Schorel Hlavka O.W.B. To ES&a Your Ref LA 05 06 Re Buloke Shire Council Re APPEAL 15 2502 'Brief' Etc OBJECTION To SERVICE Supplement 01

1
Cc:
10
28-11-2015
Elliott Stafford and Associated

lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J.
judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Ref; 20151128-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council
Re APPEAL-15-2502-'brief'-etc-OBJECTION TO SERVICE-Supplement-01
Sir/Madam,
15
I located on Friday 27-11-2015 at about 6.15pm in my mail box an envelope

purporting to be a copy of what was emails to me on 25-11-2015, albeit it clearly cannot be so.
QUOTE 25-11-2015 email
Buloke Shire Council ATS SchorelHlavka
20
From
Bree Caton
To
gerrit@inspector-rikati.com
Date
Wed 15:11
p1
28-11-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
DOC251115-251115144530.pdf
Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
Please find attached a copy of todays correspondence, this has also been sent via post.
5
Regards,
10
Bree Caton | Legal Assistant

Elliott Stafford & Associates | 316A Queens Parade, Clifton Hill
t: (03) 9486 7555 | f: (03) 9486 6444 | e: bree@elliottstafford.com.au
END QUOTE 25-11-2015 email
15
Because of my self-professed Crummy English I tend to consider what the real meaning of
certain words/statements are.
.
20
Hence the documentation was not provided as ordered but as I had previously requested. Hence a
failure to comply with the orders of His Honour Mullaly J of 30 October 2015. More over as this
was provided as requested then the following applies:
QUOTE Criminal Procedure Act 2009
39 When full brief must be served
25
(1) At any time after a criminal proceeding has commenced or, if a preliminary brief is served under
section 24, at any time after a summary case conference is held, the accused, by written notice to
the informant, may request that a full brief be served.
Note
Section 54 provides for summary case conferences.
30
(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.
35
END QUOTE Criminal Procedure Act 2009

40How full brief must be served
40
45
(1) A full brief must be served personally on the accused in accordance with section 339 unless the
informant is satisfied that ordinary service is appropriate in all the circumstances.
There was an incident some decades ago where I objected to Counnsel of the other party referring to certain
documentation that it had not been served upon me. His Honour then remarked that he had seen Counsel to
stand at the Bar table and passing it to me along the Bar table. I explained that it was correct he had given it
to me but one couldnt serve documents along the Bar table. His Honour agreed and ordered for the other
party to serve within 48 hours, and adjourned the matter. Subsequently weeks later the matter returned before
His Honour and Counsel for the other party again began to read from the material and I objected that it was
not served upon me. His Honour then pointed out he had a sworn Affidavit of a process server that he had
served the documents in 2 ways. I pointed out to His Honour that while the Process Server had provided
p2
28-11-2015
documentation it didnt include any affidavit but merely a DRAFT without signatures. Counsel for the other
party then acknowledged unsigned copies had been delivered. Also there had been no personal delivery as
had been ordered by His Honour this as the documentation had been left at the post office for collection and
another copy at the backdoor. His Honour made clear this was unacceptable as clear orders were issued, and
struck out the application of the opponent party for failing to comply with the orders to serve within 48 hours.
QUOTE
Please find attached a copy of todays correspondence, this has also been sent via post
10
15
END QUOTE
I will reproduce some parts to indicate the documentation and envelope couldnt have been in the mail
with Australian Post when claimed to be so.
In my perception the statement this has also been sent via post means that the material was already
posted.
The envelope containing the documentation that was included

doesnt appear to
me to be a copy of the material that was emailed to me. Rather the brief that was placed in the mail box
was marked after the pdf was emailed to me and as such the statement this has also been sent via post
cannot be correct.
20
25
30
35
40
It should be kept in mind that the documentation that was forwarded to me via email was in a PDF file
and any inspection of the data when it was created, etc, including the email can be traced back to the time
forwarded to me. Hence, where the documentation that I understand hand delivered (not likely posted via
Australian Post) shows the marking then clearly this was send out after it was emailed and as such the
wording this has also been sent via post would be a fraudulent claim. It may be noted the post stamp on
the envelope was not marked either, and I view Australian Post would likely have returned the envelope
to sender if it had been posted because the thickness of the envelope with its content was well over 5 mm,
the maximum allowed thickness.
Where then I highlighted in my correspondence 20151127-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref
LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council -Re (preliminary) brief-etc-Re APPEAL-15-2502-OBJECTION
TO SERVICE that the Fire Prevention Notice was not included (in the PDF) whereas the
documentation now located in my mailbox has a copy included, then this means that the emailed pdf was
not a true copy of what was placed in my mailbox. It seems to me that because in my correspondence of
20151127-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council -Re
(preliminary) brief-etc-Re APPEAL-15-2502-OBJECTION TO SERVICE I raised the Fire
Prevention Notice not being included then today the alleged brief was altered as to include a copy.
I have however noticed that the PDF copy of the summons doesnt appear to be dated, whereas the copy
included in the envelope indicates it was dated. It appears that by photocopying the date didnt come
through. Clearly failure to check the documentation. I discovered this to be so as very faint information
p3
28-11-2015
of a stamp over the signature appears clear on the copy of the summons that was contained in the
envelope. While the form 11 has marked Legible copies of any document, clearly the pdf that was sent
via email failed to be so and hence my previous criticism that no date appeared on the summons.
It should also be noted that the Form 11 enclosed in the pdf as well as in the envelope both refer to A list
of witnesses at the hearing and copies of their statement has been checked but no such list and/or
copies of their statements were included.
QUOTE Part of Form 11 (AS WAS IN THE ENVELOPE)
10
15
20
25
END QUOTE Part of Form 11 (AS WAS IN THE ENVELOPE)
The Form 11 also contains the sentence A List of any exhibit and detailed description or clear
photographs which was not marked in either the pdf or the Form 11 in the envelope. Yet the pdf and the
envelope albeit not showing the required list appears to show photos. Indeed in my previous
correspondence I referred to photos appear to have been made by trespassing onto the property and as
such I view are inadmissible as evidence.
Here we have a checklist that I view even a first year law student could go by and yet Buloke Shire
Council legal representatives seems to have a problem doing so.
The rear of the Form 11 (at least considering that the pages marked DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE
appears to warn a person to whom the Form 11 notice is directed. And states also; Get legal advice
before go to court. This notice should have a full brief with it.. It is rather very late for Buloke Shire
Council legal representatives to pursue to provide a brief (and still incomplete and incompetent to legal
requirements) long after the original 20 August 2015 was scheduled to be heard. Even by 28 November
2015 a complete brief has not been provided that is in accordance to legal requirements.
(vii)a copy of any other information, document or thing required by the rules of court to be included in a full
brief; and
30
35
(f) if the informant refuses to disclose any information, document or thing that is required to be
included in the full brief, a written notice that the informant refuses disclosure under section
45, identifying the ground for refusing disclosure.
Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives failed to comply with this part also. As I referred to in
my previous correspondences.
As such I view a total/considerable failure by Buloke Shire Council to comply with s41 of the Criminal
Procedure Act 2009.
p4
28-11-2015
p5
28-11-2015
The Fire Prevention Notice that was not included in the emailed pdf but was included in the envelope
refers to remove all combustible material from land, which as I pointed out is contrary to legislative
provisions of s41of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958, (which excludes buildings and its content) from
which the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer derives its powers, and hence the notice is invalid, and
cannot form the basis of any litigation.
QUOTE 20151127-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J County
Court of Victoria-Re APPEAL-15-2502-OBJECTION TO SERVICE
10
15
20
25
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)
Again:
So now the court somehow had listed the case for hearing about 20 months before the
alleged offence had eventuated.
30
END QUOTE 20151127-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J
County Court of Victoria-Re APPEAL-15-2502-OBJECTION TO SERVICE
35
The copy of the form 11 in both the pdf and the envelope refer to 18 March 2013. I am not aware of any
previous court litigation between Buloke Shire Council and myself and as such it appears to me this is
some fictional date. I may add that I understood His Honour Mullaly J to state that the Magistrates Court
of Victoria (at St Arnaud) could proceed ex parte without hearing any evidence and issue orders. However
Form 11clearly states:
40
QUOTE
END QUOTE
p6
28-11-2015
10
15
20
25
30
What we have is that the Fire Prevention Notice from onset was invalid, and this I made clear time and
time again. Actually to my understanding all Fire Prevention Notices that were issued over the years, not
just against me, were all identical in those terms and this regardless if landholders had no materials such
that warranted a Fire Prevention Notice. Hence, the Fire Prevention Notices were issued without the
required opinion stipulated to be required within the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
If therefore the Municipal fire prevention officer lacked the powers as he purported to exercise then no
court can enforce this abuse/misuse of powers.
Still, Buloke Shire Council with its legal representatives have relentlessly pursued this matter even to
claim and obtain cost against me regardless it was made clear I was in ill health at the time.
In my view this was a conduct to pervert the course of justice to conceal from the court that the Fire
Prevention Notice was invalid. The fact that the Magistrates Court of Victoria (at the wrong venue of St
Arnaud) failed to consider my ADDRESS TO THE COURT dated 20 August 2015 and subsequently on
17 September 2015 and so the contained written submissions OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
resulted that the Magistrates Court of Victoria never invoked jurisdiction. The fact that it issued orders of
a fine, court cost and other cost claimed by Buloke Shire Council I view even further make the issue of
perverting the course of justice already serious double serious.
While His Honour Mullaly J also on 30 October 2015 failed to consider from onset the ADDRESS TO
THE COURT and do the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION contained therein and failed to invoke
jurisdiction may underline how serious it is that our courts fail to act within the rule of law.
In my view a competent judge would so to say have thrown the charge against me out of the window and
severely rebuked Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives for the gross abuse and misuse of the
court processes totally uncalled for. It is clear to me we have so to say a cancerous growth in the legal
system and it must be addressed appropriately so that this misuse and abuse of power never again can
eventuate.
.
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
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
http://egiewcms-test-auth.elasticbeanstalk.com/legal/ward-lee-v-linehan-1/
35
40
45
50
55
Ward-Lee v Linehan [1993] EGCS21

QUOTE
A party such as the tenant seeking an extension of time for service after the validity of the proceedings
had expired and after expiry of any relevant limitation period had to show good reason for the court to
exercise its power to extend and also give a satisfactory explanation for the failure to apply for
extension before the validity of the proceedings expired.
END QUOTE
https://www.courtsni.gov.uk/enGB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2001/2001%20NIQB%2024/j_j_HIGC3453.htm
ANDREW HYNDMAN v SAMUEL WALLS T/A DERRY ARMS Neutral Citation no. [2001] NIQB 24
QUOTE
In Davis v NI Carriers [199] NI 19 Lowry LCJ (as he then was) said at page 20:
Where a time-limit is imposed by statute it cannot be extended unless that or
another statute contains a dispensing power. Where the time is imposed by rules
of court which embody a dispensing power, such as that found in Order 64, rule
7, the court must exercise its discretion in each case, and for that purpose the
relevant principles are:
(1)
whether the time is sped: a court will, where the reason is a
good one, look more favourably on an application made before the time
is up;
(2)
when the time-limit has expired, the extent to which the party
applying is in default;
60
(3)
the effect on the opposite party of granting the application and,
in particular, whether he can be compensated by costs;
p7
28-11-2015
8
(4)
whether a hearing on the merits has taken place or would be
denied by refusing an extension;
(5)
whether there is a point of substance (which in effect means a
legal point of substance when dealing with cases stated) to be made
which could not otherwise be put forward; and
(6)
whether the point is of general, and not merely particular
significance.
10
To these I add the important principle:

(7)
15
that the rules of court are there to be observed.
In this connection I could not hope to improve on what Lord Guest has said in
Ratnam v. Cumarasamy [1965] 1 W.L.R. 8, 12:
The rules of court must prima facie be obeyed, and in order to
justify a court in extending the time during which some step in
procedure requires to be taken there must be some material
upon which the court can exercise its discretion. If the law
were otherwise, a party in breach would have an unqualified
right to an extension of time which would defeat the purpose
of the rules, which is to provide a time table for the conduct of
litigation.
20
25
END QUOTE
30
http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/1998/april/anson-v-trump
Anson v Trump [1998] All ER (D) 136
QUOTE
Practice - Judgment in default of defence - Defence served after expiry of time limit and without
leave to serve out of time - Whether default judgment may be entered - RSC Ord 19, r 2.
35
END QUOTE
http://www.criminalsolicitor.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9892
QUOTE
I think that you need more than just a late application.
40
Discretion to exclude late application where deliberate manipulation of rules or unfairness
45
In the case of Hassett [2008] EWCA Crim 1634 the Court of Appeal agreed with the Recorder that
the delay was unacceptable, and that that is not the sole test to apply. It is necessary to go on to
consider the interests of justice and prejudice separately from the finding of unacceptable delay. Much
will turn on factors such as:
(i) Whether it would be an injustice were the jury not to hear the evidence.
50
(ii) Whether the defence are prejudiced by the late application: they might be prejudiced if the
prosecution has not taken adequate steps to obtain relevant details which would not only tend to
support the application, but which equally might undermine it
55
(iii) The degree of prejudice to the accused. In Urushadze the Recorder noted that the defence had
been warned informally that an application would be made and that U must know his own bad
character. That is logically correct, but cannot mean that there is insufficient prejudice from a late
application: otherwise r35 would be meaningless in cases of previous convictions if not in other
instances of allegations of bad character. The degree of prejudice may typically be less than with e.g.
a late hearsay application, but it can still impede the defence.
60
(iv) Whether adjourning the trial in order to give the party that seeks to adduce the evidence more
time to do so would be impracticable or not in the interests of justice.
(v) Whether refusing the late application would amount to no more than disciplining the prosecution
agency (Moran[2007] EWCA Crim 2947).
65
p8
28-11-2015
9
(vi) Musone[2007] EWCA 1237 confirms that a trial judge has the power to exclude the evidence if
there has been a failure to comply with r35. Although this is not explicit in r35 (cf r34(5) in relation to
hearsay), the overriding objective of the Crim PR leads to such a conclusion.
Ramirez[2009] EWCA Crim 1721 (24 July 2009) (Discretion to exclude late application where
deliberate manipulation of rules or unfairness) failure to give notice of the evidence or of the
intention to cross-examination about bad character was due not to an oversight but to a deliberate
intention to ambush the co-defendant.
10
Edited by Ron Barker on 16 July 2013 at 12:15
END QUOTE
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
It ought to be understood that to apply leave to serve out of time the applicant must prove to the court
that the other party was not denied his/her rights under any existing judgment/orders and in all
circumstances it is appropriate for the court to grand such a leave. In my view we have where the
Prosecutor flaunted compliance with legal requirements in numerous ways and when then an order of the
court is made and Counsel for Buloke Shire Council deceived/misled the court on 30 October 2015 as to
claim it received the request yesterday and by this obtained a date of 9 November 2015 as to be the
latest date to send documents via Australian Post, then the gross failure to comply with those orders
cannot be deemed accidental. Indeed, where I even did indicate to Buloke Shire Council as well as its
legal representatives in my 31 October 2015 about this issue regarding yesterday issue then clearly
where both Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives blatantly disregard any appropriate action
to rectify this with the court and to allow His Honour Mulally J if His Honour desired to do so to amend
his orders, then surely Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives showed an ongoing disregard
to comply with legal provisions as well as with the orders of the court. This has in my view been a
persistent deliberate ongoing conduct to undermine the Appellants rights from onset and to every extent
pursue the enforcement of an invalid Fire Prevention Order. In my view no court can be a party to
condone this kind of abuse and misuse of the legal processes.
I have been ongoing cause to seek to stop the rot by writings at huge cost to myself as well as my 83 year
old wife, something that could have been avoided had the invalid Fire Prevention Notice been withdrawn
as I requested in past correspondence! Buloke Shire Council ac ting for the State of Victoria (allegedly
seeking enforcement of State legislation) in my view must be held to act as a model litigant and not deny
an accused/Appellant of his/her legal rights.
It would in my view be totally absurd for the court to grand any leave to serve out of time where the
brief as ordered by His Honour Mullaly J and that should have existed already for the 20 August 2015
hearing in the Magistrates Court of Victoria somehow still needs to be compiled at this time, considering
the numerous non-compliance with legislative provisions I pointed out. As such I view the purported
brief cannot be used in litigation and the mere fact that it refers to a 18 March 2013 hearing underlines
the absurdity of how this alleged brief was compiled. Where I due to illness was unable to attend to the
Magistrates Court of Victoria hearings it was clear that Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives
showed a blatant disregard for my then failing health condition. Buloke Shire Council legal
representatives in its 2 September 2015 correspondence acknowledged to be aware of my OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION but clearly ignored to ensure this was attended to. In my view the court has to
consider the ruthlessness perpetrated against me and cannot turn a blind eye to this gross abuse and
misuse of the legal processes. The legal doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur action denies any
remedy to a litigant (including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands. As I
view it the court cannot consider the purported brief in any shape or form as evidence because
of the elaborate failure by the Prosecutor to itself act within legal requirements to serve the
material as required both by legislative provisions as well as by the orders of the court.
Obviously I object to any application Buloke Shire Council (so its legal representatives) may seek
to make as to seek Leave to serve out of time.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
55
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
p9
28-11-2015

Schorel Hlavka O.W.B. To ES&a Your Ref LA 05 06 Re Buloke Shire Council Re APPEAL 15 2502 'Brief' Etc OBJECTION To SERVICE Supplement 01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schorel Hlavka O.W.B. To ES&a Your Ref LA 05 06 Re Buloke Shire Council Re APPEAL 15 2502 'Brief' Etc OBJECTION To SERVICE Supplement 01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Elliott Stafford and Associated

Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au

I located on Friday 27-11-2015 at about 6.15pm in my mail box an envelope

QUOTE 25-11-2015 email

Buloke Shire Council ATS SchorelHlavka

Bree Caton | Legal Assistant

END QUOTE Criminal Procedure Act 2009

The envelope containing the documentation that was included

END QUOTE Part of Form 11 (AS WAS IN THE ENVELOPE)

Ward-Lee v Linehan [1993] EGCS21

To these I add the important principle:

that the rules of court are there to be observed.

Discretion to exclude late application where deliberate manipulation of rules or unfairness

Edited by Ron Barker on 16 July 2013 at 12:15

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

You might also like