsense because the alleged offender has no such constitutional obligation as the
prosecutor has the task to prove a defendant to be guilty! As such, the prosecutor must provide, and
so well before any hearing is due, for the relevant evidence the prosecutor seeks to rely upon to be
served upon the alleged offender.
More over, the legislative provisions of replacing an original infringement notice with another one
with a higher penalty is an outlawed STAR CHAMBER COURT kind of process that has no place
within a democracy and certainly cannot be deemed with in Law & Order”.
There is no such system as to penalise a person for not responding to a infringement notice, at least
not within constitutional provisions because no fine can be permitted before conviction.
Members of Parliament are representing their electors as “agents” and not as dictators! It must
therefore be clear that the government cannot be placed above the RULE OF LAW and must
therefore be in the same capacity as any other citizen. It means that if an ordinary citizen seeks a debt
payable from the government and cannot wheel clamp the vehicles of the Government then neither
can the Government do so! If the ordinary citizen having a dispute with the government must provide
for the government to respond in the courts to defend itself then the government neither then can
create some hideous dictatorship system that motorist and often also innocent motorist can be denied
the same opportunity to defend themselves.
In my view, any increase of penalty because of non response is unconstitutional because to allow
otherwise is that we no longer have an impartial judiciary but the government and so its Department
have set themselves up as a De Facto court system.
WUCHTER v. PIZZUTTI, 276 U.S. 13 (1928) 276 U.S. 13
QUOTE
A final judgment was entered. Wuchter then appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the act under
which the process was served upon him was unconstitutional, because it deprived him of his property
without due process of law, in contravention of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal
Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
Page 7
WUCHTER v. PIZZUTTI, 276 U.S. 13 (1928) 276 U.S. 13
QUOTE
In McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U.S. 90, 91 , 37 S. Ct. 343, L. R. A. 1917F, 458, a person domiciled in Texas left the
state to make his home in another state. An action for money was begun by pub- [276 U.S. 13, 24] lication in a
newspaper after his departure, and a judgment recovered and sustained by the state Supreme Court was held void by
this court. This court said:
'The foundation of jurisdiction is physical power, although in civilized times it is not necessary to maintain that
power throughout proceedings properly begun, and although submission to the jurisdiction by appearance may
take the place of service upon the person. ... No doubt there may be some extension of the means of acquiring
jurisdiction beyond service or appearance, but the foundation should be borne in mind. Subject to its conception
of sovereignty even the common law required a judgment not to be contrary to natural justice. ... And in states
bound together by a Constitution and subject to the Fourteenth Amendment, great caution should be used not to
let fiction deny the fair play that can be secured only by a pretty close adhesion to fact.'
See, also, Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 , 20 S. Ct. 410.
END QUOTE
.
While this may be an American decision and relating to the US constitution the same can be applied
in the Commonwealth of Australia in that an Infringement Notice is not a proper service of
instituting proceedings in a court of law which is the Magistrates Court of Victoria.
.
Infringements Act 2006 Act No. 12/2006
QUOTE
3. Definitions
(1) In this Act—
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
"Court" means Magistrates' Court;
END QUOTE
An Infringement Notice can in itself not be deemed to constitute a notice as to proceedings
commenced in a magistrates Court because it may never result to any litigation in a magistrates
Court. Therefore unless and until a person has been served with a formal notice of proceedings
having been instituted in a magistrates Court no action can be taken against any citizen (Motorist or
otherwise) and hence it is not relevant if legislation purports another system of enforcement because
it would be contrary to the legal principles embedded in the constitution of having a impartial
judiciary making a judicial determination after hearing both parties. Therefore the issue of a second
Infringement Notice on me I view constitute extortion and terrorism also because it goes with a
warning also that my vehicle could be wheel-clamped and my licence be suspended and my vehicle
deregistered, etc. This is not what safety procedures permit for motorist and so a government
department or private contractors acting for it neither can then do so.
In my view any whee clamping without a proper impartial judicial determination after hearing both
parties would not only be unconstitutional but a gross denial of CIVIL RIGHTS.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is responsible
government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
END QUOTE

Page 8
And
QUOTE
Mr. 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
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive
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
I can understand the utter frustration a government may be in having repeat offenders not paying
fines, that is court imposed fines after a judicial hearing of hearing both parties, but that is a issue
that never should justify then unconstitutional conduct by a government because the moment we
permit this then every Government will use any excuse to violate constitutional rights and guarantees
for whatever they may desire to do so.
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had
one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our own
Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above
Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we
will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that
which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
.

Page 9
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. SYMON:
It cannot possibly extend the operation of our laws generally one atom further than the constitutional law
will permit.
END QUOTE
.
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
.
Again
QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN:
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.
END QUOTE
.
Which means if the Parliament can not only not amend its own constitution but can only propose an
amendment to the constitution by State referendum then it neither can interfere or overrule legal
principles embedded in the constitution. It means the Victorian constitution Act 1975 is no
constitutional at all and any purported legislation that relies upon it also so to say is down the gutter.
And this constitutional issue was also litigated before the County Court of Victoria and I may say
unchallenged and the court upheld my cases against the Crown. Meaning that before any police
office or other person gets it in his head to try to take me on in court they better consider that they
have to overcome the constitutional issues that I already succeeded upon. Failing this they have not a
hope in the world to succeed against me because unless and until, not that I concede they can, the
constitutional issues previously upheld can be defeated any attempt to litigate against me will be
fruitless and a sheer waste of taxpayers monies.
.
Governments and Government Department should realise that instead of ignoring me they did better
to consult me as a CONSTITUTIONALIST how to avoid conflict with the constitution and so the
legal principles embedded in it. Perhaps we might then also get a better brand of lawyers who will
actually know what they are talking about that is constitutionally applicable and not so to say go of
the deep end murmuring nonsense in court.
.
Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
QUOTE

Page 10
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
Well that applies to anyone who, may seek to take me on and directly or indirectly inflict harm upon
me because let it be said that I have no fear to answer any court if it is appropriately constituted and
if it is operating within the RULE OF LAW (including the constitution) but will not tolerate anyone
to disregard the benefits I have obtained from the Courts past decisions and seek to undermine or
otherwise prevent me to enjoy those benefits.
Last but certainly not least is the issue of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK) which
provides:
QUOTE
(xv) weights and measures;
END QUOTE
What this means is that since the Commonwealth commenced to legislate in this subject then the
States no longer could do so and as such any speed detection devise that was to be used by the states
must be in compliance with Commonwealth provisions and can only be used if so authorised by the
Commonwealth.
.
QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the
power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. REID:
We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points enumerated
in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two laws, one Federal
and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal criticism, because there is
no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any complication of the kind.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the commonwealth
with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this power is permissive, you
will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate on a particular question, there
will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to exercise that power. The moment the
commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.
END QUOTE

Page 11
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will be
exercised.
END QUOTE
.
The Infringement Notices constitute a commencement of a legal process regardless that it has not
been as yet instituted in a court of competence and hence what is stated above including the issue of
ULTRA VIRES is now applicable. Even a cancellation of the Infringement Notices cannot now
overcome the ULTRA VIRES issue because it applies to every person, not just to me, once it was a
claim I made. Next time so to say think twice before taking on a CONSTITUTIONALIST. 
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

.
( Our name is our motto!)
.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

END QUOTE 30-5-2011 correspondence to Premier Ted Baillieu
.
For the record the alleged breach of law was a claim of speeding 5 kilometres an hour. Well let’s see how crazy the
litigation may get eventuating from this all!
.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

( Our name is our motto!)
Awaiting your response Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka


Legal Service Board Etc

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Legal Service Board Etc

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Page 1

Ethical Standards Department

Page 2 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting 30-5-2011

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

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

See, also, Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 , 20 S. Ct. 410.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Page 7 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting 30-5-2011

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Page 8 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting 30-5-2011

QUOTE Mr. SYMON:

Page 9 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting 30-5-2011

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. REID:

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Page 10 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting 30-5-2011

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Page 11 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting 30-5-2011

S-ar putea să vă placă și