20160118-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Associate MR Garry McIntosh To His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Contempt of Court-etc-SUPPLEMENT-01

Page 1
Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J.

judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Cc:
18-1-2016
Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria, feedback@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
Elliott Stafford and Associated
lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
County Court of Victoria crim.reg@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Re: 20160118-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J County Court of VictoriaRe APPEAL-15-2502-Contempt of Court-etc-SUPPLEMENT-01
Sir,
I have been very vocal about the abuses and misuses by politicians but also by judicial officers and
this at times resulted that judicial officers were trying to get me for CONTEMPT OF COURT. One held
to have succeeded but overturned on appeal.
The truth never can be CONTEMPT OF COURT and exposing the wrongdoings of judicial officers is
an essential part of litigation. If there is such thing as workplace environment then the Bar table must be
deemed to be so and the fact that a person is not a lawyer makes absolutely not one of iota difference. As
a CONSTITUTIONALIST in many ways I am far superior in knowledge then most lawyers are. Not
uncommon barristers claimed I was wrong about something only for the courts to accept my version to be
correct. Why should one cave in merely because the opponent is a Queens Counsel who thinks he knows
it all and that is his/her basic fatal argument because often they lack the understanding what really is
applicable.
When I represented Mr Francis Colosimo (where Mr Colosimo got rid of the barrister who had previously
represented him) the following eventuated shortly after commencement of proceedings:
QUOTE Her Honour at page 21 line 30
Now, having heard that you can take a seat and I can have Mr Shorel-Hlavkia speak on your behalf.
Mr Shorel-Hlavkia, what were the matters that you wanted to put?
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : First of all, Im not a lawyer. Ive no legal training. Im a constitutionalist. That
means I deal with matters on constitutional matters mainly.
HER HONOUR : All right. Do you have some you dont have any legal training?
.
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : Absolutely not.
HER HONOUR : Do you have any qualification in what you say you are?
MR SHOREL-H;LAVKIA : No, I have no I am a constitutionalist, so I do assist with parties with
barristers and everything else to assist them with legal work, you know, constitutional matters and
everything else, or the Government. You know, thats ongoing. I publish books about it under the
Inspector (indistinct) at Trademark, they are published and (indistinct).
END QUOTE Transcript 16 March 2009 Harbison J
To the credit of her Honour Harbison J she didnt whatsoever show any disrespect towards me to the
contrary her conduct throughout the hearing was equally in courtesy then that towards the opponent
counsel, and in the end Her Honour judgment reflected that she agreed with my submissions and ruled
against the other party. To me it would be a gross insult for anyone to hold I was a lawyer, as to me this is
p1
18-1-2016
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
as if I am a crook. For sure, not every lawyer is a crook but regretfully I view too many are and as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST I am above their kind of conduct.
My conduct at the Bar table reflect what was stated in the Foster case:
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
Regretfully there are judicial officers who think to get the better of me. I view His Honour
Mullaly J is one of them, who first of all in my view failed to allow for me as the appellant to
have the carriage of the proceedings. I am used to this as you got those bias judicial officers who
side with the legal profession regardless the utter nonsense that falls of their lips rather than to
ensure proceedings are appropriately conducted.
QUOTE Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court)
A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the burden of
endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by their own
advocacy
END QUOTE
As such, even if His honour Mulally J assumed (albeit wrongly) that I was incompetent (as after
all the proceedings only just started and so he would have had no knowledge other than being
bias to assume this) nevertheless he should then have assisted. Too often unrepresented litigants
complaint about the sheer bias by judicial officers and yet the judicial officers are totally
unaware that their modus operandi in effect is unlawful as they do not accept that each party
appearing are equal in rights. So, a party that can afford legal representation so to say has the
benefits of generally having a bias judicial officer in their favour.
There was some decades ago where I was talking to a lawyer I understand was the Director of
Victoria Legal Aid while we both were waiting to file documents in the Registry, when a man
made known to me that he was going to kidnap his children. I so to say read him the riot act that
while the legal system may be up the creek it was the best we had and we needed to work within
it and try to improve it. Afterwards this lawyer commented that he was most surprised hearing
me talking like this as he had the impression I was against the courts. Regretfully weeks later he
did kidnap his children. He simply had lost any trust in the legal system.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have extensively written and published in my books published
in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues that
VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) is unconstitutional but judges simply
couldnt care less as they are more so it appears to me to allow this unconstitutional process then
to risk their own job security.
Over the decades I have gone through the files and/or hard drives of legal practitioners and
became alert to the rot that is going on in the courts.
Perhaps a bit in a nutshell, (ALBEIT IT DOESNT CONTAIN IN A LONG SHOT THE
RUBBISH GOING ON IN THE COURTS/TRIBUNALS) I quote what I wrote (with typing
errors) to a person named Jim;
QUOTE EMAIL 14-1-2016
To
p2
18-1-2016
Page 3
Jim
Hide
CC
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Hide
Message body
Jim,
thank for the courtesy asking to pass on my writings and again my writings unless specifically stating to be
confidential can be passed on to anyone.
.
We submit "Authorities" then this is because some court/tribunal has made a decision that may or may not apply.
the opponent pa, as I often did, challenge this.
And with Peter Hanks QC I exposed how he was stating from the Bar table something about what a judge had
stated n an authority but in fact had fraudulently presented it as he had substituted words to suit his clients case
(the government).
"Evidence" is what is presented by a party but is challengeable by the opposing party and as such not set in
concrete.
it is for the court to determine which of the opposing evidence filed by the parties might be more plausible to
accept. Also, for example where there had been an "expert witness report" and under cross-examination the
"expert witness" (this someone who is qualified in a certain field like a doctor, etc) the expert witness went in a
great details to underline why the report was as was. the trail judge made clear the entire report was based upon
what the "expert witness" had been given as a story by the accused but the facts of the case was that it was
totally different. and over the decades cross-examining "expert witnesses" I often could expose the same. such
"evidence" is challengeable, but obviously if the other party fails to do so being unaware this evidence exist
before the court or otherwise then the judge may accept it as facts. Not uncommon a party may file affidavit
material but not serve it upon the other party and hence never is challenged. In one case I discovered an
affidavit of more than 100 pages filed by a party without ever having been served upon the other party! also, I
found that trail judges often had only so to say half of the court file before them and there is no system in lace to
ensure that all material is before the trail judge. As such, you could have filed your response but it never ends
up before the judge. Hence, I would ordinary have spare copies with me and ask the trail judge to go through
the documents to see if all documents were before the court and then I would hand over sealed copies of any
documents that were missing.
So to say even a kindergarten is better organised than a court might be in many instances.
to the trail judge he/she did the right thing upon the evidence before the court, just that the registrar may have
withheld some documents from the court and no one really knows the better of it. As such, so say sleep with the
Registrar and well the Registrar may just manipulate the court file. There is no checklist the judges use to check
if each and every document is on file!
when I was requested by a law firm (I was a constitutional consultant with this law firm) to file some
documents I requested and obtained written authority to check the court file. I then discovered the large
affidavit on court file that was never served. As such the trail judge had made decisions during an ex parte
without the other party being aware of the Affidavit.
In the Sadri case I urged Mr Sadri to obtain a copy of the court file Affidavit of the other party. He wondered
why on earth but he did and the copy was precisely as the one served upon him. He then filed his response.
Weeks later I urged Mr Sadri to obtain yet again another copy of the other parties Affidavit. He did and now
there were showing up all kind of alterations albeit none were initially by the deponent. As such the legal
representatives of the other party had gone to the court files and tampered with the affidavits.
Lets use an example. I put in an Affidavit: "Jim stated he doesn't like to go to the Sunday market when it rains".
You respond; "I agree with the content of this paragraph. Now I have lawyers who go to the court file and then
change it to
"Jim stated he doesn't like to go to the Sunday market when it rains". You may think this is not really a major
issue but what if the wife in a case in her affidavit stated "My husband was never violent during our
marriage." You as the opponent in a response affidavit state; "I agree with the content of that paragraph" and
then the wife's lawyers go to the court file and now change it to
"My husband was never violent during our marriage.". So now agreeing to being never violent you now appear
to be agreeing you were violent. This is the scam operating in courts. I know because I was cross examining a
witness when the opposing counsel was claiming that I was misleading the witness by wrongly reading from his
p3
18-1-2016
Page 4
client affidavit. The trail judge warned me this could constitute contempt of court if I did it again. I read again
exactly the same passage of the affidavit and well the trail judge got stuck in me that I was abusing my rights and
entitlements art the bar table. I requested the trail judge for me to inspect his copy and he permitted me to do so. I
then pointed out how up to 8 alterations a page were on the version of the Affidavit on court file which were
initially by her legal representatives but not by the deponent and none appeared on the copy that had been served.
the trail judge comment: "Well now you know the alterations." The truth is that when an alteration is made it has
to be re-sworn as it no longer is a valid sworn Affidavit and this clearly never eventuated. I also had that at times
no alterations were shown just that the Affidavit on court file had a total different version then that which was
served. To me it is more that the courts are run by amateurs. for example Joske J had pronounced orders
containing the wording "each weekend". After that I received 4 other versions with in the end it became "every
alternative weekend" I queried this with the court and was given the understanding that the registrar and others
would at times alter the orders written down by the judge to what is better in English. to me altering the wording
from "each weekend" to "each alternative weekend" made no sense as it had nothing to do with English gramma
but more with so to say the opposing lawyer perhaps sleeping with the Registrar. Not ,long thereafter I reported a
break in at my residence to the police and it turn out the only items missing were the files of the court case as my
entire case holding the files was empty. the police wondering why on earth anyone would break in to steal
court related documents. However, the case contained copies as the original files were kept in the booth of my
car, just in case someone was to break in and steal the evidence !
In one case I wrote to the opponent lawyers that I held (regarding the trail judge) that even a first year law
student could do better then the judge. Well, at the next hearing the opponent lawyer didn't hesitate to raise this
with the judge who well has no qualms to order a total of $2,500.00 against me. This despite I alerted him twice
he failed to follow proper legal procedures. On appeal opposing counsel submitted that His Honour didn't
require to follow proper legal procedures because I was more aware of legalities then most lawyers appearing in
the court. The full court however set aside the orders on the basis that His Honour failed to follow proper legal
procedures. By this proving I was right that even a first year law student could do better then this judge.
Once I showed some law reports to some people who were charged with murder. I pointed out a specific
Authority and invited them to read it. They gave me the understanding their lawyer had urged them to plea guilty
but from the authority it was clear that their own lawyer had concealed relevant things and was deceiving them.
Regardless if anyone is charged with a serious crime it is not and never was my function to be judgmental about
them as their right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty is what it is about. What may appear to be murder
may in fact turn out to be self defence and not having all relevant details it would be wrong to try to make a
judgment as if I am a court. However I understand from decades of dealing with accused that often lawyers
would get their client to plea guilty regardless of them being innocent of any wrongdoing as they are OFFICERS
OF THE COURT to assist the court to score a conviction and so perhaps improve the conviction rate of the court
to obtain funding from the government. A person then end up in prison or commit suicide because they are
"screwed" by the legal profession. It appears to me from the information provided to me that the Port Arthur
case was one of them.
My views about legal principles are;
A Prosecutor is there to present all relevant details, including that adverse to his/her case, before the court and
leave it up to the court if it find the accused guilty or not.
The court is there not to convict but to consider upon all relevant evidence before the court if the accused
is guilty or not and if then it includes a conviction so be it.
Regretfully, we have little hope in my view of obtaining proper judgments when judges are ignoring proper
control of the court files and legal procedures.
The Framers of the Constitution stated:
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
Therefore lawyers cannot be excluded from being held legally accountable for failing to represent a client. Yet
somehow barristers are deemed to be, albeit unconstitutionally, excluded.
Judges are only entitled to exclusion while the act within the performance of their judicial function. For example
that the moment I OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the court and His Hon our Mullaly J failed to deal
with this then His Honour Mullaly J from that moment no longer can be deemed to act as a judge of the County
Court of Victoria but in my view acted as a purported judge of a Kangaroo Court within the County Court of
Victoria precinct, this as His Honour Mullaly J never invoked jurisdiction.
p4
18-1-2016
Page 5
CONTEMPT OF COURT
INDEX
QUOTE
See also Keeley v Brooking [1979] HCA 28; (1979) 143 CLR 162; 25 ALR 45; 40 ALT 139; (1979)
ALJR 526; and Dow v Attorney-General (1980) Qd R 58; 2 A Crim R 176. It is here that I would like
to strike a note of warning and caution: Courts of Justice, although naturally concerned to protect
their dignity, integrity and authority when they are contemptuously challenged, should not react
too strongly, too precipitously or over sensitively to every apparent insult. Finally, I would say this:
Judicial respect is not a purchasable commodity. It cannot be traded in the market place. It cannot
be commanded. It has to be deserved. It has to be earned. A Judge's authority is not the mailed fi st
any more than it is the language of sweet reasonableness. It is compounded of intangibles such
as trust and confi dence, impartiality and humanity and, of course, learning.
END QUOTE
ONE MAY ARGUE IF A JUDICIAL OFFICER IS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT OR NOT.
ONE HAS TO BE CAREFUL THAT THE us AUTHORITIES MAY NOT ALWAYS BE APPLICABLE IN
THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA. THE ORIGINAL 13 AMENDMENT TO ITS CONSTITUTION
BARRED ANYONE WITH A TIOTLE, INCLUDING LAWYERS TO THE BAR. BUT THEN A
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDAGTE SOUGHT THE SUPPORT OF THE LEGAL FRATERNITY HE WOULD
GET RID OF THE 13TH AMENDMENT IN RETURN FOR THEIR SUPPORT. HE WAS ELECTED AND
THEN REPLACED THE 13TH AMENDMENT WITH A DIFFERENT 13TH AMENDMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
What is important to understand is that unlike in the US where they had persons as lawyers becoming judges and
even Presidents, even so they never spend a single day in law school, in the Commonwealth of Australia they
demand that even magistrates are lawyers. As such they are all members of the Bar, which I view is in conflict
with them being impartial in litigation.
In any event, when one file an OBJECTION TO JURUISDICTION then only for the purpose of determining if
the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is to be upheld or to be dismissed can a judge exercise judicial powers.
And only if the judge dismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION can he invoke further judicial powers. If a
judge fails to deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then he never invoked any judicial powers in the
first place and so to say is a stranger to the judiciary and acts as like any other unqualified person and can be
held legally accountable for CONTEMPT OF COURT impersonating a judicial officer, etc, and by this
undermining the integrity of the court.
And where His Honour Mullaly J as I understood it commenced his tirade/bullying/etc upon me that I was a
person who held the law applies to everyone but myself, this without a shred of evidence being before the court
to justify this in legal terms then I view he disgraced his judicial position,function, duties and obligations.
While I remain calm when subjected to such a tirade/bullying/etc ordinary litigant in persons and ever some
members of the legal profession unlikely will. they more than likely may end up intimidated and then unable to
present their case as they intended. This goes to the core of the issues that a judge then interferes and/or
otherwise prevents the ordinary course of the administration of justice, and by this may pervert the course of
justice.
As I view it if you were to engage a music band to play next to a court room as a deliberate conduct to cause
noise so that the court proceedings that going on are prevented from its ordinary conduct then this can as much
constitute a CONTEMPT OF COURT as a judicial officer so to say unduly lambasting a person who appears at
the Bar table.
I find it very offensive when a judicial officer abuses his position to unduly attack a person appearing in the
sanctity of the Bar table.
A judge who abuses/misused his position to unduly attack a person in the sanctity of the Bar table in my view is
incompetent to conduct proper proceedings, after all if he lacks the understanding of the sanctity of the Bar table
then what else does he fails to understand I wonder?
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything the
state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person accused will
p5
18-1-2016
Page 6
have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in
criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE
His Honour Mullaly J that there is no need for "evidence" in a ex part (criminal) trail in my view underlines his
incompetent in this regard also as it is embedded in the constitution that both parties are to be heard, etc. In fact I
view that all and any ex parte order may be unconstitutional if the other party somehow is prevented from
appearing and/or made fully aware of the "evidence" before the court. Intervention orders are generally used
without the knowledge of the other party and I view are in that regard "unconstitutional".
So much more to write about but for now ample to consider.
Gedrrit
END QUOTE EMAIL 14-1-2016
We have a major cancer within our legal system and judicial officers simply are not aware of it
or just ignore it.
I had a judicial officer who verbally attacked a party I represented and this man ended up with a
suspected heart attack and went by ambulance to hospital with the proceedings being aborted.
Afterwards I proved at the subsequent hearing that the judicial officer was completely wrong in
law to have accused this man having been convicted of CONTEMPT OF COURT as he never
even had been formally charged with it, let alone convicted. So to say I had to clean up the mans
former barrister had left behind and did so very successfully. And for the record I did so free of
charge!
And this is the problem, we have far too many judicial officers who like His Honour Mullaly J so
to say go off in the deep end berating of otherwise make inappropriate comments upon a person
at the bar table and by this undermine the administration of justice as often a person then is
intimidated and well may be prevented from presenting the case as he/she had intended.
It is for this also why in 1985 I created the concept of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT as to be
written submission so that a person could provide them to the court and no matter how ignorant a
judicial officer might be to courtesy and proper conduct towards both parties he/she still couldnt
prevent the written submissions stated in the ADRESS TO THE COURT to be before the Court.
As His Honour Lyndemayer J (made clear as a Full Court judge), (in my successful appeal) he
would like to see every lawyer to follow my example!
The common law right that everyone is equal before the courts cannot be interfered with by bias
judges to allow members of the legal profession to run amok in the legal system, such as I view
His Honour Mullaly appears to purport with Buloke Shire Council legal representatives.
In my view His Honour Mullaly J is an utter disgrace to be a judicial officer in such
circumstances. Indeed, I view he purported to be a judicial officer where in fact he didnt invoke
jurisdiction and hence I view was no longer entitled to be deemed a judicial officer.
The right to adjudicate is limited to strict legal procedures and if a judge ignores them then he
loses the status of being a judicial officer in regard to what he/she may deem to be legal
proceedings but technically are no longer.
In my view where there was an issue of OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then where I also had
referred to that Ballarat was the inappropriate venue then it was in my view a gross abuse of
power by His Honour Mullaly J to nevertheless transfer the proceedings for further hearing at
Ballarat without any proper concern as to appropriately deal with the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION. Effectively His honour Mullaly J dismissed my OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION or appeared to have done so by implication without uttering a single word as to
why he did so. His Honour Mullaly J obviously failed to understand/comprehend, at least in my
view, that what he had before him was a jurisdictional issue and the appeal matter was
secondary to the jurisdictional issue. What His Honour Mullaly J in my view ought to have
done was to make clear that in view of the written submissions stated in the ADDRESS TO THE
COURT His Honour had first to deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as a
p6
18-1-2016
Page 7
jurisdictional matter and only if the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION were to be dismissed
could His Honour Mullaly J entertain any appeal matter.
His Honour Mullaly J then had to decide if he was to hear the jurisdictional issue himself or
have another judicial officer deal with this if His Honour Mullaly J contemplated to hear the
matter if the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was dismissed.
Because during proceedings regarding an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION the objector may
submit information/details that may be undermining his defence if the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION were to be defeated it is for this that a different judicial officer deals with the
jurisdictional matter and is not involved in the hearing of the original matter.
His Honour Mullaly J also declaring that the appeal matter to be heard at the Ballarat venue
would be De Novo, then technically this implied that His Honour Mullaly J had effectively
dismissed the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION again without considering it nor hand down a
reason of judgment as to upon what consideration the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was
dismissed nor any former orders to show this having been done so.
In my view this kind of idiotic conduct by a judicial officer must be deplored and exposed to
every extent because it is this kind of what I consider abuse and misuse of power that causes at
times as I understand it people to end up contemplating suicide. They may have had a perfect
case only to have it railroaded by what might be deemed an incompetent judicial officer.
Because the ADDRESS TO THE COURT was in fact on court file, then even without handing
up the type written copy the Court nevertheless had it as part of the court file. As such, His
Honour Mullaly J to claim he wasnt going to waste courts time was not only a gross insult to my
proper conduct but also a defiance of what is appropriate in the administration of justice.
I was not aware that His Honour Mullaly J at commencement of the proceedings bothered to first
set out the documents that were on court file and I view one has to ask why not?
After all, as I did refer to in the above email quotation I am used to judicial officers not having
the complete file before them.
How can there be a proper administration of justice when a judicial officer cannot bother to
check if all relevant documents are before him/her?
I have been known in the courts as the policeman against lawyers because I would expose the
wrongdoings of lawyers/judicial officers/registrars. Yes, if experienced how registrars as
deceiving a party and then to cause tat party to lose a case. Even to demand the attendance of a
party to hoax hearing dates, and when the party inquire if there is a hearing listed to be advised it
is, when then the party travels longs distances to attend to the hearing he is advised there never
was a hearing listed. What is needed is a complete overhaul of the entire legal system and to
make the courts/tribunals to be user friendly. If judicial officers themselves cannot manage
to properly function for the administration of justice then how can an ordinary person be
reasonably provided with fair and proper hearings I wonder?
Obviously I was given the understanding by others that His Honour Mullaly J might just wish to
so to say shut me down and have me charged with CONTEMPT OF COURT no matter what,
just that for such a procedure it means that the conduct of His Honour Mullaly J would be the
centre piece of the issue. I doubt that His Honour Mullaly J would want other judges, let alone a
jury, to decide about his conduct of 30 October 2015. As CONTEMPT OF COURT is a criminal
matter and we do have a constitution that has embedded the right of a jury, then well this would
be some case to consider to eventuate.
And it shouldnt be overlooked that as I challenged from onset the jurisdiction of the court even
any CONTEMPT OF COURT charge against me would be subject to this. After all, if His
Honour Mullaly J never did invoke jurisdiction on 30 October 2015 then there can neither be any
CONTEMPT OF COURT flowing from this against me. Only one judge over the about 4
decades had the view he succeeded in getting me for CONTEMPT OF COURT only to have the
orders set aside on appeal. The right to defend themselves against any so to say cowardly attack
is enshrined in common law and a judicial officer is not above this.
p7
18-1-2016
Page 8
It would in my view be much better that the courts accept my reasoning that the entire legal
processes should be reviewed and urgently so and the system must be more user friendly and
legislation to be in plain English, to be in compliance with the constitution!
.

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
Therefore any legislation (by-law under the constitution) must be equally be that unlettered
people of the community can understand, without needing some lawyer charging a fortune to
claim what he/she holds as a view even so this might be totally incorrect and does no more but
dump the client in a money pit.
In my view from onset His Honour Mulally J ought to have raised the issue as to why Counsel
for Buloke Shire Council appeared where no Notice of appearance was on court file and if there
was any filed and served. If not then His Honour couldnt have Counsel for Buloke Shire
Council addressing the Court because he had no legal standing to do so and the OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION and the appeal was unchallenged.
As I understand His Honour Dixon CJ one stated that if lawyers do not keep abreast with legal
requirements and the development of legal processes then even an alien from outer space might
prove to do better. Well, I was not some alien from outer space but from The Netherlands and
well so to say give them a run for their monies. Only in my view corrupted judicial officers can
undermine my success!
I did request free of charge a print out of the transcript but this was refused. It should be
understood that it is utter and sheer nonsense that I can be obligated ongoing to incur cost and
now purportedly to travel to Ballarat when all along even before the case was instituted for the
Magistrates Court in Victoria I objected to the jurisdiction of any court. What kind of gross
incompetence of a legal system do we have where I made from onset an OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and we seem to lack any competent judicial officer to stop the rot and make it
clear that I have my rights and all there is for the court to determine is my OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and it is absurd to cause me to incur cost to travel to Ballarat or for that any
other venue where the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION has not been decided?
Because already on 19 July 2006 I successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the court in both
appeals it obviously means that any judge would have a hard time to overcome this, as I am
entitled to the benefits of those orders.
Any judicial officer who enforces compulsory voting in violation to the courts ruling of 19 July
2006clearly fails to understand/comprehend what is constitutionally applicable. Prior to the
hearing lawyer after lawyer gave me the understanding that there was no way I could succeed in
the appeals, well I proved them all wrong! And here we seems to have a major problem that
lawyers in my view are not adequately trained in constitutional issues and so when they are
judicial officers they lack the competence and ability to provide for a proper administration of
justice because the lack of understanding/comprehending the true meaning and application of the
constitution means they at times hand down judgements that are totally absurd to the true
meaning and application of the constitution. As such a judicial officer by basic failure of proper
legal training causes a party to lose a case where in fact that party on constitutional basis ought to
have succeeded. Now what kind of administration of justice can this be, I wonder!
p8
18-1-2016
Page 9
There can be absolutely, at least not to me, that the County Court of Victoria applies double
standards. In the AGC (GE Monies) v Abbott case the County court of Victoria held that the too
late filing of documentation (even so a mere few days) by Mr Abbott was justification to issue
orders against him. For sure it never read the Affidavit filed too late that Mr Abbott challenged
the validity of the case against him that no such claimed debt of about $167,000.00 existed but
that the mere filing of documentation by a few days too late was something the court held
justified in law to make such orders against him. And as I understand it this kind of fraudulent
conduct by OFFICERS OF THE COURT is often perpetrated to obtain orders because those they
target file too late a response. As such the court system is as such that ordinary people are
trapped in not fully understanding how time limits may apply. And Mr Abbotts appeal merely
resulted for additional cost ballooning out to about $229,000.00 and considering the cost to
engage in a loan and interest this may likely have ballooned out to double of it. For sure Mr
Abbott finally after some10 years was able to get an admission by GE Monies that he never was
a client of them then and as such he never owned the monies but to the country Court of Victoria
it was concerned not with the fraud perpetrated upon it by the OFFICERS OF THE COURT at
the time but that the filing of documentation too late legally justified the making of orders. What
we have is that the court is on the one hand obsessed with legal technicalities (And I can
understand why it has to enforce time limits albeit do view that it system is too complicated for
ordinary people) but yet when it comes to members of the legal profession then such as His
Honour Mullaly J in my view proved then time limits are not an issue and in fact not filing at all
of a Notice of Appearance is ignored all together. And then when the court is notified that it was
an elaborate fraud then all it does is to blatantly ignore it. To the ordinary person on the street as
I view it this reeks to corruption.
In my view the integrity of the administration of justice cannot deem to exist where an ordinary
person can have orders against them which later prove to be the product of an elaborate fraud
perpetrated also upon the County Court of Victoria and the Supreme Court of Victoria and yet
nothing is done about this. If anything His Honour Mullaly J as I understood it to claim no
evidence was needed underlines that in my view we do not have any competent court of law as
now those members of the legal profession who are skilled in perverting the course of justice
know how to manipulate the system and so to say get away with it!
I oppose violence but can understand why then persons give me the understanding they like to
kill a certain judicial officer. Hence my warning to the then Premier of Victoria Mr Jeff Kennett
to install metal detectors, which he subsequently did.
When there is a purported appeal system that so to say cost and arm and a leg then this to me is
not an appeal system at all. It is simply the playground for the rich who can afford an appeal. An
ordinary person who cannot afford to engage a lawyer and likely to make an error then is
crucified and get further orders of cost against him/her. So the person cannot afford his/her own
lawyer (besides the lawyer may turn out to be incompetent) and then ends up having to pay for
the opposing legal team. And as I understand Mr Abbott discovered the Supreme Court of
Victoria was concerned with the ground of appeal and not with the fact that the entire case
against Mr Abbott was based upon an elaborate fraud. Having spent about 4 decades at the Bar
table I can understand that the courts must have certain rules as not to apply them makes
litigation a mockery but then it should enforce them against either party and not so to say turn a
blind eye to when it involves members of the legal profession. Either it is consistent in the
application of the rules or it allows any party, regardless if represented by members of the legal
profession, to violate court rules.
And the court should have a system in place where a party can obtain an ex parte hearing before
a judge to show to have evidence that an order was obtained by fraud, without any cost to this
party, and then if the judge finds that there is evidence proving it then the judge can order that the
case is reopened. I recall where I assisted Mr Toman before His Honour Wozack and I had
assisted in an about 2 page ADDRESS TO THE COURT. His Honour asked opposing barrister if
p9
18-1-2016
Page 10
he had been provided with a copy. The barrister admitted to have received it but the court to
ignore it as it was not relevant. His Honour then started to lecture the barrister that His Honour
had made an oath of office and if the barrister was suggesting he was to ignore his duties and
obligations as a judge then he was mistaken. His Honour asked the barrister if he challenged
what was stated in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT and the barrister made known he didnt,
upon this His Honour set aside all previous orders and ordered that the matters in dispute had to
be completely re-litigated. And this I consider is the proper conduct for administration of justice
where a judge to rule not in favouritism because a party has members of the legal profession
acting for it but because what is just in law.
As a matter of fact in subsequent proceedings His Honour personally thanked me (while I was at
the bar table) for having drafted the minutes of consent orders (which was accepted without
alteration by the lawyers of the other parties, this even so they had not been present when I
drafted them with the litigants being with me) where the lawyers in the years before it had been
unable to resolve this issue. But, while the proceedings were continuing for other matters I
discovered that Mr Toman had received a large superannuation payout and he made clear he had
no intention to disclose this to the court. So, I stepped out of the case as my condition always was
that those I represent/assist must tell the truth. Mr Toman then engaged a legal team but I
understand lost his final case. After that I received a phone call by the other litigant thanking me
for being true to my slogan MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL as obviously I had
discovered that Mr Toman was deceptive and I had been honourable to step out of the case as
result of this.
As Mr Abbott is well aware that I assisted him over decades but never charged him for it, this
while at times I proved his own lawyers were totally wrong in certain matters. One lawyer
actually had the credibility to admit this in writing! With me it was never about monies but about
pursuing to expose the rot in the legal system so that ordinary people can obtain justice. And this
never can be CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Lets have a look at how His honour Mullaly J allegation against my person as I understood it to
be that I was a person who held the law applied to everyone but against me stacks up with the
reasoning against Justice Datuk Ian Chin;
http://www.futurefastforward.com/component/content/article/98
QUOTE
Justice Datuk Ian Chin Must Be Sacked and Charged for Sedition & Contempt
Matthias Chang
Wednesday, 11 June 2008 10:49
Conduct Unbecoming of A Judge
Justice Datuk Ian Chin must be sacked for conduct unbecoming of a judge and prosecuted for sedition and
contempt.
My grounds for calling such actions to be taken against the Judge are as follows:
A) Unsubstantiated Allegations
The so-called disclosure made by Justice Datuk Ian Chin and published by the Star and New Straits Times, that
the former Prime Minister threatened the judiciary has been contradicted by two judges as at 11 th June 2008,
namely:
1.
Datuk Shaik Daud Mohad Ismail, former Court of Appeal Judge

It is a real shock. I do remember the (then) prime minister conveying the message about higher damages in
defamation suits but not of any threats of removing judges via tribunal.
(Emphasis added)
p10
18-1-2016
Page 11
NST 11th June 2008
At page 6
2.
A serving Judge (Name not disclosed in NST)

Tun Eusoffe Chin (then Chief Justice) had invited (Tun) Dr. Mahathir (Mohamad) to personally address
judges at the 1997 judges conference at a hotel in Shah Alam. The former PM did say that the government
would not introduce a law to cap damages awarded to a party in a defamation suit and left it to judges to
control it. He did also raise (Datuk) Ian Chins election petition argument, which the former PM said was
against us. However, we did not speak up because the majority of senior judges felt that Chins ruling on
that case was legally flawed. There were about 70 judges at the meeting but I think the majority of us,
including Chin, were not influenced by what Dr. Mahathir said. I feel Chin took the opportunity to speak
from the Bench because he thought Dr. Mahathir was responsible for blocking his promotion.
(Emphasis added)
NST 11th June 2008
At page 6
It stands to reason, from the above statements, that Justice Datuk Ian Chin had no basis whatsoever in making the
wild allegations against the former prime minister. It is an indictment against the integrity of Justice Datuk Ian
Chin that a serving judge is of the view that Justice Datuk Ian Chins wild allegations against the former prime
minister may be actuated by malice and or self-manufactured delusion that his promotion was blocked by the
former prime minister. Any reasonable man and woman, in the light of the above wild allegations, can only come
to the conclusion that Justice Datuk Ian Chin is not only, not deserving promotion, but to be appointed to the
high office of a judge in 1992.
B) Reference to the term Boot Camp

To refer to a conference of judges and judicial officers on the 26 th 30th May 1997 as a Boot Camp to be
indoctrinated is to use language unbecoming of a judge.
C) Bringing the Judiciary Into Disrepute

By making unsubstantiated the allegations against the former Chief Justice and the former President of
the Court of Appeal, Justice Datuk Ian Chin has scandalised the entire judiciary and it is submitted that
he has also committed contempt of court.
Questionable Motives
On reading Justice Datuk Ian Chins statement, one cannot but question his motives.
All we need to ask is the simple question, Why now?
If Justice Datuk Ian Chin is a man of principle, he ought to have made a police report and it is a lame excuse to
say that We went to the possibility of making a police report or of writing to the Chief Justice a letter to record
what he said over the telephone but in the end he decided against it since it would be his word against that of the
Chief Justice.
If, in fact his allegations are true, as a judge upholding justice and truth, Justice Datuk Ian Chin should have faith
in his own integrity and his fellow judges that ultimately truth and justice will prevail. But instead, he makes
excuses and his action is that of a coward and a man without principle.
In the circumstances, I call upon this disreputable judge to an Open Public Debate on the issues raised in
p11
18-1-2016
Page 12
his Open Court Statement within a week from the date hereof.
If he refuses, I am calling him a coward, a liar and a man unfit to continue in office as a judge.
And I challenge him to hold me in contempt of his court in making this challenge!
And I am warning Justice Datuk Ian Chin that I intend to lodge a police report against him on his
unfounded allegation on the expiry of my notice to him to accept my challenge!
The courage of Justice Datuk Ian Chins convictions will be tested by the courage of my convictions!
A Challenge to the Current Chief Justice

If the current Chief Justice was present in the said conference, I demand as a citizen and a lawyer (and lawyers
are officers of the Court) to know from the Chief Justice whether the allegation that the former prime minister
threatened the judiciary is correct.
If not, whether the Chief Justice intends to advise the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong and the Prime Minister to convene
a Tribunal to investigate into the misconduct of this despicable judge and to recommend his dismissal and to hold
the said judge in contempt of court.
A Challenge to Ambiga
I read with disgust the press statement of Ambiga, the President of Bar Council which presupposes that what
Justice Datuk Ian Chin disclosed in Open Court was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If the allegation by the said judge is found to be without basis whatsoever, I am challenging Ambiga to have the
courage of her convictions to lodge a police report against the said judge and to lead another walk to the Prime
Ministers office in Putrajaya to demand that the said judge be dismissed.
Ambiga, I have previously issued a challenge to you for a public debate.
I am now issuing another challenge to debate on the statement of Justice Datuk Ian Chin. You are to reply within
48 hours from the date hereof.
If you refuse, forever hold your tongue and desists from making stupid press statements concerning the judiciary.
You sound like an opportunist and you act like one.
A Challenge to Judges
I am sick and fed up of judges who have no guts to speak up when in office and to live up to their oath of
office.
Judges demand an independent judiciary but are unwilling to make sacrifices to ensure its independence.
It is such silence in the face of such outrageous misconduct by a fellow judge that confirms the publics
perception that judges are opportunists and cowards.
Why make spurious allegations now and not before?
The problem of the judiciary is to be found within the judiciary. Dont blame third parties for your sordid state of
affairs!
To Fellow Malaysians
You may have noticed by now, that whenever the Badawi Regime has a crisis eg. The UMNO crisis
following the General Election disaster and now the oil price fiasco, the Badawi spin doctors would
attempt to divert your attention with allegations against Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.
This happened just before the General Elections with the setting up of the Royal Commission and the wild
allegations against Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.
p12
18-1-2016
Page 13
This is another side show to throw your mind and anger away from the oil price hike to a non-issue by a
frustrated old Judge who cannot even lie properly. This judge is angry because he covets the post of Chief
Judge of Sarawak and Sabah. He cannot understand why Tan Sri Richard Malanjun was promoted to the
post instead. He blames the former prime minister but he care not to examine his infantile behaviour. And
now, the desperate politicians are taking advantage of his stupidity for their political ends!
Dont fall for this insidious tactic of the Badawi Regime and the blogs and websites fronting for Anwar
Ibrahim.
END QUOTE
In my view the conduct of His Honour Mullaly J was unbecoming of that of an OFFICER OF
THE COURT, there was in my view no evidence let alone legal justification to support what I
view the tirade/bullying upon me by His Honour Mullaly J. As a matter of fact as the ADDRESS
TO THE COURT had been previously emailed to the court it therefore must be considered to
have been a comment that flies in the face of the court records.
Take for example the following email I received on 13 January 2016;
QUOTE
CORRUPTION CHALLENGED
People
David Rode <rodewinsone@hotmail.com>
David Rode
Today at 10:11 AM
To
Hide
Message body
HIGH COURT CORRUPTION CHALLENGED
14/08/2013/0 Comments/in News /by Steven Georgiadis & Associates
For the first time in Australian history, two High Court judges are being prosecuted for defying the
Constitution and refusing to assist parents of sexually abused children betrayed by Family Court
judges.
The Real Justice lobby group last week submitted for filing Constitutional writs against High Court judges
Keifel and Bell for their refusals to file such writs against corrupt Family Court judges and magistrates.
The Australian Constitution contains a unique provision to prevent and deal with corruption by any Federal
public servant but a spokesman for Real Justice confirmed that no such application against judges has been
filed in the last 12 years.
It appears that most politicians and legal experts are unaware that this Constitutional protection against
corruption (section 75 (v) ) is being treated with contempt, thus allowing corruption to flourish even to the
extent that judges in lower Courts are never dealt with for misconduct in matters dealing with sexual abuse of
children.
As a result, many children are being placed into the care of known sexual abusers, or being allowed to remain
in a situation of extreme risk.
p13
18-1-2016
Page 14
The application submitted yesterday by Kevin Kahler and Kerri Bennett is to have the Full Bench of the High
Court decree unlawful the rulings of the two judges, Justices Keifel and Bell.
Instead of filing the writs, guaranteed under section 75 (v) of the Constitution, these High Court judges
ignored all evidence of sexual abuse and corrupt decisions of Family Court judges to decree the applications
frivolous or vexatious.
Judgements of Federal Family Courts must be dealt with by the High Court, which is now defying the
Australian Constitution to protect corrupt judges.
Tags: Australian law, corruption, family law, HIGH COURT CORRUPTION CHALLENGED
http://www.sgalaw.com.au/high-court-corruption-challenged/
END QUOTE
And the following also:
QUOTE
carogne not a response to wait & see
Aussie Justice <aussiejustice@optusnet.com.au>
feedback@facs.nsw.gov.au
contact_us@dpc.nsw.gov.au
Jan 13 at 8:11 PM
To
Hide
Message body
13/01/2016 3.30 PM. Just received a call on my mobile, unable to retrieve. Too small. Knowing that am off
the normal phone because a son of a bitch forbade me to use it. Been cut off because I was
disturbing His Excellency NSW governor, David John Hurley. This morning also I send an email to
feedback@facs.nsw.gov.au and to contact_us@dpc.nsw.gov.au . feedback@facs.nsw.gov.au
responded within an hour last week for different matters resolved in three days, many thanks for it, really
appreciate. But now that I mentioned that I been cut off from outside world when I could be in need
of medicals assistance, both deny me of any response. Wont happen but if happen that I need to call the
emergency 000 & die in the process, wondering who will be responsible? Gabrielle Upton, premier
Mike Baird, or Optus who become police, prosecutor, judge and executioner? Why they don't take me to
court instead to forbade me to use my phone? Peter James receive my letters with such addressing;
Scumbags Solicitor McNamara, James &O'Connor. 79 Victoria Street Grafton. NSW 2460, Earthling
Scum Solicitors, Monkey Business Solicitors and so on. They didn't went to Australia Post to complain
, they must receive it & shut up till they will return my money. The only option is to put two bullets on the
back of my head. If dont they must cope. I'm calling all politicians inept useless parasites. A Current
Affair is now on advertising business, it must be more profitable
.
La Fiamma, Italian newspaper return my letter unopened. rts. I resend back with new address "The
Carogne (cowards) of La Fiamma, sender: Hon. Mike Baird & vice versa to him.
It's my life that you bastards play with & I reserve all the right to call you so.
p14
18-1-2016
Page 15
And when they seek to oppress you And when they try to destroy you Rise and rise again and
again Like the Phoenix from the ashes
Until the Lambs have become Lions and the Rule of Darkness is no more
" Yeah, dream about, sheepish people born sheep & die as a sheep.
END QUOTE
AND I AM UNINDATED WITH THESE KIND OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST

MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, JUDICIAL OFFICERS, ETC.
This is real life, where numerous people are fed up with how our courts have been perverted by
members of the legal profession and the ordinary person can be totally destroyed that in the end
they may consider that if their lives are destroyed then they might as well do the same to those
who perpetrated it against them.
I recognise however that a judicial officer may act perfectly honest in the conduct of the
proceedings and so to say this conduct is in all fairness and honesty and yet the judicial officer
may cop the brunt of the criticism this because the judicial officer unbeknown to him/her is
presiding over an elaborate fraud perpetrated also against the court and the system simply doesnt
allow for this to be exposed.
A start to stop this rot is to accept that a member of the legal profession is nothing more than a
mouthpiece for the party he/she represents and must not be given any special treatment that
would otherwise not be provided to this party if not represented by a member of the legal
profession. As such not to accept statements made by a member of the legal profession as gospel
but to demand the same kind of integrity of what a member of the legal profession may state and
backed up by evidence as it would demand if the party was appearing without legal
representation.
As I reported decades ago, about files of a solicitors office where the instructing solicitor had
advised counsel to seek an adjournment on the basis that the husband had been accused of sexual
abusing the child but it was with a warning not to overdo it because investigations had already
cleared the husband, just to use it to obtain an adjournment. As such lawyers (legal practitioners)
are jacking up the cost of litigation and hoodwinking the courts nothing to do with the proper
administration of justice. The abuses are rife and you wonder why perhaps one day there will be
some kind of a VELVET REVOLUTION that is to get rid of the entire rotten legal system and
get more competent judges adjudicating.
Here we had members of the legal profession conspiring to taint the person of the father merely
so they can unlawfully obtain an adjournment because the instructing lawyer had something else
to do. Yet an unsuspected judge would grand an adjournment and by this inflict additional cost!
Then you have the lawyer who goes to the road side to let his client sign an affidavit of some 36
pages while sitting in a motor vehicle with kids around. Then later when I exposed legal issues
with the affidavit it was withdrawn and then refiled and only again to be withdrawn. Then again
the lawyers will charge Victoria Legal Aid for it all. This is how I experienced the system to
operate.
Where I challenged an opposing party always turning up in a wheelchair to be faking it, boy one
should have heard the trail judge mouthing off on me how I dared to challenge this poor women
disability. In the end His Honour issued orders for this women to produce a medical certificate
to the court to certify that she required a wheelchair. Her lawyers responded with filing a total of
11 Affidavits (that are sworn documents!) including one of a doctor that she required a
wheelchair for her disability. Well I pointed out that the doctor was a vet (and the opposing
barrister acknowledged this) and then all 11 Affidavits were withdrawn. I proved to be right after
all as the barrister then conceded to the court that the (family) doctors refused to make such
declaration!
p15
18-1-2016
Page 16
Another issue is that lawyers often have a client attending to an appointment but then still
occupied with another client then ask the client(having waited perhaps for over one hour) to
comeback for another appointment, but unaware of this client charge Victoria Legal Aid
nevertheless as if this client had a session. After all the client wouldnt have a clue the lawyer did
so and well when Victoria Legal Aid finally bill this client then the client hasnt got a clue what
really the lawyer charged for. And the courts will certify the cost regardless this is concocted and
so fraudulent cost. Despite pointing this out to Victoria Legal Aid decades ago I am not aware
anything was done to improve the system to avoid such fraudulent cost claims.
When a person gives me the understanding how this person can bring down an entire building
(where various courts are operating) then I am aware that the metal detectors are no used in that
regard.
It has become so to say an undeclared war between aggrieved litigants and the legal system and
soon or later casualties will eventuate. One may call them terrorist but I view the real terrorist are
those who are perpetrating this gross injustice by misusing/abusing the legal processes
So to say His Honour Mullaly J picked this time upon the wrong person as I am well known for
my campaign to clean out the rot in the legal system!
Take for example how Buloke Shire Council obtained orders for cost at the Magistrates Court of
Victoria without a shred of evidence by merely making a claim from the bar table (one cannot
give evidence from the bar table) and yet if they had any legitimate right to claim cost then they
should have presented the relevant Authorities that were stated in the documentation it claimed
cost for. That was precisely what I had in mind and I never had any doubt that they would
conceal from the court relevant authorities. Yet, I understood His Honour Mullaly J making
known I couldnt claim cost. As such, while I did the legal research and represent myself as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST and a Professional Advocate and incur out of pocket expenses
somehow the court will not allow for cost! But if I represent another party in this capacity then I
can somehow claim cost. What an utter and sheer nonsense. In particular where I am forced to in
cur cost where eve n before the litigation was instituted by Buloke Shire Council I had prewarned them about the legal issues.
A legal system that allows this kind of rot to exist is in my view not a legal system at all as
intended by the Letters Patent for an impartial administration of justice and neither so intended
by the Framers of the Constitution;
.

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
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people
and the states on terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
Whatever privilege we give to our citizens, the administration of the law should be
equal to all, whatever their colour. The case I refer to is one of the Chinese cases-I
forget the name of it.
Mr. ISAACS.-The case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins.
END QUOTE
p16
18-1-2016
Page 17
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.We must see to-day that the rights of individuals, even unpopular individuals, are preserved in the
Constitution.
END QUOTE
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON:
I hope that I am at any rate acting in the spirit in which we all labour together, and that the result of our
labour will be to found a state of high and august aims, working by the eternal principles of justice and not to
the music of bullets, and affording an example of freedom, political morality, and just action to the
individual, the state and the nation which will one day be the envy of the world.
END QUOTE
What kind of legal system do we have when I for example succeed in an appeal and more than
21 years later discover that nevertheless I had a point against my driver license regarding the
incident? As such, I was punished regardless that I succeed in the appeal. Many who are on the
borderline of losing their license and succeed on appeal nevertheless still could lose their license
for no other reason but that we do not have a proper functional legal system. In my view points
against a persons license should only be permitted by a court decision! This would avoid any
inappropriate interference with a persons license and avoid double application of the point
system where none is applicable. I will explain below some of it. It is also relevant to show that
the Magistrates Court of Victoria Swan Hill venue and not St Arnaud venue as is applicable.
Therefore that Buloke Shire Council in that regard having instituted litigation in the St Arnaud
venue was incorrect and His Honour Mullaly J awarding them to now order an appeal hearing in
Ballarat (the venue of appeal regarding St Arnaud) instead of the Bendigo venue the correct
venue for an appeal hearing regarding Swan Hill, underlines that His honour Mullaly J didnt on
the one hand bother to consider the real issues but merely went along with Buloke Shire Council
regardless the hearing at St Arnaud venue had been incorrect. As such rewards the offender!
Actually I view it should be the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer Mr Wayne Wall and Buloke
Shire Council that should be facing legal sanction as being the real culprits of fire danger and so
recklessly and negligence place the live and goods of other, including fire fighters, unduly at risk.
VicRoads details
However often the real culprits are left without any legal sanction.
The following is very much relevant to the current matter:
Take for example where I was driving a taxi cab and duly stopped at the stop sign. Slowly
moving into the intersection subsequently as on the left the street had a bend. Just when my front
wheels were in the centre of the road I noticed a car belting from the left towards mas a high
speed around the bend that I know I could never clear the intersection and so simply stayed
where I was. The car however was driving at high speed in the centre of the road and smashed
into the left front wheel. It appeared to me the driver had been under the influence of alcohol but
other than having this opinion it is hard to prove this. We exchanged name and details and well
despite that his radiator had been losing water he was still able to drive off. I on the other hand
had to wait for about 45 minutes for a tow truck to collect the vehicle because the left front wheel
system was smashed to smithereens that it couldnt even be pushed of the road. The police
refused to attend because no one was injured. Sometime later I was notified by the owner of the
taxi cab that the police were searching for a hit and run driver, precisely on the day at the
location I was involved in the accident AND SO I CONTACTED THE POLICE. I was
subsequently as I recall it issued with a Summons for failing to stop at a stop sign, hit and run
leaving the scene of an accident without exchanging name and other details. Well, I turned up at
the court and asked the police prosecutor to look at the towing bill and also at the details of the
other driver that were in his handwriting. I was given the understanding then that the charges
would be withdrawn. As I understood it, being a registered insurance agent, the other driver
obviously didnt want to have his insurance company getting details from me about how the
accident eventuated, where the impact was and how severe my damage was indicating he would
p17
18-1-2016
Page 18
have had a considerable speed prior to the collision, as well as my suspicion of drinkdriving, and
so by leaving the scene he may have parked his car out of sight and then the next day reported it
to the police as a hit and run. And then use this report to claim from his insurance. By this
avoiding the insurance company to pay out the insurance if he was for example known with a
drink driving record. While waiting for the tow truck locals gave me the understanding that this
car was known to be using this road as some kind of a racing track. In my view the police ought
to have charged the other driver for filing a false report with the police about a hit and run which
clearly never could have been the circumstances where the tow truck had to tow the taxi cab
away. Where I was towed away about 45 minutes after the accident occurred it must be clear that
it never could have been a hit and run and leaving the scene without exchanging relevant details.
And having his details in his own handwriting also underlined there was an exchange of details,
but who cares as it seems all you need is to have some friends in the police force and the
innocent driver cops it and the real culprit gets away with fraud and perjury, etc.
After all since I filed my appeal against the Magistrates Court of Victoria At St Arnaud, I noticed
that soon afterwards I started to have problems with Optus internet. Nothing strange about this
because when I had the litigation with the Commonwealth of Australia I would experience
simular and even worse problems and once I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth and
other Attorney-Generals on 19 July 2006 in the County court of Victoria suddenly then it was the
end of the internet problems also. As such, I was well aware that certain forces were seeking to
undermine my ability to access the internet. As I am on records that during a previous Council
election I once again stood as an INDEPENDENT candidate and while I was attending at prepolling and was the only candidate there I would bundle together all How-To-Vote card of each
candidate and hand them to electors. Then a person attended who during subsequent conversation
made known that he knew everything about me and why asked why I was handing out also the
How-To-Vote cards of other candidates as this could minimize my ability to be elected. I
explained it was the right thing to do to the electors. Anyhow he gave me the understanding that I
would never be elected no matter how many electors voted for me because there was a group of
people who included lawyers and judges who were there to undermine wand obstruct whatever I
sought to achieve. By the details this person revealed about me it was clear he knew very private
details about me and I had no doubt that he was telling the truth.
Getting back to the Optus problems. I tried to reactivate a new service (I had been with Optus for
some time) when Optus refused to do so. I phoned in and it was made clear to me that they had
twice tried it but my request was rejected. Apparently when they use my driver licence details, as
always over the years, because of the requirement with the so called anti-terrorism laws. Well, I
was able to active without using my driver license details. Obviously concerned that my driver
licence may have been cancelled without my knowledge I request and paid for a statement from
VicRoads as to my driver li cense record. As I recall it I had once alleged speeding incident
about 5 kilometres in 2011 which I legally challenged and nothing after that and so I should have
no points against my driver license. The statement dated 7 January 2016 revealed that Mooney
Ponds Magistrates on 20/05/1984 seemingly found me guilty FAILING TO GIVE RIGHT OF
WAY AT AN INTERSECTION DATE OF OFFENCE 22/8//1983 fined $200 DEFAULTED
FOR FINE 4DAYS. AND UNDERNEATH AGAIN The statement dated 7 January 2016
revealed that Mooney Ponds Magistrates on 20/05/1984 seemingly found me guilty FAILING
TO GIVE RIGHT OF WAY AT AN INTERSECTION DATE OF OFFENCE 22/8//1983 fined
$200 DEFAULTED FOR FINE 4DAYS.
Ok, to my knowledge the charges had been withdrawn because I exposed the other driver to have
concocted the hit and run but nevertheless now after more than 30 years I discovered a fine of
$200 I never knew about and this just underlines how the courts not issuing any documentation
as to orders a person can be totally unaware of any court orders. Moreover all you need is to
know someone in the police force (as the other driver made known he had relatives in the police
force) and well you get done over with and the real culprit can defraud the system.
p18
18-1-2016
Page 19
.
But the records also indicate 21-04-1995 01 POINTS FAILING TO HAV E LIGHTS ALIGHT.
SWAN HILL MAGISTRATES 11/10-1995 FAILING TO HAVE LIGHTS ALIGHT DATE OF
OFFENCE: 21/04/1995 FINED $120.
Boy, do I remember that utter and sheer nonsense.
Let me explain.
It was in the middle of the day that I took my children (around 11 am) to Sea lake oval when I
was parked there I noticed a police car driving in and stopping behind my car and trailer. The
police officer then announced that my right tail light was not working. Again, we are talking at
about 11am in the morning ion a November day while I was parked. So the Police officer asked
me to look at the right rear trailer tail light and I had to agree it wasnt working. Neither for the
fact any of my other lights, as the vehicle was parked, and I had the key still in my pocket. The
policed officer then instructed my 11 year old son to go behind the steering wheel and use the
right indicator while the police officer and I were standing behind the trailer. And no light was
flashing, perhaps I still held the key of the car in my pocket? As the lights do not work without
the key in the ignition and I certainly wasnt going to have an under aged unlicensed child
operating my vehicle. In fact I held the police officer had no authority to authorise an unlicensed
under age child to operate a motor vehicle. The police officer issued me with an infringement
notice that my trailer headlights were working but my right hand taillight was not. The matter
went to the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Swan Hill as that is the correct venue (not St
Arnaud) as Sea Lake court house (a mere 40 kilometre round trip) was closed down. My problem
was someone had put sand in my petrol tank while it was parked on my property in Berriwillock,
and I was away having used V/Line buss and so to travel to Swan Hill would mean I have to
travel via Bendigo to Swan Hill an about 800 Kilometers round trip even so Swan Hill is about a
mere 70 Kilometres from Berriwillock (a 140 Kilometers round trip). I held that it would require
at least 2 nights overnight accommodation for me and my children in Swan Hill and that wasnt
something I could afford for this utter and sheer nonsense and so I didnt attend to the court
hearing. After all, the State government should not be closing down court houses and inflict by
this upon citizens a huge cost to attend to court hearings as this inflicts a gross injustice upon the
accused and draws away also police powers to attend to long distance court houses instead so to
say of being on the streets to be a presence. Regretfully we do not seem to have, in my view,
competent judges who will not tolerate this kind of nonsense of forced extensive travelling, a
denial of justice in itself. Anyhow, while the magistrate didnt convict me he nevertheless issued
orders for a fine and so I appealed to the County Court of Victoria at Bendigo (the correct court
venue regarding Berriwillock (and not Ballarat) and was so to say welcomed by the policed
barrister who made clear I better plea guilty because otherwise the judge would get onto me.
When I was called in I asked the judge why he was hearing the matter because of what the police
prosecutor had stated it seemed the judge merely had to do as being told. OK, this judge didnt
like it and gave the barrister a dressing down having said what he did (A lot more then what I
refer to above). Anyhow the police officer entered the witness box and well gave his version of
the event at Sea Lake oval maintaining that my trailer headlight were working but not my right
indicator on the trailer and that it was about 11 am during the day. As I recall it the judge so to
say gave the police the riot act that it was nonsense of a trailer having headlight, etc, and set
aside the orders of the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Swan Hill!
So, despite that I succeeded on appeal nevertheless I still had 01 point recorded against my driver
license? What a sheer and utter nonsense. Worse is that while I had no other points against my
license at that time, nevertheless had I had so it may have been to exceed the 12 points allowed
and I would have had my driver license suspended, regardless that I succeeded on appeal.
What we have is that we have a point system operating outside the rule of law where an innocent
person can lose his/her driver license without any sanction by the courts.
p19
18-1-2016
Page 20
As for the police officer concerned in the for mentioned case, well I had reported him for
speeding doing 120km in a country road and nearly losing control of the police vehicle. The
Inspector then asked me how I did know the police officer was speeding and I made clear that the
odometer (speedo) was showing the needle on 120 kilometres. The Inspector then asked me if I
was also travelling at that speed as to know the police officer was doing 120 kilometres an hour
and I confirmed I too was travelling at that speed. The Inspector then made known I was
travelling at an unlawful speed and may face charges of speeding and that it couldnt then be
used against the police officer because an illegal act cannot be used against the police officer. I
then explained to the Inspector that I had no way to travel at a lesser speed then the police officer
was driving. The Inspector made clear it was my choice to exceed the speed limit by travelling at
that speed. I then explained that I was the front passenger in the police vehicle and my daughter
was in the back seat because my car had broken down and hence I had no choice to travel at any
speed as the officer was driving and risked our lives by nearly losing control of the vehicle when
he was sliding sidewards when he tried to stop on a backroad where there was another car
stranded and there was a storm with branches all over the road. As such the police officer also as
dangerous driving, etc. As such the police officer tried to get back upon me as I viewed it to issue
the nonsense about my trailer indicator light. If the vehicle didnt have any lights on in the
middle of the day while parked on an oval in November (hardly a winter dark day) then I view
any magistrate with common sense would have realised this was utter and sheer nonsense to
issue an Infringement Notice about. Again the County Court of Victoria Bendigo venue court
records should reveal I succeeded in the appeal.
And these are just a few incidents that underlines how ridiculous the system is where a driver
may lose his license regardless of innocence. And if you happen to be a professional truck driver
with a mortgage on the truck as well on a house to pay and to feed a family and then without
fault you lose your license and so your ability to pay your mortgage of the truck and your home
and feed your family then this can end up in a disaster that I understand results to suicides.
In my view it is the judiciary that so to say have blood on their hands because it should stop
cooperating with this nonsense and make clear to the government that the judiciary are both
independent and impartial and the government must provide court access within a reasonable
distance of citizens and failing to do so then the charges will be dismissed as the citizen will be
denied a fair and proper hearing from onset.
We now have what I consider this corrupt Infringement Act system and so the corrupt
Infringement Court and the judiciary goes along with it instead of holding the Government to
account that it will not tolerate let alone endorse this corrupt system.
All we need, so to say, is a judiciary to show to have some balls!
The mere fact that His Honour Mullaly acted as he did on 30 October 2015 may indicate to an
unsuspected person that His Honour Mullaly J was dealing with evidence that was adverse
against me and hence as I understood it His Honour Mullaly J stating that I was a person who
held the law applied to everyone but myself. Whereas a unsuspected person were to realise that
His Honour Mullaly J had no shred of evidence before him to justify his remarks then it would
show in a totally different perspective. I am well aware that judges at times make comments so
that ion appeal the full court will hold the judge made the comments based upon his observation
of the witnesses and evidence before him. Hence, I view it is essential that I expose that His
Honour Mullaly J had no such evidence nor observed any witness in the witness box as there was
none.
What kind of legal; system do we have that I after more than 30 years discover orders against me
I never knew about? And twice and for the same issue. Surely this nonsense must be stopped?
His Honour Graham J (some decades ago) asked me, as I recall it: If I make orders against you
then you appeal. If I make orders against the other party you will appeal. If I make no orders at
p20
18-1-2016
Page 21
all you will appeal. What do you want me to do?. I recall responding; that Your Honour issue
orders that are justified in law.
I do not attend to court to win or lose a case but to obtain JUSTICE and whatever orders falls
within that I can accept, even if some or all happen to be adverse to me.
His Honour Mullaly J also made known on 30 October 2015 that the hearing on 22 February
2016 may not eventuate and I may have to come back another day.
Moment. Is this an impartial administration of justice or some creepy way to cause a person
whop from onset OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION to incur all kinds of cost as a tactic to
perhaps endlessly inflict financial harm or to escalate cost for the legal profession?
It reminds me upon the incompetent manner that was used in a factory where customers were
told delivery dates but well they were never kept. As the quality control officer I made my marks
and ended up being promoted to production planning. It took me a mere few minutes to realise
that planning g was deplorable. So I suggested to alter the system to what I held was more
appropriate. OK that wasnt received too well, as I had never been involved in production
planning and who was I then to tell the so called professionals how to do their job within minutes
of entering the office. Well to keep it short I produced over the weekend a written set out and the
works manager then made clear to my manager he either implemented my scheme or I would
take over his job. Well that got the job done. And instead of the company operating 8 hours a day
during weekdays only suddenly with my system it proved we had to run 24 hours and so 7 days a
week to achieve the already outstanding delivery dates. At the end the company promoted me to
run factories and do my own production planning as well as quality control.
Lets look at how His Honour Mulally J dealt with matters. His Honour Mullaly J is faced with a
written submission regarding OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and so merely allocate a De
Novo hearing for 4 hours on 22 February 2016. Obviously the jurisdiction hearing has been
ignored. So, it is bound to mean that the De Novo hearing has no legal justification to proceed.
But never mind His Honour Mullaly J indicated that the matter might not be heard that day. So, I
may be told to come back and perhaps back again and then the trail judge will discover that he
cannot proceed with hearing the matter because of the issue of OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION first requiring a jurisdictional hearing. Boy what an utter crap of a system we
have in a court that is supposed to be knowing what it does. This is the rot that was what I
exposed in production planning and it seems to me the courts are as rotten managed.
I had to deal with workers not turning up for work due to a variety of reasons such as sudden ill
health, raw material not supplied by the suppliers, transport problems, etc, nevertheless in
general I was able to achieve every delivery date and in fact ahead of time. This because I
factored these issue in with my determining my delivery dates. What is required is an intelligent
person to manage the courts so that likewise most parties appearing before the courts are able to
have their case heard without any undue delays and undue added cost of adjournments. It simply
doesnt make sense that in one court venue a judge may suddenly be without any case to be heard
because of the time allocated to a particular case no longer is needed whereas at another venue
there is a problem because a particular case drags ion well beyond what was contemplated and all
other parties now face to have to case they came for being rescheduled for another day. What
kind of mismanagement is this, I wonder? In my view the courts have taken it upon themselves
to hold that they decide when a case can be heard regardless how unreasonable it is without
restraint and the harm inflicted upon a party or parties. This misuse and abuse of powers must
stop and the judiciary must provide the service it was supposed to do and not add to the
problems. For sure the Government has more and more court venues closed down under any
excuse but then it is for the judiciary to make a stand and make clear that the government must
not undermine the judiciary and if it does so then there can be legal consequences for the
government in doing so as it may constitute CONTEMPT OF COURT as to unduly interfere
with the due and proper administration of justice. But, as Phillips J of the Supreme Court of
p21
18-1-2016
Page 22
Victoria proved that he waited until retirement before exposing the rot, as reported by The Age
newspaper at the time.
I know too well that a judge may hold that the proceedings before him warrant to continue even
so it is well over the allocated time, but I never have been hearing a judge telling the parties that
while he would prefer to continue on the other hand he has to consider the rights of other parties
which were scheduled to be having their cases heard and the infliction of cost if their cases are
relisted and as such unless he can arrange for another judge to step in immediately to hear their
cases he must deal with them first. This is one of the major problems that the rights of other nonrelated parties are generally blatantly disregarded and so the additional cost for them to have to
pay for another day of legal representation, etc.
At times a lawyer would simply not turn off but the court wouldnt then hit the lawyer with cost
regarding the cost inflicted upon others by his/her failure to appear on time. At times a lawyer
would seek an adjournment upon the basis of having another case to attend to in another court
room. Again an unreasonable expense inflicted in particular where one party may have travelled
hundreds of kilometres to attend and may have lost a days pay and yet this all is ignored and His
Honour Mulally J gave me the understanding that a party not legally represented cannot claim
cost. To me baloney as this denied equality before the courts and allow members of the legal
profession to manipulate the court system, as I experienced in the past, to inflict undue additional
cost as a way to prevent the opponent to have finances to travel long distances again to a hearing
and so can achieve an ex parte hearing.
It appears to me that the courts have this notion that they can dictate whatever they like
irrespective how irresponsible/inappropriate this might be and, and by this so to say become a
terrorist in its own right upon innocent victims of the other party.
In my view we better assist judges to understand their jobs by making sure they have to follow a
point by point list and tick them of as they go along so that even the least unintelligent judge may
just manage to stick to that list of items to be appropriately dealt with.
For sure, I have been long around the court to know that a case that was planned for days
suddenly might be withdrawn or settled out of court and so it would be extremely difficult to deal
with matters as such knowing the precise times of each case. Then again when managing the
factories and having only 2 special machines to be able to do a job and one its crankshaft
breaking down putting the machine for months out of production capacity and with already
months of backlog of orders on delivery dates I simply reorganised the entire production
schedule and with one machine was able to catch up not only on the 3 months backlog but
actually supply orders ahead of time. All it required was to use a bit known by ordinary people as
common sense! For the legal profession adjournments means more money into the bank as
they get paid anyhow but for their clients it can generally be financially devastating. And yet the
courts could manage to a void most of it if there was just someone with sufficient
intelligence/intellect to use some common sense.
A major problem with the judiciary is that they misconceive the true constitutional position of
the courts as an impartial administration of justice/independent administration of justice.
We have chief Justices who allow an encroachment upon the judiciary for whatever reasons
rather than to insist that the courts remain impartial/independent.
As such constitutionally a court must be independent and by the 2-1-1901 Letters Patent
published in the Victorian Gazette we have the so to say double whammy that the courts must be
impartial. It means any legislation that undermines the impartiality/independence of a court
cannot be enforced by the courts. While a court may operate independently it may not be
impartial and visa versa. Hence the double whammy it must be both.
As such it is utter sheer nonsense for judges to claim that they are the 3 rd arm of government,
because no such court system exist. The moment the courts are the 3rd arm of the government it
fails to be both independent and impartial.
p22
18-1-2016
Page 23
The true constitutional provision is that we have the following separation of powers:
1/. The Federal Executives (Government of the Day)
2/. The Parliament
3/. The Inter-State Commission
4/. The judiciary
Probably I can count on one hand how many lawyers (including judges)understand and
comprehend that the section 101 of the constitution the Inter-State Commission is a commission
that cannot be dominated by the Government as its authority rest with the constitution under
Trade and commerce and any further powers the Parliament may by way of legislation provide
for. As such the ACCC is in my view unconstitutional as it is undermining s101 of the
constitution Inter-State Commission powers. Yet we find that judges in the courts will enforce
what they perceive being the law totally ignorant that the very laws they may enforce are not
laws at all!
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the
subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken
into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the
law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a
common one which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically
infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains
some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack
each other's laws.
END QUOTE
Hence road traffic laws that rely upon Victorian certification of speed detection are invalid
because constitutionally this falls within commonwealth weight and measures legislative
powers and is not any longer any concurrent legislative power of the States, from the time the
Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to weight and measures.!
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act
capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let
the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but
trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution.
The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the
Constitution.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE
p23
18-1-2016
Page 24
Take for example the ABN/CAN registration that Phillips J referred to as Unit 19 of the
Department of Justice It is a violation of the independence of the judiciary.
The moment one accepts for the government to tax the judiciary in any shape or form it
undermines the independence of the judiciary. As a matter of fact the authorities on record prove
that the commonwealth cannot tax a State government Department without its consent. As such
the same applies to the judiciary as constitutionally its independence is secured. As such the State
government cannot, nor so the Commonwealth, legislate to tax the judiciary because it then could
use this to interfere/undermine the independence/impartiality if the judiciary. Otherwise the
Government can pursue the Parliament to increase taxation on the judiciary as a way to get it to
fall in line with government policies with its rulings.
And as Phillips J made known that the government had access to its court computers. As such,
what stop the government to amend a reason of judgment to be hand down by a judge to be more
in favour of the government?
From The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
The corporatising of our courts Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria, March 24, 2005
QUOTE
As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,
particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what
they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians,
but while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's
independence.
END QUOTE
Clearly, the wording As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our
constitutional system indicates that this justice held there was a separation of powers within
state level.
From The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
QUOTE
The corporatising of our courts
Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria
March 24, 2005
In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous erosion of the
court's independence.
For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but exciting and
rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for much of that time I have had to
bite my tongue.
I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on the bench, and
especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change emerge in the perception of this
court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I want to speak briefly of that now because I have
been unable to say much about it until now and when my resignation becomes effective, I fear that nobody
will listen.
As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system, particularly
the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what they can and
cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians, but while I have
been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's independence.
One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the decision on
remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the very purpose of freeing both
Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the decision-making process over judicial salaries and
so ensuring the independence of which I am speaking.
Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive officer
be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be ultimately
answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.
That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming
absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a
movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.
p24
18-1-2016
Page 25
This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established as a court of
plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals, this court is the third
arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and the executive. Its role, inter alia, is to control
and to limit those other arms according to law and to that end to stand between those other arms and the
citizen. Hence the emphasis on the court's independence, especially from the executive.
Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe - as
"Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which indiscriminately includes
all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.
This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are prescribed
by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the department at its
discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in this court, apparently in
disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of court.
And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the
department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily avail
themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But access is
possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is the major
litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.
Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision directly, otherwise
than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more insidious. What is evolving is a
perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary within the Department of Justice, a perception
which is inconsistent with this court's fundamental role and underlying independence.
Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court structure and
its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by some in authority as no different
from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is simply not
the case; yet the distinction between a court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over the years, and it
must be restored if the proper constitutional position is not 2to be subverted.
The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen to be,
impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed once and for all, and
ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including any other arm of government.
Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration tribunal. In contrast to a court, a tribunal, properly
so called, exercises administrative functions but not judicial power, and many things flow from that. Such a
tribunal may be an arm of the executive; its members may be appointed for fixed terms, with the possibility
of renewal at the discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see that their remuneration is
fixed independently of the executive.
You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred. While the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists mainly of members
appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the executive - and hence my alarm when,
in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was given some judicial power to exercise, for the latter is
altogether inconsistent with such a form of tenure.
There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is exercising judicial
power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional acting appointment to this court for
a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to institutionalise such temporary appointments at the
discretion of the executive. Judges of a court properly so called must have security of tenure or, in a relatively
small community like this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts have been remarkably free
from any taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be, and be seen to be, impartial and
so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to conflict or the appearance of bias.
In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals pass
like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness but in
one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is demanded
of the appointee.
John D. Phillips is retiring as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. This is part of his farewell address to
the court.
END QUOTE
Constitutionally there is a division between the Judiciary and the legislators and executives. No
Attorney-General has the constitutional powers to interfere with the judiciary but nevertheless
the former Attorney-General Robert Hulls and the Police Minister at the time signed a charge
with TENIX SOLUTIONS MIE Pty Ltd that it now can actually access court computers and use
them to issue Magistrate Court of Victoria court orders as well as warrants, all without any open
court hearing. As such the corruption into the judicial system is rife, because the government
p25
18-1-2016
Page 26
bodies allow a private corporation to not just access court files but to even issue (albeit
unconstitutionally) court orders and warrants.
Judges often refer to being the third arm of Government, rather than the 3rd arm of the sovereign
State. No judiciary can be part of the Government because this infringes upon the
independence of the judiciary. In my view no judicial officer of any court/tribunal can rely upon
using any computer system unless such a computer system is only accessible by the person using
it having a special personal access key for this and prohibit anyone else to have access to the data
stored on it as well as to access it for any other purposes. I know too well how dangerous
computer access can be to strangers, this as I used to purchase broken down computers (some
decades ago) and repair them and then where they previous belonged to lawyers has access to all
their client files, etc. That is also why I learned about the rot lawyers are up to in litigation!
.
There can be absolutely no doubt that the security of the judiciary and so its independence have
been severely compromised and these proceedings no longer can be completed in satisfaction
that it is not without undue interference. In my view any judicial officer who were nevertheless
proceed to make orders/judgments against an accused would disgrace his/her oath of office (if
there was any in the first place) and otherwise act in clear violation of his duties as a sentry.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As
regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
The same with the Attorney-General to direct a court to issue a warrant in ex parte proceedings,
as this too undermines the independence of the judiciary, this as the Framers of the Constitution
embedded in the constitution the legal principle that both sides are to be heard before a judicial
decision can be made. The same with when the government causes court venues to be closed
down and by this burden a citizen to travel as considerable expenses to alternative venues
perhaps as to deter the citizen to show up. Again the judiciary should have spoken up and refuse
to accept such kind of conditions and the government either provide localised venues or the court
will refuse to entertain any prosecution. The same with the so called Infringement Court where
the government places the onus upon the accused to apply to go to court. It is contrary to the
principle of justice where the accuser and not the accused has to take the option to go to court.
After all as I proved to OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of any court then why on earth
should I elect to go to court? In my view we lack any robust honest judiciary as they fail to
speak up about the gross injustices perpetrated upon the many.
For example even so the SRO admitted to have an overpayment made by lawyers on behalf of
my wife at settlement due to having been given the wrong information by the water service
provider, it still refuses to refund it in entirety, and for years now. Yet, if the reverse was
applicable then the water service provider as an enforcement agency could obtain ex parte
orders from the Infringement Court. Likewise where there is this dispute with Buloke Shire
Council regarding their alleged fire danger, where it can issue a Fire Prevention Notice and then
an Infringement Notice whereas the real culprit to have considerable fire danger is the council
itself but no facilities against the enforcement agency. As such we have in my view a corrupt
system that has nothing to do with enforcement of law but more to do with the abuses of legal
powers. After all, when did a judge make clear to the Government we will not go along with your
kind of system that undermines the integrity/independence and impartiality of the judiciary? It is
simply that as I understand it the judiciary have been brainwashed that they are the third arm of
Government and as such they must enforce the government directions.
p26
18-1-2016
Page 27
Take for example how Infringement Notices have an array of directions as to whom to pay.
Which judge ever questioned the syphoning of monies away from consolidated Revenue Funds
into the pockets of private operators and perhaps some politicians as a kick back?
Reality is that any monies that are collected to enforce state legislation and pursued as criminal
conduct must be paid into the consolidated Revenue funds. However, Buloke Shire Council as an
example has that payments has to be made to itself. As such while exercising delegated powers
to enforce purportedly that is State legislation it uses it as a cash bonanza for itself.
QUOTE
Mr. REID.-Look at clause 81, where it is clearly set out thatAll revenues raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth, under the
authority of this Constitution, shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the
public service of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges provided by this
Constitution.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Clause 3. The annual salary of the governor-general shall be fixed by the Parliament from time to time, but
shall not be less than ten thousand pounds, and the same shall be payable to the Queen out of the
consolidated revenue fund of the commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
The Consolidated Revenue Funds is there to pay for the running cost of the Department and to
pay for the management in government, and the monies can only be drawn by way of
Appropriation Bills. Not as such to give financial benefits to some council, circumventing
Appropriation Bills. The same with the delegated powers of taxation which used to be council
rates being delegated State powers of land taxation (that no longer exist since 11-11-1910).
Fancy having municipal/shire councils collecting taxation and spend it on whatever without a
single Appropriation Bill! Yet judges ignore this!
QUOTE
Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the
funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?
Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!
Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the
expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services and powers
given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States to the
Commonwealth.
Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?
Mr. BARTON: Yes.
END QUOTE
Constitutionally the Government can only hand down one budget for taxation and Appropriation
Bills and the so called mini-budget midyear term is unconstitutional but when did any judge
refuse to enforce the mid-term mini budget increase of taxation?
HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
p27
18-1-2016
Page 28
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
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
I understand that the Commonwealth with agreement of the States has discontinued the InterState Commission, but no such powers existed for the Commonwealth and the State to do so and
hence the Commonwealth of Australia itself is clearly at fault in that regard also, as are the
States.
QUOTE
Commission obligatory.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-But the Inter-State Commission must be absolutely independent of Parliament.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
p28
18-1-2016
Page 29
Clause 74.-The High Court shall have jurisdiction, with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as
the Parliament may from time to time prescribe, to hear and determine appeals from all judgments, decrees,
orders, and sentences:
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-It is not a court; it is a jury of experts, like our Railways Commissioners.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-In America the Inter-State Commission is not a judicial body. It gives
decisions which are not enforceable by itself that certain rates are good or bad under the Constitution, but it is
not armed with any power to carry out its own decisions. It has to leave it to the various courts to carry them
out. If it decides that a rate is bad, any person who is aggrieved by its decision may take action, and the
decision of the first court appealed to is subject to review by the High Court. What we seem to do here-I do
not know whether it is actually done by the wording of clause 95-is to set up an independent federal
tribunal, a thing which ought not to be tolerated. We set up a tribunal armed with all powers to carry
out its decisions, and which can encroach in its original jurisdiction within a sphere which really
belongs to the Judiciary. For instance, the whole of the clauses relating to trade and commerce can extend
its power to give decisions to carry them out by the ordinary methods of courts of justice within the whole of
the scope of sub-section (1) of clause 52. Surely it was never intended to set up an auxiliary federal tribunal
like that. I think the proper thing to do is to strike out this provision from clause 74, and to amend clause 95,
so as to make more clear our intention, and to confine the work of the Inter-State Commission simply to
administrative work, and if it declares a rate to be bad, then leave the party aggrieved, whether it be a state
or an individual, to the same redress as exists in America. If a person refuses to pay the rate let the state take
action. In America moneys cannot be recovered which [start page 2281] are claimed under a rate which is
held to be bad.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. DIBBS:
I object, in connection with the independent state of New South Wales-a state as independent as any in the
world, even England itself, so far as the freedom of our position is concerned-to the word "province." There
may be something more dignified in the use of the word "state." We are not going to become provinces.
I do not think we are going to give up the individual rights and liberties which we possess, and which
those who have gone before us have fought for, to become mere provinces under a federal form of
government. We may take the more dignified form of "states." Whilst we have endeavoured to put before
the people of New South Wales, in these resolutions, a sort of opiate, something assuring to their minds that
in joining a federal union we give up nothing of our territorial rights, words have been inserted in them which
I shall do my utmost in Committee to strike out- except in respect to such surrenders as may be agreed upon
as necessary and incidental to the power and authority of the national federal government.
I do not know the meaning of these words, and no hon. gentleman who has yet spoken has given any clear
interpretation of them. It is sufficient for us, in enunciating a principle upon which the basis of a
constitution shall be prepared, to see that the territorial rights and privileges of each colony shall be
preserved to each state but when you come to consider the condition of a surrender, and the question
of the power of enforcing such surrender is placed in the hands of the federal government, then your
provinces or your states will be no party to the proceeding.
END QUOTE
We can call a judicial officer (political correctness) Your Honour or we may refer to a title we
may rather bestow that may be more appropriate in the circumstances. I will not delve into the
numerous explicit titles that have been over the time bestowed upon judicial officers safe to say it
in selves may be a book format of explicits.
QUOTE
FW: PRICELESS....TRULY!! (Good one!)
John Abbott <johnabbott9@bigpond.com>

Today at 10:25 AM
p29
18-1-2016
Page 30
To
'Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.'

Hi Gerrit
The definition of political correct.
Question: does the Constitutional provisions of salary for Ministers apply also to State Ministers and
Allowance for State MPs?
John
Subject: Fw: PRICELESS....TRULY!! (Good one!)
What is meant by the modern term referred to as POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.. Although I consider
myself fluent in English, that term was not in my vocabulary. Someone found this definition in 4 telegrams at
the Truman Library and Museum in Independence Missouri. The following are copies of four telegrams
between President Harry Truman and Gen. Douglas MacArthur on the day before the actual signing of the
WWII Surrender Agreement in September 1945. The contents of those four telegrams below are exactly as
received at the end of the war - not a word has been added or deleted!
(1) Tokyo,Japan
0800-September 1,1945
To: President Harry S Truman
From: General D A MacArthur
Tomorrow we meet with those yellow-bellied bastards and sign the Surrender Documents, any last minute
instructions?
(2) Washington, D C
1300-September 1, 1945
To: D A MacArthur
From: H S Truman
Congratulations, job well done, but you must tone down your obvious dislike of the Japanese when
discussing the terms of the surrender with the press, because some of your remarks are fundamentally not
politically correct!
(3) Tokyo, Japan
To: H S Truman
From: D A MacArthur and C H Nimitz
Wilco Sir, but both Chester and I are somewhat confused, exactly what does the term politically correct
mean?
(4) Washington, D C
To: D A MacArthur/C H Nimitz
From: H S Truman
Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a
sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit
by the clean end!
Now, with special thanks to the Truman Museum and Harry himself, you and I finally have a full
understanding of what POLITICAL CORRECTNESS really means.....
END QUOTE
We may have to call a judicial officer Your Honour/His Honour/Her Honour no matter how
dishonourable the judicial officer may be acting. I prefer to use Sir/Madam. Respect is something
that a judge cannot demand but must earn!
I could fill reams of paper to set out the inappropriate/corrupt/etc of judicial officer and others
but lets consider a statement of someone else, and I am besieged by such statements of
numerous persons, as they all seems to be aggrieved with some gripe about how the legal system
works in favour of the Government and crooks against the honourable citizen.
p30
18-1-2016
Page 31
QUOTE
Ernst F. Kriesner <efk@danzigfreestate.org>

Today at 10:51 AM
To
Attachments
The Rule of Law in Victoria.docx
Message body
Yes, I did, openly and publicly, and not just on that occasion, call a sitting Magistrate at Dandenong, a
Miscreant.
Amazingly I am still a free Man. How come?
But the Brotherhood of Justices fixed me up properly as I had the audacity to challenge the Magistrate in
question at the Supreme Court in November of 2004.
Check it out; Kriesner v the Magistrate
Judge Osborne never allowed me, the Plaintiff, to utter one single word in his Court, calling me a fool in the
bargain for having come to him with such a trivial matter.
Talk about corruption of the rotten to the core Justice system of this State.
Maybe you should ask Shane Dowling about that.
-------- Forwarded Message -------Subject:The Rule of Law in Victoria.docx
Date:Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:37:02 +1100
From:Ernst F. Kriesner <efk@danzigfreestate.org>
Reply-To:efk@danzigfreestate.org
To:efk@danzigfreestate.org
END QUOTE
QUOTE
03 Oct 2010
The Rule of Law, the Attorney-General of Victoria, Democracy, State Election,
the Right(s) of any ordinary citizen of Victoria to file a Complaint against a Magistrate
have such a serious matter dealt with expeditiously!
and
In the Australian system of democracy and our constitution, if I do understand it right, the Court(s), legal
and justice system must be open, free, transparent, and accountable, to us, the people.
Regarding: audaciousness, tyrannical arrogance and venality of power by god-like creatures
representing the Elite, and the forthcoming State Election, here in Victoria:
Try, as we have done, since mid 2004, repeat, since 2004, to file a Complaint against a Magistrate we
always hit a stone-wall.
No matter what we did, over the years, writing to the Premier of this state, to the Department of Justice, to the
Attorney-General directly, to the Chief Magistrate of Victoria;
it was always the same, some nice but meaningless words from the Office of the Premier and Cabinet came
back many a time, telling us, blah, blah, blah, blah, that my concern had been passed onto the AttorneyGeneral.
End of story!
Obviously, no doubt about it, this was done on purpose in order to frustrate us, forcing us to run
around in circles for ever and a day, the Chief Magistrate of Victoria, in consultation with the
Attorney-General, to whom we had directed a
Complaint against a Magistrate , was leading the way, did not see the need to answer.
p31
18-1-2016
Page 32
The real reason, however, why no response came we can only guess, but we had, and have our suspicion as to
the reason why, because not long afterwards a great number of very important, pertinent questions were
raised in regard to the power of a Magistrates court in relation to Family court matters, something we are
aware of a Magistrates court simply does not have.
Those questions, ten in all, and there are more, we want to be answered, Period!
The Victorian Attorney-General being informed at the same time, by way of all the documents sent in
being registered, and we kept at it, not just on one occasion but on several, yet, nothing, absolutely nothing
of the kind did happen!
And when, in an attempt to bring this sordid matter, this Public scandal, before the Public eye, out in
the open, I then demanded to be given the right to initiate my own prosecution, all of a sudden I found
being Public enemy # 1.
In regard to my other demand to have all the outstanding questions answered, one would have thought, if
those 2 Gentleman would have any propriety, or integrity, an honest and candid response ought to have
been forthcoming, especially as we have, openly and without fear, called the Magistrate concerned, a
miscreant many times over.
Yes, sad to say, strange, very strange things do happen here in Victoria where we seem to have the Law of
the Jungle.
Whereas, the Chief Magistrate of Victoria, and the Department of Justice, should have, under any
circumstances, taken me to task immediately for being so outspoken, for daring to cast serious doubts
over a certain Magistrates integrity, knowledge of the Law in general, Australian Road laws in
particular, he, they, did not do so, did not dare, or care.
Very peculiar this is, the guardians of the Law not acting on principles, but allowing the matter to fester!
The very same must be said about the highest Law Officer of this state.
Very strange indeed it is for the guardians of the Law to behave the way they did;
They cowards choose to ignore me rather than taking me to task, as it normally ought to be in any
decent and properly functioning society.
Why did they not tackle me, or show me the error of my ways;
After all the Law is the Law, and the guardians of the law infallible, always above approach, like
Caesars wife, and not being corrupted in any way, especially when it is, in my case precisely, a Public
scandal, therefore, always in the Public interest to have this festering matter dealt with expeditiously.
Yes, stranger still, we hear the Chief Justice, Marilyn Warren, saying that it could not be said that it, the Law
makes its complaint procedures known.
So, something is crook in Tallarook, the whole of the legal, justice and court system, including the Family
court, the Supreme Court, and the Attorney-General, seem to be at odds with each other.
Why is that so?
And why, we, the Public, cannot escape the conclusion that, as far as the whole of the Law and Justice
system, and the complaint procedures are concerned, this dishonest and corrupt system becomes real
vicious if there is something not to their liking they put the barriers of judicial power up.
At same time this rotten to the core system puts the boot into any of us poor individuals, for we, the Public,
are not allowed to reason why the wool is pulled over our ears by the high and mighty.
More to it, something is really rotten in the State of Victoria when it comes to the point of safeguarding their
own petty interest, the protection of the Brotherhood colleagues, cronies and mates becomes
paramount, and is carried out with brutal efficiency at all cost.
Another reason why it is so easy for the system to engage and get away with such despicable practices
is the fact that, here in Victoria, we do not have an independent judicial complaint system.
p32
18-1-2016
Page 33
And as there is no independent judicial complaint system, the temptation for the system to be abusive and
discriminatory is always there, especially coming from the Chief Magistrate of Victoria, and his superior, the
Attorney-General, who has a special reason to protect one of his Boys, to treat us poor individuals with utter
contempt, using chicanery as a method, and silence, the proven weapon of individual destruction!
Chicanery: 1. Verbal deception or trickery, esp. in legal matters, dishonest or sharp practice.
2. Trick, deception, sophistry, or quibble.
Noun 1
wile, shenanigan, trickery, chicane, guile, dissimulation, deception, dissembling, deceit,

the act of deceiving, dupery, hoax, put-on, humbug, fraud, fraudulence, something intended
to deceive, deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage, jugglery- artful trickery to
achieve an end.
Trickery, cheating, intrigue, deception, stone-walling, duplicity, subterfuge, stratagems,
String-pulling, double-speak, double-dealing, underhandedness, skulduggery, deviousness....
As to the above, the biased, tyrannical, uncivilised, legal, court and justice system, in my case, [no, I am
sure not to be the only such victim] has seen it fit and proper to discriminate, to belittle and degrade, to
smear my character beyond any recognition, and has shamefully used all of the above methods just to
show that the likes of me [us] do count for absolutely nothing, therefore must be treated with contempt,
utter contempt.
What has happened to me, the unjust punishment and humiliation that has been inflicted upon this
poor, innocent soul, is outrageous, and as such is just not possible in any other civilised society!
Not possible even in fascist or totalitarian countries!
That it did happen, and has not come to an end, speaks volumes about the state of affairs here in
Victoria.
Slander of the worst kind and outright lies without any foundation, and much more, no we do not want to go
into all the sordid details here, that has been documented already, was just one of the reason why the system
sought to destroy me.
Cooking the Books , meaning the deliberate falsification of Court documents was another to achieve the
desired end in the process!
It started via a Kangaroo court, where I was not the accused but the Plaintiff.
Again, it would go too far to tell the whole sordid story here, sufficient to say: Truth did not come out.
Indeed, Truth, before a miscreant of a Magistrate was brutally butchered and manipulated beyond belief,
Lies, bloody Lies, and plenty of perjury, were not only allowed her Court, but encouraged!
What I am saying here cannot ever happen in any Court of Law in Victoria, I hear you say!
Reality is; it did!
Whats more, because it is the naked Truth that wants exposure before the Public;
Thats why I am sent to Coventry!
It is therefore hypocritical, for, he, is after all, only the Chief Magistrate of Victoria, therefore a Public
servant, not a Master or an omnipotent God, to deny me the right to challenge.
But there we have, the very one, the Chief Magistrate of Victoria, who, according to The Age of July 11,
2009, is calling for a commission to examine complaints about judges and magistrates.
But then, he, Mr. Ian Gray, is telling me, as late as September 2010, that I, under the Law of Victoria,
have absolutely no rights at all, no right even to be spoken to, for he, the Chief Magistrate of Victoria
couldnt be bothered with someone like me who is so low in his standing.
There we have it, directly out of the Horses mouth!
p33
18-1-2016
Page 34
As to the Attorney-General, the Hon. Rob Hulls, the very same is happening, he too, a Public servant is
in denial, and has done his level best to push me around, and frustrate me, for such a long time.
Now, only last week, word has come through, from the Office of the Premier and Cabinet, that to my concern
will be looked at, and I may expect some kind of response.
What this kind of response will be is anybodys guess for it does not sound too good.
It does not sound too good because the point has been made that the Attorney-General, nor his
department, are in the mood to respond urgently, the coming State Election, in any case, must take
priority!
There we have it, for an important, pompous Politician, no matter about the urgency of the concern,
the lowly citizen, therefore, must stand aside, or else, State Elections have to come first, being vital for the
survival of the system, and the Labor State.
This thing they call Democracy, what is it really?
Has it anything to do with We, the People?
Me thinks, the present, tyrannical, un-democratic Attorney-General has either something to hide, has
someone close to his heart to protect, or he is 100% sure that his Party is going the win the Election, by
hook or by crook.
Victoria: State of the fair go or the fob off?
State Premier John Brumby, using Tax payers Money, has one fundamental goal:
Making Victoria a fairer place.
Youll be the judge, but for me, according to truth and experience, it is a lot of BS.
This state Election, according to Mr. Brumby, is going to be about social justice being the main difference
between the Parties.
Fairness is right at the centre of the Governments programme, or vision for this state,
Mr. Brumby says, pointing to the Fairer Victoria package.
So, after 11 years of Labor, is Victoria a fairer place?
Anyone asking me, the, now in his 82nd year on this Earth, Veteran of the Snowy-Mountains-Scheme where
he encountered real fairness, justice, good leadership, mateship, harmony and much, much more, working
together with good people coming together from distant lands and cultures, all of us contributing to Australia
coming of Age:
Ill have this to say:
The state of Victoria, under the present Labor government, has become a state that is rotten to the
core, where everything, like fish that smells from the top first, has become corrupted in the worse sense
of the word.
As stated before, what has happened to me, here in the State of Victoria, my utter humiliation
continuing, as far as fairness is concerned, is unprecedented, has no equal, could not ever happen
anywhere else in the world for it is the very opposite of what real fairness is all about!
Anybody out there who likes to challenge my words as to the rotten to the core, State of Victoria?
Ernst F. Kriesner
4 Rachel Street, Dandenong-North, 3175
Tel/Fax: 61 3 9790 5181
efk@danzigfreestate.org
END QUOTE
What we need is Chief Justices who will make clear to the government that it must not
interfere/undermine the independence/impartiality of the judiciary. Any attempt by the
government to enforce the so called Infringement Court orders/warrant will be deemed to
p34
18-1-2016
Page 35
undermine the impartiality/independence of the judiciary as it is not an independent/ impartial
court as required by the 2-1-1901 Letters Patent. Likewise so with VCAT (Victorian Civil
Administrative Tribunal) and any legislation providing for court orders without prior knowledge
to the person against to whom it may be adverse having been denied knowledge of the litigation
and/or to attend will in principle be held invalid.
Judicial officers who do not have Victorian Citizenship cannot be regarded as being the peers
of an accused/defendant, and as such cannot adjudicate in regard of those appearing before the
Victorian Courts.
Let no judge ever again claim that I am some person who holds the law applies to everyone but
myself. Indeed, as I challenged the Validity of the Infringement Court Act 2006 then it is
ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio not just to myself but regarding anyone else. It rather is that the very
authorities and judiciary who are to uphold the rule of law are the once generally, at least in my
view, placing themselves above the rule of law, of which some set out above.
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of everyone
to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
END QUOTE
No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:
LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335
QUOTE
But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned,
no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good
faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the
wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper
motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism,
and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a
cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of
ordinary man
END QUOTE
.
The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVENING NEWS (1880) N.S.W.
LR 211 AT 239.:
QUOTE
The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice of
sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day,
would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be
rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
END QUOTE
.
As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
(a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368
(b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
(c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
(d) SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA LEWIS v. JUDGE OGDEN [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682
Contempt of Court (Vict.)
QUOTE
11. However, mere discourtesy falls well short of insulting conduct, let alone wilfully insulting conduct
which is the hallmark of contempt
END QUOTE
QUOTE
p35
18-1-2016
Page 36
16. The appellant's address continued with three examples in which it was suggested that the judge had
intervened to diminish the effect of points sought to be made by the appellant in his cross-examination of
Crown witnesses - his Honour had described one point as "pedantic" - and that he had attempted to rescue
witnesses from predicaments presented by their evidence. The evidence on which these criticisms of the
judge were based was not before us. Consequently we are unable to determine whether the criticisms were
well or ill-founded. (at p691)
20...namely that his Honour's attitude to Paul's case was adverse and unfair in the sense of being "one-sided",
we do not consider that the learned judge could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellant's comments amounted to an insult. The appellant's conduct was extremely discourteous, perhaps
offensive, and deserving of rebuke by his Honour, but in our view it could not be said to constitute
contempt.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
21. In conclusion three comments should be made.
The first is to recall that the contempt power is exercised to vindicate the integrity of the court and of its
proceedings; it is rarely, if ever, exercised to vindicate the personal dignity of a judge (Ex parte Fernandez
(1861) 30 LJCP 321, at p 332 ; Reg. v. Castro; Skipworth's Case (1873) LR 9 QB 219, at p 232 ; Bellanto
(1962) 63 SR (NSW), at pp 200, 202 ).
The second is that the summary power of punishing for contempt should be used sparingly and
only in serious cases (Shamdasani (1945) AC, at p 270 ; Izuora v. The Queen (1953) AC 327, at p 336 ).
The final comment is that the charge of contempt should specify the nature of the contempt, i.e., that it
consists of a wilful insult to the judge, and identify the alleged insult. (at p693)
22. In the result we would allow the appeal. (at p693)
ORDER
Appeal allowed.
END QUOTE
As I stated above, I some years ago was given the understanding that a group of people including
lawyers and judges were there to undermine/obstruct, etc, my efforts and well to me it appears
that His Honour Mullaly J might belong to that groups as I cannot find any reasonable
explanation why on earth a judge would act as His Honour Mullaly J did on 30 October 2015.
As I indicated the interference for me to access the internet since I filed my appeal cannot be
dismissed as something accidentally eventuating as my computer screen showed that I needed
permission of my ISP (Yes I kept a screen print record) and in the end without changing any
settings when I (albeit lawfully) was able to activate the service using someone else identity then
I had no further problem. As such, it clearly is directed against my person (second ISP) and not
some error of my computer. As a matter of fact the same denial was eventuating with a new
computer. Also for the record With Telstra $213.27 credit to me since 20 October 2013 and as
such it cannot be argued that I was denied internet access for owning monies to Telstra. And as I
use prepaid services I already have paid and have the right to access for this the Internet.
However, I am aware that Robert Menzies as Prime Minister unconstitutionally set up ASIO and
used this to spy upon political opponents and even prevent them to obtain jobs, etc. And as such I
am well aware that this secrecy of ASIO and how the Government seeks to use
telecommunication to silence its opponents. As I referred to above it did so in the past to try to
undermine my case against them but they failed miserably. All along I expected this
unconstitutional/unlawful interference and have sim cards galore and so mobile phones with
most not at all recorded against my name so that I can (again) lawfully use the identity of
someone else and get around such problems. But in my view the lack of a proper judiciary
acting against this kind of interference and allowing itself as Phillips J made clear to be
Business Unit 19 of the government rather than to be an independent/impartial judiciary then
the judicially clearly has to something major to answer for. It is the conduct of the judiciary that I
view constituted CONTEMPT OF COURT by failing to uphold the integrity of the judiciary. It
is in my view an indictment the judiciary cannot itself deal with as it would be bias and likely
p36
18-1-2016
Page 37
would railroad the matter as an interested party. And without citizenship then only the Privy
Council could hear and determine matters, and well this unlikely is going to be permitted.
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (
QUOTE
Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just
interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE
Regretfully we have the Australian Federal Police roaming around and in the past invading State
jurisdictions bashing down doors such as in Bundoora and ASIO some secret intelligence service
and I am not aware a single judge ever understood this is in violation of the legal principles
embedded in the constitution.
.
Judges have grown up with that the Australian Federal Police are roaming through the States and
simply havent got any understanding/comprehension that this is in violation to the legal
principles embedded in the constitution. Hence, they are dealing with application as a matter of
fact and most persons subjected to any application and I may state so their lawyers wouldnt have
a clue that the rule of law is limited by the constitution and not in defiance of it. We therefore can
have people convicted who in real constitutional terms may have committed no offence.
Any inquiry by those grown up with what is called the system will unlikely expose the real
problems because they will look at matters as to what they are accustomed to and perceive to be
the rule of law rather than what is constitutionally permissible and applicable. It is a bit like the
story of the elephant which held at as chain had it replaced with a thin rope but it worked as the
chain not because of the strength of the rope but because the elephant had grown up with the
limitation of the chain assuming it always is there. Obviously, because of my ongoing exposure
of the wrongdoings of governments, etc, it has placed me so to say on a target list.
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and
the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in
this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the
peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.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
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
In my view it should be compulsory for any lawyer/judge to be passing a test upon the legal
principles embedded in the constitution before being permitted to practice law and/or to
adjudicate. My criticism, as much as is upon governments and other authorities, upon and in
regard of the judiciary is one that is badly needed and should be considered in the proper context
p37
18-1-2016
Page 38
and never can be CONTEMPT OF COURT. After all, protecting so to say a dirty judge cannot
serve the integrity of the judiciary. Judges should stick to adjudicating on the evidence before
them and not leave their own perhaps inadequate understanding/perceptions of life interfere with
proper judicial conduct. It is not the function nor should become it of the judiciary of allowing
governments to turn terrorists in various ways against its own citizens. Regretfully assessing the
conduct of His Honour Mullaly J in my view it not only seems to be condoned but supported, by
so to say His Honour Mullaly J brand of deplorable judicial conduct.
Worse of it all is that for example with Buloke Shire Council it actually is using a conduct that
places fire fighters and others their lives in jeopardy and yet the way the Infringement Act 2006
is set up it all remains out of bounds for the judiciary to deal with. As such, this is not about fire
safety but about setting up a system that is in clear violation of the basic common rights of
citizens and so of the legal principles embedded in the constitution and I view that if His Honour
Mullaly J and his staff had any credibility then His Honour Mullaly J, at least the Chief Justice
would order a proper investigation to address these issues and stop the so to say puppet on a
string conduct of the judiciary for the Government. At a time when so many fire fighters are
putting their lives on the line to fight fire fires I view it is beyond question that there is an urgent
need to appropriately address issues. If indeed Buloke Shire Council as like other councils may
be the real culprits of many fires eventuating then why is there not a system in place to hold them
personally liable instead of the judiciary so to say sit on the fence watching fire fighters and
others needlessly dying. If the judiciary is there to punish the guilty person and to seek to set an
example (as a deterrent) to others not to get involved in wrongdoings then I view it is a very poor
job, at least where it seem to me to be in regard of fire protection issues and other issues referred
to above!
What we have is an avalanche of criminal convictions where in average about every man, woman
and child is ending up to be a criminal, and yet the court venues are closing ongoing.
Governments making it more difficult and expensive for an accused to attend to a court hearing,
as a Registrar of the then Perin Court gave me the understanding that this was to have most
people regardless of being guilty or innocent to just pay up and cop it then to incur the financial
loss to contest charges where the court no matter how dishonest a police officer might be will
nevertheless take the officers word above that of the accused. It is because our judiciary in my
view is too weak and without any conscious it has allowed this system to explode and by this
undermine the very purpose of the judiciary, to provide impartial unbiased independent
judgements. As such by hook or by crook innocent people are convicted to serve the
governments ever increasing appetite for money and so to say the courts serve their masters,
instead of remaining independent/impartial. In my view it is the judiciary who so to say sold its
soul to the devil and pretend to be an independent impartial judiciary. What we need is a separate
body that exist not just of lawyers but mainly of ordinary citizens who are to investigate
complaints against members of the judiciary. It is one thing for a judicial officer to make an error
of judgment, as we all as humans are prone to make them but another thing for a judicial officer
to misuse/abuse his/her judicial powers. Every judge is a link in a chain and the moment one
judge fails to adhere to his/her oath of office then the entire chain is becoming useless. And
likewise this applies to the staff of judicial officers who may or may not undermine the particular
judicial officer who may rely upon their unquestionable support.
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!)
p38
18-1-2016

20160118-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Associate MR Garry McIntosh To His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Contempt of Court-etc-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

20160118-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Associate MR Garry McIntosh To His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Contempt of Court-etc-SUPPLEMENT-01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J.

Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria, feedback@countycourt.vic.gov.au

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Datuk Shaik Daud Mohad Ismail, former Court of Appeal Judge

A serving Judge (Name not disclosed in NST)

B) Reference to the term Boot Camp

C) Bringing the Judiciary Into Disrepute

A Challenge to the Current Chief Justice

David Rode <rodewinsone@hotmail.com>

Aussie Justice <aussiejustice@optusnet.com.au>

AND I AM UNINDATED WITH THESE KIND OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

John Abbott <johnabbott9@bigpond.com>

'Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.'

Ernst F. Kriesner <efk@danzigfreestate.org>

The Rule of Law in Victoria.docx

wile, shenanigan, trickery, chicane, guile, dissimulation, deception, dissembling, deceit,

Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

You might also like