Page 1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Victorian Police 5

Chief Commissioner of Police

OBL 1106575301

29-12-2013

Victoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913 Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA C/o heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au

10

Cc: D. Napthine MP Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au Brendan Facey Director, Infringement Management & Enforcement Services (Sheriff) Brendan.Facey@justice.vic.gov.au Ian Grey Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria 233 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000, C/o help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au Dr Richard Brittain LLB, Executive Officer, Legal Metrology, National Measurement Institute, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Email: richard.brittain@measurement.gov.au M Hoyle, Quality and client support Coordinator , Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com Mr Robert Clark MP Attorney-General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au

15

20
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Email: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com

COMPLAINT Ref: Measurements-etc 25 Sir, As you may recall from my 23-2-2011 correspondence I objected to the alleged speeding claim by the Victorian Police. It should be stated that so far after nearly 3 years the Victorian Police still has not provided me with details as to the instrument it claimed was used to measure the alleged speed. No details if the camera, if that was used, was fitted onto a motor vehicle or 30 other vehicle or was mounted on a pole, etc. No information was provided to me, as to if the instrument was certified to be in accordance with the legal requirements of the National Measurement Act 1960 and so which person purportedly provided such certification/verification and to which applicable legislative provision. In Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) decision the Supreme Court 35 of Victoria held that the State parliament of Victoria validly could legislate as to speed detection equipment where the Commonwealth had not done so. Despite what Dr Richard Brittain LLB Executive Officer, Legal Metrology National Measurement Institute Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research stated in his email to me dated 18 November 2013, I do not agree with certain claims he makes. For your information I have below reproduced his email to me as I 40 view this is appropriate to do so. Indeed, I have certain serious concerns as to some of the content of the National Measurement Act 1960 (as amended) but will not at this time go into those details as I intend to follow through with the Federal Government about certain issues. Save to say that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I hold the view that no matter what the Commonwealth may or may not permit a State to do it cannot do so in violation of the constitution. Despite Agar 45 v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) I maintain that the Framers of the Constitution were very clear about matters and as an example they stated:
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Page 1 29-12-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 2 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive. END QUOTE Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.

10

Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws? Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth. END QUOTE Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the Convention to an apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not yet been made. The word "exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on the coming into being of the Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal Parliament, may mean, and I believe does mean, that the power of the state to legislate ceases. On the question of whether the exclusive power under this provision comes into being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the attention of the leader of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive power arises the moment an Act is passed. It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs duties being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph saysBut this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have been imposed by the Parliament. It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at once, and the position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this clause as it [start page 255] stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to Chinese. Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediately on the establishment of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GLYNN.-There seems to be some doubt as to whether the exclusive power arises upon the establishment of the Commonwealth or on the exercise of the power of legislation. The doubt seems to be removed by clause 84. It is said that if we put this provision in clause 52 the exclusive power may be postponed until legislation takes place. But may you not then have a concurrent power, and may not the competence of the local Legislature to legislate in the matter be continued as long as the legislation is not in contradiction of federal legislation? Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point.

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Mr. GLYNN.-Yes, and there is still a vagueness in the word "exclusive." If it is doubtful whether the exclusive power commences with the foundation of the Commonwealth, and if it is possible that it may only come into being on the passing of legislation, may it not still be said that on the passing of exclusive legislation the power of the local Parliaments to legislate is extinguished, but that on the passing of concurrent legislation that power does not cease? Page 2 29-12-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 3 Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I think that enough has now been said on this subject by honorable members both sides of the chamber, and I have only a very few remarks to offer. It appears that if the sub-section remains where it is state laws will be valid until federal legislation, but the states will not be able to alter or improve those laws during the possibly long interval between federation and federal legislation. Under these circumstances, as we leave to the states for an indefinite time the power of maintaining the laws they have, we should grant to them the power of improving those laws. It would recommend the Constitution more to a large number of persons if we put the sub-section in clause 52, thus enabling each state to legislate on this matter until the Federal Parliament comes in and legislates for all.

10 END QUOTE
.

15

Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates 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
.

20

25

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates 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
.

30

35

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates 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
.

40

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will be exercised. END QUOTE

Section 109 provides for existing State legislation that was enacted prior to the Commonwealth having commenced to legislate on a subject matter and this includes any Colonial Act that was 45 amended after federation, whereas s108 of the constitution applies to any Colonial Act in force at the time of federation but not having been amended since then but provides for the right of a State to amend such Colonial law. I am well aware that the general misconception is that s51 is concurrent powers in that both the State and the Commonwealth can legislate on the same subject matter and in any conflict then 50 s109 applies, however this is misunderstood because as the Framers of the Constitution made clear no new laws and as such the concurrent legislative powers only exist until the Commonwealth commences to exercise its legislative powers. When it does then it becomes an exclusive legislative power and the States must retire from this field/subject. No new laws must include no amendments to existing legislation that was on foot prior to the 55 Commonwealth commencing to legislate. In Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) decision the Supreme Court of Victoria THE Court completely failed to consider the above issues and as the High Court of Australia itself stated: .
Page 3 29-12-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 4 QUOTE Duncan v Queensland (1916) 22 CLR 556, 582 (per Griffith C.J.) That case (a previous decision of the High Court, Foggit, Jones & Co v NSW (1915) 21 CLR 357) was very briefly, and I regret to say, insufficiently argued and considered on the last day of the Sydney sitting..... The arguments which now commend themselves to me as conclusive did not find entrance to my mind. In my judgment that case was wrongly decided, and should be overruled. END QUOTE

Therefore the court may upon proper presentation of relevant details reconsider its position and accept that indeed Victorian legislation is unconstitutional, regardless even if the Commonwealth were to permit for State legislation, as the Commonwealth cannot overrule the constitution! 10 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it. END QUOTE

15

20

I find it regrettable that Dr Richard.Brittain LLB seems to me to lack the proper understanding of 25 the true meaning and application of the constitution, and in error goes along with this kind of charade of inappropriate usage of measurement instruments not appropriately certified/verified. As the National Measurements Act 1960 makes it an offence for usage of measurements instruments, including the supply of it, not approved appropriately I hold it important that police officers are not unwillingly left to use measurement instruments where their superiors fails to 30 protect them against this. As you may be aware the Infringement Court is part of the Magistrates Court of Victoria and the High court of Australia has already held that a Chapter III of the Constitution Court (as the Magistrates Court of Victoria is) must be an open court. The Infringement Act doesnt provide for specific details as to an accused to be notified of an hearing and so the ordinary 35 Magistrates Court Act provision must be deemed to apply. No compliance eventuated and despite the High Court of Australia ruling that a Registrars decision must be always reviewable before a judge (Harris v Caladine) as otherwise it is unconstitutional as a Registrar is not an officer of the court,
THE QUEEN v. DAVISON [1954] HCA 46; (1954) 90 CLR 353

40 QUOTE
4. It appears from the facts stated in the special case that in spite of its form, the order was made by the deputy registrar and not by the court or judge or under the actual authority of the court or judge. The circumstance that Mr. Hartstein was a deputy-registrar and not the registrar of the district is of no importance. Section 12(2) says that in each district there shall be a district registrar and such deputy registrars, official receivers and other officers as are necessary. Sub-section (6) of s. 12 says that the Attorney-General may by order direct that any specified deputy registrar shall have and exercise any or all of the powers and functions of a registrar. The Attorney-General made an order which though it did not exactly follow the words of the sub-section may be taken to have conferred on Mr. Hartstein the powers and functions of a registrar. It must not be supposed, however, that the registrar or the deputyregistrar are officers of the Federal Court of Bankruptcy or form part of the staff or organization of the court. In its first form sub-s. (5) of s. 12 did provide that the registrars and deputy registrars should be officers of the court and should have such duties as the Attorney-General directed or as were prescribed. The expression "the Court" was defined to mean any court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy or a judge thereof: s. 4. An attempt was made under s. 18 as it then stood to confer jurisdiction in bankruptcy on a number of courts of the States. In Le Mesurier v. Connor (1929) 42 CLR 481 , it was held in this Court that s. 77(iii) of the Constitution does not enable the Parliament to make a commonwealth officer a functionary of a state court and to authorize him to act on its behalf and administer Page 4 29-12-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

45

50

55

Page 5 part of its jurisdiction and that s. 51 (xxxix) does not authorize the reconstitution of a state court invested with federal jurisdiction under s. 77(iii) or of the organization through which its powers and jurisdiction are exercised. Accordingly s. 12(5) and ss. 23 and 24 as they then stood, were held ultra vires and void END QUOTE

5 Therefore all and any orders/warrants issued by the Registrar of the Infringement Court I maintain are without legal force and so ULTRA VIRES. It also means that police officers assisting the Sheriff Office to stop and retain motor vehicle drivers for purpose of those unconstitutional orders/warrants to be enforced in my view is aiding and abetting and a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, etc. 10 There are various parts commencing with section 18 of the National Measurements Act 1960 (as amended) which makes it an offence to use measuring instruments in the manner that appears to me the Victorian Police is using it. While it appears to me that the Victorian Police, the Sheriffs Office, and others may not care less as to breaches of law in the end where this matter ultimately be adjudicated upon by a true court 15 of law then no excuses can exist for the Victorian Police a, the Sheriffs Office and/or others as to that they didnt know. Indeed I have spent nearly 3 years so far to try to get some sense into everyone but it seems to me that even Dr Richard Brittain LLB is not able or willing to be open minded and consider the details I provided.
.

20 QUOTE Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278
The oath of a justice of this court is ' to do right to all manner of people according to law' Our sworn duty is to the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all. If, then, we find the law to be plainly in conflict with what we or any of our predecessors errornously thought it to be, we have, as I conceive no right to choose between giving effect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, It is not, in my opinion, better that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should be ultimately right.. Whatever else may be said with respect to previous decisions - and it is necessary here to consider the principals upon which a court should act in particular cases - so much at least emerges as is undoubtedly beyond challenge, that where a former decision is clearly wrong, and there are no circumstances countervailing the primary duty of giving effect to the law as the court finds it, the real opinion of the court should be expressed. END QUOTE And QUOTE Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278 In my opinion, where the prior decision is manifestly wrong, then, irrespective of the consequences, it is the paramount and sworn duty of this court to declare the law truly.... END QUOTE

25

30

35

As I proved in the past a police officer had tampered with the infringement notice and altered details that was placed before the court that had not been shown on the infringement notice 40 provided to the driver and as such, only a fool could accept that an court could determine the innocence or guilt of an accused without the accused having been given an opportunity to be made aware what details actually was placed before the court and given an opportunity to challenge this alleged evidence. It is what we refer to as being NATURAL JUSTICE what it is about. 45 I will now quote the email content received from Dr Brittain, Richard LLB albeit again stress that I do not and must not be seen to agree with the content thereof.
QUOTE 18-11-20913 EMAIL Dr Richard Brittain LLB On Monday, 18 November 2013 3:05 PM, "Brittain, Richard" <Richard.Brittain@measurement.gov.au>

50 wrote:
Dear Mr. Schorel-Hlavka, I refer to your e-mail of 10 November 2013 (below) and I would make the following responses to the issues you have raised: Page 5 29-12-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 6 1. Your submission is very extensive and I am unable to provide a detailed response to it. It also contains a substantive amount of material from overseas which is likely to be inapplicable and ultimately you may have misapprehended the law as it applies to this field. I would also make the following comments which I hope may help to clarify the correct legal position for you: General Comments 2. The Constitution reserves certain responsibilities to the Commonwealth whilst the residual remain the

10 responsibility of the States.

3. Under this distribution the regulation of traffic speed is a responsibility of the States (and Territories) whilst the Commonwealth gives effect to Australias international measurement treaty obligations and facilitates the national measurement system and its infrastructure.

15
4. Where State and Territory traffic regulators use measurement as a means of regulating traffic speed the field is overlaid by Commonwealth measurement law provided by the national measurement legislation. 5. Section 10 of the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth) provides that when it is necessary to show that

20 measurements are correct this can be done by showing that they have been made in terms of the relevant Australian
legal units of measurement by one of the eleven (11) means (options) detailed in paragraphs (a) to (k) of that section. This is described as showing that the measurements are legally traceable. 6. The legal traceability provisions of section 10 only apply when they are enlivened i.e. a necessity has been

25 established. This of course is a matter for the courts to determine in each individual situation.
The National Measurement Legislation 7. The National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth) (the Act) and its subordinate legislation have the following roles:

30
i. Giving effect to Australias treaty obligations wrt measurement i.e. the Treaty of the Metre and the OIML Convention including with respect to SI units. ii. Prescribing Australian legal units of measurement for use in Australia.

35
iii. Providing means by which measurement can be made and shown at law to be made in terms of Australian legal units of measurement when it is necessary to do so i.e. that they are legally traceable. iv. Facilitating the national trade measurement system in Australia by requiring inter alia

40 that all measuring instruments in use for trade are verified i.e. shown to be correct by being checked against legall y
traceable standards in compliance with section 10 of the Act. A precondition of verification of measuring instruments in use for trade is that they are of a pattern that is approved for use for trade. The net effect of this is to make all measuring instruments in use for trade subject to a mandatory metrological control system under the Act consisting of pattern approval and verification.

45
v. The Act also provides infrastructure for the metrological contr ol of legal measuring instruments i.e. measuring instruments used to determine physical quantities for law enforcement purposes, demonstrating compliance (or non-compliance) with a threshold or limit set by law (Commonwealth or State or Territory) or that are or maybe a relevant issue in legal proceedings. This consists of pattern approval and certification that can make these instruments certified measuring instruments under the Act and its regulations. This metrological control system is not mandated by the Act as legal measuring instruments are not regulated by the Act or the NMI. It is made available to regulators other than the NMI as part of the fulfilment of Australias treaty obligations wrt measurement.

50

55 State Traffic Legislation

8. Whilst the national measurement legislation provides facilities for the pattern approval of legal measuring instruments operated under State law. It is not mandatory and its absence neither vitiates the measurement made by such instruments nor does it render them inadmissible.

60
Page 6 29-12-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 7 9. The situation described in paragraph 8 i.e. the absence of pattern approval under the Act does not constitute an inconsistency between the requirements of the Act and State law contrary to section 109 of the Constitution it merely means that the full suite metrological control provisions in the Act are not available to legal measuring instruments in this situation. This and my previous point has been confirmed in several recent Supreme Court judgements including in Victoria. This e-mail is entirely without prejudice and nothing in it is intended to constitute legal advice express or implied. Notwithstanding this I trust that these comments are of some assistance to you.

10 Yours sincerely
Richard Dr Richard Brittain LLB Manager, Legal Metrology Authority Appointments Legal Metrology Branch National Measurement Institute Department of Industry ________________________________________ National Measurement Institute Bradfield Rd, West Lindfield NSW 2070, Australia PO Box 264, Lindfield NSW 2070, Australia Ph: 61-2-8467 3645 Fax: 61-2-8467 3899 Mobile: 0408 617 438 Email: richard.brittain@measurement.gov.au Internet: http://www.measurement.gov.au ABN 74 599 608 295 END QUOTE 18-1-2013 EMAIL Dr Richard Brittain LLB

15

20

25

30

While in Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) decision the Supreme Court of Victoria had its conclusion you may check the reason of judgment, which is supposed to explain upon what consideration the court arrived at its decision, and nothing really indicates any 35 consideration to the legal principles embedded in the constitution, as quoted some above. Hence, I view the decision cannot be relied upon.
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
.

40

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

45 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 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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
.

50

55

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

60 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.Page 7 29-12-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 8 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

5 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament. END QUOTE
.

10 HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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 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 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999) QUOTE

15

20

25
1.

Constitutional interpretation The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]: "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion." END QUOTE

30

35

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

45 HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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 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. END QUOTE

50

55

Page 8 29-12-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 9

As I disputed the validity of the Infringement Act 2006 then the legislation is ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio unless a court pronounces against it. Hence the current enforcement in disregard of this cannot and shouldnt be maintained.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

5 QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid. END QUOTE

It appears to me that the Victorian Police, so to say, should come clean and provide the 10 relevant details I requested long ago. Also, when did it serve me with a summons to attend to court (the Infringment Court), etc.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 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 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

15

20

Below an indication that all Commonwealth law must be uniform and cannot allow for 25 State legislation that is non-uniform as part of Commonwealth law!
HANSARD 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER It has been thought well that there should be a uniform law throughout Australia in respect to the citizens of Australia, and it was considered that this provision should be put into a separate clause giving exclusive powers, in order to emphasize the fact that the Federal Parliament should legislate upon this matter. END QUOTE

30

35 Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have prepared an amendment with regard to this sub-section, which puts the matter into a form which would express the intention of the Convention, whilst avoiding a difficulty. Honorable members will recollect the difficulty that arose over the construction of words equivalent to " uniform throughout the Commonwealth" in the United States of America. Although no actual decision has been given, a doubt has been raised as to the meaning of the word "uniform." The celebrated income tax case went off as to the direct apportionment of taxation amongst the people according to numbers, and this point was not decided, but a great deal of doubt has been thrown on the meaning of the word in the judgment of Mr. Justice Field. I think that although the word "uniform" has the meaning it was intended to have-"one in form" throughout the Commonwealth-still there might be a difficulty, and litigation might arise about it, and prolonged trouble might be occasioned with regard to the provision in case, for instance, an income tax or a land tax was imposed. What is really wanted is to prevent a discrimination between citizens of the Commonwealth in the same circumstances. END QUOTE

40

45

50

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all issues and or details and neither has anything been stated in order of priority.

Awaiting your response, 55

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

.

Our name is our motto!)

Page 9 29-12-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati