20180606-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Road Safety and Other Related Issues, Etc, & The Constitution

ISSUE: 20180606- Re: Road safety and other related issues, etc & the constitution
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, tell me the truth, are you running for parliament?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I did in the past as an INDEPENDENT candidate but I found
it was a crooked system where even the Electoral Officials were interfering with my ability to a
fair and proper election and otherwise refused to act where they should have and so no longer
desire to waste my time and monies on this.
* It seems to me that your todays writing to the Road Safety Camera Commissioner certainly
would have a lot of people voting for you if you were standing as a candidate.
**#** I am not getting paid for my writings but nevertheless does so because I am fed up with
the gross injustices measured out against innocent victims. Politicians are far to often not
concerned and/or grossly incompetent and the judges seem to be more concerned with criminals
to consider their wellbeing then that of the victims.
For example, we reportedly had the AAT overruling a deportation order because a criminal
might not get the same treatment regarding drugs in his country of origin. Well, bad luck, the
criminal should have considered that before going on a crime spree. The same where 2 criminals
had their deportation order overturned because it was held it was unsafe in the USA for them.
Again, the criminals should have considered that before engaging in criminal conduct. Victims
are entitled to justice e.
* And may I assume this also applies to the victims of uncertified measuring instruments used in
the States and Territories?
**#** Look, I came to Australia without any ability to speak English and not knowing legal
provisions. I made it my issue to first of all research constitutional issues and then also other
laws. In my view a person who desires to be a politicians should do so before standing as a
candidate for Parliament. After all voting on legislation with sheer and gross incompetence to
understand what it is about is only harmful to the general community. Too often politicians
afterwards claim they didn’t realize certain thing were in the bill they had to vote for. Well, that
is a lame duck excuse. I had to learn the language and research a lot of legal issues and so I view
others who desire to be part in legislation must be expected to have done at the very least the
same. My writing to the Road Safety Camera Commissioner I view rather exposes that
politicians, judges, officials and others couldn’t bother to do so and in the process caused
considerable harm upon others.
* Surely if they were speeding or driving through red light then they cannot be deemed innocent
victims?
**#** I take the position that any allegation must be considered in a neutral manner and a person
might drive through red light in justified circumstances. I for one was directed by police to drive
through red light because it was malfunctioning. As such, you need to consider all relevant
circumstances in each case. If the evidence or purported evidence is tainted to be unlawful, etc,
p1 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
then the accused is the innocent victim of it. If a temporary speed limit sign fails to show the
reduced speed limit then a driver can be wrongly booked for speeding. If the speed limit is
lowered but not the timing increased of the amber light then a motorist may be unable to even
cross in the amber light situation. There are numerous other issues and well I have attended to
some in my earlier today’s correspondence to the Road Safety Camera Commissioner.
QUOTE
Road Safety Camera Commissioner 6-6-2018
commissioner@cameracommissioner.vic.gov.au
Sir,
I direct myself to you as to what appears to me to be an elaborate conspiracy to defraud
motorist as well as to deceive the administration of justice involving red light/speed cameras,
etc, for revenue raising purposes. In fact it appears to me to undermine road safety. Some issues
may not relate to camera usage but I view the overall picture should be explained as to have a
more comprehensive understanding that there is a lot wrong when it comes to the alleged road
safety issues. In my view every alleged violation in driving, parking that involved the
measurement of speed/time by instruments that are not certified by the Commonwealth both as
a bench test as well at its location are INVALID and so NULL AND VOID. Any enforcement,
as set out below, would b e a gross misuse and abuse of power and a form of terrorism and where
you as the Road Safety Camera Commissioner upon any complaint to you may have grossly
failed to consider matters from a neutral position.
Some of the issues not in any order of importance:
Failure of proper certification
School times
Traffic speed/advisory trailers
Speed timing
Reduction of speed limits
Distance to travel
Contraction and expanding of materials
Ladder against the poles
Revenue raising
Nullification
Parking meters/sensors
Much is claimed by the Government of the Day as well as other officials that it is all about road
safety but reality is often coming out that it is nothing more or less then revenue raising.
Some of the issues raised below are, albeit not in any order of importance, as to indicate revenue
raising is the real issue and this to counter act road safety in real terms, and in the process so
called red light cameras appears to me to be used as speed cameras and falsely/deceptively used
to fine motorist for revenue purposes. I will below set out some details.
Revenue raising is going on in many ways. Governments will always use all kind of lame duck
excuses to justify it but reality is that it is a money grabbing issue and nothing less.
QUOTE

SUBMISSION by Friday, 22June18 - Inquiry into the proposed long term lease of the Land Titles and
Registry functions of Land Use Victoria!!!!
People
healthachievers - <healthachievers@hotmail.com>
Today at 21:14 (5-6-2018)

Message body
Hello,
Do you want your Titles Office to be privatised under the words - proposed long term lease of the land
titles and registry functions of Land Use Victoria - ? Then send in a submission to say NO!!!!. A simple
"NO" will be sufficient. Titles of your property is private information and should Not be outsourced!!!
I was aware that the Titles Office under the amended name of Land Use Victoria, was being propped up to
privatise. My friend who bought a house in Wodonga, paid $1,300 on $522,000 for a "digital copy". A paper
Certificate of Title, was extra!!! When I had a Land Transfer over 10 years ago, the paper Certificate of Title
was $99. rgds Marg
END QUOTE
Revenue raising clearly is going on and on slugging people in all directions and then we have a
political party cheating itself into power by paying out reportedly $1.2 Billion for NOT building
a road, that was promoted as not costing a single cent, as after all slugging people in all kinds of
way means the floodgates of monies are there to provide for it.
Let us consider how to utilize the North East Link best for future generations.
The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/357175604/20170825-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-North-
East-Link-Committee
Then we have the North East Link authority that issued out a survey, to which I responded, only
then later to deny it did isse such survey and never considered the submissions. The rout A then
projected as a $7 Billion dollar cost then blew out, well so far, to $16.5 Billion. As such the route
was pre-determined and under quoted to deceive those involved in the survey and when the rout
contemplated by NELA was not chosen it simply went ahead disregarding the survey
submissions entirely. The premier however claimed to have been in consultation with those
effected, which clearly in my view was a lie.
Parking in Melbourne CBD: Meter revenue fills council coffers | Herald ...
www.heraldsun.com.au/...revenue...parking...melbourne-city.../4f074492c9ab7c2e517b...
Aug 14, 2017 - Record revenue from parking fees helps put Melbourne City Council in the black
... There is a correlation between increasing compliance by the public and the number of parking
fines being issued,'' she said. Motorists can pay more than $5 an hour for parks in the CBD. ...
Seven's gigantic ratings disaster.
CBD motorists to pay $7 an hour to park, as spaces harder to come by

https://www.theage.com.au › Politics › Victoria › Local council
May 15, 2018 - Parking fees in Melbourne's CBD will rise to $7 an hour, as the city council tries
to squeeze as much ... Parking fees jumped, with the council expecting to bring in $52 million from
its meters ... Morning & Afternoon Newsletter.
QUOTE
A council media release pointed out that raising the hourly price for parking to $7 in the CBD brought the
cost into line with what Sydney City Council charges.
Since 2011 the number of on-street car parking spots has plummeted by 22 per cent in the CBD, as less space
is provided for motor vehicles in the public domain.
More space is being provided on the city's roads for public transport, cyclists, footpaths and car share
services. Car parking spaces have also been lost due to construction of the Metro Tunnel rail project under
Melbourne.
To ensure motorists pay for the cost of providing on-street parking, rather than ratepayers in the council's
areas, it has pushed up the fees charged.

Along with an expected increase in revenue from parking meters, council officers will issue more than $1
million extra in fines for those who over-stay.
In all, the council predicts it will issue parking fines totalling almost $42 million in the next financial year.
And to streamline its revenue collection from parking, the council will spend around $1 million to upgrade its
meters.
The fine for staying in a parking spot after the metre has expired will increase from $79 to $81, while the fine
for parking in a clearway will jump from $159 to $163.
The city's population boom continues, with Melbourne City Council expecting an extra 6583 residents in the
next financial year across the municipality.
Cyclists will get another 500 hoops to lock their bikes to, as part of spending totalling $1.1 million on riding.
The Queen Victoria Market renewal project will continue to soak up cash, with almost $20 million to be
spent. This funding will include the first physical works, restoring heritage sheds, as well as more money
for planning the $250 million project.
The council will spend $5 million upgrading 16,000 old street lights to more efficient ones.
Libraries will get $1.3 million for their collections, while $3 million will be set aside to restore and
refurbish Melbourne Town Hall.
END QUOTE
It is clear that this revenue raising to get monies for issues such as the library and refurbishing
the Town Hall has absolutely nothing to do with road safety. Neither as to Sydney hourly
charges. Where the Melbourne City council had reduced the parking facilities by some whopping
22% then surely the reduction in revenue, even if only used for safety issues(which I do not
accept is the real issue) then to slug motorist more per parking space is advers to safety issues. A
real council concerned about safety issues rather would increase and not decrease parking
facilities.
QUOTE
The council expects to post a surplus of around $15 million.
RACV's general manager of public policy and corporate affairs Bryce Prosser said the council should be "less
reliant" on revenue from on-street parking, saying these spaces would be "better used for wider footpaths, and
bike and bus lanes".
He said the RACV supports extra cycling hoops for the city, but said "the council needs to reduce the number
of bicycles used for advertising, which take up space on existing hoops across the CBD".
END QUOTE
Melbourne street parking cost: $7 per hour | Herald Sun

www.heraldsun.com.au/.../melbourne-carparking...city.../d2ec27156705eba040a7d6ebb...
May 14, 2018 - The jump from the current $5.50 an hour rate will help fill City of Melbourne
coffers with an extra $6 million in parking fee revenue, according to ...
Melbourne CBD parking to increase to $7 an hour as council unveils ...

www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-15/melbourne-cbd-parking...increase-city.../9762946
May 14, 2018 - Drivers hoping to snag a parking spot in Melbourne's CBD will soon be paying up
to $7 an hour, in a move the council says will put the city in ...
QUOTE
The price hike means the council is set to reap close to an extra $6 million in the next financial year, bringing its total takings to
more than $52 million on parking alone.
Cr Wood said the council's plan was to ultimately shift people onto public transport.
Current cost per hour Proposed new cost Type of parking

$5.50 $7.00 In CBD (30 mins, 1, 2 and 3 hour spaces)
$3.20 $4.00 Outside CBD (30 mins, 1 and 2 hour spaces)
$2.00 $2.50 Outside CBD (3 hour spaces)
$1.70 $2.20 Outside CBD (4 hour spaces)
$0.80 $1.00 Outside CBD (all day spaces)
He pointed to growth projections for Melbourne which, by 2022, is expected to handle more than a million people coming into
the city every day.
"With that significant growth, you can't rely on a single occupancy car to ensure that liveability," Cr Wood said.
"The point I want to go back to though is if we can get people onto foot
experiencing our city, what we know is that they spend more.
"It's good for the environment, it's good for health and it's actually good for the bottom line."
The increase in fees will be rolled out over the course of four months, if the budget is adopted as expected in late June.
In addition to parking changes, the council will also invest millions in creating new public spaces in Southbank and at the Queen
Victoria Market, tackling homelessness and improving bicycle networks.
It has also unveiled a $14.9 million surplus.
END QUOTE
In my view it is not for a council to pursue matters which are for the Government to be
determined. Neither to force people out of motor vehicles onto public transport. That is not a
safety issue. Neither the creation of public parks at cost of motorist paying more for parking.
Drivers back calls for Bell St, Preston speed limit to be returned to ...
www.heraldsun.com.au/...bell-st...speed-limit.../c68dc6f546e04515e90ac299e1c6317...
Apr 7, 2016 - Andrew Hopgood was also unhappy with the changes commenting: “So, the speed
limit on Bell St was reduced because there was a crash in ...
RACV calls for Bell St Preston speed limit to rise to 70km/h | Leader
www.heraldsun.com.au/...bell-st-speed-limit.../53624f23a38e4ecca9e6b63e1d416148
Apr 3, 2016 - A study by RACV consultant Robert Morgan questioned figures used by VicRoads to
justify last year's unpopular lowering of the speed limit to ...
Speed limit cuts to Bell St from Coburg to Waterdale Rd | Leader

www.heraldsun.com.au/.../speed-limit...bell-st.../474416614ff886dbcfef4c7b2981ed6...
May 21, 2015 - From next Friday, Bell St's speed limit will be reduced from 70km/h between Alva
Grove in Coburg and Waterdale Rd in Heidelberg West, ...
QUOTE
Drivers back calls for Bell St, Preston speed limit to be returned to 70km/h
Leader readers backed last week’s call by the RACV for VicRoads to reinstate the 70km/h speed
limit along parts of Bell St, calling the initial decision an “ill-informed, kneejerk reaction” and
“stupid”.
RELATED: RACV calls for Bell St Preston speed limit to return to 70km/h
Motorists took particular issue with crash figures used to justify the speed reduction, to 60km/h, which were
questioned by RACV consultant Robert Morgan.
Mr Morgan said his study of police reports found speed may have been a factor in just 55 of the 199 crashes
between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2013 that VicRoads used to justify the reduction in speed.
The study also found 60 crashes did not even occur on Bell St, one happening in Forest Hill — almost 20km
away from the end of Bell St.
Brett commented: “I use the full length of Bell St twice a day and always found the flow good at the 70km/h
limit. I was annoyed at the drop to 60km/h, and find this has caused more hazardous situations than
previously experienced.
“I welcome a review of what seemed an ill-informed, kneejerk decision to change what had been in place for
decades,” he said.
Andrew Hopgood was also unhappy with the changes commenting: “So, the speed limit on Bell St was
reduced because there was a crash in Forest Hill. Might as well just ban cars”.
Regular Bell St driver Brendan Fisher complained the 60km/h limit was too slow for a road that had been
“clearly designed to be driven at 70 in non-peak times”.
“If it needs to be 60, just install adjustable speed signs for peak traffic then increase it to 70 outside those
times,” he said.
Commenter Spandex said: “Why don’t we just walk instead of driving? Pretty soon we’ll be banned from
doing that too”.
VicRoads has been asked to respond to calls for the speed limit to be reinstated.
RACV general manager of public policy Brian Negus said last week Mr Morgan’s study had proved lowering
the speed limit had been unjustified.
“In a nutshell, Bell St did not have a significant crash problem and the types of crashes that were happening
could not be fixed by dropping the speed limit,” Mr Negus said.
A spokeswoman for Roads Minister Luke Donnellan said the number of crashes on Bell St between Alva
Grove and Waterdale Rd had “reduced significantly” since the speed limit was lowered. VicRoads
spokesman Bryan Sherritt also said the speed reduction had helped reduce crashes.
VicRoads dropped the speed limit to 60km/h between Alva Grove in Coburg and Waterdale Rd in Heidelberg
West.
END QUOTE
SO, LET ME HAVE A DIFFERENT LOOK AT THIS.

I last week was driving along Grimshaw Road in Bundoora contemplating to go to the car wash
when I realised I didn’t have coins with me for the machine to operate, so I decided to travel on. I
had previously obtained petrol in Thomastown and my average speed would indicate to be well
within the speed limit. I generally avoid the intersection of Grimshaw Street and Watsonia Road
because twice when I was there waiting for red light it appeared to me the cameras were
malfunctioning as they flashed without any motorist going through any red light.
Just that not having coins I decided to drive on along Grimshaw Road. Well I was less than 10
meters from the intersection when the lights went on amber and so I increased my speed to avoid
being caught by the red light camera as again I view it is mall functioning and my speed at the
time wouldn’t allow me to stop in time. I was in the middle of the intersection when the camera
lights flashed twice and I maintained my sight on the traffic lights which were still amber when I
left the intersection at the other side of the intersection.
Because of this I on Monday 4 June 2018 having to go via Bell Street decided to keep an eye out
as to cameras. Well I was travelling from Heidelberg via Bell Street to Preston and my speed
reading was about 55 kilometres an hour. I did not increase or reduce my speed as traffic was
moving. I was less than a meter from the while line before the intersection when the light went
on amber. I maintained the same speed but the light went on red just before leaving the
intersection at the other side of the intersection. At the next lights I entered the intersection when
it went to amber light and just as I was leaving it went on red. As such, at a speed of 55
kilometers an hour the lights will not allow me to travel through the intersection at a speed of 55
kilometres an hour , as considering the distance required to stop one could never stop in time
either even if one was say 10 meters before the intersection prior to the lights going on amber. It
therefore is a trap set to collect revenue rather than road safety.
As indicated above the speed limit was reduced from 70 k/hr to 60 and this too can have an effect
on the crossing of intersections. What really is the governing time period to safely cross an
intersection at what speed? In my view when a traffic light changes to amber then it should allow
for a motorist who is travelling to the intersection to have sufficient time from the last ability to
stop prior to the intersection to cross the intersection without being confronted with a red light.
Even if one had the ability to narrowly stop before a white stop line one may still not be able to
do when one has a heavy truck behind you. I was driving ones in Cooper Street Somerton when I
faced amber and safely stopped. However looking in my rear vision mirror I noticed a truck that
was trying to stop. I ended up moving half way into the intersection (through red light) and the
truck came to a stop right where I had been before the white line. While there was no red light
camera in operation at that intersection and so no fine the issue is that to end up in an accident to
obey some traffic light where the amber time is too short for a truck to safety being able to stop
undermines road safety. I was lucky no traffic came into the inter section from a cross road so I
could safely do so but it does in my view require to look at the safety of motorist governing the
timing of amber lights duration.
In 1986 I was stationary before red light in Bourke Street Camberwell, waiting behind a motor
vehicle wanting to turn right, when I was hit behind by a car who subsequently hit me again
when also hit by another car, where the drivers had expected me to drive off when the lights went
on green. Again I was behind a right turning vehicle and so couldn’t move. Nevertheless I ended
of work with severe whiplash and as such well aware to keep an eye out for motor vehicles
driving behind me who may or may not stop in time. Prior to that I was driving in Williamstown
when I stopped safely before red light. I noticed a motor vehicle at high speed travelling behind
me but not reducing speed. As there was traffic coming from the side road I had no way to get
anywhere else. At the last minute the motorist drove around me smashing into a car coming from
the side street. It made an utter mesh of the cars over a large distance, besides personal injuries.
Hence, I keep an eye out for any traffic travelling behind me.
In my view traffic lights should show a sign indicating the speed upon which the travelling
across the intersection was calculated. (Say crossing speed 50 km/h is calculated) This then
would indicate to a motorist say driving 45 k/hr that where safe to do so better increase speed to
at least 50k/hr to cross the intersection.
Obviously where cross roads exist with a lower speed say 50K/hr or even 40k/hr, etc, then this
should also be shown and calculated for crossing of the intersection.
It should be clear no one can possibly drive precisely at the speed limit. And the police itself in
Victoria urges TAKE OFF 5 as to keep about 5 kilometres below the speed limit. If then a road
speed is reduced from 70 k/mh to 60k/hr and with the TAKE OF 5 then this would mean that an
amber light timing should provide for a motorist to be able to cross the intersection from the last
point of safely stopping before the intersection to being across the intersection before the lights
turn red. And in the above I have not even indicated where one may calculate to safely cross the
intersection only to suddenly have a driver before you unduly blocking your ability to do so.
Another issue that likely never really has attention drawn to it, albeit to some way was apparent
with the Bolte Bridge issue, is
Push for broken West Gate Bridge speed cameras to stay as motorist ...
www.heraldsun.com.au/...broken-west-gate-bridge...cameras.../b5d13191fde82351dbfa...
Jul 2, 2017 - RACV roads and traffic manager Dave Jones said it was an open secret among
motorists that the West Gate Bridge cameras didn't work, and ...
Here we had allegedly the movement of the bridge due to the moving of traffic causing problems
with the accurately of the cameras. But I view there is more to it.
Speed camera reboot to nab speeding West Gate Fwy motorists
news.com.au
Keith Moor
January 29, 2015
Grieve Parade speed cameras on the West Gate Freeway. Source: News Limited
POLICE are about to again start using speed cameras to nab motorists on the
West Gate Freeway at Altona North.
The fixed cameras were deactivated in June 2013 to allow VicRoads to conduct road
works.
Signs warning motorists about the imminent return of the cameras went up yesterday.
The cameras outbound near Millers Rd and inbound at Grieve Parade will start fining
speeding motorists during the week beginning February 9.
Police have been testing them during the past 14 weeks, but not issuing fines.
They detected more than 12,000 speeding motorists during that time.

Road policing Superintendent Kevin Sheridan said it was concerning that such a large
number of motorists were driving dangerously on such a busy freeway.
“Motorists will be given a fair warning before enforcement begins, but that is not an
invitation for motorists to speed in the meantime,” he said.
keith.moor@news.com.au
Originally published as Camera reboot to nab speeders
http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/speed-camera-reboot-to-nab-speeding-
west-gate-fwy-motorists/story-fnii5sms-1227201196228
The following about motorist using a freeway having to pay for a freeway they are not using!
QUOTE
Victoria. Tolls to empty motorists' pockets.
 Jim
 May 2 at 2:48 PM 2015
To
Photos
 064912-bbdc118c-efe4-11e4-845d-5939ce041631.jpg
The contract with Transurban should be shredded as it was never consented to by the
majority of Victorian people, and the Liberal Kennett government did not have a
mandate at the time to privatise and convert part of the Tullamarine and Monash
freeways into toll roads.
Now greedy Transurban is demanding a deal with the Andrews Government on

CityLink to extend charging tolls until at least 2045 but ideally until 2050. Just another
case of an unconstitutional government corporation conducting business with a private
corporation at the expense of the apathetic tax paying slaves.
Jim
Proposed Western Distributor deal to cost billions

news.com.au
Aleks Devic
May 01, 2015
The $5.5 billion Western Distributor project aims to rid the West Gate Bridge of
congestion. Source: News Limited
MOTORISTS will be slugged toll fees on CityLink and the proposed Western
Distributor until at least 2045, delivering billions of dollars to toll operator
Transurban.
Transurban is demanding a deal with the Andrews Government on CityLink to extend

its arrangement beyond 2035 for at least another 10 to 15 years as part of its

proposal to build a congestion-busting second river crossing dubbed the Western
Distributor.
GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS DEAL FOR WEST GATE BRIDGE ALTERNATIVE
Based on one Herald Sun forecast, using previous pricing trends and traffic volumes,
the deal to continue operating CityLink beyond 2035 could land the company an
estimated $8 billion.
Current tolls on CityLink were to end in 2034 but have been extended for an extra
year after Transurban, in a separate agreement, agreed to partially fund the $1.3
billion upgrade of Tullamarine Freeway that will add 33km of new lanes and cut travel
times to the airport by up to 20 minutes.
In a separate analysis, tolls on the Western Distributor could see Transurban pocket
$7 billion over 25 years.
Sources have told the Herald Sun Transurban wants to run toll points along CityLink
and the Western Distributor at the same time, at least up until 2045 but ideally until
2050.
A Transurban spokesman said the company would not speculate on how much CityLink
would make in tolls if the concession was granted.
But he said the concession extension was worth $1.5 billion to $2 billion in net present
value terms.
“Our proposal will be tested by government to ensure it delivers value for money for
our community,” the spokesman said.
The $5.5 billion Western Distributor project aims to rid the West Gate Bridge of
congestion and trucks would be removed from local roads with a direct freight route to
be created to the Port of Melbourne.
The West Gate Freeway would also be widened.
aleks.devic@news.com.au
Originally published as Tolls to empty motorists’ pockets
http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/proposed-western-distributor-deal-to-cost-
billions/story-fnii5sms-1227331064374
END QUOTE
Let’s look at something else.

Our side door has a cross beam to the house and while the side door is about 1.1 metres
wide nevertheless pending the weather conditions the cross beam contract or expanding. As
result the door is jammed by the bolt. I needed up having to make a slot in the bracket to
avoid this jamming and this slot is a massive 30mm long.
We have traffic light and speed camera poles that are standing on an ever shifting ground. Blame
nature of this. As such poles are subject to movement for variety of reasons. On top of that you
get maintenance guys working on the lights/cameras who then put their ladder against the pole
and over time can destabilise the pole also. And that is besides errors in setting the
cameras/traffic lights timing.
Police breath test scam 'goes back at least 15 years' - The Age
https://www.theage.com.au › National › Victoria › Victoria Police
6 days ago - The funding is used to pay officers to work extra shifts during holidays and long
weekends to conduct roadside breath and drug tests and to ...
QUOTE
Bogus breath tests – dubbed by cops as "falsies" or "ghosties" – have been happening for at least
15 years, police officers say.
The Age revealed this week that Victorian police falsified more than 258,000 breath tests over
5½ years – about 1.5 per cent of all tests carried out in that time.
But police officers say the practice has been going on for much longer, calling into question the
veracity of more than a decade of Victoria's drink-driving statistics.
END QUOTE
At a rate of about 10 seconds every test it would be at least 700 (paid) man hours of deception
and the police command claims no crime was committed. And that might only be about what is
known and not the rest of the elaborate cultural swindle by police officers. And the courts rely
upon their evidence as informers they are honest? Like the parking inspector I refer to below! If
someone in authority dis deceptive then this is usually a crime against an innocent person. As
indicated if a person loses his license and so unable to go to work or perform his work than this is
a criminal matter against this person if the basis used against this person was unlawful in the first
place.
We are at times assured that bench testing is done properly. What bench testing? After all a
camera can work perfect in a contained area but then if placed on a moving structure like a
bridge (Bolte Bridge an example) then no matter how accurately the bench testing was done it
has absolutely no credibility to any alleged breaches recorded.
Infringement - M80 Ring Rd - Victorian Traffic Law Forum - Motor ...
www.trafficlaw.com.au › Board index › Speeding › Speeding Issues
Jan 24, 2017 - I cant recall seeing the variable speed limit reduced to 40km/h at this time and ... I
dont think they adjusted the fixed camera that day because I was .... just coming off the west gate
bridge Geelong bound in the 100km zone
http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3916
QUOTE
Infringement - M80 Ring Rd
 Quote
Postchris_73Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:39 am
I received an infringement notice yesterday informing me that I was travelling at 77km/h in a 40

km work zone on the ring Rd near Sydney Rd on the 16/12/16 at approx. 6:50am on my way to
work. I cant recall seeing the variable speed limit reduced to 40km/h at this time and given the
time of morning the traffic is normally heavy.
Apart form losing my licence for 6 months and the difficulties I will have with my employment
my main concern is that my father has inoperable pancreatic cancer and I drive him to Peter Mac
for treatment once a week for treatment and some other medical appointments. Unfortunately
my elderly mother cant drive so I am really anxious and I am keen to know what my best course
of action would be.

chris_73
Re: Infringement - M80 Ring Rd
 Quote
Postchris_73Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:45 am
I'm wondering if this has occurred to anyone else on that day?
I've attached some links to a similar situation at Keilor Park Drive from 2013.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-08/s ... es/4873410

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-16/v ... te/4892222
Hardy
Site Admin
WebsiteRe: Infringement - M80 Ring Rd
 Quote
PostHardyTue Jan 24, 2017 2:14 pm
I see clients with this problem every second week. It must happen whenever they reduce the
speed limit to 40kmh on freeways with cameras. People simply ignore the 40kmh speed limit in
their hundreds. The fact that you have no recollection of the speed limit is not unusual. Most
drivers pay scant regard to it - many reduce speed by 10 or 20 kmh below the usual limit and
think that is adequate compliance. They seem to think the posted limit is advisory only and not
actually enforced. Next time you see a freeway 40kmh speed limit try driving at 40kmh and you
will see what I mean.
And if you were on your phone at the time you might not have noticed the change in speed limit
signs even though they are overhead and flashing at you on that section of the WRR. Anyway, the
only way to save your licence is to take the case to court and win, so I guess you will be lodging
your court election within 28 days.
freddie
 Quote
PostfreddieTue Jan 24, 2017 7:31 pm
Hardy wrote:Next time you see a freeway 40kmh speed limit try driving at 40kmh and you will see what
I mean.
Had this once on the Geelong Rd outbound near Hoppers Crossing, the usual situation where all
evidence of any actual road works is completely gone, but no "end road works" or "100" sign in
sight. So everyone just goes back to the normal speed limit. This happened after the Keilor Park
Drive debacle & I knew I was approaching a fixed camera site so I went into the leftmost lane
and tried to do 40 until i got past the camera.
When youre on a motorbike doing 40 and you have trucks thundering past you and up your arse
doing 100 its not a very comfortable position to be in. I dont think they adjusted the fixed
camera that day because I was defininteyl "speeding" when i passed it in fear of my bloody life.
freddie
 Quote
PostfreddieTue Jan 24, 2017 7:39 pm
I see that many fixed cameras sites on freeways where there are variable overhead signs now
have a separate camera sited before the actual speed camera to photograph what the electronic
speed signs were showing at the time of the infringment.
chris_73
 Quote
Postchris_73Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:06 pm
how's this for rotten luck... I contacted Vicroads to find out more information about whey there
was a reduced speed limit on that day, it turns out that the reduced speed was due to a car
breakdown in one of the lanes...
As per your request, VicRoads can advise that speeds were reduced from 100kph to 40 kph on
the date referred to in your request at approximately 6:48am. This was due to a vehicle break
down in one of the lanes. Speeds were returned to normal (100kph) at approximately 6:56am.
.. it was for a duration of 8 minutes from 6:48am - 6:56am... I got nabbed at 6:52am doing
77km/h meaning the speed limit went from 100km/h to 40km/h without any prior signage apart
from the overhead signs and I had 600m to "safely" slow from 100km to 40km in heavy peak hour
traffic which I'm not even sure if this is even physically possible on a road full of trucks....
I have received legal advice who said these cases are never overturned as it is a mandatory
penalty for this infringement and even the magistrates have no discretion to dismiss of reduce
the penalty even if they believe it is warranted, the only way is to prove the camera was faulty
and there is no likely chance for this to be dismissed or penalty reduced. Which in reality is not
really the case, it was more an issue of inadequate signage (anyone else seeing any similarities to
the a similar issue on the Ring Rd in 2013...)
So, in light of this new information what should I do? If I've been advised that it is futile to pursue
this type of infringement is there any point at all in objecting to it and going to court or am I just
throwing money at the wall? @Hardy, you mentioned in your last comment that "Anyway, the
your court election within 28 days." do you think there is any chance of winning this case?
END QUOTE
I about twice a week drives along the M80 Ring Road and find it annoying when say at 10pm
there are signs at the site of the road showing 40km/h when there appears to be no work in
progress at all. In fact I wrote to the State government some time ago about this and well it now
advertises that road reductions are for the road to settle.
Anyhow, my habit is to simply slow down to below 40k.hr as I am not in a hurry to get
anywhere. As a senior citizen I am well adjusted to take my time. I see however then most
vehicles driving past me at high speed. I never actually realised there were speed cameras at that
section of the M80 Ring Road. I do not regret missing out on the photo opportunities I now
become aware of existed to be snapped in speeding. And while the above may claim there was in
one incident a broken down car, I for all the times have seen 40K/hr signs never encountered a
single car broken down. Still, I just habitually reduce speed to 40 km/h. At times letting my wife
know that once again the speed limit was reduced to 40km/h even so no roadworks appears to
have been going on at all at that time.
When you have the turn off from the M80 Ring Road near Airport West shopping centre there is
a 40km/h speed limit just before the turn off. Say about 10 metres but when you are travelling in
the direction of the shopping centre it doesn’t appear to apply. The problem is the sign is
confusing in that regard as it is about 20 meters before an 80 km/h sign when travelling to the
shopping centre. As such no end roadworks or whatever and neither reasonably appropriate to
reduce speed to 40km/h for a mere 20 metres. I understand the reduction of speed is for the turn
off but it is not so indicated.
Then there are all kinds of speed limits signs and part road blockage which appears to be done by
people who are cutting grass as a profession to allow them to park in front of a property
otherwise prohibited, the loading of trucks or delivery, etc. I recall and incident some years ago
where peak hour traffic was reduced to one lane in Bell Street near the freeway in Coburg, where
one lane was closed off as they were laying a concrete driveway. That property subsequently was
vacant for many years later. In my view there was absolutely no justification to obstruct the
movement of traffic, let alone peak hour traffic for the laying of a concrete driveway where the
property was vacant subsequently for years. Actually when one travelled along Lower Plenty
Road then at the end in Heidelberg they had half of the road closed off for trucks. In the end the
fence and the building on it were demolished and they are building some huge story apartment
building there. Again, in my view the closing off of the road was totally unjustified but for the
workers it seems the easy way to gain more space to walk about, never mind the increase of cost
to delivery trucks to move goods and deliver it elsewhere and the utter frustration and
inconvenience to motorist in general.
To combat this kind of flagrant abuse of the system I view that any road obstruction should be
authorised by VicRoads or its equivalent in a State/Territory. As such a sign should show the
permit number to close off part of the road.
We also have the police causing utter frustration in many ways. When they do breath testing they
got often a mere 2 officer while blocking both lanes and clearly insufficient police in attendance
where for a kilometre or more cars are banked up.
Not uncommon motorist attention are drawn by the (in Victoria) mainly yellow trailers which are
indicating a speed limit or other warnings/advisory information. I long ago did urge the State
Government to mandate that such trailers on the side of the road are mandated with on it a
VicRoad sign as to distinct them from other advertising trailers. You might for example find 3
trailers in a row in less than 50 metres all advertising wares for merchants and where this
happens between 2 sets of traffic lights such as in Murray road Northland then a motorist needing
to be alert to the ongoing traffic and lights is side tracked by those trailers not knowing if they
are road related details or not. If the VicRoad sign was fitted and illuminated on top of the trailer
then a motorist could know the difference to which trailer carries road information/details and
which not. Also, not uncommon those trailers are at freeways and other road but are not working.
If they are not supposed to be working they should be removed or covered up but to have non-
working trailers standing on the side of a highway can be problematic. For example if the trailer
is to show a speed reduction say 40 km/h but is not working then motorist rightly may be
unaware of the speed reduction and then get booked for speeding where technically they were
not as the sign was inoperative and as such no speed limit applies.
Another issue is that to expect any motorist to know when there are or are not school times is
utter ridiculous. Not uncommon there are vehicles parked at a school, such as on Saturdays, and
if a motorist then to assume a 40 km/h speed limit applies or is it not a school day? Then there
are days a school may give students a day of but technically it might be a school day and so are
motorist required to reduce speed to 40 km/h this even so the school is closed for the day or
perhaps for an extensive period for whatever reason? As such I view any special reduction of
speed in any particular zone that is based on some external factors like school times should only
be deemed operative if the lights are illuminated. As such the school itself must activate the
lights to show reduction in speed and failing to do so the ordinary speed should be deemed
applicable. People who come from interstate or even overseas hardly would be acquainted with a
State school times. Their watches could also be out of time, including their car clock.
Also, schools and other entities that require speed reduction zones should not be permitted to be
set up at any major road. Any responsible government would ensure that the safety of students
would be more enhanced to keep the school venues away as much as possible from major
highways, such as in side streets. It is absurd to reduce the speed limit from say 100km/h to 40
km/h for allegedly the safety of students where an alternative can be applied that would avoid
any such clashes.
Perhaps road under/over passes may have to be provided to seek to reduce any clashes between
students and the motorist.
The following about the mandatory issue versus nullification
http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3916
QUOTE
Postchris_73Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:06 pm
how's this for rotten luck... I contacted Vicroads to find out more information about whey there
was a reduced speed limit on that day, it turns out that the reduced speed was due to a car
breakdown in one of the lanes...
As per your request, VicRoads can advise that speeds were reduced from 100kph to 40 kph on
the date referred to in your request at approximately 6:48am. This was due to a vehicle break
down in one of the lanes. Speeds were returned to normal (100kph) at approximately 6:56am.
.. it was for a duration of 8 minutes from 6:48am - 6:56am... I got nabbed at 6:52am doing
77km/h meaning the speed limit went from 100km/h to 40km/h without any prior signage apart
from the overhead signs and I had 600m to "safely" slow from 100km to 40km in heavy peak hour
traffic which I'm not even sure if this is even physically possible on a road full of trucks....

I have received legal advice who said these cases are never overturned as it is a mandatory
penalty for this infringement and even the magistrates have no discretion to dismiss of reduce
the penalty even if they believe it is warranted, the only way is to prove the camera was faulty
and there is no likely chance for this to be dismissed or penalty reduced. Which in reality is not
really the case, it was more an issue of inadequate signage (anyone else seeing any similarities to
the a similar issue on the Ring Rd in 2013...)
So, in light of this new information what should I do? If I've been advised that it is futile to pursue
this type of infringement is there any point at all in objecting to it and going to court or am I just
throwing money at the wall? @Hardy, you mentioned in your last comment that "Anyway, the
your court election within 28 days." do you think there is any chance of winning this case?
END QUOTE
In my view there can be no such thing as MANDATORY sentencing, this because there is a
separation of powers. The judiciary can only be appointed (see Letters patent) as an “impartial
administration of justice”. Hence, the judiciary can nullify any charges and at times in fact does
so. Regretfully merely too often when police officers themselves are charged for violating road
rules whereas anyone else still is required if not terrorist to pay up. As such, we have that a
magistrate held one of the 2 cameras was out of timing and so the police woman (driving her
own car) had her charges dismissed but other motorist issued with Infringement Notices for the
same still had their fines enforced.
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-
It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular
state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to
exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences
against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its
condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was
originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which
should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the
citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by
this Constitution.
END QUOTE
This NULLIFICATION principle is very much applicable, at least in my view as a

CONSTITUTIONALIST when it comes to any “weight and measure” issue involving cameras.
It is the Federal Parliament/Government that sets the legal requirements such as vehicles meters’
(speedo) and the variation in it. Actually even taxi charge meters should all be approved by
federal certification.
The State government eager to slug motorist for revenue raising purposes and engaging
contractors who have a financial interest in interfering with the proper and legitimate function of
cameras and lights, etc, should therefore not be permitted to touch any speed detection cameras
(including laser cameras). Again, as set out above, no matter how credible the bench testing
might be claimed to exist in the end it is all ab out the conditions prevailing at each location
where lights/cameras are positioned. It is not for the accused to disprove the credibility of the
equipment that was used but for the accuser to prove its credibility.
I recall an incident nearly 2 decades ago, when I cross examined a police officer to show how he
operated a laser speed detector. I asked him to repeat his explanation again. On both occasions
the police officer failed to indicate he switched on the unit. As such, the speed shown on the unit
could have been of another motorist and left on the unit. Also, he failed to know that you cannot

measure a vehicle travelling in a bend where there were numerous trees also blocking a constant
view of the vehicle. The courts at ample of times found police to have lied in their evidence in a
range of litigations and as such I view that when a police officer gives evidence in a court then
all court decisions adverse to such a police officer should be made known to the accused. Where
the police can expose this about the accused then it likewise should be about the informant.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
(xv) weights and measures;
END QUOTE
Let me use an example;

I was an INDEPENDENT candidate in the 2001 political federal election but refused to vote
myself ion constitutional grounds that compulsory voting is unconstitutional. On 19 July 2006
the County Court of Victoria (exercising federal jurisdiction) in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka upheld
both appeals. At times, subsequently, if I consider there is a credible candidate I exercise my
voting rights whereas other times I refuse to vote. As such I am not an opponent to voting but
against the compulsory voting. I proved in court I was correct about this, yet since then millions
of voters are still fined for FAILING TO VOTE, this is the gross abuse of powers by the
States/Territory/Commonwealth. One I challenged the constitutional validity of the compulsory
voting the legislation became ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio and remains to be so. Most
lawyers/judges/politicians however do not have any clue let alone any concept of what is
constitutionally applicable and permissible and so will continue the mantra of compulsory voting
and fine citizens in regard of failing to do so.
I stood my ground for about 5 years and did so successfully! No doubt the Road Safety Camera
Commissioner may also still have the understanding that voting is compulsory, etc.
When they I have to deal with people who believe in some mantra rather than legal reality then I
have a problem.
Let’s use some example:
Re: [conlawprof] Re: [religionlaw] Re: Masterpiece decided on Free
Exercise grounds
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
This was a case about a baker who refused to provide a special cake for homosexuals. He
exercised his constitutional rights of FREEEDOM OF SPEECH and Religion.
We actually in our constitution adapted the Religious Freedoms from the USA constitution as the
14th amendments were referred to by our Framers of the Constitution and Section 116 of the
constitution underlines this.
What eventuated was that Oregon had a commission that essentially villified the baker about his
religious objections.
Freedom of Speech, as I wrote already months ago, includes the artistic creation by a person
being it a baker, carpenter, painter, etc. As such I for one was not the least surprised the court
decided in favour of the baker. However I understand from media reports this bakers business
was already destroyed. After all 6 years of litigation had its toll.
As I experienced in the FAILING TO VOTE litigation an about 5 year litigation can be very
costly both in time and expenses and I represented myself to avoid other additional cost.
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE

Well the courts far too often at least in my view fail to accept this doctrine embedded in the
constitution. People who challenge the validity of road cameras on constitutional grounds will
likely come across a Road Safety Camera Commissioner/judge/politician/police/etc who hasn’t
got a clue what the true meaning and application of the constitution stands for and so rob an
accused of his rights to obtain a fair hearing much as the Supreme Court stated in its judgement
about the baker.
A Road Safety Camera Commissioner who goes on the basis that cameras must be right and the
law also and that the accused must disprove matters I view is incompetent to provide a neutral
consideration. (As the Supreme Court held the commission and courts had previously failed to
provide a neutral consideration). A Road Safety Camera Commissioner who therefore refuse to
consider relevant details to a camera issue simply does a gross injustice to all concerned and
those other victims of this who subsequently are wrongly accused of violating a law.
A law that is in violation of a constitution is no law at all.
Contrary to the popul.ar belief that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
in Section 51 provides for concurrent legislative powers the truth is as His Honour French J
(Later French CJ of the High Court of Australia – now retired) made clear Section 51 merely
provides for powers of the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
(i) trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States;
(ii) taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States;
(vi) the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the
control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth;
(xiii) banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the
State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money;
(xiv) insurance, other than State insurance; also State insurance extending beyond the limits of
the State concerned;
(xxiv) the service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process
and the judgments of the courts of the States;
(xxv) the recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the public Acts and records, and
the judicial proceedings of the States;
(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect
of which the Parliament has power to make laws;
(xxxiii) the acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways of the State on terms arranged
between the Commonwealth and the State;
(xxxiv) railway construction and extension in any State with the consent of that State;
(xxxv) conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes
extending beyond the limits of any one State;
(xxxvii) matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments
of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the
matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;
(xxxviii) the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the
Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of
this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal
Council of Australasia;
None of those listed show any legislative powers for the State/States but merely provide certain
exclusion for the Commonwealth and rights to accept matters from a State or States.

As French J then explained also was that for example Ss5t1(xxxvii) merely provided the powers
for the commonwealth to accept any reference of legislative powers from a State or States but
the States themselves had to find the legislative powers to do so elsewhere.
Part V—Powers of the Parliament

51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order,
and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
52 Exclusive powers of the Parliament

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have exclusive power to make laws for the peace,
order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
The difference in the meaning of those headings is that Section 52 became exclusive legislative
powers for the Commonwealth upon the creation of the commonwealth on 1 January 21901
whereas Section 51 was pending when the Commonwealth commenced to legislate upon a
subject matter.
As such the CONCURRENT legislative powers no more but was that until the Commonwealth
commenced to legislate the States had the legislative powers to do the same, however the
moment the Commonwealth commenced to legislate on a subject matter then that was the end for
the States to do so. And it is totally irrelevant if the Commonwealth commenced to legislate on a
subject matter and subsequently late abolished the legislation as once the Commonwealth
commenced to legislate then it became an exclusive legislative power and our constitution
doesn’t allow for a reversal of legislative powers back to the States.
Therefore the issue that is relevant is that where the Commonwealth has for long legislated as to
weight and measurers then the States no longer has this legislative powers. It means that all the
States can do is to pursue the commonwealth to legislate for a particular issue, such as speed
cameras, etc, and to certify them, as without the Commonwealth doing so there is simply no
valid usage for them and any State legislation to the contrary is NULL AND VOID Ab Initio.
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

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

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.
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

QUOTE
My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age pensions if it be
practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away from the states. The sub-section
would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the meantime until the Federal Parliament took
the matter in hand.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which
the words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether
we leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the
Federal Parliament will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have
exclusive power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed
legislation dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power
will have arisen.
END QUOTE

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 says-
But 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

As the legislative powers for the States clearly was ceasing to exist once the Commonwealth
commenced to legislate on this subject matter in Section 51 then the same applies to other
matters within section 51.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
Ordinary persons who complain to the Road Safety Camera Commissioner but find they do not
obtain a neutral consideration by the Road Safety Camera Commissioner because he fails to
understand the constitutional context applicable then the Road Safety Camera Commissioner is
as much part of the gigantic gross injustice inflicted upon motorist as those who may conspire to
do so.
As such, the motorist who were fined for such as in the above example allegedly speeding 77
km/h in a 40 km/h zone may in fact legally not have been doing so as the speed detection
cameras if not certified by the Commonwealth could not be relied upon as providing credible
evidence. Likewise did the Commonwealth certify the camera at the location of its
usage/position? After all if there was a gantry that was moving in the wind then this could have
affected the proper use of the cameras
Even the cameras used at toll ways to record an alleged offender on a toll way should only be
permitted to be used if the camera concerned was certified by the Commonwealth both as a
bench testing and at its location being used, subject to weather conditions, etc.
I not long ago was issued with an Infringement Notice regarding a toll road. There was
absolutely no doubt I was driving on a toll road and had not any responder and neither paid for
doing so. I wrote in that I requested the toll operators to pay me $100 for causing me having to
drive around contrary to my intention having blocked of the exit without proper warnings and by
this I had no choice but to drive on the freeway until the next exist. The company withdrew its
Infringement Notice (didn’t compensate me) as it was well aware it had failed to put up proper
signage, which in fact is did days later.
This underlines that even if one allegedly violates a law it nevertheless might not be intended and
the onus is upon the accuser to prove this.
The problem is we have what is called the Infringement Court system which in my view are the
unconstitutional STAR CHAMBER COURT/KANGAROO COURT systems.
There was this NSW incident where reportedly some 2,000 motorist of NSW were wrongly
issued Infringement Notices by CityLink by an error of it to get into the wrong data base.
As for the Infringement court as it fails to provide for an accused to be present and the infiormer
can alter an Infringement Notice without proper notification to the accused it means gthe
Infringement Court fails to be an impartial administration of justice and hence unconstitutionasl.
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
Infringement Courts simply do not provide this opportunity to both sides. It is irrelevant that an
accused may choose to litigate in another court venue as it is up to the prosecutor to do so. If an
accused elect to go to court the accused may be deemed to have given up his NO CASE TO
ANSWER and/or OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION defence! I had this when I filed an appeal
the trail judge commented that by filing an appeal I gave the court jurisdiction regardless I had
from onset objected to the jurisdiction of the lower court. Obviously, the trail judge was wrong
as once one make an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then all and any proceedings are NULL
AND VOID unless and until if ever at all the Court dismissed the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION. An appeal against a judgment that was handed down without invoking
jurisdiction then remains to be a valid appeal against the OB JECTION TO JURISDICTION and
the Appeal Court could then only deal with if the lower court validly invoked jurisdiction and
failing this to have eventuated has to set aside any judgment issued without invoking jurisdiction.
There are obviously numerous other issues such as for example are parking meters certified by
the Commonwealth? Are road parking sensors certified by the
Commonwealth both as a bench test and at its location.
Mr Simon McMillan, Chief Executive Officer (Banyule City Council) 4-9-2008
http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au Fax 94991391
.
Cc; Cr Wayne Phillips (Mayor) & other councillors (Banyule City Council)
.
Ref; purported traffic/parking violation. Your ref BS30/01/004 Doc Id 480529
. AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Sir,
Thank you for the 29 August 2008 response via Mr David Clarkson Municipal Laws
Coordinator albeit I do not agree with the content thereof in general.
END QUOTE 4-9-2008 COMPLAINT
I now quote my 18-11-2008 third complaint;
QUOTE 18-11-2008 COMPLAINT
By way of 29 August 2008 response Mr David Clarkson Municipal Laws Coordinator sought to
justify that
END QUOTE 4-9-2008 CORRESPONDENCE
The reporting officer has both recorded and advised me that the thread of your tyre was
marked at 11.55am and the vehicle reported at 2.24pm after the officer determined that the
vehicle had not moved within this time frame.
Before embarking upon the next issue of time calculations I must make it very clear that I use the
calculations of how I was taught in first grade of primary school when growing up in The
Netherlands and perhaps Banyule City Council may wish to enlighten me that my kind of time
calculations is incorrect as to Australian standards, but I doubt Banyule City Council will
succeed in this.
I also noted that you refer to the time frame of 11.55 to 2.24 pm now lets see what 3 hour time
frame this includes;

12 hour clock 24 hour clock
11.55 am till 12.55 pm = 1 hour 11.55 am till 12.55pm = 1 hour
12.55 pm till 1.55 pm = 1 hour 12.55 pm till 13.55 pm = 1 hour
1.55 pm till 2.24 pm = 29 minutes 13.55 pm till 14.24 pm = 29 minutes
---------------- ----------------
Total time = 2 hours 29 minutes = 2 hours 29 minutes
QUOTE 4-9-2008 CORRESPONDENCE
Council in accordance with Section 24(1) has reviewed the decision to serve the
infringement notice and after due consideration has determined the above vehicle was
reported for an offence of overstaying in a 3 P time restricted area at the Greensborough
Plaza Car Park.
Despite that it should be clear to even a first grader of a primary school that 2-hours 29-minutes
is less then 3 hours nevertheless Banyule City Council now persist in taking the matter to court
about the alleged 22 August 2008 infringement regardless of my correspondence since 27 August
2008 on this matter.
Is this just to waste ratepayers moneys on feeding lawyers for vexatious litigation?.
As for your online complaint system, IT STINKS!
END QUOTE 18-11-2008 COMPLAINT
Well if the Commonwealth had to certify the parking inspector then an asylum might be better
suited for not only the parking officer but also the person dealing with the appeal and then
making known that the appeal was dismissed and would go to court. Well after I made clear that
the court might have a different view about it then somehow the (second) appeal was upheld and
the Infringement Notice was withdrawn. However, what about other motorist who also had
incorrectly been issued with parking infringement notices?
Whenever there is a speed reduction applied this obviously can then affect the time a motorist is
to cross an intersection and if the timing of the amber light remains as is then no motorist could
safely cross the intersection without being caught by red light.
I for one view that all and any usage of measurement instruments must be certified for usage
both by bench testing as well as at the location it is used and regularly checked by competent
Federal Government officials, albeit the cost be borne by the relevant states for this.
I have also noticed that in Victoria VicRoads at times applies twice the number of demerit points
then is legislatively applicable. As such it applies it when the infringement is claimed to be made
and again for the same when a court issue an order that indeed the infringement was made, this
even so it is the one incident. As such unsuspected motorist could be faced to lose their license
due to the gross incompetence of VicRoads or similar authorities.
Also, I was advised that VicRoads holds thousands of payments which somehow were held
because it was at a wrong number or whatever. As such motorist may have made a payment for
their registration only to be caught for driving an unregistered vehicle because some typing error
may have caused the payment to remain in a holding account without VicRoad advising the
payer that the monies was not received or was provided with incorrect details.
What we really need is for politicians to be on the job to actually be competent in managing road
issues and less bother about photo opportunities. After all an innocent motorist who loses his job
has a lot to lose while entitled to have competent persons in the job.
So much more to write about but for now it should be sufficient that all and any alleged
infringement that is claimed to have been made by any measuring device that was not properly
certified by the Commonwealth both as bench testing, at location and periodic to ensure it
remains measuring to legal requirement should be held to be NULL AND VOID and cancelled.

Any tolerance used by any measurement such as odometer of a motor vehicle must correspond
with those applied by and all states, meaning the Commonwealth sets the tolerances and the
States/Territories are bound to apply them as such. Meaning that the local police cannot apply a
lesser tolerance to a speed then that is Commonwealth regulated regarding vehicle measurement
instruments.
I spend in my view far too much time checking my speed, as it distracts from other road issues
and when Steve Brack’s was Premier of Victoria I then recommended that GPS facilities should
be applied to show a red light ion the dashboard indicating to the motorist exceeding the local
speed limit. So the driver immediately is made aware of it, even if the local speed zones are
obstructed from view. That to me would assist road safety but would obviously would reduce
revenue collection by councils and the State Government(s).
Our enemies are the politicians and their officials and the judiciary who undermine and
obstruct the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in our
constitution.
A copy of this document will be published at my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati so all
people can consider what if anything of it they may agree or disagree with and can provide me
with feedback if they desire to do so.
.Thiscorrespondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all issues or
contain all relevant details and neither refers to matters in any order of importance.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE
I for one welcome any feedback based upon actual constitutional details of anyone who seeks to
argue against my set out in a proper and intelligent manner
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)


20180606-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Road Safety and Other Related Issues, Etc, & The Constitution

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

20180606-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Road Safety and Other Related Issues, Etc, & The Constitution

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ISSUE: 20180606- Re: Road safety and other related issues, etc & the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

* Gerrit, tell me the truth, are you running for parliament?

p2 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Today at 21:14 (5-6-2018)

CBD motorists to pay $7 an hour to park, as spaces harder to come by

p3 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Melbourne street parking cost: $7 per hour | Herald Sun

Melbourne CBD parking to increase to $7 an hour as council unveils ...

Current cost per hour Proposed new cost Type of parking

It has also unveiled a $14.9 million surplus.

Speed limit cuts to Bell St from Coburg to Waterdale Rd | Leader

SO, LET ME HAVE A DIFFERENT LOOK AT THIS.

p7 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Originally published as Camera reboot to nab speeders

Now greedy Transurban is demanding a deal with the Andrews Government on

Proposed Western Distributor deal to cost billions

Transurban is demanding a deal with the Andrews Government on CityLink to extend

p8 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS DEAL FOR WEST GATE BRIDGE ALTERNATIVE

The West Gate Freeway would also be widened.

Originally published as Tolls to empty motorists’ pockets

Let’s look at something else.

Postchris_73Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:39 am

I received an infringement notice yesterday informing me that I was travelling at 77km/h in a 40

p10 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Re: Infringement - M80 Ring Rd

Postchris_73Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:45 am

I'm wondering if this has occurred to anyone else on that day?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-08/s ... es/4873410

PostHardyTue Jan 24, 2017 2:14 pm

Re: Infringement - M80 Ring Rd

PostfreddieTue Jan 24, 2017 7:31 pm

Re: Infringement - M80 Ring Rd

PostfreddieTue Jan 24, 2017 7:39 pm

Re: Infringement - M80 Ring Rd

Postchris_73Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:06 pm

p14 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

This NULLIFICATION principle is very much applicable, at least in my view as a

p15 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Let me use an example;

p16 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p17 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Part V—Powers of the Parliament

52 Exclusive powers of the Parliament

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p18 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?

Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.

Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p19 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.

p20 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p21 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p22 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p23 6-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Você também pode gostar