Page 1

County Court of Victoria

The Registrar
250 William Street, Melbourne
Cc:

14-10-2015

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

Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated
lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Re: 20151014-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of VictoriaRe Buloke Shire Council cc LSC-COM-2015-0873-MCV-F12748095-AP-15-2502

Sir/Madam,
I refer to a correspondence I received from ES&a Legal Practitioners Form 8A
appearance and its 13 October 2015 correspondence to The Registrar which includes the
following statement:
QUOTE
Further to the recent telephone conversation between the writer and the registry we confirm your advice that
the appeal had been listed at an improper venue and will need to be moved to the proper venue being the
County Court at Ballarat.
We await your further advice as to whether the first mention of this matter will be listed at Ballarat on the 30th
of October 2015 or whether the matter will be adjourned to Ballarat on a later date.
END QUOTE

I do not know why Alison J may makes the allegation that The Registrar claimed that Melbourne
venue is incorrect and Ballarat is the correct venue as quite clearly it doesnt make sense.
As you have not been aware of past details and as I am unaware of what Alison J May conveyed
to you I have no alternative but to outline very briefly some matters as to indicate that Melbourne
venue of the County Court of Victoria is the correct venue, see also my 14 October 2015
correspondence to ES&a Legal Practitioners.
Albeit I am now retired (Not in the head!) and while not a lawyer I spend about 4 decades at the
Bar tables including representing lawyers, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, Professional
Advocate, etc.
I own a property at Berriwillock, and for example at one time a police officer issued an
Infringement Notice that my trailers headlight were working but not my right rear indicator. The
matter was heard ex party at Swan Hill, and I appealed the matter successfully at the County
Court of Victoria at Bendigo. To no surprise even the trail judge wondered when on earth a
trailer had working headlights during the day in fact ever at all. As such the venue of an appeal
against a Magistrates Court of Victoria regarding Berriwillock was Bendigo. Hence, I do not
grasp how on earth Alison J May may claim that you claimed it had to be Ballarat. It appears to
me she may have given you her kind of version of matters that may have been misleading you to
the true matters in issue. For sure Ballarat cannot be in any event to be a c orrect venue. And I
maintain that in this case neither is Bendigo, as I shall set out below.
.
p1
14-10-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 2
Buloke Shire Council issues a Fiore Notice regarding my Berriwillock property and ordinary this
matter would then have been heard and determined in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Swan
Hill, was it not that I moved to Melbourne and reside in Melbourne. I am within the Magistrates
Court of Victoria Heidelberg venue.
In 2001 I refused to vote (no need to go into details) and objected to the jurisdiction of the
Magistrates Court of Victoria (at Heidelberg) but the Magistrates convicted me on 17 November
2005.. I appealed to the County Court of Victoria and on 19 July 2006 the County court of
Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction and all Attorney-Generals having been notified about the
constitutional issues involved, then upheld both appeal.
As such Heidelberg venue being 4 kilometres from my residence is ordinary the proper venue for
litigation against me.
Due to water damage (as I became aware of only on the day I filed the appeal) the Heidelberg
venue is closed and all matters are to be heard at the following locations (As listed by the police
station adjacent to the closed court house): Broadmeadows, City of Melbourne (William Street)
or Ringwood.
I opted to travel to the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Broadmeadows and lodged my appeal. As
I indicate in the 14 September 2015 correspondence to ES&a Legal Practitioners despite having
made numerous written request to the Magistrates Court of Victoria, St Arnaud venue, I was not
provided with any formal sealed orders/reason of judgment and/or transcript of the 20 August
2015 and 17 September 2015 hearing.
ES&a legal Practitioners were all along aware that before it instituted litigation in Collingwood
venue to be heard at St Arnaud that I had advised their client I OBJECTED TO THE
JURISDICTION of the Magistrates Court of Victoria also this as a magistrate cannot overrule a
decision of the County Court of Victoria of 19 July 2006 in which it set aside the orders of the
magistrate of 127 November 2005 including that it had jurisdiction.
The then Attorney General for the State of Victoria had made known in writing that the State of
Victoria would abide by the decision of the County Court of Victoria. As Buloke Shire Council,
the client of ES&a Legal Practitioners, is litigating in the capacity of s114 of the Commonwealth
of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) exercising delegated powers of the State of Victoria
then it is bound by the County Court of Victoria 19 July 2006 decision. Its conduct is in my view
CONTEMPT OF COURT as it seeks to undermine and erode the rights I obtained by both
successful appeals.

Alison J May in her 2 September 2015 correspondence does refer to my OBJECTION TO

JURISDICTION and also states she is not going to address all the issues I raised.
I will save quoting the numerous Authorities as they were already provided to Alison J May and
I view she ought to have appropriately informed you of the relevant details. I am still under
medical treatment due to falling ill in July 2015 and in fact on Thursday 15 October 2015 have
another doctors consultation.
I had provided the coordinator as well as Alison J May with an ADDRESS TO THE COURT
setting out I also objected to the St Arnaud venue as it was not a correct venue, and that sdue to
ill heath I was unable to travel the 244 kilometres to St Arnaud.
Alison J May in her 2 September 2015 correspondence stated that her client opposed to transfer
to Collingwood as it was not the correct venue as I didnt reside in the court precinct (my word).
I didnt seek a transfer from St Arnaud to Collingwood and as such it appears to me she misled
her client. I held (unaware the Heidelberg venue was closed) that Heidelberg venue was the
correct place. While Alison J May held that St Arnaud is closer to Viewbank (where I reside)
then Swan Hill, to me that is not for her to decide.
In my view Heidelberg venue (in this case the alternative being Broadmeadows, Melbourne City
or Ringwood venue) was the appropriate venue.
p2
14-10-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 3
On 17 September 2015 allegedly the magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud went ahead with
hearing and determining matters, albeit at no time invoked jurisdiction as I was not provided with
any order and reason of judgment or for that transcript that it had dismissed my OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION. Hence the court never did invoke jurisdiction.
When I loDged my appeal I had no sealed orders, no reason of judgment nor any transcript as to
what allegedly had transpired on 20 August 2015 and on 17 September 2015.
.
Legally, as any competent lawyer will be able to explain to you is that when there is an
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then that is the only issue before the court and it cannot
procveed with hearing any other matter unless, if at all, dismisses the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION. Therefore while I learned after the filing of the NOTICE OF APPEAL what
allegedly the court at St Arnaud venue appears to have ordered, it nevertheless are not orders.
The issue therefore is if I can appeal non-existing orders.
It is a matter of case law that one can appeal where a judicial officer fails to make orders which
the appellated court held ought to have been made. As such, the question of any appeal court will
be did or didnt the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud issue orders on 20 August 2015 as
to dismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. If it didnt then any subsequent orders on
17 September 2015 have no legal standing. If it did then it should have provided me with sealed
orders and a reason of judgment as to why it held the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was
to be dismissed.
Where no orders exist at all in regard of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then no orders
were issued and the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was never defeated and the Court
therefore never invoked jurisdiction.
While Alison J May in her 2 September 2015 correspondence alleged that the court on 20 August
2015 adjourned the matter to be heard and determined on 17 September 2015 and if I didnt
appear the matter would be heard in my absenteeism, the court simply had no judicial powers to
make such orders as it never had invoked jurisdiction, at least not to my knowledge.
The Court could only have at most directed that the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was to
be adjourned for hearing to be heard and determined on 17 September 2015 and if the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was to be defeated then the matter before the court would
be the Prosecutors application. I understand from Alison J may that the Court never provided for
such orders.
While on 17 September 2015 I was still ill, as I did refer to above, I did however provide an
ADDRESS TO THE COURT in which I did set out certain matters, including the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and my objection to the St Arnaud venue.

The ADDRESS TO THE COURT is a document that I created in 1985 as to submit in writing
the legal set out of the case, and for example in 1994 the Full Court commented that they wish
every lawyer would follow my example as it was all written down quoting Authorities and as
such the judges could withdraw and have no misconceptions as to what I stated. I may state this
was a successful appeal also. Likewise I have used the ADDRESS TO THE COURT in
litigation before the High Court of Australia.
As Alison J May in her 2 September 2015 correspondence (included in this correspondence)
acknowledged that she was aware of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then she was
obligated, even if the court somehow had been unaware of it, to draw the attention of the court to
this.
As Alison J May seemed to imply that had I resided in Collingwood then Collingwood venue
would have been the proper venue, then from this it implies that Heidelberg venue (so its
alternatives) would have been the appropriate venue.
.
p3
14-10-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 4

It must be understood that there was absolutely no issue of any extreme emergency to have the
matter, which her client pursues, to be heard at an urgent manner. Hence the lack of reasonable
approach by Alison J May to nevertheless persist in the incorrect venue of the Magistrates Court
of Victoria at St Arnaud must be noted.
.
Regardless if St Arnaud venue was or wasnt the proper venue it is a well-established rule that
any court/tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine an OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION. That I did acknowledge in my past writings. However, considering the ill
health and the distance the Court could have given directions that the parties could file and serve
p4
14-10-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 5
upon each others any submissions to argue the matter of OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
and the court would then make its decision.
It must be stated that the authorities make clear the party OBJECTING TO JURISDICTION
has no onus to disprove JURISDICTION as it is for the Prosecutor to prove jurisdiction.
It would be absurd for a court to demand a party to attend to a venue, such as that could be half
way across the world where an objection to the jurisdiction of the court is made. It would defeat
the objectors purpose to have to appear at a venue traveling long distances and only to succeed.
As I understood it Alison J may didnt make any submissions to the court as to why it should
conclude it had jurisdiction, as I was never served with any material in that regard, and as such
without any sealed orders and reason of judgment or transcript being provided to me I am
entitled to take the position the court never did hear and determine the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and hence never invoked any jurisdiction.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE

I mad an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, including constitutional based objections, and it

is not within the powers of a Magistrate, let alone a Registrar, to act in defiance of what is legally
required.
As the High Court of Australia held Registrars are not OFFICERS OF THE COURT and their
decisions must always be reviewable, and no time limit exist to do so.
.

Safe to say this entire litigation by Alison J May upon me has been a considerable burden and
harassment upon me. In my view any competent lawyer would have avoided this elaborate
conflict to eventuate. Instead of attending primary to my ill health I have been drawn to litigation
that I view never should have been instituted in the first place. But now is not the time to argue
those issues.
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
QUOTE
As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his
clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he
honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is
paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or
his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is
the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly
conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support
it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client
discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the
specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
END QUOTE
.

As such, I view Alison J May had an obligation to advice you about the proper background
circumstances and that Heidelberg (in this case the alternatives such as Broadmeadows venue)
was the appropriate venue, regardless if the court in the end couldnt invoke jurisdiction.
The conduct of Alison J May to commence litigation in filing it in the Collingwood venue to be
heard in St Arnaud clearly was to instigate uncalled problems.
In legal terms (and considering the quotation of Wakim above) I do not need to appeal at all (as
the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud never invoked jurisdiction) but simply disregard
p5
14-10-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 6
the purported orders, but as the High Court of Australia in Wakim makes clear it is better to
obtain a judgment in once favour.
Hence, I am entitled to institute the appeal to my own best interest, and I hold that the Melbourne
venue of the County Court of Victoria is the appropriate venue for this.

As I view it all the County court of Victoria at Melbourne requires to do is to determine if the
Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud did dismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
on 20 august 2015 and if so upon what legal basis. And then the issue of if the OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION having been dismissed is what then is to be considered if appropriate or
not. If however the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud never did dismiss the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then any purported orders of 17 September have no legal
justification and I view the matter should then be investigated by the Legal Service
Commissioner as to why Alison J May has so strenuously persisted to continue litigation where
she should be a competent legal practitioner to be aware what is legally required once a party
makes an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
I do not accept that the Registrar can alter the venue from 250 William Street Melbourne merely
because Alison J May may desire this. The rule of law must apply to all irrespective if they are
legal practitioners or not.
If Alison J may had been wise and competent enough she should have pursued that the St Arnaud
venue on 20 august 2015 first dealt with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and issued
appropriate directions how to hear and determine this OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, as
she carried the burden to prove jurisdiction. By her failing to do so she took in her hands to so
say her own demise and made in my view a fatal decision that it in fact terminated her clients
case. After all as the Supreme Court of Victoria made clear in 1988 when dismissing my
prosecution for want of jurisdiction, I had the onus to prove jurisdiction and not just that
legislation existed but it was in fact valid and provided the court with jurisdiction. As His
Honour made clear it was not relevant if the Supreme Court of Victoria in the past heard and
determined simular or like cases as I had the onus to prove legality where council for the State
government did no more but to OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the court. This ruling
cannot be overruled by a Magistrate, Registrar or even the County Court of Victoria. And
regretfully to state His Honour was right and I am entitled that other judicial officers and
Registrars follow this ruling.
QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,
Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
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

It is my view that the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne is the correct venue to hear
and determine matters.
A copy of this correspondence will be emails to Alison J may and posted via Australian Post 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!)

p6
14-10-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati