1

Mr Martin Pakula, Attorney-General

5

23-10-2015

martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au

Cc:
Mr Wayne Wall, Municipal Fire Prevention Officer buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Country fire Authority (CFA Customer Support Team) cfa-customer-support@cfa.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au

10

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au

Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Ref; 20151023-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Martin Pakula Attorney-General
Re Melbourne venue hearing

15
Sir,

20

25

30

35

40

45

Buloke Shire Councils legal representatives claimed that the Registrar of the County Court
of Victoria had made known that the proper venue was Ballarat, and for this I wrote to the
Registrar that Ballarat was not the correct venue but Melbourne(at William Street) was.
My 14 October 2015 correspondence to the Registrar outlining why Melbourne is the correct
venue can be downloaded from:
The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/284963338/20151014-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-County-Court-of-Vicvtoria-ReBuloke-Shire-Council-Cc-LSC-COM-2015-0873-MCV-F12748095-APPEAL-15-2502

I have reproduced the documentation dated 20 October 2015 which clearly shows that the venue
will be in Melbourne. The pre-Appeal Mention Hearing AP-15-2502 will; be at 9.30am.
I have also included a copy of the new FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE, as while this is yet to be
further pursued it may underline that the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer is making absurd
conditions, as some outlined in my 22-10-2015 correspondence.
As you may have the records of Attorney-General Rob Hulls for the State of Victoria regarding
the 19 July 2006 litigation in which by way of s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS all Attorney-Generals were served with the documentation and the AttorneyGeneral for the state of Victoria stated that the state of Victoria would abide by the courts
decision, in which I challenged the impartiality of the courts not being courts that are impartial
administration of justice and both appeals were upheld then clearly it is beyond the power of the
State of Victoria and so also Buloke Shire Council exercising delegated powers of the State of
Victoria (s114 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), to re-litigate the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION I had successfully then argued in both appeals.
Where then I informed the Court in writing (via the court coordinator) that I had an
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then clearly the court could not proceed with the matter
instituted by Buloke shire Council unless the court first had disposed, if ever at all, the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. This I understand never eventuated. Hence, the
Magistrates Court of Victoria never did invoke jurisdiction on the 20 August 2015 date nor
subsequently on 17 September 2015 hearing date.
p1
23-10-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

2
Because a Judicial Registrar nor a Magistrate can overrule a court order of a judge of the County
court of Victoria nor in fact can a judge do so of the County Court of Victoria, and no appeals
were filed at the time against the 19 July 2006 decision then any litigation I view is fatally
doomed from onset.
At the time the Magistrates Court of Victoria on 17 November 2006 had dismissed the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and issued further orders, and this I appealed in both cases
and both cases were upheld without any reservation and neither was any sought by any of the
Attorney-Generals.
In my view the only avenue that was open to the state of Victoria was to have remedied the very
issues I used as why the courts couldnt invoke jurisdiction, but to my knowledge this was never
addressed and as such the same or similar conditions remained to exist.
Hence I view my appeal in this matter now before the Court must succeed.
.
I did also object to the jurisdiction of the St Arnaud venue, and this too is what appears to be
ignored by the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud. It is very obvious that the magistrates
Court of Victoria at St Arnaud had jurisdiction to entertain an OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION but that is all it had jurisdiction for to determine, and only if at all it dismissed
the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION could it then hear and determine the complaint filed by
Buloke Shire Council acting within the powers of s114 of the constitution.
It was then within the powers of the court to issue directions as to the conduct of the hearing of
the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, where the prosecutor has the onus to prove
jurisdiction, and the objected may if desire to do so provide whatever further issues in support of
the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, albeit there is no onus upon the objector to do so.
That was the ruling of the supreme Court of Victoria when I was the prosecutor to sue the State
of Victoria for wrongful arrest of my then 2 year old daughter and His Honour then ruled that the
State counsel having stated to OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the Court was all that
counsel needed to do and I had the onus to prove that the court had jurisdiction, including the
validity of any legislation I sought to rely upon. As I had not expected this OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION, as no prior notification was give, I was unable there and then to prove the
validity of legislation etc, and His Honour dismissed the matter for want of jurisdiction.
On that basis it must be clear that the Magistrates Court of Victoria is bound by this legal
principle set by the Supreme Court of Victoria in 1988 and cannot act in violation of it.
Where no reason of judgment nor orders are existing, at least to my knowledge then no orders
were issued to dismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and hence no jurisdiction was
invoked. Hence the 17 September 2015 purported for this are null and void.
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. .

40

END QUOTE
QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,

45

Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven

END QUOTE

As I understand it Buloke Shire Council legal representative did alert the court on 17 September
2015 about the objection but the court seems to totally disregard this. Well, disregarding doesnt
provide jurisdiction!
50

Not only am I entitled to every extend to the benefits of the County Court of Victoria ruling to
uphold both appeals on 19 July 2006 but the State of Victoria and so anyone acting by delegation
of powers such as Buloke Shire Council is bound to act in compliance to this. Not to do so I view
is CONTEMPT OF COURT.
p2
23-10-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Clearly Buloke Shire Council legal representatives caused undue complications and so additional
work for me to insist that Ballarat was the appropriate venue, where the Registrar obviously has
accepted that Melbourne venue is the correct venue.
p3
23-10-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

This is yet another Fire Prevention Notice, and despite that the legislation doesnt set out that
100mm is the maximum length permissible for grass to be at that height, Wayne Wall Municipal
Shire Prevention Officer seems to add his bit as a demand, even so as my images prove Buloke
Shire Council itself has in excess of one metre high grass/weed. Mr Wayne Wall also refers to
noxious weeds, this even so as I understand it, with my consent, this was shortly before the Fire
Prevention Notice was issued removed by council arrangements of my property as well as from
other properties. As such the Fire Prevention Notice is not as to actual work that needs to be
done, as required by the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 to be directed, but is referring to nonexisting matters, to which no one can comply, such as the prunings.
.

15

20

25

30

Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998)
Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing the statutory provision in
that case: "substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible.
Either there was compliance or there was not."
The reasoning of Fullagar J in Clayton v. Heffron (supra) in relation to the provisions of s 5B of the Constitution
Act 1902 (NSW) is material in this context:
"A manner and form are prescribed by section 5B, and that manner and form must be observed if a valid law
is to be produced. Any prescription of manner and form may be repealed or amended, but, while it stands, the
process prescribed by it must be followed. That was decided Trethowan's case and I think that the whole
of what is prescribed by section 5B relates to manner and form. It does not seem to me to be possible to say
that some of the requirements of the section are matters of manner and form while others are not. The section
describes one entire process - a series of steps, one following on another - and only the completion of the
entire process can produce a valid law." (Supra at 262)

As the Fire Prevention Notice is in various ways in violation with the Country Fire Authority
Act 1958 then clearly the Court has no jurisdiction to enforce or otherwise deal with this Fire
Prevention Notice and cannot invoke jurisdiction for this also. The fact that Wayne Wall persist
p4
23-10-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5
in this kind of Fire Prevention Notice including to demand all combustible material to be
removed, which clearly is also in violation to the legislative provisions, then I view the Court
cannot for this also accept that Mr Wayne Wall is a competent person to be able to establish if
there is a fire danger. The credibility of the witness is as such of importance. After all the fact
that Buloke Shire Council has grass/weed in excess of one metre may also indicate he lacks the
competence of being an expert witness.
In my view where the Attorney-General allows Buloke Shire Council to litigate in clear violation
to the 19 July 2015 decision by the County Court of Victoria then the Attorney-General can be
held personally in CONTEMPT OF COURT and be imprisoned.

10

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html
Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908) Re contempt by Attorney-General
.

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780

As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes the
appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made in the
lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the
respondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the
absence of reason for the magistrates decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded
for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal process, there is the
basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to
controvert the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they lost. If they are given no reason they
may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case
not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not mere ordinary
trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of responsibility which administrations of
the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail.
[Baker v Baker (1906) 95 LT 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and again in Cobb v Cobb (1900)
p145] it was stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is the duty
of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his decision, but to give the reasons
for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required, but the
reasons which lead the magistrate to make his order must be explicitly stated.
END QUOTE

The following case related to an Attorney-General acting in defiance of a court order. It shows
that an Attorney-General can be held personally liable and imprisoned for acting in violation to
court orders. Likewise I view the same applies where the Attorney-General allows by delegated
powers Buloke Shire Council to act as such.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html
Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)
A further issue is that besides the above the magistrates Court of Victoria or for that any other
court never could have gained jurisdiction as to a Fire Prevention Notice issued in violation of
the Country Fire Authority Act 1958. The act clearly limits the powers of a Municipal Fire
Prevention Officer to work that requires to be out and doesnt provide for imaginary work to be
carried out that doesnt really exist or work that is not required by the Act.
As the removal of all combustible materials violates the limitations of the Act as well as the
removal of branches as this is not stipulating so to say deadwood but could refer to ordinary
branches still on bushes/trees then as like the removal of noxious weed that in fact was as I
understand it removed by council from my property as well as other properties before the Fire
Prevention Notice was issued then the Fire Prevention Notice failing to be within the precise
terms of authority provided for within the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 is therefore without
legal basis and no court can enforce this. The subsequent Infringement Notice therefore is of no
legal basis because a subsequent notice cannot validity an invalid Fire Prevention Notice. Nor
can a summons overcome this legal defect. As such no court can invoke jurisdiction for this also.

p5
23-10-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Bowers v Smith (1953) 1 ALL ER 320 (Re Clarke Hall) and (Morrison on Children, 7 Ed, P3)
QUOTE
"... the first business of the court is to try to issue whether or not the case is bought within the terms of the
statute, and only if this be proven by proper evidence can the court proceed to decide upon treatment"
END QUOTE
SCHOREL v. SCHOREL (1982) C 66117 of 1982 Unreported Transcript 11-3-82 and 12-3-82 before Emery SJ.
(In regard of the former husbands statements from the bar table earlier during the proceedings about matters on the
lists)
QUOTE Page 115: (Emery SJ examine-in-chief Mr Schorel in the witness box)
You made or gave me some information while you were standing at the bar table just a little while
ago about the two lists of furniture that your wife produced this morning, exhibits A and B. What
you said from the bar table is true, is that right?- - - That is correct, your Honour.
Yes. Well, that makes it all evidence that you have given instead of just a statement.
END QUOTE

In this case there are no known evidence sealed orders, reasons of judgment as to why the
court made orders on 20 August 2015, neither so on 17 September 2015.
In any event the question of credibility of the witness is where the Fire prevention Officer sets
certain demands not likewise applied to Buloke Shire Council itself then I view he cannot be
held to be a expert witness nor have the credibility to be witness where the Fire Prevention
Notices were issued ongoing in violation of the law. Indeed, is such simular Fire Prevention
Notices were issued at any time against others and were resulting to fines/penalties against
landholders, this then cannot give the courts jurisdiction but merely shows how the Municipal
fire Prevention Officer has time and time again in my view perverted the course of justice but
having landholders convicted or otherwise subjected to penalties despite the notices having been
defective.
In my view a competent legal practitioner would first have checked if the Fire Prevention Notice
was within the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 provisions and not exceeding
it.
As an appeal lies in regard of orders a court ought to have made but failed to make then clearly
for this also gives a ground of appeal, where the Magistrates Court of Victoria failed to uphold
the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
It is a legitimate issue for any party to object to the venue of the court being used where this is
outside the ordinary applicable precinct of the court. As such where the Magistrates Court of
Victoria St Arnaud venue was not a correct venue then the court cannot force an objector to
nevertheless attend to a hearing to undermine or totally obliterate the benefits of an objector but
the court then is bound to heard and determine the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION to cause
the least inconvenience to the objector. Hence, the St Arnaud venue could have proceeded with
the hearing of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION by written submissions, this also
because of the illness of the objector.
Because the Magistrates Court of Victoria at no time invoked jurisdiction, not even as to hear
and determine the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then its purported orders of 20 August
2015 and 17 September 2015 are null and void. As such as I indicated in past writings I have to
do absolutely nothing, not even to file an appeal because there are no valid orders.
Buloke Shire Council legal representatives however seems to pursue that nevertheless the appeal
should have been heard at Ballarat and alleged that the Registrar agreed with this. (Albeit by way
of 20 October 29015 correspondence the Registrar appears to have accepted my 14 October 2015
correspondence setting out why Melbourne venue is correct.) The fact is that originally any
matters has d to be heard either in Swan Hill or at Heidelberg (where by temporary closure due to
water damage the alternatives are Melbourne City, Broadmeadows or Ringwood) as such I view
the submission by Buloke Shire Council legal representatives on 17 September 2015 to the court
that Heidelberg was not the correct venue was perverting the course of justice as clearly the
alternatives for Heidelberg remains to be as if they are at Heidelberg. The St Arnaud venue
p6
23-10-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

7
therefore never was an appropriate venue. And as the appeal venue for Swan Hill venue lies with
Bendigo then for this Ballarat neither is the correct venue for any appeal. As such Buloke Shire
Council legal representatives cannot have benefits of their wrongful selection of court venue to
then build upon this some right of appeal venue where in the first place St Arnaud was never a
correct court venue.
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!
Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:
"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law in a public trial at which she/he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

15

20

25

Dixon CJ in Gurnett v The Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2][126] where his Honour said:
QUOTE
"in the legal dichotomy between questions of fact and questions of law we place under the latter head a
question whether there is sufficient evidence to submit to a jury in support of a cause of action. That is
because it is a question for the court to decide and not for a tribunal of fact."
END QUOTE
See also Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32

As no evidence was given before the court on 20 August 2015 neither on 17 September 2015
then the court for this also had no juridical powers to issue orders, as there was no consideration
of anything! Indeed no reason of judgement to show the court had consider anything at all.
END QUOTE 20150917-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka also Re OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION

30

http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/Magistrates+Court/Home/Fines+and+Penalties/
QUOTE
Fines and Penalties
What is a fine?
A fine is a monetary penalty that can be imposed by a magistrate. The Sentencing Act
1991 defines fine as:

35

'the sum of money payable by an offender under an order of a court made on the
offender being convicted or found guilty of an offence and includes costs but does
not include money payable by way of restitution or compensation or any costs of or
incidental to an application for restitution or compensation payable by an offender
under an order of a court.' (Section 3, Sentencing Act 1991).

40

As a part of an order in relation to a fine, a magistrate may also impose other

monetary penalties, such as ordering an offender to pay compensation or costs.
END QUOTE
QUOTE 20150917-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka also Re OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION

45

50

55

Even so no evidence was before the court (besides the lack of jurisdiction) the Judicial
Registrar somehow found guilt. This to me is absurd!
And at the time of filing the appeal the Registrar (Broadmeadows venue) first claimed the
presiding officer was a Judicial Registrar and then changed it to Magistrate, whereas with the CD
of the recording of the 17 September 2015 hearing it turns out to be a Judicial Registrar.
At the time of filing the appeal however I had not been, despite numerous request, any formal
orders or reason of judgments.
How absurd having to file an appeal without even knowing the precise terms of orders, if any,
the reasons why any orders were issued, no evidence before the court and no knowledge who the
presiding officer was in what capacity.
Nevertheless by Wakim principle a right to appeal exist to clarify this all albeit no need for an
appeal as the purported orders have no legal basis.
p7
23-10-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

8
Still, most people who have orders against them will be aware of the unscrupulous conduct by
prosecutors to enforce orders no matter being without legal justification.
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE

I draw your attention to the decision in Hobsons Bay Council v Viking in Supreme Court of
Victoria re an infringement notice, where the Supreme Court upheld the Magistrates decision that
cost should not be awarded where cost isnt applied if the Police prosecuted for the same. (I have
reproduced the decision below)
Despite that this was made known to Buloke Shire Council legal representatives they never
submitted for cost and cost was ordered.
It ought to be clear that where legal practitioners apply for cost because of the number of pages
they had to consider that then their presentation before the court reflects the consideration of this
material. In my view this Buloke Shire Council legal representation failed to do.
It appears they simply were only interested to claim cost and without showing competence in
their presentation.
While they were representing their client, nevertheless as they claimed cost they then have an
obligation to provide the court with a reasonable set out of the other partys case. This I view
never eventuated. In my view concealing relevant details is perverting the course of justice.
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
this was seen by the Court that this conduct amounted to an admission that he had no case.
The same I view applies by concealing relevant details!
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

p8
23-10-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

9
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 (ordinary applicable) court facility at Heidelberg is about 4 KM
away from my residence.
QUOTE Age Discrimination Act 2004
3 Objects

10

15

20

25

30

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

Hence the St Arnaud venue was not only inappropriate but also in violation to legal principles.
Yet, Buloke Shire Council legal representatives having been provided by me with considerable
set out of issues concerned basically concealed most of it and yet claimed cost against me.
.
In Legal Service Commissioner v Harold James Johnson where I represented Queens counsellor
Johnson on 4 occasions as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Professional Advocate, Smither J
held that Mr H. J. Johnson QC while representing himself in private matters was in fact
representing himself as a legal practitioner. Upon this basis where I am representing myself then
I am doing so as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Professional Advocate and entitled to charge
for my elaborate work to try to get Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives to accept
there never was any jurisdiction, regardless that they seemed to be totally incompetent to grasp
this. After all if Buloke Shire Council legal representatives can charge for reading my writings
then I am likewise entitled to charge for drafting and writing the material and any other out of
pocket expenses to produce the volumes of material to try to get them so to say to their senses.
Magistrates Court Act 1989
QUOTE
132Costs liability of legal practitioner

35

40

(1) If a legal practitioner for a party to a proceeding, whether personally or through a servant or agent,
has caused costs to be incurred improperly or without reasonable cause or to be wasted by undue
delay or negligence or by any other misconduct or default, the Court may make an order that
(a) all or any of the costs between the legal practitioner and the client be disallowed or that the
legal practitioner repay to the client the whole or part of any money paid on account of costs;
or
(b) the legal practitioner pay to the client all or any of the costs which the client has been ordered
to pay to any party; or

45

(c) the legal practitioner pay all or any of the costs payable by any party other than the client.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a legal practitioner is in default for the purposes of that subsection
if any proceeding cannot conveniently be heard or proceed, or fails or is adjourned without any
useful progress being made, because the legal practitioner failed to

50

(a) attend in person or by a proper representative; or

(b) file any document which ought to have been filed; or

p9
23-10-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10
(c) lodge or deliver any document for the use of the Court which ought to have been lodged or
delivered; or
(d) be prepared with any proper evidence or account; or
(e) otherwise proceed.

10

15

20

(3) The Court must not make an order under subsection (1) without giving the legal practitioner a
reasonable opportunity to be heard.
(4) The Court may order that notice of any proceeding or order against a legal practitioner under this
section be given to the client in such manner as the Court directs.
END QUOTE

As my writings indicated Councillor Milne of Buloke Shire Council indicated he didnt have a
clue (my wording but to that effect) what was going on and hence I objected to the legal standing
of Buloke Shire Council legal representatives to litigate in court as they couldnt have any
informed consent to litigate in court.
It is clear that Buloke Shire Council persist yet again with an invalid Fire Prevention Notice and
for this it would be appropriate for the court to restrain the State of Victoria (so Buloke Shire
Council an well as its legal representatives) to institute any further litigation against me without
first obtaining the leave of the court.
At the very time I was suffering serious ill health Buloke Shire Council with its legal
representatives was persisting in their unlawful and immoral/unethical conduct with litigation
and so at the incorrect court venue despite my comprehensive set outs, there never was any legal
justification for this. The courts cannot permit this gross abuse of the court processes.
Country Fire Authority Act 1958

25

QUOTE 41

Fire prevention notices

(2)A fire prevention notice may be served only if the fire prevention officer forms the opinion
(a) that it is necessary, or may become necessary, to do so to protect life or property from
the threat of fire; and

30

35

40

END QUOTE 41

Fire prevention notices

Where however the Fire Prevention Notice is vague and aloof then a landholder who received
such Fire Prevention Notice is entitled to consider the conduct of Buloke Shire Council itself as
to try to understand what its Municipal Fire prevention Officer is seeking to make clear. Where
then around the highways near the landowners property Buloke Shire Council has growth in
excess of 1 metre, dead wood everywhere between trees, etc, then I view a landholder is entitled
to hold that Buloke Shire Council as the prosecutor and so needing to be a model litigant sets
so to say the bar as to what is or isnt permitted. Hence, where any growth on my property was
not at all of the height of that by Buloke Shire Council managed land/properties/highways, etc,
then clearly there was no legal basis for the Municipal fire prevention officers to limit growth to
a mere 100 mm.
.

45

50

As for the branches as the Buloke Shire Council itself has spread around dead wood (of
branches) around the bases of trees and everywhere else then in that regard this neither can be an
issue as such. It is therefore that even for so far the Fire Prevention Notice had not been in
violation of the legislation (Albeit I hold it is.) nevertheless the Municipal Fire Prevention
Officer must be consistent in requirements to comply regardless if the land is managed by
Buloke Shire Council or a private land holder. As such in that regard the Fire Prevention Notice
failing to be in consistency to what applies to Buloke Shire Council cannot be deemed valid for
this also. There is no provision in the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 to exclude
municipal/shire Councils and in fact there are special provisions relating to municipal/shire
councils to cause them to comply.
p10
23-10-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

11
As such, in the overall the litigation by Buloke Shire Council and so persisted with by its legal
representatives have been vexatious and frivolous and in my view the Attorney-General should
take over the case from Buloke Shire Council to end this protracted unjustified litigation and
provide the appropriate submissions on 30 October 2015 in the Pre Appeal Mention hearing as to
avoid any further need for the appeal to be continued. My appeal is justified, but the AttorneyGeneral can avoid protracted hearings by simply acknowledging to the court that the matter
should never have been litigated against me in the first place and I am entitled to obtain orders
that appropriately reflect my rights and entitlements including compensation for the unjustified
litigation against me, etc.
As I have set out I provided my writings to the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud court
coordinators email address as provided for on the courts website, and at no time did the court
coordinator provide any alternative email address and as such I was entitled to accept that the
material emailed to the court would be part of the court file. Had it been otherwise then the court
coordinator would have had a duty to advise me thereof, this never was done!
Because I provided to the Premier Mr Daniel Andrews copies of my writings it cannot be
claimed that the Government was unaware of what was going on. Hence, it must accept in that
regard responsibility to have allowed Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives to persist
in their unjustified litigation.
While the Attorney-General may so to say remain to sit on the side line and a full scale appeal
eventuate, an appeal which from onset I contemplated would eventuate considering the conduct
of Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives, in my view it would be more appropriate
that as these proceedings are in fact where Buloke Shire Council is litigating within the ambit of
s114 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) therefore it has the right
and indeed in my view the duty to take over the case from Buloke Shire Council.
Again in view of the 19 July 2006 successful appeals which the state of Victoria and so neither
Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives can re-litigate nor go beyond, it appears to me
that no matter which turns the State of Victoria and or Buloke Shire Council and its legal
representatives may pursue in the end it is in my view an appeal that they cannot prevent from
succeeding.
.

35

40

I look forward to any proposal the Attorney-General may wish to provide to me as to orders it
would consider appropriate in the circumstances, albeit considering that the hearing on 30
November 2015 is a Pre-Appeal Mention Hearing and not a full scale hearing of all matters. As
such, the court would be interested in if the parties are ready to proceed to litigate the appeal
issues. If therefore the State of Victoria were to submit that it doesnt seek to challenge the
appeal and either will accept whatever orders the court may find appropriate to make, or it will
desire to work out with me the terms of any orders to recommend to the court as to resolve the
matter appropriately to my position, then again do not hesitate to provide to me the suggested
orders by return email.
.

I look forwards to your positive reply!

45

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

(
Awaiting your response,

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

p11
23-10-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati