WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Senior Member Ms Preuss vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au 2-2-2010

5 Cc; * Mr & Mrs Colosimo, 72 Shuter Avenue, Greendale, Vic 3341 francesco.c@live.com.au
* Mr Lindsay M Vowels Phd FAPS MAPA aeiou@netspace.net.au
* Maddocks (for Moorabool Shire Council) (Ref MYM:KJM:5285015
Email Annie.Bird@maddocks.com.au
* Deputy Registrar Ashe Whitaker VCAT – Guardian List) vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au
10 * Mr Brendan Hoysted brendan.hoysted@justice.vic.gov.au
* Mr. Peter Sier, Peter.sier@statetrustees.com.au
* Moorabool Shire Council Councillors info@moorabool.vic.gov.au
Cr Michael Tudball mtudball@moorabool.vic.gov.au
Cr Allan Comrie Cr Pat Griffin Cr Pat Toohey (mayor) Cr Tom Sullivan
15 Cr Russell Hendry Cr Philip Flack and/or any other councillor
.
Ref; G54449/00 (including V2/2007 & P194/2007 and other related proceedings) Mr Francis James Colosimo Re
Ms Preuss – Re s62 representation - etc.
.
20 . Ms Preuss – Re s 62 rrepresentation - etc
Madam,
in my 19-1-2010 correspondence headed “Ms Preuss – ISSUE OF EVIDENCE- etc” I pointed
out that you could not rely upon the purported evidence of 22 October 2009 and the applicant Mr
Brendan Hoysted, Duty Officer of the Office of the Public Advocate had not filed and served any
25 evidence for Mr Francis James Colosimo to respond upon. Upon this there was this sudden about
2.25 formal notification on 25 January 2010 that the would be a directions hearing the (next court
day being) 27 January 2010 which effectively game me a mere 2½ hours (court hours) to notify
Mr Francis James Colosimo, etc. And, VCAT had not made known to me that it had not
contacted Mr Francis James Colosimo and neither requested me to do so and just to underline
30 this neither asked me for his telephone number, and as you made clear on 27 January 2010 you
held that I was representing Mr Francis James Colosimo and so it was for me to notify him.
QUOTE vcaata1998428
62Representation of parties
(1) In any proceeding a party—
35 (a) may appear personally; or
(b) may be represented by a professional advocate if—
(i) the party is a person referred to in subsection (2); or
(ii) another party to the proceeding is a professional advocate; or
(iii) another party to the proceeding who is permitted under this section to be represented
40 by a professional advocate is so represented; or
(iv) all the parties to the proceeding agree; or
(c) may be represented by any person (including a professional advocate) permitted or
specified by the Tribunal.
END QUOTE vcaata1998428
45 Well, let’s be clear that if you are going to t, so to say, try to split straws then lets do this. Within
section 62 of the VCAATA I am entitled to REPRESENT Mr Francis James Colosimo and as
p1 2-2-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 such where you have taken the position that I was representing him and for this it was sufficient
for VCAT to notify me then let’s apply this as such. As I indicated by way of my 19 January
2010 correspondence the purported evidence of 22 October 20009 cannot be used and as you
already made orders for a trial based upon this purported evidence but now discovered from my
5 19 January 2010 correspondence that you made an error as not to have this as formal evidence
you somehow seek to cover this up with ordering Mr Francis James Colosimo to now still
provide financial details under the coercion that if he fails to do so then you will order Mr
Brendan Hoysted, Duty Officer of the Office of the Public Advocate to obtain those details.
It seems to me that where you already made orders for a trial and now seek to shore up the legal
10 validity of those orders, by hindsight, now being aware from my 19 January 2010
correspondence you really have no evidence at all, then it appears to me that your purported 27
January orders are NULL AND VOID because you have already pre-emptied the decision by
making orders before having any formal details to base the orders upon. You may perhaps do
some research upon your own and may discover that there are legal principles to be followed and
15 when a judicial officer or pretended judicial officer pre-empties a order then the subsequent order
is without legal force. It appears to me so to say that you are in cahoot with Mr Brendan Hoysted
to at all cost tries to force ahead with this VEXATIOUS litigation and this must stop.
I do not know if you are fraternising with Mr Brendan Hoysted but considering how little he
states at a hearing a FAIR MINDED PERSON then may question why on earth you are pushing
20 for a full hearing (trial) when Mr Brendan Hoysted nearly didn’t utter a word?
The issue is obvious within what legal authority you can order Mr Brendan Hoysted, Duty
Officer of the office of the Public Guardian to involves himself in confidential information as
like a STAR CHAMBER COURT where he ordinary isn’t permitted doing so? At the very least
you have to show within which legal provision you can issue such orders as after all you were
25 coercing Mr Francis James Colosimo that you would make such orders were he not to agree to
provide the financial details!
.
Your (purported) orders of 27 January 2009 (more then a year ago) was that I be provided with
the files and as yet you have not managed to ensure they were provided and as such no trial could
30 in any event go ahead because besides the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, Mr Francis
James Colosimo cannot prepare his case without having the benefits of those orders.
When one files an NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS, as now is intended to be
filed, then obviously the core issue is that any issue is constitutionally related. I can assure you
that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST so to say I can give you a run for your money and you
35 wouldn’t know what hits you. Obviously for purpose of the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS the files, and so also all transcripts of previous hearings will be needed. Now, I am
well aware that, so to say, you do not seem to give a darn about following legal protocols such as
proper legal procedures and may just disregard further legalities but do keep in mind that in the
end you may just end up being disbarred when the extend of your blatant ignorance to legal
40 procedures is assessed. If you desire to play judicial officer then make sure you at least follow
proper legal procedures. When orders are made then each party is entitled to the benefits thereof.
Considering that so far I still have not even been provided with proper sealed orders of 27
January 2009 and the copies I received from Peter Sier shows errors which I requested on 23
March 2009 to be corrected under the slip rule, which so far has been refused to be done, then
45 obviously you have already made an utter mess of this all. More over Mr Francis James
Colosimo was entitled to the benefits of the orders, apart they were without jurisdiction in the
first place, as to the restrains you had ordered against State Trustees limited and yet this was
breached time and time again and you took no action whatsoever in regard of this while you are,
so to say, pestering Mr Francis James Colosimo about the administration issue that arose from a
50 non-existing (that is legally) of a CONTEMPT case to assess if Mr Francis James Colosimo was
competent to stand trial or not.
p2 2-2-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 On 27 January 2010 you unduly interfered with my right to explain to Mr Francis James
Colosimo the possible legal consequences of review versus reassessment and I consider this
appalling at the very least. You and you alone caused the review to drag on and on and should
have diligently executed the review, apart of that there was no jurisdiction in the first place, and
5 by the time the reassessment was due you were so to say in a pickle to be legally bound to hold a
reassessment but having a review still on foot. Then again you didn’t realise this until 27 January
2010! Now, if there is a RULE OF LAW then what is the purpose if you disregard it time and
times again?
.
10 I can assure you that no matter what orders you may pursue but the time you persist in a trial (full
hearing there will be a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS filed and you will not
be able to proceed in any event with any hearing. And obviously your sheer ignorance to deal
with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION on 27 January 2010 and there after will be, so to
say, a centre piece! In my view you are rude, arrogant and ill mannered and failing to display any
15 competence in how to appropriately conduct legal proceedings and a clear example is to try to
prevent me to state Mr Francis James Colosimo’s case and as such on the one hand you insist I
am representing Mr Francis James Colosimo when it comes to advise of a hearing but when it
doesn’t suit you then somehow I am not. I have no doubt that if there was a judicial inquiry into
your conduct then a judge may raise the question what on earth possessed you to go one like that!
20 VCAT is a tribunal and not a court that can invoke federal jurisdiction and as previous
correspondence have set out extensively where there is an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
then the onus is upon the Prosecutor to prove jurisdiction! Where it appeared to me that you
claimed that the Office of the Public Advocate no longer has the carriage of the application but
VCAT has then it seems, as pointed out before, there is a bias and so VCAT for this also cannot
25 deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION but has itself to pursue this before the
appropriate court. Which ever way any orders issued since the failure to prove jurisdiction, and
you cannot merely assume this, then are WITHOUT LEGAL FORCE. While on 27 January
2010 you placed on record that you were unaware of the content of my correspondence, it is then
rather strange that upon my 19 January 2010 correspondence about the lack of evidence and not
30 having any appropriate evidence for a trial you then somehow suddenly call for an urgent
Directions Hearing, and as I made clear I have responses from VCAT that they received the
correspondence.
This litigation harassment upon Mr Francis James Colosimo should stop. As I explained again on
27 January 2010 Mr Brendan Hoysted, Duty Officer of the Office of the Public Advocate had in
35 my view grossly misled Dr Vowels about Mr Francis James Colosimo having been in
CONTEMPT as the evidence is (that is lawful evidence and not fabrications) that Mr Francis
James Colosimo acted all along lawfully and in fact Moorabool Shire Council on 17 January
2007 itself acknowledged this despite 5 days later on 22 January 2007 instituting litigation while
concealing the 17 January 2007 notice. Now if Dr Vowels were to be an expert witness I doubt
40 that Dr Vowels would want to place her credibility on the line to give an assessment that was
obtained upon deceptive information/details. In my view Dr Vowels has an obligation to check if
Mr Francis James Colosimo was actually charged with CONTEMPT and if she were to discover
he never was then I view she has a duty to withdraw her assessment of Mr Francis James
Colosimo on the basis it was fraudulently obtained. After all it is a very serious matter, at least I
45 view it is, for a Dr to allow an assessment to remain on foot that was likely obtained fraudulently
by the Office of the Public Advocate. More over, I view, the Office of the Public Advocate also
has a duty to withdraw the assessments because they were fraudulently obtained.
One has to understand that Mr Francis James Colosimo was assessed by Dr Vowels as I
understand it upon the basis that he didn’t accept the legalities of the VCAT orders and was in
50 CONTEMPT and that he failed to remove the “second dwelling”, etc. Well, if Dr Vowels had
been advised that Moorabool Shire Council had formally in writing acknowledged that the
p3 2-2-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 “shed” (“outbuilding” and not a “second dwelling”) was lawfully build in accordance to legal
provisions and that there was no “second dwelling’ and Mr Francis James Colosimo was never
formal charged by Her Honour Harbison J with CONTEMPT neither could there have been any
contempt, as I did set out to Her Honour Harbison J on 16 March 2009 when Her Honour
5 Harbison J then ordered a PERMANENT STAY of the CONTEMPT proceedings, then really
do you think Dr vowels would have handed in an assessment as she did?
In my view Dr Vowels failure to have withdrawn her assessment may in fact end up being
investigated by the medical board where her assessment is used to continue the VEXATIOUS
litigation against Mr Francis James Colosimo.
10 Then again, Dr Vowels cannot complaint she was unaware of it as I made sure in past
correspondence she was aware of certain matters.
Mr Francis James Colosimo made clear that due to the protracted litigation he was unable to
work normal hours and by this was limited in his income and as such Dr Vowels may very well
so to say have to face the music that due to her failure to withdraw any assessment that was
15 obtained fraudulently then she may be if not directly then indirectly liable and/or responsible.
As I recall it since 27-1-2009 I was accepted as such and listed as such also on VCAT records!
.
Having become aware how you refused to follow the rule of law and allow for Mr Francis James
Colosimo constitutional and other legal rights I registered the following title;
20 .
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on VCAT as a STAR CHAMBER & KANGAROO COURT-No1
A Book on DVD about the injustice upon Mr Francis James Colosimo
ISBN 978-0-9803712-7-7
.
25 And made you aware of having done so. As such, you can never later argue you were unaware of
this.
.
See also previous correspondences, and again Mr Francis James Colosimo made clear he relied
upon the content of my correspondences!
30
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant matters!
.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

.

35 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

p4 2-2-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com