Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Written submissions
ADDRESS TO THE COURT
County Court of Victoria
Your Honour
County Court of Victoria at Melbourne
Cc:
NO CASE TO ANSWER
Your Honour,
I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and (retired) Professional Advocate and as such
gained over the decades an understanding about legal matters. My various written submissions in
the ADDRESSES TO THE COURT deals with various constitutional issues, and as such as set
out in those writings how this court is to invoke federal jurisdiction, or at least deemed to invoke
federal jurisdiction.
The High Court of Australia held that where a party pleads the non-application of a State Act
because of Commonwealth legislation then the State Court is exercising Federal jurisdiction.
Troy v Wrigglesworth (1919) 26 C.L.R. 305; 25 (1926) 38 C.L.R. 441; 33 A.L.R. 66.
On page 51 (and thereafter) of the 2-2-2016 written submissions of the ADDRESS TO THE
COURT I canvassed extensively Authorities as to the conduct of the court facing an
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and rely upon them also. If therefore the Court were to
proceed without invoking formal jurisdiction the entire hearing is a sheer waste of time as any
orders will have no legal validity.
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
Therefore where Mr Gould could ignore court orders that he held was invalid (albeit facing a risk
if they were held valid) then the same can eventuate with County Court of Victoria orders that I
deem to be without jurisdiction.
As His Honour directed the Appeal to be heard then I provide for a NO CASE TO ANSWER.
This means that I can use any material to elicit from the witness in cross examination answers
without the court being able to use the same against me.
This is an essential concept in litigation as to avoid to deny a party to a proper cross-examination.
At the end of the Prosecutors case upon his final submissions the Court then has to determine if
the Prosecutor in fact proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and if not then the court has
no alternative but to dismiss the charge(s). Only if the court determines there is a case to answer
can it call upon the Appellant as to submit to the court what the Appellant seeks to rely upon.
I will quote merely some of the sub missions of the 425 pages written SUBMISSIONS of the
successful appeals of 19 July 2006.
QUOTE written submissions
ADDRESS TO THE COURT
County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
Your Honour,
Headings (below) are only to give some indications to assist to locate an issue but
are not to be taken to limit matters stated below it neither that other matters stated elsewhere are
not relevant.
p1
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Objector/Appellant
Appeal 15-2502
HEARING DIFFICULTIES
From onset I have to set out that I have for decades now suffered a hearing loss
which is more then 25% to each ear and for this I use hearing aids but those appear to generally
play up during Court hearings. Without proper functioning hearing aids I lack to hear certain
sounds and as such may misunderstand/misconceive what is being stated/asked by others.
What is an ADDRESS TO THE COURT?
The ADDRESS TO THE COURT is a document that enables the unrepresented Defendant or
for that matter any defendant or litigant to place before the Court in writing what he/she desires
to State, including legal arguments, so that the Court can withdraw into chambers and can at its
own leisure consider matters without having any problems as to pronunciations or misstatements
or other language problems causing frustration to those involved in the proceedings.
The ADDRESS TO THE COURT has been used in all levels of State and Federal Courts,
including the High Court of Australia, involving civil and criminal cases since 1985.
END QUOTE written submissions
And
QUOTE written submissions
UNREPRESENTED DEFENDANT A SELF EDUCATED CONSTITUTIONALIST
The matter before this court is a very complex and serious matter, as the end result could be a
criminal conviction. The unrepresented Defendant native language is Dutch and the Defendant
has not had any formal education in the English language and neither in legal studies. Hence, the
Defendant in that way is disadvantaged to some degree while on the other hand this was to his
benefit in that as a self trained constitutionalist he has been able to understand constitutional
provisions without being, so to say, brainwashed by legal fictions and other incorrect perceptions
that exist.
Andrei Sakharov, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/andrei_sakharov_quote_30a9)
Freedom of thought is the only guarantee against an infection of people by mass myths, which, in the hands
of treacherous hypocrites and demagogues, can be transformed into bloody dictatorships.
Alexander Hamilton, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/alexander_hamilton_quote_71c2)
No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy
(agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people
are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not
authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the
representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and
must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance
between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.
Fredrich August von Hayek, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/fredrich+august+von+hayek)
The greatest danger to liberty today comes from the men who are most needed and most powerful in modern
government, namely, the efficient expert administrators exclusively concerned with what they regard as the
public good.
Robert Lindner, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/robert_lindner_quote_a79f)
Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely survive in the face of doubt.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/friedrich_nietzsche_quote_3039)
Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.
George Orwell, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/george_orwell_quote_304c)
p2
Appeal 15-2502
p3
Appeal 15-2502
CONFESSIONS.
1. Civil proceedings.
2. Need not be voluntary.
1. Criminal proceedings.
2. Must be voluntary.
For far too long the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and so also the Australian Electoral
Commission has used its might and so taxpayers funds to bulldoze any defendant as well as the Courts as to that it
can do what it does, and it is well overdue that this is stopped and we finally have that JUSTICE PREVAILS and
the lawyers who have been involved in this kind of conduct themselves face the reality of criminal charges for this
unconstitutional/illegal conduct as to protect the people against this kind of brutal force.
END QUOTE written submissions
QUOTE written submissions
Issue Estoppel
Issue Estoppel or Res Judicata The civil law use of issue estoppel or res judicata (literally
translated as "the fact has been decided") is relatively uncontroversial. It expresses a general
public interest that the same issue should not be litigated more than once even when the parties
are different. The criminal law application, called double jeopardy provides that a person should
not be tried twice for the same offence. In crime/mystery fiction, it is a common plot device to
have the villain exploit the rule. In the world of real crime, some cases have achieved notoriety,
e.g. in the Birmingham Six saga, the House of Lords ruled in Hunter v. Chief Constable of the
West Midlands Police (1982) that issue estoppel applied. Lord Diplock said:
The inherent power which any court of justice must possess to prevent misuse of its
procedure in a way which, although not inconsistent with the literal application of its
procedural rules, would nevertheless be manifestly unfair to a party to litigation before it,
or would otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute among rightthinking people.
[edit]
External links
It means that matters that were litigated between myself and the Commonwealth to which with
the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS all Attorney-Generals were provided
to challenge my submissions but decided not to do so and Mr Robert Hull Attorney-General for
p4
Appeal 15-2502
The reference below to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions now related to the
Prosecutor in this case.
QUOTE written submissions
The following explains to some extend the issue of DE NOVO as I submitted at the time:
QUOTE written submissions
Appeal 15-2502
There is something illogic about this section in that it demands that unless the Defendant present
evidence to prove contrary to the averment rule that there is evidence disproving the fact alleged
by the Commonwealth director of Public Prosecution there is no requirement for the Director of
Public Prosecution to prove anything.
Now, let take this in the correct prospective by example;
A trial commence and the Prosecutor having charged the Defendant with failure to vote then
commence his case and using the averment rule does not provide any evidence to prove the
charge. The Defendant then pleads NO CASE TO ANSWER, and the judicial officer rejects this
on the basis that the averment rule applies. The Defendant then commences to open his case and
present evidence contrary to the charge. The Defendant has the conduct of civil standards of
proof and as such merely has to state that he/she attended to the polling station. And as such the
defendant has completed his contrary evidence. While the Prosecutor can now cross examine the
Defendant, something the Defendant was denied to do upon the Prosecutor as to elicit any
evidence because the Prosecutor relies upon the averment rule, now the Prosecutor ask all kinds
of questions to try to trap one way or another the Defendant to give evidence that he had perhaps
not filled in the ballot paper or otherwise did not accept them. The Prosecutor has clearly no
legal position to now call witnesses, such as those who were at the polling station as to what
actually occurred at the polling station, and so is seeking to use the Defendant to try to prove his
case. However, because of the NO CASE TO ANSWER claim the Defendant made before
opening his own case, the judicial officer must now find that the failure of the prosecutor to
present evidence and to rely now upon the Defendant to give some kind of evidence that he may
not actually have filled in any ballot paper is irrelevant as the claim of NO CASE TO ANSWER
relies upon what evidence was before the Court PRIOR TO what evidence was before the Court
when this claim was made and must disregard any evidence that was given afterwards. A Court
of Appeal, if the matter is appealed, re-assess the claim of NO CASE TO ANSWER, upon the
basis if the Prosecutor in fact had proved BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT the charge and
by this must disregard any evidence that was given after the claim of NO CASE TO ANSWER
was made. The Prosecutor having the CRIMINAL STANDARD OF PROOF there by had
the onus to disprove each and every excuse the Defendant may proffer on the CIVIL
STANDARD OF PROOF and therefore where the Prosecutor takes the gamble of relying upon
the averment rule that he takes a CALCULATED RISK that it might be fatal to his case. The
judicial officer, who becomes aware , once the Defendant opened his case, that the Defendant in
fact on CIVIL STANDARDS OF PROOF had a excuse, then is duty bound to discontinue the
trial and make a ruling that the NO CASE TO ANSWER claim by hindsight now is validated.
This, as the Prosecutor already had closed his case. To allow for the prosecutor to use crossexamination as a way to try to re-open his case and to try to thereby get away from the averment
rule and now seek to rely upon evidence elicited from the Defendant would a be gross abuse of
the legal processes and would defeat the entire purpose of what the averment rule is about and
interfere with the DUE PROCESSES OF LAW.
It, so to say, would giver the Prosecutor another bite on the cherry to re-commence his case,
having refused already to present relevant evidence. It also robs the Defendant of a FAIR and
PROPER trial as the Defendant is denied to elicit of any witnesses for the Prosecution what he
p6
Appeal 15-2502
Appeal 15-2502
Sentencing options
While it might be early in the proceedings to start about sentencing option, nevertheless the
Defendant deems it appropriate to consider this at this stage.
Evidence Act 1958 (Vic)
Act No. 6246/1958
With or without conviction, order a fine
A fine is a monetary penalty which can be imposed by the Court. The maximum amount must not
exceed $24,000.
rehabilitation
deterrence (General & Specific)
the trivial, technical or minor nature of the offence
circumstances in which it is inappropriate to record a conviction
circumstances in which it is inappropriate to inflict any punishment other than a nominal punishment
allowance for the existence of extenuating or exceptional circumstances that justify the court showing
mercy to an offender
Appeal 15-2502
When I was called up about 10 years ago to serve as a juror and complained to the coordinator
that I held the instructing video was deceptive as it didnt include the right of juror to apply
NULLIFICATION I was in the end advised my services were not required.
As such the Court network also is useless because nothing will eventuate from anything. This is
what I learned being the reality in the legal processes.
Once, a woman travelled long distant to my residence (when I resided at Berriwillock) very
emotionally claiming that the expert witness had lied in court, etc. She provided me with the
court recordings and having listened to them I was able to explain to the woman that the expert
witness has stated his opinion and while she may disagree with it, her lawyer should have
cross examined him then on that and as I viewed it the expert witness was entitled to state his
opinion regardless if they were right or wrong on the facts. Here there was this woman making
a 700 kilometres trip (without I knew she would do so) where if we had proper court services
they could have explained this and then this woman could possibly have avoided all her anxiety.
Because I didnt charge people found me to be a better alternative as I was ordinary 24/7
available then to try to get something out of their lawyers. And lawyers often defrauded
Victorian Legal Aid but no matter my writings to set this out nothing ever came from this. It at
times means that a lawyer too busy with a client would tell the next client on legal aid to come
back another day but still charge as if he had a session with the client. The client wouldnt have a
clue this eventuated as possibly years later the client faced the legal Aid bill unbeknown how the
cost came about.
In one case I dared to challenge an opponent party to fake the need of a wheelchair. Well the
judge didnt take it kindly, and ordered for this party to provide a medical certificate and warned
me that it would go against me. After the party filed a medical certificate I explained to the judge
I have my self-professed crummy English and if the judge kindly could clarify me as to what a
VET was and if this was an animal doctor, and if this doctor was then permitted to deal with
human beings to issue certificates relating to a person being disabled or not.
Well, the judge nearly exploded when the opponent barrister stated that they couldnt find a
doctor willing to issue a certificate so they had engaged an animal doctor but now they would
withdraw the Affidavit and so 10 other Affidavits.
After the litigation the other party remarkably healed never again to need a wheelchair. I doubt
this was merely because I exposed it as a fraud.
Yet, judicial officers are willing to accept what a lawyer states from the Bar table as gospel rather
than to deal with them that they have no better opposition in law then their client has.
Way back in 1985 a judge made clear that I had the tactics of cross-examination of a TRAP
DOOR SPIDER and that as long as I remained within the rules of cross-examination His
Honour couldnt prevent me to cross-examine. This when the opposing barrister complained that
I was turned his witnesses against his own client.
p9
Appeal 15-2502
Regretfully most unrepresented parties will be unable to do so or achieve this and then lawyers
having deliberately prepared some Affidavit to deceive the court by concealing the true facts will
be reworded with orders in their clients favour.
And this hardly is the kind of administration of justice the Framers of the Constitution embedded
as a legal principle in the constitution.
In view of what eventuated on 17 May 2016 at the County Court of Victoria at Ballarat venue it
is important that there is a proper understanding as to the meaning De Novo, hence I will
address this issue, with an explanation
While His Honour on 17 May 2016 stated that His Honour had read all material it seems
however His Honour may not have done so as the ADDRESS TO THE COURT and its
supplements was placed by the Registrar inn the correspondence file instead of in the court file,
meaning that I referred to this ADDRESS TO THE COURT, which was also before Counsel for
Buloke Shire Council (the prosecutor) and as such the Court doesnt have before it what the
prosecutor or myself may rely upon. Because it is containing written sub missions it must be part
of the court file and as such should be transferred to the court file. Once a judge refused a read an
ADDRESS TO THE COURT of a mere few pages on appeal the Full Court held that the trail
judge had to consider the content of it and set aside the orders.
Lawyers often dump onto the court from the Bar table huge pile of authorities as if a judge is
going to read them all there and then. Nor could the other party do so at the bar table. The written
submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT provides for quoting the relevant parts of a
judgment so the court is not having to wade through hundreds of pages of one judgment merely
to try to ascertain what the party referring to the Authority is referring to. Indeed legal principles
often can be in multitude of one Authority, and for example when I appeared before His Honour
Guest J and referred to an authority His Honour had been the Counsel in and lost the case, His
Honour then denied that what I quoted of head was part of the case. However, when I invited His
Honour to check the law report His Honour then acknowledged that I was indeed correct, but His
Honour had forgotten about that issue completely. The Colosimo case opposing Counsel filed a
pile of Authorities to which I had no way the ability to read this when the proceedings were in
progress and so merely flicking through it I noticed that one Authority had a statement to which I
alerted Her Honour Harbison that in fact this proved the case of Mr Colosimo. Opposing Counsel
then as I understand it indicated not to have read the Authorities. Opposing Counsel then applied
to withdraw the CONTEMPT OF COURT application against Mr Colosimo which I representing
Mr Colosimo successfully opposed, as Her Honour Harbison agreed with my submission that a
CONTEMPT OF COURT application once filed becomes the property of the court. Her Honour
Harbison then accepted my submission to permanently stay the proceedings that only Mr
Colosimo could bring back in action.
The same legal principle applies to an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION Once it is filed (as I
have in great details set out in the written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT for
the 22 February 2016 hearing or alternative date), that once it is filed it cannot be withdrawn by
the party that filed it as it became the property of the court. This is as to avoid a party to seek to
manipulate the legal processes and frustrate the court proceedings using an OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION Toto perhaps force ahead to get an out of court settlement. Hence, while His
Honour on the one hand claims that an Appeal is a hearing DE NOVO on the other hand His
Honour refuses to allow for this, as the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION clearly is part of the
Appeal. It is the property of the court and cannot be ignored, as otherwise the court doesnt
provide for a hearing DE NOVO. A hearing DE NOVO places actually both parties on the same
footing as was at commencement of a hearing. Because the written submissions of the
ADDRESS TO THE COURT was filed prior to the hearing and on court file, it therefore is part
of the Appeal DE NOVO hearing.
p10
Appeal 15-2502
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.
p11
Appeal 15-2502
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
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
p12
Appeal 15-2502
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
19-8-2015
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)
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.
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.
END QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence)
It is therefore absolutely clear that ES&a lawyers were fully aware about my 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.
END QUOTE 17 September 2015 written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT
Therefore there can be absolutely no doubt that just this part alone of the submission before the
court related to the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
As a party OBJECTING TO THE JURISDICTION I so to say had played my part in making
this known to the court. Besides the ill health I held I had no requirements to attend to the court
as that would defeat the very purpose of an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as then made.
After all, the Court could have issued orders of regime of dates for the parties to provide in
writing their positions and then the Court could adjudicate upon them.
The cohurt is not some playground that a party could use the legal system to file some vexatious
application to perhaps prevent a person to travel on a pre-planned trip and then whenb the court
day arrtives the application is withdrawn but the respondent who may have filed an
p14
Appeal 15-2502
Appeal 15-2502
.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1986/11.html
BROWN v. THE QUEEN [1986] HCA 11; (1986) 160 CLR 171 No. F.C. 86/010 (20 March 1986)
QUOTE
3. The question for decision is whether s.80 contains an imperative and indispensable requirement that the
trial must be by jury whenever the accused is charged on indictment with an offence against a law of the
Commonwealth, or whether the section is intended to secure for the benefit and protection of any person so
charged a right or privilege which the accused may waive if the law governing the conduct of the trial permits
it. The argument that the requirement is indispensable and cannot be waived is an obvious enough one. The
words of s.80 appear to be both clear and mandatory; read literally, they appear to mean that "if there be an
indictment, there must be a jury", as Higgins J. said in R. v. Archdall and Roskruge; Ex parte Carrigan and
Brown (1928) 41 CLR 128, at p 139, and they do not expressly admit any exception to that rule.
4. It then becomes necessary to consider the purpose which the framers of the Constitution had, or must be
supposed to have had, in including the provisions of s.80 in the Constitution. The requirement that there
should be a trial by jury was not merely arbitrary or pointless. It must be inferred that the purpose of the
section was to protect the accused - in other words, to provide the accused with a "safeguard against the
corrupt or over-zealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge": Duncan v.
Louisiana (1968) 391 US 145, at p 156 (20 L.Ed.2d 491, at p 500). Those who advocate the retention of the
jury system almost invariably place in the forefront of their argument the proposition (sometimes rhetorically
expressed but not without some truth) that the jury is a bulwark of liberty, a protection against tyranny and
arbitrary oppression, and an important means of securing a fair and impartial trial.
p16
Appeal 15-2502
In my submission this matter should be now heard before a jury as it appears to me that I
unlikely will be able to obtain any FAIR and PROPER hearing. And such a hearing before A
Jury can only come about if the Court can invoke jurisdiction in the first place. As after all the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION requires the court to consider on the basis of all the
details/information that was provided to the court if the court can invoke jurisdiction or not.
As this issue of OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION has been part of the litigation at least since I
submitted my written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT for the 20 August 2015
hearing before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud, then the omission (nothing new)
of the Prosecutor to provide relevant details/information but simply disregarding the totality of
the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION despite my extensive set out in my written material then
the Court is left no option but to conclude that my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION all along
was unopposed and hence the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud ought to have issued
orders that the Court had no jurisdiction and the summons was struck out with cost. This would
have been in my view the proper course of action by the Court and in my submission the County
Court of Victoria as to determine jurisdiction should have substituted the orders that were issued
on 20 August 2015 with orders as such. This means that the 17 September 2015 orders were a
nullity for that also.
However, if the Court holds that as no appeal was filed against the interlocutory orders and no
final orders were issued on 20 August 2015 then the orders of 17 September 2015 can be
substituted to show that the Court strike out the summons with cost due to lack of jurisdiction.
The County Court of Victoria then can find that in view of the amended orders of the magistrates
Court of Victoria as St Arnaud having now struck out the Summons then the appeal itself no
further can be heard and is without prejudice dismissed.
The court further restrains the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer, Buloke Shire Council and its
legal representatives to institute any further legal proceedings against the Appellant without first
having obtained the leave of the court.
In my submission the court has an obligation to set Mr Wayne Wall, Buloke Shire Council and
its legal representatives as an example and warning to others they better do not engage in this
line of appalling conduct to abuse and misuse the legal processes uncalled for.
As Mr Wayne Wall decided to pursue matters by way of summons then clearly this includes my
right to have the matter heard before a jury, where the matter were to proceed for a full blown
out hearing of witnesses, etc.
I may underline that I have written about the issue of juries, and not only that this is embedded as
a legal principle but also that it has to be as they juries existed at time of federation and not one
that can be manipulated by the Parliament and/or the State Government for majority decision of
jurors.
The written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT that was before His Honour
Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 PRE APPEAL HEARING again referred to the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION. Therefore there can be absolutely no doubt that I did yet again rely upon it, and
my subsequent various written submissions in the documentation titled ADDRESS TO THE
COURT continue to repeat the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. If therefore His Honour were
not to accept that the appeal is subject to the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION despite that this
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is not so to say something new that fell out of the sky but
actually was part from onset of the litigation even before the hearing commenced on 20 August
2015 before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud, then His Honour would actually
deny me a hearing DE NOVO. This as I am not permitted my rights in regard of the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION that I was from onset entitled upon.
p17
Appeal 15-2502
I acknowledge that likely the County Court of Victoria may never have encountered a position
where an appellant did oppose the courts jurisdiction other than that I likewise did so
successfully on 19 July 2006 in the appeals of FAILING TO VOTE.
This is why I am proud not to be a lawyer, but a CONSTITUTIONALIST as I rely upon the true
meaning and application of the constitution.
The State of Victoria is created within section 106 of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) subject to this constitution
His Honour on 17 May 2016 at the Ballarat venue also appeared to have a different view as to
what constitutes legal representation etc.
As in my early days (more than 30 years ago) at the Bar table a judge made clear that it is not for
a judge to guess what a party may have intended, what is required is to show to the court relevant
correspondence between the parties that proves to the court what was communicated, as the court
was not privy to the communication otherwise.
My step daughter became a lawyer more than 30 years ago but go her horror then discovered that
when her parents had naturalised and they had the belief she was also the government had
omitted to do so, as it seemed go do with numerous other cases, and as such at that time while
she could do her articles she couldnt become a member of the Bar and so neither a legal
practitioner.
The Supreme Court of Victoria in the Moller case stated its position as to a lawyer not desiring to
make an oath to the Crown why then he couldnt be admitted as a Member to the Bar.
Moller v Board of Examiners for Legal Practitioners [1999] VSCA 116 (30 July 1999):
QUOTE
1.
Although there is substance in a number of these individual submissions, they are, in my view, not really to
the point in this appeal and of little assistance to the appellant since they raise no question of error in the
judge's reasons. As Street, C.J. Said in Re Howard [1976] 1 N.S.W.L.R., 641 at 646:"The taking of the oath of allegiance in association with admission to practice is part of
the formal ceremony attendant thereon, but the law is clear that the bond of allegiance
p18
Appeal 15-2502
I understand that my (now) step-daughter became a legal officer with a municipal council in
Melbourne. As such at the time not being able to practice law she and so many other lawyers do
are engaged in legal issues. They just cannot then represent the municipal council in court as a
legal practitioner. Even many who become barristers may never have actually been in a court as
to represent a party (unless they appear in their own case). They may become barristers without
serving in any court at the Bar table.
I met my (now) step-daughter when I was representing a party and well after her father died I
married her mother. And years later I did ask her if she was still upset about having been
defeated by me, but I recall her stating something like No Dad, you were the better lawyer of
the day. You learned it as the old English lawyers from doing cases..
The case then was about property, and the agreement to settle was on basis of proceeds and I
detected this not being net proceeds and as such the law firm involved was faced that the
agreement was immediately accepted by the party I represented, only for the other party not
wanting to accept afterwards the Agreement as it held it should have been net proceeds. When
a law firm dealing in real estate matters draft an agreement it hardly can be argued they are
unaware as to the difference between net proceeds and proceeds and as such they were
doomed to lose any litigation. Likewise, way back in about 1985 a Counsel objected to what he
considered close writings in violation to the courts rules. We end up with a hearing to determine
what was appropriate being 6 mm between the lines. At the end of the hearing His Honour held I
was correct that 6mm between the lines means base line to base line as a 6mm lined page and not
between the lowest part of a line and the highest part of the next line because that could cause
lines to jump all over the place. Consider for example if the lowest line had merely the word
hoon or moon or goon.
With my self-professed crummy English I tend to often defeat opponents on the meaning of
English words this is because they have always assumed some meaning whereas I am foreign to
the language and then research what it may mean in various ways and so often was able to show
that the word had a certain meaning that was different then the opponent lawyer perceived, or for
that even a trial judge. The meaning of DE NOVO is a clear example.
In any event as the lecture I received from the judge about putting matters in writing as otherwise
the court has no way to establish what was conveyed then my writings that I didnt accept service
nor that I acknowledged them to represent the lawyers as legal representatives cannot be
undermined by the fact that legally I am obligated to nevertheless write to them and
communicate otherwise with them.
p19
Appeal 15-2502
And
https://www.courtsni.gov.uk/enGB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2001/2001%20NIQB%2024/j_j_HIGC3453.htm
QUOTE
Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that what the defendant proposed was an abuse of process. No
intention to defend has been lodged, yet the defendant proposes to defend the proceedings in the High Court
on appeal. It was accepted that the defendant had a right to appeal preserved by statute, but that appeal was
limited to the proceedings on 1 October 1999, related to the assessment of damages. The defendant could
have appealed the default judgment and is now out of time or could have sought to set it aside. He has done
none of those things.
The Notice of Intention to Defend is an important part of the Civil Bill process in the County Court.
Service of the Notice determines the nature of the proceedings whether defended or undefended. It informs
the Chief Clerk when and before whom the case should be listed. Thus Order 8 Rule 2 requires a defendant
who intends to defend to serve Notice on the other party or parties within 21 days. A decision not to serve a
Notice of Intention to Defend or failure to do so, informs the court that the case is undefended. However,
Order 8 Rule 2(2) provides a saving clause where, for good reason, no notice to defend has been served
within the requisite time period. The parties can consent to late service or the court may grant leave. The
court could refuse leave, in which situation the case remains undefended. There is no reason why a refusal of
leave could not be appealed. The word decree in Article 60 of the County Court Order means no more than
an order of that court.
The instant case when it appeared in the list of the District Judge on 1 October 1999 was an
undefended matter in which the courts function was to assess damages, which it did. The decree or order of
the court on that day was an assessment of damages in a case in which interlocutory judgment had already
been entered. The defendant appeals against that order and submits that he has a right to a hearing on the
merits in the appellate court. However the case still remains an undefended case, as no notice of intention to
defend has been lodged and as an undefended case the only issue which can be the subject of appeal is the
assessment of damages. No appeal has been lodged against the interlocutory judgment. Can an appeal
against an assessment of damages, where interlocutory judgment is entered, convert an undefended case into
a defended case? I do not think it can. An appeal from the County Court to the High Court may be a
rehearing, but it is a rehearing of what was litigated in the court below. It does not seem to me that a
defendant can fail to observe the rules in the County Court and expect the High Court to ignore his failure
and treat an undefended case as a defended case. This would ignore the purpose of the rules.
In Davis v NI Carriers [199] NI 19 Lowry LCJ (as he then was) said at page 20:
Where a time-limit is imposed by statute it cannot be extended unless that or
another statute contains a dispensing power. Where the time is imposed by rules
of court which embody a dispensing power, such as that found in Order 64, rule
p20
Appeal 15-2502
In this connection I could not hope to improve on what Lord Guest has said in
Ratnam v. Cumarasamy [1965] 1 W.L.R. 8, 12:
The rules of court must prima facie be obeyed, and in
order to justify a court in extending the time during which
some step in procedure requires to be taken there must be
some material upon which the court can exercise its
discretion. If the law were otherwise, a party in breach
would have an unqualified right to an extension of time
which would defeat the purpose of the rules, which is to
provide a time table for the conduct of litigation.
The importance of the rules and compliance with them cannot be overlooked. Various savings are provided
by the County Court Rules where for good reason, the Rules have not been complied with. The issue of
liability has never been litigated in the County Court. The purpose of an appeal is to allow a party,
dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, to appeal against the decision of the lower court. The
County Court has not determined the merits of the liability issue other than to enter judgment by default. It
cannot be good law for the question of liability to be litigated for the first time in the appellate court.
Therefore my ruling is that the only issue on appeal is the assessment of damages.
END QUOTE
That where a party fails to file in time a Notice of Appearance then it is an undefended case.
It is remarkable that despite I do not have any obligation to do so I nevertheless reminded the
lawyers about the need to file an application for Leave to file and serve out of time a Notice of
Appearance albeit indicating I would oppose it. Still, it therefore cannot be argued they
somehow overlooked this and were unaware of it.
Therefore it was not for His Honour on 17 May 2016 as to somehow circumvent this because as
His Honour himself made clear that there is a separation of powers, when asking as to the
Attorney-Generals ability to get involved, where I stated that because the case was conducted
under state legal provisions of the County Fire Authority Act 1958 under delegated powers then
it was essentially a State prosecution. (Sydney Council v Commonwealth HCA 1904).
Buloke Shire Council has no delegated powers to maned the County Fire Authority Act 1958as
it has no such authorisation from the Parliament, and Mr Wayne Wall as the Municipal Fire
Protection Officer cannot amend the terms of the legislation upon his wimps either. He is bound
to comply with the legislation as is.
p21
Appeal 15-2502
It would be an absurdity that Parliament provides for certain legislation and Mr Wayne Wall as
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer could willy nilly amend this on his own accord. Why have this
elaborate system of a Parliament at cost of billions is someone can circumvent this upon his
wimps?
While His Honour raised the issue of the Local Government Act this clearly has been set out
extensively that this is unconstitutional and had His Honour read my written submissions in the
ADDRESS TO THE COURT such as 22 February 2016 and its supplements His Honour would
have been well aware of my set out.
Constitutionally local government is the State government and Central government is the
Federal Government and while the state can delegate powers it cannot create a level of
government not anticipated nor permitted in the provisions of the constitution.
Because to set this out at a Bar table verbally can be horrendous, in particular where I have
hearing problems (despite the yet again changed hearing aid systems) and also judges tend to
interrupt rather than waist for a few hours or days for me to explain it all verbally the ADDRESS
TO THE COURT is therefore the perfect vehicle to do so. Then again if a judge fails to consider
it then well as the Full court made clear a judge must consider it for judgment,.
As such having placed before the court this issue, as I did 10 years ago and not a single AttorneyGeneral then challenged my submissions including the section 78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES then I am entitled that as at the time the Attorney-General Mr
Robert Hulls stated that the State of Victoria would abide by the decision of the court.
Mr Wayne Wall Legal Officer might be the legal officer of Buloke Shire Council as ES&a
Associates referred to representing him in the matter but that is for Buloke Shire Council, and not
as to representing Mr Wayne Wall as the Municipal Fire Protection Officer within delegated
powers of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958. As such the difference is clear the legal
officer can be to deal with matters of Buloke Shire Council by-laws but the Municipal Fire
Protection Officer is so to say a different category of fish. He cannot enforce council by laws
merely for being a Municipal Fire protection Officer. He may not need to be a lawyer at all but
an expert in firefighting to understand and comprehend the dangers associated with fires.
It would be absurd to hold that because Mr Wayne Wall might be the legal officer for Buloke
Shire Council than somehow he against a better legal position than any other person who is
appointed as a Municipal fire Protection officer such as a captain of a local fire brigade. No such
intention appears to have been presented by the Country fire /authority act 1958 and as such the
court cannot somehow put a meaning into that.
As my previous filed written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT extensively deal
with that then I am entitled to hold the court will know the difference.
While Buloke Shire Council is legally permitted to appoint whomever as a Municipal shire
Protection Officer within the meaning of the Country fire Authority Act 19058 and it can remove
him as it pleases to reassign him. In fact they can sack Mr Wayne Wall for any wrong doing it
p22
Appeal 15-2502
I should be the last person having to explain to a court that there is a major difference in
legal position. As the legislation makes clear the Fire Prevention Officer is shall be subject to
the general direction and control of the Authority and the Chief Officer and not subject t to the directions
in that function to Buloke Shire council.
The fire prevention officer in his own rights can pursue by way of summons for any debt
incurred in relation to the clearance of land.
Country Fire Authority Act 1958 No. 6228 of 1958
QUOTE
41E
p23
Appeal 15-2502
(b)
(a) if the fire prevention notice was served by a fire prevention officer, a person appointed for
the purpose by the relevant municipal council;
if the fire prevention notice was served by the Chief Officer, a person appointed for the purpose by
the Chief Officer.
END QUOTE
The problems however is that to my understanding the Fire Prevention Officer is not listed as a
enforcement agency as obviously his/her identity is subject to changes of appointments and as
such I submit the Country Fire Authority itself must be deemed to be the enforcement agency
and nothing to do with Buloke Shire Council.
The by me challenged Infringement Act on constitutional grounds also requires a certain regime
to be followed and so also the Magistrates Court of Victoria legislative provisions, to which none
were followed.
As I did set out in past written submissions Mr Wayne Wall as the municipal Fire Prevention
Officer should have withdrawn the fire prevention Notice as to issue an Infringement Notice. The
Infringement Notice should have been withdrawn upon the issue of the summons. However the
Summons that was issued relies on both!
In the Colosimo case then too a Notice was issued, which the about 20 lawyers involved in the
case all overlooked how this was applicable and that the litigation subsequently instituted against
Mr Colosimo was all defective. Mr Colosimo was originally represented b y a barrister and law
lecturer but ended up being placed under administration where even Victoria Legal Aid advised
Mr Colosimo in writing he had to purge his contempt, where as I about 2 years later took over
the case to show that no contempt ever was or could have been committed, and the
administration orders were on appeal set aside as I proved the medical assessment were based
upon the non-existing conviction of contempt of court.
This was one of many cases where the lawyers and judicial officers went on and on in litigation,
at least 6 CONTEMPT OF COURT hearings only for me to take over and show Mr Colosimo
actually was never even formally charge with contempt of court, let alone convicted. Yet the
medical reports organised by the Office of the Public Advocate rested upon the advice of the
Public Advocate such conviction was made. Her Honour Harbison J is recorded in transcript to
deny Her Honour convicted Mr Colosimo when I did put this to Her Honour.
This to me shows the gigantic waste of court time and other resources where an innocent man
can be robbed of his liberty and subjected to Orders of Administration where he was all along
100% in the right but all the lawyers including the judicial officers didnt grasp the basics of
what the case was about, despite their competence in English language where I with my selfprofessed crummy English exposed the true facts of the case to succeed to get rid of litigation
and Administration orders.
The same was with my assistance in the Pauline Hanson/David Ettridge cases where I exposed in
my book INSPECTOR-RIKATI on Citizenship published about 5 weeks prior to the
Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal how it had all be based upon incorrect
interpretation/understanding of the relevant legislation.
p24
Appeal 15-2502
As for the position of Mr Wayne wall his position as a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer may
allow a person to sue him for derelict of duties and negligence where this results in harm and/or
he acted outside the legal provisions of delegated powers. He is not then acting as a legal officer
of Buloke Shire Council but under the purported authority of the Country Fire Authority. Hence,
Buloke Shire Council ordinary cannot be sued for any errors Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire
Prevention Officer may make, however now that Buloke Shire Council instituted the litigation,
so ES&a Associates claims, even so my previous written submissions proved that a councillor
made clear via email not to understand any of the litigation, then it is that ES&a Associates are
litigating without true consent of Buloke Shire Council as they are to represent Mr Wayne Wall
the Municipal Fire Protection Officer. As such, ES&a associates never seemed to bother to even
establish the legal position of Mr Wayne Wall and who their client really is.
As a person forced to pay the unconstitutional rates they are using my monies also paid to
Buloke Shire Council to litigate against me in a vexatious case on behalf of Buloke Shire Council
which I view has no legal standing to litigate.
And this is the kind of litigation that is going on and on before the courts as I understand it all
over Australia and well all the court rules/regulations and other legal provisions and even court
orders are so to say thrown in the gutter by lawyers not interested to check legalities but
determine to at all cost defeat an opponent no matter the illegalities they have to employ in the
process as to make themselves a lot of money.
That is the reality I learned from checking legal files of lawyers and no matter my reports to
Attorney-General they are all basically ignored. As such it only escalates and new upcoming law
students will learn also the same tricks how to deceive and undermine the judicial system to the
advantage of their clients with immunity!
This is why I take a stand and I view any judge should do so likewise and act as a sentry as a
judge of a court is obligated to do as a judicial officer.
A judge is not part of Government! His/Her position is to resolve conflicts between a
government and a citizen impartially an d without bias and without himself substituting or appear
to be substituting the Prosecutors case as if it is his own case.
A judge may receive his pay from the State Government as Mr Wayne Wall does from Buloke
Shire Council but that doesnt mean that a judge then so to say is the lapdog of the State
government.
Just as an example a person can be an executor of an estate and can make an incorrect decision,
and then the Estate might be sued but not the executor personally, unless the court finds that the
decision made involved a personal decision or otherwise which fell outside the ordinary
executive powers of an executor.
p25
Appeal 15-2502
In my submission constitutionally a judicial officer should receive his monies from the Court
funds. The Chief Justice to place before the parliament his overall budget including cost for
maintaining court venues, employment of staff, etc, and so also for the payment of judges.
Actually the same is with as Speaker of the Lower House/House of Representatives and the
President of the Upper House/Senate which are individual entities within the constitution and any
and all payments should come from their budgets.
HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of
Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are parliamentary
offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent that really the
Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own Estimates, and
those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether untouched by the
Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown. I think that
that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in England and elsewhere. As to the word "person,"
the British Interpretation Act of 1889, which will be largely applied to the construction of this statute by the
Imperial authorities, provides that where the word "person" is used, unless the Act otherwise provides, the
word "corporation" shall be included.
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-If a man agrees to get paid for services done in Parliament, or for the
Commonwealth, and if he does the work, and, having done the work, he resigns, is there no penalty? Is there
no punishment in such a case for a man who guarantees that he will use his position in Parliament in order to
make money, and, having made it, resigns!
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No; and there is a reason for that. If I recollect correctly there was
some provision in the Bill in Adelaide in that respect, but that provision was omitted in the sitting of the
Convention at Sydney as a matter [start page 2449] of policy. Mr. O'Connor suggests that it is quite probable
that in such a case an action would lie at common law. However that may be, the policy of inserting such a
provision was reversed in Sydney, and therefore the Drafting Committee could not frame any proposal to that
effect.
END QUOTE
Again The offices of Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under
the Crown. Each as like the Chief Justice and the Inter-State Commission are conducting their
own budgets not subject to any Government interference that might pursue to manipulate its
powers in that manner but to be subject to the Parliament as to the funding of the budget
submitted.
If this were actually followed we wouldnt have a government closing down court venues as to
place some obstacle course before opponents to make it extremely difficult for them to attend to
a court venue.
When Chief Justice Fails to ensure that matters are conducted within a budget, including court
facilities, and leaves it up to the Government of the Day to dictate what suits itself the best then
we cannot speak of an separation of powers but we have so to say in my submission a lapdog
judiciary. Never should any court produce some kind of achievement report as to conviction rates
to justify the Government of the Day to provide funds to the judiciary. This is not what the
impartial and independent administration is about.
.
The purpose of having restrictions of lawyers only being permitted to be legal practitioners is a
money pit for clients and a banking venue for the lawyers. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I
cannot fall within the regulations of the Legal Service Commission albeit they tried badly but
failed, I can represent parties without financial interest and do so because my family crest is the
Guardian Angel (200 years before it was known as St Michaels the Guardian Angel as
p26
Appeal 15-2502
Likewise, a judge of a court who issue orders in disregard of not invoking jurisdiction can be
personally sued for this as he acts as a private person when disregarding the legal processes that
are required to be followed. Hence, for example, I am legally entitled to sue the judicial officer
who issued the 17 September 2015 orders against me in the magistrates Court of Victoria at St
Arnaud, as he acted as a private person where he disregarded first to deal with the OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION. As such legally the 17 September 2015 orders are no orders at all.
However, an appeal exist (again) against the not making of orders, which includes the failing to
issue orders regarding the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
.
Were the court to proceed to purportedly hear the matter DE NOVO when in fact it denied the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION that was before the court against which the appeal lies, then
the Appellant would give evidence that Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Protection Officer by
prior arrangement attended to the Berriwillock property on 6 November 2015 where a like Fire
Protection Notice was issued and then indicated that what he required was some removal of
growth between some sheds (that are situated near the middle of the property) and so other
areas. As such it was a totally different kind of requirement then the fire Protection Notice
indicated year after year. Also, as for example the area between the sheds is more than 40 metres
from the road way then Mr Wayne Wall wouldnt have had any ability to observe this from the
road. As such he must have entered the property without having requested neither obtained prior
permission to do so. The appellant will give evidence that contrary to the Fire Protection Notice
Mr Wayne Wall then made known that all he needed was that the overgrow be heaped up in a
pile and as such not required at all to be removed from the property as stated in the Fire
Protection Notice.
While the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 authorise the Municipal Fire Protection Officer to
have the removal of dangerous growth removed, this is not to pretend that Mr Wayne Wall as
Municipal fire Protection Officer then will nilly can enter any property to his wimps to look
around if he can find something he might be able to use.
p27
Appeal 15-2502
The Appellant would give evidence that Mr Wayne Wall was advised by Jeff, the neighbour, that
he had twice slashed the property and as such it is clear that the lack of proper details in the fire
Prevention Notice in that regard also prevented Jeff to be aware what the Fire Prevention Notice
actually was referring to. And as was subsequently a year later clarified by Mr Wayne Wall
himself.
Therefore this is not some issue where a landholder was in blatant disregard to leave an alleged
fire dangerous situation, but where regardless of the fire Prevention Notice being valid or not
(albeit it doesnt alter the challenge to it) the appellant had obtained the service of Jeff and the
property had been slashed on 2 occasions.
The issue the court then would have to consider is if the defect in the Fire Prevention Notice was
the real culprit for not stating what was in issue and as such prevented a reasonable person to
understand/comprehend what was intended, in particular that the Fire Prevention Notice was
referring to all combustible material which could include even a motor vehicle, sheds, and other
buildings and wooden fence post and trees in addition to the residence itself.
Neither did Mr Wayne Wall in the purported brief include any images relating to his inspection
date when issuing the Fire Protection Notice as to indicate what he was referring to. It is
remarkable that he relies to images after the event but not shows the images, if they exist that is,
to the date of the Fire Protection Notice having been issued as to show to the court if there was
any change at all in the condition of the properly. It might be that if any images were taken from
the front of the property it would have shown a drastically differenced that would indicate the
property had been slashed since the Fire Protection Notice was issued. This even without
entering the property.
The Appellant intends to show that across the road and down the road growth directly along the
highway was up to 1 metres high and lots of dead wood. As such this is not some fire danger
issue as may be pursued but some conflict between Mr Wayne Wall and the Appellant which is
translated by Mr Wayne Wall using his Fire Protection Notices, due to earlier conflicts prior to
2014.
p28
Appeal 15-2502
Despite that the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 authorised Mr Wayne Wall (not Buloke Shire
Council) as Municipal fire Protection officer to engage others to remove fire hazards even at cost
of the property owner (including State and municipal council) and this appears not to have
eventuated that the images the Appellant provided to Mr Wayne Wall long before the litigation
commenced, underlines that in real terms there was never any fire danger.
The Appellant submits that in view of the extensive communication by the Appellant to Mr
Wayne Wall from onset long before any litigation was commenced in the Magistrates Court of
Victoria at St Arnaud then a reasonable/FAIR MINDED PERSON would never have engaged in
the kind of litigation Mr Wayne Wall no engaged in. Despite that the Appellant communicated in
correspondences to be of ill health, etc, ES&a Associates nevertheless went ahead to have the
hearing held as the most difficult place of venue and dis regarded any so to say common sense
approach. The Appellant submits that considering all the correspondence by the Appellant, even
before any litigation was commenced, and since it ought to have been clear that the failure of the
fire Prevention Notice itself was the real problems by being vague and aloof.
The Appellant submits that as the lawyers for Buloke Shire Council did seek and obtain cost on
17 September 2015 in the magistrates Court of Victoria relating documents then as the appellant
I am entitled to have these documents placed on court file as they must be deemed to form part of
the court file and I am entitled to pursue them if it was not so to say mere blank pages, etc.
I am also entitled to cross examine the lawyer who obtained cost from the court regarding the
documentation, as this lawyer placed himself/herself in that position. After all this brings into
question if the lawyer claimed cost why then did the lawyer not inform the court of the content of
the documentation? The lawyer is not obligated to conduct matters on behalf of the appellant
(then the accused) but is obligated to give a brief outline of the accused writings so the court can
ascertain if the documentation are or are not relevant to the case or for all it may be a part of a
book that might be totally irrelevant to the proceedings.
p29
Appeal 15-2502
What needs to be understood is that the Appeal is derived from conduct by Mr Wayne Wall and
so ES&a Associates and their conduct is relevant to the Appeal. After all had they not pursued to
obtain court orders, as they did, there would have no need for an Appeal. As such indirect
evidence is as much relevant as direct evidence to establish the conduct of Mr Wayne wall and
ES&a Associates in obtaining court orders and if in the overall of the matters their conduct was
reasonable and appropriate.
While the Legal Service Commissioner dismissed my complaint, and referred to a debt I will
pursue this matter later because whomever did do the assessment clearly failed to be open
minded and consider the true facts, as no debt existed. And as Mr Wayne Wall was not to deal
with matters as a legal officer but as the Municipal Fire Protection Officer, and as such didnt
need (if he has any) legal qualifications then in that regard I view the LSC was misguided.
After all it didnt seem to establish if Mr Wayne Wall had any legal qualifications to act as he did
where ES&a Associates refers to him as if he is acting on their behalf. As he certainly was not
nor could have acted for Buloke Shire Council as a legal officer. His position in regard of being a
Municipal Fire Protection Officer is one that he didnt need any legal qualifications but could
have been anyone who may have been trained in fire safety issues, this is another point in
contention, and as such I submit it would be inappropriate for ES&a Associates to refer to some
council worker, in this case Mr Wayne Wall as purported legal officer instead of Mr Wayne Wall
as the Municipal fire Protection officer.
Because Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Protection Officer was exercising or purport to
exercise State delegated powers outside the purported Local Government Act then his position as
a legal officer with Buloke Shire Council in my submission was totally irrelevant. In my view the
LSC failed to consider this appropriately, but as I stated I will follow this up at a later time.
Because of the issues canvassed above I consider it better to place it in writing to give advance
notification of issues so that the opponent lawyers involved can consider matters. I had many a
judge complimenting me for doing so rather than to dump it at the bar table to prevent the
opponent to be able to appropriately consider it all and provide a response. Regretfully, my
courtesy of doing so, as legally I am not required to so to say show my had of cards, lawyers
generally do not give their responses until at the Bar table but then find that they are caught out,
because had they responded to me they could have matters clarified they had misconstrued.
The way this litigation went on in the court is how I understand is so often eventuating and
people then in desperation contemplate suicide because they cant handle it. That is why I view
every time a judge fails to deal with lawyers who are misusing/abusing the legal processes/
system it becomes worse.
p30
Appeal 15-2502
Essentially I know that the more relevant information I provide to an opponent the more likely
they are to ignore it and then not uncommon request the court to adjourn when suddenly they
discover having made a fatal decision doing so, but then this adjournment is refused.
The documentation that was provided to Mr Wayne Wall prior to him instituting litigation in the
Magistrates Court of Victoria made clear that I relied upon my 19 July 2006 successful appeals
in the Country Court of Victoria and so the issue of citizenship, separation of powers, etc.
It therefore cannot be argued that he neither the lawyers were not aware of this, in fact obtained
cost regarding my writings. Well, then they made it clearly part of the case!
The problem is however that because Mr Robert Hulls as the Attorney-General stated that the
State of Victoria would abide by the courts decision it prevents this court to allow the state of
Victoria via Mr Wayne Wall exercising State delegated powers to re-litigate the issues.
For sure the State of Victoria may now like to re-argue issues but that is about 10 years too late.
His Honour on 17 May 2016 during the Ballarat venue hearing himself I understood to refer to
the issue of separation of powers, not aware that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I placed this
before the County Court of Victoria in Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630.
Granted I have my self-professed crummy English as English is not my native language and had
no formal education in law, but my desire has been the true meaning and application of the
(Dutch) grondwet (constitution) and when then I moved to the Commonwealth of Australia in
1971 it became the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
Transcript 16 March 2009 before Her Honour Habrison J.
Transcript 16 March 2009 Harbison J
QUOTE Her Honour at page 21 line 30
Now, having heard that you can take a seat and I can have Mr Shorel-Hlavkia speak on your behalf.
Mr Shorel-Hlavkia, what were the matters that you wanted to put?
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : First of all, Im not a lawyer. Ive no legal training. Im a constitutionalist. That
means I deal with matters on constitutional matters mainly.
HER HONOUR : All right. Do you have some you dont have any legal training?
.
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : Absolutely not.
HER HONOUR : Do you have any qualification in what you say you are?
MR SHOREL-H;LAVKIA : No, I have no I am a constitutionalist, so I do assist with parties with
barristers and everything else to assist them with legal work, you know, constitutional matters and
everything else, or the Government. You know, thats ongoing. I publish books about it under the
Inspector (indistinct) at Trademark, they are published and (indistinct).
END QUOTE Transcript 16 March 2009 Harbison J
As I understand it Mr Wayne Wall issues thousands of Fire Prevention Notices every year and
despite my FOI request on 9 December 2015 to be provided by the State Government details this
so far was not complied with. The appellant will give evidence that he understands that people
who have no grass in their yards nevertheless are receiving Fire Protection Notices as if they are
send out like candy, without any formal inspection to justify them. Some then end up paying an
Infringement Notice issued as to them it is a lost cause. This is not what our Framers of the
p31
Appeal 15-2502
Regarding the 20 August 2015 hearing before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud I
provided the following written submission in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT:
QUOTE written submissions 20-8-2015
ISSUE OF COST & OTHER ISSUES
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE
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)
END QUOTE my 2-5-2015 CORRESPONDENCE TO Buloke Shire Council
I inderstand you can download the decision from the following weblink:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2010/386.html
Hobsons Bay City Council v Viking Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 386 (27 August 2010)
I understand that at times the Supreme Court of Victoria ordered cost against the legal
practitioners themselves where shoddy and/or other inappropriate conduct was held to have
eventuated by the Court.
END QUOTE 19-6-2015 CORRESPONDENCE
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/140.html
QUOTE Hobsons Bay City Council v Viking Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 386 (27 August 2010)
Conclusion and orders
p32
Appeal 15-2502
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2010/386.html
QUOTE
Hobsons Bay City Council v Viking Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 386 (27 August 2010)
Last Updated: 27 August 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
VALUATION, COMPENSATION & PLANNING LIST
No. 689 of 2010
and No. 690 of 2010
HOBSONS BAY CITY COUNCIL
Appellant
v
VIKING GROUP HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN
133 909 145)
Respondent
and
HOBSONS BAY CITY COUNCIL
Appellant
v
VIKING ASSET MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
(ACN 112 893 884)
Respondent
--JUDGE:
WHERE HELD:
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:
MEDIUM NEUTRAL
CITATION:
p33
OSBORN J
Melbourne
13 August 2010
27 August 2010
Hobsons Bay City Council v Viking
[2010] VSC 386
Appeal 15-2502
Counsel
Mr A Marshall
Solicitors
Brand Partners Commercial
Lawyers
Mr J Searle
Viking Group
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIS HONOUR:
1 These appeals relate to orders made in the Magistrates Court at Sunshine in January 2010.
2 In the first proceeding, the presiding Magistrate, following conviction of the respondent in respect of six
charges under the Victorian Road Rules relating to parking offences, ordered that the respondent pay an
aggregate fine of $600 and costs in the amount of $180.80.
3 In the second proceeding the presiding Magistrate convicted the respondent of two further such offences
and fined it an aggregate fine of $250 and ordered it to pay costs in the sum of $65.20.
4 In each proceeding the matters were initially listed for hearing on a mention day and following no
appearance by the respondent were listed for ex parte hearing.
5 At the conclusion of the first case the solicitor for the appellant applied for costs comprising legal fees of
$1,470.26, service fees of $91.10, filing fees of $66.60 and a courtesy letter of $23.10. The solicitor deposes
that these were a true calculation of the amounts properly incurred by the Council in the prosecution of the
case.
6 After the Magistrate awarded costs in the sum of $180.80[1] he was asked to give reasons for his order. He
then stated:
The application for legal costs is refused on the basis that I think that theyre disproportionate to the
criminality of the defendants conduct. I believe weve had this discussion in the past Mr Prosecutor, but the
same reasons apply. It seems to me to be unfair to award costs based on the defendants bad luck in being
prosecuted by a council rather than by the police as a matter of principle, it cannot be or should not be the
defendant that incurs the additional liability of substantial costs based on who prosecutes. It strikes me as
unfair that an award of costs against the defendant when thieves, drug traffickers and other wrongdoers who
do far more harm than the defendant has, are not asked to pay costs. Additionally, citizens pay rates and taxes
for services, including the cost of prosecuting, supervising and imprisoning wrongdoers. It seems to me that
principle ought to apply to this prosecution as well and as I also say that the costs are disproportionate to the
criminality of the defendants conduct (sic). In the exercise of my discretion, the application for costs is
refused.[2]
7 At the conclusion of the second case the Magistrate again received an application for costs consisting of
legal fees of $170.50, filing fees of $42.10 and a courtesy letter of $23.10. The solicitor for the appellant
again deposes that the costs for which application was made comprised a true and correct calculation of
amounts properly incurred by the appellant in the prosecution of the case.
8 The Magistrate refused the greater portion of the application for costs on the same basis as he had refused
the greater portion of the application for costs in the first matter.[3]
9 It can be seen that the Magistrates reasons invoke notions of proportionality and consistency.
p34
Appeal 15-2502
p35
Appeal 15-2502
p36
Appeal 15-2502
Appeal 15-2502
p38
Appeal 15-2502
[1] The summation of the disbursement charges plus the courtesy letter.
[2] Affidavit of Lloyd Dewar sworn 15 February 2010, [7].
[3] The cost award was the summation of the disbursement charge and courtesy letter.
[4] [1953] HCA 25; (1953) 94 CLR 621, 627.
[5] [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499, 504-505.
[6] (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 178, cited in Australian Coal and Shale Employees Federation v The
Commonwealth [1953] HCA 25; (1953) 94 CLR 621, 628-9.
[7] [1993] VicRp 69; [1993] 2 VR 201.
[8] Unreported decision, 6 October 1994.
[9] Portland Properties Pty Ltd v Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of Works (1971) 38 LGRA 6, 18 and 22.
[10] [2006] VSC 488, [61].
[11] Criminal Procedure Act 2009, s 272(1).
[12] Secombs (a firm) v Sadler Design Pty Ltd [1999] VSC 79, [58]-[59]; Transport Accident Commission v
Hoffman [1989] VicRp 18; [1989] VR 197, 199.
[13] S v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1998] 1 VR 83, 89 per Phillips JA.
[14] [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534.
[15] [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72 (Oshlack).
[16] Ibid, 118.
[17] (1995) 36 NSWLR 77.
[18] [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72, 107.
[19] Kent v Cavanagh (1973) 1 ACTR 43, 55, cited in Oshlack.
[20] [1986] HCA 17; (1986) 161 CLR 513, 518.
[21] Road Safety Act 1986, s 87(1) read with s 77(2).
[22] See, eg Calabro v Zappia [2010] NSWDC 127.
[23] [1989] HCA 33; (1989) 167 CLR 348, 354.
[24] [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465, 472, 485-486, 490-491, 496, cited ibid, 354.
[25] [1990] VicRp 84; [1990] VR 951 (Young).
[26] [2006] VSCA 134.
[27] At 960 as cited ibid, [20].
p39
Appeal 15-2502
As indicated above the problem is that Buloke Shire Council is faced with my successful 19-72006 County Court of Victoria decision to uphold both my appeals. As this included (Not
challenged by the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria or any other Attorney-General for
that!) and considering that the High Court of Australia would be bias to hear and determine any
matter that directly involves the judges own standing, then Buloke Shire Council would have to
get a hearing before the Privy Council to have the matter heard. And this besides the fact that it
may have no legal standing as it seeks to enforce State of Victoria legislation in regard of a
matter the State of Victoria for which it allegedly acts has been comprehensively defeated on 19
July 2006 in this matter. So to say no second bite on the cherry.
END QUOTE 20150502-Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire Council care of Mayor
QUOTE 20150619-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Elliott Stafford and Associates Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council
END QUOTE
.
Using the term which will involve and not which may involve the correspondence therefore
has already decided for any court, that is if any court actually was to hold it can invoke
jurisdiction as I have from onset objected to this, then nevertheless the issue of cost already has
been dictated to the court to be issued against me.
.
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)
END QUOTE my 2-5-2015 CORRESPONDENCE TO Buloke Shire Council
p40
Appeal 15-2502
Hobsons Bay City Council v Viking Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 386 (27 August 2010)
END QUOTE 20150619-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Elliott Stafford and Associates Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council
There can be no question about it that obviously I made clear to Buloke Shire Council and its
legal representatives that I objected to the enforcement of any Infringement Notice.
And that the Infringement Act provisions couldnt be enforced against me. Yet this is what
Buloke Shire Council through its legal representatives seeks to do, as the Summons clearly relies
upon the Infringement Notice which as an offence seems to be a notice.
Without seeking to concede the validity of the Infringement Act 2006 it appears to me clearly
that s22 should have applied considering the special circumstances outlined to council.
It may be noted that there was no alteration of details of the Fire Notice even so after this notice
the property again had been slashed. As such the Infringement Notice relied upon a Fire Notice
that related to details that were altered. If a proper inspection had been made then it should have
been established that the property was slashed again and as such the structure of the fire notice
had to be reviewed if it was at all applicable as such, and not merely issue an Infringement
Notice based on a fire notice that no longer as such could be applicable.
QUOTE Version No. 044 Infringements Act 2006, No. 12 of 2006 Version incorporating amendments as at 1 August 2015
END QUOTE written submissions 14-9-20125 for the 17 September 2015 hearing
What this court would require to do is to embark upon a gigantic case of legal technicalities in a
DE NOVO hearing (Which includes the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION that was before the
magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud) and yet cannot go behind the issues that were raised
as constitutional issues on 19 July 2006 as the Court has to accept those unchallenged
submissions to have been upheld.
The Court cannot accept litigation of a summons based upon an alleged Infringement Notice
where I clearly disputed the validly of the Infringement Act all along. No such thing as cherry
picking what may or may not suit Mr Wayne Wall.
And getting back to Mr Wayne Wall, while he may be a council employee I submit that his
position to litigate was not as a council employee (regardless his position depends upon being a
council employee) but that as being a Municipal Fire protection Officer. As such to allow an y
excuses that he might have travelled out of jurisdiction, for whatever reason, for Buloke Shire
Council matters never can be accepted by the court to justify his absenteeism, this as we can look
at examples of Authorities such as a judge of a court cannot be directed by the Chief Justice to do
something like say in violation to his oath of office. A Chief Justice cannot dictate a judge to
absent himself from hearing a case midway. Likewise, the High Court of Australia made clear
that it is not for the Commonwealth to place burdens upon a State employee that may interfere
with his/her function. For those Members of Parliament cannot be subjected to taxation
conditions which may interfere or undermine their ability to perform in their duties.
Mr Wayne Wall as a Municipal fire Prevention Officer commenced litigation and I submit it was
beyond the powers of Buloke Shire Council to one way or another send Mr Wayne Wall on a trip
outside the courts jurisdiction and by this undermine the authority of the Court.
Mr Wayne Wall priority was to the court where he instituted the litigation and I submit Buloke
Shire Council had no authority to intervene in this.
If Buloke Shire Council were entitled to do so then if Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal fire
prevention officer were to say institute legal proceedings against Buloke Shire Council itself or
any councillor then all council needed to do is to send Mr Wayne Wall on a trip and the case
would collapse against the council or councillor. It is this very manipulation that I view
parliament sought to avoid by placing not a council but a person to exercise delegated powers as
a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer. It is also why the Infringement Notice is invalid because Mr
Wayne Wall is not an authorised enforcement agency as I understand it within the meaning of
the act. Hence, as I exposed in past writings the Infringement Notice is to undermine the
p41
Appeal 15-2502
Never mind my crummy English, my spelling/grammatical and other typing errors, what we are
about is that we have the courts permitting unconstitutional defrauding of Consolidated Revenue
Funds because no one seems to comprehend this to be going on. Well I do not desire any part to
be associated with. Why indeed did the court order payment of an Infringement Notice to
Buloke Shire Council instead of into Consolidated Revenue Funds when it was in fact a State
matters in which Mr Wayne Wall (purportedly) acted within delegated powers. As such the State
and not Buloke Shire Council should be receiving monies relating to State legislative provisions
where the court holds a breach was committed and a fine payable.
It should be understood that the Hobson Bay case was one as I understand it to by-laws of a
council and as such payments can be ordered as such to a council but in this matter it relates to
State legislation to which Buloke Shire Council has no delegated legislative powers and as such I
submit it is fraud to claim in court payment of something that belongs to the State, if an order
was made for payment.
It is for this also that the Legal Service Commission hardly could have properly investigated
matters as it claimed because it referred to a debt to Buloke Shire Council when it was none of
the business of Buloke Shire Council.
As I indicated the Act Interpretation Act 1980 prohibits fines before conviction and therefore an
Infringement Notice is no more but so to say an invitation to pay or face litigation. We have lots
of conman/conwoman who charges rents, etc, who which they are not entitled to, it doesnt make
it a debt merely because they demand the monies1
We have a constitution and if the courts and others desire to act outside our constitutional
framework then it has no legal powers whatsoever.
As I placed before the County Court of Victoria in my successful appeals the court must also be
seem as impartial and independent and as such it cannot share any ABN number with the
Department of Justice, nor allow its computers to be accessed by public servants engaged by the
Government. When I represented Mr Johnson QC before His Honour Smithers J with the
opponent being the legal Service commission I then expressed my concerns as to the implied bias
by His Honour considering the governments involvement.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I regretfully cannot accept we have a valid legal system let alone
proper judiciary because legislative provisions, court rules and regulations places it beyond the
understanding/comprehension of the unlettered person. Any legal pro vision within the
framework of the constitution must be that the unlettered person can understand. If an unlettered
person cannot understand it but requires a legal practitioner who may neither understand it (as
many dont and lose their clients cases) then is it expected that every citizen walks around being
held by the hand by a legal practitioner who may or may not have the correct legal opinion to
what is legally applicable?
When Mr Wayne Wall himself is vague and aloof in his Fire Prevention Notices then how on
earth can he expect anyone else to understand what he might have in mind? Are landholders now
to become crystal ball specialist?
In the written submissions (which His Honour held up on 17 May 2016) in the folder
Supplement 2 dated at footing 17-2-2016 it includes copies of the various Fire Prevention
Notices, etc. It also has included on the first page a copy of an envelope that purports to be
service of a Notice of appearance. If the court were to accept this kind of dumping of
documentation in a letterbox then why indeed have all the court rules/regulations and other legal
provisions and why have as party bothering to go to court and seek orders if the other party can
flaunt those orders willy nilly and a judge will ignore proper legal procedures to hold them
legally accountable?
p42
Appeal 15-2502
In understand from many that my writings will be a sheer waste of time as there will be no judge
who will actually act by his/her oath of office. Regretfully this far too often is my experience.
What is needed is a judge who will take it that every case is important to the parties and time
limits should not prevent proper considerations. The government must provide sufficient court
venues and failing this cases may be dismissed for undue difficulties upon the accused by doing
so. The court is and never was, no matter what any judge may claim otherwise, the 3rd
department of Government. The courts are part of the constitution and must be independent.
Any judge who doesnt understand that the Section 101 Inter-State Commission is a part of the
constitution could hardly understand what the constitution is about. Yet, for example we have
numerous court hearings where commerce and trade are within the powers of the Inter-State
commission but the Inter-State Commission is not in place, even so constitutionally required to
be always, and so the ACCC is doing it without legal justification but judges will rely upon
legislative provisions regardless that it is unconstitutional.
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
As such regardless if His Honour may rely for example upon the purported Local Government
Act reality is this is unconstitutional. Likewise as His Honour French J (as His Honour at the
time was in WA but now CJ of the High Court of Australia) s51(xxvii) is not at all a
constitutional provision to give the States powers to refer legislative powers it is merely to allow
the Commonwealth to accept this.
p43
Appeal 15-2502
I naturalised and made a pledge to uphold the constitution and I do not have to think twice that I
shall do so regardless of the adversities I may face. I view a man is not worth his words if he like
politicians so often do is to make pledges during an election and after being elected betrays the
electors. If any judicial officer doesnt like this then that is his/her problem but should not make
it mine. I honour my pledge to the best of my ability and this makes me to be proud to be an
Australian. That is also why I am not going on the run so to say with my tail between my legs as
with having conducted a special life line service since 1982 under the motto MAY JUSTICE
ALWAYS PREVAIL I am too much aware about people seeing suicide as the only way out
having lost any confidence in the legal processes and so the courts. We need to simplify court
rules/regulations, etc, so that the unlettered person can understand in simple English format what
is required and not that even legal practitioners havent got a clue and/or ability to comply!
If the court doesnt formally deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and provide a
REASON OF JUDGMENT as to why it upholds or dismiss the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION then the court doesnt invoke any jurisdiction.
The Court may desire to have this matter placed before the High Court of Australia albeit not at
my cost, or alternatively the Prosecutor, this is because the moment a party objects to the
p44
Appeal 15-2502
My submission is that the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is part of the appeal process but
must be dealt with prior to any hearing of the disputed issues because of the Fire Prevention
Notice. If the Prosecutor, and this is stated without conceding legal standing, fails to submit to
the court any material as to prove jurisdiction then the court can only find that the Court has no
jurisdiction and neither so had the Magistrates Court of Victoria and on that basis the orders of
the Magistrates Court of Victoria are a nullity as they are in violation to legal provisions. In those
circumstances the court is entitled to make orders for exemplary damage (20160110-SchorelHlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall & ORS-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re exemplary damagesetc) against the (purported) Prosecutor and can restrain the Prosecutor (so the party) from re
litigating the same issues again against me.
No one in his right mind would accept that after all the work I had to do and the cost involved
in printing, etc, that is well beyond my financial ability as a pensioner then somehow Mr Wayne
Wall, Buloke Shire Council and ES&a Associates can get away with it without having to face
any compensation bill, in particular where they acted in a dismissal manner blatantly
disregarding proper conduct as may be expected from a party and its legal representatives.
.
As I indicated above in my submission that I view if the matter were to proceed for a full blown
hearing (which depends upon the outcome of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION) than it
should be by way of trial before a jury. With the powers of nullification as embedded in the
constitution.
.
Any appearance by me to a 30 May 2016 hearing will be under objection and is not
intended and neither must be perceived that I discontinue any objections.
Appellant
p45
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Appeal 15-2502