20160524-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Written Submission ADDRESS to the COURT-Supplement 2-APPEAL-15-2502

8/16/2019 20160524-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Written Submission ADDRESS to the COURT-Suppl…

1/32

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Supplement 2 Page 1

p1 Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Objector/Appellant Appeal 15-2502

Written submissions

ADDRESS TO THE COURT-Supplement 2 (24-5-2016)

County Court of Victoria at Melbourne

Cc: Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected]

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

Re 30 May 2016 hearing

Your Honour,. The usage of a pre written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT hasopened up a new system that I can file my material, if I desire to do so, prior to a court hearing,and while so to say showing my hand to opponents, on the other hand it is part of the court file,which means that any hearing DE NOVO must include those written submissions. And anymaterial referred to will become part of evidence where I merely have to utter wording in thewitness box that I rely upon the written material to be true and correct to the best of myknowledge at the time of writing each item.

Sick and tired of how judges would prevent an unrepresented litigant to comfortably presenthis/her case and also often interrupted by opponent lawyers, I held that the concept of theADDRESS TO THE COURT with its written submissions was the best alternatives. And sincenumerous judges actually welcomed this, even so it can be a mere 2 pages or on appeal morethan 1,000 pages. OK the Full court took about 6 months to get through it but in the end upheldthe appeal.Despite not being a lawyer I have mastered to so to say infiltrate the legal system and since 1985changed the way litigation is being conducted in numerous court system, being it state of federaland the ADDRESS TO THE COURT even was accepted or usage in the High Court of Australia,where instead of having a mere 20 minutes to present a case, I filed an ADDRESS TO THECOURT which the judges read prior to the hearing and then still allow me the 20 minutes.

SCHOREL v. SCHOREL (1982) C 66117 of 1982 Unreported Transcript 11-3-82 and 12-3-82 before Emery SJ.(In regard of the former husband’s statements from the bar table earlier during the proceedings about matters on the lists)

QUOTE Page 115: (Emery SJ examine-in-chief Mr Schorel in the witness box)

You made or gave me some information while you were standing at the bar table just a little while

ago about the two lists of furniture that your wife produced this morning, exhibits A and B. What you said from the bar table is true, is that right?- - - That is correct, your Honour.Yes. Well, that makes it all evidence that you have given instead of just a statement .

END QUOTE

This means that all the Appellant requires to do to state in the witness box that the written

submissions are in his understanding true and correct and then the written submissions,

including that which the Registrar of the Ballarat Registry placed in the correspondence

file are all part of his evidence.Therefore, when the Appellant states in his written submissions “The Appellant shall give

evidence that…” then the moment the Appellant is in the witness box and make this statementthat the content of his written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT andSupplements to his understanding is true and correct then it all becomes “evidence” without the

Appellant having to repeat it all again in the witness box..For this also the appellant submits that the Court ought to reserve judgment so the trial

judge can first consider all written submissions/evidence, including those in the variousADDRESSES TO THE COURT and their supplements.The Appellant submits that in one Appeal the appellant then provide an 11 part ADDRESS TO

THE COURT containing more than 1,000 pages and the Full Court upheld the Appeal and in fact positively commented about the extensive set out by the Appellant to place it all in detail inwriting. This was a successful Appeal against the conduct of a senior judge (why not?) in 1994to follow proper legal procedures.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/32



If lawyers could get around such perverting of the course of justice by a judge holding that a DE NOVO is as the court consider permissible even if this drastically alter the parties standing thenthis is not a DE NOVO hearing. The Court must consider how the orders and/or lack of orderscame about and the conduct of the parties to this and if then the court must deal with that first

before it can, if at all required, deal with material issues in dispute as to the issues regarding theFire Prevention Notice.How could any FAIR MINDED judge accept that the proceedings before the Magistrates Courtof Victoria at St Arnaud could have been appropriate where the accused Appellant was deniedany information such as the brief as to prepare for any hearing? After all, without the brief theAccused/Appellant could have no way of preparing his case and possibly seek to have witnessesappearing to give evidence.QUOTE 21-7-2015 CORRESPONDENCE FROM Buloke Shire Council lawyers

END QUOTE 21-7-2015 CORRESPONDENCE FROM Buloke Shire Council lawyers

The summons was for an “Infringement offence” this even so in my submission the Country

Fire Authority Act 1958 provide for no such “Infringement Act” as such.


3/32



It is not uncommon for judges to order a regime for the parties to file written submissions andas such the fact that the appellant does so and did so in regard of the Magistrates Court ofVictoria at St Arnaud ,without specifically ordered by the court to do so doesn’t undermine his

position to have provided in the ADDRESSES TO THE COURT for the 20 August 2015 andthe 17 September2015 hearing written submissions which were on court file and of whichBuloke Shire Council lawyers were in possession of copies as well as in their 2 September2015acknowledged the issue of OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION..In my sub mission it would be absurd that where the Appellant notified the Magistrates Court ofVictoria at St Arnaud of his ill health and so also acknowledged by Buloke Shire Councillawyers in their 2 September 2015 correspondence to be aware of this, somehow then this isirrelevant whereas the Court on 17 May 2016 when it came to Mr Wayne Wall Municipal FireProtection Officer not being able to attend as a witness even so being the originator of thelitigation the court then somehow applies a different standard.

In my submission the Court should have held that if Buloke Shire Council was to Prosecutor, thisI still do not accept as such because of what I did set out, then it had an obligation to make itswitness available and not disregard legal requirements and not even bother to notify the Court

and the Appellant beforehand resulting that Mr Frank Colosimo incurred cost and time andinconvenience to attend to a hearing on 17 May 2016 that could have been avoided.In particular where the Appellant had indicated ongoing problems with his hearing aids thenobviously all Buloke Shire Council needed to do was to seek agreement with the appellant tohave the 17 May 2016 hearing date vacated as the appellant had in fact in his writing indicatedshould eventuate.What however eventuated was a blatant disregard to even seek the Appellant consent to vacatethe 17 May 2016 hearing date and neither bothering the Court to be having prior informationregarding the witness Mr Wayne Wall being unable to attend..For a FAIR MINDED PERSON this may appear that Buloke Shire Council deliberately made

arrangements to ensure that Mr Wayne Wall could not attend or even if this was a priorarrangements before the hearing date was made known not to make alternative arrangements asafter all, if Mr Wayne Wall is its witness critical to the case then a reasonable person wouldhave held that Buloke Shire Council would so to say have moved heaven and earth to ensuretheir witness would be in attendance as otherwise the court rightfully could have dismissed theSummons if there was a lack of evidence against the Appellant.

For a FAIR MINDED PERSON it may appear that Buloke Shire Council so to say was playinggames to perhaps try to lure the Appellant into accepting the case to proceed without the

presence of Mr Wayne Wall, as to limit the ability of the Appellant to cross examine Mr WayneWall and prevent by this the truth to be exposed. Likewise that the absenteeism of Mr Wayne

Wall was a deliberate tactic to cause upon the appellant to yet attend another hearing, where theywere well aware that as a senior citizen the associate problems with travelling and cost in itself isan injustice, and as such it was a conduct to deploy legal tactics that an y court should deplore.

Whatever Counsel for Buloke Shire Council was stating was out of hearing ability of theappellant other then something about “Counsel” and Council”. It would in my submission totallyabsurd if this kind of argument were to be accepted that as the Appellant seemed to assume thiswas about a misconception of “Counsel” versus “Council”.

Mr Wayne Wall is so the lawyers themselves in their 10 June 2016 correspondence stated a“legal officer” and if he cannot differentiate between “Counsel” and “Council” then how on

earth could the court accept any evidence of him.

In my submission this goes to the issue of being against the credibility of the witness. This whenone also consider his usage of the “combustible” materials where he (or someone for him) issueFire Prevention Notices, seemingly like candy without first forming the “opinion” required by


4/32



the act to justify such issue of a Fire Preventive Notice. As the purported “brief” didn’t include

any images of the date of the alleged inspection when the Fire Prevention Notice was issued theCourt has no way of knowing what the condition was at that time and day versus what is laterclaimed. Surely it is totally unreasonable to hold that somehow the Municipal Fire PreventionOfficer wasn’t concerned about having any images such as from the road taken to show what the

condition was when he allegedly first inspected to property, that is if he ever did so,.

One could assume that Mr Wayne Wall as a “legal officer” for Buloke Shire Council would havehad sufficient understanding how courts operate and as such images of the day of inspectionwould give the court an understanding what, if any. Change in conditions were made.

Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 II,L.C. 759QUOTE

The fundamental rule of English (Australian) law is that "No man can be a judge in his own case". It haslong been held that if there is bias or the appearance of bias such as to deny justice or create the impressionthat justice has not been done, then that bias, or apparent bias, is sufficient to invalidate the decision ofthose who made the decision.

END QUOTE Reg v. The London County Council (1894) XI .L.R. 24Sharp v. Carey (1897) 23 V.L.R. 248 Austin Digest 17.

Reg. v. Moleswort (1893) 23 V.L.R. 582 Austin Digest 17.Black v. Black (1951) N.Z.L.R. 723Ex Parte Blume (1958) W.N. (N.S.W.) 411Austin Digest 93,339,457,458

QUOTE R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be such as to lead the parties reasonably to thinkthat the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and then prohibition may issue. Of course, thecourt which is asked to grant prohibition will not lightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspectedof bias in this sense; it must be "firmly established" that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered in theminds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation andArbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553-4, in the passage cited in R vWatson; Ex Parte Armstrong (132 CLR at 262).” “The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a question, but

whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect has occurred (see per Lord DenningMR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgement cited withapproval by this court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte AnglissGroup (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well conveythe impression of "protesting to much...

END QUOTE

The critical issue therefore is if a FAIR MINDED PERSON reading about the litany of breaches, etc, by Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives then could hold the courtacted in a reasonable and proper manner!

The critical issue therefore is if a FAIR MINDED PERSON reading about the position of the parties at commencement of the litigation before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud,etc, by Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives where the appellant objected to its

jurisdiction then a hearing DE NOVO somehow can rob the Appellant of that right, and alter thelegal positions of the parties in that respect where the legislation itself doesn’t appear to pursue

this regarding any appeal?

Here the Appellant must litigate as a model litigant and failing to do so can be fatal to huisappeal yet Buloke Shire Council has from onset and continue to do so blatantly violatedcompliance with the Courts rules/regulations and other legal provisions including court order andyet so far the court has shown no action against them doing so. The Appellant had to obtain a

court order from His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 for the “brief” he was entitled uponwithout even having to obtain a court order, and yet Buloke Shire defied this court order andagain nothing was done against it. For a FAIR MINDED PERSON it would be questionablethen if this is a proper conduct of administration of justice.


5/32



As I indicated I intend to publish the material in my forthcoming book and then my readers willmake their own judgment if they can or cannot trust the administration of justice on its integrityof the court seeks to ignore the numerous breaches, etc.As the Appellant obtained rights to have the “brief” posted to me by no later than 9 November2015 and that right in my submission cannot be denied merely because Buloke Shire Councildesired to do so.There was in my submission no credible evidence before His Honour on 17 May 2016 as to whythe Court should accept the “brief” allegedly ser ved where no evidence was forthcomingwhatsoever why Buloke Shire Council had failed to comply with the 30 October 2016 orders ofHis Honour Mullaly J to post via Australia Post on or before 9 November 2015 the “brief”. As such my submission is that His Honour on 127 may 2016 had no legal justification to accepta purported service via email or otherwise where the Appellant had clearly in writing opposedany non-compliance to be accepted. Neither was it within His Honours powers to alter the“brief” that was requested by the appellant before his Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 asto what was before the magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud on 20 August 2015 and/or 17September2015t to another kind of “brief” relating to the Appeal. It is a deceptive andunderhand conduct to undermine both the Appellants 27 October 2015 request as well as the 30

October 2015 orders of His Honour Mullaly J no judicial officer should seem/appear to endorse.The Appellant in writing requested on 27 October 2015 the “brief” and at that time no other legal proceedings regarding a brief were on foot as only the pre-Appeal hearing was listed then for 30October 2015 and as such the right of the Appellant to be provided with that brief cannot beextinguished by His Honour neither could have been deemed to have been so.If there was a brief in existence on 20 August 2015 and/or 17 September 2015 before themagistrates Court of Victoria then who is to say that this brief was relating to a purported 18march 2013 hearing to which the form 11 referred to and being to the Appellant an unknownhearing to the appellant and about 20 months before the alleged offence was claimed to haveeventuated.His Honour therefore robs the appellant of a hearing DE NOVO where the Appellant despite

having even obtained an order from His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 to be denied ofsuch “brief”. If indeed a brief existed and it related to a totally different case, if any at all, and Buloke ShireCouncil having afterwards discovered they had obtained orders on 17 September 2015 upon a“brief” that turned out to be not related at all to the Summons upon which the litigation was

instituted then the Appellant cannot be robbed of his right to such “brief”, this as it goes to theheart of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION at the time before the court.It would in my submission be utter and sheer nonsense to allow lawyers to deceive a court andobtain orders by a miscarriage of justice and then deny the appellant the right, even so providedin legislative provisions as well as by court order, to have copies of the relevant material.

The Court cannot deny the Appellant to be provided with all relevant details upon which theMagistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud based its orders and clearly so far the court hasdenied this. As such there can be no claim that the hearing is DE NOVO when the Appellant isappealing against orders of which he hasn’t got a clue what material was at the time before the

court.If indeed it turns out that the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud on 17 September 2015relied upon a “brief” that related to a totally different case or a non -existing case then for thatalone the appeal must succeed without the Appellant having to go through an extensive litigation

process.Considering the litany/myriad of breaches/violations/etc by Buloke Shire Council no judge canthen hold that the Appellant insistence to be informed what was at the time before the

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud on 17 September 2015 that resulted to orders isunreasonable or should be denied/prevented.


6/32



If His Honour allows Buloke Shire Council to so to say get away with it then in my submissionHis Honour is as much guilty to the undermining of the integrity of the administration of justiceas Buloke Shire Council (so its legal representatives) is..No judicial officer should engage in a conduct that may undermine the general public

confidence in the administration of justice.

It is in that sense immaterial if the court in the end will hold the Fire Prevention Notice wasinvalid and so all subsequent litigation, as what this is about that the appellant should be

protected by the Court having to engage in to an elaborate litigation where originally BulokeShire Council deceived the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud to by perverting thecourse of justice caused a miscarriage of justice.

To give an example:The British Court have for long held that when a matter is before the court to which it has no

jurisdiction then the parties cannot give it consent to nevertheless litigate. In this case it related toa child under German jurisdiction by court orders.Hence the Court declined to hear the matter and rightfully so.

Yet, suppose the Court had heard the matter and granted custody to one of the parties and thenthe appellant was to be told that a DE NOVO hearing didn’t include any objection to jurisdictionthen it would mean that the appellant would have to litigate the custody issue itself and berobbed of the legal right to challenge the court’s jurisdiction.

No sane judge could accept this to constitute a DE NOVO hearing, this as it robs a party of legalrights from onset.

As such if the court never had jurisdiction then it is immaterial what orders were issued or noorders at all because any hearing DE NOVO must include the OBJECTION TOJURISDICTION and cannot be sidestepped as to pretend that somehow no matter how unlawfulthe court now was able to harness jurisdiction.

. Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)QUOTE CCH 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

“Lack of Federal Jurisdiction can not be waived or overcome by agreement of parties”.

Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F supra 341, 342 (1969): and “Want of Jurisdiction may not be

cured by consent of parties.”

Industrial Addition Association v. C.I.R., 323 US 310, 313.

HALSBURY’S LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460): Consent to summary jurisdiction.

“The consent to be tried summarily must be clear and unequivocal and a failure to carry

out the procedure for obtaining the consent will deprive the Court of Jurisdiction todetermine the matters summarily”.

At no time did the Appellant consent to summary jurisdiction and entitled to maintain the same.

In law there is no such opportunity of a hearing DE NOVO when in fact this doesn’t exist

because the orders of the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud of 20 August 2015

and 17 September 2015 are not extinguished at the time the appeal is filed, but only if on

appeal the Court set aside the orders after having heard the appeal.As such, where the orders appealed against are not extinguished at the time of the appealcommencing then clearly the appellant remains to be subject to the orders of the Magistrates


7/32


8/32



where this may be different then at the time of the courts hearing the matter but it would be utterand sheer nonsense for the courts to hear and determine matters considering what decades latermay be amended to the legislation as some crystal ball prediction..If it comes to expensing convictions which were validly made at the time, then no court could becertain as to what the rule might be in time to come. No judge could have any security as todetermine a case upon unknown altered contemporary views.It would be totally different that if a person was convicted by a court and later say it turns out asthe Appellant submits the Infringement Act 2006 is unconstitutional as then the conviction was

based upon a non-existing law.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but

the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the

question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.

[start page 2004]

Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.

END QUOTE

Here we have the premier uttering “Equality is not negotiable” when the very Infringement Act2006 is a defiance of equality because the State of Victoria rigged the legal processes so thatinnocent people can end up with orders and convictions, and even imprisonment enforcedagainst them, merely because the one way street of Infringement Court is applied without anyopportunity for the accused to challenge whatever is before the Infringement Court.All a person objecting to the jurisdiction of the Infringement Court is to perhaps choose tolitigate in the Magistrates Court of Victoria but then can be told by the Magistrate that as heelected to have the matter heard before a magistrate then the accused has no right to pursue anOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. As such the State has manipulated to circumvent an accusedright to challenge the validity of the Infringement Act 2006. After all this is the very kind ofargument, I submit wrongly, as used as to this appeal.

Perhaps decades later some future premier will acknowledge that the Infringement Act 2006wasagross denial of equality of the parties and never should have been accepted by the judiciary andso all those convicted now are having the blemish against their past character cleaned. Well, howdo you rectify those who were imprisoned, had their cars impounded, etc?If the Premier is really about equality and not merely after a political stunt then why does he notintervening this matter to ensure equality is provided for? After all Buloke Shire Council isacting under delegated powers of the State.Are we next going to have an apology for those convicted of pornography convictions? Are wegoing to have an apology for beastilia convictions? Are we going to apologise for the rapes

amongst gay people? Are we going to apologise for the denial of children at age 4 years old (as pursued in Great Britain and other countries) to have an equal right to decide if they want tohave a sexual relationship with an adult for a bag of candy or not?Let us be clear about it, many laws of the past may in today’s society in our contemporary views

be totally unacceptable. For example when I about 50 years ago resided in Koblenz on the Rhine,in Germany, the law was that one was not allow to discharge the toilet into the river. It is only afew years ago that they realised this law to be still on the statue books but then have removed it,(Abolished the law) Are we then going to apologise for everyone who was some day in the pasthistory convicted on laws that then were the standards of society?What kind of court system do we then have if judges may convict what they view provenoffenders only to find that with society’s later changes in contemporary views then they can be

looked upon that they send innocent people to prison, etc?Within mere seconds of logging in onto the internet the following came up:

http://criticallypissed.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/i-admit-iti-hate-gay-people-by-scott.html

http://criticallypissed.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/i-admit-iti-hate-gay-people-by-scott.htmlhttp://criticallypissed.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/i-admit-iti-hate-gay-people-by-scott.htmlhttp://criticallypissed.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/i-admit-iti-hate-gay-people-by-scott.html


9/32



QUOTE

1. AnonymousOctober 24, 2013 at 3:47 AM

I spent the last 13 years as a gay man. In that time I have never encountered more abuse in mywhole life. I have faced death three times yet that pales in comparison to the hell I have livedas a gay man. Did that abuse come from straight ppl? No...it came from gay men. I've beenrobbed twice, sexually assaulted, had one guy want to get into beastiality with me, I've beenbullied, threatened...the list is endless. My mother now has depression because of the

treatment metered out to me, my daughter at aged 25 cried herself to sleep at the treatmenther dad has endured. I've tried suicide three times, cut my body with a knife engraving wordsinto my body, I've cried myself to sleep. At the same time, I've fed, clothed, helped, supportall these men that abused me. I no longer live a gay life, never want a gay man in my life inany capacity at all and intend to suicide before years out. Yep, lets celebrate the LGBT life!!!

2.

AnonymousNovember 3, 2013 at 4:22 AM

I lived gay life for a while...I've been around them and believe you me they are pure evil...I'mnot going to live that life anymore...gay life is thankfully gone for me. I've seen them up close,

how they treat each other. They'll stop at nothing to ruin your life. Believe me on this, they'lldo anything to ruin another person'a life. I can give you so many examples it's not funny and inever saw that in my str8 life. Nah gay is the worst thing I could have been...worst thinganyone could be. So maybe the Bible is right...maybe biology is really saying something. Andbefore u accuse me of being homophobic remember that i once lived a gay life so I'm justgiving you inside information.

END QUOTE

Well we really need to apologise that we have courts who convicted persons for homosexualitywhen it was unlawful. We may as well get rid of the judiciary all together as after all murdermay soon be permissible and so why convict murderers?.Here I am as an Appellant being pursued in litigation for allegedly being in breach of a FirePrevention Notice while Buloke Shire Council is the biggest offender in violating rules,regulations and legal provisions including a court order and well soon we might even get anapology for the poor Buloke Shire Council and its lawyers having been questioned about theirnumerous breaches of law and court order as society will end up lawless and so the real culpritsare those who pursue a society that acts within the law. So, judges may end up being thevillains/demons of society one contemporary views change that it is not the law breaker butthose seeking to uphold the law that are the real criminals.We have the Kevin Rudd PM apology regarding Aboriginals while at the same time merciless

pursuing the unconstitutional Northern Territory Intervention Act. This NTIA is beyond the

constitutional powers of s51(xxvi) but I will not now delve into all the details.Safe to say that in my submission it is the Premier who is scandalising the administration of justice as after all how on earth can he apologise for the judiciary having at the time madedecision based upon how the law then was?.As I referred to in previous written submissions Buloke Shire Council has done nothing to myunderstanding to stop farmers using “untreated water ” for its crops. As such those who are livingin cities like Melbourne are not shielded because in the end their food is polluted by thecontaminated water used for growing food. But, to Buloke Shire Council this is none of theirconcern, even so as I reported to it that it is in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 that was introduced by the then Minister of health Mr Daniel Andrews.

We have a Buloke Shire Council laws officer who I understand blatantly disregard theenforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 to ensure that people in the Shire of Bulokeare provided with safe drinking water as legally required. After all there is no monies in pursuing

http://criticallypissed.blogspot.com/2011/05/i-admit-iti-hate-gay-people-by-scott.html?showComment=1382604436569#c4274443444105396194http://criticallypissed.blogspot.com/2011/05/i-admit-iti-hate-gay-people-by-scott.html?showComment=1382604436569#c4274443444105396194http://criticallypissed.blogspot.com/2011/05/i-admit-iti-hate-gay-people-by-scott.html?showComment=1383474132589#c2190400426049630696http://criticallypissed.blogspot.com/2011/05/i-admit-iti-hate-gay-people-by-scott.html?showComment=1383474132589#c2190400426049630696http://criticallypissed.blogspot.com/2011/05/i-admit-iti-hate-gay-people-by-scott.html?showComment=1383474132589#c2190400426049630696http://criticallypissed.blogspot.com/2011/05/i-admit-iti-hate-gay-people-by-scott.html?showComment=1382604436569#c4274443444105396194


10/32



this against a company acting for the State government. As like there is no money in issuingInfringement notices against Buloke Shire Council for its numerous and so year after yearviolations of the Country Fire Authority Act1958. Neither is there any money in Buloke Shirecouncil violating environmental laws placing people’s lives at risk in contamination of saltretrieved where chemicals, human waste from a hospital, etc. is all dumped at a municipalgarbage tip.

Why do we then have an expensive administration of justice one may ask if in the end theinstigator no matter how unlawfully he may act in the end will have more enforcement powersthan a court order, the courts rules/regulations and other legal provisions?

When the court is faced with legislation that may have possible conflicts or dubious provisionsthen the court must consider what the intention of the Parliament appears to have been from theoverall legislation and then consider further issues accordingly.The Country fire authority act clearly is one that was intended by the Parliament to pursue the

protection of lives and goods for so far reasonably possible to those who may otherwise at the peril of fire danger.It doesn’t means that all forest has to be decimated as they in their existence are a fire danger,

but rather that reasonable precautions are taken to minimize any fire danger.

The summons is based upon an Infringement Notice while the act itself doesn’t provide for this.The Act provides for a system of an Fire prevention Notice and if there is an alleged failure thenthe courts are to deal with alleged offenders, and not that somehow a council can blatantlydisregard compliance because of introducing foreign to the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 itself the Infringement Notice system and so not being able to fine itself in real terms, or notgoing to engage in that, then the Council effectively places itself above the rule of law.If then violates the very legal provisions Parliament intended.Therefore, where there is or could be a conflict of interest then the Court must consider what thelegislation intended and rule accordingly. It doesn’t means the court has to delve in unknown

details that may have been in the mind of the Members of Parliament, but can consider the Act asits whole and so the expressed intentions and if needed any Hansard records.Where the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 itself doesn’t refer to the Infringement Noticesystem then the Court must consider if the usage of the Infringement System (Infringement act2006) actually enhances the intentions of the Parliament or merely is a scam to enrich a Counciland undermines the intentions of the Parliament.If the Council litigated not as to the enforcement of the Fire Prevention Notice or any chargesincurred to deal with any alleged offences but merely as to enrich the Council coffers as to gainmonies and let the real issue that of “Fire Prevention” to be ignored then I view there can be nolegal standing..

When a person engaged a lawyer to act on behalf of that person then the lawyer is bound to actwithin the grand of power. If the lawyer in the process, say, collects overdue rent then the lawyeris duty bound to hand it over to the grantor. He cannot keep himself the monies merely becausehe likes doing so. He cannot keep any overdue payment fines merely because he desires so. Hecannot introduce his own kind of fine system to enrich himself. His powers are limited to thegrant of powers by the grantor!The act provides for the fire Brigade to have cost paid to the authority (meaning country fireauthority) this while the Fire Brigade may have enlisted the services from privateindividuals/companies to assist in firefighting. As such the Fire Brigade cannot apply its ownfine system in addition to what, if any, the Parliament provided for.Any offences are against the State against State law legislated provisions and not against a

Council. As such the grand of powers to administrate must be deemed to be limited to theenforcement of the act itself and not to introduce some fine system that may be nothing more butto defraud Consolidated Revenue Funds, where fine payments ought to be paid into.


11/32



Council may therefore pursue breaches before a court but cannot introduce a fine system on itsown and by this in fact undermine to avoid fire danger.

As indicated previously the Municipal Fire Protection Officer is in the end accountable to theauthority and the State Government can advise the Governor of the State of Victoria to removethe powers from a Municipal Fire Protection officer.

What we have now is that as the Appellant will give evidence to that the Municipal FireProtection Officer has been to a great extend allowed fire danger to exist on properties managed

by the council and/or state government on the basis that he had no powers to act against them.While the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 specifically gives the Municipal Fire PreventionOfficer the powers to act.The appellant will give evidence that he provided the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer withimages showing weed along the highway to be in excess of 1½ metres high as well as years ofaccumulated dead wood. Clearly the standard displayed by enforcing the Country Fire Authority

Act 1958 is one where the Municipal Fire prevention officer has or seems to have held nothaving the authority to act against the Council non-compliance with the provisions of theCountry Fire Authority Act 1958, this also underlined where the appellant will give evidence

that the Municipal fire Protection officer on his visit to the Berriwillock property in presence ofothers made clear that he had no powers to act against properties under the control of theMinistry of Housing . This reference to the Ministry of Housing (Housing Commission) was thenraised by the Municipal Fire Protection Officer Mr Wayne Wall himself and underlines that itwas his firm belief he had no such powers, despite the act providing for such powers.

No action was taken against the appellant property after allegedly the Fire Protection Noticeconditions were not complied with, and as such the court may from this conclude that there wasno real fire danger..If there was a real FIRE DANGER to justify the Fire Protection Notice then what evidence is

there before the court that the property was cleared from such fire danger?.It ought to be understood that property holders are often holding FEE SIMPLE rights and it iswrong to hold that Parliament can willy nilly legislate to micro manage poperties by misusinglegislation for that purpose..HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right insaying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if

they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive. END QUOTE

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 actualinjury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal isof the essence of the conspiracy.”

END QUOTE

The Appellant will give evidence that the Municipal Fire Protection Officer entered upon his property without having attempted nor obtained any prior permission to do so and neither havingany legal justification to enter the property as he did for the purpose he did so. As such anyalleged evidence must be deemed inadmissible as it is the product of trespassing.

. No one can accept that a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer can without court order/warrant enterany property and willy nilly walks around and in the process also may place himself in danger of


12/32



any equipment that might be used by a property owner, such as one in the performance ofharvesting.

The act does give the Municipal Fire Protection Officer the powers for enabling the clearance ofany property for so far it relates to actual fire prevention.From this it must be understood that the Act limits the powers of the Municipal Fire Protectionofficer as to inspect a property without trespassing and then if the Municipal fire protectionofficer has an issue then can issue a Fire Prevention Notice addressing the issues of concern.The Parliament provided for an elaborate appeal system against any Fire Protection Notice, bythis recognising that errors can be made.

It would be totally absurd to hold that a Municipal Fire Protection Officer could be entering a property say for more than 40 metres as to establish if there is some kind of possible fire dangerthat cannot be seen from the roadway, while along the highway there is years of dead wood buildup and weed in excess of 1½ metres in plain sight but that is not of concern, this even so there iswhere the fire danger exist when thousands of motor vehicles travel along this highways andmotorist may pull over not realising that their hot exhaust system under the vehicle can and attimes do cause a fire.

.Therefore, one has to consider if the conduct of the council to litigate was for the purpose of theintentions of the Act itself or just for it to harness an income using the Infringement system whilenot achieving one of iota benefits as to fire prevention.The lack of any action taken itself may underline that there was no clearance needed. On the

property. As why would there be litigation when no action was taken, as the litigation is notgoing to deal with any alleged fire danger.The Appellant will give evidence that he provided the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer withcorrespondences including images of fire danger concern along the highway and that Mr WayneWall confirmed to have not only received them but also having read them. As such, a propertyholder might be reasonable to assume that the standards applied by the Municipal fire Protection

officer along the highway is indicative to what he expect from private landholders..

Can Buloke Shire Council rely upon the provisions of the Infringement Act 2006 and so the

Infringement Notice?

Without seeking to repeat what already was submitted in my written submissions in theADDRESS TO THE COURT and it various supplement, a brief explanation may be appropriatethat the answer is: NO.The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within which then States werecreated “subject to this constitution” clearly provided for:

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. OCONNOR.- No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be

heard.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.

Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything

the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person

accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a

first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.

END QUOTE

And

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)


13/32



QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-

So that any citizen of any portion of the Commonwealth would have the guarantee of liberty and safety inregard to the processes of law, and also would have a guarantee of the equal administration of the law as itexists. I think Mr. Isaacs will bear me out, that in the United States it has been decided that the title to equaltreatment under the law does not mean that you cannot make a law which differentiates one class of thecommunity from another; but, as has been decided, it means that in the administration of the laws you havemade, all the citizens shall be treated equally. And that should be so. Whatever privilege we give to ourcitizens, the administration of the law should be equal to all, whatever their colour. The case I refer to is

one of the Chinese cases-I forget the name of it.

END QUOTE .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

There are numerous other statements that indicate likewise equality. .

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

Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that theadministration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyondthe possibility of suspicion;

END QUOTE

The Infringement Act 2006 in effect created the purported named Infringement Court being ineffect the outlawed STAR CHAMBER COURT, which I understand is nothing more but somecomputer under the control of a private company issuing orders as if it is the registrar, not being

an OFFICER OF THE COURT at all where the purported Registrar seemed to act within theMagistrates Court of Victoria albeit while using its letterhead, in that it is a purportedInfringement Court that is no court at all.

Not only are not both sides given an opportunity to be heard, as only those recognised by theParliament (State Government) are “enforcement agencies” who can institute litigation and so

without the knowledge let alone consent of the accused, but the system is corrupted also that the“enforcement agency” can advise an accused of details while in the end placing a differentversion of details before the Infringement Court. The ‘enforcement agency” placed before this

Infringement court details to what it elects to do and conceal relevant details an accused mayhave provided to the “enforcement agency”.

Marriage of Baines (No. 2) (1981) 7 Fam LR 232 at 237;-QUOTE

We recognise that each party is entitled to a Fair and Proper trial and to an adequate opportunity to adducerelevant evidence and to test the quality and veracity of the evidence adduced by the other party.

END QUOTE

.Marriage of Baines (1981) 7 Fam LR 226 at 229QUOTE

The adversary system involves the presentation of facts ascertained by questions put to witnesses, or legalrepresentations to the court. The role of the judge is that of adjudicator. This does not mean that he can askno questions but he is at common law restricted in that he cannot in general call witnesses himself.

END QUOTE

.Therefore, the purported Infringement Court violates the basic principles of being a Court withinChapter III of the constitution..


14/32



The High Court of Australia has in various judgments made clear that a Chapter III court must beopen to the public. Obviously there are always exemptions where the Court has a genuine legal

justification to close a court but in general the courts must be open for the general public to beable to observe that the administration of justice served the purposes it is bound to provide for..When in fact the appellant tested this many years ago as to challenge the court’s jurisdiction onconstitutional grounds the “enforcement agency” concealed this from the Infringement court and

while forwarding the same to the purported Infringement Court it too failed to consider it, thisalso because it has no jurisdictional powers to deal with federal issues.There has been reported incidents where the Infringement Court issued more than 2,000 ordersrelating to alleged offenders this even so afterwards it was discovered that the “enforcement

agency” had in error accessed the wrong data base and by this had obtained Infringement Courtorders against innocent NSW drivers instead of the Victorian drivers involved.The Appellant was given the understanding that a woman at the time employed with theVictorian Department of Justice was travelling on a toll road using a valid e-tag to do so and thennevertheless for that day was issued with an Infringement Notice that she had driven withoutvalid e-tag on this toll road. I was given the understanding that she contacted the authorities andexplained that she was employed with the Victorian department of Justice and had used a valid

e-tag and it was recorded on the e-tag that a charge was made and as such inquired why she wasissued with an Infringement Notice. I understand that by investigation it turned out that a nearidentical vehicle with a near identical colour but identical number plate but from a different statehad near the same time driven on the toll road without a valid e-tag and obviously theInfringement Notice was issued to the wrong motorist and so would be cancelled.What this however underlines is that one cannot have that a system exist where innocent motoristare wrongly issued with an Infringement Notice and then by automatic system can be ordered bya purported Infringement court to pay a fine having been held guilty of an offence where themotorist had been denied any opportunity to challenge what the “enforcement agency” had

placed before this Infringement Court..

There has been media reports of a person having been fined in excess of $30,000 regardingalleged Infringement Notices this even so the person had sold the vehicle long ago.What we have ended up is a bias non impartial Infringement Court system that is controlled bythe State of Victoria to menace innocent people and the Courts seems to go along with this ratherthan to reject this kind of undermining the administration of justice..As set out in my previous written submissions the Commonwealth holds the exclusive legislative

powers as to “weights and measures” since it commenced to legislate in those subject matters.

As such if the Commonwealth doesn’t desire to legislate as to certain speed detection equipment

then the States cannot circumvent this and legislate nevertheless as this would beunconstitutional. Still the courts are nevertheless enforcing unconstitutional usage of speed

detection devices..In general the Infringement Court is not an open court nor falls within the category of being partof an “impartial administration of justice” (Letters Patent published in the Victorian Gazette 2 -1-1901) where it is one sides preventing anyone to take say Buloke Shire Council to court for itsnumerous yearly breaches of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958. As such, it is a courtmanipulated by the government for its own purposes to issue even warrants in defiance of whatis constitutionally permissible.Because the governor of the State of Victoria is limited to appoint judges to an “impartial”

administration of justice, it means that any judge who purportedly supervise the registrar of theInfringement Court is acting in violation of his oath of office.

Again to allow a private company to exercise judicial powers by operating computers purportedly being of the Infringement Court, and issue correspondences under the heading of


15/32



the Victorian Police, the Sheriff’s Office, Vic Road, etc I submit is a very serious offence againstthe principles of the administration of justice.’ What I have set out in my previous written submissions provide to this court is that now aninnocent person who may be totally innocent of any wrongdoing but VicRoads nevertheless willapply as penalty against the motor vehicle owner and may even suspend the persons diver licensein the process and by this may prevent the person to meet his financial living requirements andcan be send broke because of the system the government has set up with this kind of STARCHAMBER COURT system.It is not for Buloke shire Council so to say to cherry pick what it desires to use from theInfringement Act 2006.It was made well aware before it commenced to litigate that I opposed the validity of theInfringement Act 2006 and it therefore rather than pursue matters through the Infringement courtdecided to use the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud.Just that I never elected to go to any court, and as such the Infringement Notice was never used

by me to authorise any litigation in the Magistrates Court of Victoria..Obviously using the Infringement Notice served the purpose that any possible fine payment theCourt may impose then is converted to a debt to Buloke Shire Council instead of payable to the

State of Victoria into the consolidated Revenue funds.There are “enforcement agencies” which provide for payment to be made to C ivic ComplianceVictoria, albeit the Westpac account is held in the name of Civic Compliance Vic, which is notthe identical same name. As such, billions of dollars are so to say syphoned off that should be

paid into the Consolidated Revenue funds but instead are paid to a non-existing corporation.As I am the holder of trademarks such as MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® I am wellaware that I require a trade name business and so registered and conduct any financial mattersthrough the appropriate bank account relating to the tradename. Civic Compliance Victoria isnothing more but the trademark of the State of Victoria which purportedly is used by a privatecompany Tenix Solutions IMES as to conduct bank transfers of millions of dollars.This is the way to provide for corruption as none of the monies are held accountable via

Appropriation Bills..The Country Fire Authority Act 1958 doesn’t require any involvement of any Infringement

Notice and yet this was pursued by Buloke Shire Council. And worse the Magistrates Court ofVictoria at St Arnaud enforced this.As such despite my objection to jurisdiction the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud so tosay rewarded Buloke Shire Council for this.It might all be very well for the County Court of Victoria to make known that the case is DE

Novo, but it cannot and must not disregard what transpired in the Magistrates Court of Victoriaat St Arnaud. After all had the lawyers acted appropriately in litigation the Appeal may neverhave been needed

.Also the County Court of Victoria denied the appellant any right of reply upon whatever thelawyer for Buloke Shire Council may state when it rules that the lawyer doesn’t need to respondto my submissions that Buloke Shire Council lawyers had no legal standing..A judge never should have his views and consideration clouded by the dust of the battle betweenthe parties let alone become part of the battle and by this no longer can present himself as beingimpartial.It is not uncommon that a party may make a statement but not to expose all until the opponentrespond and then this party can so to say put the last nail into the coffin against the opponent.When however so to say a judge is doing the dirty work for the opponent merely because the

judge has the view that the party appealing is wrong then the judge failing to allow the parties tofight out the battle between themselves is no longer an impartial/independent adjudicator but a

person who defies the rule of law.


16/32



Where a party make submissions and the judge may not agree with them, then the judgenevertheless should leave it to the opponent to respond. The opponent may very well respond ina manner that the judge may discover his own personal views may be ill conceived and theopponent actually turnout to prove the originator to be right.Whenever a judge makes known that the opponent doesn’t have to respond the judge by this

unduly interferes with the case and rob the originator of a submission of the right to have a FAIRand PROPER hearing..What we now have is that lawyers for Buloke Shire Council in a highly inappropriate mannerobtained orders in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud and basically the judge shieldsthe lawyer for Buloke Shire Council to having to expose himself of any legal wrongdoing.It never should be accepted that a hearing DE NOVO denies a party wronged to be denied toexpose the wrongdoings of an opponent having perverted the course of justice to obtain ordersthat caused the Appeal to be instituted..Where the Appellant maintained that the orders obtained on 17 September 2015 in theMagistrates Court of Victoria were the product of perverting the course of justice then it would

be insane at least in my view for any judge to disregard this.

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 court with “Dirty Hands”

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

QUOTE Re: Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458 James LJA person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision

has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him

something, or wrongfully affected his title to something.

END QUOTE . QUOTE Privy Council in Att Gen of Gambia v N'Jie (1961) AC 617

But the definition of James LJ is not to be regarded as exhaustive. Lord M R pointed out in Ex Parte OfficialReceiver, re Reed Bowen and Co. (1887) 19 QBD 174 at p178. The words person aggrieved are of wide

import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. They do not include, of course, a merebusy body who is interfering in things that do not concern him; but they do include a person who has a

grievance because an order was made which prejudicially affects his interests. END QUOTE . QUOTE In R v Hall (Warwick & Asizes, 1-4-1845. Maule J.) (1845)

Be it so; yet you had no right to take the law into your own hands, I will tell you what you ought to have done,and if you did know, I will tell you that the law conclusively presumes that you did.

END QUOTE

The Appellants submission is therefore is that basically Buloke Shire Council took the law intoits own hands to cherry pick the usage of the Infringement Act 2006 to suit itself and even theLegal Service Commission perceived there was a debt because of this where in fact none existed..This was not where there was some cost paid out by Buloke Shire Council that they sought torecover.This was not where Buloke Shire Council couldn’t institute legal proceeding against theAppellant by summons..This was a case where Buloke Shire Council didn’t want to follow legal proceedings as provided

for in the Infringement Act 2006 having been made well aware the Appellant challenged its

constitutional validity and so nevertheless decided to charry pick it for their own purpose toconvert the litigation to as purported “debt” and by this deceptively obtained monies through theMagistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud.


17/32



This is a matter where the lawyers for Buloke Shire Council even acknowledged in their 2September 2015 correspondence about the existence of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTIONand yet concealed this from the Court on 17 September 2015 as to force ahead with the hearing..The Country Fire Authority Act 1958 appears to be designed as to ensure that any allegedoffender can without delay be brought to justice before the Courts and clearly where there was to

be a real fire danger then no one in his right mind could accept that Council would sit out theissue leaving a fire danger situation existing merely to start litigating in a court room somemonths later. Such about 9 month delay defies reasonable conduct.


18/32



This refer to an “Infringement Offence” rather than an alleged non-compliance with a FirePrevention Notice, to which a Court would have to determine if there was a violation or not.

And neither should be overlooked the correspondence of the lawyers of Buloke Shire Councilstating:

The tone of the correspondence is one to pay what is demanded or face additional court cost also. No longer would the court decide if any additional cost shall be ordered or to dismiss the charge,this as the lawyers decided cost will be added and effectively dictates the court what it MUSTdo. And this precisely eventuated on 17 September 2015 in total disregard of any evidence being

before the Court. If anything that the court was acting like a puppet-ion-a-string for Buloke ShireCouncil and effectively doing what it was told, even so pretending it decided this. What thisshows is not to seek to enforce the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 for thevery purpose it is created for as to hold offenders legally accountable but mere a scheme to scamof from landholders monies and then well who cares about the alleged fire danger!’

No hearing DE NOVO could circumvent/ignore this kind of conduct because again if thelitigation had been appropriately conducted then the Appeal may never have needed to be

required.

QUOTE R v National Liquors Ltd. (1922) 2 AC at 156; (1922) ALL ER Rep at p 351

Its jurisdiction is to see that the inferior court has not exceeded its own, and for that very reason it is boundnot to interfere in what has been done within that jurisdiction for in doing so it would itself, in turn,transgress the limits within its own jurisdiction of supervision, not of review, is confined. That supervision


19/32



goes to two points; one is the area of inferior jurisdiction and the qualifications and conditions of itsexercise; the other is the observance of the law in the course of its exercise.

END QUOTE .QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1 ALL ER 694 Houseof Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration)

Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and painstakingconsideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the consideration was sufficientin law.

END QUOTE .QUOTE In the marriage of Smith v Saywell (1980) Fam LR 6 245 at 258

Where a case pending in a federal court other than the HIGH COURT or in a court of a state or

territory involves a matter arising under the Constitution involving its interpretation, it is the duty of the

court not to proceed in the cause unless and until the court is satisfied that notice of the cause, specifying

the nature of the matter has been given to the Attorney General of the commonwealth and (a) if the

cause is pending in a court of a state - to the Attorney General of that state; or (b) if the cause is pending

in a Federal court and was initiated in a state - to the Attorney General of that state, and for a

reasonable time elapsed since the giving of the notice for consideration by that Attorney General or by

those Attorney General, of the question of intervention in the proceedings or the removal of the cause to

the HIGH COURT.

END QUOTE

.QUOTE Bringinshaw v Bringinshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361,362

Not inexact proof, indefinite testimony or indirect inference (By prosecution)END QUOTE .QUOTE Re: Ratten (Vic Full Supreme Court) (1974) VR201 at 214

Fair Trial Present EvidenceEND QUOTE

.QUOTE The Victorian Police Guide Fifth Ed. 1969 P156 2nd last Paragraph:

Accordingly where the person does not regularly plead guilty, all the material allegations of fact and of laware put in issue or in question

END QUOTE

Clearly Buloke Shire Council didn’t provide to the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud on17 September 2015 any brief as none existed. Yet none of the material allegations wereconsidered by the court because there were none before the Court..It is irrelevant that the Appellant was too ill to travel for the purpose of considering the failuresof Buloke Shire Council and so also its lawyers as to the failure to comply with legalrequirements, as what it is about is that the Magistrates Court of Victoria provides for rules andthose were disregarded by Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives. The rules were notfollowed by Buloke Shire Council and as such the hearing on 17 September 2015 for this neverought to have proceeded. Therefore where Buloke Shire Council succeed by deception/concealment then the Court cannot rely upon the validity of those orders and hence the ordersmust be set aside on those grounds already.

They were effectively the law breakers themselves yet their harm inflicted upon theadministration of justice must be far greater than the allegations made against the Appellant

because they undermined and still do the integrity of the administration of justice.Any judicial officer who goes along with this effectively is party to undermining theadministration of justice.While it may be argued to report the matter to the Legal Service Commissioner, considering howit so to say white washed a previous complaint by referring to a “ debt” which didn’t exist at all

may underline the modus operandi by the LSC.

In my submission the Court must not be blinded by a De Novo hearing being restricted as todetermine the issue regarding the Fire Protection Notice but first should consider if the method


20/32



used by Buloke Shire Council and its lawyers was legal appropriate. Only if it comes to thatconclusion can it commence to hear and determine other material issues in dispute. If the orderswere the product of deception/concealment and misuse and abuse of the legal processes then theCourt cannot disregard this as if it may deal with those issues in some judgment at the end of thecase, because doing so would in effect reward the wrongdoers with perverting the course of

justice time and time again knowing they will get so to say a softy of a judge who will so to sayslap them on the hand, telling them they are naughty but that is it.

The integrity of the administration of justice never should nor can be condones or seen to becondoned. The Court has an obligation to uphold its integrity, and if therefore proceedings come

before it which were the product of perverting the course of justice in a lower court then thecourt cannot allow the offenders to benefit of this and must strike down any such conduct.

An issue of concern also should be the time permitted to act, etc. The Country Fire Authority Act 1958 allows for a minimum of 7 days for a requirement to act upon a Fire Prevention Notice.In real terms such minimum time limit must be considered absurd. After all these daysAustralian Post no longer provides for overnight delivery but can take a week or more to delivera letter.

Even if a Fire Prevention Notice is received in a mailbox, where no residential delivery is performed by Australia post, such as in Berriwillock then it means that not until the propertyowner travels to the post office will a property owner/resident be aware of the Fire Prevention

Notice. To no surprise the Appellant more than 30 years ago filed a complaint with theOmbudsman about this but was advised that no residential delivery was required in countryareas. Also while residing in a Melbourne suburb makes no difference where often mail isdumped on the street or left sticking out half way the mail box to allow others to unlawfullyremove the same. And over the years 10- yes years- this kind of conduct has been reported toAustralian Post but nevertheless continues on and on often blamed by Australian Post that it

postal delivery personal needed retraining, etc. As such, a minimum time requirement of 7 daysis totally unreasonable for any Fire Prevention Notice, where this was applied, because it

basically prevents a property owner/occupier to act. Indeed, if the property owner has to give awarning to an occupier and needs to take out legal proceedings then this can considerable time,not within some days. Anyone who writes to a court and/or government utility and/or even aMinister will be aware of the time that passes by to get any kind of response, if ever there is any.The Country Fire Authority Act 1958 is totally silent as to provide for a regime that if a FirePrevention Notice is issued against a property owner then this property owner has a number ofdays/weeks to notify any occupier to comply with the Fire Prevention Notice and if failing to doso then the property owner can institute proceedings which the court must set down for hearingwithin the time period allowed in the Fire Prevention Notice, to be heard within that time andallowing the property owner sufficient time to act and comply with any requirements of theFire Prevention Notice where the court unable to complete the matter within the

allocated/permitted time frame. The Appellant will give evidence that his son Richard was at thetime registered (such as by VicRoad with his driver license) to be residing at the Berriwillock

property. The Appellant will give evidence that he through the Chief Commissioner of Police inmarch 2014 sought to discover the whereabouts of his son Richard (Born November 12973) towhich even at time of writing this submission no response ever was received, this even so in theend the Victorian Police had the relevant information available. The Appellant will giveevidence that it was not until December 2015 that he finally was provided with information thatRichard was incarcerated, albeit the date of when the incarceration commenced is still unknown.Any judge of a court would be well aware that a property owner who seeks to pursue legal actionagainst an occupier must first be able to affect service. If say the occupier is away for severalweeks on holidays then clearly the property owner, who could reside in a foreign country and

may have someone like an estate agent managing the property, then the time involved even before any notification can be served upon an occupier can take considerable time and as such aminimum of 7 days is ab surd. Even if the owner could hypothetically serve the documentation


21/32



on the occupier within the minimum 7 days period but the occupier fails to act within the timelimit of the fire prevention Notice then a FAIR MINDED PERSON would be well aware thatthere is no way the owner can obtain an instant hearing in the courts, as there is a requirement toserve, provide sufficient time for the other party to respond, for the court to set a hearing datethat can take months, etc.As such, a property owner is faced that the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 failing to providefor any proper regime for the property owner to obtain a hearing within the time limit that may

be allocated within the Fire Prevention Notice inherently will cause the property owner to fail tocomply with the Fire Prevention Notice requirements. Even if the property owner were to lodgea complaint this process also may take more time, because of the delays in postal deliveries, etc,

beyond the control of the property owner that already the time to comply with the FirePrevention Notice, regardless how unreasonable the requirements might be.And no matter how unreasonable/unlawful such requirements might be the property owner can

be lumped with an Infringement Notice and demands such as quoted above 10June 2015correspondence! It means that Buloke Shire Council in disregard of what might be reasonable inthe circumstances has no interest whatsoever but to apply an fine it (and so the Legal ServiceCommissioner) hold to be a “debt” regardless what a court might hold if it were to consider thecircumstances of any alleged failure to comply.

There might merely have been firewood stored on the property for normal household usagewhich may be reasonable for that purpose but an overzealous Municipal fire prevention Officerwho desires to use/misuse the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 as to micromanage private properties while totally disregarding the councils own liability to comply withthe legislative provisions, could then cause upon a property owner/occupier a considerable finetotally un called for. As such become the terrorist upon property owners/occupiers.The very reason the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 provides for a court to deal with thematter is as to ensure that a judge can consider all relevant circumstances before handing downits judgment.The Court might be faced with a claim of alleged cost incurred for clearance and may in the endfind that the clearance was not authorised within the provisions of the Country Fire Authority

Act 1958 where for example it related to the removal of a building and its content that within thelegislative provisions was excluded from being subject to as Fire Prevention Notice. Thereforethe appellant submits that the 10 June 2015 correspondence of Buloke Shire Council lawyerswas unreasonable and not at all in the spirit of the legislative provisions of the Country Fire

Authority Act 1958.

The requirement to contact the “Council’s Local Laws Officer, Wayne Wall” instead of

contacting the Municipal Fire Prevention officer, Wayne Wall also means that Buloke ShireCouncil lawyers were taking the requirement outside the provisions of the Country Fire

Authority Act 1958.

To give an example: When a person writes to the Commissioner of Taxation (TaxationCommissioner) when required to write to the Child Support Registrar, then the person doing thewriting might find that in the end he may have failed to write to the correct person, this even so

the position is held by one person.Where then the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 doesn’t provide for any references to the“Council’s Local Laws Officer” and in fact no local laws were involved as the Fire prevention

Notice is within the provisions of a State enactment, then the entire process required within the


22/32



provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 is stepped aside by Buloke Shire Councilitself.

The tone of the correspondence of 10 June 2015 is not about compliance with the FirePrevention Notice as the fire danger period is long past, it is nothing more as the Appellantsubmits an extortion letter upon the appellant. After all, Buloke Shire Council by then had some6 months since the Infringement Notice was issued and had done absolutely nothing as to actupon any court enforcement to force compliance with the Fire Prevention Notice. As such thisnever was an issue about any alleged fire danger but one about how to defraud a property ownerfrom monies.The Appellant submits that if there had been any real fire danger then the appropriate course tofollow for Buloke shire Council was to ensure the fire danger was removed. But the evidence ofthe Appellant will be that Buloke Shire Council couldn’t even bother to do so on properties

under its own management for distances more than 80 kilometres, along major highways.

It is irrelevant if the Fire Prevention Notice in this case did or didn’t provide for a certain period

of compliance as what the issue is that the legislation itself allow property owners to be leftvulnerable to being subjected to unreasonable demands where the legislation fails to provide for

a system that enables a property owner, like the Appellant, to pursue matters against a occupierwhere service required for such litigation against an occupier might be thwarted because ofcircumstances prevailing and therefore the usage of any Infringement Notice rather than to utilisethe court processes must be deemed unreasonable and not intended by the Country Fire

Authority Act 1958. The usage of the Infringement Notice must be deemed to be outside theintentions of the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 and serve no enforcement

purpose as to safeguard the community and is merely a money scam for a Council to financialenrich itself while blatantly itself disregarding compliance and being in essence the real culprit inthat regard.Buloke Shire Council deemed to be so to say a “model citizen” and a “model litigant” theappellant submits is the opposite of those requirements. If therefore Buloke Shire Council has set

the standards that across the road of the Appellant property and so down the road also growthcan be even higher than 1½ meters and dead wood all along parts of the highway then itsexample cannot be ignored.The Appellant submits that he has provide Buloke Shire Council and its lawyers with extensivematerial, including images, to prove this.

The Appellant submits that it is not for the Appellant to file an objection against any FirePrevention Notice that is invalid in law as it fails to comply with the legal limitations set by theCountry Fire Authority Act 1958 as the invalidity of the Fire Prevention Notice cannot berectified. If the Fire Prevention Notice is invalid then this is fatal and then that is the end of theFire Prevention Notice.

The Appellant will give evidence that in regard of the 2015 Fire Prevention Notice he did followthe specific legal requirements, without conceding the validity of the then Fire Prevention

Notice, and well it basically became a sheer waste of time. The Appellant submits that the propercourse of the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer would have been to “withdraw” the Fire

prevention Notice because of its invalidity and to issue, if justified at all, a complete new Fire prevention Notice that complied with the legal requirements of the Country Fire Authority Act1958 and provided for a reasonable time of compliance. This never eventuated in 2015, andwhile there are no legal proceedings in regard of the 2015 Fire prevention Notice, it should be ofconcern that there was any failure to address the invalidity of the then Fire Prevention Notice.The Appellant will also give evidence that even so Mr Wayne Wall being aware that the

Appellant was at the Berriwillock property on 6 November 2015, as Mr Wayne Wall had personally attended then to the Berriwillock property, the purported extension of compliancewith the 2015 Fire prevention Notice was send to the appellants residential address in Viewbank


23/32



and no attempt was made to provide a copy to the appellant himself so he would be aware of the purported extension. As such it is totally unreasonable to expect the appellant to comply evenwith an amended Fire Prevention Notice, for so far required, that the Appellant first makes anabout 700 kilometre round trip to check if the Municipal Fire Protection officer did or didn’t

provide any extension of time. Indeed, even if the Appellant had done so the Appellant wouldhave been unaware of when such purported extension would arrive and so the Appellant wouldhave to had to travel to Melbourne and sit there to wait if the extension was provided while hecould, as he did, in fact clear the property.

The Appellant will give evidence that he did file a formal complaint, provided for in the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 to the Chief Officer but to no avail, as no response to deal with thematter appropriately was ever received.As such the regime set out in the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 is flaunted by the very partiesthat have legal obligations. By this the Country fire authority itself fails to ensure the system isoperating as required.The Appellant submits that the fact despite his reporting backed up with images, that years ofdead wood is piled up along the highway and is an actual fire danger nevertheless is beingdisregarded by both Buloke Shire Council (responsible for the clearing of fire danger areas

regarding properties under its management, and the Country Fire Authority itself underlines thatthose parties are the real culprits but nothing is done against them while the very provisions todeal with them are misused and abuse for no other purpose but to undermine the integrity of theadministration of justice and to terrorise a property owner for financial gains for Buloke ShireCouncil.

While His Honour did hold that the legal representatives of Buloke Shire Council had a legalstanding to litigate, it should however be understood that where any appeal eventuate then thecourt would have to consider matters upon what is legally applicable and may overrule then HisHonour’s decision were it to hold that indeed Mr Wayne Wall as a Municipal Fire Prevention

Officer is within his own rights given delegated powers to sue or otherwise pursue matters in the

courts, as provided for such as in the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 such as in Section 42 asa “debt” to the “Authority” and not as a “debt” to the CouncilQUOTE

(2) Any work carried out under subsection (1) must be paid for by the owner, occupier,

Minister, council or authority requesting the work and, if not paid, is recoverable in the Magistrates'

Court as a debt due to the Authority . END QUOTE

The legislation doesn’t provide in that regard within Section 41D that Buloke Shire Council canthen convert an alleged failure of compliance to a debt to the council rather that legal

proceedings can be taken within s232 of the Local Government Act 1989. An act whichunconstitutionally provides for a level of government that is not authorised by the

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), however the State of Victoria candelegate powers to any authority being it a corporation or otherwise not at all needing to be alevel of government but as a body to assist the State. As such, not some legislative body to enact

by-laws as this would rob the electors of electing those who are to legislate. After all why have 2Houses of Parliament when a few councillors can circumvent this legislative body?

Authorised Version No. 112 Local Government Act 1989 No. 11 of 1989

QUOTE

232 Proceedings(1) The Secretary, a Council or a person authorised by the Council either generally or in a

particular case may institute proceedings in the corporate name of the Council for — (a) the recovery of any rates, charges, fees or other money due to the Council under anyAct, regulation or local law; or


24/32



(b) the enforcement of any provision of any Act, regulation or local law for which theCouncil is responsible; or(c) the recovery of any penalty or surcharge in relation to any offence under any Act,

regulation or local law the enforcement of which is the responsibility of the Council; or(d) any other purpose specified by the Council.(2) A Chief Executive Officer or person authorised by the Council either generally or in a

particular case may represent the Council in all respects as though he or she was the partyconcerned in any proceedings in which the Council is a party or has an interest.(3) Proceedings for a summary offence under this Act may be commenced within the

period of 3 years after the commission of the alleged o

Documents

20160524-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Written Submission ADDRESS to the COURT-Supplement 2-APPEAL-15-2502