You are on page 1of 16

Kevin Rudd PM 19-5-2010

C/o R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au
5 .
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
Ref: 100518-Kevin Rudd PM - Re company issues
.
10 Kevin,
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am very well aware as to the intention of the Framers of
the Constitution as to have provided the Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers in regard
of companies as well as for telecommunication issues and for this write to you so that you may
ensure that appropriate legislation is in place and where already appropriate action is taken
15 against those who defies Commonwealth law.
.
For purpose of example I will use current litigation as an example but must make it very clear
that I am competent enough to represent the applicant and conduct matters myself and do not
expect nor seek the Commonwealth of Australia to get involved in the litigation that is before
20 VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) albeit I recognise that the Commonwealth
of Australia may consider for itself if it were to prosecute any company as to offences against
Commonwealth legislative provisions if this were to concluded may have eventuated.
.
The various issues I may canvas are:
25  Can a company registered under Commonwealth law and operating under
Commonwealth law nevertheless deny a client his legal entitlements to have matters in
dispute heard in the State where the contact arose (where the client was at the time
signing the documentation) in direct contravention with the Intentions of the Framers of
the Constitution?
30  Is it appropriate for a company to use a small type of letter print as to set out the
“TERMS & CONDITIONS” but then for litigation purposes provide a large print of the
said “TERMS & CONDITIONS” as to enable a judicial officer the ability to read the
“TERMS & CONDITIONS” ?
 Should a contract have the “ORIGINAL” signatures of both parties to be deemed a valid
35 contract?
 Is it appropriate for a company to use brochures and upon this conclude a sale as then
afterwards to claim that the brochures are incorrect and the client/customer has to pay
thousands of dollars more or have goods delivered in damaged state as well as incomplete
as to what was agreed upon at the time of sale?
40  Would a member of the LEGAL PROFESSION commit an offence under the
Telecommunication legislative provisions where this member of the LEGAL
PROFESSION knew or could have known that he was transmitting documentation for
litigation purposes that he knew or ought to have known were containing false and
misleading and/or deceptive claims, as to pervert the course of JUSTICE.
45  Would a member of the LEGAL PROFESSION commit an offence under the
Telecommunication legislative provisions where this member of the LEGAL
19-5-2010 Page 1
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
PROFESSION knew or could have known that during the telephone hearing in which he
participate by telephone he continues to support the deceptive, false and misleading
conduct as to pervert the course of JUSTICE?
 Such further issues you may deem is relevant from the issues set out below
5 .
The matters below are set out as to give you a better understanding as to what I seek to convey to
you but is not intended by me that somehow you (so the government) may intervene in the
matter. The issue rather is that you can ensure that these kind of practices are outlawed and dealt
with against any offender. As such, if the government deems that certain offences have taken
10 place and seeks to prosecute then this will be apart from the litigation that is presently before
VCAT.
.
As I represent as an advocate the Applicant Mr Ray Vella of Great Body Works I was notified
by the Respondent EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD that Mr Mark Grant Fleming of
15 Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd (Queensland) was to represent them in litigation before VCAT
(Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal). What however I didn’t expect was for Mark
Grant Fleming to conduct himself in what I view unlawful manners which including the filing
of a 6 May 2010 submission in VCAT and to persist with this during the phone in hearing on 12
May 2010 before Deputy President B. Steele.
20 .
It is my view that Mr Mark Grand Fleming knew or ought to have known that his written
submission was concealing relevant details, was deceptive, false and misleading and designed to
pervert the course of JUSTICE.
.
25 These are matters which I view the Federal government ought to investigate, as I hold these
matters to be very serious.
.
I provided EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD with correspondences dated 24 April 2010 and
27 April 2010 which Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd severely
30 attacked as to its content in his 6 May 2010 submission. While in itself an opponent may seek to
attack my writings to argue his own line of argument it must however never be accepted nor
tolerated that a lawyer, and OFFICER OF THE COURT does so with concealing relevant
details, fabricating detail and in the overall making false and misleading claims that amounts to
perverting the course of JUSTICE.
35 .
It is my view that Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd went about to
create a purported “CONTRACT” he filed as a 9-page contract, he included in his 6 May 2010
SUBMISSION as Annexure “A” which he knew or ought to have known from my writings (he
so severely criticised) that never was as such a contract. In fact it is my view that any competent
40 lawyer looking at the 6 May 2010 submission would immediately detect that the submission is
contradicted by its own annexure and the entire submission basically lack any merits and indeed
legal justification.
While these proceedings are before VCAT, nevertheless as this involved what I view deliberately
filing false and misleading claims, concealing relevant details and in the process perverting the
45 course of JUSTICE then I view this should be formally investigated by the Federal
government, apart of what VCAT may itself pursue about this.
In my view any court/tribunal must be able to rely upon that a “LEGAL PRACTITIONER”
who is an OFFICER OF THE COURT does present submissions, using telecommunication
facilities for this also, which are not deliberately falsifying what the true circumstances of the
50 litigation are.
This complaint is not seeking the Federal government to determine the parties rights as that is a
matter for VCAT to determine, nor is it the purpose of the complaint for the Federal
government to deal with the issues of dispute as this is not the function of the the Federal
19-5-2010 Page 2
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
government either however I do view that where it can be proven that a Queensland registered
legal practitioner Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd has been involved
in filing deceptive material which he knew or ought to have known was false and misleading and
was to pervert the course of JUSTICE and by this used telecommunication facilities (such as
5 facsimile and/or phone in facilities, etc) and may have done also as to undermine the purpose of
Commonwealth s51(xx) applicable legislative provisions, then this I view is an issue.
.
I also view that as telecommunication was used this matter is an issue for the Commonwealth to
investigate.
10 .
Essential the issue is that Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd filed an
Annexure “A” of which the first page was a TAX INVOICE which included the word “SENT”
and “22-9-09” as such seeking to prove that certain items on the tax invoice dated 18/9/2009 was
that day forwarded. However in his submission he claims that the goods were received and
15 remained in the possession of the Applicant since 18 August 2009 and by this argued that by the
terms of the contract of 30 days the Applicant had exceeded the 30 day time limit. Upon this
basis he also then argued that by the terms of the written contract JURISDICTION lies with
Queensland.
As such, his entire submission is based upon a delivery on 18 August 2010. the Annexure “A”
20 did not at all exist of any true contract as was purported by Mr Mark Grant Fleming of
Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd but rather was part of 4 different documents Mr Mark Grant
Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd put together as to purport one document “contract”.
.
It is upon this that he achieved an adjournment for a JURISDICTIONAL HEARING as to argue
25 his case that not the State of Victoria but the State of Queensland had jurisdiction in determining
the dispute, where as had Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd filed the
correct details without concealing relevant details and not fabricated a 9-page “contract” referred
to as Annexure “A” then I have no doubt that no JURISDICTIONAL challenge would have been
permitted. As such, the order for a JURISDICTIONAL HEARING, I view, was obtained by
30 perverting the course of JUSTICE!
.
What I submit is that Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd did was to
conceal 2 emails forwarded on 29-9-2009 (one at 16.32 and another at 17.32) by EUROTEC
PRODUKTS PTY LTD to Applicant Mr Ray Vella of Great Body Works even so he knew or
35 ought to have known from my 24 April 2010 and 27 April 2010 (which correspondences he so
severely criticised and hence by this underline/implies to have read them) which are critical to
the entire issue and so to say make or break his legal arguments. (See below for a copy), and as
such concealed critical details. further, that he fabricated a 18 August 2009 date which he knew
or should have known was false, misleading and/or deceptive and was only for the purpose as to
40 fabricate some set of circumstances he knew or ought to have known didn’t exist as such.
Further, that he concocted a version of a “contract” as Annexure “A” which he knew or ought to
have known never existed as such. (See below also).
In my view EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD also knew or should have known that Mr
Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd engaged by them to act as a
45 “professional advocate” within s.62 of the vcaaata1998428 had grossly deceived VCAT.
EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD through Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside
Solicitors Pty Ltd claims that its main trading offices are in Queensland!
.
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
50 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
19-5-2010 Page 3
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
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
5 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.
10 END QUOTE
.
Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF
AUSTRALIA.
QUOTE
15 In my opinion, the words 'false evidence' in s79A(1) do not mean evidence which is
willfully false. The sub-section should be read according to its terms. To say that 'false
evidence should be read as 'willful false evidence' is to introduce a provision not
expressed by the provision; cf s6H of the Royal Commission Act 1902 which speaks of a
witness 'who knowingly gives false testimony'. This interpretation is reinforced by
20 reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and suppression of
evidence which would comprehend cases of willful false evidence.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343
25 Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of
what is true.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
30 In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by
actual injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act
itself is not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.
END QUOTE
.
35 As Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd by his own TAX INVOICE
marked Annexure “A” presented the evidence that EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD
.
THE REAL CIRCUMSTANCES:
 On 22 September 2009 as shown by TAX INVOICE dated 18 September 2009 the
40 mig welder and “Telwin digital Dent Repair System 5500 Plus” (Kit 4) were
despatched to Great Body Works instead of the mig welder and “Telwin Dent
Repair 5500 Kit 3 incl trolley, Pulflex and pullin” and as such at no time did
EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD supply the “Kit 3” as was paid for then or ever
since as a new complete system! Also the mig welder was faulty as it had been used
45 previously. Later the missing dent puller was delivered with cracked rubber feets
indicating it was worn out extensively by past usage and hence was not either in new
condition. As such no new sets were delivered as to what was already paid for.
 On 29 September 2009 (that is 7 days after despatching the defective items the
following email was received first at 4.32 and an identical email albeit at 5.32 again
50 making clear “no deal” and “We will give you your money back and we will
pick up the goods tomorrow”.
 .
QUOTE 090929 16.32 Email
19-5-2010 Page 4
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
From: Brett Fisher
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:32 PM
To: Ray Vella
Subject: no deal
5
Hi Ray,

We have given you the worlds best deal and you have done nothing but winge since
the day we did the deal. We will give you your money back and we will pick up the
10 goods tomorrow
You dont know a good deal when you have just tripped over one.

Regards,
15
Brett Fisher
National Sales Manager

Eurotec Produkts Pty Ltd


20 4/21 Duntroon Street Brendale QLD 4500
Ph: 07 3881 5000
Fax: 07 3881 5051
Mob: 0404 889 239
END QUOTE 090929 16.32 Email
25 .
As such, within 7 days Bret Fisher of EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD had cancelled
the purported contract of sale and committed to refund the monies and to have items
collected the following day. As such in my view what Mr Mark Grant Fleming
Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd for EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD submitted to
30 VCAT in his 6 May 2010 submission clearly is in my view concealing relevant details (the
29 September 2009 emails), deceptive and false and misleading!
Because Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd for EUROTEC
PRODUKTS PTY LTD obtained an order for a hearing to challenge VCAT jurisdiction
then I pursue this was having perverted the course of JUSTICE because if there is no valid
35 “CONTRACT” then it is irrelevant what the purported contract might have stated if indeed
any valid contract that is written contract ever existed.
.
In paragraph 2 (c) of the submission Mr Mark Grant Fleming refers to his Annexure “A” as
follows:
40 QUOTE
The contract was written and signed by the applicant. Annexure “A” is a copy of the signed
contract with printed version of the terms and conditions.
END QUOTE
.
45 The 6 May 2010 submission of Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd
actually consist of at least 4 different documents being;
 TAX INVOICE marked Annexure “A” page
 Pages marked 1 of 4 and 2 of 4 F-069 (Meaning Fax 069) time:12:28
 Pages marked 3 of 4 and 4 of 4 F-067 (Meaning Fax 067 times 12:13 & 12:14
50  Pages marked 3 of 6, 4 of 6, 5 of 6 and 6 of 6
In my view even a first year law student should know better then to fabricate some kind of
“contract” together from at least 4 different documents.
.
When one then look at the purported contract then as far as I am aware of it contains the
55 following pages:
19-5-2010 Page 5
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
 “TAX INVOICE” “SENT” 22-9-09 ANNEXURE “A”
(This document refers to the Welder and Dent System having been “SENT 22-9-09”
 “AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY – PAGE 1 OF 4” DATE; “13-08’09 12:28”
 “AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY – PAGE 2 OF 4” DATE; “13-08’09 12:28”
5 Dated “13/08/2009”
 “AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY – PAGE 3 OF 4” DATE; “13-08’09 12:13”
 “AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY – PAGE 4 OF 4” DATE; “13-08’09 12:24”
 “AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY – PAGE 3 OF 6”
 “AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY – PAGE 4 OF 6”
10  “AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY – PAGE 5 OF 6”
 “AUTHORISATION TO SUPPLY – PAGE 6 OF 6”
.
It must be clear that by the purported contract Mr Mark Grant Fleming filed as Annexure “A”
pursue his claim opposing VCAT JURISDICTION he relies upon the contract constitution
15 these 9-pages. In my view EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD would itself have to admit this
doesn’t at all represent to be the purported “contract”.
Firstly, the documents marked “Annexure “A” (the first page of the Annexure “A”) never was or
could have been part of any “contract” as it is a TAX INVOICE dated 18 September 2009 and
clearly indicates that the welder and Dent Puller equipment were “SENT” on 22 September
20 2009. As such created after the contract of sale (verbally or otherwise) was made on 13 August
2009) Yet, when one check the submission of Mr Mark Grant Fleming he states in paragraph
5:
QUOTE
5. On 18 August 2009 the mig welder and dent puller were delivered to the applicant.
25 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
8. On 7 October 2009, the authorised agent of the applicant verbally informed the
respondent via telephone that it rejected the goods in total and requested a refund.
30 9. By email dated 7 October 2009, the respondent offered to accept a return, from
the applicant, of the dent puller and accessories in exchange for a full refund of
the purchase price for that divisible part of the contract but denied a refund of the
purchase price for the mig welder divisible part of the contract.
10. By letter dated 4 December 2009, the applicant, by its authorised agent rejected
35 the respondent’s offer referred to in the preceding paragraph [9].
11. Since 18 August 2009 the applicant has been, and remains, in possession of the
goods.
END QUOTE
On basis of this Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd acting for EUROTEC
40 PRODUKTS PTY LTD then make further claims such as the 30-days as he relies upon in
clause 7, 7.1 & 7.2 of the contract! As such his entire case is build upon that on 18 August 2009
the goods were received and in possession of Great Body Works (applicant) this even so his
own front page of his annexure shows “tax invoice” “SENT 22-9-09”. In my view it is sheer
incompetence for a legal practitioner to file a claim contrary to his own evidence in his Annexure
45 “A”. As such any calculation of 30-days (if this were to be applicable at all) never could be from
18 August 2009 but at the earliest could be from the date that the items were actually received
and that was after it was delivered subsequently to having been “SENT” on “22-9-09”.
Hence, all this “hot wash” (as I call it) about the 30-days having expired clearly was irrelevant
from the 18 August 2009 date as it never existed as such. What therefore is clear is that the
50 concealment of the two 29 September 2009 emails from Mr Bret Fisher was as to seek to
legitimate his argument about 30-days and an existing contract being applicable in relation to

19-5-2010 Page 6
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
Queensland where =if the would have revealed the content of the 29 September 2009 emails his
entitle submission would be so to say gone out of the window.
I have not enclosed the relevant Annexure “A” but can provide them subsequently if so required.
.
5 It is normal that parties in litigation may have at times conflicts of what the history of matters
may be and I am well aware of this having assisted parties in their litigation for about 3 decades,
however it is and never should be acceptable that an OFFICER OF THE COURT knowingly
or should have known that the 6 May 2010 submission was constructed for no other purpose
but for to pervert the course of JUSTICE. Hence the purpose of the correspondence is also that
10 Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd acted in a manner that in the
circumstances was to obtain by deception, orders he could not have obtained had he disclosed the
true circumstances relevant to the case which he knew or could have known. (Again my 24 April
2010 and 27 April 2010 correspondence did include the 22 September 2009 emails and as such
Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd merely had to check with his clients if
15 such email had been forwarded to Great Body Works.
.
Also, I view that a competent lawyer would first request his client to show the ORIGINAL
contact it claimed to rely upon that shows both the ORIGINAL of the Applicant and also the
ORIGINAL of the Respondent.
20 It is my submission that it is not for a legal practitioner, an OFFICER OF THE COURT to
fabricate his own version of “CONTRACT” so as to try to achieve a JURISDICTIONAL
HEARING where if he filed just the document EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD claimed to
have then the 9-pages may turn out to be a mere 2 pages without the very terms and conditions
Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd so much based his whole
25 JURISDICTIONAL argument upon and not even the two page purported contract would show in
my understanding the ORIGINAL signatures of both the Applicant and the Respondent.
.
While I accept that a LEGAL PRACTITIONER may file a copy of a “CONTRACT” that may or
may not contain errors it is another matter to fabricate a version of a “CONTRACT” that he
30 knew or ought to have known never existed as such.
.
While my position is that certain items were delivered subsequently to 22 September 2009 by 29
September 2009 the sale was cancelled by mutual agreement as confirmed by Mr Brett Fisher
for EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD in his 29 September 2009 emails “no deal” and “We
35 will give you your money back and we will pick up the goods tomorrow ”.
.
Fancy Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd having disclosed this to VCAT
in his 6 May 2010 submission then his entire JURISDICTIONAL argument based upon his
claims would be up so to say in the air. As such concealing these emails was paramount to a
40 deliberate deception to pervert the course of JUSTICE.
.
Some of the 6 May 2010 submissions made by Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors
Pty Ltd were:
.
45 QUOTE
5. On 18 August 2009 the mig welder and dent puller were delivered to the applicant.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
50 11. Since 18 August 2009 the applicant has been, and remains, in possession
of the goods.
END QUOTE
.
19-5-2010 Page 7
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
QUOTE
12. On 7 October 2009, the authorised agent of the applicant verbally informed the
respondent via telephone that it rejected the goods in total and requested a refund.
13. By email dated 7 October 2009, the respondent offered to accept a return, from
5 the applicant, of the dent puller and accessories in exchange for a full refund of
the purchase price for that divisible part of the contract but denied a refund of the
purchase price for the mig welder divisible part of the contract.
14. By letter dated 4 December 2009, the applicant, by its authorised agent rejected
the respondent’s offer referred to in the preceding paragraph [9].
10 15. Since 18 August 2009 the applicant has been, and remains, in possession of the
goods.
END QUOTE
On basis of this Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd acting for EUROTEC
PRODUKTS PTY LTD then make further claims such as the 30-days as he relies upon in
15 clause 7, 7.1 & 7.2 of the contract! As such his entire case is build upon that on 18 August 2009
the goods were received and in possession of Great Body Works (Applicant) this even so his
own front page of his annexure shows “TAX INVOICE” “SENT 22-9-09”. In my view it is
sheer incompetence for a legal practitioner to file a claim contrary to his own evidence in his
Annexure “A”. As such any calculation of 30-days (if this were to be applicable at all) never
20 could be from 18 August 2009 but at the earliest could be from the date that the items were
actually received and that was after it was delivered subsequently to having been “SENT” on
“22-9-09”., that is if the 30-days could be applied at all in the first place.
Hence, all this “hot wash” (as I call it) about the 30-days having expired clearly was irrelevant
from the 18 August 2009 date as it never existed as such.
25 .
I request your attention as to the matters pertaining the deceptive submission as to I view being
breaches of an OFFICER OF THE COURT of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Queensland,
and I make it clear again that this is separate from any determination VCAT may make as to the
rights and entitlements of the parties concerned and also considering that Mr Mark Grant
30 Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd is not a practicing solicitor in the State of Victoria, at
least for so far I am aware of and so doesn’t fall in that regard within its jurisdiction for any
complaint with the authorities of the State of Victoria who otherwise may pursue some of these
matters, other then VCAT itself, against a member of the legal profession of another jurisdiction,
and even then any offences against commonwealth legislative provisions are for the
35 commonwealth to attend to.
.
I do not know neither is it relevant to me as to how long EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD
may have relied upon the legal advice of Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty
Ltd but I have to express my concerns that the conduct of Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside
40 Solicitors Pty Ltd may by this cause undue cost to EUROTEC PRODUKTS PTY LTD if they
were to be provided with legal advise that they have a valid case to contest the applicants claims
where as I view a FAIR MINDED PERSON would have understood that in view of the 29
September 2009 emails (identical other then the time of sending) then the sale came to an end ab
initio and no contract or purported contract then existed.
45 My 24 April 2010 and 27 April 2010 correspondence both referred to that Mr Ray Vella of
Great Body Works suffered of suffer of dyslexia syndrome and as such it appears to me that
Mr Mark Grant Fleming Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd seeking to oppose me to represent
Great Body Works then seek to take undue and improper advantage of this “dyslexia
syndrome” and to me this is a very serious matter also.
50 .
What we have therefore is that we need appropriate legislative provisions in place, if not already
existing, that any company that is trading in a certain State cannot include any clauses in any

19-5-2010 Page 8
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
contract that pursues to deny that State jurisdiction to hear and determine any dispute between
the company and the client/customer.
.
That all and any terms and conditions must be in clear legible print no smaller then size “12”
5 “Times New Roman”.
.
That where a company is dealing with a person who suffers of “DYSLEXIASYNDROME” or
other problems which may have or likely may have prevented the client/customer to fully
understand and comprehend the terms and condition of the contract and/or the legal
10 responsibilities associated with the contract then such contract shall be deemed void ab initio
unless the company can demonstrate by appropriate evidence that the client/customer was in a
position to understand matters. For example that the client/customer was assisted by a person of
his choice (being it a legal practitioner or otherwise) which was competent to understand the
relevant legal issues and was able to advise the client/customer of this in a sufficient manner to
15 ensure that the client/customer at the time of signing any documents understood precisely what
he was engaging in.
.
Also, the fact that Mr Mark Grant Fleming of Northside Solicitors Pty Ltd filed another set
of terms and conditions (with larger prints) as to overcome the problems for VCAT not being
20 able to read the small print underlines that this kind of conduct must be prohibited. If the print is
deemed “too small” for a judicial officer to read then surely it must be deemed to be “too small”
for a person who suffers of DYSLEXIA SYNDROME to read it in a workshop environment or
for that matter most people in a workshop environment.
.
25 Further, I view it is essential, for so far this is not already part of legislative provisions, that any
contract that is presented by a company must be appropriately have each page numbered
consecutively showing each page its page number of how many pages the contract is in totality
also. What we had here was pages transmitted at different times and containing therefore
different imprints of facsimile recordings as well as unnumbered pages and other pages never
30 part of any facsimile transmission that a total of 9-pages were presented as an Annexure “A”
even so the document that purported to show the signatures of the contract of sale merely was of
2 pages.
.
THE ISSUE OF A TRUST FUND
35 It is not uncommon that companies use lawyers to protract litigation and prolong the agony upon
other parties in all kind of conflicts, not just contract, such as employers failing to secure the
entitlements of employees, etc. and by the time finally the courts get around to pronounce a
judgment in favour of an employee/customer, etc, then most if not all of the moneys were so to
say eaten away by lawyers. In my view the Commonwealth should legislate that it is mandatory
40 involving any company that where there is a dispute then unless a court orders otherwise the
company must deposit in a special trust fund held by the Commonwealth Attorney-General the
monies in dispute. Trust funds of a legal practitioner will be useless as the lawyers themselves
will take a large slice out of it to renumerate their litigation charges no matter how justified or
not this might be. Hence there must be a trust fund that operates away from the arising parties.
45 Because the trust fund would operate under Commonwealth law then any State Court exercising
federal jurisdiction can then put in place any order that may seek to prevent hardship to a
company where the court holds that in the circumstances prevailing this is appropriate.
Obviously tribunals who cannot invoke federal jurisdiction cannot make such an order. For all
purposes and intend any application to a court (exercising federal jurisdiction) that were to have
50 to entertain such an application would be under the principle that the company has the onus to
prove to the court why special orders should be issued as to allow the company to having to place
in the trust fund less monies then that which is in dispute. As such, in a case such as Great Body
Works v Eurotec Produkts Pty Ltd C229-2010 VCAT the onus would be upon EUROTEC
19-5-2010 Page 9
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
PRODUKTS PTY LTD to prove to a court of competent jurisdiction why it should not deposit
the $11,035.00 in the Commonwealth trust fund. It would then be up to the court if it were to
contemplate to entertain such application to invite the other party to respond before issuing any
orders that may or may not grand the application and this would be irrespective of what the
5 tribunal (such as VCAT) and or court may ultimately determine upon the issues in conflict.
What this kind of trust fund would provide for is to stop scrupulous companies of undermining
the ability of client/customers/employees/subcontractors/etc of their rightful entitlements where a
tribunal/court were to make an order against it.
.
10 DISQUALIFICATION OF DIRECTORSHIP, ETC.
It is my submission also that under the companies legislative provisions there should be an
automatic 10 year disqualification of any person being a director and/or owner or part owner of
a company which fails to have paid within the time ordered by a court monies involving this
person as a company director and/or part owner. As such, it means that if a company is owned by
15 someone and his company fails to pay up as ordered then AUTOMATICALLY this person is
disqualified from being a director and/or wholly or partly own a company and any assets such as
stock and bonds are frozen for the court that issued the orders to determine what is to occur with
those assets.
There are far to often companies so to say going broke that owns monies and yet the company
20 owner(s) live in luxury so to say thumping their nose upon the courts and more the entire
JUSTICE system. This is what the Framers of the Constitution were concerned about and yet
after more then 100-years of federation “working families” who have done no wrong still find to
suffer severely because the practices used by some scrupulous companies still have not been
appropriately addressed. What we have is that a person can simply reregister under a different
25 company and commence trading while leaving his victims to suffer to such extend that some not
just contemplate but actually end up committing suicide. Many find their security of an old age
pension they worked so hard for during their lifetime being ripped away by scrupulous
companies.
THIS MUST STOP!
30 .
The legal principle embedded in the (Federal) constitution and the States created within s.106
from the colonies are by this “subject to this constitution” bound by it;
.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
35 bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+p
arliament%22#fn50
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the
40 search for the intention of its makers[51].
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
45 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with
regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the
Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted
elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is
not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
50 END QUOTE
.
19-5-2010 Page 10
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. HOWE:
They show that the thrift practised by the people of Australia is unparalleled in the history
of the world. But there is another side to this question, and a very gloomy and sorrowful
5 side indeed. There are records of bankruptcy, of reckless, and in some instances
corrupt, management, when the hard earnings of the people and the savings of a
lifetime have been swept away-have melted away like snow before the noonday sun.
Through this reckless and corrupt management men who thought they had provided
for their old and declining age found themselves stranded on the cheerless shores of
10 charity, and many of them have had to accept even amongst ourselves the pauper's
lot. The pauper's lot in Australia or in any other country is to the deserving poor one
of the saddest and darkest blots on our civilization.
END QUOTE
.
15 Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member, Mr. Howe, can now move his proposed new sub-
clause.

The Hon. J.H. HOWE (Western Australia)[4.4]: I consider that it is the duty of the
20 commonwealth, rather than of the states, to undertake the work of providing for the
invalid and aged poor of the commonwealth. The matter was dealt with [start page
1086] in Adelaide, when some of the leading legal members of the Convention took the
position that the question was more a state question than a commonwealth question.
Since then I have considered it carefully, and the more I have read and thought over
25 it, the more I am convinced that this work should be undertaken by the
commonwealth. I consider that no more important question than this could occupy
the attention of the Convention. The question is one which is now occupying the
attention of all the learned and able statesmen of Europe. Great philanthropists all
over the world are trying to find a solution for this dreadful calamity. In every
30 civilised community we find men who have given their best mental and physical
labour to the state becoming, in their declining years, through no fault of their own, a
burden to their friends, who cannot afford to maintain them, or entering charitable
institutions, and finally finding a pauper's grave.
END QUOTE
35 .
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it
occurs.
40 END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the
45 laws of the place where the contract was made.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. SYMON:

19-5-2010 Page 11
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many
of the rules of the common law and rules of international comity in other countries
cannot be justly applied here.
END QUOTE
5 .
Hansard 3-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Sub-clause 19. The status in the commonwealth of foreign corporations, and of
10 corporations formed in any state or part of the commonwealth.

Mr. MUNRO: We have agreed to sub-clause 13, dealing with the incorporation of banks,
and I do not see why a similar provision should not be made in regard to the incorporation
of companies. Why should they not be under the control of federal officers? At the present
time the law as to incorporation is different in the different colonies, and the result is
15 [start page 686] extremely unsatisfactory in many cases. I do not see why we should not
make the same provision in regard to the incorporation of companies as we have made in
regard to the incorporation of banks. We might introduce at the commencement of the sub-
clause words to this effect: "The registration or incorporation of companies."
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I do not think we should. There are a great number of
20 different corporations. For instance, there are municipal, trading, and charitable
corporations, and these are all incorporated in different ways according to the law obtaining
in the different states.

Mr. MUNRO: But as to trading corporations!

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It is sometimes difficult to say what is a trading corporation.


25 What is important, however, is that there should be a uniform law for the recognition
of corporations. Some states might require an elaborate form, the payment of heavy fees,
and certain guarantees as to the stability of members, while another state might not think it
worth its while to take so much trouble, having regard to its different circumstances. I think
the states may be trusted to stipulate how they will incorporate companies, although we
30 ought to have some general law in regard to their recognition.

Sir JOHN BRAY: I think the point raised by the hon. member, Mr. Munro, is worth a
little more consideration than hon. members seem disposed to bestow upon it. We know
what some of these corporations are; and I think joint-stock companies might be
incorporated upon some uniform method. In South Australia, a banking company is not
35 allowed to be incorporated under the Companies Act; still, there is nothing in Victoria
of which I am aware to prevent a banking company from being registered there as a
limited company and opening a branch in South Australia a few days afterwards. I
think it is necessary, therefore, to have some uniform law. There is nothing in which the
public should have more confidence than in banks which are in any way recognised by the
40 state; and I think we should have some uniform system of incorporating banks. Many
companies, although doing business under different names, are, in reality, banks.

Mr. MUNRO: The banks are incorporated under the Companies Act in Victoria!

Sir JOHN BRAY: You can establish financial companies, which you do not call banks,
but which answer all the purposes of banks. We have provided that the federal parliament
45 shall legislate as to the incorporation of banks; but there is nothing to prevent the
incorporation by the states themselves, quite apart from the federal parliament, of trading
companies which will do all the ordinary business of banks. If it is desirable to intrust
19-5-2010 Page 12
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
legislation as to the incorporation of banks to the federal government, there is no
reason why we should not say that the registration of financial companies doing all the
business of banks should be dealt with in the same manner.
Sub-clause agreed to.
5 END QUOTE
.
Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sub-section 22: Foreign corporation and trading corporations formed in any State or part
10 of the Commonwealth.

Sir GEORGE TURNER: With regard to this clause, we have already given power to
deal with the question of banking, and we are now giving power to deal with foreign
corporations and trading corporations. I fail to see why we should limit the sub-section to
trading corporations. There are financial institutions which are not banking institutions, and
15 if we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate with regard to banking,
and with regard to trading corporations, we should go a step further and give it power also
to legislate with regard to financial institutions.

Mr. BARTON: I do not know.


Sir GEORGE TURNER Building societies.

20 Mr. BARTON: I think the present wording of the sub-section covers as nearly as
may be the intentions of the Constitutional Committee, and really for the amendment,
which is a desirable amendment, in the sub-clause as it stood in the Bill of 1891, we are
indebted to my hon. friend, Mr. Isaacs, who put it in its present form.
Mr. ISAACS: I suggested the word for temporary consideration.

25 Mr. BARTON: I Should like to be favored with any arguments in favor of the
suggestion.

Mr. DEAKIN: We recently passed a law in our colony which placed a strict limitation
on the meaning of the word "banks," excluding from it particular kinds of financial
companies which had hitherto been called banks, or treated as banks.

30 Mr. BARTON: You mean that kind of financial company that went down so often.

Mr. DEAKIN: We distinguish them from banks on the one hand and trading
corporations on the other. We want to include all limited companies because the class of
companies I am speaking of deal with lands and with deposits, and they require to be
carefully regulated.

35 Mr. MCMILLAN: You want to include everything outside private companies.

Mr. DEAKIN: Especially land and finance companies which caused so much litigation
in the past.

Mr. Symon: In the original Act corporations simply are mentioned. Why this difference?

Mr. BARTON: The reason of making the difference was this: It having been seen that
40 the word "corporations," as it existed, covered municipal corporations, [start page 794] the
term was changed to "trade corporations."

19-5-2010 Page 13
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
Mr. SYMON: Why not simply use the term "company"? If you use that word it will be
well enough understood.

Mr. BARTON: Why not adhere to "corporation"? That governs everything under
the Companies Act.
5 Mr. SYMON: Why not leave out the word "trading"?

Mr. BARTON: Or add the word "financial"?

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I move:

To insert the word "financial" before "corporation."

Mr. BARTON: Would it not be better to make it thus:


10 Any trading or financial Corporation.

So as to separate that branch from foreign corporations?

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I will consent to that and move:

To insert after trading "the words or financial."

Amendment agreed to.


15 QUOTE
.
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-I do not think that it is necessary to frame a definition of "citizen." A
20 citizen is one who is entitled to the immunities of citizenship. In short, a citizen is a
citizen. I do not think you require a definition, of "citizen" any more than you require
a definition of "man" or "subject."

Mr. ISAACS.-Would you include a corporation in the term "citizen"?


Mr. SYMON.-Why not?

25 Mr. ISAACS.-Well, in America they do not.

Mr. SYMON.-I do not see why a corporation existing in one colony should not have the
rights of a corporation in another colony. Otherwise you defeat the objects of this
Constitution.
[start page 1783]

30 Mr. ISAACS.-I agree that that ought to be so, but the word "citizen" will not include a
corporation.

Mr. SYMON.-Well, in my opinion it should. I think, however, though I am not prepared


to say definitely, that other provisions in the Constitution would deal with that case. Clause
52 provides that we are to have uniformity, and I think would prevent any difficulty in
35 regard to corporations, quite apart from the question of the meaning of the word "citizen."
But if you ask me whether a corporation might not come within the definition of "citizen"
to a certain extent-not, of course, in regard to the right of the voting and so on-I should say
that it would. The difficulty is one that requires to be met. Although I admit that the
amended American Constitution goes further than anything we require, and is directed to a
19-5-2010 Page 14
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
particular and special condition of things, this provision seems to me absolutely essential,
and, in my opinion, the Constitution would be incomplete without it.
END QUOTE
.
5 Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON:

The status in the Commonwealth of foreign corporations and of corporations formed in


any State or part of the Commonwealth.

10 It has so far been altered as to read:

Foreign corporations and trading corporations formed in any State or part of the
Commonwealth.

So that the Commonwealth may have the power to legislate, not merely with regard
to the legal status of corporations acting within the Commonwealth, but it may have
15 power as far as it can legislate upon the general subject of these corporations, over the
general subject of foreign corporations, formed in any part of a State of the
Commonwealth, for the purpose of uniform legislation.

Mr. HIGGINS: Does that give power to exclude them from trading in the
Commonwealth?
20 Mr. BARTON: Not, I think, to exclude them, but to regulate the mode in which they
conduct their operations. It is for the purpose of uniformity. After the old subsection,
which gave the Commonwealth power to deal with the subjects of marriage and divorce,
have been added these words:
END QUOTE
25 .
The statement below makes it very clear that corporations are governed as to their conduct under
Commonwealth law and as such the place where the oral sale/contract was affected (see above
quotations) was at Great Body Works business address, in the State of Victoria, and not
Queensland.
30 QUOTE
So that the Commonwealth may have the power to legislate, not merely with regard
to the legal status of corporations acting within the Commonwealth, but it may have
power as far as it can legislate upon the general subject of these corporations, over the
general subject of foreign corporations, formed in any part of a State of the
35 Commonwealth, for the purpose of uniform legislation.
END QUOTE
.
The Framers of the Constitution also embedded in the constitution the legal principle that where
a person made an offence against Commonwealth law then the offence was to be tried in a State
40 court exercising federal jurisdiction at the place where the offence took place. Hence, this legal
principle also applies to any breach of a sale contract where the offence occurred in the State of
Victoria and where then any litigation must be conducted at the location where the sale was
concluded. Because of the problems of different colonial legal provisions it was held that to have
one overall umbrella being the Commonwealth to ensure that corporations are all dealt with in
45 the same manner. In my view no kind of contract, regardless if agreed upon or implied agreed
upon between themselves.

19-5-2010 Page 15
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector General of Government HCT-00-CV-MA-593-
2003
QUOTE
Constitution needles to mention is a supreme law of the land.
5 END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
10 for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and
secure to him.
END QUOTE
.
15 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
Constitution,
20 END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been
25 made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but
not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it
embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all
have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
30 .
QUOTE CHH 92-217 page 78485 (1991)
The Court could not make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely
because the parties consent to it..
END QUOTE
35 .
Therefore in my view it isn’t relevant if the purported contract were to stipulate that litigation
were to be under Queensland law because the parties cannot abrogate the legal principles
embedded in the constitution that the conduct of a corporation is under Federal law and an
offence to be tried where the offence took place.
40 The very notion of being tried by once peers also underlines that once peers are more aware of
local conditions that exist as the place of the alleged offence.
.

45 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®


.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)

19-5-2010 Page 16
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com

You might also like