MR Garry Mcintosh, Associate To His Honour Mullaly J.: Judgemullaly - Chambers@Countycourt - Vic.Gov - Au

Page 1
Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J.

judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Cc:
29-11-2015
Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au

Mr Martin Pakula, Attorney-General martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Re: 20151129-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J County Court of VictoriaRe APPEAL-15-2502-LEGALPROCEDURES-Syupplement-01
Sir,
This supplement is provides as to indicate that I had provided in each occasion in my

ADDRESS TO THE COURT written submissions of OBJECTION TO JURISDCTION to
the Magistrates Court of Victoria and as such while I was prevented to appear in person,
nevertheless the court had my written submissions before it (which was also served to Buloke
Shire Council as well as its legal representatives, and as such it would be wrong to claim that the
proceedings were ex parte as they were contested by me albeit in writing by written
submissions. Parts are quoted of the various ADDRESSS TO THE COURT albeit it was more
extensive, just to indicate that even the limited quoted parts makes it very clear that Buloke Shire
Council legal representatives were well aware of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION but
failed to prove any jurisdiction, hence the court never invoked jurisdiction.
Further, as outlined below, Buloke Shire Council by the date of this writing has failed to provide
any preliminary brief for the 20 August 2015 hearing and failed to provide a Full Brief for the 17
September 2015 hearing and I have (below) provided therefore some of the legislative provisions
To highlight certain issues also.
END QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence)
We note your purported objection to jurisdiction contained in your letter dated 17 August 2015 and strongly
suggest that you take legal advice with respect to same.
It is therefore beyond any doubt that Buloke Shire Council legal representatives were well
aware of the issue of OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and never even attempted then to
present to the Magistrates Court of Victoria (at St Arnaud) or for that on 30 October 2015
before His Honour Mullaly J any details/information to prove jurisdiction.
As this was a pre-appeal hearing I view that the onus was upon Buloke Shire Council to prove
the court could proceed with hearing the matter on appeal by proving jurisdiction. Clearly
counsel for Buloke Shire Council didnt utter a single word in that regard and this despite my
ADDRESS TO THE COURT which was also served upon Buloke shire Council and its legal
representatives specifically referred to the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
It also may be noted that I did forward copies to the Attorney-General as well as the premier, this
also because the County court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 upheld both appeals (including
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION) Mr Rob Hulls MP Attorney-General for the State of
Victoria then provided a statement that the State of Victoria would abide by the courts decision.
Clearly this is not eventuating.
p1
29-11-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Page 2
As I have also quoted below from the ADDRESS TO THE COURT Buloke Shire Council is
acting for the State of Victoria and so bound by what Mr Rob Hulls MP Attorney-General for the
State of Victoria then had stated.
As to this day no full brief has been served the Magistrates Court of Victoria for this neither can
have invoked any powers to hear matters. Again, I do not accept that a Full Brief is something
concocted after the 30 October 2015 hearing before His Honour Mullaly J referring to an appeal
hearing on 22 February 2016 and a non-existing 18 March 2013 hearing, as the Full Brief should
have contained the precise data as applicable prior to the hearings then before the magistrates
Court of Victoria and likewise for any appeal hearing (not conceding that an appeal hearing De
Novo is legally justified where the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was never disposed of.
Do understand I have conducted since 1982 a special lifeline service under the motto MAY
JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL where people gave me the understanding that they
contemplated suicide (even desiring to kill a judge) because of how in their view corrupt the
legal system, so the courts, were operating. What I am doing is to expose to a great extend how
just one simply matter seems so to say go under the radar and even His Honour Mullaly J seemed
to make clear, without any evidence, that I was some person who held that the rule of law applies
to everyone else but me, where in fact I am to the contrary pursuing that everyone should be
equal before the law, and lawyers/judges better get a grip to this and address the serious failures
in the legal processes.
While His Honour Mullaly J claimed as I understood it that the magistrates Court of Victoria can
proceed ex parte with issuing orders without the need of evidence, clearly this flies in the face of
what the Criminal Procedures act 2009 section 83 stands for. Again no preliminary brief
and/or Full brief was eve r served upon me in regard of the proceedings purportedly held in
the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud on 20 August 2015 and 17 September 2015! The
mere fact that Counsel for Buloke Shire Council on 30 October 2015 claimed it would take a
week to compile a Full Brief because of photos may underline that so to say Counsel for Buloke
Shire Council was taking His Honour Mullaly J as some fool by the nose, as such a brief
regarding the Magistrates Court of Victoria should have existed and it would take a mere few
minutes to phot copy it/them. Again I view the purported Full Brief now provided by email on 25
November 2015 and located a different version on Friday 27 November 2015 are a concoction of
Full Brief and is both in violation of the legal provisions as well as in violation to the orders of
His Honour Mullaly J of 30 October 2015 that it had to be posted via Australia Post (a Full Brief
not a concocted one) by no later than 9 November 2015.
The legal doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur action denies any remedy to a litigant
(including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands.
If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with Dirty Hands
best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!
I was known to use opponents lawyers and their witnesses against the opposing party. The foster
principle is something which if properly used can result that the legal representatives of an
opposing party when made aware of certain details issues have to present this to the court even
so it may go against their own clients case. And this is what obviously I used in these matters!
Criminal Procedure Act 2009
QUOTE (section 83)
(4)Subsection (1) does not limit the power of the Magistrates' Court to proceed to hear and
determine the charge in the absence of the accused under section 80 on the basis of
sworn evidence given by or on behalf of the informant if the informant has not
served a full brief on the accused.
END QUOTE
p2
29-11-2015
Page 3
While no preliminary or full brief was served just for clarity I quote the following:
QUOTE
84 Admissibility of evidence in absence of accused where preliminary brief served
(1) If
(a) under section 80 the Magistrates' Court proceeds to hear and determine a charge in the
absence of the accused; and
(b) the informant has served a preliminary brief on the accused in accordance with Division 2 of
Part 3.2 at least 14 days before the date of the hearing under paragraph (a); and
(c) the Magistrates' Court considers that the matters set out in the preliminary brief disclose the
offence charged
the following are, subject to subsections (4) and (5), admissible in evidence, despite the rule against
hearsay
(d) the informant's statement in the preliminary brief;
(e) any exhibit referred to in the informant's statement.
(2) Without limiting any other power conferred on the Magistrates' Court, if the court considers that the
matters set out in a preliminary brief do not disclose the offence charged, the court may require the
informant to provide additional evidence.
(3) The additional evidence referred to in subsection (2) is inadmissible unless
(a) it is in the form of written statements that comply with section 38; and
(b) a copy of each statement has been served on the accused at least 14 days before the
Magistrates' Court considers the additional evidence.
(4) The Magistrates' Court may rule as inadmissible the whole or any part of a preliminary brief, a
statement or an exhibit.
(5) The criminal record of the accused or a statement that the accused has no previous convictions,
when served in a preliminary brief, is only admissible for the purpose of sentencing in accordance
with section 86.
(6) This section does not limit the power of the Magistrates' Court to proceed to hear and determine the
charge in the absence of the accused under section 80 on the basis of sworn evidence given by or on
behalf of the informant if the informant has not served a preliminary brief on the accused.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
80Non-appearance of accused charged with summary offence
(1) If an accused does not appear in answer to a summons to answer to a charge for a summary offence,
the Magistrates' Court may
(a) if the summons was served in accordance with section 342 (ordinary service), direct that the
accused be served personally with the summons; or
(b) issue a warrant to arrest the accused; or
(c) proceed to hear and determine the charge in the absence of the accused in accordance with
this Part; or
(d) adjourn the proceeding on any terms that it considers appropriate.
Note
Section 328 sets out who may appear on behalf of an accused.
(2) If an accused has been charged with a summary offence and
Magistrates' Court may
fails to attend in answer to bail, the
p3
29-11-2015
Page 4
(a) proceed to hear and determine the charge in the absence of the accused in accordance with
this Part; or
(b) adjourn the proceeding on any terms that it considers appropriate
without prejudice to any right of action arising out of the breach of the bail undertaking.
(3)If the Magistrates' Court proceeds to hear and determine a charge under subsection (1)(c) or (2)(a), the
court may dispense with or vary any requirement imposed by or under this Part.
Note
See section 25 for consequences of failing to appear in answer to a notice to appear.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
25Non-appearance of accused served with notice to appear
s. 25
(1) If a charge-sheet containing a charge for a summary offence is filed against an accused in
accordance with section 22(1) and the accused does not appear in answer to the notice to appear,
the Magistrates' Court may
(a) issue a warrant to arrest the accused; or
(b) proceed to hear and determine the charge in the absence of the accused in accordance
with Division 10 of Part 3.3; or
(c) adjourn the proceeding on any terms that it considers appropriate.
(2) If a charge-sheet containing a charge for an indictable offence that may be heard and determined
summarily is filed against an accused in accordance with section 22(1) and the accused does not
appear in answer to the notice to appear, the Magistrates' Court may
issue a warrant to arrest
the accused.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Division 10Non-appearance of party
79 Non-appearance of informant
If the informant in a criminal proceeding does not appear on the date on which the proceeding is
listed for hearing, the Magistrates' Court may
(a) dismiss the charge; or
(b)adjourn the proceeding on any terms that it considers appropriate.
Note
Section 328 sets out who may appear on behalf of an informant.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
PART 3.4REHEARING
s. 88
88 Right to apply for rehearing
If a sentence is imposed by the Magistrates' Court in a criminal proceeding on a person
who did not appear in the proceeding, that person, or the informant on that person's behalf, may
apply to the Magistrates' Court for an order that the charge be reheard.
END QUOTE
p4
29-11-2015
Page 5
The issue is that for the 20 August 2015 as well as for the 17 August 29015 hearings I provided
in each case an ADDRESS TO THE COURT (which included written submissions of
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION) and as such it is not a case of no appearance but that I made
written submissions, of which at the same time copies were provided to Buloke Shire Council as
well as its legal representatives, and as such the Court at the time even so I was not physically
present due to ill health which was made known to both the court as well as to Buloke Shire
Council and its legal representatives couldnt proceed with the matter.
While His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 stated that during an ex parte hearing no
evidence is required Section 83(4) clearly does require sworn evidence.
Again the ADDRESSS TO THE COURT one provided for the 20 August 2015 hearing and
another provided for the 17 September 2015 hearing was my representation of each hearing to
OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the court.
As such, the only matter before the court on 20 August 2015 was the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION (as outlined in my ADDRESS TO THE COURT submitted on 30 October
2015 to His Honour Mullaly J) and hence no uncontested matter could in any shape or form be
deemed to exist on 290 August 2015 before the magistrates Court of
Victoria on 20 August 2015.
Say that in error a summons is issued to an alleged offender who resides in Christmas Island and then is
required to attend to the Magistrates Court of Victorias as St Arnaud. The person who challenge the validity of the
courts jurisdiction doesnt need to engage in huge expenses to engage some lawyer perhaps at thousands of dollars
cost, merely to say fight a charge with a say $180 fine. It would be an absurdity. The accused merely can write to the
Court to challenge its jurisdiction in that say the person never was in the State of Victoria and that writing being it
an ADDRESS TO THE COURT or otherwise would be sufficient to oppose jurisdiction. The magistrate face d
with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION has from that moment no matter before it other than the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and the onus is then for the prosecutor to prove that the court has jurisdiction.
It may then turn out (and this happened in the past with about 2,000 NSW motor vehicle owners) that in error the
wrong data based was entered and so the wrong person was charged as the details of the enforcement agency that
were obtained were to an innocent person and not to the person who really may have committed an offence.) No one
in his right mind could hold that as person would have to incur thousands of dollars to attend to as court hearing
where a mere written submission may resolve the issue. Likewise an accused could be overseas for some time for
whatever purpose and unable to return to the commonwealth of Australia and as such provide a written submission
in that regard, in such an incident again the court would be obligated to consider this written notification. And for
the same the accused may simply phone in, however a written communication is I view a more solid manner to
prove afterwards what was conveyed.
As I understand it from the court recording on 17 September 2015 Buloke Shire Council legal
representatives were claiming (and obtaining) orders for cost relating to my writings. Well that
included the 20 August 2015 ADDRESS TO THE COURT (containing my written submissions
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION) and my 17 September 2015 ADDRESS TO THE
COURT (containing my written submissions OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION) hence
where they claim cost relating to those documentation then I view they were obligated to submit
these documents to the Court or at the very least alert the court to the fact I had provided to the
co-ordinator of the Court those documents, as the coordinator email address is shown on its
website for the court.
The Courts power clearly provides that the Magistrates was entitled to adjourn the matter and to
provide directions, and hence the fact that allegedly a Judicial Registrar was dealing with the
matter in itself may be without legal basis because as was clearly held by the High Court of
Australia in
Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)
QUOTE CCH 92-217 page 78485 (1991)
The Court could not make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties
consent to it..
END QUOTE
p5
29-11-2015
Page 6
In this case, I never even consented to its jurisdiction and hence the entire case was a sheer and
utter nonsense as dealt with by the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud.
The High Court of Australian in this case quoted above also held that a Registrars decision is
always reviewable and no time limit exist for this (As made clear by His Honour Kay J, in the
Appeal Abbott v Abbott 24/25 October 1994 Family Court of Australia.
As submitted on 30 October 2015 to His Honour Mullaly J on 17 September 2015 (at least going
by the court recording) no evidence was submitted to the Court and the Judicial Registrar issued
his orders without any evidence. No preliminary brief or full brief was served upon me prior to
the hearings either.
Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Red colouring, bolding and underlining added)
QUOTE (section 83)
(4)Subsection (1) does not limit the power of the Magistrates' Court to proceed to hear and determine the
charge in the absence of the accused under section 80 on the basis of sworn evidence given by
or on behalf of the informant if the informant has not served a full brief on the accused.
END QUOTE
This provers that where no full brief was served, and despite my various request for
information/details/transcripts/court orders/etc still has not been served underlines that at no time
could or did the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud invoke jurisdiction and never
followed legally required processes (even if it had invoked jurisdiction, this I do not concede to
have eventuated) then sworn evidence was required where no Full Brief had been served.
It appears to me that Buloke Shire Council legal representatives were so to say to the short cut to
avoid doing the work but nevertheless charging for it and to in fact claim additional cost for my
writings but concealing from the court what they charged for. After all where they charge for my
writings then the court is entitled to hold that the legal representatives read and considered the
material and would present their clients case in relevance to what I had written about. But erven
on 30 October 2015 Counsel for Buloke Shire Council didnt utter a word about these matters
either and was it not for me to indicate I would seek a judicial review His Honour Mullaly J upon
that then considering the ADDRESS TO THE COURT that contained my written submissions
including once again an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION would never even have been
aware that I requested also for a brief, which even despite the orders of His Honour Mullaly J to
be posted via Australia Post by no later than 9 November 2015 still has not been provided at the
date of this writing, but instead a purported concoction of a brief was provided that for example
refers to a 18 March 2013 hearing date whereas the alleged offence was claimed to be on 17
November 2014!
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
QUOTE
As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his
clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he
honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is
paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or
his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is
the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly
conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support
it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his
client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must
disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
END QUOTE
.
It should be clear that Council for Buloke Shire Council on 30 October 2015 should have
clarified to His Honour Mullaly J if there ever was a Full Brief in existence for the 17
September 2015 hearing and any preliminary brief for the 20 August 2015 hearing!
p6
29-11-2015
Page 7
The fact that Counsel for Buloke Shire Council was talking about photos and needing a week
may underline that Buloke Shire Council legal representatives take the courts for granted to so to
say rubber stamp whatever it seeks and do not bother to provide any accused with a
preliminary brief and/or a full brief. And it appears to me that more than likely this is the
modus operandi of both Buloke Shire Council legal representatives as well as with the
magistrates Court of Victoria as to disregard requirements provided for in the legislation enacted
by the Victorian Parliament, well aware they get away with this rot ongoing, well until it took me
on!
.
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

(Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
ADDRESS TO THE COURT 20 August 2015 hearing

QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT 20 August 2015 hearing
ADDRESS TO THE COURT

Magistrates Court of Victoria
AT: St Arnaud ( or alternative court location)
IN THE MATTER:
Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka
Hearing date 20-8-2015
Sir/Madam,
I object to the jurisdiction of this court, as I indicated to Buloke Shire Council.
As I have encountered in the past judicial officers who failed to understand/comprehend the legal
processes involved in an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTIONI I will attempt to explain this.
.
In 1988 I relied upon a Supreme Court of Victoria decision that my then 2 year old daughter had
been wrongly arrested by Warrant, which the court held was in violation to the existing Supreme
Court of Victoria orders, as to sue the State of Victoria. At the hearing however counsel for the
State of Victoria suddenly stated to object to the jurisdiction of the court. His Honour explained I
had to prove jurisdiction failing this the case would go no further. I outlined the Courts previous
findings, the relevant State laws I relied upon, etc. His Honour however held that I failed to
prove the legislation was validly gazette, etc, and as such dismissed my case for want of
jurisdiction. His Honour did make known that he could understand I would not be too pleased
with this, but counsel didnt have to disprove jurisdiction as merely to object to the jurisdiction
was placing the onus upon me to prove jurisdiction. Until that time I had been researching the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) but now found myself confronted with
what is referred to as the Victorian Constitution Act 1975.
I accepted that His Honour facing an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was bound by law to
deal with this matter first as to determine if the court had jurisdiction before it could consider any
other matter.
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT 20 August 2015 hearing
I received a correspondence purportedly from ER&a lawyers which had no contact details and
purportedly was signed by one of its lawyers but forwarded to me in an envelope of the
Prosecutor stating to contact Mr Wayne Wall (of Buloke Shire Council). As ES&a Lawyers is ab
out 300 kilometres from Wycheproof where Buloke Shire Council offices are I couldnt accept
that a lawyer would travel a 600 kilometres plus to just sign a letter and then send it out in a
Buloke Shire envelope. As such I suspected that Buloke Shire Council has pre-signed letters in
p7
29-11-2015
Page 8
which it merely inset the date, the name of the other party and the Infringement Number and then
pretend it was issued by ES&a. In my view it would be an offence for a person not being a legal
practitioner to use the signature of a legal practitioner pretending it was the legal practitioner
who request the contact with Mr Wayne Wall. If indeed this is the modus operandi of ES&a and
Buloke Shire Council then I view this may be a very serious matter, in particular if in previous
litigation with other parties ES&a claimed cost regarding such correspondences. Also, it is to
deny the other party any reasonable opportunity to communicate with the lawyers allegedly
involved, and in this case it means the lawyers did no more but then file for the summons.
In my submission the court should be the last resort and legal representatives should make
reasonable attempts to resolve matters without litigation in the courts. In my view this ES&a
failed to adhere to. Buloke Shire Council records involving other litigation may show that
identical; correspondences were issued to other persons bar for the date, name and Infringement
Notice number. I view this would constitute fraud. It could be regarded as to terrorise a party to
better pay up because lawyers are involved without actually the lawyers making any attempt
whatsoever to communicate themselves.
When one consider the notice that was issued by Buloke Shire Council then it is clear it is
more of a general notice and not stating precise details. Hence, the person who receives a fire
notice then has to be guessing what on earth might be the issues concerned. Where Buloke Shire
Council seeks to enforce State legislation then it must do so consistently to all and any alleged
offenders and not as I reported itself violate the very legislative provision. After all the soft
shoulder of the across the road of my property towards Calder Highway had more than a metre
high weed. At various placed along Calder Highway one could observe small parts having been
subject to a fire, which appeared to me the result of motor vehicles pulling over into the soft
shoulder of the road and then the hot exhaust causing a grass fire. As this soft shoulder of the
road is the responsibility of the Prosecutor then clearly it fails itself to act within the provisions
of the legislation it relies upon and as such fails to be what is called a model litigant.
The notice referred to in the Infringement Notice, as I recall it, is not an offence known in law.
Nor did the Prosecutor provide any further details that could reasonably relied upon. As was
made clear to the Prosecutor and was never contested by the Prosecutor, the property had been
twice slashed by a neighbour and I was given the understanding that it was equally to his own
property. I understand no Infringement Notice was issued against my neighbour.
The Prosecutor didnt advise what was the issue it complained about. It simply issued the
Infringement Notice and as to date never clarified why, other than claiming the notice wasnt
complied with.
The above stated is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues/details and
no obligation existed for me to provide this set out, however as always facing lawyers who lack
proper understanding/comprehension of relevant legal matters I have been willing to explain
some that may assist the court also. Other than issues already decided by the County Court of
Victoria on 19 July 2006, to which this court lacks any judiciary powers to interfere
with/undermine it is my submission the Prosecutor acted in a malicious manner to institute
proceedings against me and these proceedings are vexatious/frivolous and should have been
struck out.
There can be no question about it that I notified the Prosecutor long before the Prosecutor
initialed legal proceedings against me that I would OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of any
court and there was a NO CASED TO ANSWER. Regretfully as I understand it councilors
p8
29-11-2015
Page 9
often are wasting monies citizens (referred to as rate payers) in the councils area have been
caused to pay, as they win or lose are free from any harm. Well that is what they think.
.
Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

QUOTE
In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give good
cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.
As currently I myself suffer ill health which place in question my ability to attend to St Arnaud in
time, this ADDRESS TO THE COURT still indicates what I am on about.
And the Prosecutor with its legal representatives would be obligated to present Authorities I
referred to in any event.
QUOTE
it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client
discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the
specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
END QUOTE
This ADDRESS TO THE COURT is not intended and neither must be perceived to limit the
scope of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as it merely adds to what the Prosecutor has to
overcome, which I view it cannot because I rely upon and entitled to do so on the 19 July 2006
County Court of Victoria decision to uphold my appeals and set aside the orders.
.
The Prosecutor has for long been aware that I rely upon my constitutional and other legal rights.
As such the Prosecutor had ample of time to prepare its case in response. Despite of this and
having engaged ES&a Lawyers no response was provided.
In my view the matters I raised are relevant to the conduct of the Prosecutor also and as such if
the Prosecutor persist in litigating then well these matters are to be canvassed, and more
extensive then above. However, I view the Court has the powers to permanently stay
proceedings (as eventuated in the Colosimo case) and only I am given the right to apply for
reinstatement of the matters before this court.
.
If this court decides to proceed with the hearing of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then as
I provided my set out to certain but not all matters then I view the Prosecutor must on 20 August
2015 provide me with a set out why the court had jurisdiction and provide me with ample of time
to respond to this set out submissions, so I can check, as I did with Mr Peter Hanks QC if its
presentation is not including fraudulent representations, etc. the matters I have so far referred to
are very complicated and difficult to understand/comprehend by those in the legal system where
it often totally contrary to what they were dealing with. As such a rush to deal with the matter
will in itself to deny a proper hearing and to pervert the course of justice.
.
p9
29-11-2015
Page 10
I do not accept that this court can grand the summons to be withdrawn, for that unless it deals
with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION first, this as it has no judicial powers to invoke to
allow for the summons to be withdrawn.
.
As this is an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION the court cannot take any plea.

As the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud only sits one day a week it would be
inappropriately to have matters heard at the St Arnauds location, as matters will likely be
tasking more than one day.
ADDRESS TO THE COURT 17 September 2015 hearing

QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT 17 September 2015 hearing
ADDRESS TO THE COURT

Magistrates Court of Victoria
AT: St Arnaud (or alternative court location)
IN THE MATTER:
Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka
(Alleged) Hearing date 19-9-2015
Sir/Madam,
In my 20-8-2015 ADDRESS TO THE COURT I stated at commencement:
QUOTE
I object to the jurisdiction of this court, as I indicated to Buloke Shire Council.
As I have encountered in the past judicial officers who failed to understand/comprehend the legal processes
involved in an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTIONI I will attempt to explain this.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
I do not accept that this court can grand the summons to be withdrawn, for that unless it deals with the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION first, this as it has no judicial powers to invoke to allow for the
summons to be withdrawn.
.
As this is an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION the court cannot take any plea.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27
Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its
proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. .
END QUOTE
While due to ill health I was not able to personally attend to the hearing at the Magistrates Court
of Victoria at St Arnaud, nevertheless having made an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then
the issue before the Court was the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as any matter of the
summons no longer could be heard and determined unless the court first disposed of the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION if that is what it were to have done, not that I seek to
indicate the Court were to have done so. This ADDRESS TO THE COURT, containing the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was accompanied by a 17 August 2010 correspondence
which was emails to the court on 17 August 2015.
It is my submission and set out to some extend further below in addition to my previous
writings, that the Magistrates Court of Victoria (at St Arnaud) only can but dismiss the
Summons (charges) for want of jurisdiction.
p10
29-11-2015
Page 11
As shown below ES&a lawyers claiming to act for Buloke Shire Council has clearly indicated
not to respond to matters, and while that it its choice the Court cannot substitute this refusal as to
go along with whatever they desire. The Court is bound to follow the rule of law and where the
respondent to my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION didnt seek to pursue this issue on 20
August 2015 and indeed doesnt seem to accept there is an issue regarding the OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION (even suggesting I seek legal advice) then the Court is bound to dismiss
the Summons (charges) for want of jurisdiction.
I needed to do no more but state OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION but in a way to assist

also I wrote extensively about this so that they might have realized from onset they were so to
say fighting a lost cause. As shown below by the various authorities the purported orders of 20
August 2015 are no orders at all and neither can the court now provide other orders against me
because its failure to invoke jurisdiction and neither having had Buloke Shire Council lawyers
presenting any details why it hold that the magistrates Court of Victoria has jurisdiction despite
of the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria orders, then it is not for the court to somehow try to
infringe upon proper litigation as on its own accord to try to make a case for Buloke Shire
Council.
QUOTE Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is
deprived of juris.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity
and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.
END QUOTE
The courts obligation was that because there was an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then it
only could invoke judicial powers to determine the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION issue
and hand down formal orders and a reason of judgment. Where the court fails to do so then it
implies it never had jurisdiction and matters are at an end.
While the Court may adjourn matter to hear and determine the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION as to enable the parties to perhaps in writing set out matters, it can however
not issue orders regarding the summons charges as if no OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
exists. Hence, I have set out below considering the writings of ES&a Lawyers for Buloke Shire
Council that it appears the Court on 20 August 2015 didnt deal formally with the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and as such didnt invoke jurisdiction to hear and
determine the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION or to adjourn it providing details as to for
what purpose it was adjourned and therefore the 20 August orders are claimed by ES&a Lawyers
for the adjournment of matters and to be heard in my absenteeism if I do not appear are no
orders at all and have no legal force.
In 1988 I was confronted by an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION by the State of Victoria
and in 2001 I was faced with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION by the Commonwealth in
non-related litigation, and as such it must be clear that where it suits a Government then the
Court will deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as is legally required. What is
good for the Goose is good for the Gander and it is not the function of the court to be bias and
appear to take sides as to whom objects to the jurisdiction of the court. It must follow legal
procedures regarding an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION regardless which party objects to
p11
29-11-2015
Page 12
the jurisdiction of the court. Because the state and the commonwealth used the OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION in non-related matters I am now so to say giving them some of their own
medicine. And as set out below succeeded in this on 19 July 2006. While therefore this court
could have dealt with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION on 20 August 2015 albeit
constrained by the ruling of the County Court of Victoria of 19 July 2006 which set aside the
orders of the Magistrates Court of Victoria (at Heidelberg) that it had jurisdiction, it cannot relitigate those issues, and so in the end no matter what other rulings it may make it cannot
conclude the court has jurisdiction where it cannot overrule the 19 July 2006 County Court of
Victoria appeals rulings. Without seeking to imply that the court now can re-litigate or otherwise
litigate on matters I do provide this ADDRESS TO THE COLURT as to try to get so to say
some understanding and some sense in it all.
On 20 August 2015 the court clearly failed to follow DUE PROCESS, NATURAL
JUSTICE, ETC, and as such it cannot now try to get around its errors of 20 August 2015 as to
substitute the orders indicated by ES&a lawyers as to now pursue litigation regarding the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as having issued orders in defiance of the OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION to hear and determine on 17 September 2015 the Summon charges issues
has effectively placed the court that it acted without jurisdiction and as set out below can but
only withdraw those orders and provide orders to dismiss the Summons charge(s).
I have listed below (again) various Authorities regarding the issue of an objection to the
jurisdiction of a court. Without conceding jurisdiction and/or the validity of the hearing on 19
September 2015 I will seek to set out certain issues.
I provided a 19 August 2015 correspondence that contained the following also;
QUOTE 19 August 2015 correspondence
Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
19-8-2015
c/o the coordinator starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au

Cc:

George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Cr Reid Mather (Mayor) MALLEE WARD crmather@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr David Pollard (Deputy Mayor) LOWER AVOCA WARD crpollard@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Leo Tellefson MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD crtellefson@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Stuart McLean LOWER AVOCA WARD crmclean@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Graeme Milne MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD crmilne@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Gail Sharp MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD crsharp@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Ellen White, MALLEE WARD, crwhite@buloke.vic.gov.au
Re: 20150819-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council
Sir/Madam,
despite my various writings no response from ES&a, the St Arnaud coordinator or the
Magistrates Court at Collingwood about the 20 August 2015 hearing that was listed in St
Arnaud. This I view is the scandalous kind of conduct by the court. Regardless if hearing is only
held on Thursday in St Arnaud I view the coordinator should monitor email coming in and
appropriately respond to them. Even the Magistrates Court Collingwood failed to attend to my
email. I today attended to a doctor and have to attend tomorrow for testing and well over the
coming days may have further testing to be done pending what, if anything can be found. I view
sufficient evidence to show I had a justification not being able to attend. Further, as it is a
contested hearing that first requires the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION to be dealt with
then then at most the court could direct the prosecutor to file within a certain time it written
arguments why the court can invoke jurisdiction and then further time for me to respond upon
this. If the court were to issue orders adverse to me than it give s me a right of appeal to the
p12
29-11-2015
Page 13
County Court of Victoria and as I know from the past when a Magistrate fails to deal
appropriately with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the appeal has to succeed.
At 22.00 hours on Wednesday 19-8-2015 I checked my emails and none I could locate were of
ES&a or from the court(s) as such it is clear the incurrence of any cost by ES&a is its own
making if it were to travel to St Arnaud as it failed to act reasonable and appropriately in the
circumstances. The fact the court also failed to clarify matters I view is scandalous.
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!)
END QUOTE 19 August 2015 correspondence
I below quote part of the 2 September 2015 correspondence received from ES&a Lawyers acting
allegedly for Buloke Shire Council, I have however at the end of this ADDRESS TO THE
COURT included a s canned copy of the correspondence in full.
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 the
matters raised therein.
The purpose of this letter is to confirm that as you did not appear the matter has been adjourned for hearing at
the 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 Court
ar Swan Hill which is a greater distance from your residence. Council will not consent to any change of
venue and we note that the Collingwood Magistrates Court is not the appropriate venue for your matter in
any 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.
It is therefore absolutely clear that ES&a lawyers were fully aware about my OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION. The fact they desired not to respond to them also must be taken into account
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 and therefore the
Court on 20 August 2015 had an uncontested OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
.
I may explain that on 16 and 17 November 2005 I appeared before the Magistrates Court of
Victoria at Heidelberg charges with FAILING TO VOTE in the 2001 federal election and
likewise so in the 2004 federal election. Over the 2 days I OBJECTED TO THE
JURISDICTION of the court (In fact this was originally made on 4 December 2002 upon
which the Magistrates Court of Victoria ordered the matters to be adjourned pending the High
Court of Australia dealing with the matter. However the prosecutor failed to prosecute the matter
before the High Court of Australia this even so it had the obligation to prove jurisdiction.),
p13
29-11-2015
Page 14
including the fact that by the ABN registration it was not an impartial court and violated the
separation of powers. After the nearly 2 days the Magistrate dismissed my OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and went on to make orders against me. I appealed both cases on 19 July 2006
before the County Court of Victoria having served all Attorney-Generals with a S78B NOTICE
OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS. It must therefore be clear that where the County Court
of Victoria upheld my appeals and set aside the orders dismissing my OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION then considering that the then Attorney-General Robert Hulls for the State of
Victoria had advised that the State of Victoria would abide by the courts decision then it is
beyond this Magistrates Court of Victoria (sitting in St Arnaud or elsewhere) to somehow
undermine/interfere with the rights I obtained in my successful appeals. The St Arnauds venue
is merely a different venue but still is the Magistrates Court of Victoria and as such it is bound by
the County Court of Victoria ruling.
.
It ought to be clear that Buloke Shire Council and so ES&a Lawyers were made well aware of
the County court of Victoria having upheld my appeals but nevertheless persisted in having an
summons issued. In my view this could be considered CONTEMPT OF COURT!
.
Where I objected to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of Victoria, in this case also because
it was at St Arnaud venue, then from that moment the court has legally but one option and that
was to deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
.
Again, unless and until if ever at all the court had disposed of the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION it had no legal powers to deal with the matters in the summons.
The court could have adjourned the summons matter pending the hearing and determination of
the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and then could have done so adjourning the matter of
the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION giving possible directions as to Buloke Shire Council
to file and serve upon the objector as to why the court should find that it has jurisdiction. This
also considering that I already succeeded in the same on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of
Victoria and the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud (or elsewhere) had no jurisdiction to
re-enter this matter already litigated previously as it is bound by the Wakim doctrine (HCA 27 of
1999) that the same parties cannot re-litigate a constitutional issue previously already litigated.
Because Buloke Shire Council seek to enforce State legislation it is acting as the State of
Victoria, as I have set out previously, and as such it is the same as if the State of Victoria is now
litigating.
This below quoted judgment makes it very clear that the judges relied upon the Convention
(Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) and also made clear that the state
creating different bodies to act on its behalf nevertheless was a delegated power which in the end
remained to be the state.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.html
Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904)
QUOTE (The word Convention has been placed in bold and red to make it stand out)
O'Connor, J.
The judgments delivered, in which I entirely concur, have dealt so fully with the various contentions raised in
the argument that I do not think it necessary to add anything except in reference to sec. 114 of the
Constitution , upon the true interpretation of which the whole case in my opinion turns. The question for our
determination may be very shortly stated.
Upon the establishment of the Commonwealth the Customs Houses in New South Wales as in other States
became vested in the Commonwealth. Subsequently the Posts and Telegraph Department and the Department
of Defence became transferred by proclamation under sec. 69 of the Constitution , and thereupon the lands
and buildings used in connection with these departments became vested in the Commonwealth under sec. 85
of the Constitution .
p14
29-11-2015
Page 15
Before the establishment of the Commonwealth such of these lands and buildings as were within the
boundaries of the City of Sydney were liable to be rated, and were rated by the Municipal Council of Sydney
under sec. 103 of the Sydney Corporation Act of 1879 , and sec. 110 of the Sydney Corporation Act of 1902 ,
which repealed that Act and took its place.
It was contended by the plaintiffs that, notwithstanding the establishment of the Commonwealth, and the
vesting of these lands and buildings in the Commonwealth, the liability to be rated and to pay rates to the
Municipal Council continued as before. The defendant on the other hand contended that, when the lands and
buildings were vested in the Commonwealth, the liability to be rated by the Sydney Municipal Council came
to an end. The question now submitted for our determination is, which contention is correct?
The defendants' case rests mainly upon sec. 114 of the Constitution , which they ask the Court to interpret
broadly as a direct prohibition against the levying of any tax or rate upon Commonwealth property by a State,
or by any authority constituted or authorized by the Statutes of a State. The plaintiff, on the other hand, urges
that a much more restricted interpretation should be placed upon the section, that the prohibition is only
against any action of the State itself or the Parliament of the State, in imposing taxation for the purposes of
Government. The section may in strictness bear either interpretation, if we look merely at the words. But to
get at the real meaning we must go beyond that, we must examine the context, consider the Constitution as a
whole, and its underlying principles and any circumstances which may throw light upon the object which the
Convention had in view, when they embodied it in the Constitution. This is a sound rule in the interpretation
of Statutes, and is well explained by Lord Blackburn in the River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson , 2 App.
Cas., at p. 763, as follows:"In all cases the object is to see what is the intention expressed by the words
used. But, from the imperfection of language, it is impossible to know what that intention is without inquiring
further and seeing what the circumstances were with reference to which the words were used, and what was
the object, appearing from those circumstances, which the person using them had in view; for the meaning of
words varies according to the circumstances with respect to which they are used." Before examining the
words of the section, it will be useful to advert to the circumstances which the Convention had in view in
framing this section, and their purpose and object in relation to those circumstances.
From the very nature of the Constitution, and the relation of States and Commonwealth, in the distribution of
powers, it became necessary to provide that the sovereignty of each within its sphere should be absolute, and
that no conflict of authority within the same sphere should be possible. The principles laid down by Marshall,
C.J., in his historic judgment in McCulloch v. Maryland (4 Wheat., (U.S.), p. 316), are as applicable to the
Australian Commonwealth Constitution as to the United States Constitution, and it must be taken that those
principles and the controversies which had arisen in the United States in reference to their application, were
within the knowledge of the Convention. In laying down these principles the Courts of the United States, in
the absence of express provision, rested their reasoning upon the underlying principles of the Constitution,
and on what was necessarily involved in the grant of sovereign powers. What could be more natural than that
the Convention should, while it had the opportunity place the application of these principles to the property
of the Commonwealth, at all events, as far as possible, beyond controversy by embodying them directly in the
face of the Constitution.
The material words of the section are as follows:"A State shall not without the consent of the Parliament of
the Commonwealth ... impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth ... "
It has been urged that, because the prohibition is against a State, and the word "tax" only is used, the section
cannot apply to a rate levied by a municipality. The section would, indeed, fall short of its object if it
prohibited only taxation directly imposed by a State Act of Parliament, and left Commonwealth property
open to taxation by a municipality or any other agency which the State Parliament might choose to invest
with powers of taxation. But no such restricted interpretation is necessary or reasonable. The State, being the
repository of the whole executive and legislative powers of the community, may create subordinate bodies,
such as municipalities, hand over to them the care of local interest, and give them such powers of raising
money by rates or taxes as may be necessary for the proper care of these interests. But in all such cases these
powers are exercised by the subordinate body as agent of the power that created it. Field, J., in his judgment
in Meriwether v. Garrett , 102, U.S.R., at p. 511, says:"Municipal corporations are mere instrumentalities
of the State for the more convenient administration of local government. Their powers are such as the
legislature may confer, and these may be enlarged, abridged, or entirely withdrawn, at its pleasure. This is
common learning found in all adjudications on the subject of municipal bodies, and repeated by text writers."
p15
29-11-2015
Page 16
The prohibition against the State imposing taxation on Commonwealth property is the most comprehensive
form of prohibition that can be used, and, if we are to have regard to the circumstances within the knowledge
of the Convention, and the evident object and purpose of the section to which I have referred, it must be
taken that the prohibition extends not only to taxation by a State for the purposes of general government, but
also to taxation by an agency under the authority of the State, and deriving its power to levy taxation from the
Parliament of the State. To hold otherwise would be to declare that the State might do indirectly what it
cannot do directly. It seems to be clear, therefore, that a State has no more right to give legislative authority to
a municipality to impose the tax, than it has to impose the tax itself, and that any provision in a State Act
purporting to give such authority would be null and void. But it is urged on the part of the plaintiff that the
section is prospective in its operation, and that it does nothing more than prohibit the passing of legislation by
the State authorizing either State authority or municipal authority to levy the tax, and that a portion of the
rates claimed were levied under the Sydney Corporation Act of 1879 , a Statute which was in operation at the
establishment of the Commonwealth, and which, it is contended, is kept alive by the operation of sec. 108 of
the Constitution .
It is true that the section has only a prospective application, that is to say, it prohibits the imposing of any tax
after the establishment of the Commonwealth, but I cannot assent to the restricted interpretation which it is
sought to place on the word "impose." "Impose," no doubt, includes the giving of legislative authority to levy
the tax, but it includes more, it includes the executive act of levying or collecting the tax. Its dictionary
meaning is "to levy or exact as by authority." Having regard to the scope and purport of the section, effect
must be given to that plain grammatical meaning of the word. It is unnecessary for me, in this aspect of the
case, to consider whether the Act under which the tax is sought to be levied has, or has not, been kept alive by
sec. 108. Existing Statutes are mentioned under that section, subject to the Constitution, and, in my view, sec.
114 expressly prohibits the imposing, that is to say, levying, exacting or collecting of the tax after the
establishment of the Commonwealth. The section can be made fully effective, having regard to its scope and
purpose, as already explained, only by giving a broad and reasonable interpretation to its language, including
in the expression "State," all the agencies and instrumentalities by which a State can exercise its power of
taxation, including in the word "impose" both meanings already alluded to, according as the thing to be
prohibited is the legislative authority or the administrative Act, and giving to the word "tax" its ordinary
grammatical meaning, which is wide enough to cover the general rates of a municipality. So interpreting the
section, I am of opinion that the Constitution prohibits the levying of these rates, and that the Commonwealth
is not liable in respect of the claim of the Municipal Council of Sydney.
Griffith, C.J., , Barton and O'Connor, JJ.
Per Curiam.Before granting a certificate we must be satisfied that there is some special reason for
certifying that the question is one "which ought to be determined by His Majesty in Council." It must, at
least, appear that there is some reasonable ground for disputing the correctness of our judgment. This is a
very plain case, depending on the construction of the plain unambiguous words of sec. 114. We do not see
any ground for saying that it ought to be determined by His Majesty in Council.
Judgment for defendants.
Certificate refused.
END QUOTE
Therefore, the proceedings between Buloke Shire Council and myself ought to be considered to
be that of the State of Victoria and myself. That is if Buloke Shire Council is at all authorising
ES&a lawyers to litigate in the first place. A matter I intent to refer to below also.
Because of Councillor Graeme Milne sending me an email which appears he has not a clue about
what is going 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&a Lawyers to act on behalf of Buloke Shire Council. While in Sydney
Municipal Council v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904) the
case related to Sydney Municipal Council no objection appeared to have been made at that
time that it related to the council. Municipal structures may at the time have been different also.
What however ought to be understood is that when the State Government pursues to litigate it
p16
29-11-2015
Page 17
doesnt ordinary do so in the title of the State Government but as State of Victoria. The
Government can change at any time whereas the State of Victoria is constant. As such the
litigation, without conceding that it should have been instituted at all, ought to have been in the
name of Shire of Buloke and not Buloke Shire Council. This also as councillors are changing
over time, not being re-elected or for whatever other reasons. It would be absurd therefore to
litigate in the name of Buloke Shire Council where the councillors could be lumped with orders
of cost against them for something they do not even know what it is about.
As I understand it ordinary all correspondences to Buloke Shire Council are collated and each
councillor received a copy of it with all applications, recommendations, etc, such as for building
residents, on a property so that at the council meeting the councillors can attend to these matters.
Councillors then put forwards a motion to receive the correspondence and when seconded it is
accepted, etc.
As I directly forwarded the correspondence to each councillor then any knowledge they may
have had is from my emails if the material was not presented during council meetings.
It may therefore be that Graeme Milne didnt understand the issue because likely the councillors
never debated the matter and ES&a Lawyers may also never have explained matters to the
councillors.
As such Mr Wayne Wall, who works for Buloke Shire Council in managing the Shire of
Buloke may have taken it upon himself to authorise ES&a lawyers to litigate without possibly
having obtained the informed consent of all councillors.
In my view, the unsolicited email from Mr Graeme Milne that he doesnt appear to understand
what the litigation is about may underline that ES&a Lawyers didnt at all have informed consent
of Buloke Shire Council councillors to litigate.
Yet it claims in its 2-9-2015 correspondence;
Council will not consent to any change of venue and we note that the Collingwood Magistrates Court is not
the appropriate venue for your matter in any 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.
In my submission Council will not consent is a falsehood as where councillor Mr Graeme

Milne is not even aware what the litigation is about then surely he would unlikely understand the
legal issues involved as to the courts venue.
Even if ES&a Lawyers were to claim it had since 26 August 2015 explained matters to all
councillors, then nevertheless it still would be a falsehood this as the issue I raised in the 26
August 2015 correspondence was the Magistrates Court of Victoria Heidelberg venue. Clearly
this was not by ES&a lawyers presented to councillors because they refer to Collingwood.
or where the accused resides within that same boundary.
As I reside in the precinct of Heidelberg then clearly this was/is the appropriate venue.
It is in my submission a serious matter that ES&a Lawyers have made
false/misleading/fraudulent representation that Council will not consent where it appears to
me it never was in the first place informed about the Heidelberg venue being the appropriate
venue.
In my view an OFFICER OF THE COURT should never engage is deceptive conduct, which I
view clearly ES&a Lawyers engaged in.
I do not know what transpired before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud on 20
August 2015 but safe to say I have concerns that ES&a Lawyers deceived/misled the court and
may have concealed relevant details as to obtain orders to which the court had no jurisdiction.
p17
29-11-2015
Page 18
But before addressing other matters I will now first quote the 26 August 2015 correspondence
and Councillor Milnes email.
QUOTE 26-9-2015 correspondence to the Court coordinator and others (as listed)
26-8-2015

Cc:


Sir/Madam,
As I stated in my 19-8-2015 correspondence and the same applies still at the time of writing:
QUOTE
despite my various writings no response from ES&a, the St Arnaud coordinator or the Magistrates Court at
Collingwood about the 20 August 2015 hearing that was listed in St Arnaud. This I view is the scandalous kind of
conduct by the court.
END QUOTE
The distance of Melbourne to St Arnaud is 244 KM and [2011] UKPC 31 Privy Council Appeal No 0101
of 2010 Electra Daniel Administrator for the estate of George Daniel (deceased) (Appellant) v The Attorney
General of Trinidad and Tobago (Respondent) while this was a wheelchair access issue, nevertheless the
judgment itself refers to access to the courts. As a senior citizen I view the Age Discrimination Act 2004
applies also, considering also that a Magistrates Court of Victoria court facility at Heidelberg is
about 4 KM away from my residence.
QUOTE Age Discrimination Act 2004
3 Objects
The objects of this Act are:
(b) to ensure, as far as practicable, that everyone has the same rights to equality before the law,
regardless of age, as the rest of the community; and
(c) to allow appropriate benefits and other assistance to be given to people of a certain age,
particularly younger and older persons, in recognition of their particular circumstances; and
END QUOTE Age Discrimination Act 2004
(Back to the doctor tomorrow for test results- etc, regarding the possible cause of ill health)
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)

Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 26-9-2015 correspondence to the Court coordinator and others (as listed)
QUOTE 26-9-2015 email from Graeme Milne Councillor Buloke Shire Council
Re: see attachment 20150826 -SchorelHlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of

p18
29-11-2015
Page 19
Victoria at St Arnaud cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re

Buloke Shire Council
From
Cr Graeme Milne
To
admin@inspector-rikati.com
Date
Wed 22:05
Message 11 of 32 < >
Please stop including me in your ramblings. I dont know what it is your on about.
Cr Graeme MILNE
Sent from my iPad
On 26 Aug 2015, at 2:23 pm, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <admin@inspector-rikati.com> wrote:
26-8-2015
Cc:



Sir/Madam,
see attachment 20150826 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud cc ES&a LA-0506-Re Buloke Shire Council
p19
29-11-2015
Page 20
--
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
107 Graham Road
Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia
Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI books on certain constitutional and other legal issues.
THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE DISABLED
<20150826 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re
Buloke Shire Council.pdf>
END QUOTE 26-9-2015 email from Graeme Milne Councillor Buloke Shire Council
.
Upon receiving this email I checked the return path as to authenticate the email from the sender
which showed Return-path: <prvs=0680bd9c7d=crmilne@buloke.vic.gov.au>
As such it was a genuine email.
QUOTE 26-9-2015 email from Graeme Milne Councillor Buloke Shire Council header details
Return-path: <prvs=0680bd9c7d=crmilne@buloke.vic.gov.au>
Envelope-to: admin@inspector-rikati.com
Delivery-date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:07:12 +0800
Received: from mail.buloke.vic.gov.au ([110.143.142.95]:35968)
by webcloud43.au.syrahost.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.85)
(envelope-from <prvs=0680bd9c7d=crmilne@buloke.vic.gov.au>)
id 1ZUZTz-000gUo-S6
for admin@inspector-rikati.com; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:07:12 +0800
Received: from [10.54.144.7] (port=59564 helo=wyex01.buloke.vic.gov.au)
by mail.buloke.vic.gov.au with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX)
(envelope-from <crMilne@buloke.vic.gov.au>)
id 1ZUZTn-0005sW-2q
for admin@inspector-rikati.com; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 22:07:00 +1000
Received: from WYEX01.buloke.vic.gov.au ([fe80::608d:ec72:adc2:f4eb]) by
wyex01.buloke.vic.gov.au ([fe80::608d:ec72:adc2:f4eb%11]) with mapi id
14.03.0248.002; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 22:05:18 +1000
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A150206.55DDABE4.0094,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0
From: Cr Graeme Milne <crMilne@buloke.vic.gov.au>
To: "<admin@inspector-rikati.com>" <admin@inspector-rikati.com>
Subject: Re: see attachment 20150826 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates
Court of Victoria at St Arnaud cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council
Thread-Topic: see attachment 20150826 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates
Court of Victoria at St Arnaud cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council
Thread-Index: AQHQ37b9SmSJcFSQE0amc7R/3M6+Mp4eL4TV
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:05:18 +0000
Message-ID: <69AC3821-4D95-4554-BED5-BABB2A9F0CAC@buloke.vic.gov.au>
References: <f5daf6250549630c2b0cd562a99a32ac@inspector-rikati.com>
In-Reply-To: <f5daf6250549630c2b0cd562a99a32ac@inspector-rikati.com>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_69AC38214D954554BED5BABB2A9F0CACbulokevicgovau_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_000_69AC38214D954554BED5BABB2A9F0CACbulokevicgovau_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
p20
29-11-2015
Page 21
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please stop including me in your ramblings. I dont know what it is your on =
about.
Cr Graeme MILNE
Sent from my iPad
On 26 Aug 2015, at 2:23 pm, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <admin@inspector=
-rikati.com<mailto:admin@inspector-rikati.com>> wrote:

26-8-2015
c/o the coordinator starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au<mailto=

:starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au>
Cc: Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au<mail=

to:lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au>
Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au<mailto:buloke@bulo=
ke.vic.gov.au>
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.g=
ov.au<mailto:daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au>
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au<mailto:george.willia=
ms@unsw.edu.au>
Cr Reid Mather (Mayor) MALLEE WARD crmather@buloke.vic.gov.au<mailto:crmath=
er@buloke.vic.gov.au>
Cr David Pollard (Deputy Mayor) LOWER AVOCA WARD crpollard@buloke.vic.gov.a=
u<mailto:crpollard@buloke.vic.gov.au>
Cr Leo Tellefson MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD crtellefson@buloke.vic.gov.au<mailto:=
crtellefson@buloke.vic.gov.au>
Cr Stuart McLean LOWER AVOCA WARD crmclean@buloke.vic.gov.au<mailto:crmcl=
ean@buloke.vic.gov.au>
Cr Graeme Milne MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD crmilne@buloke.vic.gov.au<mailto:crmi=
lne@buloke.vic.gov.au>
Cr Gail Sharp MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD crsharp@buloke.vic.gov.au<mailto:crsharp@=
buloke.vic.gov.au%20>
Cr Ellen White, MALLEE WARD, crwhite@buloke.vic.gov.au<mailto:crwhite@bulo=
ke.vic.gov.au>
Re: 20150826-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St A=

rnaud
Sir/Madam,
p21
29-11-2015
Page 22
see attachment 20150826 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Vict=
oria at St Arnaud cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council
-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL=AE
107 Graham Road
Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia
Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI=AE books on certain constitutional and other leg=
al issues.
THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE DISABLED
<20150826 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arn=

aud cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council.pdf>
END QUOTE 26-9-2015 email from Graeme Milne Councillor Buloke Shire Council header details
.
As I indicated in previous material I filed a complaint with the Legal Service Commissioner
suspecting that Mr Wayne Wall may have issued correspondence in the name of ES&a Lawyers
and so purport to be the legal practitioner. That I view is a very serious matter. It is not and
neither was my intention that the Legal Service Commissioner somehow was to get embroiled in
these proceedings, as that is not its function nor has such authority, at least in my views. I did
however notify ES&a Lawyers about my complaint to the Legal Service Commissioner, as I held
they were entitled to be fully aware of this.
It now appears to me that ES&a Lawyers are destined to use whatever inappropriate tactic to
litigate against me. This I view this court cannot permit.
.
There can be no doubt that ES&a Lawyers were fully aware of my OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and therefore had an obligation to raise this issue with the court as to ensure
that the court would not proceed as if there was no OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and
then the orders would be null and void.
.
After all, I view they owe it to their client as not to protract litigation in such manner.
.
Yet, ES&a Lawyers claimed:

We act on behalf of the Buloke shire Council in the above prosecution.
The purpose of this letter is to confirm that as you did not appear the matter has been adjourned for hearing at
the 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.
Because there was an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and was not disposed of then the
court had no jurisdiction and so no legal powers to order that the matter be heard on 17
September 2015 and will proceed in my absenteeism if I do not attend.
p22
29-11-2015
Page 23
At best the court, not that I seek to indicate I would have agreed with this, have dismissed the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and then ordered that the matter be adjourned to 17
September 2015 and if I didnt appear the matter would still be heard and determined.
However, the writings of ES&a Lawyers do indicate no such kind of dismissal of the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and rather implies the matter of the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION was never attended to:
And
Had the court on 20 August 2015 disposed of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then
clearly there would have been no need to suggest I seek legal advice regarding the OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION. As such it appears to be still a life issue, but one that ES&a Lawyers
cannot grasp as to the legal implications and applications despite of my elaborate set out
including quoting numerous authorities.
If the court on 20 August 2015 had disposed of my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then it
was bound to have provided me with not only orders but also with a reason of judgment,
including why it held it could overrule or otherwise interfere with a County court of Victoria
decision to uphold my appeals against the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg dismissal
of my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
.
It is very clear that I OBJECT TO JURISDICTION of the Magistrates Court of Victoria

(wherever it was holding the venue) as well as to the St Arnaud venue.
Yet, the absurdity was to allegedly order me to attend at 8.30 am.
In my view a FAIR MINDED PERSON would hold this unreasonable considering the relevant
circumstances and so my writings.
QUOTE 6-9-2015 correspondence to the St Arnaud coordinator and others
QUOTE In the Marriage of P.N. and J.S. Axtell 7 FLR 931
The test of judicial bias as laid down by the high court is whether it has been established that it might
reasonably be suspected by a fair minded person that the judge might not resolve the question before him
with a fair and unprejudiced mind
END QUOTE
The quotation (Alison J May) also refers to a time of 8.30am whereas ordinary the court doesnt
commence hearing until 10.00 am. As such considering the distance between my residence to the
Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg being about 4 kilometres, whereas the distance to the
Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud is about 244 kilometres, then the additional travelling
of 240 kilometres means a lot more travelling time. I may involve 3 to 4 hours. Meaning that to
attend I would have to leave my residence by no later than 4.30 am.
As this is an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION where I am the objector then the court (at
least by the claim of Alison J May) to cause such a ridiculous condition upon me as a senior
citizen obviously it failed to act appropriately.
END QUOTE 6-9-2015 correspondence to the St Arnaud coordinator and others
And
While this correspondence was dated 26-8-2015 after the alleged 20-8-2015 orders were made
nevertheless I view the court should have considered the same being well aware that my
p23
29-11-2015
Page 24
(ADDRESS TO THE COURT emailed 17 August 2015OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION)
objected to the Magistrates Court of Victoria St Arnaud venue.
.
QUOTE Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court)

A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the burden of endeavouring to
ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by their own advocacy
END QUOTE
It doesnt mean the court must assume the burden of the self-represented party but must ensure
that in particular where a party is not in attendance, the proceedings are not conducted in a
manner that would offend a fair and proper hearing.
.
As such the court on 20 August 2015 ought to have questioned the legal practitioner appearing
for Buloke Shire Council on what legal basis its client allegedly objects to the Magistrates Court
of Victoria Heidelberg venue where the objector is legally entitled to have the hearing at that
venue considering the objector resides within the area of the court venue?
Also, the court ought to have questioned why should this objection be heard in the St Arnaud
venue where the matter may take more than a day in litigation and so would cause an undue
burden upon the objector if he had to repeatedly incur travelling and other expenses and being
burdened to travel long distances where clearly his rightful claim is that the St Arnaud venue is
not the appropriate venue!
.
We also have to consider:

.
QUOTE
it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client
discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the
specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE R.V. Crimmins (1959) VR 270

Suppression of relevant evidence
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343

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

In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give
good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the
conspiracy.
END QUOTE
.
This raises the question was there a conspiracy between the lawyers and Buloke Shire Council as
to persist the hearing to be held at the St Arnaud venue as to try to make it difficult for the
objector to succeed in his OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION? Therefore the issue is did the
legal practitioner deliberately conceal from the court on 20 August 2015 or at any other occasion
the relevant facts as to obtain orders by a miscarriage of justice that otherwise may not have been
obtained?
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT 17 September 2015 hearing
p24
29-11-2015
Page 25
Magistrates often have numerous cases and must be able to rely upon legal practitioners
appearing before him/her to disclose all relevant issues. It doesnt mean the legal practitioner has
to argue the case for the other party, but must disclose relevant issues to the case that may
indicate the Magistrate may not be able to proceed with the hearing and determine the issue of
the Summons.
.
As for a Registrar I view he/she had no judicial powers to ignore the objection to jurisdiction as
he/she is not an officer of the court and should not interfere/undermine the appropriate legal
processes that may be applicable.
.
It is my submission that lacking any details provided to me what the court ordered (other then
what is alleged by Alison J May in her 2 September 2015 correspondence) on what legal basis,
etc, that I suspect the hearing went ahead about the summons as if there was no OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION. The court may have held that the ADDRESS TO THE COURT may
have constituted in the circumstances a NOT GUILTY plea, whereas clearly to accept this would
be erroneous as no plea was or could be made where the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
was at hand and not disposed of.
QUOTE Evans v Bartlam (1937) AC 473
The principal obviously is that unless and until the court has pronounced a judgement upon the merits or by
consent, it is to have the power to revoke the expression of its coercive power where that has only been
obtained by a failure to follow any rules of procedure.
END QUOTE
Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUOTE
This interpretation is reinforced by reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and
suppression of evidence which would comprehend cases of wilful false evidence. At common law, a
judgment will be set aside if it has been obtained by fraud.
END QUOTE
http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
QUOTE
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into
which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
END QUOTE
In my submission the court would have no option but to withdraw the orders violating the legal
processes of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as they were fraudulently obtained, if the
legal practitioner appearing before Buloke Shire Council failed to disclose relevant details.
.
I submit that this court ought to request the Legal Service Commission to investigate Buloke
Shire Council legal representatives if it did or didnt conceal from the court relevant details it
reasonably ought to have revealed to the court on 20 August 2015. In my view if the legal
practitioner representing Buloke Shire Council had submitted to the court that its client objects to
consent to the transfer of the matter then this in itself may have been misleading if the client was
not aware that I referred to the Heidelberg venue, to which I was legally entitled upon, and the
client was wrongly advised about Collingwood or otherwise.
I understand that in the case of MORIATY v LONDON, CHATMAM & DOVER RY Queens
Bench 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 the
plaintiff sued a railway company for personal injuries sustained and this plaintiff has gone about
suborning false evidence and it was held by the Court that even so the plaintiff would have had a
genuine and justify to case to sue normally, by the plaintiff conduct to suborn false evidence
p25
29-11-2015
Page 26
this was seen by the Court that this conduct amounted to an admission that he had no case.
If therefore the legal representative for Buloke Shire Council concealed from the court relevant
issues and by this perverted the course of justice then this must be held that by this Buloke Shire
Council has no legal ground to oppose the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and
fraudulently seek to get around the objection and for this the court dismisses the matter for want
of jurisdiction. This as the court cannot allow itself to be seen to appear to be accomplish to
pervert the course of justice.
I make it clear that I object to the 17 September 2015 hearing to proceed, this also as I
question the legal validity of such alleged orders, and any appearance by me, if I were to
attend, as I am still in ill health, would be without conceding jurisdiction and neither to
accept the alleged adjournment was legally appropriate.
Because court venue at St Arnaud was the wrong venue, and it is not for ES&a Lawyers a to
dictate what they consider to be the appropriate venue, as it was for the court to determine this
and considering my place of residence, then the court may have done better to have addressed the
venue issue and may have concluded that in all circumstances Heidelberg venue was the
appropriate venue and for that part I had to succeed, regardless that I didnt concede jurisdiction
for the Magistrates Court of Victoria (at Heidelberg). As such, the court at the St Arnaud venue
could have transferred the matter to the Heidelberg venue without compromising itself and
without prejudice. This so the Heidelberg venue could then deal with the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and decide if also considering the appeals upheld by the County Court of
Victoria there was jurisdiction that could be invoked at all. However, the court at the St Arnaud
venue failing to do so but purportedly issuing orders to adjourn the summons matter and to direct
that the matter is to proceed regardless if I am not in attendance then those orders were issued
without jurisdiction and cannot have any legal force.
Obviously the fact that the St Arnaud venue failed to provide me with any orders and reason of
judgment itself is of concern, as it appears to me is merely is so to say a puppet on a string for
ES&a Lawyers, to do what it is told regardless of the legal issues involved.
I view that by this the court discredited itself severely.
While I have recovered from the illness that struck me down previously I am now suffering from
the Flu, as does my wife. In the circumstances it would be very unwise to attempt to drive in
such condition to St Arnaud, nor do I view this can be demanded or is required as the court failed
to invoke jurisdiction.
It may also be stated that the summons was not accompanied with any moneys towards travel
cost despite as I understand it ordinary is applicable where on behalf of the State charges are
pursued by Summons.
In my submission Buloke Shire Council should never have instituted legal proceedings in the
circumstances as it did but it appears to me they also seemed to lack appropriate legal advise.
Nevertheless despite my writings it still proceeded to institute legal proceedings to which I hold
neither it nor their legal representative have any legal standing, and with the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION not having been disposed of the court can Buloke /Shire Council legal
representatives making clear they do not intend to respond to matters then the court has no option
but to finalize the matters by issuing an order that the summons charge(s) are dismissed for want
of jurisdiction.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W. B. objector.
p26
29-11-2015
Page 27
It should be understood that I never so to say over the decades stood at the Bar table to try
to win some popularity contest. I was there to pursue the true and proper enforcement of
the law. I always demanded that this to be applied in the appropriated format, regardless of the
legal consequences.
What I am exposing is an elaborate and sustained misuse and abuse of the legal processes that I
view corruptly causes undue harm upon the victims. What I have also exposed to the Country
Fire Authority is that Mr Wayne Wall, the informer seems to me to lack proper training and
understanding what his duties and obligations are about, and aided by what I consider a corrupt
legal system has enabled Buloke Shire Council to terrorise landholders for its own financial gain.
And let no person argue this doesnt go to the heart of the issue of jurisdiction, because if the
notices are in violation of legal requirements then everything that followed goes by the wayside.
We, the people, are subjected to numerous so called anti-terrorism legislation yet terrorism is rife
and practiced by those purporting to enforce the rule of law, aided by lawyers and judicial
officers. THAT MUST STOP!
Some 30 years ago a judge gave me a lecture where I stood at the Bar table using the word assault. His Honour
then pointed out that the word assault has no meaning without a proper description what it supposed to refer to. As
His Honour explained someone could hypothetically claim to have seen me drunk, and this would afford me no
opportunity to challenge this, However if a person was to alleged that at a certain time at a certain day I was
observed to have been unsteady on my feet smelling after alcohol then I could respond that I had earlier been hit by
a car and had the hospital cleaning the wound with alcohol and decided to go home despite still being unsteady on
my feet. As such what His honour made clear that vague and aloof allegations denies the other party to respond.
Buloke Shire Council Municipal Fire Prevention Officer is required by s41 of the Country Fire
Authority act 1958 to form an opinion as to issue as Fire prevention Notice. Yet every year
against many landholders as I understand it the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer issues Fire
Prevention Notices all identical in wording, regardless if a land holder has no grass/growth on
his/her property and states demands in violation to the legal provisions of the Country fire
Authority Act 1958. Clearly, this means that the Municipal Fire Prevention officer fails the
required opinion to properly assess each property individually but merely seems to issue them
as a matter of fact and then when the time stated in the notice is passed then does his inspection
and not before, and hence the fire Prevention Notices are invalid in law. As such the Courts
cannot invoke jurisdiction where the Notices are in violation of legislative provisions, and
yet I understand that for years the Court have nevertheless enforced them and with a cost of more
than $1,400 each plus other cost this so to say have become a nice corrupt financial income for
Buloke Shire Council and I view well overdue to be properly investigated.
QUOTE 27-10-2015 correspondence
Obviously, I request not only for the brief/preliminary but also that Buloke Shire Council produces records at
least since 2009 as to how often it issued identical or nearly identical FIRE PREVENTION NOTICES against
landowners and how often any was against Buloke Shire Council (Shire of Buloke).
END QUOTE 27-10-2015 correspondence
On this alone an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION must succeed if the Fire Prevention

Notice seeking the removal of all combustible material from land where the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958 excludes building and its content, then no court can invoke jurisdiction to
enforce such an utter and sheer nonsense. No surprised then that Buloke Shire Council seeks to
conceal from the court the truth of matters, and by this perverted the course of justice!
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)

(Our name is our motto!)
p27
29-11-2015

MR Garry Mcintosh, Associate To His Honour Mullaly J.: Judgemullaly - Chambers@Countycourt - Vic.Gov - Au

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MR Garry Mcintosh, Associate To His Honour Mullaly J.: Judgemullaly - Chambers@Countycourt - Vic.Gov - Au

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J.

Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au

This supplement is provides as to indicate that I had provided in each occasion in my

fails to attend in answer to bail, the

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

ADDRESS TO THE COURT 20 August 2015 hearing

ADDRESS TO THE COURT

Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

As this is an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION the court cannot take any plea.

ADDRESS TO THE COURT 17 September 2015 hearing

ADDRESS TO THE COURT

I needed to do no more but state OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION but in a way to assist

QUOTE Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

c/o the coordinator starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au

Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

END QUOTE 19 August 2015 correspondence

In my submission Council will not consent is a falsehood as where councillor Mr Graeme

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

c/o the coordinator starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au

Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Re: see attachment 20150826 -SchorelHlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of

Victoria at St Arnaud cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

c/o the coordinator starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au

Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au

Cr Reid Mather (Mayor) MALLEE WARD crmather@buloke.vic.gov.au

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

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

c/o the coordinator starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au<mailto=

Cc: Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au<mail=

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

<20150826 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arn=

Yet, ES&a Lawyers claimed:

It is very clear that I OBJECT TO JURISDICTION of the Magistrates Court of Victoria

QUOTE Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court)

We also have to consider:

QUOTE R.V. Crimmins (1959) VR 270

QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343

QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

On this alone an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION must succeed if the Fire Prevention

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

You might also like