Page 1

Mr Peter Kidd CJ

1-11-2015

Email: feedback@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Cc: Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Mr Martin Pakula, Attorney-General martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated
lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Re: 20151101-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of VictoriaRe Buloke Shire Council -AP-15-2502 -Re COMPLAINT -Supplement 1

Sir,
on 30 October 2015 His Honour Mullaly went into details to tell me that with my appeal I
could face a greater penalty and legal cost then that the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St
Arnaud had ordered on 17 September 2015. To me this was an uncalled threat and inappropriate
as it implied that His Honour Mullaly held the 17 September 2015 orders to be valid and as such
in effect disregarded that my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was not existing, this despite
that my ADDRESS TO THE COURT in writing did set out matters.
In my view the matter before His Honour Mullaly was as stated in my ADDRESS TO THE
COURT the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and His Honour Mullaly had no judicial powers
to order any listing of the matter of the Summon charge without first having dealt with the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. An OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION must be heard on its
own, and cannot be heard in conjunction with a charge. If His Honour Mullaly fails to grasp such
basic legal procedure of litigation then I view he better find himself another job.
It must be clear that His Honour Mullaly failed to understand/comprehend the matters before him
and as such must be disqualified from further dealing with this matter. Obviously I am entitled to
have a hearing before a COMPETENT judicial officer who at the very least understands and
comprehend and can provide for proper legal procedures applicable to the matters before the
court! As His Honour Mullaly failed to order a jurisdictional hearing I view His Honour failed to
invoke in that regard jurisdiction. As my OBJECTION TO THE JURISDICTION was before His
Honour Mullaly as to opposing any Ballarat venue then the matter was to be heard and be dealt
with by His Honour Mullaly as to nevertheless transfer the matter to Ballarat undermines the
benefit of my objection before the court. As I understood there was no submission by Counsel
for Buloke Shire Council to overcome my objection nor did His Honour Mullaly provide for a
proper hearing of the OB JECTION TO JURISDICTION then His Honour Mullaly couldnt have
disposed of my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION including the transfer to Ballarat. If a party is
to be competent to present his/her case then surely a judicial officer must be competent to
understand and provide for a FAIR and PROPER hearing and provide for NATURAL
JUSTICE and DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
His Honour Mullaly referred to it having been a magistrate who made the orders on 17
September 2015 whereas the documentation provided to me refers to a Judicial Registrar, then
clearly His Honour had before him details that were unbeknown to me. The Court never should
consider details unbeknown to a party appearing before it.
p1
1-11-2015
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
This underlines what I stated in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT that I had not been provided
with formal orders and reason of judgement of the 20 August 2015 and 17 September 2015
hearings.
QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT 30 October 2015
I had to file the appeal without, despite my numerous written request having any sealed orders, treason of
judgment or transcript. By this when I filed the appeal the Registrar at Broadmeadows first claimed the
orders were issued by a Judicial Registrar but then changed it that the Judicial Registrar was made a
magistrate. To me it is of concern that a Judicial Registrar would become a judge when failing to ensure
basic legal requirements. This matter I understand is a criminal prosecution where the prosecutor has to
prove beyond reasonable doubt its case. Having paid $55.00 to obtain a copy of the court recording on 17
September 2015 it appears to be the Judicial Registrar at no time had anyone entering the witness box. The
female legal practitioner (for Buloke Shire Council) seemed to make statements from the bar table without
entering the witness box to confirm it as evidence, and upon this the Judicial registrar

purportedly issued his orders.

END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT 30 October 2015

In my view the proper legal procedures that His Honour Mullaly was to have followed was:

What was the matter before the Court?

Why was the Appellant caused to file an appeal without being provided sealed orders and
reason of judgment of the 20 August 2015 and 17 September 2015 hearings before the
Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud?
What were the identities and positions of the judicial officer in each case on 20 August
2015 and on 17 September 2015?
What were the precise orders of 20 August 2015 and why was the matter heard then and
if not why was it adjourned?
Was the matter on 20 August 2015 adjourned because of the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and if so why was no order issued to indicate this?
Did the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud invoke jurisdiction and so where are
the orders and reason of judgment to show the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was
dismissed.
If the Magistrates Court of Victoria didnt dismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
then on what legal basis did the court nevertheless issue the 17 September 2015 orders?

Here we have what is ordinary held a highly paid barrister appearing before the Court and yet as
I view it basically a first grade child of a primary school could have stated what he stated, albeit
perhaps without deception.
Surely the (preliminary) brief he was provided for ought to have set out matters, and this which
was refused to be provided to me despite my 27 October 29015 for the same?
In my view His Honour Mullaly to ascertain the issue of the Appeal ought to have demanded
proper clarifications from Counsel appearing for Buloke Shire Council. Not that so to say I have
to engage in some detective work to try to establish what really eventuated with an ongoing
refusal by the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud to provide me with the repeatedly in
writing request to provide me with sealed orders and reasons of judgment.
As I had indicated I had to file the appeal without having any formal sealed orders and reasons of
judgment His Honour ought to have addressed if I therefore may desire to amend my appeal once
I was to be provided with the relevant sealed orders and reasons of judgments. However His
Honour Mullaly did no such thing, but seemed to argue that there was no need for any
evidence and blatantly disregarded the fact I was denied any proper opportunity to file an
appeal having had to file an appeal without any sealed orders and reason of judgment having
been provided.
.

p2
1-11-2015
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
His Honour Mullaly appeared to take the matters before him as an ordinary appeal usually
against magistrates orders De Novo, rather than this was a special case where the real appeal was
against the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud failing to issue orders regarding the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and hence by this failing to invoke any jurisdiction and by
this the 17 September 2015 purported orders were not relevant as they were ab initio without
legal forced.

In my view His Honour Mullaly had no jurisdiction or order any De Novo hearing of the
summon charge where the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud never invoked jurisdiction.
The cardinal issue of the appeal was the jurisdictional issue!
The ADDRESS OF THE COURT did refer to the Fire Prevention Notice being in violation of
the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 and as such the court not being able to invoke jurisdiction
upon this. This was a correct submission as to the issue of jurisdiction however nothing in the
submissions referred to that the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud failed to consider
certain issues as to if the Infringement Notice was justified upon inspection, etc, this is because if
the Fire Prevention Notice violates the legislative provisions of Country Fire Authority Act 1958
then the Infringement Notice based upon the Fire Prevention Notice has no legal basis.
Indeed the ADDRESS TO THE COURT stated:
QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT 30 October 2015

Another issue is that as I made known comprehensively to Buloke Shire Council and its
legal representatives the FIRE PROTECTION NOTICE was issued in violation of the
Country Fire Authority Act 1958 and as such the court cannot base any litigation to be
heard where the notice is in violation of the legal requirements.
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998)

A purported exercise of a power when a condition has not been satisfied is not
a valid exercise of the power.
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998)
Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing the statutory provision in that
case: "substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible. Either there
was compliance or there was not."
The reasoning of Fullagar J in Clayton v. Heffron (supra) in relation to the provisions of s 5B of the
Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) is material in this context:
"A manner and form are prescribed by section 5B, and that manner and form must be observed if a valid
law is to be produced. Any prescription of manner and form may be repealed or amended, but, while it
stands, the process prescribed by it must be followed. That was decided Trethowan's case and I think
that the whole of what is prescribed by section 5B relates to manner and form. It does not seem to me to be
possible to say that some of the requirements of the section are matters of manner and form while others are
not. The section describes one entire process - a series of steps, one following on another - and only the
completion of the entire process can produce a valid law." (Supra at 262)
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT 30 October 2015

This clearly went to the issue of OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and didnt seek to argue any
evidence, albeit there wasnt any that was before the court. Therefore His Honour Mullaly had to
establish if the Fire Prevention Notice that was challenged as to its legal validity in fact was valid
in law or not as if not then the Court had no jurisdiction to order any hearing of the charge as the
charge was without legal basis.
.

QUOTE 20150917-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka also Re
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

I below quote part of the 2 September 2015 correspondence received from ES&a Lawyers
acting allegedly for Buloke Shire Council, I have however at the end of this ADDRESS TO
THE COURT included a s canned copy of the correspondence in full.
p3
1-11-2015
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
QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence)
We act on behalf of the Buloke shire Council in the above prosecution.
The above matter was listed for before the Magistrates Court at St Arnaud on 20 August 2015 and we
acknowledge your numerous items of correspondence. We do not propose to respond to a majority of the
matters raised therein.
The purpose of this letter is to confirm that as you did not appear the matter has been adjourned for hearing at
the St Arnaud Magistrates Court on 17 September 2015 at 8.30am In the event you do not appear on that
date the matter will proceed in your absence.
We confirm that the St Arnaud Magistrates Court is the appropriate venue for this matter as the offence took
place in Berriwillock. The only Court which is closer to the location of the offence is the Magistrates Court
ar Swan Hill which is a greater distance from your residence. Council will not consent to any change of
venue and we note that the Collingwood Magistrates Court is not the appropriate venue for your matter in
any event as it deals with matters only where the offence has taken place within the strict boundary of a small
proportion of the City of Yarra or where the accused resides within that same boundary.
We note your purported objection to jurisdiction contained in your letter dated 17 August 2015 and strongly
suggest that you take legal advice with respect to same.
END QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence)

It is therefore absolutely clear that ES&a lawyers were fully aware about my OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION. The fact they desired not to respond to them also must be taken into
account as a failure to prove jurisdiction, this as the court cannot assume jurisdiction but the
prosecutor had to prove jurisdiction by evidence. A refusal to do so is no legal excuse and
therefore the Court on 20 August 2015 had an uncontested OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION.
END QUOTE 20150917-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka also
Re OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

As I understand it the legal representatives of Buloke Shire Council seemed to make the court
aware on 17 September 2015 that I had objected, but the Court appeared to disregard this.
In my view the legal representatives of Buloke Shire Council had to make clear to the court that
as there was an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the Court couldnt proceed with the
matter of the charge but first had to deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
The Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud failure to follow proper legal procedures cannot
somehow wipe out the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as if it never existed.
In real terms the 17 September 2015 hearing cannot be deemed to have been Ex Parte as the
court never invoked jurisdiction! ?The appeasl lies against the failure of the Court to issue orders
regarding the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and as there was no evidence then contrary to
the assertion by His Honour Mullaly that no evidenbce is required for an EX PARTE hearing
the court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine any charge and without any evidence as
His Honour Mullaly seemed to accept that there wasnt any the proper conduct of the
magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud should have been to dismiss the charge contained in
the summons for want of jurisdiction, because no evidence was provided by the legal
representatives to prove that the magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud could invoke
jurisdiction. My 30-1015 ADDRESS TO THE COURT listed numerous Authorities in that
regard. If His Honour Mullaly cannot grasp legal authorities then I view he is beyond help and
shouldnt adjudicate on matters in a court of law.
I also noticed (30-10-2015) that Counsel for Buloke Shire Council seemed to read the material I
had provided to his instructing solicitors when he was seated at the Bar table. I am well aware
that often lawyers appear at the bar table and then without even having read the case they are to
present. In fact one Queens Counsellor made it known to the Full Court that he had expected me
p4
1-11-2015
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
to take about an hour to set out my appeal and wasnt expected to immediately having to
respond. The Full Court then asked the Queens Counsellor if he was being paid to appear and
that he had no choice but to present his clients case. It can be stated he lost the case big time.
It is of concern to me as a so called rate payer that Buloke Shire Council is spending huge sums
of monies of legal representatives who have next to no understanding/competence as to the real
legal issues involved and go by this on a so to say legal merry go around, causing escalating legal
cost to Buloke Shire Council and in which my rates are also used to fund against me this legal
vexatious nonsense.
Yet somehow this kind of litigation can be rewarded with the lawyers involved being able to
charge huge amount of monies, and I as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Professional Advocate
who appears to be far more superior in the knowledge and understanding of relevant legal issues
may not be able to get any cost against Buloke Shire Council to me is utter and sheer nonsense.
QUOTE 20150917-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka also Re
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
Because of Councillor Graeme Milne sending me an email which appears he has not a clue about what is
going on about the litigation it appears to me that therefore this is not a matter discussed amongst councillors.
Neither then could Graeme Milne as councillor be regarded to have given informed consent for ES&a
Lawyers to act on behalf of Buloke Shire Council.
END QUOTE 20150917-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka also
Re OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

Hence, I challenged the legal standing of the lawyers claiming to represent Buloke Shire
Council.
In the Colosimo case I represented Mr Colosimo and then objected to certain lawyers being
present at the hearing at the bar table on the basis that I held they had no legal standing. In the
end the judicial officer ordered them to leave the court room. If therefore the councillors of
Buloke Shire Council may not understand what the lawyers claiming to represent Buloke Shire
Council are litigating about then surely this questions their authority to represent Buloke Shire
Council.
And while His Honour Mullaly didnt want to read the ADDRESS TO THE COURT because of
not wanting to waste court time, reality is His Honour was in my view the very culprit to waste
not only the courts time but also my time. If I had provided a more extensive ADDRESS TO
THE COURT then so to say His Honour Mullaly would have screamed blue murder, and so to
some extend I limited it, but as this issue of the lawyers not having any legal standing was
submitted by me in my ADDRESS TO THE COURT
QUOTE 20150917-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka also Re
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
In the Colosimo case the very first time I appeared for Mr Colosimo I submitted that the legal representative
of the shire Council had no legal standing and insisted they be ordered to leave the court room. While counsel
and instructing solicitors sought to argue the contrary but in the end they were ordered to leave, and including
my objection for them to sit in the public gallery.
With the Magistrates Court of Victoria (exercising federal jurisdiction) being required to be an open court
then no objection can be made to Buloke Shire Council having any representatives in the public gallery,
however the issue that its legal representatives have no standing in law to represent them is still a valid
submission, and so submitted hereby, this also for the above set out such as in regard of councilor Graeme
Milne and other matters.
END QUOTE 20150917-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-in the matter Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka also
Re OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

Yet, the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud simply disregarded this submission also. And
it seems that His Honour Mullaly rather to ensure I am finally provided with a proper hearing in
Melbourne as I am entitled upon in view that the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
never invoked jurisdiction and so no issue of any appeal being required in Ballarat because in
p5
1-11-2015
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
law there are no orders, then the appropriate venue is and remains to be the County Court of
Victoria at Melbourne.
.

As I indicated on 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth and

State/Territory Attorney-Generals having filed and served a S78b NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS in the County Court of Victoria, when representing myself
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Professional Advocate, this was an issue I challenged the
jurisdiction of all courts and by this the convictions of FAILING TO VOTE.
It may be extra ordinary that I succeeded where others with lots of members of the legal
profession failed, but that is because so to say I do my homework.
If anything judges should applaud to have a person appearing before the court who pursues the
true meaning and application of the constitution and any validly enacted legislation.
Hansard 24-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-The High Court cannot act unless complaint is made, but the Parliament can act
whenever it likes.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Only on motion.
END QUOTE

Likewise the magistrates Court of Victoria and so the County Court of Victoria can only act if
there is a complaint made. As I challenge the validity of the Fire Prevention Notice that it
violates the legal requirements of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 and other jurisdictional
issues then no court can entertain the summons charge unless it first determines if it can invoke
jurisdiction. Only if it is able to invoke jurisdiction can it attend to dealing with a complaint.
Hence, it doesnt matter if the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer were to have millions of
photographs and other witnesses because in the end if the FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE is
invalid then no amount of evidence (not that it is conceded any existed) will be irrelevant.
It is the same if a police officer without warrant and due cause unauthorised enters a property and
then locate drugs in the process, the court would have to throw out any such so called evidence
as it is inadmissible where it was obtained without warrant and without due cause. To allow
otherwise could make vulnerable people the subject of planted drugs, etc.
.
And while His Honour Mullaly referred to issue of cost, there can be no cost regarding litigation
that is going on and on where the court never invoked jurisdiction. The only issue before the
court was and remains to be is the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and if a judge like His
Honour Mullaly desires to waste court time and cause the increase of legal cost to Buloke Shire
Council then that is not my problem as long as it is not causing me any cost, directly and/or
indirectly. Because I objected to the jurisdiction of the courts and this objection has not been
disposed of any other alleged cost is that for the lawyers to sort out between them and their
(purported) client.
That is also why I view it was darn silly at the very least (omitting a more stronger statement)
for His Honour Mullaly to make a statement about cost, because there is no hearing De Novo
where the first base of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION has still not been addressed. It
might be a scare tactic used against ordinary self-represented litigants but it will not work on me.
In fact I view it is unethical conduct in the circumstances.
How on earth can the court increase a penalty on appeal where the original orders are issued
without jurisdiction and as such there is no De Novo hearing. It is all about OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION!
Technically the alleged ex party hearing on 17 September 2015 never existed as the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was never disposed of, and yet His Honour Mullaly didnt
seem to understand/comprehend this. This to me poses the question if His Honour Mullaly has
p6
1-11-2015
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 7
this as a modus operandi as to do so in all cases regarding the same issued where a legal
challenge is made against the validity of a notice/jurisdiction.

In my view His Honour Mullaly rather would have done better to lecture Counsel for Buloke
Shire Council that he ought to make his client aware that none of the cost that his client incurred
can be claimed because it doesnt relate to the hearing of the matter of the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION at all.
Buloke Shire Council legal representatives can therefore litigate in to eternity, and create a huge
legal bill, but in the end it all will be to no avail, as the courts cannot circumvent the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and rather it is the courts own incompetence that is wasting
courts time and unduly increase legal cost to either or both parties.
I didnt notice Counsel for Buloke Shire Council to seek certification for appearance for cost
and neither was any stated by His Honour Mullaly. Neither do I view that the actual presentation
by Counsel warranted any such certification. If anything I view my presentation was far more
professional. While Buloke Shire Council may nevertheless seek to claim cost for counsel to
appear I view the County Court of Victoria should put in place a system to prevent what I
consider such elaborate rip off.
In my view the lawyer seeking and obtaining orders for cost on 17 September 2015 must be dealt
with for fraudulently obtaining the order and by this perverting the course of justice because
the lawyer was well aware that the magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud had never invoked
jurisdiction as it had not disposed of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. Yet, somehow His
Honour Mullaly never seemed to understand this either!
This I view is why the judiciary is getting such a bad reputation because judges rather than
appropriately dealing with matters are ignoring proper legal procedures and do whatever they
like, being it for mateship with lawyers or otherwise, and by this undermine the general
community trust in the legal profession and particularly in the judicial system.
If concern is the conduct of Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives to so to say force
ahead with the summons charge despite that I view competent lawyers would have been aware
that the case is doomed as the FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE was invalid and as such cannot
be used to base litigation upon. This as the legislation provides for
QUOTE

41Fire prevention notices

(1) In the country area of Victoria, the fire prevention officer of a municipal council
may serve a fire prevention notice on the owner or occupier of land in the
municipal district of that council (other than a public authority) in respect of
anything
(a) on that land, other than a building or in a building;
END QUOTE

Whereas the Fire Prevention Notice states:

QUOTE 20151020-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Wayne Wall -Municipal Fire Prevention Officer & Country Fire Authority
Work to Be Completed
Cut all grass, noxious weeds and undergrowth on the whole of the block to a height of not more than 100mm,
remove all combustible material from land including branches and prunings, vegetation from the fenceline
by brush cutter.
Additional Instructions:
END QUOTE 20151020-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Wayne Wall -Municipal Fire Prevention Officer & Country Fire Authority
p7
1-11-2015
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 8

No one reasonably can comply with such a notice as buildings and its content ordinary contain
combustible materials and hence the Fire Prevention Notice in that regard is in violation with
the provisions of the Act. Effectively no matter what a property owner may do compliance to
remove all combustible material would include having to remove items such as wooden fence
post, sheds, residential building, etc.
Any person who is to assess for himself/herself what may or may not be applicable is faced with
clear directions that all combustible material is to be removed, as such leaves no personal
assessment. Any Fire prevention Notice, if there was any legal justification in the first place for it
to be issued should have included the wording other than a building or in a building;.
In my view, where I have repeatedly set out to both Buloke Shire Council and its legal
representatives that the Fire Prevention Notice is invalid because of how it is wording and so
in conflict with legislative provisions nevertheless persisted on 17 September 2015 with
obtaining purported court orders against me.
While His Honour Mullaly may hold that the court was permitted to issue orders ex parte without
evidence (which I do not agree with), it is clear that in such process where the Court merely
rubber stamp a charge in violation to the legislative provision anyone who resides on a property
can be convicted merely for having a building on the land to reside in. Even if a landowner was
to have the entire property concreted but has a single wooden fence post on the property then
technically he would still be in violation of the remove all combustible material direction. This
as the legislation doesnt exclude combustible fence posts. My neighbour who is the local captain
of the Country Fire Authority and actually was the one who erected the wooden fence post as
well as a wooden fence about 30 years ago (without my prior knowledge) surely should be held
to be competent enough to know if it is a fire danger or not. Yet, by the Fire Prevention Notice
those timber structures must be removed also.
In my view the magistrate/Judicial Registrar may have found it utter and sheer nonsense to
expect property owners to remove all wooden fencing, building and its content as to comply with
a Fire Prevention Notice that demands remove all combustible materials.
In my view His Honour Mullaly acted irresponsible to condone a court without hearing any
evidence to deal with criminal matters and issue orders. In my view the onus was upon Buloke
Shire Council and its legal representatives to alert the court about the violation of the Fire
Prevention Notice with the legislation. Had His Honour instead of arguing about not wasting
time shown courtesy and allowed me my right to present my case as I had the carriage of the
matter as the Appellant then I could have explained this to His Honour Mullaly.
The truth is that at least I view, Buloke Shire Council and its legal presentative had an obligation
to alert the court to the conflict of the Fire Prevention Notice versus the legislation and that the
Fire Prevention Notice was in direct conflict with legislative provisions.
In my view the conduct of Buloke Shire Council to persist in obtaining orders (in the
circumstances) on 17 September 2015 at the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud as well
as then pursuing the case to proceed before the County Court of Victoria and Counsel for Buloke
Shire Council remaining silent about this conflict which goes directly to the issue of
jurisdiction I view may be deemed to constitute that they were perverting the course of
justice.
http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2015/HCA/38

The Queen v Beckett, [2015] HCA 38, 23 October 2015, S94/2015

QUOTE

The concept that a person may pervert a course of justice by "preventing it" is eloquent of a
legislative intention that liability extend to acts done with the proscribed intention in
relation to contemplated proceedings.
END QUOTE
p8
1-11-2015
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 9
The Queen v Beckett, [2015] HCA 38, 23 October 2015, S94/2015
QUOTE
By contrast Sully J agreed with Professor Gillies' analysis: the scope of s 319 is broader than the common law
offence and any act that is intended to pervert the course of justice suffices for liability even if the act does
not, on an objective view, possess the tendency to do so40.
END QUOTE
The Queen v Beckett, [2015] HCA 38, 23 October 2015, S94/2015
QUOTE
Whether, as the appellant submits, this analysis explains the drafting of s 319, it is clear that, on the trial of a
count charging an attempt to pervert the course of justice under the common law or under those statutory
provisions which mirror the common law, the prosecution must prove the objective tendency of the accused's
conduct to pervert the course of justice44.
44 It is also clear that whether the conduct is successful in this respect is irrelevant to criminal liability45. An
act or omission may tend towards perverting the course of justice notwithstanding that, in the event, it would
not have achieved that result. Fabricating evidence with a view to averting a contemplated prosecution, as
alleged here, may possess the requisite objective tendency even though any prosecution for the predicate
offence is doomed to fail for reasons that are unconnected with the accused's act.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
On the trial of a count charging a s 319 offence it suffices for the judge to instruct the jury in the terms of the
section: the prosecution must prove that the accused did the act, or made the omission, and that, at the time of
so doing, it was
the accused's intention in any way to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.
END QUOTE

In my view where Buloke Shire Council engaged a Counsel to represent it before His Honour
Mullaly then Counsel had an obligation to clarify such matters like the conflict of the Fire
Prevention Notice versus the limitations set by s41 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958, this
as to ensure His Honour Mullaly was aware of the conflict I had raised to dispute in that regard
also jurisdiction.
In my view had Counsel appearing for Buloke Shire Council submitted to His Honour Mullaly
that there was a likelihood that the Court may not be able to invoke jurisdiction as I as objector
has disputed the conflict of the terms stated in the Fire protection Notice versus what provided
for in the legislation then possibly His Honour Mullaly instead of having attacked me to
challenge the legislation His Honour Mullaly may have realised that in that regard there was a
serious issue to attend to and it would be absurd to cause me to travel to Ballarat for a hearing
which may never eventuate as it lacked legal justification.
The very purpose of making an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is to prevent having to be
suffering an injustice to prepare for a case, etc, that may not be legally justified to proceed.
If as I suspect Counsel appearing for Buloke Shire Council had not been able to read up on the
case at the bar table, then I view this cannot excuse his failure to alert His Honour Mullaly to the
issue because it was the choice by Counsel himself not to consider the matter earlier. Counsel
appeared before His Honour Mullaly and can be expected to be aware of what the case was
about. The fact that Counsel for Buloke Shire Council claimed there were photos and that the
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer made a visit 14 days prior to the issue of the fire prevention
Notice being issued does mean that if his (preliminary) brief doesnt indicate this he simply made
it up while at the bar table. If the photos claimed to exist turn out not to exist then in that regard
I view this was a conduct to deliberately deceive His Honour Mullaly. As I view with his claim
that my request for the (preliminary) brief was only made yesterday (meaning 29 October 2015
as if there had been insufficient time to provide me with it, whereas if Counsel had stated that the
request was made on Tuesday 27 October 23015 then His Honour Mullaly may have questioned
him why in those days the requested (preliminary) Brief had not been provided prior to the
hearing. It is in my view that the general conduct of Buloke Shire Council and its legal
p9
1-11-2015
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 10
representatives was to conceal relevant details, to pervert the course of justice and the
conduct of His Honour Mullaly to somehow endorse that in criminal procedures a court
can issue ex parte orders without any evidence (regardless of an outstanding OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION), in my view was totally irresponsible and undermines the ability of
the general public to have a reliance in a proper and impartial administration of justice.

The irony is I am with my self-professed crummy English (Dutch being my native language,
and I have had no formal education in the English language since arriving in the commonwealth
of Australia) and without formal education in legal studies able to understand and comprehend
better relevant constitutional and other legal issues then those lawyers who are involved in the
case. The same was really in the Colosimo case where I took over from Mr Colosimos barrister,
and turned the case around to successfully appeal matters, while more than 20 lawyers involved
never had understood that you must consider the legal basis upon which to litigate. None of them
had done so, and for years the case was litigated upon non-existing legalities. And that involved
more than 20 lawyers, including judges!
As the Full Court made clear way back in 1994 that it would like to see that all lawyers followed
my example of providing in writing their written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE
COURT. This indeed is better as then an unrepresented litigant can read it beforehand. Now
lawyers turn up and are reading at the bar table what the case are about, and I view also doing a
disservice to their clients. Not knowing what really the case is about and not grasping the legal
issues they are by this rather wasting the courts time to make up statements that are
false/misleading/fraudulent, etc and pervert the course of justice. It should be noted that the
ADDRESS TO THE COURT is not a document seeking to argue the evidence as such, but is
to present to the court SUBMISSIONS of legal arguments. It also allows unrepresented litigants
to have assistance of lawyers and others to draft the ADDRESS TO THE COURT without the
unrepresented litigant having to incur huge legal cost for legal representation at a court room. In
my view the court should reorganise itself to become more litigation friendly so that those
appearing are not dissolution with the lack of proper adjudication, and not having a judge
wasting their time on absurd arguments, instead of addressing the real legal issues.
I may add and draw your attention to:
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/press/news/2015/october/annual-judges-service-marks-start-of-legal-year

QUOTE
Annual Judges Service marks start of legal year 01 Oct 2015
The annual Judges Service took place at Westminster Abbey on Thursday 1st October 2015.

In his Bidding, the Dean of Westminster, the Very Reverend Dr John Hall, said: 'At the beginning of the legal year, we gather in
the presence of almighty God, who is the judge of all and who knows the secrets of our hearts, to renew our commitment to the
service of the Crown and of all people in the cause of justice.
'We acknowledge our high calling to reflect the justice and mercy of God. We seek God's strength and guidance that we might
remain true to the highest legal traditions, subtle as we apply ourselves to the causes before us, and wise as we influence the
development of the law.
'We pray for the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, The Right Honourable Michael Gove MP, for The Right
Honourable The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and for all who make and administer the
law, both in the United Kingdom and in the European Union and in the other legal jurisdictions represented here today.
'We ask God to sustain us in our duties, to grant us humility and sound judgement, to forgive our errors, and to inspire us in our
service. Here on earth may we serve more faithfully that heavenly justice in which alone we can in the end trust.'
Lessons were read by The Lord Chancellor (verses from Deuteronomy 10 and 17) and the Lord Chief Justice of England and
Wales (St Luke 10:25-27).
The preacher was the Reverend Robin Griffith-Jones, Master of the Temple.

p10
1-11-2015
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 11
END QUOTE

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) (within which the States are
created in s106 subject to this constitution) is a British Act and as such considering the
decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and &
Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v.
Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE,
SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168
It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is
complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) is. While the High Court of Australia pretended in Sue v Hill that the
commonwealth of Australia is an independent country reality is that the High court of Australia
had no such judicial powers.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well.
END QUOTE
.

Counsel for Buloke Shire Council didnt appear to consider it appropriate to introduce himself to
me and perhaps the court should make it mandatory that a legal practitioner hands over a
business card to the opponent party as to the identity of the legal practitioner, but let it be clear
p11
1-11-2015
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 12
that when it comes to constitutional provisions and legal principles so to say I leave them for
dead. If the lack of courtesy is an indication of their level of intelligence then little wonder
litigation is drawn out uncalled for. Few lawyers (including judges) may understand that
European Union legal provisions albeit not overriding out constitution and so validly enacted
legislation within the boundaries of our constitution nevertheless can be applied complimentary
to our legal provisions. Regretfully, what I view is needed is a re-education of lawyers (including
judges) so that they get a better understanding about what really is legally applicable within
relevant jurisdictions, this as too often members of the legal profession lack the intelligence to be
aware of this and unrepresented litigants who do not have a proper comprehension of legal
procedures then become victims of the legal processes.
.
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE

Hence legislation must be in so to say laymans terms, as far too often people pay fast amounts
of hard earning monies to lawyers for legal advice only to find that they lose their cases.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE
Director of Public Prosecutions v Serratore Nos. Ca 40642/95 and Crd 72680/95 Criminal Law and Procedure Statutes - Human Rights - Telecommunications - Law Reform [1995] NSWSC 154 (14 November 1995)
QUOTE
"It is well established that the Court should not impute to the legislature an intention to interfere with
fundamental rights, freedoms or immunities; such an intention must be clearly manifested by clear and
unmistakable language: Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427 at 436-437. ... The close
link between the fundamental right to be secure against trespass and the right to privacy is illustrated by the
observations by Lord Scarman in Morris v Beardmore (1981) AC 446 ... Parliament itself has ...
recognised, in the context of telecommunications, the fundamental importance of protecting individual
privacy, although also recognising that the value of privacy can be over-ridden where it conflicts with
other significant community values, provided that detailed safeguards are observed. The recognition
and protection of privacy in the Intercept Act, in my view, justifies a restrictive approach to the
construction of the statutory exceptions to the prohibitions on interception. ... where there is a genuine
doubt as to whether the statutory language authorises the use of intercept information for a particular
purpose, that doubt should be resolved in favour of a narrow, rather than a broad construction of the
statutory authorisation."
END QUOTE

It must be clear that the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 must be considered in a narrow
manner, and as such it must be rejected that His Honour Mullaly seems to endorse criminal
proceedings to be dealt with ex parte without any evidence to enforce an invalid Fire Prevention
Notice as if valid.
How absurd that we have judges who became members of the bar swearing allegiance to the
British Crown and then somehow became judges under a purported Queen of Australia. Some
p12
1-11-2015
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 13
never change their oath of allegiance. Most if any judge really understands that the
Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to define/declare citizenship as it is a
political status and not a nationality. And I appear before judges who basically lack any proper
understanding of the constitution, and it is only within the constitution any judge can be a judge
and bound by the legal principles embedded in the constitution! And the Framers of the
Constitution never intended rather to the contrary they held that both parties shall be heard. It is
then not a surprise to me that I have constantly lawyers (including judges) to deal with who
basically lack any proper understanding/comprehension of what the constitution stands for, and
so any laws enacted if they are or arent within constitutional provisions.

A major problem is that judges generally have the view that they are above others, and know the
law, but the truth is that often they lack to be open minded and rely upon misinformed/illinformed doctrines that constitutionally do not apply. I am well aware by appearing for about 4
decades at the bar table that there are judges who resent my forthright openness whereas other
judges applaud me for doing so. When I represented Queen Counsellor Mr H. J. Johnson and
during the proceedings requested leave to withdraw from His Honour Smithers J due that I was
then unable to obtain any further instructions, His Honour Smithers J actually expressed that His
Honour preferred me to continue, but understood that in the circumstances I was unable to do so,
where I couldnt obtain further instructions. I did however represent Mr H. J. Johnson QC
subsequently on 3 further occasions. Judges who so to say are fair dinkum are well aware that I
pursue justice, as my registered trademark stands for! If just judges realised that they are there to
serve the general community and not their own ego, etc, we may just get that the general
community may regain the confidence in an impartial administration of justice.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-I think that the reason of the proposal is obvious. So long as each state has to do only
with its own citizens it may make what laws it thinks fit, but we are creating now a new and a larger
citizenship. We are giving new rights of citizenship to the whole of the citizens of the Commonwealth, and
we should take care that no man is deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law.
END QUOTE

I for one cannot accept that a blatant disregard to an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, that
also was before His Honour Mullaly can be deemed DUE PROCESS OF LAW!
We will see what will be eventuating regarding my complaint against His Honour Mullaly!
In my view His Honour Mullaly orders of 30 October 2015 ought to be vacated, as they were
issued without invoking jurisdiction, this, as where the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
never was disposed of then the court never invoked jurisdiction as to be able to order a trail.
As the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud had jurisdiction to determine the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION but failed to do so then for all purpose and intent the court
never invoked jurisdiction, and for this my right to have the matter attended to in the County
Court of Victoria at Melbourne is and remains to be valid!
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!)
p13
1-11-2015
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