20150917-Address to the Court-In the Matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-hlavka Also Re Objection...

8/20/2019 20150917-Address to the Court-In the Matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-hlavka Also Re Objection to Jurisdiction

1/46

Page 1

Deponent: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. 107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084, Victoria [email protected]

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

ADDRESS TO THE COURT1Magistrates Court of Victoria2AT: St Arnaud (or alternative court location)3

4IN THE MATTER:5

Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka6(Alleged) Hearing date 19-9-20157

Sir/Madam,8

In my 20-8-2015 ADDRESS TO THE COURT I stated at commencement:9QUOTE10

I object to the jurisdiction of this court, as I indicated to Buloke Shire Council.11As I have encountered in the past judicial officers who failed to understand/comprehend the legal processes12involved in an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTIONI I will attempt to explain this.13

END QUOTE1415

And16QUOTE17

I do not accept that this court can grand the summons to be withdrawn, for that unless it deals with the18OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION first, this as it has no judicial powers to invoke to allow for the summons19to be withdrawn.20

.21 As this is an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION the court cannot take any plea.22END QUOTE23

24QUOTE Dill on v. Dillon , 187 P 2725

Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its26proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. .27

END QUOTE 2829

While due to ill health I was not able to personally attend to the hearing at the Magistrates Court of30Victoria at St Arnaud, nevertheless having made an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the31issue before the Court was the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as any matter of the summons32

no longer could be heard and determined unless the court first disposed of the OBJECTION TO33JURISDICTION if that is what it were to have done, not that I seek to indicate the Court were to34have done so. This ADDRESS TO THE COURT, containing the OBJECTION TO35JURISDICTION was accompanied by a 17 August 2010 correspondence which was emails to the36court on 17 August 2015.37

38It is my submission and set out to some extend further below in addition to my previous39writings, that the Magistrates Court of Victoria (at St Arnaud) only can but dismiss the40Summons (charges) for want of jurisdiction.41

42As shown below ES&a lawyers claiming to act for Buloke Shire Council has clearly indicated not43to respond to matters, and while that it its choice the Court cannot substitute this refusal as to go44along with whatever they desire. The Court is bound to follow the rule of law and where the45respondent to my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION didn’t seek to pursue this issue on 2046August 2015 and indeed doesn’t seem to accept there is an issue regarding the OBJECTION TO47JURISDICTION (even suggesting I seek legal advice) then the Court is bound to dismiss the48Summons (charges) for want of jurisdiction.49

50I needed to do no more but state “OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION” but in a way to assist also51I wrote extensively about this so that they might have realized from onset they were so to say52fighting a lost cause. As shown below by the various authorities the purported orders of 20 August532015 are no orders at all and neither can the court now provide other orders against me because its54failure to invoke jurisdiction and neither having had Buloke Shire Council lawyers presenting any55

details why it hold that the magistrates Court of Victoria has jurisdiction despite of the 19 July 200656


2/46

Page 2



County Court of Victoria orders, then it is not for the court to somehow try to infringe upon proper1litigation as on its own accord to try to make a case for Buloke Shire Council.2

QUOTE Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.3

Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of4 juris.5

END QUOTE 67

QUOTE Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.8

A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity9and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property. 10

END QUOTE 1112

The courts obligation was that because there was an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then it13only could invoke judicial powers to determine the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION issue and14hand down formal orders and a reason of judgment. Where the court fails to do so then it implies it15never had jurisdiction and matters are at an end.16While the Court may adjourn matter to hear and determine the OBJECTION TO17JURISDICTION as to enable the parties to perhaps in writing set out matters, it can however not18

issue orders regarding the summons charges as if no OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION exists.19 Hence, I have set out below considering the writings of ES&a Lawyers for Buloke Shire Council20that it appears the Court on 20 August 2015 didn’t deal formally with the OBJECTION TO21JURISDICTION and as such didn’t invoke jurisdiction to hear and determine the OBJECTION22TO JURISDICTION or to adjourn it providing details as to for what purpose it was adjourned and23therefore the 20 August orders are claimed by ES&a Lawyers for the adjournment of matters and to24

be heard in my absenteeism if I do not appear are no orders at all and have no legal force.2526

In 1988 I was confronted by an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION by the State of Victoria and27in 2001 I was faced with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION by the Commonwealth in non-28related litigation, and as such it must be clear that where it suits a Government then the Court will29

deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as is legally required. What is good for the30 Goose is good for the Gander and it is not the function of the court to be bias and appear to take31sides as to whom objects to the jurisdiction of the court. It must follow legal procedures regarding32an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION regardless which party objects to the jurisdiction of the33court. Because the state and the commonwealth used the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION in34non-related matters I am now so to say giving them some of their own medicine. And as set out35

below succeeded in this on 19 July 2006. While therefore this court could have dealt with the36OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION on 20 August 2015 albeit constrained by the ruling of the37County Court of Victoria of 19 July 2006 which set aside the orders of the Magistrates Court of38Victoria (at Heidelberg) that it had jurisdiction, it cannot re-litigate those issues, and so in the end39no matter what other rulings it may make it cannot conclude the court has jurisdiction where it40

cannot overrule the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria appeals rulings. Without seeking to41imply that the court now can re-litigate or otherwise litigate on matters I do provide this ADDRESS42TO THE COLURT as to try to get so to say some understanding and some sense in it all.43On 20 August 2015 the court clearly failed to follow “DUE PROCESS”, NATURAL JUSTICE”,44ETC, and as such it cannot now try to get around its errors of 20 August 2015 as to substitute the45orders indicated by ES&a lawyers as to now pursue litigation regarding the OBJECTION TO46JURISDICTION as having issued orders in defiance of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION 47to hear and determine on 17 September 2015 the Summon charges issues has effectively placed the48court that it acted without jurisdiction and as set out below can but only withdraw those orders and49

provide orders to dismiss the Summons charge(s).5051


3/46

Page 3



I have listed below (again) various Authorities regarding the issue of an objection to the jurisdiction1of a court. Without conceding jurisdiction and/or the validity of the hearing on 19 September 2015 I2will seek to set out certain issues.3

4I provided a 19 August 2015 correspondence that contained the following also;5QUOTE 19 August 2015 correspondence 6Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud 19-8-20157c/o the coordinator [email protected] 8

9Cc: Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected] 10

Buloke Shire Council [email protected] 11Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected] 12George Williams [email protected] 13Cr Reid Mather (Mayor) MALLEE WARD [email protected] 14Cr David Pollard (Deputy Mayor) LOWER AVOCA WARD [email protected] 15Cr Leo Tellefson MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected] 16Cr Stuart McLean LOWER AVOCA WARD [email protected] 17Cr Graeme Milne MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected] 18Cr Gail Sharp MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected] 19Cr Ellen White, MALLEE WARD, [email protected] 20

21Re: 20150819-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud22

cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council23Sir/Madam,24

despite my various writings no response from ES&a, the St Arnaud coordinator or the25Magistrates Court at Collingwood about the 20 August 2015 hearing that was listed in St Arnaud.26This I view is the scandalous kind of conduct by the court. Regardless if hearing is only held on27Thursday in St Arnaud I view the coordinator should monitor email coming in and appropriately28respond to them. Even the Magistrates Court Collingwood failed to attend to my email. I today29attended to a doctor and have to attend tomorrow for testing and well over the coming days may30have further testing to be done pending what, if anything can be found. I view sufficient evidence to31show I had a justification not being able to attend. Further, as it is a contested hearing that first32

requires the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION to be dealt with then then at most the court could33 direct the prosecutor to file within a certain time it written arguments why the court can invoke34 jurisdiction and then further time for me to respond upon this. If the court were to issue orders35adverse to me than it give s me a right of appeal to the County Court of Victoria and as I know from36the past when a Magistrate fails to deal appropriately with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION 37then the appeal has to succeed.38At 22.00 hours on Wednesday 19-8-2015 I checked my emails and none I could locate were of39ES&a or from the court(s) as such it is clear the incurrence of any cost by ES&a is its own making40if it were to travel to St Arnaud as it failed to act reasonable and appropriately in the circumstances.41The fact the court also failed to clarify matters I view is scandalous.42

43This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.44Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)45

46

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®4748

(Our name is our motto! )4950

END QUOTE 19 August 2015 correspondence 5152

I below quote part of the 2 September 2015 correspondence received from ES&a Lawyers acting53allegedly for Buloke Shire Council, I have however at the end of this ADDRESS TO THE54

COURT included a s canned copy of the correspondence in full.5556

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


4/46

Page 4



QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence) 1We act on behalf of the Buloke shire Council in the above prosecution.2

3The above matter was listed for before the Magistrates’ Court at St Arnaud on 20 August 2015 and we4acknowledge your numerous items of correspondence. We do not propose to respond to a majority of the matters5raised therein.6

7The purpose of this letter is to confirm that as you did not appear the matter has been adjourned for hearing at the8St Arnaud Magistrates’ Court on 17 September 2015 at 8.30am In the event you do not appear on that date the9

matter will proceed in your absence.1011We confirm that the St Arnaud Magistrates’ Court is the appropriate venue for this matter as the offence took12

place in Berriwillock. The only Court which is closer to the location of the offence is the Magistrates’ Court ar13Swan Hill which is a greater distance from your residence. Council will not consent to any change of venue and14we note that the Collingwood Magistrates’ Court is not the appropriate venue for your matter in any event as it15deals with matters only where the offence has taken place within the strict boundary of a small proportion of the16City of Yarra or where the accused resides within that same boundary.17

18We note your purported objection to jurisdiction contained in your letter dated 17 August 2015 and strongly19suggest that you take legal advice with respect to same.20

END QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence) 2122

It is therefore absolutely clear that ES&a lawyers were fully aware about my OBJECTION TO23 JURISDICTION. The fact they desired not to respond to them also must be taken into account as a24failure to prove jurisdiction, this as the court cannot “assume” jurisdiction but the prosecutor had to25

prove jurisdiction by evidence. A refusal to do so is no legal excuse and therefore the Court on 2026August 2015 had an uncontested OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.27.28I may explain that on 16 and 17 November 2005 I appeared before the Magistrates Court of29Victoria at Heidelberg charges with FAILING TO VOTE in the 2001 federal election and likewise30so in the 2004 federal election. Over the 2 days I OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION of the31court (In fact this was originally made on 4 December 2002 upon which the Magistrates Court of32Victoria ordered the matters to be adjourned pending the High Court of Australia dealing with the33

matter. However the prosecutor failed to prosecute the matter before the High Court of Australia34 this even so it had the obligation to prove jurisdiction.), including the fact that by the ABN35registration it was not an impartial court and violated the separation of powers. After the nearly 236days the Magistrate dismissed my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and went on to make37orders against me. I appealed both cases on 19 July 2006 before the County Court of Victoria38having served all Attorney-Generals with a S78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL39MATTERS. It must therefore be clear that where the County Court of Victoria upheld my appeals40and set aside the orders dismissing my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then considering that41the then Attorney-General Robert Hulls for the State of Victoria had advised that the State of42Victoria would abide by the courts decision then it is beyond this Magistrates Court of Victoria43(sitting in St Arnaud or elsewhere) to somehow undermine/interfere with the rights I obtained in my44

successful appeals. The St Arnaud’s venue is merely a diff erent venue but still is the Magistrates45Court of Victoria and as such it is bound by the County Court of Victoria ruling.46.47It ought to be clear that Buloke Shire Council and so ES&a Lawyers were made well aware of the48County court of Victoria having upheld my appeals but nevertheless persisted in having an49summons issued. In my view this could be considered CONTEMPT OF COURT!50.51Where I objected to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of Victoria, in this case also because it52was at St Arnaud venue, then from that moment the court has legally but one option and that was to53deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.54.55Again, unless and until if ever at all the court had disposed of the OBJECTION TO56

JURISDICTION it had no legal powers to deal with the matters in the summons.57


5/46

Page 5



The court could have adjourned the summons matter pending the hearing and determination of the1OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and then could have done so adjourning the matter of the2OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION giving possible directions as to Buloke Shire Council to file3and serve upon the objector as to why the court should find that it has jurisdiction. This also4considering that I already succeeded in the same on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria5and the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud (or elsewhere) had no jurisdiction to re-enter this6matter already litigated previously as it is bound by the Wakim doctrine (HCA 27 of 1999) that the7same parties cannot re-litigate a constitutional issue previously already litigated.8

Because Buloke Shire Council seek to enforce State legislation it is acting as the State of Victoria,9as I have set out previously, and as such it is the same as if the State of Victoria is now litigating.10

11This below quoted judgment makes it very clear that the judges relied upon the Convention (Official12Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) and also made clear that the state creating13different bodies to act on its behalf nevertheless was a delegated power which in the end remained14to be the state.15

16http: //www.austli i.edu.au/au/cases/cth/H CA/1904/50.html 17Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904)18QUOTE (The word “Convention” has been placed in bold and red to make it stand out) 19

O'Connor, J. 20

The judgments delivered, in which I entirely concur, have dealt so fully with the various contentions raised in the21argument that I do not think it necessary to add anything except in reference to sec. 114 of the Constitution ,22upon the true interpretation of which the whole case in my opinion turns. The question for our determination23may be very shortly stated.24

Upon the establishment of the Commonwealth the Customs Houses in New South Wales as in other States25 became vested in the Commonwealth. Subsequently the Posts and Telegraph Department and the Department of26Defence became transferred by proclamation under sec. 69 of the Constitution , and thereupon the lands and27

buildings used in connection with these departments became vested in the Commonwealth under sec. 85 of the28Constitution .29

Before the establishment of the Commonwealth such of these lands and buildings as were within the boundaries30of the City of Sydney were liable to be rated, and were rated by the Municipal Council of Sydney under sec. 10331of the Sydney Corporation Act of 1879 , and sec. 110 of the Sydney Corporation Act of 1902 , which repealed32that Act and took its place.33

It was contended by the plaintiffs that, notwithstanding the establishment of the Commonwealth, and the vesting34of these lands and buildings in the Commonwealth, the liability to be rated and to pay rates to the Municipal35Council continued as before. The defendant on the other hand contended that, when the lands and buildings were36vested in the Commonwealth, the liability to be rated by the Sydney Municipal Council came to an end. The37question now submitted for our determination is, which contention is correct?38

The defendants' case rests mainly upon sec. 114 of the Constitution , which they ask the Court to interpret39 broadly as a direct prohibition against the levying of any tax or rate upon Commonwealth property by a State, or40 by any authority constituted or authorized by the Statutes of a State. The plaintiff, on the other hand, urges that a41much more restricted interpretation should be placed upon the section, that the prohibition is only against any42action of the State itself or the Parliament of the State, in imposing taxation for the purposes of Government. The43section may in strictness bear either interpretation, if we look merely at the words. But to get at the real meaning44we must go beyond that, we must examine the context, consider the Constitution as a whole, and its underlying45

principles and any circumstances which may throw light upon the object which the Convention had in view,46when they embodied it in the Constitution. This is a sound rule in the interpretation of Statutes, and is well47explained by Lord Blackburn in the River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson , 2 App. Cas., at p. 763, as48follows: — "In all cases the object is to see what is the intention expressed by the words used. But, from the49imperfection of language, it is impossible to know what that intention is without inquiring further and seeing50what the circumstances were with reference to which the words were used, and what was the object, appearing51from those circumstances, which the person using them had in view; for the meaning of words varies according52to the circumstances with respect to which they are used." Before examining the words of the section, it will be53useful to advert to the circumstances which the Convention had in view in framing this section, and their54

purpose and object in relation to those circumstances.55

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s69.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s69.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s69.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s69.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.html


6/46

Page 6



From the very nature of the Constitution, and the relation of States and Commonwealth, in the distribution of1 powers, it became necessary to provide that the sovereignty of each within its sphere should be absolute, and that2no conflict of authority within the same sphere should be possible. The principles laid down by Marshall , C.J., in3his historic judgment in McCulloch v. Maryland (4 Wheat., (U.S.), p. 316), are as applicable to the Australian4Commonwealth Constitution as to the United States Constitution, and it must be taken that those principles and5the controversies which had arisen in the United States in reference to their application, were within the6knowledge of the Convention. In laying down these principles the Courts of the United States, in the absence of7express provision, rested their reasoning upon the underlying principles of the Constitution, and on what was8necessarily involved in the grant of sovereign powers. What could be more natural than that the Convention 9

should, while it had the opportunity place the application of these principles to the property of the10 Commonwealth, at all events, as far as possible, beyond controversy by embodying them directly in the face of11the Constitution. 12

The material words of the section are as follows: — "A State shall not without the consent of the Parliament of the13Commonwealth ... impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth ... "14

It has been urged that, because the prohibition is against a State, and the word "tax" only is used, the section15cannot apply to a rate levied by a municipality. The section would, indeed, fall short of its object if it prohibited16only taxation directly imposed by a State Act of Parliament, and left Commonwealth property open to taxation17

by a municipality or any other agency which the State Parliament might choose to invest with powers of18taxation. But no such restricted interpretation is necessary or reasonable. The State, being the repository of the19whole executive and legislative powers of the community, may create subordinate bodies, such as municipalities,20hand over to them the care of local interest, and give them such powers of raising money by rates or taxes as may21

be necessary for the proper care of these interests. But in all such cases these powers are exercised by the22subordinate body as agent of the power that created it. Field , J., in his judgment in Meriwether v. Garrett , 102,23U.S.R., at p. 511, says: — "Municipal corporations are mere instrumentalities of the State for the more convenient24administration of local government. Their powers are such as the legislature may confer, and these may be25enlarged, abridged, or entirely withdrawn, at its pleasure. This is common learning found in all adjudications on26the subject of municipal bodies, and repeated by text writers."27

The prohibition against the State imposing taxation on Commonwealth property is the most comprehensive form28of prohibition that can be used, and, if we are to have regard to the circumstances within the knowledge of the29Convention, and the evident object and purpose of the section to which I have referred, it must be taken that the30

prohibition extends not only to taxation by a State for the purposes of general government, but also to taxation31 by an agency under the authority of the State, and deriving its power to levy taxation from the Parliament of the32State. To hold otherwise would be to declare that the State might do indirectly what it cannot do directly. It33seems to be clear, therefore, that a State has no more right to give legislative authority to a municipality to34impose the tax, than it has to impose the tax itself, and that any provision in a State Act purporting to give such35authority would be null and void. But it is urged on the part of the plaintiff that the section is prospective in its36operation, and that it does nothing more than prohibit the passing of legislation by the State authorizing either37State authority or municipal authority to levy the tax, and that a portion of the rates claimed were levied under38the Sydney Corporation Act of 1879 , a Statute which was in operation at the establishment of the39Commonwealth, and which, it is contended, is kept alive by the operation of sec. 108 of the Constitution .40

It is true that the section has only a prospective application, that is to say, it prohibits the imposing of any tax41after the establishment of the Commonwealth, but I cannot assent to the restricted interpretation which it is42sought to place on the word "impose." "Impose," no doubt, includes the giving of legislative authority to levy the43tax, but it includes more, it includes the executive act of levying or collecting the tax. Its dictionary meaning is44"to levy or exact as by authority." Having regard to the scope and purport of the section, effect must be given to45that plain grammatical meaning of the word. It is unnecessary for me, in this aspect of the case, to consider46whether the Act under which the tax is sought to be levied has, or has not, been kept alive by sec. 108. Existing47Statutes are mentioned under that section, subject to the Constitution, and, in my view, sec. 114 expressly48

prohibits the imposing, that is to say, levying, exacting or collecting of the tax after the establishment of the49Commonwealth. The section can be made fully effective, having regard to its scope and purpose, as already50explained, only by giving a broad and reasonable interpretation to its language, including in the expression51"State," all the agencies and instrumentalities by which a State can exercise its power of taxation, including in52the word "impose" both meanings already alluded to, according as the thing to be prohibited is the legislative53authority or the administrative Act, and giving to the word "tax" its ordinary grammatical meaning, which is54wide enough to cover the general rates of a municipality. So interpreting the section, I am of opinion that the55Constitution prohibits the levying of these rates, and that the Commonwealth is not liable in respect of the claim56of the Municipal Council of Sydney.57

Griffith, C.J., , Barton and O'Connor, JJ. 58

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s108.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s108.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s108.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s108.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/


7/46

Page 7



Per Curiam. — Before granting a certificate we must be satisfied that there is some special reason for certifying1that the question is one "which ought to be determined by His Majesty in Council." It must, at least, appear that2there is some reasonable ground for disputing the correctness of our judgment. This is a very plain case,3depending on the construction of the plain unambiguous words of sec. 114. We do not see any ground for saying4that it ought to be determined by His Majesty in Council.5

Judgment for defendants.6

Certificate refused.7

END QUOTE 89Therefore, the proceedings between Buloke Shire Council and myself ought to be considered to be10that of the State of Victoria and myself. That is if Buloke Shire Council is at all authorising ES&a11lawyers to litigate in the first place. A matter I intent to refer to below also.12Because of Councillor Graeme Milne sending me an email which appears he has not a clue about13what is going on about the litigation it appears to me that therefore this is not a matter discussed14amongst councillors. Neither then could Graeme Milne as councillor be regarded to have given15informed consent for ES&a Lawyers to act on behalf of Buloke Shire Council. While in “Sydney16Municipal Council v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904)” the case17related to “Sydney Municipal Council” no objection appeared to have been made at that time that it18

related to the council. Municipal structures may at the time have been different also. What however19 ought to be understood is that when the State Government pursues to litigate it doesn’t ordinary do 20so in the title of the “State Government” but as “State of Victoria”. The Government can change at21any time whereas the State of Victoria is constant. As such the litigation, without conceding that it22should have been instituted at all, ought to have been in the name of “Shire of Buloke” and not23“Buloke Shire Council”. This also as councillors are changing over time, not being re-elected or for24whatever other reasons. It would be absurd therefore to litigate in the name of Buloke Shire Council25where the councillors could be lumped with orders of cost against them for something they do not26even know what it is about.27As I understand it ordinary all correspondences to Buloke Shire Council are collated and each28councillor received a copy of it with all applications, recommendations, etc, such as for building29

residents, on a property so that at the council meeting the councillors can attend to these matters.30Councillors then put forwards a motion to receive the correspondence and when seconded it is31accepted, etc.32As I directly forwarded the correspondence to each councillor then any knowledge they may have33had is from my emails if the material was not presented during council meetings.34It may therefore be that Graeme Milne didn’t understand the issue because likely the councillors35never debated the matter and ES&a Lawyers may also never have explained matters to the36councillors.37As such Mr Wayne Wall, who works for Buloke Shire Council in managing the “Shire of Buloke” 38may have taken it upon himself to authorise ES&a lawyers to litigate without possibly having39obtained the informed consent of all councillors.40

In my view, the unsolicited email from Mr Graeme Milne that he doesn’t appear to understand what41the litigation is about may underline that ES&a Lawyers didn’t at all have informed consent of42Buloke Shire Council councillors to litigate.43Yet it claims in its 2-9-2015 correspondence;44

45QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence) 46

Council will not consent to any change of venue and we note that the Collingwood Magistrates’ Court is not the47appropriate venue for your matter in any event as it deals with matters only where the offence has taken place48within the strict boundary of a small proportion of the City of Yarra or where the accused resides within that49same boundary.50


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.html


8/46

Page 8



In my submission “Council will not consent” is a falsehood as where councillor Mr Graeme Milne1is not even aware what the litigation is about then surely he would unlikely understand the legal2issues involved as to the courts venue.3Even if ES&a Lawyers were to claim it had since 26 August 2015 explained matters to all4councillors, then nevertheless it still would be a falsehood this as the issue I raised in the 26 August52015 correspondence was the Magistrates Court of Victoria Heidelberg venue. Clearly this was not6

by ES&a lawyers presented to councillors because they refer to “Collingwood”. 78

QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence) 9 or where the accused resides within that same boundary.10END QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence) 11

12As I reside in the precinct of Heidelberg then clearly this was/is the appropriate venue.13It is in my submission a serious matter that ES&a Lawyers have made false/misleading/fraudulent14representation that “Council will not consent” where it appears to me it never was in the first place15informed about the Heidelberg venue being the appropriate venue.16In my view an OFFICER OF THE COURT should never engage is deceptive conduct, which I17view clearly ES&a Lawyers engaged in.18I do not know what transpired before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud on 20 August192015 but safe to say I have concerns that ES&a Lawyers deceived/misled the court and may have20concealed relevant details as to obtain orders to which the court had no jurisdiction.21But before addressing other matters I will now first quote the 26 August 2015 correspondence and22Councillor Milne’s email. 23

24QUOTE 26-9-2015 correspondence to the Court coordinator and others (as listed) 25Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud 26-8-201526c/o the coordinator [email protected] 27

28Cc: Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected] 29

Buloke Shire Council [email protected] 30Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected] 31George Williams [email protected] 32

Cr Reid Mather (Mayor) MALLEE WARD [email protected] 33 Cr David Pollard (Deputy Mayor) LOWER AVOCA WARD [email protected] 34Cr Leo Tellefson MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected] 35Cr Stuart McLean LOWER AVOCA WARD [email protected] 36Cr Graeme Milne MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected] 37Cr Gail Sharp MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected] 38Cr Ellen White, MALLEE WARD, [email protected] 39

40Re: 20150826-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud41

cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council 42Sir/Madam,43As I stated in my 19-8-2015 correspondence and the same applies still at the time of writing:44QUOTE45

despite my various writings no response from ES&a, the St Arnaud coordinator or the Magistrates Court at46Collingwood about the 20 August 2015 hearing that was listed in St Arnaud. This I view is the scandalous kind of47conduct by the court.48END QUOTE49The distance of Melbourne to St Arnaud is 244 KM and [2011] UKPC 31 Privy Council Appeal No 0101 of502010 Electra Daniel Administrator for the estate of George Daniel (deceased) (Appellant) v The Attorney51General of Trinidad and Tobago (Respondent) while this was a wheelchair access issue, nevertheless the judgment52itself refers to access to the courts. As a senior citizen I view the Age Discrimination Act 2004 applies also,53considering also that a Magistrates Court of Victoria court facility at Heidelberg is about 4 KM 54away from my residence. 55QUOTE Age Discrimination Act 200456

3 Objects57

The objects of this Act are:58

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


9/46

Page 9



(b) to ensure, as far as practicable, that everyone has the same rights to equality before the law,1regardless of age, as the rest of the community; and 2

(c) to allow appropriate benefits and other assistance to be given to people of a certain age,3particularly younger and older persons, in recognition of their particular circumstances; and 4

END QUOTE Age Discrimination Act 20045(Back to the doctor tomorrow for test results- etc, regarding the possible cause of ill health)6

7This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.8Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)9

10


(Our name is our motto! )13END QUOTE 26-9-2015 correspondence to the Court coordinator and others (as listed) 14

15QUOTE 26-9-2015 email from Graeme Milne Councillor Buloke Shire Council16Re: see attachment 20150826 -Schorel-17

Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria18at St Arnaud cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke19

Shire Council20From Cr Graeme Milne

To [email protected]

Date Wed 22:05

Message 11 of 32 21

22Please stop including me in your ramblings. I dont know what it is your on about.23

24Cr Graeme MILNE25

26Sent from my iPad27

28On 26 Aug 2015, at 2:23 pm, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. wrote:29

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud 26-8-2015 30

c/o the coordinator [email protected] 31

32

Cc: Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected] 33

Buloke Shire Council [email protected] 34

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected] 35

George Williams [email protected] 36

Cr Reid Mather (Mayor) MALLEE WARD [email protected] 37

Cr David Pollard (Deputy Mayor) LOWER AVOCA WARD [email protected] 38

Cr Leo Tellefson MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected] 39

Cr Stuart McLean LOWER AVOCA WARD [email protected] 40

Cr Graeme Milne MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected] 41

Cr Gail Sharp MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected] 42

Cr Ellen White, MALLEE WARD, [email protected] 43

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://webmail.au.syrahost.com/?_task=mail&_action=show&_uid=1986&_mbox=INBOX&_caps=pdf%3D0%2Cflash%3D1%2Ctif%3D1https://webmail.au.syrahost.com/?_task=mail&_action=show&_uid=1986&_mbox=INBOX&_caps=pdf%3D0%2Cflash%3D1%2Ctif%3D1https://webmail.au.syrahost.com/?_task=mail&_action=show&_uid=1986&_mbox=INBOX&_caps=pdf%3D0%2Cflash%3D1%2Ctif%3D1https://webmail.au.syrahost.com/?_task=mail&_action=show&_uid=1986&_mbox=INBOX&_caps=pdf%3D0%2Cflash%3D1%2Ctif%3D1https://webmail.au.syrahost.com/?_task=mail&_action=show&_uid=1986&_mbox=INBOX&_caps=pdf%3D0%2Cflash%3D1%2Ctif%3D1mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://webmail.au.syrahost.com/?_task=mail&_action=show&_uid=1986&_mbox=INBOX&_caps=pdf%3D0%2Cflash%3D1%2Ctif%3D1https://webmail.au.syrahost.com/?_task=mail&_action=show&_uid=1986&_mbox=INBOX&_caps=pdf%3D0%2Cflash%3D1%2Ctif%3D1mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


10/46

Page 10



1

Re: 20150826-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud2cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council 3

Sir/Madam, 4

5

see attachment 20150826 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud cc ES&a LA-05-06-6Re Buloke Shire Council 7

8--9 Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.10 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® 11107 Graham Road12Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia13

14Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and other legal issues.15

16THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE DISABLED 17

1820

2122END QUOTE 26-9-2015 email from Graeme Milne Councillor Buloke Shire Council23.24Upon receiving this email I checked the return path as to authenticate the email from the sender25

which showed “Return-path: ” 26As such it was a genuine email.27

28QUOTE 26-9-2015 email from Graeme Milne Councillor Buloke Shire Council header details 29Return-path: 30Envelope-to: [email protected]: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:07:12 +080032

Received: from mail.buloke.vic.gov.au ([110.143.142.95]:35968)33 by webcloud43.au.syrahost.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256)34(Exim 4.85)35(envelope-from )36id 1ZUZTz-000gUo-S637for [email protected]; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:07:12 +080038

Received: from [10.54.144.7] (port=59564 helo=wyex01.buloke.vic.gov.au)39 by mail.buloke.vic.gov.au with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)40(Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX)41(envelope-from )42id 1ZUZTn-0005sW-2q43for [email protected]; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 22:07:00 +100044

Received: from WYEX01.buloke.vic.gov.au ([fe80::608d:ec72:adc2:f4eb]) by45

wyex01.buloke.vic.gov.au ([fe80::608d:ec72:adc2:f4eb%11]) with mapi id4614.03.0248.002; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 22:05:18 +100047

X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A150206.55DDABE4.0094,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=048From: Cr Graeme Milne 49To: "" 50Subject: Re: see attachment 20150826 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates51Court of Victoria at St Arnaud cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council52

Thread-Topic: see attachment 20150826 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates53Court of Victoria at St Arnaud cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council54

Thread-Index: AQHQ37b9SmSJcFSQE0amc7R/3M6+Mp4eL4TV55Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:05:18 +000056Message-ID: 57References: 58

In-Reply-To: 59Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US60


11/46

Page 11



Content-Language: en-US1X-MS-Has-Attach:2X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:3Content-Type: multipart/alternative;4

boundary="_000_69AC38214D954554BED5BABB2A9F0CACbulokevicgovau_"5MIME-Version: 1.06

7--_000_69AC38214D954554BED5BABB2A9F0CACbulokevicgovau_8Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"9

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable1011Please stop including me in your ramblings. I dont know what it is your on =12about.13

14Cr Graeme MILNE15

16Sent from my iPad17

18On 26 Aug 2015, at 2:23 pm, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. wrote:20

2122

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud =23 26-8-20152425

c/o the coordinator [email protected]

282930

Cc: Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected]

33Buloke Shire Council [email protected]

36 Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected]=37ov.au38

39George Williams [email protected]

Cr Reid Mather (Mayor) MALLEE WARD [email protected]

45Cr David Pollard (Deputy Mayor) LOWER AVOCA WARD [email protected]=46u47

48

Cr Leo Tellefson MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected]

51Cr Stuart McLean LOWER AVOCA WARD [email protected]

54Cr Graeme Milne MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected]

57Cr Gail Sharp MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected]

Cr Ellen White, MALLEE WARD, [email protected]


12/46

Page 12



1Re: 20150826-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St A=2rnaud3cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council4Sir/Madam,5

67

see attachment 20150826 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Vict=8oria at St Arnaud cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council9

10 --1112

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.13MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL=AE14107 Graham Road15Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia16

17Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI=AE books on certain constitutional and other leg=18al issues.19

20THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE DISABLED21

22

232426END QUOTE 26-9-2015 email from Graeme Milne Councillor Buloke Shire Council header details 27.28As I indicated in previous material I filed a complaint with the Legal Service Commissioner29suspecting that Mr Wayne Wall may have issued correspondence in the name of ES&a Lawyers and30so purport to be the legal practitioner. That I view is a very serious matter. It is not and neither was31my intention that the Legal Service Commissioner somehow was to get embroiled in these32

proceedings, as that is not its function nor has such authority, at least in my views. I did however33notify ES&a Lawyers about my complaint to the Legal Service Commissioner, as I held they were34

entitled to be fully aware of this.35It now appears to me that ES&a Lawyers are destined to use whatever inappropriate tactic to litigate36against me. This I view this court cannot permit.37.38There can be no doubt that ES&a Lawyers were fully aware of my OBJECTION TO39JURISDICTION and therefore had an obligation to raise this issue with the court as to ensure that40the court would not proceed as if there was no OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and then the41orders would be null and void.42.43After all, I view they owe it to their client as not to protract litigation in such manner.44.45Yet, ES&a Lawyers claimed:46

47QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence) 48

We act on behalf of the Buloke shire Council in the above prosecution.4950

The above matter was listed for before the Magistrates’ Court at St Arnaud on 20 August 2015 and we51acknowledge your numerous items of correspondence. We do not propose to respond to a majority of the matters52raised therein.53

54The purpose of this letter is to confirm that as you did not appear the matter has been adjourned for hearing at the55St Arnaud Magistrates’ Court on 17 September 2015 at 8.30am In the event you do not appear on that date the56matter will proceed in your absence.57



13/46

Page 13



Because there was an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and was not disposed of then the court1had no jurisdiction and so no legal powers to order that the matter be heard on 17 September 20152and will proceed in my absenteeism if I do not attend.3At best the court, not that I seek to indicate I would have agreed with this, have dismissed the4OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and then ordered that the matter be adjourned to 175September 2015 and if I didn’t appear the matter would still be heard and determined.6However, the writings of ES&a Lawyers do indicate no such kind of dismissal of the OBJECTION7TO JURISDICTION and rather implies the matter of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION 8

was never attended to:9QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence) 10

The above matter was listed for before the Magistrates’ Court at St Arnaud on 20 August 2015 and we11acknowledge your numerous items of correspondence. We do not propose to respond to a majority of the12matters raised therein.13

END QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence) 14And15QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence) 16

We note your purported objection to jurisdiction contained in your letter dated 17 August 2015 and strongly17suggest that you take legal advice with respect to same.18


Had the court on 20 August 2015 disposed of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then clearly21there would have been no need to suggest I seek legal advice regarding the OBJECTION TO22JURISDICTION. As such it appears to be still a life issue, but one that ES&a Lawyers cannot23grasp as to the legal implications and applications despite of my elaborate set out including quoting24numerous authorities.25If the court on 20 August 2015 had disposed of my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then it26was bound to have provided me with not only orders but also with a reason of judgment, including27why it held it could overrule or otherwise interfere with a County court of Victoria decision to28uphold my appeals against the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg dismissal of my29OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.30.31It is very clear that I OBJECT TO JURISDICTION of the Magistrates Court of Victoria32(wherever it was holding the venue) as well as to the St Arnaud venue.33Yet, the absurdity was to allegedly order me to attend at 8.30 am.34In my view a FAIR MINDED PERSON would hold this unreasonable considering the relevant35circumstances and so my writings.36

37QUOTE 6-9-2015 correspondence to the St Arnaud coordinator and others 38QUOTE In the Marriage of P.N. and J.S. Axtell 7 FLR 93139

The test of judicial bias as laid down by the high court is ‘whether it has been established that it might40reasonably be suspected by a fair minded person that the judge might not resolve the question before him with41a fair and unprejudiced mind’ 42

END QUOTE 43QUOTE 6-9-2015 correspondence to the St Arnaud coordinator and others 44

45The quotation (Alison J May) also refers to a time of 8.30am whereas ordinary the court doesn’t46commence hearing until 10.00 am. As such considering the distance between my residence to the47Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg being about 4 kilometres, whereas the distance to the48Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud is about 244 kilometres, then the additional travelling of49240 kilometres means a lot more travelling time. I may involve 3 to 4 hours. Meaning that to attend50I would have to leave my residence by no later than 4.30 am.51As this is an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION where I am the objector then the court (at least52

by the claim of Alison J May) to cause such a ridiculous condition upon me as a senior citizen53obviously it failed to act appropriately.54END QUOTE 6-9-2015 correspondence to the St Arnaud coordinator and others 55

And56 QUOTE 6-9-2015 correspondence to the St Arnaud coordinator and others 57


14/46

Page 14



While this correspondence was dated 26-8-2015 after the alleged 20-8-2015 orders were made1nevertheless I view the court should have considered the same being well aware that my2(ADDRESS TO THE COURT emailed 17 August 2015OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION)3objected to the Magistrates Court of Victoria St Arnaud venue.4. 5QUOTE Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court)6

A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the burden of endeavouring to ascertain7the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by their own advocacy8

END QUOTE 910

It doesn’t mean the court must assume the burden of the self -represented party but must ensure that11in particular where a party is not in attendance, the proceedings are not conducted in a manner that12would offend a fair and proper hearing.13.14As such the court on 20 August 2015 ought to have questioned the legal practitioner appearing for15Buloke Shire Council on what legal basis its client allegedly objects to the Magistrates Court of16Victoria Heidelberg venue where the objector is legally entitled to have the hearing at that venue17considering the objector resides within the area of the court venue?18Also, the court ought to have questioned why should this objection be heard in the St Arnaud venue19where the matter may take more than a day in litigation and so would cause an undue burden upon20

the objector if he had to repeatedly incur travelling and other expenses and being burdened to travel21long distances where clearly his rightful claim is that the St Arnaud venue is not the appropriate22venue!23.24We also have to consider:25.26Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)27

QUOTE 28As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his29clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he30honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount.31It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do32

what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of33 truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth.34He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce35all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all36relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his37client, if they conflict with his duty to the court. 38

END QUOTE 39.40QUOTE R.V. Crimmins (1959) VR 27041

Suppression of relevant evidence42END QUOTE 43. 44QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 34345

Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true.46END QUOTE 47. 48QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords49

In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give50good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the51conspiracy.52

END QUOTE 53.54This raises the question was there a conspiracy between the lawyers and Buloke Shire Council as to55

persist the hearing to be held at the St Arnaud venue as to try to make it difficult for the objector to56succeed in his OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION? Therefore the issue is did the legal57

practitioner deliberately conceal from the court on 20 August 2015 or at any other occasion the58

relevant facts as to obtain orders by a miscarriage of justice that otherwise may not have been59obtained?60.61


15/46

Page 15



As a CONSTITUTIONALIST and (now retired) Professional Advocate I have been at the Bar1table for about 4 decades, and not uncommon a trail judge would adjourn a matter briefly and sent2out an assistant to request me to take a place at the Bar table to assistant unrepresented party. In fact3even when in a political election campaign in Swan Hill and merely sitting in the public gallery the4

judicial officer (Magistrate) asked me to come down and represent the litigant, as I was known for5assisting parties. It is therefore beyond me how on earth the court at the St Arnaud venue possibly6could have made orders as claimed by Alison J May. It defies what is legally appropriate.7As I have not been provided with a court transcript or any formal orders let alone any reason of8

judgment I merely can set out how I view the legal representative of Buloke Shire Council9(considering also the correspondence of 2 September 2015) may have presented the case.10

11Hypothetical version;12

Your Honour, I am appearing on behalf of Buloke Shire Council regarding a summons against Mr G. H. Schorel-13Hlavka who resides in Viewbank, returnable today before this court. I understand that the respondent has14

become the Objector by forwarding to this court an ADDRESS TO THE COURT, of which we were also15 provided at that time with a copy of the same that objects to the jurisdiction of this court.16I submit to this court that the accused now has become the Objector, and this court must first deal with the17objection to jurisdiction, and only if it finds upon the evidence before it that it has jurisdiction it then and only18then can hear and determine the matters raised in the summons.19As the Objector is not present, and considering his elaborated details as to Authorities regarding an objection to20

jurisdiction, and that the onus is upon my client to prove jurisdiction, we submit that this court provides a time21 table that sets out for my client to file and serve upon the Objector as to why the court has jurisdiction. It is in the22courts hand to set the time frame for this, however I understand that the Objector is ill and for this also couldn’t23attend to today’s hearing and as such any time table ought to consider that the Objector is given sufficient time to24respond to my clients submissions.25The writings of the Objector points out that this court has the jurisdiction to determine if it has jurisdiction or26not, but also considering the fact that the Objector is a senior citizen and resides some 244 kilometres from this27court venue and Heidelberg court venue appears to be indeed the appropriate court venue, it is my submission28that this part of the objection to jurisdiction should succeed, even so my client gave me the understanding not to29consent to the matter being transferred to the Heidelberg court venue. I may add that the Objector while30indicating that the Heidelberg court venue is the appropriate court venue he did however indicate not to concede31

jurisdiction to this court venue either.32My clients concern is as I may allude to this that the Objector previously over a 2 day hearing objected to the33

jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg and the magistrate dismissed this objection to34 jurisdiction in regard of both cases then before the court but upon appeal the County Court of Victoria upheld35 both appeals and set aside the orders. It effectively means that if the matter were transferred to the Magistrates36Court of Victoria at Heidelberg then again likely the objection to jurisdiction, considering the precedent must37succeed.38I may add that the objection to jurisdiction then in issue was not in particular against the Heidelberg venue per se39

but against the Magistrates Court of Victoria and any other courts, and as such even if the matter was not40transferred to the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg but retained for judicial decision in this venue this41court nevertheless would likely be bound by the County Court of Victoria ruling to upheld both appeals.42My client, as the Objector points out, is acting for the State of Victoria and as such bound by the statement of the43then attorney-General Mr Robert Hulls to abide by the courts decision. This place my client in a difficult44

position, that it seeks to enforce State laws which it claims the Objector violated, but the Objector in his writings45made clear that essentially he did no such thing. This leaves that no court could ever adjudicate the matter unless46

as the Objector pursues the courts are “impartial administration of justice” which he successfully in his former47appeals held were failing to be so.48What we have is that effectively since 19 July 2006, when the Objector succeeded in both appeals by his49reasoning, as I understand it, no court has or can invoke judicial powers regarding any matter as long as the50courts are not impartial.51My client is in no position to re-litigate this issue as clearly it is bound by the 19 July 2006 County Court of52Victoria orders, which set aside the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg of 17 November 2005 which53held the court had jurisdiction. Obviously, if my client can demonstrate that there were changes in circumstances54since 19 July 2006 and the court no longer are for example using the same ABN number as the Department of55Justice, and neither as the Objector alludes to the statement of former Supreme Court of Victoria justice Phillips56J that the Government has the courts recorded as “Business Unit 19” and neither has any further access to the57court computers, etc, then this may, albeit I cannot decide this for the court, alter the rights of the Objector if the58court were to find so. The court however may be bound by the Wakim principle and unable to entertain such re-59

litigation all together.60The Objector appears also to have objected to the validity of the Infringement Act, the Infringement Court and61also the validity of the summons my client has instituted against him.62


16/46

Page 16



There are other issues raised in his material, and I do not desire to limit the scope of the Objector’s issues such as1unconstitutional council rates that he claims is relevant to the issue of the summons issues, etc. Safe to say that2my client is now placed in a position that unless and until if ever at all he can overcome the objection to3

jurisdiction no further litigation can eventuate, and the Objector seeking to have the summons charges dismissed4for want of jurisdiction would then succeed.5If this court were to provide for a time table for the parties to present their legal arguments in writing then6

perhaps this court may invite the parties, if desiring to do so, to compliment by oral submissions at a later time,7 being it by video, telephone or otherwise the issues.8At this time however my client has not provided me with any instructions as to place before this court any9

material to overcome the objection to jurisdiction and as such I am in the hands of the court if it holds that by10 this the objection to jurisdiction must succeed in whole or part and the summons charges is dismissed for want of11 jurisdiction or that the court provides certain orders regarding the Objectors objection.12Obviously the Objector appears, considering his writings, to have considerable knowledge and understanding of13legal procedures and for this I urge this court to make such orders as legally is permissible as to avoid any14opportunity for the Objector to appeal on basis of this court failing to follow appropriate legal procedures.15As I set out already it is my understanding that the Objector albeit objecting to the Magistrates Court of Victoria16St Arnaud venue his objection also is against the whole of the Magistrates Court of Victoria regardless of which17venue is being used, and appears to have succeeded in this previously on appeals in the County Court of18Victoria. This court clearly would have no judicial powers to overrule or otherwise undermined the benefits the19Objector obtained by the courts rulings and as such the question of transferring the Objectors objection to the20Heidelberg venue may be no more but result in protracted hearings but in the end may achieve nothing more then21what this court could achieve at this venue.22

As the Objector correctly points out he doesn’t have the burden to disprove jurisdiction as it is upon my client to23 prove jurisdiction and also by this overcome any issues the Objector may raise, but at the same time the Objector24relies upon Wakim HCA 27 of 1999 that the same parties cannot re-litigate the same issues, and again as my25client is acting in the position of the State of Victoria this binds my client in that regard.26As this is obviously a very important issue, not just for the Objector but also for my client as well as for others27who may face charges, I urge the court to ensure any ruling it may hand down today will be recorded and the28Objector is provided a written copy of this the transcript, the orders and the reasons of the orders. The court can29then also provide directions as to if the court will have the Registrar or requires my client to provide the Objector30with these documents.31Perhaps I may add that as the Objector does use an email address the court may direct that copies are emailed to32this email address as well as forwarded via Australian Post or otherwise this as to avoid any time delay to notify33the Objector to the nature of these proceedings.34

.35

Obviously if so to say there was just a meeting in the pub between the legal representative and the36 judicial officer or registrar to work out orders then likely no transcript will exist to show such or37other kind of submissions.38.39Indeed, if the court did no more but issue orders to adjourn the matter (of the summons) and to be40heard in my absenteeism if I didn’t appear then the orders are without jurisdiction and are no orders41at all.42

43Most unrepresented litigants will appear or not appear not having a clue about their legal rights and44

by this may often be taken advantage of by unscrupulous lawyers. Hence, I view it is essential that45it is clarified if Alison J May (ES&a) did or didn’t herself (or using another legal practitioner)46conceal from the court relevant details as to obtain orders that clearly were in appropriate.47

If relevant details were concealed which ought to have been revealed to the court on 20 August482015 then this may constitute having perverted the course of justice.49.50Magistrates often have numerous cases and must be able to rely upon legal practitioners appearing51

before him/her to disclose all relevant issues. It doesn’t mean the legal practitioner has to argue the52case for the other party, but must disclose relevant issues to the case that may indicate the53Magistrate may not be able to proceed with the hearing and determine the issue of the Summons.54.55As for a Registrar I view he/she had no judicial powers to ignore the objection to jurisdiction as56he/she is not an “officer of the court” and should not interfere/undermine the appropriate legal57

processes that may be applicable.58

.59 It is my submission that lacking any details provided to me what the court ordered (other then what60is alleged by Alison J May in her 2 September 2015 correspondence) on what legal basis, etc, that I61


17/46

Page 17



suspect the hearing went ahead about the summons as if there was no OBJECTION TO1JURISDICTION. The court may have held that the ADDRESS TO THE COURT may have2constituted in the circumstances a NOT GUILTY plea, whereas clearly to accept this would be3erroneous as no plea was or could be made where the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was at4hand and not disposed of.5QUOTE Evans v Bartlam (1937) AC 4736

The principal obviously is that unless and until the court has pronounced a judgement upon the merits or by7consent, it is to have the power to revoke the expression of its coercive power where that has only been obtained by8

a failure to follow any rules of procedure.9 END QUOTE 1011

Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA 12QUOTE 13

This interpretation is reinforced by reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and14suppression of evidence which would comprehend cases of wilful false evidence. At common law, a15

judgment will be set aside if it has been obtained by fraud. 16END QUOTE 17

18http://familyguardian.tax-19tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm 20Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256) 21QUOTE 22

37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle23is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,24and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."25

END QUOTE 2627

In my submission the court would have no option but to withdraw the orders violating the legal28 processes of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as they were fraudulently obtained, if the29legal practitioner appearing before Buloke Shire Council failed to disclose relevant details.30.31I submit that this court ought to request the Legal Service Commission to investigate Buloke Shire32Council legal representatives if it did or didn’t conceal from the court relevant details it reasonably33ought to have revealed to the court on 20 August 2015. In my view if the legal practitioner34

representing Buloke Shire Council had submitted to the court that its client objects to consent to the35transfer of the matter then this in itself may have been misleading if the client was not aware that I36referred to the Heidelberg venue, to which I was legally entitled upon, and the client was wrongly37advised about Collingwood or otherwise.38I understand that in the case of MORIATY v LONDON, CHATMAM & DOVER RY Queen’s39Bench 1870 L.R. 5 Q.B. 314;39 L.T.Q.B. 109;22 L.T. 163;34 J.P. 692;18 W.R. 625 in which the40

plaintiff sued a railway company for personal injuries sustained and this plaintiff has gone about41suborning false evidence and it was held by the Court that even so the plaintiff would have had a42genuine and justify to case to sue normally, by the plaintiff conduct to suborn false evidence this43

was seen by the Court that this conduct amounted to an admission that he had no case. 4445

If therefore the legal representative for Buloke Shire Council concealed from the court relevant46issues and by this perverted the course of justice then this must be held that by this Buloke Shire47Council has no legal ground to oppose the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and fraudulently48seek to get around the objection and for this the court dismisses the matter for want of jurisdiction.49This as the court cannot allow itself to be seen to appear to be accomplish to pervert the course of50

justice.5152

I make it clear that I object to the 17 September 2015 hearing to proceed, this also as I53question the legal validity of such alleged orders, and any appearance by me, if I were to54attend, as I am still in ill health, would be without conceding jurisdiction and neither to accept55the alleged adjournment was legally appropriate.56

57

http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm


18/46

Page 18



This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.1Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)2

3


(Our name is our motto! )6END QUOTE 6-9-2015 correspondence to the St Arnaud coordinator and others 7

8Because court venue at St Arnaud was the wrong venue, and it is not for ES&a Lawyers a to dictate9what they consider to be the appropriate venue, as it was for the court to determine this and10considering my place of residence, then the court may have done better to have addressed the venue11issue and may have concluded that in all circumstances Heidelberg venue was the appropriate venue12and for that part I had to succeed, regardless that I didn’t concede jurisdiction for the Magistrates13Court of Victoria (at Heidelberg). As such, the court at the St Arnaud venue could have transferred14the matter to the Heidelberg venue without compromising itself and without prejudice. This so the15Heidelberg venue could then deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and decide if also16considering the appeals upheld by the County Court of Victoria there was jurisdiction that could be17invoked at all. However, the court at the St Arnaud venue failing to do so but purportedly issuing18orders to adjourn the summons matter and to direct that the matter is to proceed regardless if I am19not in attendance then those orders were issued without jurisdiction and cannot have any legal force.20

21Obviously the fact that the St Arnaud venue failed to provide me with any orders and reason of22

judgment itself is of concern, as it appears to me is merely is so to say a puppet on a string for23ES&a Lawyers, to do what it is told regardless of the legal issues involved.24I view that by this the court discredited itself severely.25.26Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National27Australasian Convention), 28QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-29

Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice30should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; 31

END QUOTE32.33Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 34QUOTE35

Sir JOHN DOWNER .-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on36terms that are just to both.37

END QUOTE3839

Because of the federation the Monarch withdrew the Letters Patent to the Governor of the Colony40of Victoria commissioning the Governor, and on 2-1-1901 the Monarch had published in the41Gazette new Letters Patent establishing the Office of the Governor which required an “ impartial42

administration of justice”. As such any conflict of “separation of powers” such as the registration43 of the governments ABN number for the court is clearly a violation of the Letters Patent, and as44such beyond the powers of the Governor for the State of Victoria. Again I successfully argued the45ABN issue on appeal in the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 and entitled to the benefits of46these successful appeals, and so Buloke Shire Council cannot pursue to re-litigate this issue again.47

48As I had clearly objected to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of Victoria (St Arnaud or49otherwise) then I will yet again refer to aut

20150917-Address to the Court-In the Matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-hlavka Also Re Objection...

Documents

Transcript of 20150917-Address to the Court-In the Matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-hlavka Also Re Objection...