20151127-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J County Court...

8/20/2019 20151127-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-…

1/17

Page 1

p1 27-11-2015 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

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

Mr Garry McIntosh , Associate to His Honour Mullaly J. 27-11-2015 [email protected]

Cc: Buloke Shire Council [email protected] Mr Martin Pakula, Attorney-General martin.pakula@parliament. vic .gov.au & [email protected] Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected] Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected]

Re: 20151127-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntoshto His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-Re APPEAL-15-2502-OBJECTION TO SERVICE

Sir,

it appears to me that Buloke Shire Council legal representatives having received a copy of my“20151124-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His HonourMullaly J County Court of Victoria-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Communication, etc ” to you nowhave decided to forward me “Please find enclosed by way of service Full Brief, as requested ”as such not as ordered by His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 that the brief was to be sentvia Australia Post by no later than 9 November 2015. As His Honour Mullaly J specificallyrequested me the mode of service and I indicated via Australia Post, then I view the partlyreproduced correspondence proves that it is dated 25 November 2015 and therefore is in clearviolation of what His Honour Mullaly J ordered on 30 October 2015. As such I do not accept assuch service having been performed as ordered on 30 October 2015 by His Honour Mullaly J, asno “Leave to serve out of time ” to my knowledge was applied for let alone obtained to validly

serve the purported brief “out of time ”. As such I do not accept service of the purported brief!Denning L.J. in Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 Q.B. 327 . QUOTE

When a contr act is made by post i t is clear l aw thr oughou t the common law countr ies that the acceptanceis complete as soon as the letter of acceptance is put i nto the post box, and that i s the place where thecontract is made. But there is no clear rule about contracts made by telephone or by Telex.Commun icati ons by these means are vir tual ly i nstantaneous and stand on a dif ferent footing.

END QUOTE

Well, in one case I posted the appeal on the last day, holding therefore that the appeal was validlyfiled, but the Full Court held that the Appeal was received the next business day, and so too lateand struck out the appeal, this also as no leave to file and serve out of time was applied for.On that basis, it is clear that Buloke Shire Council through its legal representatives having datedtheir accompanied correspondence for alleged service 25 November 2015 by this failed to serveas was ordered. As such I view this is clearly CONTEMPT OF COURT !While the email might be considered a courtesy email nevertheless no service can be accepted ordeemed to be accepted not just because by the moment of typing this correspondence the briefwas still not in the mail box, but in any event without prior “ Leave to serve out of time ” appliedfor and granted (if at all) I view no valid service can be affected.

I may state that not until about 11.50PM on 26 November 20125 did I become aware of the emailallegedly forwarded at 15.11 on 25-11-2015, hence my writings now in the early morning aboutthis. There is more to this as I below will further set out.

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


2/17

Page 2



QUOTE 25-11-2015 emailBuloke Shire Council ATS Schorel-

HlavkaFrom Bree Caton

To [email protected]

Date Wed 15:11

DOC251115-251115144530.pdf Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka

Please find attached a copy of today’s correspondence, this has also been sent via post.

Regards,

Bree Caton | Legal AssistantElliott Stafford & Associates | 316A Queens Parade, Clifton Hillt: (03) 9486 7555 | f: (03) 9486 6444 | e: [email protected]

END QUOTE 25-11-2015 email

I in 1994 objected to service where opponent lawyers had failed to comply with service as w\asordered and His Honour then upon my submission then struck out the application for failing tocomply with the terms of His Honour Orders. As His Honour made clear that as much I wasrequired to comply with legal procedures and orders he had no choice but to maintain the sameagainst members of the legal profession, and clearly they had failed to do so.

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://webmail.au.syrahost.com/?_task=mail&_uid=4695&_mbox=INBOX&_action=get&_part=2https://webmail.au.syrahost.com/?_task=mail&_uid=4695&_mbox=INBOX&_action=get&_part=2mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://webmail.au.syrahost.com/?_task=mail&_uid=4695&_mbox=INBOX&_action=get&_part=2mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


3/17

Page 3



As such any rfeferences b elow to the content of the documentation emails to me is not torecognise the validity of service vuia emasil, as this clearly was not complied with as ordered byHis ZHonour Mullasly J on 30 October 2015.

Below however is a part reproduced of the documentation that doesn’t indicate the venue of theMagistrates Court of Victoria and seems to indicate that the hearing was due to be held on 18March 2013, this even so the alleged offence was claimed to have occurred on 17 November2014..So now the court somehow had listed the case for hearing about 20 months before thealleged offence had eventuated.

Screen print part of the purported brief

It may also be stated that I in 2013 had placed signage on my property (Recently also reproducedto Buloke Shire Council via correspondence):

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


4/17

Page 4



I noticed from the purported Brief that it include pictures that seems to have been takenfrom within the property, as such trespassing as it was without myknowledge/authorisation. (As such inadmissible as evidence!)

Further, the purported brief has not included the very Fire Prevention Notice upon whichthe Summons referred to.

It appears to m e that therefore the purported brief was so to say “ concocted ” and fails to properlydisclose what a brief would have to have done.

I recall that on 30 October 2015 His Honour Mullaly J. having adjourned the matter to considerthe ADDRESS TO THE COURT that included the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION , HisHonour, albeit already having previously made his orders that the matter was to be heard De

Novo at Ballarat, His Honour nevertheless didn’t invoke jurisdiction but did raise with Counselfor Buloke shire Council the issue that a request was made for the brief. I recall Counsel forBuloke Shire Council then to claim that the request was made “ yesterday ” and that it would take

a week to provide the brief to me. His Honour Mullaly J then seemed to question why it wouldtake a week, and I recall Counsel for Buloke Shire Council to refer to the public holiday, uponwhich His Honour then requested me the mode of service, upon which I indicated via AustralianPost and His Honour then ordered that the brief was to be sent no later than 9 November 2015.

In LEWI S v. JUDGE OGDEN [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682 (15 May 1984 High Court of AustraliaMason(1), Murphy(1), Wilson(1), Brennan(1) and Dawson(1) JJ.QUOTE

At common law words or conduct in the face of the court or in the course of proceedings , in order toconstitute contempt, "must be such as would interfere, or tend to interfere, with the course of justice"(Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. King-Emperor (1945) AC 264, at p 268 ). Instead of makinginterference, or tendency to interfere, with the course of justice an element in the offences which it created,

subs. (1) introduces the new element of conduct which is wilful in pars. (a) and (c). In these two paragraphs



5/17

Page 5



the word "wilfully" means "intentionally", or "deliberately", in the sense that what is said or done is intendedas an insult, threat, etc. Its presence does more than negative the notion of "inadvertently" or "unconsciously"(Bell v. Stewart (1920) 28 CLR 419, at p 427 ). The mere voluntary utterance of words is not enough."Wilfully" imports the notion of purpose. (at p688)

END QUOTE

As His Honour Mullal.y J indicated to have concern about Buloke Shire Council legalrepresentatives seeking a week to serve documentation on the basis the request was made“yesterday ” then I view had Counsel for Buloke Shire Council made known that the requestwas actually made on Tuesday 27 October 20156 then unlikely would His Honour have givenas much time till 9 November 2015 to send the brief via Australia Post and as such I view thiswas a conduct to pervert the course of justice to deceive and mislead His Honour Mullaly J as toextract highly inappropriately more time.

It is clear that Buloke Shire Council and so its lega l representatives didn’t bother to expla in whythey were not in compliance with the orders of His Honour Mullaly J to send the brief by no laterthan 9 November 2015 and ignored to seek Leave to serve out of time. Such leave obviouslywould have required for Buloke Shire Council to explain why despite His Honour having beenvery generous to allow time till 9 November 2015 Buloke Shire Council and so its legalrepresentatives blatantly disregarded to comply with His Honour orders.

Moreover, I view that Counsel for Buloke Shire Council deliberately set out to commitCONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT and TO PERVERT THE COURSE OFJUSTICE by claiming my request was made “yesterday” (as such implying 29 October 20125)when in fact it was made on 27 October 2015 as shown below:.Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention ), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-

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

END QUOTE

There are 2 issues I desire to raise in regard of this..

1/. It is my view Counsel for Buloke Shire Council misled His Honour Mullaly J to claim“yesterday ” as the following quoted email copy proves that the request was made onTuesday 27 October 2015 and not at all on Thursday 29 October 2015.I consider it a serious matter when an OFFICER OF THE COURT misled a judge as toobtain benefits by this. I consider this to pervert the course of justice . Obviously I viewthat His Honour Mullaly cannot accept this kind of gross deception having been

perpetrated upon the court, this as if this is one issue then what else is there beingdeceived?

QUOTE 27-10-2015 correspondence Elliott Stafford and Associated 27-10-2015 [email protected]

Cc: Mr Wayne Wall, Municipal Fire Prevention Officer [email protected] Buloke Shire Council [email protected] Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected] Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament. vic .gov.au & [email protected]

Ref; 20151027-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council cc LSC-COM-2015-0873-Re Appeal

Sir/Madam,Hereby I urge you to clarify the position of Buloke Shire Council if it intends to oppose

my appeal, etc.

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/28clr419.htmlmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/28clr419.htmlhttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


6/17

Page 6



It should be understood that Buloke Shire Council acting within s114 of the Commonwealth of A ustrali aConstitu tion Act 1900 (UK) has the same obligations as the Public Prosecutor of the State of Victoria.I received from a friend the following quote email, and well you may consider the content and provide mewith a preliminary brief or brief. After all I made known that Councillor Milne claimed not to know whatit was on about (the litigation) and as such the court may have to consider if you have any legal standing(as I disputed this) to act for and on behalf of Buloke Shire Council considering that at least onecouncillor didn’t appear to be able to give “informed” consent to act for Buloke Shire Council. As suchothers may likewise not be aware of what the litigation is about.

Obviously, I request not only for the brief/preliminary but also that Buloke Shire Council producesrecords at least since 2009 as to how often it issued identical or nearly identical FIREPREVENTION NOTICES against landowners and how often any was against Buloke Shire Council(Shire of Buloke).END QUOTE 27-10-2015 correspondence

His Honour may desire a member of the legal profession to talk rather than a self-representedappellant, but well at least I pursue the truth which I view cannot be stated from Counsel forBuloke Shire Council. And I cannot have that His Honour were to continue with this matter and

provide for more of the same.

Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)QUOTE

As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose hisclients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All hehonourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which isparamount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: orhis tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It isthe cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowinglyconceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to supportit. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his clientdiscloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard thespecific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.

END QUOTE

It is clear from what eventuated in court that His Honour Mullaly J had concerns that the briefhad not been provided but seemed to be swayed by the claim by Counsel for Buloke ShireCouncil t hat the request was made “ yesterday ”. I may add the following clarification:

I represented Mr Harold James Johnson on 4 occasions, in the matter of Legal Service Commissioner vH arold James Johnson . At one point Counsel representing the Legal Service commission raised with HisHonour Smithers J that I had made a statement that was factually incorrect but as I had used the wording “Itis my understanding” then I had convened my understanding and in fact Mr Harold James Johnson QC wasknown to have made previously a factual incorrect claim. As such it was not held against me personally thatCounsel clarified the factual error. This because I had used the wording “It is my understanding”.As I recall it Counsel for Buloke Shire Council didn’t use the term “In my understanding” andtherefore made a claim as to which was factually incorrect.It should be obvious that Counsel for Buloke Shire Council could have consulted his paperwork butdidn’t do so. In my view His Honour Mullaly was entitled to accept the subm ission from Counselfor Buloke Shire Council that my request for the brief was made “yesterday” but now that it isrevealed that in fact Counsel for Buloke Shire Council misled His Honour Mullaly J then I viewserious legal implications ought to result from this.If His Honour Mullaly J fails to deal with this matter appropriately then I view His Honour may bedeemed to be bias towards the legal profession to allow it to so to say run the court as it desires,etc. I am known as the “policeman against lawyers” in that I expose lawyers misusing their

position at the bar table to make fraudulent statements. As such Counsel for Buloke Shire Councilso to say picked the wrong cased to perpetrate this upon His Honour Mullaly J and I expect no lessthan that His Honour Mullaly J will deal with this in an appropriate manner.



7/17

Page 7



2/. As indicated under point 1/., His Honour Mullaly J ordered that by 9 November 2015 the “brief”was to be posted to me, and I had accepted this via Australia Post. As by today 27-11-2015(EARLY MORNING) I have still not received any “brief”. I will now use an example:

On 9 October 1994 I was at my (then) residence in Berriwillock, when matters were before HisHonour Guest J with the other party and legal representatives attending in court. Again I conductedmatters via telephone. When opponent Counsel commenced to refer to documentation I objected thatthe documents had not been served despite an order of the court in August 1994 that the documentshad to be served within 48 hours. His Honour in the end accepted that no service had been executedand as per my submission struck out the application of the opponent party and ordered it needed leaveto file to institute any further application.

In this matter of appeal; obviously there can be no issue of the appeal to be dismissed as I am theAppellant but the Court can hold that by the deception perpetrated by Counsel for Buloke ShireCouncil and failing to provide the “ brief ” as was ordered (As the court ought to consider AustralianPost ordinary delivers overnight – and in any event Buloke Shire Council legal representativescould have sent documentation by overnight mail) then the appeal must be deemed unopposed .

The Court must stop giving special allowances for legal representatives and must enforce the ruleof law equally as it does against anyone else. Indeed, it is because of this rot of specialallowances for the legal profession that the integrity of the courts so to say has been smashes tosmithereens.I may add, that while Counsel for Buloke Shire Council submitted (on 30 October 2015) that itswitness would take a mere 5 minutes, in my view this may in fact take perhaps hours. This, as Ihave discovered that the witnesses seemed to lack any proper knowledge as to the legal issuesconcerning his duties and obligations. While as a Professional Advocate I have the protectionand immunity as a solicitor representing a party before the Supreme Court of Victoria, however Iam not an OFFICER OF THE COURT , and free communicate with opponent witnesses. In

particular where such potential witness request me for a face to face meeting, as eventuated.While I never had any doubt that on legal basis I would defeat Buloke Shire Council,nevertheless this is not so to say a free get out of jail card for Buloke Shire Council legalrepresentatives to misuse and abuse their positions as OFFICERS OF THE COURT to makefraudulent/false/misleading submissions/statements. I understand that in the case of M ORI ATY v

LONDON, CHATM AM & DOVER RY Queen’s Bench 1870 L .R. 5 Q.B. 314;39 L.T.Q.B.109;22 L.T. 163;34 J.P. 692;18 W.R. 625 by the plaintiff conduct to suborn false evidencethis was seen by the Court that this conduct amounted to an admission that he had no case.

Our courts are far too important to serve anyone out of the ordinary and no judge can permit to be ridiculed in being so to say taken by the nose to provide orders which otherwise would notlikely have been made. While I am aware that Buloke Shire Council legal representatives maywhen becoming aware of my complaint desire to have some sort of delivery arranged, thishowever cannot overcome that as I understand it they failed to comply with the orders theyobtained by deception. Again as His Honour Guest J made clear, that where I had to comply withthe rules of the court then likewise His Honour had no alternative but to enforce the rules and so

any orders to the opponent party. I look forwards to a positive response that His HonourMullaly J will address the matter appropriately.

It should be understood that the Fire Prevention Notice was the basis upon which Buloke ShireCouncil claimed to issue the Infringement Notice, and yet it conceals it now from the court, inmy view for no other reason but because the notice was invalid and so no basis exist to litigate.

Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998)Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing thestatutory provision in that case: " substantial compliance with the relevantstatutory requirement was not possible. Either there was compliance or therewas not. "



8/17

Page 8



The reasoning of Fullagar J in Clayton v. Heffron (supra) in r elati on to the provisions of s 5B ofthe Constituti on Act 1902 (NSW) is mater ial in thi s context:

"A manner and form are prescribed by section 5B, and that manner and form must beobserved if a valid law is to be produced. Any prescription of manner and form may berepealed or amended, but, while it stands, the process prescribed by it must be followed.That was decided Trethowan's case and I think that the whole of what is prescribed bysection 5B relates to manner and form. It does not seem to me to be possible to say thatsome of the requirements of the section are matters of manner and form while others arenot. The section describes one entire process - a series of steps, one following on another -and only the completion of the entire process can produce a valid law." (Supra at 262)

Again:So now the court somehow had listed the case for hearing about 20 months before thealleged offence had eventuated.

QUOTE Criminal Procedure Act 2009

39When full brief must be serveds. 39

(1) At any time after a criminal proceeding has commenced or, if a preliminary brief is served undersection 24, at any time after a summary case conference is held, the accused, by written notice tothe informant, may request that a full brief be served.

Note

Section 54 provides for summary case conferences.(2) If the accused gives a notice under subsection (1), the informant must serve a full brief on the

accused at least 14 days before —

(a) the contest mention hearing; or

(b) if a contest mention hearing is not held, the summary hearing.

(3) The Magistrates' Court, by order, may vary the date for service of a full brief to a specified datethat is earlier or later than the date for service required by subsection (2).

(4) Nothing in this section prevents agreement between the informant and the accused to more limiteddisclosure than is required in a full brief.

40How full brief must be served

s. 40

(1) A full brief must be served personally on the accused in accordance with section 339 unless theinformant is satisfied that ordinary service is appropriate in all the circumstances.

Note

Section 342 provides for ordinary service.

(2) In considering whether to effect service of a full brief by ordinary service, the informant mustconsider whether it is an appropriate method of service in all the circumstances as known by theinformant including —

(a) the nature and gravity of the alleged offence;

(b) whether the accused has previously been found guilty or convicted of any similar offence;

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca1902188/s5b.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca1902188/s5b.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca1902188/s5b.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca1902188/s5b.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca1902188/s5b.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca1902188/s5b.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca1902188/s5b.htmlhttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


9/17

Page 9



(c) the period of time that has elapsed since the accused's address for service was ascertained;

(d) the manner of service of the summons to answer to the charge.

41 Contents of full brief

(1) Unless earlier disclosed to the accused, whether in a preliminary brief, at a summary caseconference or otherwise, a full brief must contain —

(a) a notice in the form prescribed by the rules of court —

(i) explaining this section and section 83; and

(ii)explaining the importance of the accused obtaining legal representation; ands. 41

(iii) advising that the accused has the right, if eligible, to legal aid under the Legal Aid Act1978 ; and

(iv) providing details of how to contact Victoria Legal Aid; and

(b) a copy of the charge-sheet relating to the alleged offence; and

(c) a copy of the criminal record of the accused or a statement that the accused has no previousconvictions; and

(d) any information, document or thing on which the prosecution intends to rely at the hearing ofthe charge including —

(i) a copy of any statement relevant to the charge signed by the accused, or a record ofinterview of the accused, that is in the possession of the informant; and

(ii) a copy, or a transcript, of any audio-recording or audiovisual recording required to bemade under Subdivision (30A) of Division 1 of Part III of the Crimes Act 1958 ; and

(iii) a copy or statement of any other evidentiary material that is in the possession of theinformant relating to a confession or admission made by the accused relevant to thecharge.

(iv)a list of the persons the prosecution intends to call as witnesses at the hearing, together with a copy of each of thestatements made by those persons; and

s. 41

Note

See section 47 for requirements for statements.

(v) a legible copy of any document which the prosecution intends to produce as evidence;and

(vi) a list of any things the prosecution intends to tender as exhibits; and

(vii) a clear photograph, or a clear copy of such a photograph, of any proposed exhibit thatcannot be described in detail in the list; and

(viii) a description of any forensic procedure, examination or test

that has not yet been completed and on which the prosecution intends to rely astending to establish the guilt of the accused; and

(ix) any evidentiary certificate issued under any Act that is likely to be relevant to thealleged offence; and

(e) any other information, document or thing in the possession of the prosecution that is relevantto the alleged offence including —

(i) a list of the persons (including experts) who have made statements or giveninformation relevant to the alleged offence but who the prosecution does not intend tocall as witnesses at the hearing; and

(ii)a copy of every statement referred to in subparagraph (i) made by each of those persons or, if the person has notmade a statement, a written summary of the substance of any evidence likely to be

given by that person or a list of those statements or written summaries; and



10/17

Page 10



s. 41

(iii) a copy of every document relevant to the alleged offence that the prosecution does notintend to tender as an exhibit at the hearing or a list of those documents; and

(iv) a list containing descriptions of any things relevant to the alleged offence that the prosecution does not intend to tender as exhibits at the hearing; and

(v) a clear photograph, or a clear copy of such a photograph, of any thing relevant to thealleged offence that cannot be described in detail in the list; and

(vi) a copy of —

(A) records of any medical examination of the accused; and

(B) reports of any forensic procedure or forensic examination conducted on theaccused; and

(C) the results of any tests —

carried out on behalf of the prosecution and relevant to the alleged offence but onwhich the prosecution does not intend to rely; and

(vii)a copy of any other information, document or thing required by the rules of court to be included in a full brief;and

(f) if the informant refuses to disclose any information, document or thing that is required to beincluded in the full brief, a written notice that the informant refuses disclosure under section45, identifying the ground for refusing disclosure.

(2) Section 48 applies to information and other material supplied in a full brief.

Notes

1 See section 363 as to the prosecution's general obligation of disclosure.

2 Section 39(4) enables an informant and an accused to agree to the provision of less material in thefull brief than is required by section 41.

3 If the Magistrates' Court hears and determines a charge in the absence of the accused, section 83 provides that certain documents in a full brief served on the accused are admissible in evidence.

4 See section 86 as to proof of criminal record in the absence of the accused.42 Continuing obligation of disclosure

s. 42

(1) This section applies to any information, document or thing that —

(a) comes into the informant's possession or comes to the informant's notice after the service of a preliminary brief or a full brief, as the case may be; and

(b) would have been required to be listed, or a copy of which would have been required to beserved, in the preliminary brief or the full brief.

(2)The informant must serve on the accused a copy of the document or list as soon as practicable after theinformation, document or thing comes into the informant's possession or comes to the informant's

notice.(3) If the informant refuses to disclose any information, document or thing that is required to be

disclosed under this section, the informant must serve on the accused as soon as practicable awritten notice that the informant refuses disclosure under section 45, identifying the ground forrefusing disclosure.

Note

See section 363 as to the prosecution's general obligation of disclosure.

43 Accused may make request for material etc. not provideds. 43

(1) The accused may give to the informant a written request for —



11/17

Page 11



(a) a copy of any statements made or information given by persons listed in a full brief;

(b) a copy of any things listed in a full brief;

(c) inspection of the exhibits at a time and place agreed between the accused and the informant;

(d) a copy of any information, document or thing specified by the accused that is required by orunder this Act to be included in a preliminary brief or a full brief, as the case may be, andwas not so included;

(e) particulars of previous convictions of any witness who the prosecution intends to call at the

hearing.END QUOTE Criminal Procedure Act 2009

Despite of the provisions such as Section 43 Buloke Shire Council failed to provide requesteddetails.QUOTE 27-10-2015 correspondence

Obviously, I request not only for the brief/preliminary but also that Buloke Shire Council producesrecords at least since 2009 as to how often it issued identical or nearly identical FIRE PREVENTIONNOTICES against landowners and how often any was against Buloke Shire Council (Shire of Buloke).

END QUOTE 27-10-2015 correspondence

Despite the request of 2-5-2015 the purported brief doesn ’t include the Infringement Notice andneither was it provided despite of this request of 2-5-2015. And neither did Buloke Shire Councilor its legal representatives state any refusal to provide the requested details/information regardingthe Fire Prevention Notices issued since 2015.Obviously where Buloke Shire Council relies upon its witness Mr Wayne Wall the originator ofthe litigation then I am well entitled to pursue information/details which can establish a lack ofcredibility of Mr Wayne Wall as a witness. As a matter of fact no matter how many request Imade for details/information including court orders, etc, none was forthcoming that I had to filean appeal without even knowing if a conviction was or was not recorded.In my view this is a gross absurdity and underlines that basically Buloke Shire Council candisregard DUE PROCESS and basically run the courts as they desire.Even requesting a copy of the Infringement Notice was refused/denied!

QUOTE 20150502-Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire Council care of Mayor If one so to say want to find something against a person then any freak will be able to do so but reality is thatwhere the property had been slashed not once, not twice but 3 times then surely the intend of this ought tohave stopped this nonsense as to an Infringement Notice.Regardless if I would or wouldn’t have filled in anything on the Infringement Notice, I did indicate it wasmisplaced and my 82 year old wife hasn’t got a cl ue what happened with it. As such Buloke Shire Councilfailure to forward a copy as I requested via email cannot be ignored.

END QUOTE 20150502-Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire Council care of Mayor

The same about the Infringement Notice was referred to below but again without any response.

QUOTE 20150619-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Elliott Stafford and Associates Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire CouncilIf then we consider the Infringement Noticer, as I recall, it before it was misplaced and Buloke Shire Councilrefused/denied to provide a requested copy, then one may notice the Infringement Notice refers to as I rec alit “Failure to comply with notice”. No officer wo uld be able to deal with a matter on the vague and aloofdescription “notice” (Consider my example of “assault”). Is the judicial officer to guess if it is an evictionnotice by a landlord? Is it a notice to produce that was not complained with and so may possibly attract aCONTEMPT OF COURT litigation?An opponent party is entitled to be appropriately informed as to what was alleged and if an Infringement

Notice was not validly stating the grounds relied upon then to demand nevertheless a payment and a threat tocharge cost and further cost I view is highly inappropriate that may perhaps serve a gutter tactic kind of legal

practitioner, but I view not a decent lawfirm.END QUOTE 20150619-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Elliott Stafford and Associates Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council

QUOTE ‘ADDRESS TO THE COURT ’ 20-8-2015



12/17

Page 12



The Infringement Notice relied upon a “noticed” as I recall it. I requested Buloke Shire Council to provideme with a copy of the Infringement Notice as the original was misplaced, but it failed/refused to do so.Regardless if I were or were not have paid the penalty stated, the issue is that the Prosecutor prevented me theoption to use a copy of the Infringement Notice, and cannot now complain to the court where it failed itself..The legal doctrine of “ ex tur pi causa non ori tur action ” denies any remedy to a litigant (including a

prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands.

If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with “Dirty Hands” best not to

question others legality, morality, and ethics!END QUOTE ‘ADDRESS TO THE COURT ’ 20-8-2015

QUOTE ‘ADDRESS TO THE COURT ’ 20-8-2015I did request, without conceding jurisdiction, for the Prosecutor to have the matter listed for hearing in theMagistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg, but there was a deafening silence. This also due to health

problems where my wife (82) at times has suddenly a vein in her leg bursting and if I am too far away shecould bleed to death. She is awaiting an operation for this. Also being on pensions our financial abilities arelimited and the expense to travel to and from St Arnaud would jeopardize my ability to travel to Berriwillockfor the slashing of the grass/weed. Neither does it seem to make sense for a firm of lawyers located in CliftonHill (Melbourne) to lodge a case with the magistrates Court of Victoria at Collingwood for a hearing in StArnaud. In particular considering the charges by lawyers it would made more sense to have the hearing atHeidelberg, to avoid long distance travelling. “ Innocent until proven guilty ” must means that the accused

must not unduly be forced to travel long distances as to undermine the ability of the accused to attend to thecourt location.END QUOTE ‘ADDRESS TO THE COURT ’ 20-8-2015

QUOTE 16-8-2015 CORRESPONDENCEMagistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud 16-8-2015c/o the coordinator [email protected]

Cc: Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected] Buloke Shire Council [email protected] Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected] George Williams [email protected] Cr Reid Mather (Mayor) MALLEE WARD [email protected]

Cr David Pollard (Deputy Mayor) LOWER AVOCA WARD [email protected] Cr Leo Tellefson MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected] Cr Stuart McLean LOWER AVOCA WARD [email protected] Cr Graeme Milne MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected] Cr Gail Sharp MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected] Cr Ellen White, MALLEE WARD , [email protected]

Re: 20150816 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaudcc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council- LSC-COM-2015-0873

Sir/Madam,I indicated to (Buloke Shire Council) the prosecutor ‘s legal representatives to have the

matter without conceding jurisdiction transferred to the Magistrates Court of Victoria atHeidelberg, which is about 4 kilometres from my residence, also considering that ES&a Lawyersare located in Clifton Hill (Melbourne).

Due to health conditions concerning my wife as well as myself having become ill it is unlikely Icould attend on 20 August 2015 to the court in St Arnaud. I request hereby that the matter,without that I concede jurisdiction is transferred to the Magistrates Court of Victoria atHeidelberg. I may also raise the issue th at St Arnaud’s court location only sits on Thursdays,whereas at Heidelberg I understand it sits every day. As I enclose hereby a copy of myADDRESS TO THE COURT that includes an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then thematter could in my view not be heard and determined on 20 August 2015.

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


13/17

Page 13



I submit that it wouldn’t be appropriate to argue legal issues that may take more than likely morethan a day in a court location that only sits once a week. It would be an injustice to because totravel time and time again to St Arnaud for this.See the document “ 20150820-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke ShireCouncil v Schorel-Hlavka ” that will be attached to the same email as this correspondence.I look forwards to your confirmation that the matter has been transferred to the Magistrates Courtof Victoria at Heidelberg and so the attached ADDRESS TO THE COURT .

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®(Our name is our motto! )

END QUOTE 16-8-2015 CORRESPONDENCE

QUOTE 23-9-2015Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud 23-9-2015c/o the coordinator [email protected]

Re: 20150923 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaudcc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council-reasons-etc

Sir/Madam,despite my past various request I have not been provided with any transcript and/or

reasons of judgment as to establish what eventuated before the court, in particular myOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION if this was or wasn’t disposed of. Held that a State Court exercising federal jurisdiction when it erroneously applies Commonwealth Act to subject matterbefore the Court . Commonwealth v Cole, (1923) 32 C.L.R. 602 and Commonwealth v Dalton, (1924) 33 C.L .R.. 452; 30A.L .R. 85 As such regardless if the court held that my constitutional issues may not apply, nevertheless it

exercises federal jurisdiction and is bound to follow federal process of a Court within Chapter IIof the constitution, and provides relevant details.As I referred to in previous writings to the court:QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780

I f they are given no r eason they may be entitl ed to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice,bias, or capri ce . In such a case not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.

END QUOTE

As I also indicated I view it a malicious conduct if the court were to issue orders without havingfirst appropriately dealt with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION , this as it never can haveinvoked jurisdiction if it failed to formally invoke jurisdiction.

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)


END QUOTE 23-9-2015


Cc: Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected]

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


14/17

Page 14



Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected]

Re: 20150928 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council- WARNING -etcSir/Madam,

despite my previous request the Court has failed/refused to provide me withtranscripts and/or reasons of judgments of any alleged orders of 20 August 2015 & 17 September2015. I will quote the 23-9-2015 correspondence below also.END QUOTE 28-9-2015


Cc: Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected] Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected]

Re: 20151007 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaudcc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council-transcript-reasons-etc

Sir/Madam,in my 28-9-2015 correspondence I stated:

QUOTEdespite my previous request the Court has failed/refused to provide me with transcripts and/or

reasons of judgments of any alleged orders of 20 August 2015 & 17 September 2015.END QUOTEEND QUOTE 7-10-2015

QUOTE 7-10-2015I again repeat my request that I am provided with appropriate transcripts of both 20 August 2015and 17 September 2015 albeit it might that they do not exist as it might just have been so to say a

pub backroom deal between the court and the lawyers. Still it cannot deny me my constitutionaland other legal. Rights as I referred to in past writings.

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

As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes theappeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made in thelower court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or therespondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of theabsence of reason for the magistrate’s decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recordedfor the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal process, there is the

basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up, argue their case and attempt tocontrovert the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they lost . I f they are given no r eason theymay be enti tled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice . In such a casenot only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.

Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not mere ordinary

trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of responsibility which administrations ofthe summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail.[Baker v Baker (1906) 95 LT 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and again in Cobb v Cobb (1900)

p145] it was stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is the dutyof the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his decision, but to give the reasonsfor his decision and to cause a note to be made of his reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required, but thereasons which lead the magistrate to make his order must be explicitly stated.

END QUOTE Because of my past writings it cannot be argued that the Magistrate (if it was not so to say a pub

backroom deal) could have in error omitted to follow proper legal procedures because of how Iset out issues. As such I view this was a deliberate malicious conduct to pervert the course of

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

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


15/17

Page 15



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

END QUOTE As the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was not dealt with neither did I receive any formalorders, reasons of judgment and neither any transcript of any hearings I request/urge you toimmediately withdraw this alleged 17-9-2015 statement of fines and penalties imposed?END QUOTE 7-10-2015


Cc: Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected] Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected]

Re: 20151010 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaudcc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council-transcript-reasons-etc

Sir/Madam,as by my 9-10-2015 correspondence you have been made aware that I have instituted

an appeal, I yet again request you to provide me with copies of formal orders, reason of judgment

and transcripts regarding the 20 August 2015 and the 17 September 2015 hearings, to which Ishould not incur any cost as from onset I made an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION , asacknowledged by Buloke Shire Council legal representatives ES&a Legal Practitioners in their 2September 2015 correspondence (to which you were by me also provided a copy thereof).Because of the preliminary hearing date set for 30 October 2015, I require thedocumentation, etc, well before that date, as a matter of urgency, as to be able to preparefor this hearing. I may indicate that in my view regarding the appeal so to say the first cab of therank will be if the appeal will be if the magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud did or didn’tdismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION . This as if there were no formal orders andreason of judgment to dismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the court never didinvoke jurisdiction and as such any 17 September 2015 purported orders are without jurisdiction,and as such have no legal validity.The mere fact that without formal orders I had to file an appeal, and only afterwards wasinformed that “ without conviction ” in itself , I view is utterly scandalous. Ordinary the successof any appeal may turn upon this as much as to if a Deputy Registrar or a Magistrate deals withthe matter. And contrary to the Registrars (Broadmeadows) claims of 2 weeks appeal against aJudicial Registrars decision there is no time limit for this. ( H arri s v Caladine [1991] HCA 9;(1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)I am also concerned about the gross deception perpetrated upon those pursuing an appeal and thecourt must immediately address this issue, and also rectify any written material issued by thecourt to show that a Deputy Registrars decision is not time limited for an appeal. Because it iscritical to a party’s appeal rights the court must immediately issue appropriate orders which alsostate’s in each case the judicial officer being a Magistrate or a Judicial Registrar.Why on earth I have to request this to be done is beyond me, as it always should have been done

by the court to ensure it is and be seen an “impartial administration of justice” and so to saydoesn’t seek to hoodwink any party to hi s/her rights of appeal.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)


END QUOTE 10-10-2015

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


16/17

Page 16



It is clear that for months I requested details/information and yet Counsel for Buloke ShireCouncil on 30 October 2015 refers to “yesterday ” (implying 29 October 2015. By this I view hecommitted CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT and by obtaining orders heotherwise I view would not as such have obtained he perverted the course of justice.While this court can condone this ongoing kind of conduct or it makes clear that it cannot allowlawyers to use the court as their playground as they desire and blatantly disregard the legalrequirements and yet seek the court to pursue legal requirements as their client alleges againstme, I failed to comply with.Clearly if the Fire prevention Noticed from onset was invalid and in violation of legislative

provisions then the entire litigation sage never should have been pursued as such. That is notonly a sheer waste of the courts time but also that of mine..QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

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

END QUOTE .As such the combined conduct referred to above in my view indicates a “conspiracy ” to inflictharm upon me where I view a competent lawyer would have avoid such litigation from onset.QUOTE In the Marriage of P.N. and J.S. Axtell 7 FLR 931

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

END QUOTE

Jacobsen v Rogers [1995] HCA 6; (1995) 182 CLR 572; (1995) 69 ALJR 131; (1995) 37 ALD 321; (1995) 76 ACrim R 400 (17 February 1995) MASON CJ, DEANE, DAWSON, TOOHEY AND GAUDRON JJQUOTE

13. It is, we think, important to recognize that the Crown, being relevantly the executive branch ofgovernment, carries out in modern times multifarious functions involving the use and occupation of many

premises and the possession of many things. It carries out those functions through servants and agentswho, notwithstanding that they act with the authority of the Crown, have no immunity from theordinary criminal law (15 See Bropho v. Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR at 21, 26; A. v. Hayden[1984] HCA 67 ; (1984) 156 CLR 532 at 580-582). The Crown itself may not be subjected to criminalliability , save in the most exceptional circumstances (16 See Cain v. Doyle [1946] HCA 38 ; (1946) 72 CLR409 at 424), but those who actually occupy Crown premises or hold Crown property are in a different

position. There may exist on Crown premises things which, whether the property of the Crown or not, willafford evidence as to the commission of an offence or which are intended to be used for the purpose ofcommitting an offence, whether the offence is one committed or to be committed by a servant or agent of theCrown or someone else.”

END QUOTE

Clearly the onus is upon the Court to prove it is without bias and will not tolerate neither impliedor otherwise sanction this kind of conduct.The mere fact that Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives have persistentlydisregarded a reasonable conduct may underline it seems to have ulterior motives to litigate andas such misuse and abuse the courts resources for this.Even if the matter were to proceed for a hearing De Novo , not that I concede the court has or caninvoke jurisdiction to do so) then I have no doubt the Court likely would find that the entirelitigation was uncalled for, a misuse of power by Buloke Shire Council, etc.

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/6.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Search%20Warrantshttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/6.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Search%20Warrantshttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/6.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Search%20Warrantshttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/67.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/67.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1946/38.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1946/38.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1946/38.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1946/38.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/67.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/6.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Search%20Warrantshttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/6.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Search%20Warrantshttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


17/17

Page 17


PLEASE NOTE : You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, See alsoHtt // h l hl k Bl t Htt // ib /I t Rik ti

Sufficient to say that I am not aware of any “Leave to serve out of time ” was applied for letalone granted, not any reasons given why the court should grant such as relief, as the Courtcannot nilly willy grant such but must have extra ordinary evidence presented to it to justify togrand such ‘Leave to serve our of time ” then I view the Court ought to find the appealunchallenged, and as such upheld. And in my view the Court ought to request the Registrar toalert the Legal Service Commissioner to investigate matters as to the conduct of the legalrepresentatives of Buloke Shire Council as their conduct I view unduly considerably inflatedlegal cost uncalled for, besides the incompetence, etc, referred to above.

Again to claim an 18 March 2013 court hearing when the alleged offence was claimed to be on17 November 2014 may underline how absurd the alleged brief is!It is a well-established rule that one can place in question the credibility of the witness (so it ’slegal representatives) and as such place in question whatever they pursue.And the summons in the purported brief indicates it was not even dated by the Registrar when hesigned it. Perhaps Buloke Shire Council may just have heaps of those summons pre-signed andso they just fill in the details afterwards pretending that the Registrar signed that day. For I knowhe could be dead and buried and his signature nevertheless continued to be used. After all in1988 I then discovered that the police used a warrant to arrest a 2 year old child only it was

purportedly signed by a JP who was already no longer a JP for 10 years as she was in a nursinghome suffering from Alzheimer’s .In my view the Court cannot ignore a Summons not being dated as to when it was issued.

screen print of part of the purported brief

Courts often blame self-represented litigants regarding problems in litigation, but reality is, as Idiscovered in about 4 decades at the Bar table, that lawyers generally get away with their rot because judges apply DOUBLE STANDARDS .It is long overdue courts hold lawyers also legally accountable!This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state allissues/details.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)


20151127-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J County Court...

Documents

Transcript of 20151127-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J County Court...