20151101-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council...

8/20/2019 20151101-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL-15-…

1/13

Page 1

p1 1-11-2015 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, See alsoHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr Peter Kidd CJ 1-11-2015Email: [email protected]

Cc: Buloke Shire Council [email protected]

Mr Martin Pakula, Attorney-General [email protected] & [email protected]

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected]

Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected]

Re: 20151101-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria-

Re Buloke Shire Council -AP-15-2502 -Re COMPLAINT -Supplement 1

Sir,

on 30 October 2015 His Honour Mullaly went into details to tell me that with my appeal Icould face a greater penalty and legal cost then that the Magistrates Court of Victoria at StArnaud had ordered on 17 September 2015. To me this was an uncalled threat and inappropriateas it implied that His Honour Mullaly held the 17 September 2015 orders to be valid and as suchin effect disregarded that my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was not existing, this despitethat my ADDRESS TO THE COURT in writing did set out matters.In my view the matter before His Honour Mullaly was as stated in my ADDRESS TO THECOURT the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and His Honour Mullaly had no judicial powersto order any listing of the matter of the Summon charge without first having dealt with theOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. An OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION must be heard on itsown, and cannot be heard in conjunction with a charge. If His Honour Mullaly fails to grasp such

basic legal procedure of litigation then I view he better find himself another job.It must be clear that His Honour Mullaly failed to understand/comprehend the matters before himand as such must be disqualified from further dealing with this matter. Obviously I am entitled tohave a hearing before a COMPETENT judicial officer who at the very least understands andcomprehend and can provide for proper legal procedures applicable to the matters before thecourt! As His Honour Mullaly failed to order a jurisdictional hearing I view His Honour failed toinvoke in that regard jurisdiction. As my OBJECTION TO THE JURISDICTION was before HisHonour Mullaly as to opposing any Ballarat venue then the matter was to be heard and be dealtwith by His Honour Mullaly as to nevertheless transfer the matter to Ballarat undermines the

benefit of my objection before the court. As I understood there was no submission by Counselfor Buloke Shire Council to overcome my objection nor did His Honour Mullaly provide for a

proper hearing of the OB JECTION TO JURISDICTION then His Honour Mullaly couldn’t havedisposed of my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION including the transfer to Ballarat. If a party isto be competent to present his/her case then surely a judicial officer must be competent tounderstand and provide for a FAIR and PROPER hearing and provide for NATURALJUSTICE and DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

His Honour Mullaly referred to it having been a magistrate who made the orders on 17September 2015 whereas the documentation provided to me refers to a Judicial Registrar, thenclearly His Honour had before him details that were unbeknown to me. The Court never shouldconsider details unbeknown to a party appearing before it.

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[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]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


2/13

Page 2




This underlines what I stated in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT that I had not been providedwith formal orders and reason of judgement of the 20 August 2015 and 17 September 2015hearings.QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT 30 October 2015

I had to file the appeal without, despite my numerous written request having any sealed orders, treason of judgment or transcript. By this when I filed the appeal the Registrar at Broadmeadows first claimed theorders were issued by a Judicial Registrar but then changed it that the Judicial Registrar was made amagistrate. To me it is of concern that a Judicial Registrar would become a judge when failing to ensure

basic legal requirements. This matter I understand is a criminal prosecution where the prosecutor has to prove beyond reasonable doubt its case. Having paid $55.00 to obtain a copy of the court recording on 17September 2015 it appears to be the Judicial Registrar at no time had anyone entering the witness box. Thefemale legal practitioner (for Buloke Shire Council) seemed to make statements from the bar table without

entering the witness box to confirm it as evidence, and upon this the Judicial registrar purportedly issued his orders.

END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT 30 October 2015

In my view the proper legal procedures that His Honour Mullaly was to have followed was:

What was the matter before the Court?

Why was the Appellant caused to file an appeal without being provided sealed orders and

reason of judgment of the 20 August 2015 and 17 September 2015 hearings before theMagistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud?

What were the identities and positions of the judicial officer in each case on 20 August2015 and on 17 September 2015?

What were the precise orders of 20 August 2015 and why was the matter heard then andif not why was it adjourned?

Was the matter on 20 August 2015 adjourned because of the OBJECTION TOJURISDICTION and if so why was no order issued to indicate this?

Did the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud invoke jurisdiction and so where arethe orders and reason of judgment to show the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION wasdismissed.

If the Magistrates Court of Victoria didn’t dismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTIONthen on what legal basis did the court nevertheless issue the 17 September 2015 orders?

Here we have what is ordinary held a highly paid barrister appearing before the Court and yet asI view it basically a first grade child of a primary school could have stated what he stated, albeit

perhaps without deception.

Surely the (preliminary) brief he was provided for ought to have set out matters, and this whichwas refused to be provided to me despite my 27 October 29015 for the same?

In my view His Honour Mullaly to ascertain the issue of the Appeal ought to have demanded proper clarifications from Counsel appearing for Buloke Shire Council. Not that so to say I haveto engage in some detective work to try to establish what really eventuated with an ongoingrefusal by the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud to provide me with the repeatedly inwriting request to provide me with sealed orders and reasons of judgment.As I had indicated I had to file the appeal without having any formal sealed orders and reasons of

judgment His Honour ought to have addressed if I therefore may desire to amend my appeal onceI was to be provided with the relevant sealed orders and reasons of judgments. However HisHonour Mullaly did no such thing, but seemed to argue that there was no need for any“evidence” and blatantly disregarded the fact I was denied any proper opportunity to file anappeal having had to file an appeal without any sealed orders and reason of judgment having

been provided..

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


3/13


4/13

Page 4




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

The above matter was listed for before the Magistrates’ Court at St Arnaud on 20 August 2015 and we

acknowledge your numerous items of correspondence. We do not propose to respond to a majority of thematters raised therein.

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

date the matter will proceed in your absence.

We confirm that the St Arnaud Magistrates’ Court is the appropriate venue for this matter as the offence took

place in Berriwillock. The only Court which is closer to the location of the offence is the Magistrates’ Courtar Swan Hill which is a greater distance from your residence. Council will not consent to any change ofvenue and we note that the Collingwood Magistrates’ Court is not the appropriate venue for your matter inany event as it deals with matters only where the offence has taken place within the strict boundary of a small

proportion of the City of Yarra or where the accused resides within that same boundary.

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

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

It is therefore absolutely clear that ES&a lawyers were fully aware about my OBJECTIONTO JURISDICTION. The fact they desired not to respond to them also must be taken intoaccount as a failure to prove jurisdiction, this as the court cannot “assume” jurisdiction but the

prosecutor had to prove jurisdiction by evidence. A refusal to do so is no legal excuse andtherefore the Court on 20 August 2015 had an uncontested OBJECTION TOJURISDICTION.

END QUOTE 20150917-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka alsoRe OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

As I understand it the legal representatives of Buloke Shire Council seemed to make the courtaware on 17 September 2015 that I had objected, but the Court appeared to disregard this.In my view the legal representatives of Buloke Shire Council had to make clear to the court thatas there was an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the Court couldn’t proceed with the

matter of the charge but first had to deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.The Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud failure to follow proper legal procedures cannotsomehow wipe out the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as if it never existed.

In real terms the 17 September 2015 hearing cannot be deemed to have been Ex Parte as thecourt never invoked jurisdiction! ?The appeasl lies against the failure of the Court to issue ordersregarding the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and as there was no “evidence” then contrary to

the assertion by His Honour Mullaly that no “evidenbce” is required for an EX PARTE hearing

the court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine any charge and without any “evidence” asHis Honour Mullaly seemed to accept that there wasn’t any the proper conduct of the

magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud should have been to dismiss the charge contained inthe summons for want of jurisdiction, because no evidence was provided by the legalrepresentatives to prove that the magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud could invoke

jurisdiction. My 30-1015 ADDRESS TO THE COURT listed numerous Authorities in thatregard. If His Honour Mullaly cannot grasp legal authorities then I view he is beyond help andshouldn’t adjudicate on matters in a court of law.

I also noticed (30-10-2015) that Counsel for Buloke Shire Council seemed to read the material Ihad provided to his instructing solicitors when he was seated at the Bar table. I am well awarethat often lawyers appear at the bar table and then without even having read the case they are to

present. In fact one Queens Counsellor made it known to the Full Court that he had expected me



5/13

Page 5




to take about an hour to set out my appeal and wasn’t expected to immediately having to

respond. The Full Court then asked the Queens Counsellor if he was being paid to appear andthat he had no choice but to present his client’s case. It can be stated he lost the case big time.It is of concern to me as a so called rate payer that Buloke Shire Council is spending huge sumsof monies of legal representatives who have next to no understanding/competence as to the reallegal issues involved and go by this on a so to say legal merry go around, causing escalating legalcost to Buloke Shire Council and in which my rates are also used to fund against me this legalvexatious nonsense.Yet somehow this kind of litigation can be rewarded with the lawyers involved being able tocharge huge amount of monies, and I as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Professional Advocatewho appears to be far more superior in the knowledge and understanding of relevant legal issuesmay not be able to get any cost against Buloke Shire Council to me is utter and sheer nonsense.

QUOTE 20150917-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka also ReOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

Because of Councillor Graeme Milne sending me an email which appears he has not a clue about what isgoing on about the litigation it appears to me that therefore this is not a matter discussed amongst councillors.

Neither then could Graeme Milne as councillor be regarded to have given informed consent for ES&aLawyers to act on behalf of Buloke Shire Council.

END QUOTE 20150917-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka also

Re OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

Hence, I challenged the “legal standing” of the lawyers claiming to represent Buloke Shire

Council.In the Colosimo case I represented Mr Colosimo and then objected to certain lawyers being

present at the hearing at the bar table on the basis that I held they had no legal standing. In theend the judicial officer ordered them to leave the court room. If therefore the councillors ofBuloke Shire Council may not understand what the lawyers claiming to represent Buloke ShireCouncil are litigating about then surely this questions their authority to represent Buloke ShireCouncil.And while His Honour Mullaly didn’t want to r ead the ADDRESS TO THE COURT because of

not wanting to waste court time, reality is His Honour was in my view the very culprit to wastenot only the courts time but also my time. If I had provided a more extensive ADDRESS TOTHE COURT then so to say His Honour Mullaly would have screamed blue murder, and so tosome extend I limited it, but as this issue of the lawyers not having any legal standing wassubmitted by me in my ADDRESS TO THE COURT

QUOTE 20150917-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka also ReOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

In the Colosimo case the very first time I appeared for Mr Colosimo I submitted that the legal representativeof the shire Council had no legal standing and insisted they be ordered to leave the court room. While counseland instructing solicitors sought to argue the contrary but in the end they were ordered to leave, and includingmy objection for them to sit in the public gallery.

With the Magistrates Court of Victoria (exercising federal jurisd iction) being required to be an “open court”then no objection can be made to Buloke Shire Council having any representatives in the public gallery,however the issue that its legal representatives have no standing in law to represent them is still a validsubmission, and so submitted hereby, this also for the above set out such as in regard of councilor GraemeMilne and other matters.

END QUOTE 20150917-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka alsoRe OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

Yet, the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud simply disregarded this submission also. Andit seems that His Honour Mullaly rather to ensure I am finally provided with a proper hearing inMelbourne as I am entitled upon in view that the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaudnever invoked jurisdiction and so no issue of any appeal being required in Ballarat because in



6/13

Page 6




law there are no orders, then the appropriate venue is and remains to be the County Court ofVictoria at Melbourne..

As I indicated on 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth andState/Territory Attorney-General’s having filed and served a S78b NOTICE OFCONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS in the County Court of Victoria, when representing myselfas a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Professional Advocate, this was an issue I challenged the

jurisdiction of all courts and by this the convictions of FAILING TO VOTE.

It may be extra ordinary that I succeeded where others with lots of members of the legal profession failed, but that is because so to say I do my homework.If anything judges should applaud to have a person appearing before the court who pursues thetrue meaning and application of the constitution and any validly enacted legislation.

Hansard 24-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-The High Court cannot act unless complaint is made, but the Parliament can act

whenever it likes.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Only on motion.END QUOTE

Likewise the magistrates Court of Victoria and so the County Court of Victoria can only act ifthere is a complaint made. As I challenge the validity of the Fire Prevention Notice that itviolates the legal requirements of the Country F ir e Author ity Act 1958 and other jurisdictionalissues then no court can entertain the summons charge unless it first determines if it can invoke

jurisdiction. Only if it is able to invoke jurisdiction can it attend to dealing with a complaint.Hence, it doesn’t matter if the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer were to have millions of

photographs and other witnesses because in the end if the FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE isinvalid then no amount of evidence (not that it is conceded any existed) will be irrelevant.It is the same if a police officer without warrant and due cause unauthorised enters a property andthen locate drugs in the process, the court would have to throw out any such so called evidence

as it is inadmissible where it was obtained without warrant and without due cause. To allowotherwise could make vulnerable people the subject of planted drugs, etc..And while His Honour Mullaly referred to issue of cost, there can be no cost regarding litigationthat is going on and on where the court never invoked jurisdiction. The only issue before thecourt was and remains to be is the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and if a judge like HisHonour Mullaly desires to waste court time and cause the increase of legal cost to Buloke ShireCouncil then that is not my problem as long as it is not causing me any cost, directly and/orindirectly. Because I objected to the jurisdiction of the courts and this objection has not beendisposed of any other alleged cost is that for the lawyers to sort out between them and their(purported) client.

That is also why I view it was darn silly at the very least (omitting a more stronger statement)for His Honour Mullaly to make a statement about cost, because there is no hearing De Novowhere the first base of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION has still not been addressed. Itmight be a scare tactic used against ordinary self-represented litigants but it will not work on me.In fact I view it is unethical conduct in the circumstances.How on earth can the court increase a penalty on appeal where the original orders are issuedwithout jurisdiction and as such there is no De Novo hearing. It is all about OBJECTION TOJURISDICTION!

Technically the alleged ex party hearing on 17 September 2015 never existed as theOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was never dis posed of, and yet His Honour Mullaly didn’t

seem to understand/comprehend this. This to me poses the question if His Honour Mullaly has



7/13

Page 7




this as a modus operandi as to do so in all cases regarding the same issued where a legalchallenge is made against the validity of a notice/jurisdiction.

In my view His Honour Mullaly rather would have done better to lecture Counsel for BulokeShire Council that he ought to make his client aware that none of the cost that his client incurredcan be claimed because it doesn’t relate to the hearing of the matter of the OBJECTION TOJURISDICTION at all.

Buloke Shire Council legal representatives can therefore litigate in to eternity, and create a hugelegal bill, but in the end it all will be to no avail, as the courts cannot circumvent theOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and rather it is the courts own incompetence that is wastingcourts time and unduly increase legal cost to either or both parties.

I didn’t notice Counsel for Buloke Shire Council to seek certification for appea rance for costand neither was any stated by His Honour Mullaly. Neither do I view that the actual presentation

by Counsel warranted any such certification. If anything I view my presentation was far more professional. While Buloke Shire Council may nevertheless seek to claim cost for counsel toappear I view the County Court of Victoria should put in place a system to prevent what Iconsider such elaborate rip off.

In my view the lawyer seeking and obtaining orders for cost on 17 September 2015 must be dealtwith for fraudulently obtaining the order and by this perverting the course of justice becausethe lawyer was well aware that the magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud had never invoked

jurisdiction as it had not disposed of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. Yet, somehow HisHonour Mullaly never seemed to understand this either!This I view is why the judiciary is getting such a bad reputation because judges rather thanappropriately dealing with matters are ignoring proper legal procedures and do whatever theylike, being it for mateship with lawyers or otherwise, and by this undermine the generalcommunity trust in the legal profession and particularly in the judicial system.

If concern is the conduct of Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives to so to say forceahead with the summons charge despite that I view competent lawyers would have been awarethat the case is doomed as the FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE was “invalid” and as such cannot

be used to base litigation upon. This as the legislation provides for

QUOTE

41Fire prevention notices

(1) In the country area of Victoria, the fire prevention officer of a municipal councilmay serve a fire prevention notice on the owner or occupier of land in themunicipal district of that council (other than a public authority) in respect of

anything — (a) on that land, other than a building or in a building;

END QUOTE

Whereas the Fire Prevention Notice states:QUOTE 20151020-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Wayne Wall -Municipal Fire Prevention Officer & Country Fire Authority

Work to Be Completed

Cut all grass, noxious weeds and undergrowth on the whole of the block to a height of not more than 100mm,remove all combustible material from land including branches and prunings, vegetation from the fenceline

by brush cutter.

Additional Instructions:

END QUOTE 20151020-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Wayne Wall -Municipal Fire Prevention Officer & Country Fire Authority



8/13

Page 8




No one reasonably can comply with such a notice as buildings and its content ordinary contain“combustible materials” and hence the Fire Prevention Notice in that regard is in violation with

the provisions of the Act. Effectively no matter what a property owner may do compliance toremove “all combustible material” would include having to remove items such as wooden fence

post, sheds, residential building, etc.Any person who is to assess for himself/herself what may or may not be applicable is faced withclear directions that “all combustible material” is to be removed, as such leaves no pe rsonal

assessment. Any Fire prevention Notice, if there was any legal justification in the first place for itto be issued should have included the wording “other than a building or in a building;”. In my view, where I have repeatedly set out to both Buloke Shire Council and its legalrepresentatives that the Fire Prevention Notice is “invalid” because of how it is wording and so

in conflict with legislative provisions nevertheless persisted on 17 September 2015 withobtaining purported court orders against me.While His Honour Mullaly may hold that the court was permitted to issue orders ex parte withoutevidence (which I do not agree with), it is clear that in such process where the Court merelyrubber stamp a charge in violation to the legislative provision anyone who resides on a propertycan be convicted merely for having a building on the land to reside in. Even if a landowner wasto have the entire property concreted but has a “single” wooden fence post on the property then

technically he would still be in violation of the “remove all combustible material” direction. Thisas the legislation doesn’t exclude combustible fence posts. My neighbour who is the local captain

of the Country Fire Authority and actually was the one who erected the wooden fence post aswell as a wooden fence about 30 years ago (without my prior knowledge) surely should be heldto be competent enough to know if it is a fire danger or not. Yet, by the Fire Prevention Noticethose timber structures must be removed also.In my view the magistrate/Judicial Registrar may have found it utter and sheer nonsense toexpect property owners to remove all wooden fencing, building and its content as to comply witha Fire Prevention Notice that demands “remove all combustible materials”.In my view His Honour Mullaly acted irresponsible to condone a court without hearing anyevidence to deal with criminal matters and issue orders. In my view the onus was upon BulokeShire Council and its legal representatives to alert the court about the violation of the FirePrevention Notice with the legislation. Had His Honour instead of arguing about not wastingtime shown courtesy and allowed me my right to present my case as I had the carriage of thematter as the Appellant then I could have explained this to His Honour Mullaly.The truth is that at least I view, Buloke Shire Council and its legal presentative had an obligationto alert the court to the conflict of the Fire Prevention Notice versus the legislation and that theFire Prevention Notice was in direct conflict with legislative provisions.

In my view the conduct of Buloke Shire Council to persist in obtaining orders (in thecircumstances) on 17 September 2015 at the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud as well

as then pursuing the case to proceed before the County Court of Victoria and Counsel for BulokeShire Council remaining silent about this conflict which goes directly to the issue of“jurisdiction” I view may be deemed to constitute that they were perverting the course of

justice.

http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2015/HCA/38

The Queen v Beckett, [2015] HCA 38, 23 October 2015, S94/2015QUOTE

The concept that a person may pervert a course of justice by "preventing it" is eloquent of alegislative intention that liability extend to acts done with the proscribed intention inrelation to contemplated proceedings.

END QUOTE

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2015/HCA/38http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2015/HCA/38http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2015/HCA/38http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


9/13

Page 9





By contrast Sully J agreed with Professor Gillies' analysis: the scope of s 319 is broader than the common lawoffence and any act that is intended to pervert the course of justice suffices for liability even if the act doesnot, on an objective view, possess the tendency to do so40.

END QUOTE


Whether, as the appellant submits, this analysis explains the drafting of s 319, it is clear that, on the trial of acount charging an attempt to pervert the course of justice under the common law or under those statutory provisions which mirror the common law, the prosecution must prove the objective tendency of the accused'sconduct to pervert the course of justice44.

44 It is also clear that whether the conduct is successful in this respect is irrelevant to criminal liability45. Anact or omission may tend towards perverting the course of justice notwithstanding that, in the event, it wouldnot have achieved that result. Fabricating evidence with a view to averting a contemplated prosecution, asalleged here, may possess the requisite objective tendency even though any prosecution for the predicateoffence is doomed to fail for reasons that are unconnected with the accused's act.

END QUOTE

QUOTE

On the trial of a count charging a s 319 offence it suffices for the judge to instruct the jury in the terms of thesection: the prosecution must prove that the accused did the act, or made the omission, and that, at the time ofso doing, it wasthe accused's intention in any way to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.

END QUOTE

In my view where Buloke Shire Council engaged a Counsel to represent it before His HonourMullaly then Counsel had an obligation to clarify such matters like the conflict of the FirePrevention Notice versus the limitations set by s41 of the Country F ir e Authori ty Act 1958 , thisas to ensure His Honour Mullaly was aware of the conflict I had raised to dispute in that regardalso “jurisdiction”. In my view had Counsel appearing for Buloke Shire Council submitted to His Honour Mullaly

that there was a likelihood that the Court may not be able to invoke jurisdiction as I as objectorhas disputed the conflict of the terms stated in the Fire protection Notice versus what providedfor in the legislation then possibly His Honour Mullaly instead of having attacked me tochallenge the legislation His Honour Mullaly may have realised that in that regard there was aserious issue to attend to and it would be absurd to cause me to travel to Ballarat for a hearingwhich may never eventuate as it lacked legal justification.The very purpose of making an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is to prevent having to besuffering an injustice to prepare for a case, etc, that may not be legally justified to proceed.If as I suspect Counsel appearing for Buloke Shire Council had not been able to read up on thecase at the bar table, then I view this cannot excuse his failure to alert His Honour Mullaly to theissue because it was the choice by Counsel himself not to consider the matter earlier. Counsel

appeared before His Honour Mullaly and can be expected to be aware of what the case wasabout. The fact that Counsel for Buloke Shire Council claimed there were photos and that theMunicipal Fire Prevention Officer made a visit 14 days prior to the issue of the fire prevention

Notice being issued does mean that if his (preliminary) brief doesn’t indicate this he simply made

it up while at the bar table. If the photo’s claimed to exist turn out not to exist then in that regardI view this was a conduct to deliberately deceive His Honour Mullaly. As I view with his claimthat my request for the (preliminary) brief was only made “yesterday” (meaning 29 October 2015as if there had been insufficient time to provide me with it, whereas if Counsel had stated that therequest was made on Tuesday 27 October 23015 then His Honour Mullaly may have questionedhim why in those days the requested (preliminary) Brief had not been provided prior to thehearing. It is in my view that the general conduct of Buloke Shire Council and its legal



10/13

Page 10




representatives was to conceal relevant details, to pervert the course of justice and the

conduct of His Honour Mullaly to somehow endorse that in criminal procedures a court

can issue ex parte orders without any evidence (regardless of an outstanding OBJECTION

TO JURISDICTION), in my view was totally irresponsible and undermines the ability of

the general public to have a reliance in a proper and impartial administration of justice.

The irony is I am with my self- professed “crummy English” (Dutch being my native language,and I have had no formal education in the English language since arriving in the commonwealth

of Australia) and without formal education in legal studies able to understand and comprehend better relevant constitutional and other legal issues then those lawyers who are involved in thecase. The same was really in the Colosimo case where I took over from Mr Colosimo’s barrister,and turned the case around to successfully appeal matters, while more than 20 lawyers involvednever had understood that you must consider the legal basis upon which to litigate. None of themhad done so, and for years the case was litigated upon non-existing legalities. And that involvedmore than 20 lawyers, including judges!

As the Full Court made clear way back in 1994 that it would like to see that all lawyers followedmy example of providing in writing their written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THECOURT. This indeed is better as then an unrepresented litigant can read it beforehand. Now

lawyers turn up and are reading at the bar table what the case are about, and I view also doing adisservice to their clients. Not knowing what really the case is about and not grasping the legalissues they are by this rather wasting the courts time to make up statements that arefalse/misleading/fraudulent, etc and pervert the course of justice. It should be noted that theADDRESS TO THE COURT is not a document seeking to argue the “evidence” as such, but isto present to the court SUBMISSIONS of legal arguments. It also allows unrepresented litigantsto have assistance of lawyers and others to draft the ADDRESS TO THE COURT without theunrepresented litigant having to incur huge legal cost for legal representation at a court room. Inmy view the court should reorganise itself to become more litigation friendly so that thoseappearing are not dissolution with the lack of proper adjudication, and not having a judgewasting their time on absurd arguments, instead of addressing the real legal issues.

I may add and draw your attention to:http://www.westminster-abbey.org/press/news/2015/october/annual-judges-service-marks-start-of-legal-year

QUOTEAnnual Judges Service marks start of legal year 01 Oct 2015

The annual Judges Service took place at Westminster Abbey on Thursday 1st October 2015.

In his Bidding, the Dean of Westminster, the Very Reverend Dr John Hall, said: 'At the beginning of the legal year, we gather inthe presence of almighty God, who is the judge of all and who knows the secrets of our hearts, to renew our commitment to theservice of the Crown and of all people in the cause of justice.

'We acknowledge our high calling to reflect the justice and mercy of God. We seek God's strength and guidance that we might

remain true to the highest legal traditions, subtle as we apply ourselves to the causes before us, and wise as we influence thedevelopment of the law.

'We pray for the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, The Right Honourable Michael Gove MP, for The RightHonourable The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and for all who make and administer thelaw, both in the United Kingdom and in the European Union and in the other legal jurisdictions represented here today.

'We ask God to sustain us in our duties, to grant us humility and sound judgement, to forgive our errors, and to inspire us in ourservice. Here on earth may we serve more faithfully that heavenly justice in which alone we can in the end trust.'

Lessons were read by The Lord Chancellor (verses from Deuteronomy 10 and 17) and the Lord Chief Justice of England andWales (St Luke 10:25-27).

The preacher was the Reverend Robin Griffith-Jones, Master of the Temple.

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.westminster-abbey.org/press/news/2015/october/annual-judges-service-marks-start-of-legal-yearhttp://www.westminster-abbey.org/press/news/2015/october/annual-judges-service-marks-start-of-legal-yearhttp://www.westminster-abbey.org/press/news/2015/october/annual-judges-service-marks-start-of-legal-yearhttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


11/13

Page 11




END QUOTE

The Commonwealth of Australi a Constituti on Act 1900 (UK) (within which the States arecreated in s106 “subject to this constitution”) is a British Act and as such considering thedecision of Aggregate I ndustries UK Ltd., R (on the appli cation of ) v English Nature and &Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v.Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE,SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168

It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) albeit not overriding constitutional law, iscomplimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australi a Consti tutionAct 1900 (UK) is. While the High Court of Australia pretended in Sue v Hill that thecommonwealth of Australia is an independent country reality is that the High court of Australiahad no such judicial powers.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people

through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of

any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act

which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a freeConstitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the

freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their

representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of

securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than

that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect

the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.

Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the

daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of

freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every

one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular

liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their

work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an

Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,

therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which willdetermine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt

with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that

choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as acourt appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its

provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of theConstitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but

it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the

Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the

Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of

this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow

degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the

guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,

the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a

tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of

constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the

sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done

well. END QUOTE.

Counsel for Buloke Shire Council didn’t appear to consider it appropriate to intr oduce himself tome and perhaps the court should make it mandatory that a legal practitioner hands over a

business card to the opponent party as to the identity of the legal practitioner, but let it be clear



12/13

Page 12




that when it comes to constitutional provisions and legal principles so to say I leave them fordead. If the lack of courtesy is an indication of their level of intelligence then little wonderlitigation is drawn out uncalled for. Few lawyers (including judges) may understand thatEuropean Union legal provisions albeit not overriding out constitution and so validly enactedlegislation within the boundaries of our constitution nevertheless can be applied complimentaryto our legal provisions. Regretfully, what I view is needed is a re-education of lawyers (including

judges) so that they get a better understanding about what really is legally applicable withinrelevant jurisdictions, this as too often members of the legal profession lack the intelligence to beaware of this and unrepresented litigants who do not have a proper comprehension of legal

procedures then become victims of the legal processes..Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.

END QUOTE.Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National AustralasianConvention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE

Hence legislation must be in so to say layman’s terms, as far too often people pay fast amounts

of hard earning monies to lawyers for legal advice only to find that they lose their cases.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. CLARK .-

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled toclaim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.

END QUOTE

Di rector of Public Prosecutions v Serr atore Nos. Ca 40642/95 and Crd 72680/95 Crimi nal Law and Procedure -Statutes - Human Righ ts - Telecommunicati ons - Law Reform [1995] NSWSC 154 (14 November 1995)

QUOTE"It is well established that the Court should not impute to the legislature an intention to interfere with

fundamental rights, freedoms or immunities; such an intention must be clearly manifested by clear andunmistakable language: Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427 at 436-437. ... The closelink between the fundamental right to be secure against trespass and the right to privacy is illustrated by theobservations by Lord Scarman in Morris v Beardmore (1981) AC 446 ... Parliament itself has ...

recognised, in the context of telecommunications, the fundamental importance of protecting individual

privacy, although also recognising that the value of privacy can be over-ridden where it conflicts with

other significant community values, provided that detailed safeguards are observed. The recognition

and protection of privacy in the Intercept Act, in my view, justifies a restrictive approach to the

construction of the statutory exceptions to the prohibitions on interception. ... where there is a genuine

doubt as to whether the statutory language authorises the use of intercept information for a particularpurpose, that doubt should be resolved in favour of a narrow, rather than a broad construction of the

statutory authorisation." END QUOTE

It must be clear that the Country F ir e Authority Act 1958 must be considered in a narrowmanner, and as such it must be rejected that His Honour Mullaly seems to endorse criminal

proceedings to be dealt with ex parte without any evidence to enforce an invalid Fire Prevention Notice as if valid.

How absurd that we have judges who became members of the bar swearing allegiance to the

British Crown and then somehow became judges under a purported Queen of Australia. Some

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1994/15.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1994/15.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1994/15.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1994/15.htmlhttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


13/13

Page 13




never change their oath of allegiance. Most if any judge really understands that theCommonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to define/declare “citizenship” as it is a

political status and not a nationality. And I appear before judges who basically lack any properunderstanding of the constitution, and it is only within the constitution any judge can be a judgeand bound by the legal principles embedded in the constitution! And the Framers of theConstitution never intended rather to the contrary they held that both parties shall be heard. It isthen not a surprise to me that I have constantly lawyers (including judges) to deal with who

basically lack any proper understanding/comprehension of what the constitution stands for, andso any laws enacted if they are or aren’t within constitutional provisions.

A major problem is that judges generally have the view that they are above others, and know thelaw, but the truth is that often they lack to be open minded and rely upon misinformed/ill-informed doctrines that constitutionally do not apply. I am well aware by appearing for about 4decades at the bar table that there are judges who resent my forthright openness whereas other

judges applaud me for doing so. When I represented Queen Counsellor Mr H. J. Johnson andduring the proceedings requested leave to withdraw from His Honour Smithers J due that I wasthen unable to obtain any further instructions, His Honour Smithers J actually expressed that HisHonour preferred me to continue, but understood that in the circumstances I was unable to do so,where I couldn’t obtain further instructions. I did however represent Mr H. J. Johnson QC

subsequently on 3 further occasions. Judges who so to say are fair dinkum are well aware that I pursue justice, as my registered trademark stands for! If just judges realised that they are there toserve the general community and not their own ego, etc, we may just get that the generalcommunity may regain the confidence in an impartial administration of justice.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE

Mr. OCONNOR .-I think that the reason of the proposal is obvious. So long as each state has to do onlywith its own citizens it may make what laws it thinks fit, but we are creating now a new and a largercitizenship. We are giving new rights of citizenship to the whole of the citizens of the Commonwealth, and

we should take care that no man is deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law.

END QUOTE

I for one cannot accept that a blatant disregard to an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, thatalso was before His Honour Mullaly can be deemed DUE PROCESS OF LAW!

We will see what will be eventuating regarding my complaint against His Honour Mullaly!

In my view His Honour Mullaly orders of 30 October 2015 ought to be vacated, as they wereissued without invoking jurisdiction, this, as where the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION never was disposed of then the court never invoked jurisdiction as to be able to order a trail.

As the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud had jurisdiction to determine the

OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION but failed to do so then for all purpose and intent the courtnever invoked jurisdiction, and for this my right to have the matter attended to in the CountyCourt of Victoria at Melbourne is and remains to be valid!

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! )

20151101-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council...

Documents

Transcript of 20151101-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council...