1

Inspector Stephen Mutton, from Melton police C/o heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au

Cc:

5-9-2013

Mr Jon Kaila jon.kaila@news.com.au

Mr Robert Clark MP Attorney-General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au Ken Lay Chief Commissioner, Victorian Police, C/o heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au
Ian Grey Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria 233 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000, C/o help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au

10

15

M Hoyle, Quality and client support Coordinator Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001, Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Email: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com

20

Mr Brendan Facey Department of Justice Infringement management & Enforcement Services Brendan.Facey@justice.vic.gov.au
25 Your Ref: BC/15766 130905-COMPLAINT Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Inspector Stephen Mutton-CONSTITUTIONAL issues etc

Sir,
30

35

40

45

as you may be aware of my 4 September 2013 correspondence to Mr Brendan Facey Department of Justice Infringement management & Enforcement Services, I have been opposing the validity of Infringement Notices for some 2 1/2 years. As could be expected, albeit not to be taken as a valid excuse, my extensive writing has been ignored, albeit this is no excuse. I intend however to sue those involved, not just Brendan Facey, but also the Attorney-General, the Premier, the Chief Magistrate, the Chief Commissioner of Police, Civic Compliance Victoria and others for their collective and individual harm they caused upon my person, and so also upon my wife, by this. and were you in any way interfere with my freedoms as constitutionally entitled upon I can assure you I wouldnt hesitate so to say to sue the pant of you also. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I hold that the constitution is the governing law and any legislation that is in conflict with the constitution is without legal validity. If therefore, you nevertheless are willing to so to say terrorise citizens that they will be risking to be imprisoned because of outstanding warrants as to unpaid fines, this even so for some time now the Chief Commissioner of Police was provided with copies of my writings that this is unconstitutional, as set out in a range of correspondences, then I view you take it upon yourself to terrorise my person and/or others and should suffer the legal consequences of this not only as a state official but also as a private person. Any police officer who in defiance of the constitution acts to imprison a person should suffer the legal consequences. It is no excuse not to know the law when as a police officer you purport to enforce the law.
p1 5-9-2013 Ref: COMPLAINT 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

50

2 In case you may consider to be outside the bounds of being personally sued for any harm you may inflict upon others, let me briefly quote some parts of a U.S.A. judgment, which for the record can be used also as an Authority in Australian Courts, as the High Court of Australia itself is on record for using for over 100 years American Authorities.I provide the webaddress also as 5 to the entire Authority. The same legal principles could be considered also with other matters, but in essence it is that this case demonstrates that State officials can be sued for their conduct if this result to false imprisonment, etc. As I challenged the validity of the Infringement Act 2006, since at least 2006, then any person seeking nevertheless to enforce it against anyone, not just me, may be dumb enough to place himself in personal risk to be sued. for some 2 1/2 years now 10 the Chief Commissioner of Police could have sought a declaration from a competent court of jurisdiction to declare the legislation INTRA VIRES, however failing to do so is no excuse then to terrorise motorist and others (including the reported thousands of innocent N.S.W. motorist) with fines, etc. I am astounded that you seem to brag about the achievement of getting people to come to the police to pay alleged fines, etc, or risk a possible imprisonment, despite my well published challenge to the Infringement Act 2006, since at least 2011. Did the Chief Commissioner of Police ever bothered to advise police officers that I challenged on constitutional grounds the validity of the Infringement Act 2\006? Did the Attorney-General 20 receiving my correspondences bother to take appropriate steps to pursue the legislation to be declared, if that is possible at all, to be INTRA VIRES as unless and until, if ever at all, this is declared INTRA VIRES it remains ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio! . http://www.alternet.org/belief/atheist-jailed-when-he-wouldnt-participate-religious-parole25 program-now-seeks-compensation
15

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/23/11-15354.pdf
QUOTE The Supreme Court has explicitly held that when a defendant is found to have violated an individuals right to procedural due process, the plaintiff is entitled to recover nominal damages, even without proof of actual injury. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 26667 (1978). Our circuits case law makes clear that neither the judge nor the jury has any discretion in this matter, and that the rule entitling a plaintiff to nominal damages applies with equal force to violations of substantive constitutional rights. Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1402 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Schneider v. Cnty. of San Diego, 285 F.3d 784, 79495 (9th Cir. 2002). Nominal damages must be awarded in cases in which the plaintiff is not entitled to compensatory damages, such as cases in which no actual injury is incurred or can be proven. Here, however, there was actual judges finding of liability establishes that Hazle suffered actual injury when he was unconstitutionally incarcerated. Given this undisputed finding that Hazles constitutional rights were violated, and applying the rule that the award of compensatory damages is mandatory when the existence of actual injury is beyond dispute, we hold that the district judge erred in refusing to hold that Hazle was, as a matter of law, entitled to compensatory damages. We therefore reverse the district judges denial of Hazles motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court has held that entitlement to compensatory damages in a civil rights action is not a matter of discretion: Compensatory damages . . . are mandatory; once liability is found, the jury is required to award compensatory damages in an amount appropriate to compensate the plaintiff for his loss. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 52 (1983) (emphasis added). END QUOTE

30

35

40

45

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/23/11-15354.pdf
QUOTE 50 We are not alone in so concluding. As the Second Circuit has held, where the jury has found a constitutional violation and there is no genuine dispute that the violation resulted in some [actual] injury to plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to an award of compensatory damages as a matter of law. Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93, 124 (2d Cir. 2004). Kerman involved a plaintiff whose Fourth Amendment rights were violated p2 5-9-2013 Ref: COMPLAINT 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

3
when he was handcuffed and detained for psychiatric evaluation. The Second Circuit held that its ruleregarding compensatory damages applied with particular force to claims for loss of liberty, noting that where the plaintiff was indisputably deprived of his liberty and the underlying conduct is unlawful, the plaintiff is entitled to compensatory, not merely nominal, damages. Id. The court stated that such treatment was consistent with the traditional common-law principles governing entitlement to damages for the tort of false imprisonment. Id. at 125. The Second Circuits holding is consistent with decisions by other circuits rejecting awards of merely nominal damages for unlawful conduct resulting in the loss of liberty. The Eleventh Circuit, for example, rejected an award of merely nominal damages to a juvenile who was unlawfully placed in solitary confinement, and held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensatory damages.

10 END QUOTE

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/23/11-15354.pdf
QUOTE Our case law requires no more to establish proximate causation. In Crowe v. Cnty. of San Diego, for example, we found police officers to be the proximate cause of a Miranda violation, even though they did not commit the ultimate act that completed the constitutional violation. 608 F.3d 406, 43031 (9th Cir. 2010). We held that liability for a constitutional violation requires only that the defendant set[] in motion a series of acts by others which the [defendant] knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury. Id. at 430 (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 74344 (9th Cir.1978)). Our conclusion is buttressed by our 2007 holding in Inouye, in which we concluded that a parolees right to be free from coerced participation in a religious treatment program was a matter of uncommonly wellsettled case law that was enough for us to hold that the law was clearly established, sufficient to give notice to a reasonable parole officer, in 2001. 504 F.3d at 716. Inouye leaves little room for Westcare to argue that constitutional injuries of the sort suffered by Hazle were not a foreseeable result of its actions.

15

20

25 END QUOTE

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/individuals-wanted-by-police/story-fni0fee2-1226 706923074
QUOTE Insp Mutton said if people didn't voluntarily hand themselves in, they would soon be caught. 30 "They should take this course of action because they don't want us to be seizing their car during the school run or being locked up on a Saturday and have to wait in custody to plead their case in court on the Monday. "Operation Surrender is about education and giving people the opportunity to make the right choice and deal with their problem, before they get caught by another means." END QUOTE

While Brendan Facey might be acting as a glorified debt collector for the State Government in the function as Sheriff, he too may just discover this to become his very expensive personal lesson. I requested in the past to seize and desist but to no avail. From his own writings, he (Brendan Facey) is well aware that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I rely upon my constitutional rights and if he simply assumes whatever to disregard to act appropriately and you are going to 40 assist him with this, then you both as well as others involved should learn the legal consequences of this. I pointed out in the past, that in my view the police has no legal authority to obstruct a motorist in his/her freedom of movement merely for the Sheriff to check if there is an outstanding warrant. if nevertheless you and any other police officer persist in roadblocks for such unlawful 45 conduct then suffer the legal consequences. If you were honest to your oath as a police officer then I view you will immediately take appropriate action to ensure that you and other police officers are not acting unlawfully by seeking to enforce warrants that were never validly issued in the first place. . 50 My 4-9-2013 correspondence to Brendan Facey, Sheriff, list the webaddresses of most relevant documents and so as I forwarded you a copy via the Victorian Police at Heidelberg, then you can always check it out.
35 p3 5-9-2013 Ref: COMPLAINT 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

4 The above questions may just show that the courts do hold state employees themselves personally liable where they act against a persons constitutional rights. . On 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth in the County Court of Victoria 5 on the issue of compulsory voting because again as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I happen to be more aware what is constitutionally permissible and applicable. As the government lawyers discovered over a 5 year litigation period. You may elect to disregard the provisions and limitations of the constitution and persist in 10 enforcing warrants but then suffer the legal consequences of this also! Way back in 1988, when the Victorian Police executed a warrant upon my 2 year old daughter, I then challenged the validity in the Supreme Court of Victoria, and the Supreme Court of Victoria then held the warrant was without legal force, and ordered my daughter to be returned to me. My daughter has the record of having been arrested at age 2 years old!
15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I am pursuing a class action against those perpetrators who seek and do enforce purported warrants of the purported Infringement Courts. . Perhaps it might be you worth while to check out my writings, as for sure if you conduct caused people to now agree to make payments which legally they do not have to where the warrants are without legal force, then each and every such person may very well participate in a class action to sue so to say the pants of you. In my view the Police should have absolutely nothing to do with interfering with a persons legal rights not to concede to make payments in regard of unconstitutional/unlawful warrants. indeed, I find it objectionable that the Sheriffs office is using its powers to portray acting lawfully where I view they are not. . You got yourself a job because The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) facilitate within s106 of the constitution subject to this constitution for the States to exist, and so its police force! The meaning of a police force is to maintain law and order, and not to become extortionist or terrorist, by willing to imprison people regardless of the invalidity of the warrants. It is not my concern if you are or are not aware of certain warrants being invalid (without legal force) as the Chief Commissioner of Police must be held accountable for if he failed to pass this on to you and other police officers. . Some 25 years ago the Victorian Police declared my motor vehicle unroadworthy, regarding alleged bold tyres, etc, this after I spoke up against Flemmington Police officers that they had no legal right to question my passenger merely because he was a coloured person. so, the police retaliated with declaring my vehicle to be unroadworthy, such as bold tyres, the day after i had new tyres fitted! That Infringement Notice was then withdrawn by the Sergeant, within the hour, after he inspected my vehicle and saw the vehicle was fitted with brand new tyres, and found no defect with the vehicle at all! The then Chief Commissioner of Police made known that the officers concerned were send on a training course how to do a roadworthy. It should be clear,I was all along parked, and not driving my vehicle, and was merely retribution by the police officers for challenging their rights to unlawfully question so to say a foreigner,because he was black,who did no more but was seated in my parked vehicle on an estate,while I was seated in the drivers seat, without the keys in the ignition, because we were waiting for my kids.!

If indeed I am right, as I maintain I am, and so far I am as no court of competent jurisdiction has ruled against my constitutional claims, then all and any Infringement Notices/Infringement Court 50 orders/warrants are and remain to be invalid, and so every police official and other person
p4 5-9-2013 Ref: COMPLAINT 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

5 nevertheless persisting in enforcing fine payments/court orders/ warrants then take it upon themselves to be sued personally. . The Attorney-General is well aware of my writings and yet never bothered to address the issues even so I view he ought to have done so. As such, you may also question why on earth you and other police officers were left in a lurch to enforce warrants the Attorney-General knew or ought to have known were without legal force. Likewise, I reported the matter to the Chief Magistrate, and as the documents are already available on my blog there is no need for me to repeat it all again, safe to say that those who have a DUTY OF CARE to act appropriately and fail to do so and by this allow harm to come to myself or any other person must accept the legal consequences. . I suspect no one ever pursued matters in such extensive details as I did but then again I am about DEMOCRACY and the assurance of citizens that we are government within the framework of the constitution and not despite of it. . Your choice is to join those upstanding citizens and pursue the proper enforcement of the law or go along with any criminal activity, regardless how unconstitutional and suffer the legal con sequences of it. . As I discovered decades ago, the police would attend to a nursing home where a former Justice of the Peace, suffering Alzheimers, was cared for and had her signing warrants. the son, himself already a senior citizen explained to me that the police kept pestering his mother to sign warrants even so she was no longer a Justice of the Peace and she had no mental ability to understand what she was signing for. So, before you rely upon any warrant you may just do better to check out its validity. . last year, I attended to a Magistrates Court with a friend who was subjected to a warrant. the Clerk insisted it was valid and that he could do nothing about it. later it was discovered that in fact the warrant was issued in an administrative way by the clerk in error that he assumed the warrant related to a tribunal for registration where in fact months later he discovered that it related mainly to a Supreme Court of Victoria order to which he had no legal powers. Still he did nothing about it and the sheriff officers enforce the warrant, this regardless of that it was made known to them of its invalidity!

35

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/individuals-wanted-by-police/story-fni0fee2-1226 706923074 QUOTE ."If we can start clearing up some of these fines, I'm sure it's going to have a knock-on 40 effect with other crime." END QUOTE In my view, to use the term other crimes implies that you accuse persons against whom a warrant was issued already committed a criminal act. If therefore it turns out that the very 45 warrants you rely upon were in fact without legal validity and to the purported litigation it relies upon, then you have condemned citizens as criminals nevertheless! I do not know nor desire to discover what your salary is but I assume most people are struggling to make ends meet, and so will not have $10,000 or so around in a drawer. hence, to forge them
p5 5-9-2013 Ref: COMPLAINT 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

6 to pay something that may be without legal force to me itself may be an act of terrorism and extortion, where this is under the thread of possible imprisonment, impounding a car, etc. . I my case the police alleges by way of Infringement Notice that I exceeded the speed limit by 5 kilometres an hour,. That is the only issue on foot. I challenged this from onset. If you then would be willing to so to say arrest me, if I happen to be pulled over and the warrant were to be relied upon, despite my numerous objections to the validity of the warrant, then perhaps a mental asylum may be more fitting for you as hardly can this kind of conduct to say imprison me be warranted. As the Framers of the constitution embedded in the constitution as a legal principle that there must be a judicial decision AFTER both parties have been heard. . At no time did I receive a summons to attend to court! A Registrar cannot be the head of the Court, and so the infringement Registrar cannot validly issue orders/warrants without supervision of a judge. I challenged the Infringement Registrars orders and he refused this, despite that the High Court of Australia in Harris v Caladine made clear that a Registrars decision must always be reviewable as otherwise it is unconstitutional. also the Infringement Court cannot be part of the Magistrates Court of Victoria, because the latter just be an open court as a Chapter III court of the constitution, the Infringement Court is not an open court. And on and on it goes. As such the infringement Court can not be a valid court and so neither issue valid court orders/warrants and fool you if you fall for this rot. worse is the denial, as I view it, to the police officers serving under your command which may rely upon you being aware of the legal technicalities for them to act. And, even worse for the victims of those warrants, like the parents driving their kids to school and being terrorised by their motor vehicle being impounded and their children witnessing this then perceiving the police to be the terrorist rather then who they should have respect for. Police cannot demand respect, they must earn the respect, and many are doing a very good job but regrettably many also do not. Your job, as I view it is to ensure that officers under your command can rely upon your judgment and competence to know what is legally appropriate. Well, you now have an opportunity to check out details! .
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.

35

Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

.

Our name is our motto!)

p6 5-9-2013 Ref: COMPLAINT 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati