Re 17-5-2016 hearing Page 1

ADDRESS TO THE COURT

County Court of Victoria
His/Her Honour
County Court of Victoria at Ballarat venue
Cc:

Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au

Reference AP 2502 Buloke Shire Council for State of Victoria v Schorel-Hlavka

Your Honour,
I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and (retired) Professional Advocate and as such
gained over the decades an understanding about legal matters.
On 30 October 2015 before His honour Mullaly J I provided an 11 page written submission
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION which has not been disposed of. Hence, no appeal can be
heard unless and until if ever at all the court can dispose of the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION. And without seeking to delve into numerous technical details as I already filed
a written submission (with supplements) of about 275 pages for the 22 February 2016 hearing
date, that however didnt eventuate, I rely upon that also.
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
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.

As the States are created within s106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK) then clearly all legal principles embedded in the constitution applies also to any state
legislation and court rules and regulations.
On Friday 13 May 2016 I attempted to find the latest version of a Notice of Appearance in
criminal matters and went to search it on the internet. After many hours of searching and reading
articles it became clear to me that judges at times make errors not being able to adhere to the
numerous rules and regulations and other legislative provisions (hence successful appeals)
which is further expanded by court staff making errors and likewise legal practitioners. In fact
on 25 May 2016 the County Court of Victoria is as I understand it a session for legal
practitioners to learn about eFiling.
If the court holds it necessarily to hold special sessions for legal practitioners then surely it
cannot expect unlettered persons to do better, albeit they are not provided for this.
Where the courts must place both parties on equal footing then this obviously doesnt exist
where legal practitioners have special ways to be provided for, even immediate contact with
associates of judges whereas I am as a party not provided with the same.
The fast amount of material in my view is beyond the scope of an unlettered person to read and
understand/comprehend when faced with a charge, and as such the complexity of the legal
provisions are too cumbersome to enable an accused a reasonable opportunity to defend his/her
case. It should be understood that legal practitioners do no more but give legal advice as to
their opinion about legal provisions and often are found to be totally in the wrong, when a
court hands down a decision against their clients. As such engaging a legal practitioner doesnt at
all mean a better position before the court rather likely a more expensive litigation. In my view
the complexity of the rules/regulations/legislation is beyond reasonable and must be drastically
reduces so ordinary persons have a reasonable opportunity to understand and comprehend it all
as much as they are entitled to do with the constitution. After all rules/regulations/legislation are
subject to the constitution and must conform to the principle that it must be able to be understood
p1

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Objector/Appellant

Appeal 15-2502

Re 17-5-2016 hearing Page 2

by unlettered persons. Hence the current mountains of details to be digested for any unlettered
person in itself is a gross injustice and a denial of a fair and proper hearing. After all as I will set
out below even legal practitioners have problems to act within the confines of
rules/regulations/legislative provisions and flaunt court orders.
The above is further complicated by the conduct of various Victorian Parliaments/Governments
where it closed down numerous local court houses causing considerable difficulties upon parties
in additional travelling cost, etc, sometime totally unacceptable.
For example the original issue is one relating to my property in Berriwillock, where the nearest
court house was 20 Kilometres away in Sea Lake. However the Government closed down this
court house and now the nearest court house is Swan Hill. Just that to get to Swan Hill without
any direct public transport one has to travel first 200 Kilometres to Bendigo by V/Line bull and
then a V/Line train to Swan Hill. Which obviously cannot be done on the day of the hearing and
so a person has to travel in advance with overnight cost added to it. Even if the case is heard the
day of the listing, that not always eventuate, or is adjourned to the next day, etc, then further
additional overnight accommodation cost is incurred and unlikely at the end of the day after a
hearing any transport exist by V/Line train to Bendigo and neither to Berriwillock the same day.
The Parliament having (what I deem unconstitutionally) Infringement Court it effectively causes
people forced to pay up or face horrendous cost to even attend to a Magistrates Court of Victoria.
Essentially the Victorian Government manipulated the legal system to advance it for itself
to place an expensive obstacle course for any defendant to defend his/her case. As such to
make defendants/accused submissive to a court system that is neither fair nor
constitutionally appropriate. My previous filed (via email) written submissions ADDRESS
TO THE COURT for the 22-2-2016 hearing date canvass extensively issues about this also.

The distance of Melbourne to St Arnaud is 244 KM and [2011] UKPC 31 Privy Council Appeal No 0101
of 2010 Electra Daniel Administrator for the estate of George Daniel (deceased) (Appellant) v The
Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Respondent) while this was a wheelchair access issue,
nevertheless the judgment itself refers to access to the courts. As a senior citizen I view the Age
Discrimination Act 2004 applies also, considering also that a Magistrates Court of Victoria court facility
at Heidelberg is about 4 KM away from my residence.
QUOTE Age Discrimination Act 2004
3 Objects
The objects of this Act are:
(b) to ensure, as far as practicable, that everyone has the same rights to equality before the law,
regardless of age, as the rest of the community; and
(c) to allow appropriate benefits and other assistance to be given to people of a certain age,
particularly younger and older persons, in recognition of their particular circumstances; and
END QUOTE Age Discrimination Act 2004

In my view this also violates the Victorian Charter of Human Rights because it discriminate
against people in country areas as to make it virtually impossible for them to defend themselves
in a reasonable manner. In my view the Court should have all along refused to hear and
determine criminal matters where the government follows a tactic to unduly burden a
defendant/accused with cost and other problems as to undermine a party to be able to have a fair
and proper hearing, and by this pervert the course of justice.
.
This matter before the court is one where its origins regarding a property I own at 10 Anderson
Avenue Berriwillock, within the Shire of Buloke. Ass such the appropriate court venue would
have been ordinary the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Swan Hill. However, as I am what is
known an absentee landholder (property owner) residing at Viewbank (suburb in Melbourne)
then the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg is ordinary the appropriate venue, about 4
kilometres from my residence. However Buloke Shire Council, seeking to or purportedly
exercising State legislative power regarding the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 disregard this
all and listed the matter before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud (244 kilometres
each way!). Clearly St Arnaud is not the appropriate venue, but for a Melbourne based lawyers it
means financially a better business for them as they then can charge their client for travelling,
etc. It also makes it difficult for me to attend a hearing, due to the distance.
p2

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Objector/Appellant

Appeal 15-2502

Re 17-5-2016 hearing Page 3

I do not accept that to hold a hearing about 244 kilometres from where I am entitled to attend to a
court venue is reasonable. And I provides a WRITTEN SUBMISSION of OBJECTION TIO
JURISDIKCTION and also made clear that due to ill held I couldnt travel on 20 August 2015
for such hearing.at the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud. The court for reasons
unbeknown to me adjourned the matter for 17 September 2015 albeit didnt provide me with any
orders or reason of judgment as to why it did so. Neither what eventuated with the written
submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT for that hearing. The legal representatives of Buloke
shire council however were acknowledging in their writings to me that they were aware that I
had made known to be too ill to travel and about the OBJECTION TO JURUISDICTION.
On 17 September 2015 I was still under doctors treatment and unable to travel due to ill health
and again provided for that day my written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT. However,
despite my various written request to be provided with sealed court orders and a reason of
judgment none ever was provided for this either. Again the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
appears never to have been disposed of (as I later discovered from the courts recording I had to
pay for to discover what transpired during the hearing. I had no choice but to file an appeal not
only against orders allegedly issued but also about the nonissue of orders. After all the court
never could have invoked jurisdiction if it had not formally by orders and reason of judgment
dismissed the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. All I had was some information from Buloke
Shire Council legal representatives which after wards I discovered was not correct in totality.
In my view it is totally absurd a party needing to file an appeal without knowing the precise
orders that were issued, nor the grounds upon it. Nevertheless I filed an appeal at the Magistrates
Court of Victoria at Broadmeadows, due to the Heidelberg venue being closed due to water
damage, and information posted indicated that the alternatives venues were Broadmeadows,
William Street, Melbourne or Ringwood. At Broadmeadows the appeal was listed to be heard at
William Street, Melbourne County Court of Victoria.
A problem was that at the time of filing the appeal even the registry was not sure if orders were
issued by a magistrate or a registrar. Obviously there is a different legal process to be followed
pending if there is a re-hearing of a registrars decision or an appeal against a magistrates orders.
As such, despite the volumes of rules/regulations/legislative provisions a simple matter of
knowing who actually issued the orders and what the position of that person was at the time was
even so critical to an rehearing or appeal process also denied. Neither that I am aware of did
Buloke Shire Council lawyers file any Notice of Appearance and serve this upon me as
required as soon as possible after an Notice of Appeal was served upon them.
QUOTE
From: Hannah.Feeney@countycourt.vic.gov.au [mailto:Hannah.Feeney@countycourt.vic.gov.au]
On Behalf Of crim.reg@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Sent: Friday, 27 November 2015 3:44 PM
To: Rebecca Orpwood
Subject: Re: Schorel-Hlavka v Buloke Shire Council - County Court Notice of Appeal - AP-15-2502
Hi Rebecca,
Elliot Stafford Associates are not currently listed as the acting solicitors for this matter
Please complete the attached form and email to crim.reg@countycourty.vic.gov.au and resend
your request for a copy of the Orders. We will then be able to action your request.
Kind regards,
Criminal Registry
County Court of Victoria
250 William Street Melbourne 3000
DX 290078 Melbourne
+61 (03) 8636 6570
crim.reg@countycourt.vic.gov.au www.countycourt.vic.gov.au
END QUOTE

p3

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Objector/Appellant

Appeal 15-2502

Re 17-5-2016 hearing Page 4

As such, as late as 27 November 2015 Elliot Stafford Associates are not currently listed as the acting
solicitors for this matter. As such no Notice of appearance was filed let alone served upon me yet
on 30 October 2015 when a pre-appeal hearing was before His Honour Mullaly J the barrister
engaged by Buloke Shire Council concealed this from both the Court and myself.
As such, Buloke Shire Council and/or its lawyer had in my view no legal standing to appear
before His Honour Mullaly J. on 30 October 2015. No leave was sought nor applied for and so
neither granted on 30 October 2015 for Buloke Shire Council or its lawyers to file and serve out
of time a Notice of appearance and as such while this opportunity existed before His Honour
Mullaly J for them to do so they couldnt bother, or whatever. Obviously had they applied I
could have opposed this and perhaps this was why they decided to so to say con the court and
remain silent. While Buloke Shire Council lawyers later seemed to claim they filed the wrong
form, the reality is they never even served me with their alleged wrong form, and if lawyers seek
to act as legal practitioners and fail to understand/comprehend or able to comply with court
rules/regulations/legal provisions then how on earth can the court demand the same to be
enforced against unlettered persons defending themselves, one may ask? Yet, lawyers are eager
to make sure that this eventuates.
Another issue is that ordinary a brief has to be served upon the defendant no later than 14 days
before a hearing in the Magistrates Court of Victoria, this never eventuated regarding the 20
August 2015 and 17 September 2015 hearings. In fact after I filed the Notice of Appeal I
requested on Tuesday 27 October 2015 in writing for the brief, this was not complied with either.
On 30 October 2015 His Honour Mullaly J was wrongly told by the lawyer of Buloke Shire
Council that my request was made the previous day (meaning Thursday 29 October 2015) and
this persuaded His Honour in the end to order that the brief was to be served upon me by no
later posted than 9 November 2015 via Australia Post. This Buloke Shire Council failed to
comply with also. In fact it purported to provide me on about 22 November 2015 with a brief
which showed the hearing date was 18 March 2013 relating to an alleged offence claimed to have
occurred on 17 November 2014. As such the brief not only was not served within the time
frame, as ordered by His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015, but related to an alleged hearing
date that was about 20 months before the actual alleged offence occurred.
It should be understood that therefore the Form 11 was a fraudulent/deceptive statement. And
without any application being made and let alone granted for leave to file and serve out of time
the brief then any purported serves was without legal validity. I having spent decades at the
bar table knows to well that when a party makes such application the other party has the right to
object. After all this was not some isolated incident but an ongoing failure to serve the brief time
and time again and even flaunting the orders of His Honour Mullaly J of 30 October 2015, and
as such any such application could be rightfully opposed by me. And I view no judge in his right
mind could have granted such application for leave. What however also is important is to be
aware that the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud on 17 September 2015 issued orders
without any brief existing. The audio recording indicates an about 3 minute hearing and no
witness called and neither any evidence otherwise placed before the court. As such, it seems to
me that the court merely issued the orders like candy, without any legal justification.
Why indeed have this mountain or rules/regulations and other legislative provisions when in the
end the lawyers can manipulate the legal processes to what suits them and pervert the course of
justice and the courts merely give lip service to them to ensure they can get away with it.
While Buloke Shire Council lawyers (as I do not recognise they are validly legal representatives
in the court proceedings and object to their legal standing in these matters to represent Buloke
Shire Council whatsoever), purportedly then provided a brief for the 22 February 2016 hearing
On ab out 25 November 2015, after I raised the reference of the 18 March 2o013 hearing date in
the form 11) nevertheless one cannot use a brief of an old alleged but likely non-existing case
(this as I never then was advised about such case) and then change some pages and disregard the
strict orders of His Honour Mullaly J of 30 October 2015 as to by no later than 9 November 2015
post via Australia Post the brief.

p4

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Objector/Appellant

Appeal 15-2502

Re 17-5-2016 hearing Page 5

As my past provided material extensively did set out that the Fire Protection Notice violated the
provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1900 (UK) other than to refer to some authorities
below, I see no need to repeat the same as I refer to those documents and so its content already.
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998)
Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing the statutory provision in
that case: "substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible.
Either there was compliance or there was not."
The reasoning of Fullagar J in Clayton v. Heffron (supra) in relation to the provisions of s 5B of the Constitution
Act 1902 (NSW) is material in this context:
"A manner and form are prescribed by section 5B, and that manner and form must be observed if a valid law
is to be produced. Any prescription of manner and form may be repealed or amended, but, while it stands, the
process prescribed by it must be followed. That was decided Trethowan's case and I think that the whole of
what is prescribed by section 5B relates to manner and form. It does not seem to me to be possible to say that
some of the requirements of the section are matters of manner and form while others are not. The section
describes one entire process - a series of steps, one following on another - and only the completion of the
entire process can produce a valid law." (Supra at 262)

It must be stated that at no time has Buloke Shire Council or its lawyers challenged this legal
principle! In my view ordinary competent legal practitioners would communicate any contrary
view if they had one. As such, the entire litigation commenced upon an invalid notice and has
dragged on with Buloke Shire Council and its lawyers making blunders after blunders and yet so
far I am the only person harmed by this.
It may also be stated that I informed the informant that has any evidence he may give can be used
against him regarding trespassing on my property. This, as I understand Buloke Shire Council
has images with time and date proving that the informant unlawfully entered my property
without even having attempted any prior permission/consent to do so. No such right to enter is
provided for within the provisions of the County Fire Authority Act 1958.
HALLIDAY v NEVILL [1984] HCA 80; (1984) 155 CLR 1 (6 December 1984), GEORGE v ROCKETT [1990] HCA 26; (1990)
170 CLR 104 (20 June 1990), PLENTY v DILLON [1991] HCA 5; (1991) 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004, NSW v IBBETT [2006]
HCA 57; (2006) 231 ALR 485; (2006) 81 ALJR 427, KURU v STATE OF NSW [2008] HCA 26 (12 June 2008)

There is a lot more to it all and while the court may not desire so to say to waste court time on
what it may consider being a minor issue, the reality is that it is the court itself and so also the
legal system that is now on trial. If indeed Buloke Shire Council acted in violation of the very
legislation it claims trying to enforce, violated various legal provisions and concealed relevant
details, mislead the court, etc, then this is a gross perversion of justice no court can be party to.
In my view, and I have written in that regard to the court also, there should be held a special
hearing to deal not only with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION but also with the conduct of
Buloke Shire Council and its lawyers. If indeed what I state is correct and the courts are being
manipulated in this manner time and time again then its wasting court time to find innocent
people guilty by a perversion of justice cannot be deemed a minor issue. The integrity of the
court is in question. The courts times are wasted not by a person like myself exposing it but the
culprits perverting the course of justice by manipulating the legal processes unlawfully.
My numerous correspondence were forwarded to Mr Gary McIntosh Associate of His Honour
Mullaly J, Premier Mr Daniel Andrews, the Attorney-General, and others nothing was done to
seek to address these and other issues. In fact Buloke Shire Council continues to use the same
unlawful Fire Prevention Notices as it appears to me an easy way to get a lot of money from
innocent landholders. Hence in my forthcoming book INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK
HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD, A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-09803712-6-0 I contemplate to publish all the material to expose this all.

The Victorian Letters Patent published in the Gazette on 2-1-1901 provides for an impartial
administration of justice and it needs to be independent because of the separation of powers but
that to me isnt provided for.
This court may very well misuse and abuse its powers further as to lump me with orders and
cost no matter what, but then I view any judge doing so would be a traitor to his oath of office.
p5

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Objector/Appellant

Appeal 15-2502

Re 17-5-2016 hearing Page 6

To many people as I understand it are ending up committing suicide because of adverse decisions
by the courts, where the real true facts are never explored and there is a perversion of justice.
The Infringement Court system is a clear example of this. And any judge who cannot
understand/comprehend this should not only hang his/her head in shame but should not be
adjudicating at the bench because gross incompetence is no excuse.
If this court were to persist in continuing the appeal hearing on Tuesday 17 May 2016 then I
view it would do so without invoking jurisdiction. All the court would do is to underline it
indeed is without credibility. What is needed, as I wrote about previously, is that the 17 May
2016 hearing date at Ballarat is vacated and that instead the matter is to be listed for a special
hearing at Melbourne (William street) upon the material I have so far provided to the court, and
in the meantime Buloke Shire Council is restrained from pursuing any further action against me
in regard of matters complained off.
I came to the Commonwealth of Australia in 1971 (from The Netherlands) and English was not
my native language and neither did I have formal education in the English language, but I am
proud upon my self-professed crummy English as at least I seem to be better competent to
understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution than many if not
most lawyers/judges seem to do.As much as the courts expect me to be aware of legalities I have
a right to demand that the court itself likewise does so and enforce it equally against parties
irrespective if they have members of the legal profession or not representing them.
It is of concern to me that His Honour Mullaly J has failed any appropriate action to ensure that
his own orders are appropriately complied with and if not appropriate sanction is taken. After all
I did notify Mr Gary McIntosh the Associate of matters ongoing.

It ought to be obvious that in the current circumstance the court cannot demand I proceed with an
Appeal hearing where the court still failed to deal with if the purported brief is or is not before
the court, and so likewise other issues. After all it would be totally unreasonable for me having to
incur further huge expenses to prepare for an Appeal that in the end may never eventuate.
I have a right to know if any appeal will be legally justified to commence and that clearly cannot
be done unless the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION has been dealt with in a separate hearing.
And, considering the burden of the court sitting in country areas with limited time then I view it
is totally ab surd to hold such a hearing as I have alluded to in Ballarat, where Buloke Shire
Council lawyers are based in Melbourne (Clifton Hill).
As these matters are involving constitutional issues of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) the court can only invoke federal jurisdiction to hear and determine
any matters. The magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud likewise faced the same issue in that
regard but failed to make a ruling if it did or didnt invoke federal jurisdiction. And the
Infringement Act and so the purported Infringement Court system (that was applied) considering
the Infringement Notice doesnt enable federal jurisdiction in the Infringement Court system and
for this the entire issue for this also must fail.
It should be understood that because the proceedings by Buloke Shire Council were instituted
within the powers of the Victorian State Government then in effect it is the State of Victoria
litigating. (See Sydney Council v Commonwealth 1904 (High Court of Australia)
QUOTE 11-5-2016 EMAIL
MY REPLY - Re: Receipt of Emails
From

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

To

attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au

Cc

Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Bcc

inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au

Reply-To

Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Date

Fri 05:06

Sir/Madam,

p6

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Objector/Appellant

Appeal 15-2502

Re 17-5-2016 hearing Page 7

with the hearing date listed for 17 May 2016 at Ballarat, County Court of Victoria, the obvious issue is that
the Attorney-General has an obligation to step in regarding the alleged appeal hearing where clearly Buloke
Shire Council acting under delegated powers of the State Government has failed to comply with the orders
of His Honour Mullaly J of 30 October 2015 and issue cost against the State of Victoria for its failure to take
appropriate action in the matters of APPEAL-15-2502.
it is no good for the Attorney-General to attend too lagte to the issues and in the meantime has the court
wasting valuable time in the process.
Also, as I have placed in my written submissions, the Attorney-General may be held himself to be in
contempt of court in view that he as the first law officer for the State of Victoria should have stepped in
where proceedings are held within the authority of the State Government but the Attorney-General failed to
act appropriately.
I intend to place before ther court a copy of this email so the could will be aware the Attorney-General was
clearly notified of my concerns, including failure to comply with court orders, failure to file and serve
documents in accordance with the legal provisions applicable and providing false and misleading/deceptive
statements, etc.
On 2016-05-11 01:18, attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au wrote:

Good Morning,
We would like to confirm that we have received your email addressed to the
Attorney General, Honorable Martin Pakula MP.
Your correspondence is currently being considered.
Kind Regards
Office of the Hon. Martin Pakula MP
Attorney-General and Minister for Racing
Level 26, 121 Exhibition Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
PH: 03 8684 1111 E: attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
The content of this e-mail and any attachments may be private and confidential, intended only for use
of the individual or entity named. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you must not
read, forward, print, copy, disclose, use or store in any way the information this e-mail or any
attachment contains.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all
copies of this e-mail and any attachments.
Our organisation respects the privacy of individuals. For a copy of our privacy policy please go to our
website or contact us.

END QUOTE
I may state that I in recent days received reply correspondence from the office of the Victorian
Attorney-General that he is as I understand it considering matters. Just that time is running out.
Again, as I stated previously the 17 May 2016 hearing date should be vacated.
In my view where the Attorney-General allows Buloke Shire Council to litigate in clear violation
to the 19 July 2015 decision by the County Court of Victoria then the Attorney-General can be
held personally in CONTEMPT OF COURT and be imprisoned.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html
Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908) Re contempt by Attorney-General

This relates to 2 successful appeals in which I then also OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT regarding my appeals against FAILING TO VOTE convictions.

p7

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Objector/Appellant

Appeal 15-2502

Re 17-5-2016 hearing Page 8

The issue is that if the County Court of Victoria find in regard of my OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION that the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud did not and could not
invoke jurisdiction (for various reasons) and hence its orders are a nullity then the OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION achieves that the orders of the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
are no longer held to be valid. The fact that the court failed to dismiss the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION in its own would be a ground to find no jurisdiction was invoked. And, the fact
that the purported fire prevention Notice was in violation of legal requirements of the County
Fire Authority Act 1958 is another ground, and so on.

I am a senior citizen and view the court should express its dismay that this kind of conduct has
been persisted with by Buloke Shire Council and its lawyers of my retirement entitlements for
litigation that a competent lawyer would likely never have engaged in.
As I do have from time to time problems with walking and standing the attendance required at
Ballarat itself is of considerable burden. And with hearing aid problems I prefer to use writing
(written submissions), as then I can without any problems convey what I seek to submit and
neither can be interrupted by others. Once a judge refused to consider the content of my written
submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT and the full court overturned the orders on the
basis that the judge had to consider the content. As another Full Court in a successful Appeal in
1994 made clear that all lawyers should take as an example of how I presented my submissions,
by quoting relevant authorities to what I refer to.
In my submission the 17 May 2016 cannot proceed where I am still waiting to receive a
response from the Attorney-General as to the matters I raised with the Attorney-General
as the Attorney-General may very well, and he is entitled to take over the case from Buloke
Shire Council (and do as the DPP did on 19 July 2006) not challenge my various
submissions. Obviously it would still be very important that the County Court of Victoria
investigates matters and where it found my allegations to be proven than appropriate
action is taken to deal with these issues.
While the court may desire to keep a hearing to an absolute minimum of time, in the end if this
means the court will be wasting countless time hearing for matters that can be avoided then a
reconsideration is needed what really wasting courts time is about!
As I have indicated in previous correspondences to the Court the court could consider the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION upon the material I so far provided to the court. As such
instead of depriving people in country areas of the limited time the courts sit in the country area a
judge may attend to the legal technicalities in Melbourne and determine the legal issues. This
how I succeeded often even conducting appeals based upon elaborate written submissions in the
ADDRESS TO THE COURT. Better than some barrister lying his head off at the bar table using
false/misleading statements perverting the course of justice!
I view the court should simplify its forms also as to make it that a form can be used for civil as
well as criminal matters. No need to use different forms as the appeal number itself can show if it
is civil or criminal. To make the court system user friendly rather than a myriad of all kind of
provisions even judges daily working with it cannot keep up with.
Where the court limits response time to 7 or 14 days then its rules/regulations, etc, must be such
as that an ordinary person never having been involved in litigation can competently deal with a
response within that time. The mere fact even legal practitioners have problems with compliance
underlines too much of complication in the courts rules/regulations and other legal provisions.
For now I am entitled to first have a proper hearing about the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
and if this succeeds then no appeal is further required, as I have already achieved to have the
orders of 17 September 2015 being nullified.
Any appearance by me to a 17 May 2016 hearing will be under objection and is not
intended and neither must be perceived that I discontinue any objections.
Appellant
p8

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Objector/Appellant

Appeal 15-2502