20151129-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-Re APPEAL-15-2502-LEGAL PROCEDURES-Supplement -01

8/20/2019 20151129-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-…

1/27

Page 1

p1 29-11-2015 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 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 alsoHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J. 29-11-2015 [email protected]

Cc: Buloke Shire Council [email protected]

Mr Martin Pakula, Attorney-General [email protected] & [email protected]

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected] Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected]

Re: 20151129-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-

Re APPEAL-15-2502-LEGALPROCEDURES-Syupplement-01

Sir,

This supplement is provides as to indicate that I had provided in each occasion in myADDRESS TO THE COURT written submissions of OBJECTION TO JURISDCTION tothe Magistrates Court of Victoria and as such while I was prevented to appear in person,nevertheless the court had my written submissions before it (which was also served to BulokeShire Council as well as its legal representatives, and as such it would be wrong to claim that the

proceedings were “ex parte” as they were contested by me albeit in writing by writtensubmissions. Parts are quoted of the various ADDRESSS TO THE COURT albeit it was moreextensive, just to indicate that even the limited quoted parts makes it very clear that Buloke ShireCouncil legal representatives were well aware of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION butfailed to prove any jurisdiction, hence the court never invoked jurisdiction.

Further, as outlined below, Buloke Shire Council by the date of this writing has failed to provide

any preliminary brief for the 20 August 2015 hearing and failed to provide a Full Brief for the 17September 2015 hearing and I have (below) provided therefore some of the legislative provisionsTo highlight certain issues also.

END QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence)We note your purported objection to jurisdiction contained in your letter dated 17 August 2015 and stronglysuggest that you take legal advice with respect to same.

END QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence)

It is therefore beyond any doubt that Buloke Shire Council legal representatives were wellaware of the issue of “OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION” and never even attempted then to

present to the Magistrates Court of Victoria (at St Arnaud) or for that on 30 October 2015

before His Honour Mullaly J any details/information to prove jurisdiction.As this was a pre-appeal hearing I view that the onus was upon Buloke Shire Council to provethe court could proceed with hearing the matter on appeal by proving jurisdiction. Clearlycounsel for Buloke Shire Council didn’t utter a single word in that regard and this despite my“ADDRESS TO THE COURT” which was also served upon Buloke shire Council and its legalrepresentatives specifically referred to the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.It also may be noted that I did forward copies to the Attorney-General as well as the premier, thisalso because the County court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 upheld both appeals (includingOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION”) Mr Rob Hulls MP Attorney-General for the State ofVictoria then provided a statement that the State of Victoria would abide by the courts decision.Clearly this is not eventuating.

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


2/27

Page 2




As I have also quoted below from the ADDRESS TO THE COURT Buloke Shire Council isacting for the State of Victoria and so bound by what Mr Rob Hulls MP Attorney-General for theState of Victoria then had stated.

As to this day no full brief has been served the Magistrates Court of Victoria for this neither canhave invoked any powers to hear matters. Again, I do not accept that a Full Brief is somethingconcocted after the 30 October 2015 hearing before His Honour Mullaly J referring to an appealhearing on 22 February 2016 and a non-existing 18 March 2013 hearing, as the Full Brief should

have contained the precise data as applicable prior to the hearings then before the magistratesCourt of Victoria and likewise for any appeal hearing (not conceding that an appeal hearing De

Novo is legally justified where the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was never disposed of.

Do understand I have conducted since 1982 a special lifeline service under the motto MAYJUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® where people gave me the understanding that theycontemplated suicide (even desiring to kill a judge) because of how in their view corrupt thelegal system, so the courts, were operating. What I am doing is to expose to a great extend how

just one simply matter seems so to say go under the radar and even His Honour Mullaly J seemedto make clear, without any evidence, that I was some person who held that the rule of law appliesto everyone else but me, where in fact I am to the contrary pursuing that everyone should be

equal before the law, and lawyers/judges better get a grip to this and address the serious failuresin the legal processes.

While His Honour Mullaly J claimed as I understood it that the magistrates Court of Victoria can proceed ex parte with issuing orders without the need of evidence, clearly this flies in the face ofwhat the Criminal Procedures act 2009 section 83 stands for. Again no “preliminary brief ” and/or “Full brief ” was eve r served upon me in regard of the proceedings purportedly held inthe Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud on 20 August 2015 and 17 September 2015! Themere fact that Counsel for Buloke Shire Council on 30 October 2015 claimed it would take aweek to compile a Full Brief because of photo’s may underline that so to say Counsel for BulokeShire Council was taking His Honour Mullaly J as some fool by the nose, as such a brief

regarding the Magistrates Court of Victoria should have existed and it would take a mere fewminutes to phot copy it/them. Again I view the purported Full Brief now provided by email on 25

November 2015 and located a different version on Friday 27 November 2015 are a concoction ofFull Brief and is both in violation of the legal provisions as well as in violation to the orders ofHis Honour Mullaly J of 30 October 2015 that it had to be posted via Australia Post (a Full Brief

– not a concocted one) by no later than 9 November 2015.The legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur action ” denies any remedy to a litigant

(including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands.If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to cour t with “Dirty Hands”

best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!

I was known to use opponent’s lawyers and their witnesses against the opposing party. The foster principle is something which if properly used can result that the legal representatives of anopposing party when made aware of certain details issues have to present this to the court evenso it may go against their own client’s case. And this is what obviously I used in these matters!

Criminal Procedure Act 2009

QUOTE (section 83)

(4)Subsection (1) does not limit the power of the Magistrates' Court to proceed to hear anddetermine the charge in the absence of the accused under section 80 on the basis ofsworn evidence given by or on behalf of the informant if the informant has not

served a full brief on the accused.

END QUOTE

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


3/27

Page 3




While no preliminary or full brief was served just for clarity I quote the following:Criminal Procedure Act 2009

QUOTE

84 Admissibility of evidence in absence of accused where preliminary brief served

(1) If —

(a) under section 80 the Magistrates' Court proceeds to hear and determine a charge in theabsence of the accused; and

(b) the informant has served a preliminary brief on the accused in accordance with Division 2 ofPart 3.2 at least 14 days before the date of the hearing under paragraph (a); and

(c) the Magistrates' Court considers that the matters set out in the preliminary brief disclose theoffence charged —

the following are, subject to subsections (4) and (5), admissible in evidence, despite the rule againsthearsay —

(d) the informant's statement in the preliminary brief;

(e) any exhibit referred to in the informant's statement.

(2) Without limiting any other power conferred on the Magistrates' Court, if the court considers that the

matters set out in a preliminary brief do not disclose the offence charged, the court may require theinformant to provide additional evidence.

(3) The additional evidence referred to in subsection (2) is inadmissible unless —

(a) it is in the form of written statements that comply with section 38; and

(b) a copy of each statement has been served on the accused at least 14 days before theMagistrates' Court considers the additional evidence.

(4) The Magistrates' Court may rule as inadmissible the whole or any part of a preliminary brief, astatement or an exhibit.

(5) The criminal record of the accused or a statement that the accused has no previous convictions,when served in a preliminary brief, is only admissible for the purpose of sentencing in accordance

with section 86.

(6) This section does not limit the power of the Magistrates' Court to proceed to hear and determine thecharge in the absence of the accused under section 80 on the basis of sworn evidence given by or on

behalf of the informant if the informant has not served a preliminary brief on the accused.END QUOTE


QUOTE

80Non-appearance of accused charged with summary offence

(1) If an accused does not appear in answer to a summons to answer to a charge for a summary offence,the Magistrates' Court may —

(a) if the summons was served in accordance with section 342 (ordinary service), direct that theaccused be served personally with the summons; or

(b) issue a warrant to arrest the accused; or

(c) proceed to hear and determine the charge in the absence of the accused in accordance withthis Part; or

(d) adjourn the proceeding on any terms that it considers appropriate.

Note

Section 328 sets out who may appear on behalf of an accused.

(2) If an accused has been charged with a summary offence and fails to attend in answer to bail, theMagistrates' Court may —



4/27

Page 4




(a) proceed to hear and determine the charge in the absence of the accused in accordance withthis Part; or

(b) adjourn the proceeding on any terms that it considers appropriate —

without prejudice to any right of action arising out of the breach of the bail undertaking.

(3)If the Magistrates' Court proceeds to hear and determine a charge under subsection (1)(c) or (2)(a), thecourt may dispense with or vary any requirement imposed by or under this Part.

Note

See section 25 for consequences of failing to appear in answer to a notice to appear.END QUOTE


QUOTE

25Non-appearance of accused served with notice to appear

s. 25

(1) If a charge-sheet containing a charge for a summary offence is filed against an accused inaccordance with section 22(1) and the accused does not appear in answer to the notice to appear,the Magistrates' Court may —

(a) issue a warrant to arrest the accused; or

(b) proceed to hear and determine the charge in the absence of the accused in accordance

with Division 10 of Part 3.3; or

(c) adjourn the proceeding on any terms that it considers appropriate.

(2) If a charge-sheet containing a charge for an indictable offence that may be heard and determinedsummarily is filed against an accused in accordance with section 22(1) and the accused does notappear in answer to the notice to appear, the Magistrates' Court may issue a warrant to arrestthe accused.

END QUOTE

Crim inal Procedure Act 2009

QUOTE

Division 10 — Non-appearance of party

79 Non-appearance of informant

If the informant in a criminal proceeding does not appear on the date on which the proceeding islisted for hearing, the Magistrates' Court may —

(a) dismiss the charge; or

(b)adjourn the proceeding on any terms that it considers appropriate.

Note

Section 328 sets out who may appear on behalf of an informant.END QUOTE


QUOTE

PART 3.4 — REHEARING

s. 88

88 Right to apply for rehearing

If a sentence is imposed by the Magistrates' Court in a criminal proceeding on a personwho did not appear in the proceeding, that person, or the informant on that person's behalf, mayapply to the Magistrates' Court for an order that the charge be reheard.

END QUOTE



5/27

Page 5




The issue is that for the 20 August 2015 as well as for the 17 August 29015 hearings I providedin each case an ADDRESS TO THE COURT (which included written submissions ofOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION) and as such it is not a case of no appearance but that I madewritten submissions, of which at the same time copies were provided to Buloke Shire Council aswell as its legal representatives, and as such the Court at the time even so I was not physically

present due to ill health which was made known to both the court as well as to Buloke ShireCouncil and its legal representatives couldn’t proceed with the matter.

While His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 stated that during an ex parte hearing noevidence is required Section 83(4) clearly does require sworn evidence.Again the ADDRESSS TO THE COURT one provided for the 20 August 2015 hearing andanother provided for the 17 September 2015 hearing was my representation of each hearing toOBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the court.As such, the only matter before the court on 20 August 2015 was the OBJECTION TOJURISDICTION (as outlined in my ADDRESS TO THE COURT submitted on 30 October2015 to His Honour Mullaly J) and hence no uncontested matter could in any shape or form bedeemed to exist on 290 August 2015 before the magistrates Court ofVictoria on 20 August 2015.

Say that in error a summons is issued to an alleged offender who resides in Christmas Island and then isrequired to attend to the Magistrates Court of Victoria’s as St Arnaud. The person who challenge the validity of the

court’s jurisdiction doesn’t need to engage in huge expenses to engage some lawyer perhaps at thousands of dollarscost, merely to say fight a charge with a say $180 fine. It would be an absurdity. The accused merely can write to theCourt to challenge its jurisdiction in that say the person never was in the State of Victoria and that “writing” being it

an “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” or otherwise would be sufficient to oppose jurisdiction. The magistrate face d

with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION has from that moment no matter before it other than theOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and the onus is then for the prosecutor to prove that the court has jurisdiction.It may then turn out (and this happened in the past with about 2,000 NSW motor vehicle owners) that in error thewrong data based was entered and so the wrong person was charged as the details of the “enforcement agency” that

were obtained were to an innocent person and not to the person who really may have committed an offence.) No onein his right mind could hold that as person would have to incur thousands of dollars to attend to as court hearingwhere a mere written submission may resolve the issue. Likewise an accused could be overseas for some time for

whatever purpose and unable to return to the commonwealth of Australia and as such provide a written submissionin that regard, in such an incident again the court would be obligated to consider this “written” notification. And forthe same the accused may simply phone in, however a “written” communication is I view a more solid manner to

prove afterwards what was conveyed.

As I understand it from the court recording on 17 September 2015 Buloke Shire Council legalrepresentatives were claiming (and obtaining) orders for cost relating to my writings. Well thatincluded the 20 August 2015 ADDRESS TO THE COURT (containing my written submissionsOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION) and my 17 September 2015 ADDRESS TO THECOURT (containing my written submissions OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION) hencewhere they claim cost relating to those documentation then I view they were obligated to submitthese documents to the Court or at the very least alert the court to the fact I had provided to the

co-ordinator of the Court those documents, as the coordinator email address is shown on it’swebsite for the court.The Courts power clearly provides that the Magistrates was entitled to adjourn the matter and to

provide directions, and hence the fact that allegedly a Judicial Registrar was dealing with thematter in itself may be without legal basis because as was clearly held by the High Court ofAustralia inHarri s v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)

QUOTE CCH 92-217 page 78485 (1991)

The Cour t could not make an order whi ch otherwise fell outside its ju r isdiction merely because the parties

consent to it .. END QUOTE



6/27

Page 6




In this case, I never even consented to its jurisdiction and hence the entire case was a sheer andutter nonsense as dealt with by the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud.The High Court of Australian in this case quoted above also held that a Registrars decision isalways reviewable and no time limit exist for this (As made clear by His Honour Kay J, in theAppeal Abbott v Abbott 24/25 October 1994 Family Court of Australia.

As submitted on 30 October 2015 to His Honour Mullaly J on 17 September 2015 (at least going by the court recording) no evidence was submitted to the Court and the Judicial Registrar issued

his orders without any evidence. No preliminary brief or full brief was served upon me prior tothe hearings either.

Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Red colouring, bolding and underlining added)QUOTE (section 83)

(4)Subsection (1) does not limit the power of the Magistrates' Court to proceed to hear and determine thecharge in the absence of the accused under section 80 on the basis of sworn evidence given byor on behalf of the informant if the informant has not served a full brief on the accused.

END QUOTE

This provers that where no full brief was served, and despite my various request forinformation/details/transcripts/court orders/etc still has not been served underlines that at no time

could or did the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud invoke jurisdiction and neverfollowed legally required processes (even if it had invoked jurisdiction, this I do not concede tohave eventuated) then sworn evidence was required where no Full Brief had been served.It appears to me that Buloke Shire Council legal representatives were so to say to the short cut toavoid doing the work but nevertheless charging for it and to in fact claim additional cost for mywritings but concealing from the court what they charged for. After all where they charge for mywritings then the court is entitled to hold that the legal representatives read and considered thematerial and would present their client’s case in relevance to what I had written about. But erven

on 30 October 2015 Counsel for Buloke Shire Council didn’t utter a word about these matterseither and was it not for me to indicate I would seek a judicial review His Honour Mullaly J uponthat then considering the ADDRESS TO THE COURT that contained my written submissions

including once again an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION would never even have beenaware that I requested also for a brief, which even despite the orders of His Honour Mullaly J to

be posted via Australia Post by no later than 9 November 2015 still has not been provided at thedate of this writing, but instead a purported concoction of a brief was provided that for examplerefers to a 18 March 2013 hearing date whereas the alleged offence was claimed to be on 17

November 2014!

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 mustdisregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.

END QUOTE .

It should be clear that Council for Buloke Shire Council on 30 October 2015 should haveclarified to His Honour Mullaly J if there ever was a “Full Brief ” in existence for the 17 September 2015 hearing and any “preliminary brief ” for the 20 August 2015 hearing!



7/27

Page 7




The fact that Counsel for Buloke Shire Council was talking about photos and needing a weekmay underline that Buloke Shire Council legal representatives take the courts for granted to so tosay “rubber stamp” whatever it seeks and do not bother to provide any accused with a

“preliminary brief” and/or a “full brief”. And it appears to me that more than likely this is the

modus operandi of both Buloke Shire Council legal representatives as well as with themagistrates Court of Victoria as to disregard requirements provided for in the legislation enacted

by the Victorian Parliament, well aware they get away with this rot ongoing, well until it took meon!.

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-

Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of

justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE

“ADDRESS TO THE COURT” 20 August 2015 hearingQUOTE “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” 20 August 2015 hearing

ADDRESS TO THE COURTMagistrates Court of Victoria

AT: St Arnaud ( or alternative court location)

IN THE MATTER:Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka

Hearing date 20-8-2015Sir/Madam,

I object to the jurisdiction of this court, as I indicated to Buloke Shire Council.As I have encountered in the past judicial officers who failed to understand/comprehend the legal

processes involved in an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTIONI I will attempt to explain this..

In 1988 I relied upon a Supreme Court of Victoria decision that my then 2 year old daughter had

been wrongly arrested by Warrant, which the court held was in violation to the existing SupremeCourt of Victoria orders, as to sue the State of Victoria. At the hearing however counsel for theState of Victoria suddenly stated to object to the jurisdiction of the court. His Honour explained Ihad to prove jurisdiction failing this the case would go no further. I outlined the Courts previousfindings, the relevant State laws I relied upon, etc. His Honour however held that I failed to

prove the legislation was validly gazette, etc, and as such dismissed my case for want of jurisdiction. His Honour did make known that he could understand I would not be too pleasedwith this, but counsel didn’t have to disprove jurisdiction as merely to object to the jurisdiction

was placing the onus upon me to prove jurisdiction. Until that time I had been researching theCommonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) but now found myself confronted withwhat is referred to as the Victorian Constitution Act 1975.

I accepted that His Honour facing an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was bound by law todeal with this matter first as to determine if the court had jurisdiction before it could consider anyother matter.END QUOTE “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” 20 August 2015 hearing

QUOTE “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” 20 August 2015 hearing

I received a correspondence purportedly from ER&a lawyers which had no contact details and purportedly was signed by one of its lawyers but forwarded to me in an envelope of theProsecutor stating to contact Mr Wayne Wall (of Buloke Shire Council). As ES&a Lawyers is about 300 kilometres from Wycheproof where Buloke Shire Council offices are I couldn’t accept

that a lawyer would travel a 600 kilometres plus to just sign a letter and then send it out in a

Buloke Shire envelope. As such I suspected that Buloke Shire Council has pre-signed letters in



8/27

Page 8




which it merely inset the date, the name of the other party and the Infringement Number and then pretend it was issued by ES&a. In my view it would be an offence for a person not being a legal practitioner to use the signature of a legal practitioner pretending it was the legal practitionerwho request the contact with Mr Wayne Wall. If indeed this is the modus operandi of ES&a andBuloke Shire Council then I view this may be a very serious matter, in particular if in previouslitigation with other parties ES&a claimed cost regarding such correspondences. Also, it is todeny the other party any reasonable opportunity to communicate with the lawyers allegedlyinvolved, and in this case it means the lawyers did no more but then file for the summons.

In my submission the court should be the last resort and legal representatives should makereasonable attempts to resolve matters without litigation in the courts. In my view this ES&afailed to adhere to. Buloke Shire Council records involving other litigation may show thatidentical; correspondences were issued to other persons bar for the date, name and Infringement

Notice number. I view this would constitute fraud. It could be regarded as to terrorise a party to better pay up because lawyers are involved without actually the lawyers making any attemptwhatsoever to communicate themselves.

END QUOTE “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” 20 August 2015 hearing


When one consider the “notice” that was issued by Buloke Shire Council then it is clear it ismore of a general notice and not stating precise details. Hence, the person who receives a “fire

notice” then has to be guessing what on earth might be the issues concerned. Where Buloke ShireCouncil seeks to enforce State legislation then it must do so consistently to all and any allegedoffenders and not as I reported itself violate the very legislative provision. After all the softshoulder of the across the road of my property towards Calder Highway had more than a metrehigh weed. At various placed along Calder Highway one could observe small parts having beensubject to a fire, which appeared to me the result of motor vehicles pulling over into the softshoulder of the road and then the hot exhaust causing a grass fire. As this soft shoulder of theroad is the responsibility of the Prosecutor then clearly it fails itself to act within the provisionsof the legislation it relies upon and as such fails to be what is called a model litigant.

The “notice” referred to in the Infringement Notice, as I recall it, is not an offence known in law. Nor did the Prosecutor provide any further details that could reasonably relied upon. As wasmade clear to the Prosecutor and was never contested by the Prosecutor, the property had beentwice slashed by a neighbour and I was given the understanding that it was equally to his own

property. I understand no Infringement Notice was issued against my neighbour.The Prosecutor didn’t advise what was the issue it complained about. It simply issued theInfringement Notice and as to date never clarified why, other than claiming the notice wasn’t

complied with.END QUOTE “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” 20 August 2015 hearing


The above stated is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues/details andno obligation existed for me to provide this set out, however as always facing lawyers who lack

proper understanding/comprehension of relevant legal matters I have been willing to explainsome that may assist the court also. Other than issues already decided by the County Court ofVictoria on 19 July 2006, to which this court lacks any judiciary powers to interferewith/undermine it is my submission the Prosecutor acted in a malicious manner to institute

proceedings against me and these proceedings are vexatious/frivolous and should have beenstruck out.

There can be no question about it that I notified the Prosecutor long before the Prosecutorinitialed legal proceedings against me that I would OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of anycourt and there was a NO CASED TO ANSWER . Regretfully as I understand it councilors



9/27

Page 9




often are wasting monies citizens (referred to as rate payers) in the councils area have beencaused to pay, as they win or lose are free from any harm. Well that is what they think..

Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of LordsQUOTE

In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give goodcause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.”

END QUOTE “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” 20 August 2015 hearing


As currently I myself suffer ill health which place in question my ability to attend to St Arnaud intime, this ADDRESS TO THE COURT still indicates what I am on about.And the Prosecutor with its legal representatives would be obligated to present Authorities Ireferred to in any event.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: orhis 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 clientdiscloses, 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

This ADDRESS TO THE COURT is not intended and neither must be perceived to limit thescope of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as it merely adds to what the Prosecutor has toovercome, which I view it cannot because I rely upon and entitled to do so on the 19 July 2006

County Court of Victoria decision to uphold my appeals and set aside the orders..The Prosecutor has for long been aware that I rely upon my constitutional and other legal rights.As such the Prosecutor had ample of time to prepare its case in response. Despite of this andhaving engaged ES&a Lawyers no response was provided.END QUOTE “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” 20 August 2015 hearing

QUOTE “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” 20 August 2015 hearing In my view the matters I raised are relevant to the conduct of the Prosecutor also and as such ifthe Prosecutor persist in litigating then well these matters are to be canvassed, and moreextensive then above. However, I view the Court has the powers to permanently stayproceedings (as eventuated in the Colosimo case) and only I am given the right to apply for

reinstatement of the matters before this court. .

If this court decides to proceed with the hearing of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then asI provided my set out to certain but not all matters then I view the Prosecutor must on 20 August2015 provide me with a set out why the court had jurisdiction and provide me with ample of timeto respond to this set out submissions, so I can check, as I did with Mr Peter Hanks QC if its

presentation is not including fraudulent representations, etc. the matters I have so far referred toare very complicated and difficult to understand/comprehend by those in the legal system whereit often totally contrary to what they were dealing with. As such a rush to deal with the matterwill in itself to deny a proper hearing and to pervert the course of justice..



10/27

Page 10




I do not accept that this court can grand the summons to be withdrawn, for that unless it dealswith the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION first, this as it has no judicial powers to invoke toallow for the summons to be withdrawn..

As this is an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION the court cannot take any plea.

As the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud only sits one day a week it would beinappropriately to have matters heard at the St Arnaud’s location, as matters will likely be

tasking more than one day.END QUOTE “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” 20 August 2015 hearing

“ADDRESS TO THE COURT” 17 September 2015 hearingQUOTE “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” 17 September 2015 hearing

ADDRESS TO THE COURTMagistrates Court of VictoriaAT: St Arnaud (or alternative court location)

IN THE MATTER:Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka

(Alleged) Hearing date 19-9-2015

Sir/Madam,In my 20-8-2015 ADDRESS TO THE COURT I stated at commencement:

QUOTE

I object to the jurisdiction of this court, as I indicated to Buloke Shire Council.As I have encountered in the past judicial officers who failed to understand/comprehend the legal processesinvolved in an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTIONI I will attempt to explain this.

END QUOTE

AndQUOTE

I do not accept that this court can grand the summons to be withdrawn, for that unless it deals with theOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION first, this as it has no judicial powers to invoke to allow for thesummons to be withdrawn..As this is an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION the court cannot take any plea.

END QUOTE

QUOTE Dil lon v. Dillon , 187 P 27

Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its

proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. .

END QUOTE

While due to ill health I was not able to personally attend to the hearing at the Magistrates Court

of Victoria at St Arnaud, nevertheless having made an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION thenthe issue before the Court was the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as any matter of thesummons no longer could be heard and determined unless the court first disposed of theOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION if that is what it were to have done, not that I seek toindicate the Court were to have done so. This ADDRESS TO THE COURT, containing theOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was accompanied by a 17 August 2010 correspondencewhich was emails to the court on 17 August 2015.

It is my submission and set out to some extend further below in addition to my previous

writings, that the Magistrates Court of Victoria (at St Arnaud) only can but dismiss the

Summons (charges) for want of jurisdiction.



11/27

Page 11




As shown below ES&a lawyers claiming to act for Buloke Shire Council has clearly indicatednot to respond to matters, and while that it its choice the Court cannot substitute this refusal as togo along with whatever they desire. The Court is bound to follow the rule of law and where therespondent to my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION didn’t seek to pursue this issue on 20August 2015 and indeed doesn’t seem to accept there is an issue regarding the OBJECTION

TO JURISDICTION (even suggesting I seek legal advice) then the Court is bound to dismissthe Summons (charges) for want of jurisdiction.

I needed to do no more but state “OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION” but in a way to assistalso I wrote extensively about this so that they might have realized from onset they were so tosay fighting a lost cause. As shown below by the various authorities the purported orders of 20August 2015 are no orders at all and neither can the court now provide other orders against me

because its failure to invoke jurisdiction and neither having had Buloke Shire Council lawyers presenting any details why it hold that the magistrates Court of Victoria has jurisdiction despiteof the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria orders, then it is not for the court to somehow try toinfringe upon proper litigation as on its own accord to try to make a case for Buloke ShireCouncil.

QUOTE Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.

Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is

deprived of juris.

END QUOTE

QUOTE Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity

and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.

END QUOTE

The courts obligation was that because there was an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then itonly could invoke judicial powers to determine the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION issueand hand down formal orders and a reason of judgment. Where the court fails to do so then itimplies it never had jurisdiction and matters are at an end.While the Court may adjourn matter to hear and determine the OBJECTION TOJURISDICTION as to enable the parties to perhaps in writing set out matters, it can howevernot issue orders regarding the summons charges as if no OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION exists. Hence, I have set out below considering the writings of ES&a Lawyers for Buloke ShireCouncil that it appears the Court on 20 August 2015 didn’t deal formally with the

OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and as such didn’t invoke jurisdiction to hear and

determine the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION or to adjourn it providing details as to forwhat purpose it was adjourned and therefore the 20 August orders are claimed by ES&a Lawyersfor the adjournment of matters and to be heard in my absenteeism if I do not appear are noorders at all and have no legal force.

In 1988 I was confronted by an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION by the State of Victoriaand in 2001 I was faced with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION by the Commonwealth innon-related litigation, and as such it must be clear that where it suits a Government then theCourt will deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as is legally required. What isgood for the Goose is good for the Gander and it is not the function of the court to be bias andappear to take sides as to whom objects to the jurisdiction of the court. It must follow legal

procedures regarding an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION regardless which party objects to



12/27

Page 12




the jurisdiction of the court. Because the state and the commonwealth used the OBJECTIONTO JURISDICTION in non-related matters I am now so to say giving them some of their ownmedicine. And as set out below succeeded in this on 19 July 2006. While therefore this courtcould have dealt with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION on 20 August 2015 albeitconstrained by the ruling of the County Court of Victoria of 19 July 2006 which set aside theorders of the Magistrates Court of Victoria (at Heidelberg) that it had jurisdiction, it cannot re-litigate those issues, and so in the end no matter what other rulings it may make it cannotconclude the court has jurisdiction where it cannot overrule the 19 July 2006 County Court ofVictoria appeals rulings. Without seeking to imply that the court now can re-litigate or otherwiselitigate on matters I do provide this ADDRESS TO THE COLURT as to try to get so to saysome understanding and some sense in it all.On 20 August 2015 the court clearly failed to follow “DUE PROCESS”, NATURALJUSTICE”, ETC, and as such it cannot now try to get around its errors of 20 August 2015 as tosubstitute the orders indicated by ES&a lawyers as to now pursue litigation regarding theOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as having issued orders in defiance of the OBJECTIONTO JURISDICTION to hear and determine on 17 September 2015 the Summon charges issueshas effectively placed the court that it acted without jurisdiction and as set out below can butonly withdraw those orders and provide orders to dismiss the Summons charge(s).

I have listed below (again) various Authorities regarding the issue of an objection to the jurisdiction of a court. Without conceding jurisdiction and/or the validity of the hearing on 19September 2015 I will seek to set out certain issues.

I provided a 19 August 2015 correspondence that contained the following also;QUOTE 19 August 2015 correspondence

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud 19-8-2015c/o the coordinator [email protected]

Cc: Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected]

Buloke Shire Council [email protected]

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected]

George Williams [email protected] Cr Reid Mather (Mayor) MALLEE WARD [email protected]

Cr David Pollard (Deputy Mayor) LOWER AVOCA WARD [email protected]

Cr Leo Tellefson MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected]

Cr Stuart McLean LOWER AVOCA WARD [email protected]

Cr Graeme Milne MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected]

Cr Gail Sharp MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD [email protected]

Cr Ellen White, MALLEE WARD, [email protected]

Re: 20150819-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire CouncilSir/Madam,

despite my various writings no response from ES&a, the St Arnaud coordinator or theMagistrates Court at Collingwood about the 20 August 2015 hearing that was listed in StArnaud. This I view is the scandalous kind of conduct by the court. Regardless if hearing is onlyheld on Thursday in St Arnaud I view the coordinator should monitor email coming in andappropriately respond to them. Even the Magistrates Court Collingwood failed to attend to myemail. I today attended to a doctor and have to attend tomorrow for testing and well over thecoming days may have further testing to be done pending what, if anything can be found. I viewsufficient evidence to show I had a justification not being able to attend. Further, as it is acontested hearing that first requires the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION to be dealt withthen then at most the court could direct the prosecutor to file within a certain time it writtenarguments why the court can invoke jurisdiction and then further time for me to respond upon

this. If the court were to issue orders adverse to me than it give s me a right of appeal to the

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


13/27

Page 13




County Court of Victoria and as I know from the past when a Magistrate fails to dealappropriately with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the appeal has to succeed.At 22.00 hours on Wednesday 19-8-2015 I checked my emails and none I could locate were ofES&a or from the court(s) as such it is clear the incurrence of any cost by ES&a is its ownmaking if it were to travel to St Arnaud as it failed to act reasonable and appropriately in thecircumstances. The fact the court also failed to clarify matters I view is scandalous.

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! )

END QUOTE 19 August 2015 correspondence

I below quote part of the 2 September 2015 correspondence received from ES&a Lawyers actingallegedly for Buloke Shire Council, I have however at the end of this ADDRESS TO THE

COURT included a s canned copy of the correspondence in full.

QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence) We act on behalf of the Buloke shire Council in the above prosecution.

The above matter was listed for before the Magistrates’ Court at St Arnaud on 20 August 2015 and we

acknowledge your numerous items of correspondence. We do not propose to respond to a majority of thematters raised therein.

The purpose of this letter is to confirm that as you did not appear the matter has been adjourned for hearing atthe St Arnaud Magistrates’ Court on 17 September 2015 at 8.30am In the event you do not appear on thatdate the matter will proceed in your absence.

We confirm that the St Arnaud Magistrates’ Court is the appropriate venue for this matter as the offence took place in Berriwillock. The only Court which is closer to the location of the offence is the Magistrates’ Courtar Swan Hill which is a greater distance from your residence. Council will not consent to any change ofvenue and we note that the Collingwood Magistrates’ Court is not the appropriate venue for your matter inany event as it deals with matters only where the offence has taken place within the strict boundary of a small

proportion of the City of Yarra or where the accused resides within that same boundary.

We note your purported objection to jurisdiction contained in your letter dated 17 August 2015 and stronglysuggest that you take legal advice with respect to same.


It is therefore absolutely clear that ES&a lawyers were fully aware about my OBJECTION TOJURISDICTION. The fact they desired not to respond to them also must be taken into account

as a failure to prove jurisdiction, this as the court cannot “assume” jurisdiction but the prosecutorhad to prove jurisdiction by evidence. A refusal to do so is no legal excuse and therefore theCourt on 20 August 2015 had an uncontested OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION..

I may explain that on 16 and 17 November 2005 I appeared before the Magistrates Court ofVictoria at Heidelberg charges with FAILING TO VOTE in the 2001 federal election andlikewise so in the 2004 federal election. Over the 2 days I OBJECTED TO THEJURISDICTION of the court (In fact this was originally made on 4 December 2002 uponwhich the Magistrates Court of Victoria ordered the matters to be adjourned pending the HighCourt of Australia dealing with the matter. However the prosecutor failed to prosecute the matter

before the High Court of Australia this even so it had the obligation to prove jurisdiction.),



14/27

Page 14




including the fact that by the ABN registration it was not an impartial court and violated theseparation of powers. After the nearly 2 days the Magistrate dismissed my OBJECTION TOJURISDICTION and went on to make orders against me. I appealed both cases on 19 July 2006

before the County Court of Victoria having served all Attorney-Generals with a S78B NOTICEOF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS. It must therefore be clear that where the County Courtof Victoria upheld my appeals and set aside the orders dismissing my OBJECTION TOJURISDICTION then considering that the then Attorney-General Robert Hulls for the State ofVictoria had advised that the State of Victoria would abide by the courts decision then it is

beyond this Magistrates Court of Victoria (sitting in St Arnaud or elsewhere) to somehowundermine/interfere with the rights I obtained in my successful appeals. The S t Arnaud’s venueis merely a different venue but still is the Magistrates Court of Victoria and as such it is bound bythe County Court of Victoria ruling..

It ought to be clear that Buloke Shire Council and so ES&a Lawyers were made well aware ofthe County court of Victoria having upheld my appeals but nevertheless persisted in having ansummons issued. In my view this could be considered CONTEMPT OF COURT!.

Where I objected to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of Victoria, in this case also becauseit was at St Arnaud venue, then from that moment the court has legally but one option and that

was to deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION..

Again, unless and until if ever at all the court had disposed of the OBJECTION TOJURISDICTION it had no legal powers to deal with the matters in the summons.The court could have adjourned the summons matter pending the hearing and determination ofthe OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and then could have done so adjourning the matter ofthe OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION giving possible directions as to Buloke Shire Councilto file and serve upon the objector as to why the court should find that it has jurisdiction. Thisalso considering that I already succeeded in the same on 19 July 2006 in the County Court ofVictoria and the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud (or elsewhere) had no jurisdiction tore-enter this matter already litigated previously as it is bound by the Wakim doctrine (HCA 27 of

1999) that the same parties cannot re-litigate a constitutional issue previously already litigated.Because Buloke Shire Council seek to enforce State legislation it is acting as the State ofVictoria, as I have set out previously, and as such it is the same as if the State of Victoria is nowlitigating.

This below quoted judgment makes it very clear that the judges relied upon the Convention(Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) and also made clear that the statecreating different bodies to act on its behalf nevertheless was a delegated power which in the endremained to be the state.

http: //www.austli i.edu.au/au/cases/cth/H CA/1904/50.html

Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904)

QUOTE (The word “Convention” has been placed in bold and red to make it stand out) O'Connor, J.

The judgments delivered, in which I entirely concur, have dealt so fully with the various contentions raised inthe argument that I do not think it necessary to add anything except in reference to sec. 114 of theConstitution , upon the true interpretation of which the whole case in my opinion turns. The question for ourdetermination may be very shortly stated.

Upon the establishment of the Commonwealth the Customs Houses in New South Wales as in other States became vested in the Commonwealth. Subsequently the Posts and Telegraph Department and the Departmentof Defence became transferred by proclamation under sec. 69 of the Constitution , and thereupon the landsand buildings used in connection with these departments became vested in the Commonwealth under sec. 85 of the Constitution .

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s69.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s69.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s69.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s69.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1904/50.htmlhttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


15/27

Page 15




Before the establishment of the Commonwealth such of these lands and buildings as were within the boundaries of the City of Sydney were liable to be rated, and were rated by the Municipal Council of Sydneyunder sec. 103 of the Sydney Corporation Act of 1879 , and sec. 110 of the Sydney Corporation Act of 1902 ,which repealed that Act and took its place.

It was contended by the plaintiffs that, notwithstanding the establishment of the Commonwealth, and thevesting of these lands and buildings in the Commonwealth, the liability to be rated and to pay rates to theMunicipal Council continued as before. The defendant on the other hand contended that, when the lands and

buildings were vested in the Commonwealth, the liability to be rated by the Sydney Municipal Council came

to an end. The question now submitted for our determination is, which contention is correct?

The defendants' case rests mainly upon sec. 114 of the Constitution , which they ask the Court to interpret broadly as a direct prohibition against the levying of any tax or rate upon Commonwealth property by a State,or by any authority constituted or authorized by the Statutes of a State. The plaintiff, on the other hand, urgesthat a much more restricted interpretation should be placed upon the section, that the prohibition is onlyagainst any action of the State itself or the Parliament of the State, in imposing taxation for the purposes ofGovernment. The section may in strictness bear either interpretation, if we look merely at the words. But toget at the real meaning we must go beyond that, we must examine the context, consider the Constitution as awhole, and its underlying principles and any circumstances which may throw light upon the object which theConvention had in view, when they embodied it in the Constitution. This is a sound rule in the interpretationof Statutes, and is well explained by Lord Blackburn in the River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson , 2 App.Cas., at p. 763, as follows: — "In all cases the object is to see what is the intention expressed by the words

used. But, from the imperfection of language, it is impossible to know what that intention is without inquiringfurther and seeing what the circumstances were with reference to which the words were used, and what wasthe object, appearing from those circumstances, which the person using them had in view; for the meaning ofwords varies according to the circumstances with respect to which they are used." Before examining thewords of the section, it will be useful to advert to the circumstances which the Convention had in view inframing this section, and their purpose and object in relation to those circumstances.

From the very nature of the Constitution, and the relation of States and Commonwealth, in the distribution of powers, it became necessary to provide that the sovereignty of each within its sphere should be absolute, andthat no conflict of authority within the same sphere should be possible. The principles laid down by Marshall ,C.J., in his historic judgment in McCulloch v. Maryland (4 Wheat., (U.S.), p. 316), are as applicable to theAustralian Commonwealth Constitution as to the United States Constitution, and it must be taken that those

principles and the controversies which had arisen in the United States in reference to their application, werewithin the knowledge of the Convention. In laying down these principles the Courts of the United States, inthe absence of express provision, rested their reasoning upon the underlying principles of the Constitution, and on what was necessarily involved in the grant of sovereign powers. What could be more natural than thatthe Convention should, while it had the opportunity place the application of these principles to the propertyof the Commonwealth, at all events, as far as possible, beyond controversy by embodying them directly in theface of the Constitution.

The material words of the section are as follows: — "A State shall not without the consent of the Parliament ofthe Commonwealth ... impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth ... "

It has been urged that, because the prohibition is against a State, and the word "tax" only is used, the sectioncannot apply to a rate levied by a municipality. The section would, indeed, fall short of its object if it

prohibited only taxation directly imposed by a State Act of Parliament, and left Commonwealth propertyopen to taxation by a municipality or any other agency which the State Parliament might choose to investwith powers of taxation. But no such restricted interpretation is necessary or reasonable. The State, being therepository of the whole executive and legislative powers of the community, may create subordinate bodies,such as municipalities, hand over to them the care of local interest, and give them such powers of raisingmoney by rates or taxes as may be necessary for the proper care of these interests. But in all such cases these

powers are exercised by the subordinate body as agent of the power that created it. Field , J., in his judgmentin Meriwether v. Garrett , 102, U.S.R., at p. 511, says: — "Municipal corporations are mere instrumentalitiesof the State for the more convenient administration of local government. Their powers are such as thelegislature may confer, and these may be enlarged, abridged, or entirely withdrawn, at its pleasure. This iscommon learning found in all adjudications on the subject of municipal bodies, and repeated by text writers."

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


16/27

Page 16




The prohibition against the State imposing taxation on Commonwealth property is the most comprehensiveform of prohibition that can be used, and, if we are to have regard to the circumstances within the knowledgeof the Convention, and the evident object and purpose of the section to which I have referred, it must betaken that the prohibition extends not only to taxation by a State for the purposes of general government, butalso to taxation by an agency under the authority of the State, and deriving its power to levy taxation from theParliament of the State. To hold otherwise would be to declare that the State might do indirectly what itcannot do directly. It seems to be clear, therefore, that a State has no more right to give legislative authority toa municipality to impose the tax, than it has to impose the tax itself, and that any provision in a State Act

purporting to give such authority would be null and void. But it is urged on the part of the plaintiff that the

section is prospective in its operation, and that it does nothing more than prohibit the passing of legislation bythe State authorizing either State authority or municipal authority to levy the tax, and that a portion of therates claimed were levied under the Sydney Corporation Act of 1879 , a Statute which was in operation at theestablishment of the Commonwealth, and which, it is contended, is kept alive by the operation of sec. 108 ofthe Constitution .

It is true that the section has only a prospective application, that is to say, it prohibits the imposing of any taxafter the establishment of the Commonwealth, but I cannot assent to the restricted interpretation which it issought to place on the word "impose." "Impose," no doubt, includes the giving of legislative authority to levythe tax, but it includes more, it includes the executive act of levying or collecting the tax. Its dictionarymeaning is "to levy or exact as by authority." Having regard to the scope and purport of the section, effectmust be given to that plain grammatical meaning of the word. It is unnecessary for me, in this aspect of thecase, to consider whether the Act under which the tax is sought to be levied has, or has not, been kept alive by

sec. 108. Existing Statutes are mentioned under that section, subject to the Constitution, and, in my view, sec.114 expressly prohibits the imposing, that is to say, levying, exacting or collecting of the tax after theestablishment of the Commonwealth. The section can be made fully effective, having regard to its scope and

purpose, as already explained, only by giving a broad and reasonable interpretation to its language, includingin the expression "State," all the agencies and instrumentalities by which a State can exercise its power oftaxation, including in the word "impose" both meanings already alluded to, according as the thing to be

prohibited is the legislative authority or the administrative Act, and giving to the word "tax" its ordinarygrammatical meaning, which is wide enough to cover the general rates of a municipality. So interpreting thesection, I am of opinion that the Constitution prohibits the levying of these rates, and that the Commonwealthis not liable in respect of the claim of the Municipal Council of Sydney.

Griffith, C.J., , Barton and O'Connor, JJ.

Per Curiam. — Before granting a certificate we must be satisfied that there is some special reason forcertifying that the question is one "which ought to be determined by His Majesty in Council." It must, atleast, appear that there is some reasonable ground for disputing the correctness of our judgment. This is avery plain case, depending on the construction of the plain unambiguous words of sec. 114. We do not seeany ground for saying that it ought to be determined by His Majesty in Council.

Judgment for defendants.

Certificate refused.

END QUOTE

Therefore, the proceedings between Buloke Shire Council and myself ought to be considered to be that of the State of Victoria and myself. That is if Buloke Shire Council is at all authorisingES&a lawyers to litigate in the first place. A matter I intent to refer to below also.Because of Councillor Graeme Milne sending me an email which appears he has not a clue aboutwhat is going on about the litigation it appears to me that therefore this is not a matter discussedamongst councillors. Neither then could Graeme Milne as councillor be regarded to have giveninformed consent for ES&a Lawyers to act on behalf of Buloke Shire Council. While in “SydneyMunicipal Council v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 50; (1904) 1 CLR 208 (26 April 1904)” thecase related to “Sydney Municipal Council” no objection appeared to have been made at thattime that it related to the council. Municipal structures may at the time have been different also.What however ought to be understood is that when the State Government pursues to litigate it

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s108.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s108.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s108.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s114.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s108.htmlhttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


17/27

Page 17




doesn’t ordinary do so in the title of the “State Government” but as “State of Victoria”. TheGovernment can change at any time whereas the State of Victoria is constant. As such thelitigation, without conceding that it should have been instituted at all, ought to have been in thename of “Shire of Buloke” and not “Buloke Shire Council”. This also as councillors are changingover time, not being re-elected or for whatever other reasons. It would be absurd therefore tolitigate in the name of Buloke Shire Council where the councillors could be lumped with ordersof cost against them for something they do not even know what it is about.As I understand it ordinary all correspondences to Buloke Shire Council are collated and eachcouncillor received a copy of it with all applications, recommendations, etc, such as for buildingresidents, on a property so that at the council meeting the councillors can attend to these matters.Councillors then put forwards a motion to receive the correspondence and when seconded it isaccepted, etc.As I directly forwarded the correspondence to each councillor then any knowledge they mayhave had is from my emails if the material was not presented during council meetings.It may therefore be that Graeme Milne didn’t understand the issue because likely the councillors

never debated the matter and ES&a Lawyers may also never have explained matters to thecouncillors.As such Mr Wayne Wall, who works for Buloke Shire Council in managing the “Shire of

Buloke” may have taken it upon himself to authorise ES&a lawyers to litigate without possiblyhaving obtained the informed consent of all councillors.In my view, the unsolicited email from Mr Graeme Milne that he doesn’t a ppear to understandwhat the litigation is about may underline that ES&a Lawyers didn’t at all have informed consent

of Buloke Shire Council councillors to litigate.Yet it claims in its 2-9-2015 correspondence;

QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence) Council will not consent to any change of venue and we note that the Collingwood Magistrates’ Court is not

the appropriate venue for your matter in any event as it deals with matters only where the offence has taken place within the strict boundary of a small proportion of the City of Yarra or where the accused resides withinthat same boundary.


In my submission “Council will not consent” is a falsehood as where councillor Mr GraemeMilne is not even aware what the litigation is about then surely he would unlikely understand thelegal issues involved as to the courts venue.Even if ES&a Lawyers were to claim it had since 26 August 2015 explained matters to allcouncillors, then nevertheless it still would be a falsehood this as the issue I raised in the 26August 2015 correspondence was the Magistrates Court of Victoria Heidelberg venue. Clearlythis was not by ES&a lawyers presented to councillors because they refer to “Collingwood”.

QUOTE (Alison J May LEGAL Practitioner ES&a 2-9-2015 correspondence) or where the accused resides within that same boundary.


As I reside in the precinct of Heidelberg then clearly this was/is the appropriate venue.It is in my submission a serious matter that ES&a Lawyers have madefalse/misleading/fraudulent representation that “Council will not consent” where it appears to

me it never was in the first place informed about the Heidelberg venue being the appropriatevenue.In my view an OFFICER OF THE COURT should never engage is deceptive conduct, which Iview clearly ES&a Lawyers engaged in.I do not know what transpired before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud on 20August 2015 but safe to say I have concerns that ES&a Lawyers deceived/misled the court andmay have concealed relevant details as to obtain orders to which the court had no jurisdiction.



18/27

Page 18




But before addressing other matters I will now first quote the 26 August 2015 correspondenceand Councillor Milne’s email.

QUOTE 26-9-2015 correspondence to the Court coordinator and others (as listed) Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

Documents

20151129-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-Re APPEAL-15-2502-LEGAL PROCEDURES-Supplement -01