Page 1

Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J.

judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au

8-12-2015

Re: 20151208-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J County Court of VictoriaRe APPEAL-15-2502-(un)sealed orders

Sir,

ordinary, at least to my understanding, a judge can amend /withdraw/cancel his orders if there
are justified reasons to do so before they are sealed. Once the orders are issued with a court seal
then the process will be more difficult, albeit still possible in certain circumstances existing.
As I did notify the Court about what I consider deceptive conduct by Counsel for Buloke Shire
Council on 30 October 2015 then clearly His Honour Mullaly J could/should have question its
validity of it and avoided the orders to be sealed, if the reporting was found to be correct.
http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
QUOTE
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into
which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
END QUOTE
Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUOTE
This interpretation is reinforced by reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and
suppression of evidence which would comprehend cases of wilful false evidence. At common law, a
judgment will be set aside if it has been obtained by fraud.
END QUOTE
QUOTE R.V. Crimmins (1959) VR 270
Suppression of relevant evidence
END QUOTE
QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343
Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true.
END QUOTE

How can the general public trust and/or have confidence in the impartiality of the court
(including judges) if it so to say applies DOUBLE STANDARDS, that is when a legal
representatives alert the court to a matter then the court will pursue appropriate consideration and
any action but not if a self-represented party likewise report matters. I consider an issue such as
CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT and PERVERTING THE COURSE OF
JUSTICE to be very serious matters, well at least in relation to what ought to be an impartial
administration of justice, then again the court may have the modus operandi to allow for it, at
least when it concerns members of the legal profession.
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!)
p1
8-12-2015
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