20160612-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Associate Sarah Gall To His Honour Carmody J CCV-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re Void Orders of His Honour Carmody, Etc-Supplement 2

Page 1
Associate Sarah Gall to His Honour Carmody J

judgecarmody.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Cc:
12-6-2016
Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria, feedback@countycourt.vic.gov.au

Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au, attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated
lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
County Court of Victoria crim.reg@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Re: 20160612-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Sarah Gall to His Honour Carmody J CCV-Re APPEAL-15-2502
-Re void orders of His Honour Carmody, etc-Supplement 2doc
Madam,
hereby I request that the County Court of Victoria provides me with the audio
recordings, transcripts of the hearings held on 17 May 2016 in the Ballarat
venue and of the 30 May 2016 hearing held at William Street Melbourne and this so I can check
the recordings/transcript as to grounds of appeal, etc.
.
I did submit to the court both in writing and otherwise
QUOTE
Again I repeat that I seek that the Court reserve its judgment so the court can consider all material
appropriately.
END QUOTE
Clearly His Honour Carmody J failed to do so and I view this resulted to that His Honour by this
failed to give a sufficient orders & reason of judgment.
I have stated below in the FOOTNOTE:
QUOTE
I make it very clear that during both hearings on 17 May 2016 and 30 May 2016 I held that His Honour
Carmody J appeared to act without malice and not being pedantic and just acted as he saw appropriate,
regardless that I may severely criticise his conduct in those hearings. It is like when attack the credibility of a
witness you are putting in question his credibility as a witness and not his credibility as a person. Therefore,
nothing in my writings is intended and neither must be perceived to question the conduct of His Honour
Carmody J as a person, as what I am on about is his conduct as a judge regarding legal issues.
END QUOTE
I view it is essential that any reader doesnt misconceive my intentions and this is not so to say to
paint His Honour Carmody J as some evil person. It is however up to His Honour Carmody J
now to consider if he withdraws the orders of 30 May 2016 and avoid by this also any harm to
me or His Honour Carmody J will leave it up to a JUDICIAL REVIEW, and if harm in the
meantime or otherwise eventuates to me than His Honour Carmody J accepts responsibility of
this. I am aware I can simply file for a JUDICIAL REVIEW however well aware this would be
on record against a judge concerned and any ad verse findings so to say could forever remain to
be a black mark/stain I prefer to give His Honour Carmody J the opportunity to address matters
appropriately if His Honour Carmody J desires to use this opportunity to do so.
p1
12-6-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Page 2
I do alert you (so His Honour Carmody J) about what is stated at the Supreme Court of Victoria
website:
http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/home/going+to+court/judicial+review+-+information+pack
QUOTE
It is best to try to settle your legal problem outside of the courts if possible.
END QUOTE
As such, in my view it would be more advisable that His Honour Carmody J acknowledge that he
made errors in law in particular regarding the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and
withdraw any orders of 30 May 2016 upon the basis that His Honour Carmody J never invoked
jurisdiction in the first place, and provide a written apology to me in that regard for the harm and
suffering caused by His Honour Carmody J upon me.
.
Since 1982 I have conducted a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE
ALWAYS PREVAIL regarding people contemplating suicide and even murder (yes as I
understood it judges were also the target) and prior to any metal detectors and other court
scrutiny existing at court entrances I then recommended to the then Premier Mr Jeff Kennett to
install such devices, which subsequently eventuated.
Therefore a 2 year probation may also interfere with my assistance to others, as I have visited a
prison in the past to communicate with a prisoner, and this probation could be used to deny me
access to a prisoner who may need my assistance.
While I intend to set out below some issues, the issue of JUDICIAL REVIEW is based upon
errors of law such as jurisdiction and not if His Honour Carmody J may or may not have made an
error in consideration to claim that the photos I filed as exhibits were not related to the 2014
incident where in fact the Prosecutor himself had filed an aerial view with GPS marked positions
which purported to show the trees and bushes and other items between the roadway of Anderson
avenue and the front of the house, and as such the so to say incriminating evidence was filed by
the Prosecutor himself. No evidence was given by either witnesses Mr Wayne Wall and/or Mr
Groves that the aerial view with GPS locations was not of the day that the inspection took place
on 17 November 2014 and as such for all purposes and intend the aerial view was to be taken to
be the aerial view of the day of the inspection being 17 November 2014.
Likewise the Supreme Court of Victoria would not go into details as to why Mr Wayne Wall
and/or Mr Groves were to issue a Fire Prevention Notice regarding alleged growth between about
80 metres to 100metres from the highway where the exhibit filed by the Prosecutor being the 5th
page showing options of A, B, C, D, etc was to be applied.
After all options of 10 metres were available and it doesnt make sense that without specific
evidence the court would take the worst possible option of the entire property where in fact
some options provided for mere 10 metre clearance. However, were the Supreme Court of
Victoria order a rehearing then obviously the issue is should the matter be reheard at all or may
the Prosecutor hold that considering the overall issues canvassed by me it would not be
appropriate to seek to re litigate the issue and cause undue further cost upon the citizens in
Buloke Shire.
The Supreme Court may order the 30 May 2016 orders to be set aside and hold that any
rehearing would be unjustified, where for the purpose of a rehearing the court concludes that the
Prosecutor would fail or otherwise the matter is as such in the overall context of Mr Wayne Wall
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer having demonstrated not to actor not having properly acted to
p2
12-6-2016
Page 3
eradicate fire dangers along the Calder Highway then his conduct towards me as a property
owner was absurd in the extreme, where the real fire dangers generally are along highways
where motor vehicles are travelling and from time to time soft shoulders are ending up in fire due
to unsuspected motorist pulling over not realising their hot exhaust under their vehicle can put
the slashed growth (left there to build up) on fire. Also that the photos His Honour Carmody J
refused to be allowed to file should not have been denied as they showed also build-up of years
of dead wood (branches) fallen of the trees/bushes and as such would go against the credibility of
Mr Wayne Wall the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer as to that he failed to act within s42 of the
Country Fire Authority Act 1958 section 42 to have this cleared. Where photos were provided to
the Prosecutor about this regarding 2015 then the years of build-up clearly would include 2014
and His Honour Carmody J therefore was bias to deny the filing of photos that were provided to
the Prosecutor, and some already included in correspondence dated 1 January 2015 and being
part of an exhibit filed during cross-examination of Mr Wayne Wall. Which correspondence he
acknowledged having been aware of.
The Court would in my view, look at the purpose of the act and not as to how Buloke Shire
Council may misuse the act to gain about $30,000 a year in fines rather than to address the real
fire dangers that continually existed and remained to exist along the highways despite that I
alerted Mr Wayne Wall over the years about this.
http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/home/going+to+court/judicial+review+-+information+pack
QUOTE
1 Judicial Review to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Victoria supervises the operation of the other courts and tribunals in this state. In this
role, the Court does not consider whether the decision was right or wrong, but only whether the person or
persons deciding obeyed the lawespecially the law relating to what is called 'jurisdiction'. The matter
would usually be sent back to the original court or tribunal to be decided again.
This process is called judicial review. Judicial review is an important safeguard of the administration of justice
in our society, but it is also a complicated and specialised area of law. It is strongly recommended that people
considering a judicial review application in the Supreme Court seek professional advice.
END QUOTE
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
It cannot be questioned that I notified all concerned that I would pursue exemplary damages!
20160110-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall & ORS-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re
exemplary damages-etc
Mr Wayne Wall, Municipal Fire Prevention Officer
10-1-2016
QUOTE
buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cc: (Not listed in any order of importance)
Buloke Shire Council (Councillors) buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated (EA&a) lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J. judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Chief Officer
Country Fire Authority
cfa-customer-support@cfa.vic.gov.au
Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud c/o the coordinator starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au
p3
12-6-2016
Page 4
Cr Reid Mather (Mayor) MALLEE WARD crmather@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr David Pollard (Deputy Mayor) LOWER AVOCA WARD crpollard@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Leo Tellefson MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD crtellefson@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Stuart McLean LOWER AVOCA WARD crmclean@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Graeme Milne MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD crmilne@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Gail Sharp MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD crsharp@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Ellen White, MALLEE WARD, crwhite@buloke.vic.gov.au
Ian Grey Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria 233 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000, C/o
help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au
Infringment Court Registrar c/o attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Mr Brendan Facey Department of JUSTICE IM&ES Brendan.Facey@justice.vic.gov.au
Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd
Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com
Mr Robert Clark MP former Attorney-General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au
Dennis Napthine (former Premier of Victoria) c/o attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Mr Peter Lauritsen Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au
Judicial Registrar starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au
VEC c/o Aileen.Duke@vec.vic.gov.au
His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria C/o judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Ref; 20160110-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall & ORS- Re APPEAL-15-2502 -Re legislative enforcement powers-etc
Wayne,
I have written a lot in recent times and will now seek to set out in a limited matter why I view
exemplary damages ought to be awarded against all those listed above in the matter currently before the
County Court of Victoria regarding my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
Ordinary one cannot seek legal redress against say a judge of a court unless one can prove that the judicial
officer acted without jurisdiction and with malice, etc.
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
As such it should be clear no one is above the law as such neither lawyers including an AttorneyGeneral.
Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)-ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CONTEMPT
QUOTE
While there is no rule permitting a person to disobey a statute with impunity at least once for the purpose of
testing its validity, where such validity can only be determined by judicial investigation and construction, a
provision in the statute which imposes such severe penalties for disobedience of its provisions as to
intimidate the parties affected thereby from resorting to the courts to test its validity practically prohibits
those parties from seeking such judicial construction, and denies them the equal protection of the law.
The attempt of a State officer to enforce an unconstitutional statute is a proceeding without authority of, and
does not affect, the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity, and is an illegal act, and the officer is
stripped of his official character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
The State has no power to impart to its officer immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the
United States.
END QUOTE 20150714-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andrews & VEC-Re
COMPLAINT-Electoral matters& judicial issues-etc
I will return to this issue later, safe to say that my issues are that compliance with constitutional and other
legal issues (for so far they are constitutional valid) must be applied equally to all, regardless if they are
politicians, lawyers (including judges), etc. Safe to state that the same applies to the Victorian Electoral
Commissioner when flaunting 19 July 200-6 court rulings!
When on 30 October 2015 I appeared before His Honour Mullaly J His Honour Mullasly J appeared to
me to state against me that I was a person who held the law applies to everyone but myself. This even
so no evidence was to my understanding before the court to justify this veil attack upon my person. In my
p4
12-6-2016
Page 5
view this was of bullying and pedantic conduct as if His Honour Mullaly J held that I was some kind of
OPCA LITIGANT. Below I briefly quote a part of a judgment that may explain its meaning.
20160110-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall & ORS-Re APPEAL-152502-Re exemplary damages-etc

END QUOTE
As set out further below there was numerous breaches of court orders/rules/regulations and other
legal provisions that would have been concern enough for any judge so to say have thrown out of
the window the charge(s). However, as His Honour Carmody J proved to do it essential was all
ignored. This is to me a cancerous growth within the judicial system, if one can call it a system,
as it appears when it comes to legal requirements then no legal accountability seem to exist when
it comes to members of the legal profession.
It must be clear that this issue of exemplary damages was notified to those listed in the heading
of the correspondence.
In my view the fact that His Honour Carmody J claimed that Alison J may is 27 years old, to
me cannot excuse her for the horrendous consequences inflicted upon me by the avalanche of
failures to comply with court orders/rules/regulations and other legal proceedings.
It is indeed absurd that His Honour Carmody on the one hand seeks to rely upon legal provisions
including the Infringement Act, etc, and yet blatantly ignores where the same legislations are
violated by the Prosecutor.
It should be kept in mind that the Premier of Victoria as well as the Attorney-General were
constantly provided with copies of my writings and so I view their failure to take over the case
and stop it must be considered as to have allowed this abuse of the legal processes to be
condoned by them. In my view no judicial officer can accept this kind of conduct to be allowed
without legal accountability and recriminations.
QUOTE 20160520-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Written submission ADDRESS TO
THE COURT-Supplement 1-APPEAL-15-2502
QUOTE
Re: see attachments 20160519-SchorelHlavka O.W.B. to Associate Sarah Gall to His
Honour Carmody J CCV Re appeal 15-2502
From
attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
To
Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Date
Today 01:17
Good Morning
We would like to confirm that we have received your email addressed to the Attorney-General,
Hon Martin Pakula MP.
Your correspondence is currently being considered.
Kind Regards
Office of the Hon Martin Pakula MP
Attorney-General and Minister for Racing
Level 26, 121 Exhibition Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
p5
12-6-2016
Page 6
PH: 03 8684 1111 E: attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
The content of this e-mail and any attachments may be private and confidential, intended only for use of the
individual or entity named. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you must not read, forward,
print, copy, disclose, use or store in any way the information this e-mail or any attachment contains.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of
this e-mail and any attachments.
Our organisation respects the privacy of individuals. For a copy of our privacy policy please go to our website
or contact us.
END QUOTE
END QUOTE 20160520-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Written submission ADDRESS
TO THE COURT-Supplement 1-APPEAL-15-2502
I received numerous emails from the office of the Attorney-General Your correspondence is
currently being considered but no further responses. As such it cannot be held the AttorneyGeneral didnt know or was not aware of it what I had written about.
Below is part of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 and despite of its provisions the Chief
Officer never responded to my complaint
41C
Appeal against notices

(1) If a person has lodged an objection under section 41B and
(a) the fire prevention officer has failed to confirm, vary or withdraw the notice within 14 days; or
(b) the person is not satisfied with the confirmation or variation of the notice
the person may appeal in writing to the Chief Officer within 7 days of the end of that 14 day
period or the date of the confirmation or variation, whichever is earlier, stating the grounds of
appeal.
(2) The Chief Officer
(a) must consider the appeal within a reasonable time; and
(b) must take into account all relevant circumstances, including the proper needs of conservation
and alternative means of addressing the threat of fire.
(3) After considering the appeal, the Chief Officer must
(a) confirm the notice; or
(b) vary the notice in any way the Chief Officer thinks fit; or
(c) cancel the notice.
(4) If the Chief Officer confirms or varies the notice he or she must specify a new time within which
the person must comply with the notice.
(5) In sections 41D and 41E, fire prevention notice includes a fire prevention notice as confirmed or
varied in accordance with this section.
QUOTE 20151028-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Country Fire Authority -Health safety issue regarding CFA fire
fighters
Country fire Authority (CFA Customer Support Team)
28-10-2015
p6
12-6-2016
Page 7
Cc:
Mr Wayne Wall, Municipal Fire Prevention Officer buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au

Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Ref; 20151028-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Country Fire authority Health safety issue regarding CFA fire fighters.
Sir/Madam,
END QUOTE 20151028-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Country Fire Authority -Health safety issue regarding CFA fire
fighters
20151027-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Country fire Authority -COMPLAINT

20151020-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Wayne Wall -Municipal Fire Prevention
Officer & Country Fire Authority
Other correspondences were also forwarded to the Country Fire Authority but to my recollection
none were responded upon.
In my view it is totally absurd that the Country Fire Authority can ignore serious matters.
I view it too had an obligation to step in where the conduct of the Prosecutor was such to
endanger the lives of fire fighters.
It simply became a matter where everyone else couldnt bother to take appropriation action to
stop the rot!
I view that exemplary damages should be awarded in favour of me.
CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS OR LACK THEREOF

During cross-examination Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer was asked about
the condition of the property and his evidence was Long dead grass over the whole
property..
Yet, the photos that were part of the brief show included a photo dated 17/11/2014 14.51 which
both Mr Wayne wall and Mr Groves claimed was made by Mr Groves, and Mr Groves admitted
that this related to an area of small cactuses. He had taken. What is noticeable that the photo
doesnt purport at all Long dead grass over the whole property., as some grass in between
the small cactuses seems to be all. And no other photos appears to be provided to show that rest
of the about 300 plus square meters of the property to indicate this Long dead grass over the
whole property. existed.
As Mr Wayne Wall did indicate that some changes were made between his alleged first
inspection and the second inspection on 27 November 2014, and yet the photo was taken on the
second inspection when he claimed that there was Long dead grass over the whole property.
Then despite that His Honour Carmody J accept the evidence of both Mr Wayne Wall and Mr
Groves I view even Blind Freddy would be aware that no such long dead grass exited based
upon the photo of the small cactuses. Mr Wayne Wall aware of the email correspondence of Jeff
to myself, and also knowing Jeff made personally known to Mr Wayne Wall he had slashed the
property twice, therefore I view was trying to indicate that some minor changes had been made,
failing to realise that Mr Groves photo would make him undone as to the claimed Long dead
grass over the whole property.. What Mr Wayne Wall really indicated was that the property
had been slashed and he just wanted to pretend that despite of this there was still Long dead
grass over the whole property. Blatantly disregarding or failing to consider Mr Grovess photo
p7
12-6-2016
Page 8
would expose him. Also one has to question why the lawyers representing Buloke Shire Council
neve r bothered to check the facts, as surely Blind Freddy would have known that Mr Wayne
Wall couldnt be telling the truth that there was Long dead grass over the whole property.
when the photo of Mr Groves failed to show this. One may indeed take the view that Mr Wayne
Wall/Mr Groves would have taken pictures of the Long dead grass over the whole property.
If this really had existed. But as it was claimed by Mr Groves that he took a picture (showing the
front of the house) from the road way of Anderson Avenue and it is about 80 metres to the house,
then surely he could have included in the picture the Long dead grass over the whole
property. If this had existed. However he allegedly used a tele-lens to only capture the growth
near the House.
If therefore Mr Wayne Wall made up the claim Long dead grass over the whole property.
Then what else can he be trusted upon, that he possibly simply withheld other photos that
showed the property had been slashed. Two people with each a camera and yet no records of the
first alleged inspection? And then the second alleged inspection only photos of some of the
property but not as to the overall property.
What may have eventuated on 17 November 2014 was that the GPS was duly recorded on both
the aerial view and the photos but then Mr Wayne Wall with or without Mr Groves decided to
make some more photos without GPS recording so as to selectively use whatever may suit them.
After all while 3 GPS recordings purportedly existed from the front of the property only
maximum 2 were provided that Mr Groves claimed to have made. As such, where was the
missing photo one has to ask?
In fact photo17/11/2014 14:46 of the rear of the house shows the driveway to have been slashed
and so around the clothes line (with the tire on it) which underlines that the property was slashed.
It may not have been to the satisfactory of Mr Wayne Wall but nevertheless around the clothes
line and the drive way there was clearly no such Long dead grass over the whole property.
As claimed by Mr Wayne Wall.
Likewise photo 17/11/2014 14:50 showing the large tank indicates areas where the ground was
slashed in the forefront. The bit of dry grass is near the steel that is located there. This would
exist on any property in such circumstances.
Even photo 17/211/2014 14:46 shows a heap of steel (showing also the side of the House to the
right) (which is not combustible) and minimal dry grass in between.
Photo 17/11/2014 14:45 shows the rear of the House and the outside dunny and clearly shows
that the ground was slashed but more over shows also a white coloured vehicle to the left of the
photo parked in the drive way even so this vehicle doesnt at all show in the drive way in the
drive way on the photo taken at 17/11/2014 14.46.while this photo shows clearly that the
driveway had no such thing as Long dead grass over the whole property.. Rather some
bushes and an old bike where the grass wasnt slashed but compared to the volume of high
growth along Calder Highway (of the exhibits I filed) this is minimal.
As I had indicated the Fire Prevention Notice, besides invalid as it failed to comply with the legal
requirements of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 to exclude buildings and its content, it was
also vague and aloof.
Because exhibit 1 filed by the Prosecutor included the following:
QUOTE
Anything on the land because of its nature, composition, condition or location constitutes
a danger to life or property (section 41 CFA Act)
Vegetation, growth etc falls within the above category
Anything else on the land (eg. Tyres, timber, old cars) could be a danger to life or
property
Whether the condition or anything on the land could be a threat to life or property from
fire if a fire broke out and before CFA could attend
p8
12-6-2016
Page 9
Assess land against the relevant Standard in the Municipal Fire Management Plan (see
MFMP Appendix 6.1.3)
END QUOTE
Version No. 151 Country Fire Authority Act 1958
No. 6228 of 1958 Version incorporating amendments as at 23 September 2015
QUOTE
41Fire prevention notices

(1) In the country area of Victoria, the fire prevention officer of a municipal council
may serve a fire prevention notice on the owner or occupier of land in the
municipal district of that council (other than a public authority) in respect of
anything
(a) on that land, other than a building or in a building;
(b) on the adjacent half width of any private street that abuts that land
(other than a prescribed thing or class of things) that by its nature, composition,
condition or location constitutes or may constitute a danger to life or property from
the threat of fire.
END QUOTE
Clearly what exhibit left out was other than a building or in a building and this means that
where a person like myself stored branches and sleepers inside the shed than nevertheless by the
meaning of a Fire prevention Notice the branches and sleepers need to be removed of the land
whereas by the terms of s41 of the Country fire authority act 1958 this is not required.
Neither can an old car for being an old car be deemed a fire hazard.
QUOTE
Anything else on the land (eg. Tyres, timber, old cars) could be a danger to life or
property
END QUOTE
This as plenty of old cars are road worthy and registered and used on the roads even so they may
be from 1940,etc. As such the term old car can be interpreted in many ways and not
necessarily intended by the CFAA 1958.
.
As the photos show I had a tyre around my clothesline it would be absurd to hold this is some
fire danger. Likewise where the kids were playing with old tractor tyres embedded in the ground.
Actually photo 2014/11/17 14:45:46 shows on the side of the driveway a stand with a wheel and
a tyre on it that was used by my children to jump on as well as a tire around the clothesline pole.
For decades old tractor tyres have been used at the front of the property housing large cactuses.
What we really have is that this Exhibit 1 is seeking to micro manage FEE SIMPLE properties
far beyond what reasonably could be deemed fire dangers.
The prosecutor raised with His Honour Carmody J as to that I could have lodged a complaint
with the Country Fire Authority, where in fact he sought cost also in regard of the 14-11-2015
correspondence to the Country Fire Authority but concealed from His Honour Carmody J of this.
QUOTE
Chief Officer
Country fire Authority
14-11-2015
Cc; Buloke Shire Council & Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Ref; 20151114-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Chief Officer -Re Buloke Shire Council -Re Fire Prevention Notice 199-4423-etc
Sir/Madam,
p9
12-6-2016
Page 10
END QUOTE
Some of the pictures included where (The entire correspondence is reproduced at the end of this
Supplement 2)
These are pictures taken with Mr Frank Colosimo camera on 8 November 2015 within the Shire
of Buloke showing a sample how the Municipal fire prevention Officer Mr Wayne Wall is
managing fire dangers along the Calder Highway, year after year.
The photo showing part of my vehicle shows dead branches and years of build-up of branches
rights along Calder Highway. A common sight throughout Buloke Shire.
While Mr Wayne Wall during cross-examination indicated that he had written to VicRoad, it
seems that in reality he never took any further action regardless of the fire danger.
How on earth could the Prosecutor pursue a case against me concealing evidence I had provided
to the prosecutor (as the CC indicates in the correspondence) and so the real fire danger was
along Calder Highway?
p10
12-6-2016
Page 11
Yet
at, http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwien7D1J_NAhWnJqYKHSP9BkcQFggiMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buloke.vic.gov.au%2FArticleDocuments%2F38
1%2FBuloke%2520Shire%2520Council%2520Municipal%2520Fire%2520Management%2520Plan%25202012.pdf
.aspx&usg=AFQjCNGKnCL2jtiHnD9HjawCnfZksKE4Vg&bvm=bv.124272578,d.dGY one can download a
126 page Fire Management Plan from Buloke Shire Council indicating about everyone is
involved in fire prevention management but in reality it is left to rot until a fire consumes it.
PDF]Buloke Shire Council Municipal Fire Management Plan 2012.pdf

QUOTE
www.buloke.vic.gov.au/.../Buloke%20Shire%20Council%20Municipal%20Fire%20Man...
a Municipal Fire Management Plan (MFMP) which will be a sub plan of the MEMP. ...... Fire Hazard
Removal / Fuel Reduction standards Appendix : 6.1.3.
END QUOTE
[PDF]road bushfire risk assessment guideline and risk mapping ... - VicRoads
QUOTE
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/~/media/files/.../bushfireriskguidelines_web.pdf?la...
6.1 Meeting Objectives 1 and 2 Prevent ignition and spread ... 6.1.3 Potential mitigation treatments ...
Appendix 3 Example Road Bushfire Risk Works Plan ...... in or appended in the MFMP in line with their
Roadside Fire Management Works ( ...
END QUOTE
It should be very clear that as I view it this was an elaborate conspiracy to deceive His Honour
Carmody J and so the court and yet His Honour Carmody J became an integral part of this
deception when refusing me to file the very photos the Prosecutor all along had in his possession
in the 14-11-2015 correspondence!
p11
12-6-2016
Page 12
Some of the photos shows years of dead wood build up and this I pursued went against the
credibility of the witness Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention Officer.
While Mr Wayne Wall may argue that contractors may have performed a shoddy job or not at all,
this hardly can be any legitimate excuse where he knowingly concealed from the court that he
had been made aware that Jeff had personally made him aware he had twice slashed the property
(And the photos filed by the Prosecutor in the purported brief shows there was slashing done)
and as such if it is not good enough that some parts may have lefts some grass then surely the
photos in the 14 November 2015 correspondence showing what was left along the Calder
Highway where the real threat of fire is, hardly can be justified.
One would have to be so to say brain dead to take it that the branches/growth/dead wood build up
along the Calder Highway is not a fire danger!
So what, a tyre on a clothesline is combustible, but to hold this is a fire danger because merely
because that a tyre is combustible but the utter mesh along the Calder Highway is not is to so to
say to live in an asylum, as no sane person could come to that kind of conclusion.
In simple terms the court was deceived and the Prosecutor concealed through the witnesses and
upon its own relevant details as to score some guilty finding that I view never was justified.
.
One also has to ask what is a naturestrip AND WHO IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE? After
extensive searching I was unable to discover a single article on the internet indicating how a
municipal/shire council could exercise any legal powers to compel by some kind of conscription
householders/property owners to mowe or otherwise maintain a council property to which they
have no ownership. It must be understood that the principle of conscription referred to in
Section 51(xxiiiA) refer to the Federal government not being able to conscript medical
practitioners. The issue of conscript for armed services was held to be justified where
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
where we are giving the people of the country practically a free education-and it should be common to all
Australia-we should instil into the minds of our children the necessity for training, and, as a quid pro quo for
that free education,
END QUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo
QUOTE
Quid pro quo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the meaning and use of the Latin term. For other uses, see Quid pro quo
(disambiguation).
Quid pro quo ("something for something" or "this for that" in Latin)[1] means an exchange of
goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other. English speakers often use the
term to mean "a favour for a favour"; phrases with similar meaning include: "give and take", "tit
for tat", and "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours".
Contents
1 In common law
o 1.1 United Kingdom
o 1.2 India
2 In literature
3 Other meanings
p12
12-6-2016
Page 13
4 See also
5 Notes
In common law[edit]
In common law, quid pro quo indicates that an item or a service has been traded in return for
something of value, usually when the propriety or equity of the transaction is in question. A
contract must involve consideration: that is, the exchange of something of value for something
else of value.
END QUOTE
In my view quid pro quo cannot be claimed to apply where there is effectively no benefits for a
property owner in return. Many councils prohibit the usage of a nature strip by adjoining land
owners. As such demand land owners to upkeep a nature strip at their own cost, and some who
are disabled have to pay a gardener for this, an absurd situation and the courts should reject this
kind of Fire Prevention Notice in that regard, this also as it is not within the terms of s41 of the
Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
While education used to be free of charge, over time parents now are charged for nu, including
school books and even cost of a gardener, etc. As such the very principle of quid pro quo that
existed to justify conscription for armed services no longer can be deemed to exist.
When it comes to a Fire Prevention Notice to maintain a nature strip over which one effectively
has no property rights and one can be fined if one were to say pave it to avoid keeping it up with
mowing, etc, if one desires to do this work to keep it neat looking, then the quid pro quo
cannot deem to exist.
While by convention residents may desire to keep a nature strip nice and tidy, some residents
may desire not to have a nature strip because of all kind of erections on it, being it mail or phone
boxes, trees, etc, that may be sources of problems.
Where the Fire Prevention Notice include naturestrip then I view unless this is stipulated in the
Country Fire Authority Act 1958 as being part of the property owner/resident liability within the
confines of certain legal provisions and also upheld by any court that such kind of conscription is
within the powers of a state government, then I view His Honour Carmody J ought to have held
the Fire Prevention Notice was invalid in law (ULTRA VIRES).
The Country Fire Authority Act 1958 refers twice to the word nature and neither one relates to
a naturestrip.
As such, it appears to me that Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention Notice has exceeded
his delegated powers as a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer to demand clearance of the
naturestrip.
The Country Fire Authority Act 1958 (as shown below) refers to (b)
on the adjacent half
width of any private street that abuts that land and does not neither should be deemed to
include a public street.
While I have set out in this document a limited search as to how any municipal/shire council
could fine a property owner/resident about $1,519 (as published by the Shire of Whittlesea) it
doesnt mean that this is legally valid!
https://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/pets-plants-and-animals/trees-and-plants/mowing-andslashing-land
QUOTE
p13
12-6-2016
Page 14
Fire prevention
Fire authorities recommend keeping the grass shorter than 10cm to minimise the chance of fire passing from
the road onto your property.
Property owners who do not keep their grass shorter than 10cm can face a fire prevention fine of $1519.
END QUOTE
The Country Fire Authority Act 1958 doesnt appear to me to legally allow any Municipal Fire
Prevention Officer to issue a Fire Prevention Notice that compel by conscription a property
owner/resident to essentially work as a slave without fee or reward for some municipal/shire
council. As such no amount of so to say spin His Honour Carmody J sought to give to the
application of the Fire Prevention Notice it must and remains to be ULTRA VIRES (invalid) in
law.
Again the mere fact that nevertheless this kind of usage, according to the Prosecutor has been
used since 2009 at the very least may underline that there is something drastically wrong in how
the courts deal with such alleged breaches of Fire Prevention Notices.
In my view if His Honour Carmody J so to say had stayed out of the battle then his views as to
the true English meaning of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 versus that of the Fire
Prevention Notice may not have been caused by the dust created by the fight of the parties, AND
His Honour Carmody J would beyond doubt have found that where the fire prevention Notice
was invalid in law then everything else that flowed from it was so and therefore my claim for
exemplary damages should have been provided for.
Considering that the evidence Mr Wayne Wall during cross-examination gave was that 500 Fire
Prevention Notices were issued on average every year of which about 20 were prosecuted, then
over the years thousands upon thousands of invalid Fire Prevention Notices were issued, and
worse on average 20 a year were enforced by the courts with a total disregard to the terms of the
Fire Prevention Notice being valid in law.
While it might be claimed that in each case the accused could have objected to the terms used,
reality is that the Prosecutor in each case misled the court. And in my case I specifically
challenged the wording used in the Fire Prevention Notice and as indicated in my writings His
Honour Carmody J rather than to remain impartial/independent appeared so to say do the bidding
for the Prosecutor to claim that branches were included, despite that it turned out some branches
are and others are not included. In my view the wording used within a Notice, in this case in a
Fire Prevention Notice must be clear and beyond question.
It would be absurd to expect in a nation where many may not have so to say Oxford education
that nevertheless they have to analyse the meaning of a Notice as some expert in English law,
when even a judge seems to lack the ability to understand/comprehend its proper application.
As I made clear I had made an FIO request on 9 December 2015 to the Premier of Victoria Mr
Daniel Andrews regarding details of Fire prevention Notices for the State of Victoria with a
supplement 1 added. No response whatsoever was received upon this. This despite that I
indicated requiring this for the appeal 15-2502 hearing.
It must be clear that where Whittlesea council claims that $1,519 fine can be given for failing to
clear once nature strip where I view this is not at all legally provided for in the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958 then we have over the about 79 councils likely hundreds of thousands of
incorrectly/invalidly issued Fire Prevention Notices, and so Infringement Notices, and yet not a
single judge seemed to have had one of iota understanding this was in violation to the provisions
of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
p14
12-6-2016
Page 15
For sure His Honour Carmody J went at length to so to say railroad my OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION claiming it couldnt apply because of the appeal provisions, which I view was
incorrectly perceived by His Honour Carmody J as an appeal is DE NOVO then the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION that was before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St
Arnaud is part of the DE NOVO case, and yet His Honour Carmody J seemed to have no
concentration upon the issue of the defects/invalidity of the Fire Prevention Notice despite my
written and oral set outs.
If I with all my knowledge find judges to be appalling in their conduct and blatantly disregarding
proper enforcement of the rule of law then how can one expect an unlettered person who may
have little or no knowledge of legal procedures/provisions to gain the impression that judges are
seemingly on the take/corrupt because to them it cannot be justified that judges are blatantly
disregarding the rule of law.
If every year the courts are dealing with Infringement Notices in the thousands that never should
have been issued in the first place because they were derived upon invalid Fire Prevention
Notices then surely this may question the competence of the judiciary to nevertheless inflict such
a considerable harm upon innocent defendants.
It also underlines how the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud issued orders without any
shred of evidence before it and if this means that Alison J May (ES&a Associates) solicitor
acting for Buloke Shire Council that day was able to get perhaps about 20 different court case
court orders then there must be something horrible wrong with the purported legal system.
It seems to me to be very obvious that the Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andrews was
obstructing my FIO Act rights likely well aware how so to say I was going to blow the lid of this
utter corrupt system. Yet, despite having made known to the court in my writings that because of
the failure to provide the requested FIO Act details/information I was not ready as I was unable
to prepare my appeal appropriately His Honour Carmody J simply disregarded this entirely.
While His Honour Carmody J as I understood it was stating that he was not going to be sucked
in by me, reality is that so to say His Honour Carmody J caused himself to be sucked in
because of the tactic I employed how to conduct my case. Had His Honour Carmody J acted
within the rules of the court I have no doubt the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION would have
succeeded. However, where His Honour Carmody J went out to circumvent the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION, not that this can be legally justified, then I had never any doubt that any orders
would end up without legal justification, but still I needed and did so for the onslaught of
litigation and expected all along that the Prosecutor and the witnesses would do whatever suited
them to pervert the course of justice.
Anyone checking the Fire Management Plan now used by municipal/shire council will become
aware that even an old out house (Loo) that is falling apart or even an abandoned house is
deemed a fire danger (Even so the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 excludes building and its
content!). Never mind the high growth along the Calder Highway where time and time cars
pulling into the soft shoulder of the highway cause fires due to the hot exhaust somehow is not a
fire danger to Municipal Fire Prevention Officer Mr Wayne Wall, if it was he should in my view
be charged for derelict of duties, etc. And so I view Mr Groves his assistant.
But with the unconstitutional Infringement Court they generally get away with it that some
innocent person will end up having Infringement Court orders against them while the real fire
danger is left unaddressed. This is how I view this government sponsored terrorism operates and
we lack any judicial integrity to stop this rot.
This was the perfect opportunity for his Honour Carmody J to make a stand and to make clear
His Honour Carmody J would be no part of judicial incompetence/terrorism but His Honour
Carmody J on 17 May 2016 made clear he was in no position to deal with the problems. In my
view, he could have made a stand not to along with the terrorism upon citizens and should have
p15
12-6-2016
Page 16
made a stand not to go along with an invalid Fire Prevention Notice. And had His Honour
Carmody J done so and stated this in his reason of judgment then His Honour Carmody J would
have made a stand against the entire corrupt system.
It is somehow absurd that I am despite not being an OFFICER OF THE COURT taking more a
opposition to uphold judicial integrity that a judge is.
Let me make it perfectly clear that because we have now a purported judicial system that aligns
with a terrorist government to use a KANGAROO COURT/STAR CHAMBER COURT
system of Infringement Court people are as I understand it desperate and at times contemplate
suicide. Judges think that they are enforcing the rule of law because they have been so to say
conditioned to belief this, instead of considering what really is or might be the rule of law.
Surely anyone who were to consider the real facts of how Alison J May (ES&a Associates)
lawyer for Buloke Shire Council pursued the case despite of my numerous writings, and yet
continued doing so may question where is the integrity of an OFFICER OF THE COURT?
Prosecutors should reveal to the court all relevant authorities and details/information, eve n those
again I view the contrary was demonstrated and despite that His Honour Carmody J was having
in the files my numerous writings and he claimed on 17 May 2016 having reads it all, when
holding it up, in the end the reason of judgment failed completely to set out the many issues let
alone show any consideration upon those numerous issues regardless I was entitled to it.
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR
So that any citizen of any portion of the Commonwealth would have the guarantee of liberty and safety in
regard to the processes of law, and also would have a guarantee of the equal administration of the law as it
exists. I think Mr. Isaacs will bear me out, that in the United States it has been decided that the title to equal
treatment under the law does not mean that you cannot make a law which differentiates one class of the
community from another; but, as has been decided, it means that in the administration of the laws you have
made, all the citizens shall be treated equally. And that should be so. Whatever privilege we give to our
citizens, the administration of the law should be equal to all, whatever their colour. The case I refer to is
one of the Chinese cases-I forget the name of it.
END QUOTE
Yet, as His Honour Carmody J in my view proved that when it comes to lawyers they can get
away with court orders/rules/regulations and other legal provisions. There the equality of law
doesnt exist, neither due process of law.
HANSARD 8-02-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. KINGSTON.-What does the honorable and learned member mean by the term "due process of law"?
Mr. OCONNOR.-The amendment will insure proper administration of the laws, and afford their protection
to every citizen.
Mr. SYMON.-That is insured already.
Mr. OCONNOR.-In what way?
Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the alteration of these
Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent the alteration of these Constitutions
in the direction of depriving any citizen of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Because if this provision in the Constitution is carried it will not be in the power of any state to pass a
law to amend its Constitution to do that. It is a declaration of liberty and freedom in our dealing with
p16
12-6-2016
Page 17
citizens of the Commonwealth. Not only can there be no harm in placing it in the Constitution, but it is
also necessary for the protection of the liberty of everybody who lives within the limits of any State.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
END QUOTE
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
It must be clear that the usage of words which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able
to understand applies to the constitution then any by-laws of a State that are created within s106
of the constitution subject to this constitution likewise require to be as such. Any Fire
Prevention Notice therefore must avoid any dubious terms and must be clear and precise that
ordinary people in the community can understand.
If therefore branches etc, are terms that may or may not apply while on the same property then
obviously this is an issue. Hence, as I submitted during the hearing specific references to specific
branches should have been provided for if this was an issue1
Country Fire Authority Act 1958
QUOTE
(1) In the country area of Victoria, the fire prevention officer of a municipal council may serve a fire
prevention notice on the owner or occupier of land in the municipal district of that council (other
than a public authority) in respect of anything
(other than a prescribed thing or class of things) that by its nature, composition, condition or
location constitutes or may constitute a danger to life or property from the threat of fire.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
(3)A fire prevention notice
(a) must be in the prescribed form;
(b) may require the owner or occupier to take the steps specified in the notice to remove or
minimise the threat of fire;
p17
12-6-2016
(d)
END QUOTE
Page 18
(c) must specify the time (not less than 7 days) within which the owner or occupier must comply
with the notice;
must contain any prescribed information.
Yet all the Fire Prevention Notice did was to have a general statement that was vague and
aloof and failed to indicate what really was deemed to be the issue, by this failed to provide the
any prescribed information, and in fact contained information outside the authority invested in the
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer. After all, as I stated regard the use of the term assault it is
meaningless without specific facts being given. If a person is accused of assault by kicking then
the accused can respond not having done any kicking. If therefore the accused is charged with
failing to comply for not having slashed/mowed the nature strip then the accused could challenge
this both on facts and in law if he wishes to do so.
But obviously one has to consider why in the first place s41 of the Country Fire Authority Act
1958 is not permitting any Infringement Notices or other court action against municipal/shire
councils and state government department themselves where in real life they are responsible for
most of the fire problems and the loss of life eventuating from this?
QUOTE
(1) In the country area of Victoria, the fire prevention officer of a municipal council may serve a fire
prevention notice on the owner or occupier of land in the municipal district of that council (other
than a public authority) in respect of anything
(other than a prescribed thing or class of things) that by its nature, composition, condition or
location constitutes or may constitute a danger to life or property from the threat of fire.
END QUOTE
How can such a law be legally justified where again most fires resulting to loss of property and
more over to the lives of people are emanating from land under ownership/management/control
of public authorities. And if municipal/shire council is not a public authority then why are they
not issued with Fire Prevention Notices? Councils may excise state delegated powers but cannot
be deemed nor are considered a public authority where they are essentially incorporated entities
for the local residents. They are in fact in conflict of interest to represent both the citizen against
the State and the State against the citizens.
What we see here is the absurdity of the rule of law where the Government/Parliament has
excluded public authorities no matter they are generally the cause of fire commencing.
Again:
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR
So that any citizen of any portion of the Commonwealth would have the guarantee of liberty and safety in
END QUOTE
p18
12-6-2016
Page 19
Well, where is the equality when two parties can be before the Court but then the State can be
excused for causing the death of many whereas a citizen causing a single death can be held
legally accountable?
Where is the equality where Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer can recklessly
leave branches, growth, etc, for over more than 100 kilometres along Calder Highway
endangering the properties and lives of others and yet has the gall to take me to court?
Where is the equality where Buloke Shire Council can pursue me as an enforcement agency no
matter how unlawful it all might be and obtain court orders through the purported Infringement
Court, where itself being the worst offender can stay clear of any responsibilities?
In my view any judicial officer who cannot understand/comprehend this should not be a judicial
officer.
The bias of Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer in my view was demonstrated by
lack of proper records being produced, such as the front of the property and how it was slashed at
the time of the first inspection as well as on the second inspection as to justify his allegation that
Long dead grass over the whole property.
He didnt qualify if over the whole property also included the naturestrip.
http://www.emelbourne.net.au/biogs/EM01049b.htm
QUOTE
Nature Strips
In Melbourne, the term 'nature strip' is understood to mean a strip of lawn that runs between the roadway and
the footpath. In other parts of Australia this area is known as a 'verge'; in Sydney, 'nature strip' is more likely
to refer to the median strip of grass in the middle of a divided road. As well as lawn, nature strips sometimes
contain shrubs or street trees.
Early photographs of Melbourne's residential streets show either grass or a combination of grass and footpath
at the side of the road. An 1862 photograph in the Port Phillip City collection shows a nature strip in Carlisle
Street, Balaclava. Stock grazing their way to city markets along arterial roads could partly explain the origins
of such grassy areas, as might the rationale that grass plots and street trees provided a trap for dust kicked up
from the roadway.
Nineteenth-century examples pre-date city planning and garden city ideas which developed after the turn of
the 20th century. Melbourne's earliest planned nature strips were probably at Port Melbourne's Garden City
housing development in the 1920s. Real Property Annual, the predecessor of Australian Home Builder and
Australian Home Beautiful, was strong in its promotion of garden city planning ideas and also nature strips.
Robin Boyd (Australia's home, 1968) identified the nature strip as 'the mark of the garden suburb' - and
derided it as 'this mockery of a communal garden'. The nature strip does help to reduce stormwater volumes,
and provides a buffer between pedestrians and traffic, but its primary function has always been visual. It
provides a plane of soft, rich green that contrasts with the surrounding harder and chromatically duller
surfaces.
From the 1950s the total area under nature strips began to increase exponentially. They came to be taken for
granted in new suburbs and were cultivated in many old suburbs. The speed of their proliferation should not,
however, be exaggerated. In some of the older and poorer suburbs - such as Yarraville - nature strips were
still being planted late in the 20th century. Although they might be found in streets close to the city centre
(such as in Macarthur Street, East Melbourne, and in St Kilda Road), they are rarely found in shopping
precincts.
The 1950s also saw the establishment of the convention that householders, rather than municipal government,
take responsibility for mowing the nature strip immediately in front of their properties. In 1954 many South
Yarra ratepayers protested their local council's decision to mow no more. The story was considered of
p19
12-6-2016
Page 20
sufficient public interest to make the front page of the Herald newspaper. The council view prevailed,
making the point that very few other councils maintained local nature strips.
Although owned and regulated by local councils, they are frequently the subject of dispute between council
and ratepayer, renter and landlord, and neighbour versus neighbour. Nature strips endure as a symbol for the
space and health of suburbia. It is individuals who have maintained and even spectacularly manicured them,
as a source of civic pride and personal status. Nature strips are iconic of Australian suburbia, an essential part
of what Geoffrey Bolton has called the 'monotonous fidelity' of the street grid. Their future form may,
however, need to adapt to the restrictions of water supply and the vagaries of climate.
Eddie Butler-Bowdon And Sophie Couchman
END QUOTE
https://www.allianz.com.au/home-insurance/news/trees-nature-strips-and-councils-know-yourrights
QUOTE
Trees, nature strips and councils: know

your rights
Owning a house gives you the opportunity to make the most of your garden, turning it into
a pleasant environment for you and your family to enjoy. At the same time, this enjoyment
comes with rules and responsibilities.
Before you make any major changes, such as cutting down trees, it's recommended that you check
with your local council to find out about relevant state legislation. This also applies if you have a
nature strip or if your neighbour's trees impinge on your property.
Cutting down trees

Across Australia, if you want to cut down a tree on your property, or prune more than a limited per
centage of its branches, you usually require permission from your local council. To get permission
you will likely need to ask your local council to do a tree inspection and you'll have to pay applicable
fees.
If you don't have approval you may be liable for significant penalties. For example, if you remove a
native tree illegally in NSW you could be liable for a fine of up to $1.1 million if prosecuted under the
Native Vegetation Act 2003i .
As with several other council areas, residents of the Pittwater local government area in Sydney's
Northern Beaches won't need permission to remove:
damaged branches
branches that are overhanging or touching buildings, or
branches that are within two metres of telephone or electricity power wiresii.
All councils have Tree Preservation Orders under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979, which list tree species protected in that areaiii.
But for some homeowners this changed last year, when the NSW Government - with the Rural Fire
Service - introduced the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice. Across the state, residents
p20
12-6-2016
Page 21
living within 350 metres of a designated bushfire-prone area can clear any trees within 10 metres of
their homes, and shrubs and vegetation within 50 metres without permissioniv.
Nature strips
A nature strip (or street verge) - the strip of land between a residential property boundary and the
adjacent roadway - is aesthetic, reduces stormwater run-off and adds a touch of greenery.
In all states, under general council rules, homeowners (and tenants) are responsible for their nature
strip's safe upkeep. For example in the ACT, residents must ensure there's adequate space for
pedestrians to pass on the strip, and for rubbish and recycling binsv.
Some people extend their garden onto the strip, but if they plant anything other than grass, in most
cases they require council approval, such as the regulations in the northern Melbourne suburb of
Whittlesea in Victoriavi.
Other councils, such as the Mornington Peninsula Shire, have made exceptions. Last year the Shire
passed the Private Works on Nature Strips and Road Reserves Policy, which allows residents to
grow fruit and vegetable on their strips - as long as they share the produce with the communityvii.
Neighbour's trees
Most homeowners strive for good neighbourly relationships, but sometimes a neighbour's tree can
lead to misunderstandings. This can happen when their tree branches:
overhang your property,

drop fruit into your garden
inhibit your TV reception
block sunlight for solar panels, or
their roots poke up in your yard, creating a potential safety hazard.
The Queensland Government offers a helpful step-by-step guide to resolve tree and fence disputes:
it's important to check with your state and local government for rules and legislation that affects you.
Australian Institute of Criminology 2010, Illegal native vegetation clearing, viewed 23 March 2015,
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp109/09.html
i
Pittwater Council, Tree Removal, Application, Fees and Charges, viewed 23 March 2015,
http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/environment/tree_information/tree_removal_application?SQ_DESIG
N_NAME=printer_friendly
ii
Natural Resource Management for NSW Local Government, What are Local Government's roles
and responsibilities in relation to NRM? , viewed 23 March 2015,
http://www.lgnsw.org.au/files/imce-uploads/39/Wha_%20are_LGs_responsibilities_re_NRM.pdf
iii
NSW Rural Fire Service, 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice for New South Wales, viewed
23 March 2015,
http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/18453/1050-Vegetation-Clearing-Code-ofPractice.pdf
iv
ACT Government, Territory and Municipal Services, Nature Strips and Rain Gardens, viewed 23
March 2015,
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/city-services/public_land_use#naturestrips
v
p21
12-6-2016
Page 22
City of Whittlesea 2014, Nature Strip Guidelines, viewed 23 March 2015,

https://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/building-planning-and-transport/roads-and-transport/road-andparking-rules/nature-strip-guidelines
vi
'Mornington Peninsula residents can grow produce on nature strips', Mornington Peninsula Leader,
26 November 2014, viewed 23 March 2015,
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/mornington-peninsula-residents-can-grow-produceon-nature-strips/story-fngnvli9-1227134321797
vii
Any advice here does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Terms, conditions, limits
and exclusions apply. Before making a decision please consider the relevant Product Disclosure Statement
(PDS)/Policy Wording, Supplementary PDS (where applicable) & PDS update (privacy notice) which are available
on this website.
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited ABN 15 000 122 850 AFS Licence No. 234708 is the general insurer except in
respect of life insurance, in which case Allianz Australia Life Insurance Limited ABN 27 076 033 782 AFS Licence
No. 296559 is the insurer.
Copyright 2016 Allianz Australia Limited ABN 21 000 006 226.
END QUOTE
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1839001
QUOTE
User #61653 2905 posts
123enen
Whirlpool Forums Addict
reference: whrl.pl/Rc2tXd
posted 2011-Dec-29, 7:10 pm
ref: whrl.pl/Rc2tXd
posted 2011-Dec-29, 7:10 pm
http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/parks-pools-sport/trees-and-gardens/nature-strips.html
QUOTE
Moreland city council ....Melbourne
A nature strip is the land between the footpath and the road. It is public land. Council relies on the
goodwill of residents to help us maintain nature strips and footpath cutouts:
Council appreciates if you can:
mow
weed, and
cut the edges of your nature strip and/or cutout.
People walking should be able to use the entire width of the footpath.
Plant your nature strip
Council is happy to consider requests from residents who would like to plant on their nature strip.
Ask Council if you can remove grass or have other plants to make your nature strip more attractive and to
maintain it less.
END QUOTE
p22
12-6-2016
Page 23
https://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/building-planning-and-transport/roads-and-transport/road-andparking-rules/nature-strip-guidelines
QUOTE
Nature strip guidelines

Maintaining the nature strip outside your property, and ensuring it is in a safe and tidy condition is the responsibility of
the resident/owner. Maintenance activities must ensure that a nature strip continues to be fit for purpose, meets
design requirements and does not deteriorate into a public eyesore.
If the nature strip outside of your urban property currently features anything other than grass and a Council-planted
street tree, you may need to make changes to it from 1 January 2015.
Although we prefer the traditional nature strip, you are able to modify it by using the following materials, as long as
the nature strip meets our guidelines:
compacted toppings
synthetic turf
plants
crushed rock or granitic sand with a maximum particle size of 10mm
To find out what you can and cant do to a nature strip, read our:
Urban Nature Strip Guidelines (Word - 1.1MB)

Urban Nature Strip Guidelines (PDF - 395KB)
All urban nature strips must comply with the guidelines regardless of when any modifications were completed.
You must obtain a Nature Strip Modification Permit before you modify your nature strip. Please note that a fee of
$26.50 applies.
To request a permit please complete and submit the following form:
Nature Strip Modification Application (PDF - 370KB)

Nature Strip Modification Application (Word - 662KB)
Please note: several organisations (such as gas and electricity providers) have the authority to access services
within the nature strip and they do not need to reinstate your modifications.
For more information on the guidelines, call us on 9401 0587.
Last Updated: 03 March 2016
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mowing and slashing land

Mowing nature strips
Residents and property owners are legally required to mow the nature strip(s) next to their land, and ensure the
grass, weeds and scrub do not grow to more than 30cm high.
Property owners who do not keep their nature strip grass shorter than 30cm face a fine of up to $800.
Report an overgrown nature strip online.
Note: Residents must not plant anything on the nature strip except grass and it is illegal to remove or prune any
Council-planted trees on your nature strip. See Maintenance of trees in nature strips and parks.
p23
12-6-2016
Page 24
Fire prevention
Fire authorities recommend keeping the grass shorter than 10cm to minimise the chance of fire passing from the road
onto your property.
Property owners who do not keep their grass shorter than 10cm can face a fire prevention fine of $1519.
Vacant land
If you own vacant land in a residential area you must ensure the grass, weeds and scrub do not grow to more than
30cm high.
Property owners who dont comply with this requirement face a fine of $1519 per rateable owner.
Report overgrown vacant land by calling us on 9217 2170 or email info@whittlesea.vic.gov.au.
Slashing vegetation on Council land

Our Parks and Open Space Department is responsible for slashing vegetation on Council-owned land, and cutting fire
breaks at least twice during the fire danger period, or as seasonally required.
We monitor this land before and during the fire danger period to ensure we meet our responsibilities and that the
grass is kept to a fire safe height. We also issue internal fire notices at Council to ensure this standard is maintained.
You will notice after periods of rain there may be some delays before long grass in your area is slashed.
If you believe an area requires urgent slashing, call us on 9217 2170 or email parks@whittlesea.vic.gov.au.
Rural scrub clearance

Rural landowners must ensure the grass and weeds on their property do not grow to more than 30cm high.
Fire authorities recommend keeping the grass shorter than 10cm to minimise the chance of fire passing from the road
onto your property.
Landowners should eliminate weeds and pest plants on their private property as they can have negative agricultural,
environmental and social impacts, but be careful to retain native local vegetation, which is protected under the
Whittlesea Planning Scheme.
There are some instances where you can obtain a planning permit to remove native vegetation for more
information, call our Planning Department 9217 2236.
We also offer grants and incentives to encourage rural landowners to manage their land sustainably.
Last Updated: 26 May 2016
END QUOTE
We have the Exhibit 1 last page which showed:

Exhibit 1
QUOTE
Code A Cut all grass, noxious weeds and undergrowth on the whole of the block and naturestrip to the height of
not more than 100mm;
Cut and remove all vegetation from the fence line to the same height by brush cutter or similar means;
Remove all combustible material from land including branches and prunings.
Code B
Remove all combustible material from land including b ranches and prunings.
p24
12-6-2016
Code C
Page 25
Cut and remove all vegetation from the fence line to a height of not more than 100 mm.
Code D
Create a 10 metre fire break around the perimeter of the property
Code E
Create a 10 Metre fire break around the perimeter of the property and a 20 metre firebreak around assets
such as sheds, dwellings etc.
Code F
Other requires description
END QUOTE
No explanation was given nor requested by Counsel for the Prosecutor as to why Mr Wayne
Wall demanded in the Fire Prevention Notice to have the entire property done where by Code D,
a mere 10 metres was to be done, etc.
It was not for me to elicit from the witness during cross-examination why he did choose Code A
as it was not my job to do the work of Counsel for the Prosecutor.
It was for His Honour Carmody J to determine if Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention
officer had made out a case at all why in view of the condition shown by the photos I filed during
cross-examination this kind of growth was acceptable despite being deemed a fire danger by Mr
Wayne Wall himself when asked about this by His Honour Carmody J but not apply the same
standards then to a land holder?
QUOTE
Rural scrub clearance

Rural landowners must ensure the grass and weeds on their property do not grow to more than 30cm high.
END QUOTE
Here we have that Rural landowners must ensure the grass and weeds on their property do not grow to more
than 30cm high. This means that Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer may have
used perhaps in error an in correct measurement, where he refers to 100mm (10cm) when in fact
Whittlesea has a 30 cm (300 mm) height.
With this purported Infringement court anything will be held to be justified to get some
purported court order and who cares about the innocence of land holders as after all the
government has provided to sell the properties to get the monies ordered against an innocent
landholder. (Innocent must be understood to include any alleged debt/claim/judgment of a
unconstitutional Infringement Court orders being without legal force)
A-Z of weeds | Weeds | Pests, diseases and ... - Agriculture Victoria

END QUOTE
agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests-diseases-and-weeds/weeds/a-z-of-weeds
Aug 19, 2015 - A-Z of weeds. African boxthorn. African daisy. African feather grass. African Lovegrass.
Amsinckia. Angled Onion. Apple of sodom. Artichoke thistle. Bathurst Burr. State prohibited weeds. Weed
Spotters. WeedStop Vehicle Hygiene Program. Weed Warning Drought Fire Flood. Invasive Plant
Classifications. Roadside Weeds and ...
END QUOTE
Invasive Plant Classifications | Weeds | Pests ... - Agriculture Victoria

END QUOTE
agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests...weeds/weeds/invasive-plant-classifications
Feb 23, 2016 - Under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act) certain plants are declared as
noxious weeds in Victoria. These plants cause ...
END QUOTE
p25
12-6-2016
Page 26
Declared noxious weeds and pest animals in Victoria | Legislation ...

END QUOTE
agriculture.vic.gov.au/...weeds/...victoria...weeds/.../declared-noxious-weeds-and-pest...
IPA Framework Introduction. Legislation, policy and permits. Legislation. Policies and Strategies. Permits.
Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures. Declared noxious weeds and pest animals in Victoria. New
Invasive Species Management Legislation. Weeds and Vertebrate Pests.
END QUOTE
About Code A Cut all grass, noxious weeds appears to violate legislative provisions of the
State of Victoria but nevertheless His Honour Carmody J didnt seem this to invalidate the
purported Fire Prevention Notice that requires me to act in violation of Victorian legislative
provisions, and nothing to do as such with specific fire danger! After all some noxious weed may
be less than 100 mm and still be a hazard, just not a fire hazard. Hence it should not be part of the
Fire Prevention Notice, at all. If is simply that Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention
Officer seeks to misuse/abuse s41 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 to achieve something
not specifically authorised by the Act at all.
http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests-diseases-and-weeds/weeds/invasive-plantclassifications
QUOTE
Once declared as noxious, people must not bring these species into the state, nor take, hatch, keep, possess,
sell, transport, put into any container or release into protected waters any declared noxious aquatic species
(unless otherwise authorised by permit). A number of offences have been created relating to noxious aquatic
species in Victoria.
END QUOTE
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998)
Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing the statutory provision in
that case: "substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible.
Either there was compliance or there was not."
In my submission no noxious weed provisions is implied in the Country Fire Authority Act
1958. Remarkably that His Honour Carmody J read out part of the Fire Prevention Notice but
somehow never comprehended/understood that noxious weeds were not governed by the
Country Fire Authority Act 1958 but by the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act).
Hence, yet again I repeat the fire prevention Notice stipulating this year after year means that
more than about 20 landholders a year wrongly had court orders against them because the Fire
Prevention Notices are invalidly issued.
It does underline that no matter the about 126 pages of a Fire Management Plan in the end it all
comes to nothing! And this is how innocent people end up found guilty in a court where not even
the judges seems to as I understand many a person in the general community views that the
judicial fails to understand/comprehend that the Fire Prevention Notices are invalid in law (ultra
vires) or they just dont give a darn but just desire to protect their fellow lawyers!
http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests-diseases-and-weeds/weeds/invasive-plantclassifications
QUOTE
Invasive Plant Classifications

Declared noxious weeds
Under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act) certain plants are declared as noxious weeds
in Victoria. These plants cause environmental or economic harm or have the potential to cause such harm.
They can also present risks to human health. The CaLP Act defines four categories of noxious weeds:
p26
12-6-2016
Page 27
State Prohibited Weeds
Regionally Prohibited Weeds
Regionally Controlled Weeds
Restricted Weeds.
Invasive plants are categorised into one of the above four categories for each catchment region in Victoria.
State prohibited weeds

State prohibited
These invasive plants either do not occur in Victoria but pose a significant threat if they invade, or are present,
pose a serious threat and can reasonably be expected to be eradicated. If present, infestations of a State
prohibited weed are relatively small.
They are to be eradicated from Victoria if possible or excluded from the State. The Victorian Government is
responsible for their eradication, but under Section 70(1) of the CaLP Act, it may direct land owners to prevent
their growth and spread.
If you think you have purchased or seen a State prohibited weed, please contact the Department of
Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) by telephoning 136 186. Please do
not attempt to control or dispose of these weeds yourself
Regionally prohibited weeds

Regionally prohibited weeds are not widely distributed in a region but are capable of spreading further. It is
reasonable to expect that they can be eradicated from a region and they must be managed with that goal. Land
owners, including public authorities responsible for crown land management, must take all reasonable steps to
eradicate regionally prohibited weeds on their land.
Regionally controlled weeds

These invasive plants are usually widespread in a region. To prevent their spread, ongoing control measures
are required. Land owners have the responsibility to take all reasonable steps to prevent the growth and spread
of Regionally controlled weeds on their land.
Restricted weeds
This category includes plants that pose an unacceptable risk of spreading in this State and are a serious threat to
another State or Territory of Australia. Trade in these weeds and their propagules, either as plants, seeds or
contaminants in other materials is prohibited.
See Victoria's consolidated lists of declared noxious weeds and pest animals.
END QUOTE
I recall that when Buloke Shire Council requested permission to eradicate noxious weeds from
my property I did consent for them to do so.
This poses further questions, as where Buloke Shire Council did make this request then clearly
s224(7) was not held to authorise them to enter my property.
It also placed the question that Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire prevention Officer failed to state
on what location he claimed to have located noxious weeds considering Buloke Shire Council
had eradicated it not long ago.
p27
12-6-2016
Page 28
It places the question if Coda A merely a general vague and aloof statement not at all relevant
to a specific property!
There was to my understanding (then again my hearing aids may have omitted to provide me
with the sound of it) that Mr Wayne Wall was asked in evidence in chief and stated to have
located noxious weed on my property and where it allegedly was located. Surely if noxious
weeds are required to be removed then it must exist. As I submitted to her Honour Harbison J
when representing Mr Frank Colosimo, that a court order requiring him to remove a
secondary residence, which didnt exist as it was by the standards provided by the Counsel for
the Prosecutor a shed (as she filed the authorities for this, albeit admitting afterwards she had
been unaware of the content of the authority when I alerted her Honour Harbison J of it) then
where the Fire Prevention Notice indicates the removal of noxious weeds then it must exist as
if it didnt exist and again I was not aware of any evidence in that regard then the Fire Prevention
Notice in that regard also was invalid.
.
A hypothetical transcript:
His Honour (to the accused): The Fire prevention Notice required you to remove the drums of petrol from
your property as it was deemed a fire danger. Did you do so?
Accused: Your Honour I never had any drums on my property let alone any with petrol in it. And my vehicle
is on gas only and I have nothing that uses petrol.
His Honour: I asked you a question and not want some summons, Just answer yes or no.
Accused: I cannot answer the question as such because either way it would place me in problems.
His Honour: I require you to answer yes or no.
Accused; if there was an imaginary drum of petrol then I must have removed it because I have been unable to
locate any. If there was no imagine drum with petrol and no real drum with petrol existed than I didnt do it.
His Honour: I have given you a lot of opportunities but reality is that you clearly didnt comply with the Fire
prevention order as you have admitted not to have removed a drum filled with petrol from your property. I
wasnt referring to an imaginary drum filled with petrol but to the drum with petrol referred to in the Fire
Prevention Notice, and clearly you admit not having removed it.
And this is how it appears to me is how His Honour Carmody J held I was GUILTY, because
obviously I never gave evidence having removed the alleged noxious weeds never mind it
didnt exist.
In my submission Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer lacked any
competence/experiences to understand/comprehend what the real purpose of the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958 was about and how to implement legal provisions appropriately.
It appears that while Buloke Shire Council was the authorised enforcement agency the real
delegation of powers to enforce the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 was left with the
Municipal Fire Prevention Office erf taken over this roll as to manipulate the delegated powers
for noxious weeds and other micromanagement nothing to do with the real issue of fire
dangers intended by the Country Fire Authority Act 1958
When one considers the numerous people/authorities involved in a Fire Management Plan and
yet in the end my photos show it is a disaster waiting to happen along Calder Highway then
obviously the lot are wasting their time (and public monies) in being involved in some kind of
Fire Management Plan where in the end the result is that along more than 100 kilometres of
stretch along the Calder Highway a severe fire danger continues to exist.
If anything the photo showing Mr Frank Colosimo near the tree which has a build-up of
branches, some huge, and yet never cleared away, underlines that when it comes to real fire
management procedures it is lacking completely.
Then again, there is no money in it as only private land holders can be fined using infringement
Notices and other court litigation.
It ought to be clear, at least in my view, that Mr Wayne Wall failed to be honest during his giving
evidence in the witness box, both by claiming a photo (in the purported brief) being of my
property, the alleged noxious weed the inclusion of the nature strip and a lot more!
p28
12-6-2016
Page 29
Private Person
In my submission a judicial officer who doesnt act within the confinements of his judicial role,
regardless if at the time in a location defined as a court venue, and fail to invoke jurisdiction by
way of order and reason of judgment when such jurisdiction is challenged then is acting not as a
judicial officer but as a private person and can be held legally liable as a private person, even so
this private person may have pretended to act as a judicial officer.
Some of the issues I raised but His Honour Carmody J appeared to me failing to address
appropriately
* OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
ALSO CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF (Not listed in any order of importance):
* Victorian Constitution Act 1975 (no state referendum to approve it)
* Local Government Act
* Infringement Act 2006
* Sections of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 (1975 onwards)
* Relating to validity of judicial appointments (Citizenship)
* Impartiality/independence of judiciary (ABN, Letters Patent impartial administration
of justice, etc)
* Fire Prevention Notice (violation to Country Fire Authority Act 1958 legal provisions)
* State referring judicial powers to the commonwealth without approval by the electors
* Failure of independent/impartial administration of justice
While His Honour Carmody J did deal with the question of legal standing nevertheless His
Honour appeared to fail to consider all relevant issues.
Summary jurisdiction v Jury
In my written sub missions I made known not to accept summary jurisdiction and that I required
a jury.
I consider it a very serious issue that concealment of relevant details by the Prosecutor by this
has been left unaddressed including the myriad of violations of court orders, rules and
regulations and other legal provisions by the prosecutor.
Here we had Counsel for Buloke Shire Council on 30 October 2015 submitting to His Honour
Mullaly that time was needed to produce a brief and yet it never was as was requested neither
as was ordered and the purported brief included purported evidence not part of the property
(even so provided by Mr Wayne Wall (as admitted by him during cross examination) and was
not including numerous documents that were relied upon by the Prosecutor and as such denied
me a proper opportunity to verify what was alleged from the Bar table by the Prosecutor and by
the witnesses in the witness box.
In my view jury nullification is an essential part of any judicial system and must be applied
within the context of the legal principles embedded in the federal constitution.
POWER POINT ISSUE
It was utter ridiculous that Court 8.4 (Notably in the Country Court of Victoria at the Melbourne
William street venue) didnt have power points available for a party at the Bar table to be able to
plug in so as to be able to use a computer.
HEARING AID PROBLEMS
I did make known on 17 May 2016 to His Honour Carmody J that I had hearing problems and
was using hearing aids. I found that using the coil system would prevent me to having to guess
p29
12-6-2016
Page 30
what Counsel for the prosecution was stating (on 17 May 2016) and often had to guess what he
was on about, and also with His Honour Carmody J on 30 May 2016 where His Honour
Carmody J at times seemed to berate me for interrupting him where in fact I relied upon the tone
of voice and sound that the hearing aid was providing and so at times it appeared to me His
Honour Carmody J had finished talking. Because of the problems with the coil (loop) system I
had now the hearing aids on normal, which allowed me to better hear what counsel for the
Prosecution was stating, having also taken position closer to the witness box at the Bar table, but
in the process the sound of the voice of His Honour Carmody J by this suffered to what I was
hearing. Because of the severity of my hearing loss the so to say getting used to new issued
hearing aids can be considerably protracted. I had given a lot of efforts in my writings to explain
this to the Registrar and so copies to others concerned and as such from my part I did far more
than ordinary might be expected from me to do to alert everyone about it. However, while His
Honour Carmody J on 17 May 23016 at the Ballarat venue seemed to indicate that he understood
I had hearing problems and didnt need to excuse myself for this, during the 30 May 2016
hearing it appeared to me that His Honour Carmody J totally disregarded this hearing problem.
Perhaps His Honour Carmody J had assumed that the hearing aid problems and to my hearing
problems had been resolved, but that is unreasonable as it take some time to get hearings
adjusted to a new hearing aid system, as I was advised by the specialist fitting the hearing aids on
12 May 2016.
DE NOVO & OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION & FAILING TO INVOKE

JURISDICTION
As set out extensively in this document a DE NOVO hearing is that the parties are set in the
same legal position as was at the time before the Court against which the appeal related to. In
that case the magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud was provided by me with a written
submission in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT of an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and the
other party (the prosecutor) had not challenged this whatsoever, even so in its 2 September 2015
correspondence alluding to my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. And as such on a legal basis
my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was and remained unchallenged on 17 September 2015
and on appeal His Honour Carmody J had this matter before him as to determine if the
UNCHALLENGED OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was to be upheld by providing orders
and reason of judgment to that effect. It is only if His Honour Carmody J had dismissed the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION that His Honour Carmody J could have commenced to hear
other matters.
In my view any hearing DE NOVO means that at commencement of the hearing the orders
appealed against must be Automatically be deemed set aside. This as a failure to provide for this
means the hearing is not at all DE NOVO and the person remains to be held GUILTY and not
provided with the right of innocent until proven guilty.
FOI
9 December 2015 FOI Act Request and supplement to the premier of Victoria Mr Daniel
Andrews but despite having indicated that this was required in regard of the appeal 15-2502 no
response was provided, this even so the email address is the correct email address and at time the
Attorney-General who was provided with a copy of this FOI Act request is using his email
address to provide me with emails. As such, there can be no question that the FIO Act request
was received by both.
As I continuously indicated Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer was exercising
State delegated powers and as such the Attorney-General as first law officer of the state
essentially was the Prosecutor. Hence the refusal to provide the requested FOI Act
details/information in my view was a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice. As this
p30
12-6-2016
Page 31
document sets out the Fire Prevention Notices are containing requirements not at all authorised
by the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 and as such it appears to me that the refusal to disclose
details unlawfully was deliberately as to undermine my ability to present my case as desired by
me.
It should be of concern to any judicial officer that the Prosecutor (the Attorney-General) is
concealing/withholding relevant details from the court as to pervert the course of justice.
This is not some incident where the Attorney-General may have in eror overlooked the request as
His Honour Carmody J himself referred to my writings to the Attorney-General both on 17 May
2016 and 30 May 2016. In particular where I exposed a considerable failing by Mr Wayne Wall
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer and by Buloke Shire Council this was not some ordinary
litigation but one of public interest, where in fact the very intention of the parliament expressed
in the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 was not just eroded but basically annihilated where there
was this real fire danger along the Calder Highway for years on end, as well as the misuse and
abuse of the legal provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958. In my submission the
Attorney-General had an obligation to have stepped in to take over the case to which he legally
was entitled to do.
It also should be understood that an FOI Act request regarding all and any Fire Prevention
Notices, court decisions, etc, was not one that could have been directed to Buloke Shire Council
as it besides having limited resources cannot deal with matters beyond its own jurisdiction, and
as such the premier of Victoria was the correct person for this, upon which the Attorney-General
then has to act for the Premier.
In my view His Honour Carmody J failed to appropriately deal with this matter and as far I
understood matters never even dealt with this in his reason of judgment either.
It should be clear that if indeed monies that are to be paid into Consolidated Revenue Funds are
unconstitutionally received by some municipal/shire council and by this circumvent proper
record of monies that ought to be drawn by Appropriation Bills approved by the Parliament, then
corruption is unavoidable.
INDEPENDENT/IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Both authorities on record (and reproduced in my writings) as well as the Letters Patent
published in the Victorian Gazette on 2-1-1901 requires an impartial/independent administration
of justice. However as former Supreme Court judge Mr Phillips made clear that the Courts are
as Business unit 19 within the Department of justice. The Courts are therefore not and neither
can be deemed to be impartial/independent, this even so they are to be by the provisions of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within which within s106 of the
constitution the states are subject to this constitution bound to apply the legal principles of
separation of powers.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
In my the concealment of relevant details, the failure to comply with the orders of His Honour
Mullaly J of 30 October 2015 and numerous other issues outlined in these writing in themselves
underline that this constituted time and time again CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Officers of the court are bound to act honourably and not score a guilty finding by deception and
other unethical conduct in violation of court orders/rules/regulations and other legal provisions.
FEDERAL JURISDICTION
Where a party challenged the application of a state law based upon a federal constitutional
matter, etc, then the trail judge must inform the parties that federal jurisdiction is being invoked.
This so the parties can where required adjust their positions to federal litigation, where legal
p31
12-6-2016
Page 32
provisions in a federal jurisdiction might be different then for so far they might be in a state
jurisdiction. While ordinary litigation in a state court will remain to be applicable even if the
state court will invoke federal jurisdiction, there can be however different legal provisions
applicable within federal jurisdiction that may not have been applied as such in state jurisdiction.
Where a State court has a litigation under state laws then federal issues are normally not relevant,
whereas where a party such as I did challenge certain legislative provisions based upon the
federal constitution and its embedded legal principles then the State court cannot assume that the
state laws are nevertheless applicable as they are now challenged under the federal constitution
and its embedded legal provisions. For example, where I challenged the validity of the purported
Local Government Act of Victoria purporting another level of government without the separation
of powers embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then this is
a constitutional matter which no judge can ignore, Albeit it appears to me His Honour Carmody J
did so.
The same with the purported Infringement Act 2006 which essentially provides for a STAR
CHAMBER COURT/KANGAROO COURT where only those approved by the government
can litigate without facing any challenge by the accused in a purported Infringement Court which
appears to me to be nothing more than some computer operated by a private company TENIX
SOLUTIONS violating the open court requirements then I view His Honour Carmody J should
not have ignored to deal with this matter where His Honour Carmody J himself on 17 May 2016
relied upon the provisions of the purported Infringement Act 2006.
NO CASE TO ANSWER
It appears to me that His Honour Carmody J never understood how a submission NO CASE TO
ANWER was applicable.
His Honour requested me to give reasons for this submission, where in reality no reason is
required to be given.
It is for the trial judge to evaluate what the Prosecutor has presented but cannot use any
information the accused may during cross-examination presented adverse to himself. In the
criminal case of Jose van Rooy, I was on 19 July 2006 requested by Jose to assist. I subsequently
wrote to the DPP that there was NO CASE TO ANSWER, upon which the DPP then responded
to drop 2 out of 3 criminal charges. The case didnt go to court before a jury until 2008. Albeit
ordinary one make a submission CASE TO ANSWER at the conclusion of the Prosecutors case,
it is however not objectionable to do so years beforehand. Just that by doing so you may so to say
wake up sleeping dogs and alert your opponent of the strategy you may use and so the opponent
may then be alerted. The fact that the DPP dropped 2 criminal charges despite having 5 Police
officers, a clerk of court and a deputy clerk of court as witnesses whereas Jose only was on her
own, may underline how powerful the NO CASE TO ANSWER submission was. And after the
Prosecutor had completed his case His Honour Woods in the County Court of Victoria then
directed the Jury to return a verdict NOT GUILTY this as the Prosecutor had not proven its
case, and this without Jose having to present her caser.
Often when a party submits a NO CASE TO ANWER at conclusion of the Prosecutors case a
judge may in error take into consideration what the accused had himself submitted during crossexamination. This is not permitted because the Courts have ruled that this would deny the
accused to be able to properly cross-examine a Prosecutors witness.
Hence to make the submission long before a hearing is commenced underlines or at least would
underline to a competent judge that he can only consider the evidence that came from the
Prosecutor and must ignore any adverse details to the accused presented to cross-examine.
THE COURT-APPEAL-15-2502
However, because of the NO CASE TO ANSWER claim the Defendant made before opening his own case,
the judicial officer must now find that the failure of the prosecutor to present evidence and to rely now upon
p32
12-6-2016
Page 33
the Defendant to give some kind of evidence that he may not actually have filled in any ballot paper is
irrelevant as the claim of NO CASE TO ANSWER relies upon what evidence was before the Court PRIOR
TO what evidence was before the Court when this claim was made and must disregard any evidence that was
given afterwards. A Court of Appeal, if the matter is appealed, re-assess the claim of NO CASE TO
ANSWER, upon the basis if the Prosecutor in fact had proved BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT the
charge and by this must disregard any evidence that was given after the claim of NO CASE TO ANSWER
was made. The Prosecutor having the CRIMINAL STANDARD OF PROOF there by had the onus to
disprove each and every excuse the Defendant may proffer on the CIVIL STANDARD OF PROOF and
therefore where the Prosecutor takes the gamble of relying upon the averment rule that he takes a
CALCULATED RISK that it might be fatal to his case. The judicial officer, who becomes aware , once the
Defendant opened his case, that the Defendant in fact on CIVIL STANDARDS OF PROOF had a excuse,
then is duty bound to discontinue the trial and make a ruling that the NO CASE TO ANSWER claim by
hindsight now is validated. This, as the Prosecutor already had closed his case. To allow for the prosecutor to
use cross-examination as a way to try to re-open his case and to try to thereby get away from the averment
rule and now seek to rely upon evidence elicited from the Defendant would a be gross abuse of the legal
processes and would defeat the entire purpose of what the averment rule is about and interfere with the DUE
PROCESSES OF LAW.
TO THE COURT-APPEAL-15-2502
The above quotation was of 2 successful appeals of 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria.
What this means is that the Prosecutor had to overcome each and every element of the charge as
well as having to overcome each and every excuse/issue I placed before the court.
It is clear that the Prosecutor himself filed material that supported my submissions such as the
trees and bushes in the centre of the property, His Honour Carmody J never attended to
numerous issues I raised and as such at no time had the Prosecutor defeated each and every issue.
.
His Honour Carmody J did deal with the Mens Rea issue in his own manner but in my view
overlooked this was a criminal and not a civil trial and as such the legal principles of a criminal
trial MUST BE ADHERED TO and seemed to me to deal with the matter as if it was a civil
trial about a debt that as I explained never as such existed because an Infringement Notice is not
a debt ordered by a court, regardless that the Legal Service Commission didnt understand this,
as referred to by the Prosecutor that it had written about it being a debt.
In my view the failure to have the correspondence of the Legal Service Commission included in
the brief itself also must be considered being an issue. As Prosecutors are bound so to say
reveal their hand and not at a trail come up with all kind of material it concealed from the brief,
this even so at the time already in its possession.
QUOTE
Cc:
29-5-2016

Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au, attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
County Court of Victoria crim.reg@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Associate to Her Honour Hannan J. judgehannan.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Associate Sarah Gall to His Honour Carmody J judgecarmody.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Ref; 20160529-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06- -Re APPEAL-15-2502 Re Evidence-etc
Sir/Madam,
On 17 May 2016 Counsel for Buloke Shire Council claimed (FROM THE BAR TABLE) that ES&a
Associates (for Buloke Shire Council) had served the appropriate brief via email, etc.
Obviously this was a mere statement from the Bar table and cannot be accepted as evidence by the Court.
It will my intention to pursue that unless Buloke Shire Council provide a witness to give evidence to the effect that
the appropriate brief was provided, etc, I will pursue that the court due to lack of proper evidence will not accept
this.
p33
12-6-2016
Page 34
In the past I challenged the service of documents and at that time the Court made clear that it was not for the trail
judge to accept service had eventuated unless this was so stated under oath from the witness box, and I was entitled
to cross-examine the witness. As I then was able to do.
Because the trial judge must and must be seen to be impartial and independent the trial judge then cannot
assume/accept that service of a brief was properly executed where there is no evidence whatsoever before the
court (as evidence cannot be given from the Bar table) the onus is upon Buloke Shire Council to prove an
appropriate brief was served upon me, this I deny ever eventuated.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

END QUOTE
Again
QUOTE
Because the trial judge must and must be seen to be impartial and independent the trial judge then cannot
assume/accept that service of a brief was properly executed where there is no evidence whatsoever before
the court (as evidence cannot be given from the Bar table) the onus is upon Buloke Shire Council to prove
an appropriate brief was served upon me, this I deny ever eventuated.
END QUOTE
The real problem is that both members of the legal profession as well as judicial officers have
this kind of modus operandi to blatantly disregard to follow and comply with required legal
procedures and as such are no longer even aware of doing so. It takes a person like myself to
expose this rot. In particular where I even warned about it before hand I was well aware that
likely His Honour Carmody J and the Prosecutor would ignore this.
Still this cannot justify their conduct as it must be considered reprehensible for those engaged in
the legal profession and so also judicial officers to have climatised themselves to persistent
breaches and other violations of legal procedures, court orders, rules and regulations as well as
other legal requirements because it might be a so called convention even so it denied any
person a FAIR and PROPER hearing and NATURAL JUSTICE. This is also why so many
unsuccessful parties in litigation are upset to the extend as I understand it to even desiring to kill
the judicial officer who they perceive violated their rights, because the system is such that to
complain to anyone generally ends up nowhere or is railroaded to protect the legal profession
rather than the integrity of the courts.
As I made clear:
THE COURT-APPEAL-15-2502
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.
As the States are created within s106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then clearly
all legal principles embedded in the constitution applies also to any state legislation and court rules and regulations.
On Friday 13 May 2016 I attempted to find the latest version of a Notice of Appearance in criminal matters and went
to search it on the internet. After many hours of searching and reading articles it became clear to me that judges at
times make errors not being able to adhere to the numerous rules and regulations and other legislative provisions
(hence successful appeals) which is further expanded by court staff making errors and likewise legal practitioners.
p34
12-6-2016
Page 35
In fact on 25 May 2016 the County Court of Victoria is as I understand it a session for legal practitioners to learn
about eFiling.
If the court holds it necessarily to hold special sessions for legal practitioners then surely it cannot expect unlettered
persons to do better, albeit they are not provided for this.
Where the courts must place both parties on equal footing then this obviously doesnt exist where legal
practitioners have special ways to be provided for, even immediate contact with associates of judges whereas I
am as a party not provided with the same.
The fast amount of material in my view is beyond the scope of an unlettered person to read and
understand/comprehend when faced with a charge, and as such the complexity of the legal provisions are too
cumbersome to enable an accused a reasonable opportunity to defend his/her case. It should be understood that
legal practitioners do no more but give legal advice as to their opinion about legal provisions and often are
found to be totally in the wrong, when a court hands down a decision against their clients. As such engaging a legal
practitioner doesnt at all mean a better position before the court rather likely a more expensive litigation. In my
view the complexity of the rules/regulations/legislation is beyond reasonable and must be drastically reduces so
ordinary persons have a reasonable opportunity to understand and comprehend it all as much as they are entitled to
do with the constitution. After all rules/regulations/legislation are subject to the constitution and must conform to the
principle that it must be able to be understood by unlettered persons. Hence the current mountains of details to be
digested for any unlettered person in itself is a gross injustice and a denial of a fair and proper hearing. After all as I
will set out below even legal practitioners have problems to act within the confines of rules/regulations/legislative
provisions and flaunt court orders.
TO THE COURT-APPEAL-15-2502
Here we had His Honour Carmody J referring about b ranches that it was in the Fire prevention
Notice whereas I had during cross-examination clearly indicated that there was a stack of
branches as fire wood and as such the witness during cross-examination not refusing this to have
been so it was not for His Honour Carmody J then to so to say argue about some branches and
not others. Either branches are or are not to be included.
It was not the task of His Honour Carmody J to assume that code A description of the 3 page
exhibit used by Mr Wayne Wall in the Fire prevention Notice was relevant, as it was for the
Prosecutor to prove why other codes were not applicable and so to bring out the opinion for
this that was sufficient as required by Section 41 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 (d)
must contain any prescribed information and Section 41(1) (a) on that land, other than a
building or in a building; (b) on the adjacent half width of any private street that abuts that
land (other than a prescribed thing or class of things) clearly the Fire Prevention Notice failed
to be doing so, and for this was invalid and so any legal proceedings based on it.
It would be absurd for an ordinary person to second guess what b ranches might or might not be
included. The same with all combustible material it is not for an ordinary person to so to say
try to go into the mind of the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer as what he might or might not
consider what the all combustible material relates to. All and any legislation and so any issue
of a Fire Prevention Notice must be able to be understood by an unlettered person. And in this
case I view that even lettered person wouldnt even have a clue what might be referred to where
clearly the Fire Prevention Notice was vague and aloof. By the very exhibit the Prosecutor
filed as an exhibit 1 of 5 pages designed/created by Mr Wayne Wall the witness and Municipal
Fire Protection Officer, he could have used other descriptions as to pursue any alleged fire
danger to be cleared. However, despite being aware that there was a stack of (old railways)
sleepers stacked up between the shed as well as a stack of branches for fire wood he elected not
to differentiate and use the term all combustible material which clearly refer to all and any
fire wood as if they are not combustible they would be useless for any open fire.
I commenced to prepare my case way back in October 2013 then already making photos of how
there was a considerable fire danger along Calder Highway well aware that Mr Wayne Wall as
Municipal Fire Protection Officer was using and likely seeking to use and misuse the provisions
of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 for ulterior purposes and not as to avoid fire fighters and
the community to be safeguarded, and rather to try to use it to micro manage private land holders
p35
12-6-2016
Page 36
properties. As the litigation was not instituted until about August 2015 it is clear I was preparing
for a likely case well beforehand.
In particular the judiciary should welcome how I expose the misuse and abuses within the legal
system, as for example I did in the Colosimo case, where Mr Colosimos previous barrister was
ending up having orders issued adverse to Mr Colosimo, but I was able to reverse this all on
appeal, etc. The Country Court of Victoria and the Magistrates Court of Victoria proved to me so
to say the cancerous growth within the legal processes and again I view no member of the legal
profession is likely to understand and comprehend the extend of this because it is so ingrained
that so to say only an outsider can expose and address the relevant issues. The mere fact that I
comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth and all other Attorney-Generals on FAILING TO
VOTE (in both appeals on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria) may underline that I
succeeded where others despite of an army of lawyers failed.
His Honour Carmody J asked me grounds as to my submission NO CASE TO ANSWER and
ruled upon 2 grounds, reality is that no grounds are required, because it is for the trail judge to
consider if the Prosecutor made out a case, and must do so without taking in consideration any
material I may have filed that may be adverse to my own case. As my written submissions and
other correspondences extensively referred to this it cannot be held the Prosecutor was unaware
of this. Even if, unlikely because of having even raised the issue of sleeping, then the court
nevertheless was bound to consider this where it was also provided to the court by way of
written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT and its supplements.
QUOTE 20160214-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06- -Re APPEAL-15-2502 Re NO CASE TO
ANSWER
14-2-2016
Cc:

Mr Wayne Wall & Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Ref; 20160214-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06- -Re APPEAL-15-2502 Re NO CASE TO ANSWER
Sir/Madam,
Without seeking to imply that my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION will be dismissed, I am
well aware that judges at times may act in a manner not expected and/or not legally justified but that
may be the issue of a judicial review, etc. As such, were the court to proceed with any De Novo hearing
then I pursue the NO CASE TO ANSWER claim
See also eg Glass, McHugh and Douglas, The Liability of Employers, 2nd ed (1979) at 204-217; Glass, "The
Insufficiency of Evidence to Raise a Case to Answer" (1981) 55 Australian Law Journal 842.
Some of the issues but not in any of priority

OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
Fire Prevention Notice in violation to the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958
Fire Prevention Notice contains demands exceeding delegated powers.
Fire prevention Notice in valid in law
Infringement Notice invalid in law based on invalid Fire prevention Notice.
Summons invalid in law based on Invalid Infringement Notice.
Summons invalidly issues as Infringement Noticed failed to have been withdrawn.
Summons hearing in the wrong court venue
Failure to serve full brief
No evidence to prove jurisdiction.
No evidence whatsoever to justify 20 August 2015 orders at St Arnaud venue
No evidence to legally justify 17 September 2015 orders at St Arnaud venue
Failing to file and serve Notice of Appearance regarding appeal
p36
12-6-2016
Page 37
Failing to file and serve for Leave to file and serve out of time Notice of Appearance
Failure to provide 27 October 2015 requested brief
Failing to comply with 30/10/2015 order to serve via Australia Post by 9/11/2015 full brief
Failing to request leave to serve out of time full brief.
Providing misleading Form 11 statement dated 25/11/2015 re 18/3/2013 alleged hearing
Provide different Form 11 for 22/2/2016 hearing without full brief
Failure by State Government to provide relevant FOI material requested 9/12/2015
Not to overlook purported evidence obtained by tress passing! As such no evidence exist to support any
charge!
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

END QUOTE 20160214-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06- -Re APPEAL-15-2502 Re NO
CASE TO ANSWER
It must be clear that the Infringement Notice never was withdrawn and hence the
Summons was wrongly instituted.
The reasoning of Fullagar J in Clayton v. Heffron (supra) in relation to the provisions of s 5B
of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) is material in this context:
"A manner and form are prescribed by section 5B, and that manner and form must be observed if a valid law
is to be produced. Any prescription of manner and form may be repealed or amended, but, while it stands, the
process prescribed by it must be followed. That was decided Trethowan's case and I think that the whole
of what is prescribed by section 5B relates to manner and form. It does not seem to me to be possible to say
that some of the requirements of the section are matters of manner and form while others are not. The section
describes one entire process - a series of steps, one following on another - and only the completion of the
entire process can produce a valid law." (Supra at 262)
As I submitted to His Honour Carmody J that the lawyers for Buloke Shire Council had no legal
standing. They clearly in numerous ways failed to comply with the court orders,
rules/regulations/legal provisions.
The purported brief simply failed to disclose relevant documentation, such as the
correspondences the Prosecutor relied upon being 4 and 14 January 2015 purported
correspondences. Which may or may never have been created at the time of the alleged dates,
and even if had been might never have been posted, as I never received them.
The following was provided to the Court prior to the hearing:

QUOTE 20160530-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Witness statement-APPEAL-15-2502
Witness statement
(pre-written on 28-5-2016)
County Court of Victoria at Melbourne
This witness Statement is subject to if the court may order the hearing to proceed upon
material disputes and the Court overruling my submission that there is NO CASE TO
ANSWER.
p37
12-6-2016
Page 38
END QUOTE 20160530-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Witness statement-APPEAL-15-2502
Again
QUOTE 20160214-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06- -Re APPEAL-15-2502 Re NO CASE TO
ANSWER
Some of the issues but not in any of priority

OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
Fire Prevention Notice in violation to the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958
Fire Prevention Notice contains demands exceeding delegated powers.
Fire prevention Notice in valid in law
Infringement Notice invalid in law based on invalid Fire prevention Notice.
Summons invalid in law based on Invalid Infringement Notice.
Summons invalidly issues as Infringement Noticed failed to have been withdrawn.
Summons hearing in the wrong court venue
Failure to serve full brief
No evidence to prove jurisdiction.
No evidence whatsoever to justify 20 August 2015 orders at St Arnaud venue
No evidence to legally justify 17 September 2015 orders at St Arnaud venue
Failing to file and serve Notice of Appearance regarding appeal
Failing to file and serve for Leave to file and serve out of time Notice of Appearance
Failure to provide 27 October 2015 requested brief
Failing to comply with 30/10/2015 order to serve via Australia Post by 9/11/2015 full brief
Failing to request leave to serve out of time full brief.
Providing misleading Form 11 statement dated 25/11/2015 re 18/3/2013 alleged hearing
Provide different Form 11 for 22/2/2016 hearing without full brief
Failure by State Government to provide relevant FOI material requested 9/12/2015
END QUOTE 20160214-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06- -Re APPEAL-15-2502 Re NO
CASE TO ANSWER
.
In addition to this it also eventuated that various exhibits filed during the hearing on 30 May
2016 before His Honour Carmody J in the County Court of Victoria never were included in the
purported brief this even so they were in the possession of the prosecutor all along.
Such as the GPS aerial view, the 5 pages exhibit 1 as to the codes regarding Fire Prevention
Notice Mr Wayne Wall had himself created, etc. As well as having included a phot of a different
property pretending in evidence also it was part of my property. Also allegedly Mr Wayne Wall
not turning up as a witness on 17 May 2016 because he seemed to have misunderstood the word
Counsel for Council, this even so the Prosecutor on 30 may 2016 didnt even bother to obtain
evidence that indeed Mr Wayne Wall was out of jurisdiction as he had alleged from the Bar table
on 17 May 2016.
Also Mr Groves was not listed in the purported brief as a witness. And Mr Groves in evidence
in chief claimed to confirm the evidence of Mr Wayne Wall, this even so Mr Wayne Wall had
admitted that one photo was not of my property even so contained in the purported brief, but
unbeknown to Mr Groves about this.
Moreover, the accused has the CIVIL burden of prove whereas the Prosecutor has the criminal
burden of proof. This means that where the accused made known, and copy of the 1-1-2015 filed
exhibit was including the repair bill, that the accused vehicle was in repair due to having broken
down and also an email communication was engaged in with Jeff that he had on 2 occasions
slashed/mowed the property then this was not challenged by the Prosecutor and as such there
could have been NO CASE TO ANSWER. This as unless and until the Prosecutor could defeat
each and every excuse proffered by the accused the court could make no finding The Prosecutor
overcame each and every excuse proffered, and hence NO CASE TO ANSWER had to be
upheld. However what His Honour Carmody J turned out to do was himself to challenge the
issue of the email communication that this didnt prove Jeff actually had done so. Albeit I did
p38
12-6-2016
Page 39
make known top the court that Mr Wayne Wall himself had admitted to have been informed by
Jeff that he had twice attended to my property.
What appeared to me was that His Honour Carmody J took over the role of the prosecutor to
argue for the Prosecutor rather than to remain impartial and not get involved in the fight so to say
as the dust could clause his vision.
.
PERJURY
Unlike any member of the legal profession may do as to warning a potential witness beforehand,
I nevertheless did so.
QUOTE 20160221-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06- -Re APPEAL-15-2502 Re selfincrimination
21-2-2016
Cc:

Mr Wayne Wall & Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Basil Stafford <basil.Stafford@elliottstafford.com.au>
Alison May <alison.may@elliottstafford.com.au>
Ref; 20160221-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06- -Re APPEAL-15-2502 Re self-incrimination
Sir/Madam,
I view it is essential that Mr Wayne Wall is appropriately warned by lawyers involved that
where he is to take the witness stand he can be cross examined also and he could self-incriminate by his
answers either during examination, cross-examination or any re-examination.
Infringement Act 2006
QUOTE
167Offence to give false information
A person must not intentionally provide false or misleading information in any written statement
required by or under this Act.
Penalty:
10 penalty units.
END QUOTE
In my view this also applies to Mr Wayne Wall!

As Mr Wayne Wall issued defective Fire Prevention Notices (in violation of the legal provisions of the
Country Fire Authority Act 1958) and nevertheless issued an Infringement Notice alleging failure to
comply and this resulted to the Magistrates Court of Victoria (albeit without any evidence to support this
charge) issuing orders adverse to me, then it is my view he could self-incriminate if under oath making
statements. As your correspondence of 10 June 2015 refer to him as Law Officer then clearly it is implied
he is aware of legal provisions and to issue defective notices and base an Infringement Notice upon this to
have it used to achieve a miscarriage of justice I view is a very serious matter. While the Premier still has
not responded to my long overdue FOI Act request as to the extent of Infringement Notices having been
issued in such manner defective, I do anticipate that in the end I will obtain the relevant details.
Mr Wayne Wall employed as a Legal Officer and as such being paid for the job surely can expected to
have a duty of care in his conduct dealing with legal issues. My 20160217-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to
County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL-15-2502-ADDRESS TO THE
COURT-Supplement 2 sets out certain issues and I view that if you have not already done so you ought
to give Mr Wayne Wall appropriate legal advice including that if he were to take the witness stand he
could self-incriminate as the transcript could be used in any charges that may be placed against him.
The High Court of Australia in various judgments on record also sets out what may constitute trespassing,
and as I indicated previously I pursue that Mr Wayne Wall committed trespassing upon my property.
Again, if he takes the witness stand than I can assure you I will pursue this issue also. Where the courts
did strike down police conduct to trespass then surely Mr Wayne Wall cannot be allowed to do so!
p39
12-6-2016
Awaiting your response,
Page 40
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

END QUOTE 20160221-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06- -Re APPEAL-15-2502 Re selfincrimination
I had no doubt that Mr Wayne Wall would tailor his evidence as such and likely would omit or
fabricate his evidence for this. Hence, the issue of the photos of the first inspection not to exist
and somehow the GPS records no longer available was what was anticipated by me as after all if
there was never any inspection in the first place then this had to be explained away in some way.
While His Honour Carmody J may fall for this kind of rot, it was clear that the Prosecutor being
able to produce the alleged GPS positions of 17 November 2014 and this not somehow having
been wiped out by subsequent inspections in 2015 than it didnt make sense why then it would
have somehow wiped out the October 2014 alleged inspection recordings.
It has for decades been my modus operandi to advise the opponent of their weaknesses so that
more than likely they will tailor their evidence to seek to overcome this by deceptive evidence,
and this then will work adverse to their own cases.
A GPS records without a single photo showing any correlation to the GPS positions claimed in
the exhibit filed by the prosecutor as an aerial view surely must underline how absurd the
Prosecutors case was. On the one hand the GPS wasnt working and on the other hand the GPS
was used to claim it proved that neither witnesses entered my property. What however was not
born out by the evidence was if the GPS in the exhibit was relating to where the vehicle was
stopped and not necessarily an indication where photos allegedly were taken from.
As was born out during the hearing Jeff had advised Mr Wayne Wall that he had twice
mowed/slashed the property in 2014. But what I didnt do was to call Jeff as a witness, as simply
I prefer to do cases without calling other witnesses. And issue is also that I would have to incur
expenses which I could ill afford, nor did I view that in the end it would make one iota of
difference where the witness could give evidence that he had located Mr Wayne Wall inside my
property (as such Mr Wayne Wall was I view perjuring himself under oath claiming he never
entered my property) in 2014) as in the end I had no doubt that the court could never come to any
guilty finding. If however the authorities were to investigate and establish that contrary to his
evidence under cross-examination Mr Wayne Wall did in fact enter my property then clearly he
must be considered to have committed perjury! While His Honour Carmody J may have no
issue about this, I for one do have as I view that His Honour Carmody J making known to have
accepted the witnesses evidence, His Honour by this also accepted what I view the conspiracy
of the witnesses to back each other up as to the evidence given by Mr Wayne Wall, even so I
proved during cross-examination that one photo of a house never was. The mere fact that Mr
Groves without knowing what exactly Mr Wayne Wall had stated during examination and crossexamination nevertheless announced during evidence in chief he agreed with the evidence Mr
Wayne Wall had given (and so including the incorrect photo being part of my property)
underlines in my view that they conspired to pervert the course of justice, just never anticipated I
would expose this. In my view it is extra ordinary incompetence for a Prosecutor not to verify
with the witness if the photos that were in the purported brief actually were of my property. The
evidence by Mr Groves that the time imprint indicated the lapse of time itself couldnt alter the
fact that both had given evidence that the photos were of my property. And the fact that His
Honours note on the photo was attached when shown to the witness also underlines that proper
procedures were not followed. It also proved by hindsight that my request to first have Mr
Groves giving evidence before I cross examined Mr Wayne Wall was justified, as clearly had Mr
Groves first been allowed to give evidence then the prosecutor would never have been alerted to
the one photo not being of the property, but now was able to direct his question by way of a
p40
12-6-2016
Page 41
leading question I objected to but too late as the witness already had now been alerted to it, that
the particular phot was not of my property.
I understand that students in legal studies do read my material, and as I indicated in my material
before the court I am intending to include the material of the case into a forthcoming book
As such, I try/tried to be very diligent in how to prepare and conduct myself in regard of this
case! After all it may avoid others to suffer the same problems, and may end up saving lives!
Likewise Mr Groves having in evidence in chief first supported the evidence of Mr Wayne wall
only then subsequently to admit that the particular photo marked by His Honour Carmody J as
not being of my property then admitting that it was not of my property then clearly contradicted
his previous evidence. Yet, if one was to consider what His Honour Carmody J state about those
witnesses then it appears he accepted them as being honest.
Despite that I successfully proved that there was a fire danger along Calder Highway, with filing
exhibits of Berriwillock signage, and Mr Wayne Wall when asked by His Honour Carmody J if
this was a fire danger admitting it was, then yet again His Honour Carmody J took up the role of
being the Prosecutor to argue that the growth was still green, this where His Honour had in fact
refused to allow me to file photos that showed dry growth along the Calder Highway, etc.
His Honour Carmody J never realising that the Prosecutor didnt object about the photos initially
because the Prosecutor was well aware that those photos were part of my past correspondences.
It was only after His Honour Carmody J so to say took over the role of the Prosecutor to object,
that then the Prosecutor seemed to join in to that.
In particular were some of the photos already were part of filed exhibits it is beyond reasonability
for a judge to refuse the filing of those photos.
Also, on 17 May 2016 His Honour Carmody J at the County Court of Victoria at the Ballarat
venue held that the Infringement Act 2006 provided Buloke Shire Council with the right to
institute proceedings against me. This even so in my written submission I had stated that I
challenged the validity of the purported Infringement Act 2006 and so also the constitutional
validity of the purported Infringement Court.
As such how on earth can the Court proceed without first determining the validity of the validity
of this and other legislation such as the purported Local Government Act that I also challenged
on constitutional grounds of those acts, as well as that I challenged the purported Victorian
Constitution Act 1975 not having been approved by State referendum and as such being
constitutionally invalid.
If it comes to expensing convictions which were validly made at the time, then no court could be
certain as to what the rule might be in time to come. No judge could have any security as to
determine 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 as
the Appellant submits the Infringement Act 2006 is unconstitutional as then the conviction was
based upon a non-existing law.
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE
p41
12-6-2016
Page 42
Here we have the premier uttering Equality is not negotiable when the very Infringement Act
2006 is a defiance of equality because the State of Victoria rigged the legal processes so that
innocent people can end up with orders and convictions, and even imprisonment enforced
against them, merely because the one way street of Infringement Court is applied without any
opportunity 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 to
litigate in the Magistrates Court of Victoria but then can be told by the Magistrate that as he
elected to have the matter heard before a magistrate then the accused has no right to pursue an
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. As such the State has manipulated to circumvent an accused
right to challenge the validity of the Infringement Act 2006. After all this is the very kind of
argument, I submit wrongly, as used as to this appeal.
Perhaps decades later some future premier will acknowledge that the Infringement Act 2006wasa
gross denial of equality of the parties and never should have been accepted by the judiciary and
so all those convicted now are having the blemish against their past character cleaned. Well, how
do 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 not
intervening this matter to ensure equality is provided for? After all Buloke Shire Council is
acting under delegated powers of the State.
Are we next going to have an apology for those convicted of pornography convictions? Are we
going 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 to
have a sexual relationship with an adult for a bag of candy or not?
ANTHONY FERNANDO v PORT PHILLIP CITY COUNCIL AND OTHERS 2330 of 2011
QUOTE at 52
The Attorney-General also made the following remarks about the power of magistrates:
The bill gives broader options to magistrates in open court hearings which occur after the
execution of an enforcement warrant. By this stage, other enforcement sanctions, instalment
payment plans or community work will not have been successful in expiating the fines. These
hearings will consider whether a person should be imprisoned, and will determine whether the
individual has extenuating circumstances.
END QUOTE
As the purported Infringement Court is part of the Magistrates Court of Victoria and on appeal
any magistrates Court of Victoria decision can be heard DE NOVO in the county court of
Victoria then clearly both the magistrates Court of Victoria and the County Court of Victoria
fail to be courts within the context of Chapter III of the constitution, within which in s106 the
States are created subject to this constitution.
It is not for a court to so to say Cherry pick which part of the purported Infringement Act 2006 it
desires to use. As I challenged the validity of the entire purported act and as such the onus was
upon the Prosecutor to prove the validity of this purported Act. The same with the purported
local government act and the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975.
Again, what did eventuate is that His Honour Carmody J took over the role of the Prosecutor and
ignored any proper legal procedure to allow the parties to present each itself relevant details and
upon this the court then determined upon the evidence in an impartial manner which party was to
be held to be correct.
It was not for the accused to disprove jurisdiction or the validity of any act but for the Prosecutor
to prove the validity for so far this was possible.
p42
12-6-2016
Page 43
If indeed the Court were to merely go along that any legislation is applicable because of its
existence then it would not be impartial/independent but so to say do the dirty work for the
Prosecutor, and this more likely so underlined where it shares the same ABN (Australian
business Number) with the Department of Justice.
QUOTE 20160202-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL15-2502-ADDRESS TO THE COURT
Let me explain that I as a CONSTITUTIONALIST on 19 July 2006 I comprehensively

defeated the Commonwealth in both appeals in the County Court of Victoria on FAILING TO
VOTE on constitutional issues, including that the County Court of Victoria is not a constitutional
validly operating court because of its ABN registration to be Business Unit 19 with the
Department of Justice, instead of what is required by the legal principles embedded in the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) to be independent as part of the
constitution (Not part of the government!) and by the 2 January 1901 published Letters Patent in
the Victorian Gazette to be impartial administration of justice! This in addition to numerous
other constitutional issues including that compulsory voting is a violation of the political
liberty enshrined in the constitution. While at the time the then Victorian Attorney-General Mr
rob Hulls stated to abide by the courts decision it now is that I view Mr Martin Pakula AttorneyGeneral is violating this regarding allowing Buloke Shire Council to litigate against me (on
behalf of the State of Victoria) in clear violation to the rights I obtained by the successful appeals
of 19 July 2006. In my view this constitutes CONTEMPT OF COURT!
County Criminal Court: APPELLATE PROCEDURE Appealability Jury Trial/Improper Relief
Under the law of the case doctrine, the same legal question cannot be re-determined on a subsequent appeal
in the same case when the facts remain the same. Conviction and sentence affirmed. Richard Jason
Kirkendall v. State of Florida, No. CRC10-008274-CFAES (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. November 28, 2011).
The following authority (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html) Ex Parte Young - 209

U.S. 123 (1908) may underline that State officials can be held in CONTEMPT OF COURT even
being an Attorney General. As even judges can be held in CONTEMPT OF COURT, then I
view nothing can save a Premier, former premier, Sheriff and others who are participating or
remain silent about the misuse and/or abuse of the courts processes.
It is a matter of criminal law that when a person observes someone to commit a crime and fails to
report this or take such action as may be deemed appropriate in the circumstances.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html
Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)
QUOTE
A temporary restraining order was made by the Circuit Court, which only restrained the railway company
from publishing the rates as provided for in the act of April 18, 1907, and from reducing its tariffs to the
figures set forth in that act, the court refusing for the present to interfere by injunction with regard to the
orders of the commission and the act of April 4, 1907, as the railroads had already put them in operation; but
it restrained Edward T. Young, Attorney General, from taking any steps against the railroads to enforce the
remedies or penalties specified in the act of April 18, 1907.
Copies of the bill and the restraining order were served, among others, upon the defendant Mr. Edward T.
Young, Attorney General, who appeared specially and only for the purpose of moving to dismiss the bill as to
him, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over him as Attorney General; and he averred that the
State of Minnesota had not consented, and did not consent, to the commencement of this suit against him as
Attorney General of the State, which suit was, in truth and effect, a suit against the said State of Minnesota
contrary to the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
The Attorney General also filed a demurrer to the bill on the same ground stated in the motion to dismiss. The
motion was denied and the demurrer overruled.
Thereupon, on the 23d of September, 1907, the court, after a hearing of all parties and taking proofs in regard
to the issues involved, ordered a temporary injunction to issue against the railway company restraining it,
pending the final hearing of the cause, from putting into effect the tariffs, rates, or charges set forth in the act
approved April 18, 1907. The court also enjoined the defendant Young, as Attorney General of the State of
Minnesota, pending the final hearing of the cause, from taking or instituting any action or proceeding to
p43
12-6-2016
Page 44
enforce the penalties and remedies specified in the act above mentioned, or to compel obedience to that act, or
compliance therewith, or any part thereof.
Page 209 U. S. 133
END QUOTE
Likewise, the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria allowing Buloke Shire Council to
litigate on its behalf as to purportedly enforce legal provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act
1958 by this clearly acts by this in violation of my rights obtained on 19 July 2o006.
If the Attorney-General didnt like the 19 July 2006 court ruling based upon my submission of
constitutional issues (and a S78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS was at the
time served upon all Attorney-Generals then the Attorney-General could have placed his
objections at the time. Now about 10 years later it is beyond the courts power to allow for this
kind of litigation in clear violation of my successful appeals.
As the High Court of Australia in HCA 27 of 1999 Wakim made clear the same parties cannot
re-litigate the same constitutional issues between them.
As such on that basis also I maintain my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
Some legal principles I hold very relevant to mention some;
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0003.f.cas/0003.f.cas.0221.pdf
BENNETT V. BOGGS.
QUOTE
We cannot declare legislative act void because it conflicts with our opinions of policy, expediency or
justice. We are not the guardians of the rights of the people of a state unless they are secured by some
constitutional provision which comes within our judicial cognizance. The remedy for unwise or
oppressive legislation, within constitutional bounds, is by an appeal to the justice and patriotism of the
representatives of the people. If this fails, the people in their sovereign capacity can correct the evil; but
courts cannot assume their rights.
END QUOTE
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-rule-of-law-and-the-future-of-the-sector
Speech The Rule of Law and the Future of the Sector
From: Attorney General's Office and The Rt Hon Jeremy Wright QC MP
QUOTE
I do not want this speech to be a historical overview of the rule of law but the English philosopher John
Locke made the point in 1690 that Wherever law ends, tyranny begins. The classic modern definition of the
Rule of Law and by modern I mean 1885 - comes from the jurist and constitutional theorist AV Dicey. I
wont read the whole of what he said but two parts of it are of particular importance to the success of the City
of London and its commercial and legal sectors. Firstly, Dicey said that the rule of law meant that no man is
punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law
established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land. He also said that when
we speak of the rule of law we mean not only that with us no man is above the law, but that here every
man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.
END QUOTE
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
QUOTE
As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his
clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he
honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is
paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or
his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is
the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly
conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support
it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his
client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must
disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
END QUOTE
p44
12-6-2016
Page 45
The word transcript must not be wrongly interpreted to relate only to the written version of
what was recorded by a court reporter. . these days transcripts are created from what is the court
audio transcript recording. As such transcript includes the Audio recording. As after all where
there is no court reporter sitting in the court room and any transcript is created from the audio
court transcript recording then the audio recording it self is deemed to be the transcript.
As a matter of fact over the decades I had to alert Auscript that it had wrongly transcribed audio
recordings as much as 8 errors on a page. For example where a party had stated told Mr Allen
that Scott was the husbands (in a paternity case) the court reported had transcribed this as told
Mr Allan that Scottish bastard. While upon review Auscript corrected the transcript,
nevertheless it does underline that the audio recording is more reliable then the written
transcribing of it.
The audio transcript underlines there never was any witnesses to have given evidence from the
witness box, and that includes the lawyer.
END QUOTE 20160202-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council APPEAL-15-2502-ADDRESS TO THE COURT
As His Honour Carmody J on 17 May 2016, as I understood it, stated that he had read the files
then His Honour Carmody J therefore should have been well aware of the legal requirements
how to deal with challenged to the validity of purported legislative provisions and not so to say
act as the Prosecutor to disregard any proper consideration and decide in violation to legal
requirements to ignore it all.
Where in fact I had set out also that the ABN and so the lack of judicial independence had been
canvassed and so unchallenged in the 19 July 2006 successful appeals in the County court of
Victoria by me then His Honour Carmody J could not then disregard the rights I had obtained by
those successful appeals.
Again:
County Criminal Court: APPELLATE PROCEDURE Appealability Jury Trial/Improper Relief
Under the law of the case doctrine, the same legal question cannot be re-determined on a subsequent appeal
in the same case when the facts remain the same. Conviction and sentence affirmed. Richard Jason
Kirkendall v. State of Florida, No. CRC10-008274-CFAES (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. November 28, 2011).
QUOTE 20160202-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL15-2502-ADDRESS TO THE COURT
Causing me to attend to the Ballarat venue in my view is a form of extortion to force me unduly
to travel to an inappropriate court venue and face further denial of justice and incur cost which
His Honour Mullaly J ought to have avoided.
Essentially His Honour Mullaly J grossly denied me JUSTICE, because as I had set out from
onset having OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION of the courts then the court shouldnt
manipulate its powers as to cause me to engage in protracted litigation where it should have
addressed the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION in the first place.
Extract from the Nuremberg Judgment within the International Military Tribunal 1st October
1946 bottom of page 100
QUOTE
Many of these men have made a mockery of the soldier's oath of obedience to military orders. When it suits
their defence they say they had to obey; when confronted with Hitler's brutal crimes, which are shown to
have been within their general knowledge, they say they disobeyed.
The truth is they actively participated in all these crimes, or sat silent and acquiescent, witnessing the
commission of crimes on a scale larger and more shocking than the world has ever had the misfortune to
know. This must be said: Where the facts warrant it, these men should be brought to trial
so that those among them who are guilty of these crimes should not escape punishment.
p45
12-6-2016
Page 46
END QUOTE
The same applies to judicial officers/OFFICER OF THE COURT who knowingly ignore the
Rule of law and persist in enforcing invalid court orders. Despite my elaborate writings nothing
was done to address these invalid orders.
.
Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942

QUOTE
Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham,
"sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a
law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a
decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law.
The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is
invalid ab initio.
END QUOTE
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
.
I have sought to cooperate to follow legal procedures regardless that I view the orders are and
remain to be invalid and without legal force.
Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
QUOTE
Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham,
"sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a
law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision
of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is
not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab
initio.
END QUOTE
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17
June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail against
the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham
CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because
those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
The judiciary however has shown to be blatantly ignorant of what is Due process of law and that
should be of grave concern to anyone.
While the Infringement Notice was to have been withdrawn prior to any summons having been
issued it now is that the summons relies upon the Infringement Notice. As such it appears to me
that Buloke Shire Council legal representatives so to say are a bunch of amateurs not knowing
how to properly litigate and by this inflict undue harm upon me. Surely I should be entitled to
have competent litigation being conducted against me and not be subjected to this kind of utter
rubbish, and then they dare to pursue cost for their utter disgraceful rubbish?
They have consistently violated Due process and aided so by the judiciary, hence it is
reasonable to suspect for a FAIR MINDED PERSON that because the courts share the same
ABN number as to State of Victoria it no longer provides due process but rather are so to say
in my view participant and so aiding and abetting in the perverting of justice
END QUOTE 20160202-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council APPEAL-15-2502-ADDRESS TO THE COURT
p46
12-6-2016
Page 47
It should be understood that where Mr Wayne Wall gave evidence during cross-examination that
he issued about 500 Fire Prevention Notices a year and that about 20 resulted to court
proceedings, then this likely means that the 20 cases a year all were wrongly instituted if the
Infringement Notices were not withdrawn before the summonses had been issued.
One has to consider why were the Fire prevention Notices not withdrawn before an
Infringement Notice was issued?
Why where the Infringement Notices not withdrawn before any summons was issued?
.
It means that in about 10 years some about 200 cases went through the courts all wrongly
instituted and the court, so to say, happily issuing court orders with a total disregard to any
proper legal procedures having been followed.
.
In my view there can be absolutely no excuse for about 200 cases having been mismanaged and
this underlines how dangerous the courts are operating! And yet His Honour Carmody J didnt so
to say an utter word to deal with those failures by the Prosecutor.
In my view the conduct of His Honour Carmody J as such also ought to be deemed to be
CONTEMPT OF COURT this as His Honour Carmody J couldnt go behind the 19 July 2006
successful appeal decisions and blatantly disregard having to follow legal principles that where
the ABN issue had been subject to previous litigation between the State and myself, and the then
Attorney-General for the State of Victoria had stated to abide by the decision of the court, then
Buloke Shire Council acted under State delegated powers was bound by this.
In my view His Honour Carmody J was the moment His Honour Carmody J refused to hear and
determine the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION acting without any judicial position and so
neither had any judicial protection but merely acting as some private person in what is
generally known as being a KANGAROO COURT/STAR CHAMBER COURT where
unauthorised litigation is taking place.
It would be absolutely absurd to accept that somehow a judicial officer could disregard basic
proper legal procedures and violates the rights of a party before the court merely because this
judicial officer may desire to prevent that party to succeed in the case.
This is not some case where His Honour Carmody J may have been perceived to have
overlooked some legal issues in error, as this is where I so to say spilled out in considerable
details in my written submissions why I challenged the validity of various State purported legal
provisions. His Honour Carmody J therefore should have provided for a judicial hearing to have
determined the validity of each purported legislative provision.
The Prosecutor failing to abide by what Mr Robert Hulls as Attorney-General for the State of
Victoria had stated to abide by the courts decision then also must be deemed to have been in
CONTEMPT OF COURT. As it must be deemed a very serious matter that the Prosecutor
having been well aware in my extensive writings about this also disregarded my legal rights and
so the application of the County Court of Victoria 19 July 2006 decision.
.
Here we had His Honour Carmody J so to say on 30 May 2016 making a huge issue about my
quoted statement as to the issue of sleeping where this was no more but as it seems to me
while himself acting in clear violation to my legal rights.
This is the problem when a judicial officer instead of being impartial/independent goes
down to participate in the conflict and enter the area of the b attle and then has his sight
clouded by the dust of the fight.
p47
12-6-2016
Page 48
In my view His Honour Carmody J ought to have restrained himself to be and be seen as an
impartial/independent judicial officer and left the battle between the parties.
I acknowledge that due to my ongoing problems with my hearing aids I may at times not have
properly understood what His Honour Carmody J stated, but it would be fancy full to hold that
His Honour Carmody J may have spent time to adjudicate upon each purported legislative
provision that I challenged and in reason of judgment carefully cited the evidence and
submissions of each party and adjudicated upon this and this all without that I would have been
aware of this time consuming exercise. Moreover, where the matter was already successfully
challenged by me on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria and no appeal then followed
then all parties were bound by this decision.
County Civil Court: CIVIL PROCEDURE Eminent Domain case-Res Judicata-Expert Witness Fees- The
doctrine of res judicata applies to a cause of action when there is a judgment on the merits, rendered in a
former suit between the parties, on the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction-the fact that
appellee (or appellee's attorney) did not secure payment from DOT for the appellant's deposition as well as
any other costs and fees that may be owed does not in any way effect whether or not appellant is entitled to
recover those same costs and fees from appellee under a contract or other theory- Final Judgment reversed.
Baccus v. Blanco,no.51-2004-ap-14ws ( Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. December 29, 2005).
Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 (10 December 2002)
QUOTE
1.
In this regard, the estoppel was seen to be an aspect of "the extended principle expressed by Sir
James Wigram VC in Henderson v Henderson[59]"[60].
2.
It was said in Henderson v Henderson that:

"where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a Court of
competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their
whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the
same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of
the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from
negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case."[61]
END QUOTE
It is a well-known legal principle that the same parties (including a party acting under delegated
power of one of the parties) cannot re-institute litigation that would violate a decision already on
court record between the same parties.
As such, where the ABN issue was extensively litigated and the Prosecutor exercising delegated
powers didnt at the time challenge this then it cannot now avoid the application of an earlier
decision.
It is for this also that I continually provided the Premier of Victoria and the State AttorneyGeneral with copies of my written submissions, as in law the State Attorney-General is the first
law officer and Buloke Shire Council is no more but litigating on his behalf.
Lawyers are trained through legal studies at education centres and serving their articles with a
legal firm, and so may never encounter my kind of litigation strategy and therefore never fully
appreciate how I set out details extensively which enables me to base a JUDICIAL
RFEVIEW/Appeal upon, for so far needed.
While it is not my duties and/or obligation to assist opponent Prosecutors nevertheless I have
done a considerable job to set it all out, well aware that more than likely opponent lawyers may
lack the intelligence/competence to comprehend it all, and likewise so judicial officers. However,
that can never be an excuse as after all they are getting paid to do a job and if they lack the
intelligence/competence to do so then they shouldnt be in the job in the first place.
p48
12-6-2016
Page 49
Ordinary members of the legal profession are in a far better position in litigation than an
unrepresented party, this because their experiences in law enables them to be more alert to legal
requirements and so have an opponent unrepresented partys case struck out/dismissed for want
of jurisdiction, failure to comply with rules/regulation, etc.
In this case so to say the tables were turned where it appears to me an inexperienced lawyer
Alison J may conducted litigation in a manner that should be abhorrent to any competent lawyer.
His Honour Carmody J however never even uttered a word of criticism upon any of the failures/
breaches, not even regarding the blatant violation of the orders of His Honour Mullaly J of 30
October 2016! And I view this underlines why the legal procedures is in such a mesh, because
judicial officers to me seem to be more concerned to protect the incompetent legal practitioners
than to uphold the rule of law. It is in my view a cancerous growth that continues to grow unless
and until some competent judge address the issues concerned. I provided this opportunity to His
Honour Carmody J but he in my view miserably failed to do so.
However, this cannot then result in thats somehow the court can undermine my NO CASE TO
ANSWER submission. His Honour Carmody J tactic to limit me making submissions as to
ground must be totally deplored because the submission of NO CASE TO ANSWER cannot be
limited to grounds, but must be evaluated and considered upon what was presented by the
Prosecutor but not including any possible self-incriminating evidence the accused may have
provided for purpose of cross-examination.
In particular where I had made clear months before the actual hearing (as quoted above) that I
Pursued NO CASE TO ANSWER then it cannot be argued that His Honour Carmody J may
have made some error, to overlook certain issues perhaps not having expected such a submission
as it was on court file and His Honour Carmody J having made clear on 17 May 2016 having
read the files therefore could have been expected to be well aware that I pursued a NO CASE
TO ANSWER subject to the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. As such, it cannot be argued
that I counter acted my NO CASE TO ANSWER submission, because I made clear that it was
subject to the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
I spend decades just reading law reports to get to understand how judges in appeals deal with
matters and well aware that where a party may object but fails to repeat it the courts at times held
that therefore the party no longer maintained the objection. It is for this also I would repeatedly
state something like:
QUOTE
Any appearance by me to a 30 May 2016 hearing will be under objection and is not intended and
neither must be perceived that I discontinue any objections.
END QUOTE
To me the usage of the WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT was
to make litigation a more even playing field. I created the concept in 1985 and where a judge
failed to consider the content of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT on appeal the Full Court held
that the judge should have considered its content and did set aside the orders.
Yet, here we had the Prosecutor seeking to claim cost as to my written submissions and other
writings yet not revealing to the Court the legal issues raised in it.
QUOTE
it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client
discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the
specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
END QUOTE
p49
12-6-2016
Page 50
And this was another so to say trap by me for the Prosecutor as by seeking to claim cost, such as
also eventuated on 17 September 2015 in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud,) where
it now appears by the comments of His Honour Carmody J on 30 May 2016 that the 27 year old
Alison J May was the legal practitioner then appearing) that Alison J May concealed then from
the court the legal issues I had raised in my writings, such as the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION.
Anyone who holds that I was wasting my time to write it all obviously failed to realise that this
is my litigation tactic to place the onus upon my opponent to place before the court legal issues
and Authorities I cited in my writings. It may be an unusual way of pursuing litigation but it is
not unlawful, just my kind of tactic to successfully litigate.
His Honour Carmody J (And again considering that His Honour Carmody J on 17 May 2016
made clear to have read the material) then clearly failed to follow legal procedures first of all to
determine jurisdiction, and even if, without conceding this eventuated, His Honour Carmody J
was deemed to have disposed of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then there still could
have been NO CASE TO ANSWER because the legal challenges on constitutional grounds
were not addressed. And this in addition to the numerous other issues, including the numerous
failures/breaches by the prosecutor.
SIGNING OF UNDER TAKING AT BAR TABLE
In my view the Bar table is a protective area and one cannot even charge a person at the bar table
as one has to request the person to stand aside from the Bar Table. Neither can one serve along
the Bar table (As His Honour Guess J upheld when I objected to this in 1994). Neither can one
give evidence from the Bar table but one can make a statement and later in evidence confirm this
as evidence. Neither can one sign any undertaking at the Bar table as again it violates the
privileged position at the Bar table. Regretfully this is far too often ignored by judges and
lawyers.
Failure to deal with the plethora of breaches of the 30 October 2015 orders of His Honour
Mullaly J, rules and regulations and other legal provisions - BIAS.
There can be absolutely no doubt that as set out in this document there were numerous
breaches/failures by the Prosecutor and clearly the failure by His Honour Carmody J to deal with
each and every one of them may give a FAIR MINDED PERSON the impression/conclusion
that His Honour was bias and denied for a FAIR and PROPER hearing and in the process denied
NATURAL JUSTICE also
R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236
QUOTE
However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be suck as to lead the parties reasonably to think
that the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and then prohibition may issue. Of course, the
court which is asked to grant prohibition will not lightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected
of bias in this sense; it must be "firmly established" that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered in
the minds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and
arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553-4, in the passage cited in R v
Watson; 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 Denning
MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgment cited with
approval by this court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss
Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well convey
the impression of "protesting to much"...
END QUOTE
p50
12-6-2016
Page 51
GPS
While the Prosecutor filed a GPS aerial viewing to show the locations of the persons having
taken photos no corresponding photos were filed to prove those alleged positions were in fact as
claimed from the Bar table. Neither had this document been provided as part of the purported
brief! It so to say was in my view an underhanded method of filing as an exhibit an aerial view of
the property with GPS locations where actually His Honour Carmody J himself remarked that the
photos showed the GPS was not active. As such, the aerial view could not have been relied upon
as to GPS locations where it was not supported by photos. However strangely enough where this
aerial view was claimed to be on 17 November 2014 of the day of inspection to issue the
Infringement notice, His Honour Carmody J didnt realise that this exhibit confirmed that the
centre of the property in front of the house showed numerous trees and bushes blocking proper
possibility to see the house itself, as I had claimed. His Honour held that the photos I filed as
exhibits being of 2013 and 20-15 didnt prove this for 2014 whereas the exhibit filed by the
Prosecutor himself proved 2014 and as such there was evidence in combination that the trees
bushes existed in 2013, 2014 and 2015 and as such were not cleared away. As such the ability to
see the house from about 80 metres away from the road, as claimed by Mr Groves during crossexamination clearly was hampered by the trees and bushes. Essentially I view His Honour
Carmody J was doing the bidding for the Prosecutor, rather than to leave it up to the Prosecutor
to argue the point against his own filed exhibit! What I view essentially was the purpose to use
the exhibit to claim that the photos were taken from the road way and this to counter act any
trespassing claims against the witnesses, but in fact couldnt prove the GPS positions where no
photos existed with the same GPS details showing and ended up proving my point that there
were trees and bushes that very day blocking a proper view of the house.
COUNSEL MISLEADING His Honour Carmody J.
As I recall it Counsel for Buloke Shire Council (while cross examining me) then referred to the
purported 4 January 2015 and 14 January 2015 correspondences allegedly send to me by Buloke
Shire Council regarding my request to withdraw the Infringement Notice that I had responded
to this via email. Having checked all emails no emails have been detected by me to respond to
the alleged correspondence as claimed from the Bar table by Counsel for Buloke Shire Council
as to the 4-1-2015 and 14-1-2015 (as I understood the dates being referred to by counsel) Buloke
Shire Council letters to me.
VALIDTY OR THE LACK THEREOF THE PURPORTED Infringement Act 2006
As His Honour Carmody J on 17 May 2016 at the Ballarat venue claimed that the Prosecution
had with the provisions of the Infringement Act 2006 a legal standing then I view the error of
His Honour Carmody J not to deal first with my stated objection against the constitutional/legal
validity of the purported Infringement Act 2006.
It is ordinary sheer impossible for any unrepresented person to prepare for whatever a judge may
suddenly claim from the bench, however I had prepared for this in my written submissions in the
ADDRESS TO THE COURT.
If it comes to expensing convictions which were validly made at the time, then no court could be
certain as to what the rule might be in time to come. No judge could have any security as to
determine 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 as
the Appellant submits the Infringement Act 2006 is unconstitutional as then the conviction was
based upon a non-existing law.
p51
12-6-2016
Page 52
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE
Here we have the premier uttering Equality is not negotiable when the very Infringement Act
2006 is a defiance of equality because the State of Victoria rigged the legal processes so that
innocent people can end up with orders and convictions, and even imprisonment enforced
against them, merely because the one way street of Infringement Court is applied without any
opportunity 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 to
litigate in the Magistrates Court of Victoria but then can be told by the Magistrate that as he
elected to have the matter heard before a magistrate then the accused has no right to pursue an
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. As such the State has manipulated to circumvent an accused
right to challenge the validity of the Infringement Act 2006. After all this is the very kind of
argument, I submit wrongly, as used as to this appeal.
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 the
ADDRESS TO THE COURT and it various supplement, a brief explanation may be appropriate
that the answer is: NO.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within which then States were
created subject to this constitution clearly provided for:
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will 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
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.So that any citizen of any portion of the Commonwealth would have the guarantee of liberty and safety in
p52
12-6-2016
Page 53
END QUOTE
.
(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 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 the
administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond
the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
The Infringement Act 2006 in effect created the purported named Infringement Court being in
effect the outlawed STAR CHAMBER COURT, which I understand is nothing more but some
computer 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 the
Magistrates Court of Victoria albeit while using its letterhead, in that it is a purported
Infringement Court that is no court at all.
Not only are not both sides given an opportunity to be heard, as only those recognised by the
Parliament (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 different
version 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 may
have 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 adduce
relevant 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 229
QUOTE
The adversary system involves the presentation of facts ascertained by questions put to witnesses, or legal
representations to the court. The role of the judge is that of adjudicator. This does not mean that he can ask
no 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 within
Chapter III of the constitution.
.
The High Court of Australia has in various judgments made clear that a Chapter III court must be
open to the public. Obviously there are always exemptions where the Court has a genuine legal
p53
12-6-2016
Page 54
justification to close a court but in general the courts must be open for the general public to be
able 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 courts jurisdiction on
constitutional 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, this
also 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 orders
relating 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 Court
orders against innocent NSW drivers instead of the Victorian drivers involved.
The Appellant was given the understanding that a woman at the time employed with the
Victorian Department of Justice was travelling on a toll road using a valid e-tag to do so and then
nevertheless for that day was issued with an Infringement Notice that she had driven without
valid e-tag on this toll road. I was given the understanding that she contacted the authorities and
explained 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 was
issued with an Infringement Notice. I understand that by investigation it turned out that a near
identical vehicle with a near identical colour but identical number plate but from a different state
had near the same time driven on the toll road without a valid e-tag and obviously the
Infringement 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 motorist
are wrongly issued with an Infringement Notice and then by automatic system can be ordered by
a purported Infringement court to pay a fine having been held guilty of an offence where the
motorist 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 regarding
alleged 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 by
the State of Victoria to menace innocent people and the Courts seems to go along with this rather
than 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 doesnt desire to legislate as to certain speed detection equipment
then the States cannot circumvent this and legislate nevertheless as this would be
unconstitutional. 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 part
of an impartial administration of justice (Letters Patent published in the Victorian Gazette 2-11901) where it is one sides preventing anyone to take say Buloke Shire Council to court for its
numerous yearly breaches of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958. As such, it is a court
manipulated by the government for its own purposes to issue even warrants in defiance of what
is 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 the
Infringement 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
p54
12-6-2016
Page 55
the Victorian Police, the Sheriffs Office, Vic Road, etc I submit is a very serious offence against
the principles of the administration of justice.
What I have set out in my previous written submissions provide to this court is that now an
innocent person who may be totally innocent of any wrongdoing but VicRoads nevertheless will
apply as penalty against the motor vehicle owner and may even suspend the persons diver license
in the process and by this may prevent the person to meet his financial living requirements and
can be send broke because of the system the government has set up with this kind of STAR
CHAMBER COURT system.
It is not for Buloke shire Council so to say to cherry pick what it desires to use from the
Infringement Act 2006.
It was made well aware before it commenced to litigate that I opposed the validity of the
Infringement Act 2006 and it therefore rather than pursue matters through the Infringement court
decided 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 the
Court 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 Civic Compliance
Victoria, albeit the Westpac account is held in the name of Civic Compliance Vic, which is not
the 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 well
aware that I require a trade name business and so registered and conduct any financial matters
through the appropriate bank account relating to the tradename. Civic Compliance Victoria is
nothing more but the trademark of the State of Victoria which purportedly is used by a private
company 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.
I may state that prior to the hearing before His Honour Carmody J at Ballarat I had the following
submitted to the court
QUOTE 20160318-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL-152502-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-Supplement 6
Because being it the government or corporation the administration of justice cannot provide any
favouritism but it does so with the Infringement Act 2006 and other purported legal provisions.
.
If however the Parliament somehow had enacted that I (acting as an Attorney for my wife) could
place before the Infringement Court the claim of $218 and the registrar would be bound then to
issue an order against the government no doubt the government would protest that such
legislation would be unconstitutional!
QUOTE
heard.
p55
12-6-2016
Page 56
END QUOTE
Then why is the judiciary going along with the nonsense of the purported Infringement Act 2006
(Used by Buloke Shire Council against me!)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51].
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. TRENWITH: I say with these evidences of the desire on the part of the people for more freedom, for
greater facilities for giving effect to the popular will, we ought to make provision in this Constitution by
which the will of the people can become law. If we do that we shall be doing something which will make it
more certain that this Constitution will be adopted by the people .
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
And then there is this proviso:
Provided that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in the High Court than according
to the rules of the common law.
END QUOTE
It is clear that the last quotation has embedded in it that juries are a legal principle in the
constitution and States therefore are bound to the principle of a jury as was applicable at the time
of federation. It means that where I have set out extensively I do not trust any judge then judges
cannot ignore this or override my objections in violation to what the constitution provides for.
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE
Yet, the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Sgt Arnaud on 17 September 2015 precisely violated
this legal principle embedded in the constitution, where I assumed the lawyers relied upon my
writings (prior to the institution of litigation) about constitutional issues. The Judicial
Registrar/Magistrate didnt even bother to consider what any alleged writings was about but
merely issued orders, without reason of judgment to justify such orders.
.

QUOTE
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are offences
committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and the only cases to which
p56
12-6-2016
Page 57
Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the criminal law of the state was in conflict with the
criminal law of the Commonwealth; in any other cases there would be no necessity to change the venue, and
select a jury of citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in modern or in ancient
times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by an Executive,
always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal offences, and I do not at all view
with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of the honorable member a state of affairs in which a jury
of one state would refuse to convict a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive. It might be
that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular state, and so
calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to exercise his
practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences against it. That is a
means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its condemnation of a law, and
a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was originally unjust. I think it is a measure of
protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which should be preserved, and that the Federal
Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the citizens of a state adjudicating on the
guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by this Constitution.
END QUOTE
It ought to be very clear that the administration of justice has been so corrupted that the judges
themselves may no longer understand/comprehend what they are doing in violation of the legal
principles of the constitution, well unless like Phillips J at retirement then somehow suddenly is
aware of it. That is why juries are so important as they can nullify the purported Infringement
Act 2006 whereas a judge more than likely in my view is too corrupt to do so, no matter how
unconstitutional it is.
We seem to have government sponsored litigation terrorism by councils upon citizens and
the judiciary seems to support this kind of conduct. By this causing grave injustice upon the
many.
END QUOTE 20160318-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL15-2502-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-Supplement 6
While His Honour Carmody J on 17 May 2016 at the Ballarat venue claimed to have read the
files, one then has to question why His Honour Carmody J failed to consider what I had months
earlier already stated in my written submissions?
As I have repeatedly stated the purported Infringement Act 2o006 is not a valid Act because it
purports to provide for an Infringement Court where only the government or any authorised
enforcement agency can pursue court orders with a gross denial to any accused. Also where a
person not being an enforcement agency were to pursue a similar claim against a Government
Department than the Infringement Court doesnt provide any option for this. As such it is in
essence the outlawed STAR CHAMBER COURT/KANGAROO COURT kind of legal
process. Moreover it provides for monies being payable to some private organisation or
municipal/shire council or other enforcement agency but not into the consolidated revenue
funds where any monies should be paid into. It seeks to force an innocent person to nevertheless
agree to have a court hearing to challenge the Infringement Notice where the innocent victim
then can be severely out of pocket, whereas the ordinary system is that the Prosecutor must
pursue litigation
Whereas for more than a decade the State government owns my wife Olga more than $218 in
overcharged fees the SRO (State Government Office) nevertheless refused to refund the entire
amount, even so not denying the monies are held by it. Yet, within the provisions of the
purported Infringement Act 2006 no ability exist for her to take the state government on, this
even so the State Government is in violation of legal provisions. What we therefore have is that
the state has set up its own outlawed STAR CHAMBER COURT system and judges are simply
permitting this even so it undermine the judicial processes.
p57
12-6-2016
Page 58
While the purported Infringement Act claims the Infringement Court is part of the Magistrates
Court of Victoria in reality its orders and warrants are not showing up in the Magistrates Court of
Victoria records. Neither does it hold any open court hearings.
What the State of Victoria has in fact accomplished is to railroad the judiciary and set up its own
alternative system first with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) services
designed, well so it was alleged, to avoid huge legal cost to litigants, (Albeit I know of more than
S40,000.00 cost ordered against a party which I understand was reduced to about $16,000 by the
Supreme Court of Victoria.) whereas it really is a government organised tribunal using in conflict
of interest using at times judges of the County Court of Victoria as to purport to make it lawful.
What we need is to return to the judicial system that is provided for within constitutional context
and within the provisions of the Letters Patent to be impartial.
The purported Infringement Court is not and cannot be deemed impartial or independent as it is
run by a purported registrar which uses a computer and only the government or its approved
enforcement agencies can seek orders.
In my submission only a court that is open to anyone to issue proceedings can be deemed to be
independent and impartial.
Only a court where both parties are to be heard before adjudication can be deemed to constitute a
court within the legal principles of our (federal) constitution.
The purported Infringement Court doesnt allow anyone to institute proceedings nor the
accused/defendant to challenge whatever the enforcement agency places before this purported
court. Neither is the accused provided with advance notification what will be placed before the
court and so ab le to challenge it. While many persons belief that if one is given an Infringement
Notice then that is relied upon, where in fact I exposed how an police officer after wards altered
details of the Infringement Notice to alter a speed limit from 100 km to 80km and this then was
enforced by the purported Infringement Court(then called Perin Court) without any notification
to the accused that such alteration had been made by the police officer and neither the original
issued to the accused showing any 80 km alteration. As a Perin Court Registrar then made known
95% of people pay, because it is cheaper then to go to court. As such I view this is some blatant
extortion upon the general community.
FEE SIMPLE
A major problem with the judiciary is that it seeks to enforce laws where it is incompetent/in
capable to understand what the rule of law actually stands for.
.
We need to look at the source of the grant of power, and this is not the constitution at all, as the
constitution itself is derived from the Crown.
It is the Letters Patent which Commissions the Governor of a State/Governor-General of the
Commonwealth and it is the Governor/Governor-General who gives Royal Assent to have any
Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament to become an what is known as Act of Parliament.
Therefore the powers exercised by the Executives, Legislators (Parliament) and Judiciary also
(and in case of the s101 Inter-State Commission) is limited by the grant of powers by the Crown.
.
Because the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was given Royal Assent
by the British Crown then only the British Crown and so any executive/legislator/judiciary can
only act as agents for and on behalf of the British crown and no other.
Obviously the Crown itself derives its powers from the general community.
Therefore where the King cannot enter the property of a person without his/her consent then the
Parliament/executives acting within a grant of power (delegated powers) cannot then further
delegate powers which itself doesnt possess.
p58
12-6-2016
Page 59
The legislature can legislate as much as it desires but then where a citizen take offence to any
legislative provisions, as I did, then the judiciary is bound to determine the issue.
As I from onset challenged the validity of the purported Local government Act, then it is not for
His Honour Carmody J to ignore this and somehow hold that s224(7) of the purported Local
government Act is applicable, because not only did I challenge the validity of the entire
purported Act but also made clear I relied upon the decisions of the High Court of Australia
QUOTE
HALLIDAY v NEVILL [1984] HCA 80; (1984) 155 CLR 1 (6 December 1984)
GEORGE v ROCKETT [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104 (20 June 1990)
PLENTY v DILLON [1991] HCA 5; (1991) 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004
NSW v IBBETT [2006] HCA 57; (2006) 231 ALR 485; (2006) 81 ALJR 427
KURU v STATE OF NSW [2008] HCA 26 (12 June 2008)
END QUOTE
One has to ask if the Parliament (legislature) has itself any powers to enter my property?
Obviously Members of Parliament would have only legislative powers and cannot enter my
property. After all its powers is derived from the British Crown and as the King (Queen) has no
powers to enter my FEE SIMPLE property as I attained the rights of FEE SIMPLE from the
Crown, then neither can Parliament authorise the Executive to enter my property willy-nilly
under the pretext of enforcing any law. Neither can then the executive delegate powers to a
municipal/shire council that it itself doesnt poses.
.
While Executives (so its Government Departments) does interfere with the FEE SIMPLE rights
such as making any transfer of Title to be subject to State legislative provisions, reality is that
any such special conditions are invalid where they interfere with the right of the Crown as passed
on to the new property owner. It is the Crown and not the government that holds the land in title.
It is the Crown that effectively passes on the Crowns rights in a particular property to the new
property owner, and the State government does no more but to facilitate this on behalf of the
Crown.
That is why the Letters Patent provides for that the Governor can do all such things in name of
the Crown. As such the Governor cannot validly give Royal assent to any legislation that would
undermine the rights and entitlements of the Crown when passed on in FEE SIMPLE to a new
property holder. I also view that any fees that can and may be charged to transfer the Title from
the crown to the new property owner must be limited to the actual cost incurred in such transfer
and no more, this as the Government Department is acting within the limited powers granted by
the letters Patent and cannot so to say turn this in to some financial bonanza/rip off to suit itself.
It is not some middle man selling the Title to the Property) as to be able to increase the charges
by transfer of Title, as it merely acts as ma functionary to facilitate proper transfer requirements.
And while I understand that parliament in the State of Victoria has legislated that the Registrar of
Titles can alter Title ownership so to say willy-nilly, reality is that it can only act as agent for
the Crown and as such it cannot create itself to have create powers than the Crown.
If the Crown didnt desire to transfer Title to a new property owner then it shouldnt in the first
place have sold the relevant property. By selling the property then for all purposes and intend the
Crown abandoned all and any rights to the said property and the Government cannot somehow
interfere with this to become somehow the de facto real property owner and subject the actual
property owner as some tenant of the property.
.
When a person for example engage a lawyer to sell in his/her behalf a property then surely it
doesnt then mean the lawyer can stipulate conditions for the new owner that it is subject to
whatever the solicitor may or may not subsequently insist upon? The solicitor is merely an
agent to facilitate the sale of the property as is the government where the property passes on
from the Crown to a new property owner.
p59
12-6-2016
Page 60
It appears to me that the parliament now effectively has given the registrars of Title the power to
alter Title from the lawful owner to anyone else and to me this cannot be lawfully right, as this
effectively would enable the Registrar of Title to disown all Title holders and hand it over to the
State willy-nilly. Therefore, what needs to be done by the judiciary is not take legislative
provisions for granted but place in question if any legislation or part(s) thereof is constitutionally
valid. The following reference (s224) to for the purposes of the administration and
enforcement of any Act in my view is an absurdity as it would effectively nullify the High
Court of Australia rulings in:
QUOTE
END QUOTE
Council workers as well as the police could claim to act under any Act, regulation or local laws
to enter a persons property willy-nilly.
Municipal/shire councils do not have the structure of separation of powers and as such cannot be
deemed to be a law making body, being directly or indirectly as it would violate the legal
principles embedded in the constitution.
QUOTE purported Local Government Act
224 Authorised officers
(1) A Council may appoint any person other than a Councillor to be an authorised officer for the purposes of
the administration and enforcement of any Act, regulations or local laws which relate to the functions
and powers of the Council.
(1A) A Council must maintain a register that shows the names of all people appointed by it to be authorised
officers.
(2) The Council must issue an identity card to each authorised officer.
(3) An identity card must
(a) contain a photograph of the authorised officer; and
(b) contain the signature of the authorised officer; and
(c) be signed by a member of Council staff appointed for the purpose.
(3A) If a Council appoints a police officer to be an authorised officer under subsection (1), for the purposes
of this section the police officer's certificate of identity is deemed to be an identity card issued under section
224(2) and is deemed to comply with section 224(3).
(4) An authorised officer must produce his or her identity card upon being requested to do so.
(5) An action taken or thing done by an authorised person is not invalidated by the failure of an authorised
officer to produce his or her identity card.
(6) For the purposes of this section, an authorised officer may demand the name and address of a person who
has committed, or who the authorised officer reasonably suspects has committed or is about to commit, an
offence against any Act, regulation or local law in respect of which he or she is appointed.
(6A) In making such a demand, the authorised officer must inform the person of the grounds on which the
demand is made in sufficient detail to enable the person to understand the nature of the offence or suspected
offence.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(7) An authorised officer may enter any land or building in the municipal district at any reasonable time to
carry out and enforce this or any other Act or any regulation or local law.
(8) A person is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding 60 penalty units if he or she
(a) refuses to give his or her name and address upon demand by an authorised officer; or
(b) obstructs or hinders an authorised officer while performing his or her duty; or
(c) falsely represents himself or herself to be an authorised officer.
224A Police may act as authorised officers to enforce certain local laws
(1) This section applies if a provision of a local law of a Council regulates the use, possession or consumption
of alcohol.
(2) The Council may publish a notice in the Government Gazette identifying the provision of the local law
and stating that any police officer may enforce that provision.
p60
12-6-2016
Page 61
(3) If the Council publishes such a notice, any police officer may enforce the provision as if he or she was
appointed to be an authorised officer under section 224 with respect to the provision.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a police officer's certificate of identity is deemed to be an identity card
issued under section 224(2) and is deemed to comply with section 224(3).
END QUOTE purported Local Government Act
As I raised in my material also Buloke Shire Council was charging rates purportedly under
delegated powers of the state being a land tax (See Sydney Council v Commonwealth 1904 High
Court of Australia, this even so on 11 November 1910 the Commonwealth created the Land Tax
Office and by this all state legislative powers and so any delegated land taxation powers to a
municipal/shire council came to an end. And any delegated powers can only permit that any
monies so collected must be deposited in the Consolidated Revenue Funds and any monies
drawn from this required to be by Appropriation Bills to be passed by both House of the State
parliament. This is the structure embedded in the constitution to which within s106 the state are
subject to this constitution and so any legal principle embedded within it.
The rates originally was to cover the collection of garbage, but as I revealed no garbage is put
out and yet I am charged about $360.00 a year for garbage collection in additional to the
unconstitutional rates. Yet, despite my elaborate set out it appears to me that His Honour
Carmody J having claimed on 17 May 2016 to have read all material on file nevertheless
appeared to have disregarded this.
QUOTE 20160110-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall & ORS-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re exemplary
damages-etc
The following notes Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom. And this
Letters Patent was because of the federation. If therefore one has to hypothetically accept the
High Court of Australia ruling in Sue v Hill that we are under the Queen of Australia and an
independent nation, then we do not have any courts operating as such, because the courts are
created to be impartial administration of justice but under the British Crown.
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/other/vic_gazette/1901/2.html
QUOTE
FOURTH SUPPLEMENT
TO THE
VICTORIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
OF FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1900.
Published by Authority.
No. 2.] WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2. [1901.
THE Lieutenant-Governor of Victoria directs the publication of the following Letters Patent under the Great Seal of
the United Kingdom.
ISAAC A. ISAACS.
p61
12-6-2016
Page 62
Government Offices, Melbourne, 2nd January, 1901.
VICTORIA.
LETTERS PATENT PASSEDUNDER THE GREAT SEAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM CONSTITUTING
THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR OF TIlE STATE OF VICTORIA AND ITS DEPENDENCIES, IN TILE
COMMONWEALTIL OF AUSTRALIA. 1900.
VICTORIA, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith,
Empress of India To, all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting.
END QUOTE
FOURTH SUPPLEMENT
TO THE
VICTORIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
Published by Authority
QUOTE
follows :
IV. Every person appointed to fill the Office of Governor shall with, all due solemnity, before entering
on any of the duties of his Office, cause the Commission appointing to be Governor to be read and
published at, the seat of Government, in the presence of the Chief .Justice, or some other Judge of the
Supreme Court of the State, and of she Members of the Executive Council thereof, which being done, he
shall then and there take before them the Oath of Allegiance, in the form provided by an Act passed in the
Session holden in tile Thirty-first and Thirty-second years of Our Reign, intituled an Act to amend the
Law relating to Promissory Oaths ; ,and likewise the usual Oath for the due execution of the Office of
Governor, and for the due and impartial administration of justice which Oaths the said Chief Justice or
Judge is hereby required to administer.
END QUOTE
The Office of the Governor (Victoria) as per 2-1-1901 PROCLAMATION, that was Gazetted
requires that the Governor appoints independent judges! As such, any notion that there being
no separation of powers in the states utter and sheer nonsense.
Therefore, judges who violate this requirement of impartial administration of justice in my view are
worse than the ordinary criminal, this as they misuse/abuse the legal processes for ulterior purposes when
they know or should know it is unlawful.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?path=/uk/cases/UKHL/1964/1.html
ROOKES (A.P.) v. BARNARD and ors
QUOTE
Exemplary damages are essentially different from ordinary damages. The
object of damages in the usual sense of the term is to compensate. The
object of exemplary damages is to punish and deter. It may well be thought
that this confuses the civil and criminal functions of the law; and indeed,
so far as I know, the idea of exemplary damages is peculiary to English law.
There is not any decision of this House approving an award of exemplary
damages and your Lordships therefore have to consider whether it is open
to the House to remove an anomaly from the law of England.
END QUOTE
END QUOTE 20160110-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall & ORS-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re exemplary
damages-etc
QUOTE 20160222-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL-152502-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-Supplement 3
QUOTE 21-2-2016 correspondence

p62
12-6-2016
Page 63
The Hon Justice Margaret McMurdo AC

reference@sclqld.org.au, librarian@sclqld.org.au
21-2-2016
Re: 20160221-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to The Hon Justice Margaret McMurdo AC -etc
Margaret,
As a self-educated CONSTITUTIONALIST and (now retired) Professional Advocate
I have spent about 4 decades at the bar table, including representing/assisting lawyers.
I have suddenly various people sending me links to your speeches/statements and like to
comment upon this.
.
http://archive.sclqld.org.au/judgepub/2012/mcmurdop061012.pdf
A COMMENT ON JUSTICE MALCOLM WALLIS'S PAPER, "JUDGES AS
EMPLOYEES", JCA COLLOQUIUM, FREMANTLE, SATURDAY, 6
OCTOBER 2012, 10.30 AM 12 NOON
This document deals with independents of the judiciary.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/court-of-appeal-president-justice-margaret-mcmurdo-defendssystem-amid-infighting-over-chief-justice-tim-carmody/news-story/38a7fbac33d18236ab2789d48c061874?=
Court of Appeal President Justice Margaret McMurdo defends system amid infighting over Chief Justice Tim
Carmody
June 1, 2015 12:56pm
In this you refer to self -represented litigants, etc.

QUOTE
As lawyers you may be called on to defend the independence of the third arm of
government, the judiciary, Justice McMurdo told the court.
END QUOTE
The truth is that the courts never were to be the third arm of government1
HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
.

END QUOTE
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
Being part of the constitution means that the court is not and cannot be part of the government.
This is also important to understand that as shown below the constitution is between the
p63
12-6-2016
Page 64
government and the people and so if the courts were part of the government then it would be
implied bias.
When the Bronwyn choppergate was going on it was then argued that the then Prime Minister
Tony Abbott should deal with her. However as the Speaker she is totally independent from the
government and rules the House of Representatives as the President does the senate. Likewise
the chief Justice of the Supreme Court is totally independent from the government.
Basically the Chief Justice should submit his estimated projective cost of running the judiciary to
the parliament and it then should debate if the monies so requested should be provided. The
government could only place before the parliament its recommendations.
Court neither should be associated with the Department of Justice ABN number as this
undermines the separation of powers.
.

QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE
.
What should be understood is that colonial Parliaments were sovereign Parliaments which
could legislate whatever but since Federation all colonial sovereign Parliaments became State
constitutional Parliaments and the State government cannot even refer within the provisions of
ss51(xxxvii) any legislative powers unless this is first approve by way of State referendum, as
any reference of legislative powers would entail also that the judicial associated powers are
referred to the Commonwealth. Section 123 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK) is the vehicle to provide for this.
Constitutionally the judiciary are employed with the State but not with the State government, as
the federal judiciary is employed with the Commonwealth of Australia but not with the federal
government.
From The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
The corporatising of our courts
Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria
March 24, 2005
QUOTE
As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,
particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms
what they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with
politicians, but while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of
this court's independence.
END QUOTE
Clearly, the wording As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our
constitutional system indicates that this justice held there was a separation of powers within
state level.
p64
12-6-2016
Page 65
From The Age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
QUOTE
The corporatising of our courts
Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria
March 24, 2005
In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous erosion of the
court's independence.
For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but exciting and
rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for much of that time I have had
to bite my tongue.
I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on the bench,
and especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change emerge in the
perception of this court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I want to speak briefly of
that now because I have been unable to say much about it until now and when my resignation becomes
effective, I fear that nobody will listen.
As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,
particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what
they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians,
but while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's
independence.
One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the decision on
remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the very purpose of freeing
both Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the decision-making process over judicial
salaries and so ensuring the independence of which I am speaking.
Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive
officer be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be
ultimately answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.
That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming
absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a
movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.
This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established as a court
of plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals, this court is
the third arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and the executive. Its role, inter alia, is
to control and to limit those other arms according to law and to that end to stand between those other arms
and the citizen. Hence the emphasis on the court's independence, especially from the executive.
Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe
- as "Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which
indiscriminately includes all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.
This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are
prescribed by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the
department at its discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in
this court, apparently in disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of
court.
p65
12-6-2016
Page 66
And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the
department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily
avail themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But
access is possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is
the major litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.
Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision directly,
otherwise than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more insidious. What is
evolving is a perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary within the Department of Justice,
a perception which is inconsistent with this court's fundamental role and underlying independence.
Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court structure
and its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by some in authority as no
different from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is
simply not the case; yet the distinction between a court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over
the years, and it must be restored if the proper constitutional position is not 2to be subverted.
The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen to be,
impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed once and for all,
and ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including any other arm of
government. Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration tribunal. In contrast to a court, a
tribunal, properly so called, exercises administrative functions but not judicial power, and many things
flow from that. Such a tribunal may be an arm of the executive; its members may be appointed for fixed
terms, with the possibility of renewal at the discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see
that their remuneration is fixed independently of the executive.
You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred. While the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists mainly of members
appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the executive - and hence my alarm
when, in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was given some judicial power to exercise, for
the latter is altogether inconsistent with such a form of tenure.
There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is exercising
judicial power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional acting appointment to
this court for a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to institutionalise such temporary
appointments at the discretion of the executive. Judges of a court properly so called must have security of
tenure or, in a relatively small community like this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts
have been remarkably free from any taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be,
and be seen to be, impartial and so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to
conflict or the appearance of bias.
In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals
pass like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness
but in one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is
demanded of the appointee.
John D. Phillips is retiring as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. This is part of his farewell
address to the court.
END QUOTE
Constitutionally there is a division between the Judiciary and the legislators and executives.
.
It should be noted that the wording and for the due and impartial administration of
justice which Oaths the said Chief Justice or Judge is hereby required to administer
leaves it beyond doubt that the Chief Justice or Judge must for the due and impartial
administration of justice make an oath. As such the separation of powers in the State of
Victoria is enshrined in this Proclamation as the Governor cannot act otherwise nor so any
judge.
p66
12-6-2016
Page 67
FOURTH SUPPLEMENT
TO THE
VICTORIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
Published by Authority
QUOTE
follows :
IV. Every person appointed to fill the Office of Governor shall with, all due solemnity, before entering
on any of the duties of his Office, cause the Commission appointing to be Governor to be read and
published at, the seat of Government, in the presence of the Chief .Justice, or some other Judge of the
Supreme Court of the State, and of she Members of the Executive Council thereof, which being done, he
shall then and there take before them the Oath of Allegiance, in the form provided by an Act passed in the
Session holden in tile Thirty-first and Thirty-second years of Our Reign, intituled an Act to amend the
Law relating to Promissory Oaths ; ,and likewise the usual Oath for the due execution of the Office of
Governor, and for the due and impartial administration of justice which Oaths the said Chief Justice or
Judge is hereby required to administer.
END QUOTE
The Office of the Governor (Victoria) as per 2-1-1901 PROCLAMATION, that was Gazetted
requires that the Governor appoints independent judges! As such, any notion that there being
no separation of powers in the states utter and sheer nonsense.
END QUOTE 20160222-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL15-2502-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-Supplement 3
QUOTE 20150619-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Elliott Stafford and Associates Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke
Shire Council
A bit of a summary of issues regarding council versus the constitution, etc.

The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/264713857/20150509-Schorel-Hlavka-to-Buloke-Shire-CouncilCare-of-Mayor
QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 9-5-2015
I also indicated in my recent writings (see my blog www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati) that upon Federation
the newly created State of Victoria on 2-1-1901 published a Gazette in which the British Monarch had
revoked the Letters Patent appointing the Governor of the Colony of Victoria and instead commissioned a
permanent Office of the Governor where the governor was to impartially appoint judges, etc. As such the
Courts cannot exercise any ABN registration which also involves the Justice Department and even the
Prostitution Control Commission. And I also provided a retirement statement of Phillips J of 2005 as
published then in The Age newspaper that the government had access to the courts computers and that the
courts were listed as Business Unit 19 with the government. Hence, no court/tribunal can hear the matters
in dispute where they are not impartial from the Government and so any one exercising delegated powers of
the Government.
END QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 9-5-2015
https://www.scribd.com/doc/264713857/20150509-Schorel-Hlavka-to-Buloke-Shire-Council-Care-of-Mayor
QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 9-5-2015
I also did set out that for federation purposes the Colonies became States but the Framers of the constitution
held that the States were the local Government and the Commonwealth was the central government.
One cannot have a purported local government being municipal/shire councils as the States themselves
are the local government within the Federation. Further, the States created within s106 of the constitution
subject to this constitution are bound by the legal provisions and implied legal principles of the federal
constitution. As such a separation of powers (as also indicated in the 2-1-1901 Gazette published in
Victoria) that the judiciary shall be impartial must be adhered to. Municipal/shire councils are not a level of
Government provided for in the federal constitution and as such violates the legal principles embedded in
this constitution. Neither is the structure of a municipal/shire council conforming with the legal principles
embedded in the federal constitution. The purported Local Government Act (Vic) allows for a council to
sell a persons property, whereas the Federal constitution doesnt allow for this kind of absurd principle.
The federal constitution provides for acquisition and a just price to be paid. If there is a debt or alleged debt
p67
12-6-2016
Page 68
then the courts are there to decide the matter. No unilateral grabbing of a citizens property and selling the
property, as has been found in the past the council having sold the wrong property of a person who had no
debt whatsoever.
END QUOTE 20150619-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Elliott Stafford and Associates Your ref LA-05-06-Re
Buloke Shire Council
My submission on 17 May 2016 at the County Court of Victoria at Ballarat was that the lawyers
appearing for Buloke Shire Council had no legal standing.
After I made my submissions His Honour didnt require/invite Counsel for Buloke Shire Council
to address the court and neither did Counsel do so but His Honour dismissed this submission.
The Framers of the Constitution stated:
QUOTE
heard.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it is not. We need not go far back in history to find cases in which the community,
seized with a sort of madness with regard to particular offences, have set aside all principles of justice.
END QUOTE
.
END QUOTE
As such the question therefore is did His Honour conduct the hearing impartially as required
within the context of the 2-1-1901 Letters Patent for an impartial administration of justice? The
court can only operate within the grant of powers!
In my view, this is an ongoing practice in all courts where a judge being it for trying to save
courts time or otherwise is simply indicating a party has not to respond as the judicial offer has
already made up his mind. The judicial officer effectively by this has become aligned with one of
the parties. I understand that too often the court takes the position or at least appears to have
aligned itself with one of the parties, and even this eventuates in the High Court of Australia the
Prosecutor. The judicial officer abandon the separation of powers and impartiality by this.
Because lawyers appearing before judges doing so then when those lawyers themselves become
judges they inflict the same harm upon others.
Clearly such kind of judicial officers are bias or can be perceived to be bias because they no
longer are adjudicating impartially considering what either party has submitted to the court by
way of submissions and/or evidence.
p68
12-6-2016
Page 69
Here we had His Honour not even letting the Prosecutor informing the court who they were
actually representing, Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention Officer under direct
supervision of the Country Fire Authority or Mr Wayne Wall as employee of Buloke Shire
Council as a legal officer. The ,latter to which I understood they informed me of and so set out in
my past written submissions to which they couldnt have any legal standing and as such my
submission ought to have been upheld for this.
.
In the end the court itself is the culprit to waste court time by refusing to conduct a hearing
according to legal principles. As a party I then am not having a battle against the Prosecutor but
against a judicial officer who relies upon whatever perception is in his mind to which I have no
ac cess other then what is briefly stated and so prevented to have the mater appropriately
considered and so adjudicated upon.
QUOTE 20160607-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Sarah Gall to His Honour Carmody J CCV-Re APPEAL15-2502-Re void orders of His Honour Carmody, etc
http://www.bartleby.com/344/112.html
QUOTE
A mans house is his castle.
3
In the Third Institute, Coke says, For a mans house is his castle (et domus sua cuique
tutissimum refugium); and in Semaynes case, 5 Rep. 91, The house of every one is to him as his
castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose. Chatham
made a splendid use of this comparison in a speech on the Excise Bill: The poorest man may, in his
cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may
blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter; but the king of England cannot enter! All
his force dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. When an Irish attorney said of his
clients house, The rain may enter it: the king cannot,What! said the judge (Lord Norbury),
not the reigning king?
Grattan said of Burke, He became at last such an enthusiastic admirer of kingly power that he
could not have slept comfortably upon his pillow if he had not thought that the king had a right to
carry it off from under his head.
Magna Charta is such a fellow that he will have no sovereign.
Objecting to the words, sovereign power, which the lords, in an amendment to the Petition of
Eight, desired to leave with the crown for the protection of the people. At a conference between the
Lords and Commons on the Petition of Right, May 8, 1628, Coke said, We have a maxim in the
House of Commons, and written on the walls of our house, that old ways are the safest and surest
ways.
When the judges were asked if they ought not to stay proceedings until his Majesty had consulted
them in a case where he believed his prerogative or interests concerned, and required them to attend
him for their advice, all the judges except Coke answered in the affirmative: he proudly replied,
When the case happens, I shall do that which shall be fit for a judge to do.
Corporations have no souls.

In the case of Suttons Hospital, 10 Rep. 39, Coke said, They [corporations] cannot commit
trespass, nor be outlawed, nor excommunicate; for they have no souls. Lord Thurlow once asked, in
his characteristically rough way, You never expected justice from a company, did you? They have
neither a soul to lose, nor a body to kick.
END QUOTE
END QUOTE 20160607-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Sarah Gall to His Honour Carmody J CCV-Re
APPEAL-15-2502-Re void orders of His Honour Carmody, etc
QUOTE 20160607-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Sarah Gall to His Honour Carmody J CCV-Re APPEAL15-2502-Re void orders of His Honour Carmody, etc
p69
12-6-2016
Page 70
As for the issue of trespassing, I view His Honour failed to deal with the numerous authorities I
had provided to the Court including High Court of Australia rulings.
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/operation
QUOTE
Decisions of the High Court are binding on all other courts throughout Australia.
END QUOTE
The written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT refers to signage at the property
that included
QUOTE
END QUOTE
It would be a travesty of justice if anyone merely employed by a council, regardless if they might
be paedophiles or whatever, could willy-nilly enter a property because of the Local Government
Act Section 224(7) under the pretext of some application of a law.
As I challenged the validity of the Local Government act as being unconstitutional and His
Honour Carmody J didnt make a ruling upon this then in that regard also I view His Honour
Carmody J cannot enforce a law or purported law that is underman constitutional challenge.
What His Honour Carmody J appeared to me to ignore is the FEE SIMPLE rights. While
parliament can legislate as it pleases it doesnt mean the judiciary has to uphold all legislation.
Indeed it must reject any legislation that is beyond legislative powers and/or may be deemed
contrary to the interest of the general community, etc.
It would be absurd that any council worker could somehow enter a property and for all I knew
being a pervert to spy through windows under the guise of enforcement of laws when the Police
cannot do so but are limited as ruled by the High Court of Australia in so many previous cases.
END QUOTE 20160607-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Sarah Gall to His Honour Carmody J CCV-Re
APPEAL-15-2502-Re void orders of His Honour Carmody, etc
As I raised in my material also Buloke Shire Council was charging rates purportedly under
delegated powers of the state being a land tax (See Sydney Council v Commonwealth 1904 High
Court of Australia, this even so on 11 November 1910 the Commonwealth created the Land Tax
Office and by this all state legislative powers and so any delegated land taxation powers to a
municipal/shire council came to an end. And any delegated powers can only permit that any
monies so collected must be deposited in the Consolidated Revenue Funds and any monies
drawn from this required to be by Appropriation Bills to be passed by both House of the State
parliament. This is the structure embedded in the constitution to which within s106 the state are
subject to this constitution and so any legal principle embedded within it.
The rates originally was to cover the collection of garbage, but as I revealed no garbage is put
out and yet I am charged about $360.00 a year for garbage collect in in addition to the
unconstitutional rates. Yet, despite my elaborate set out it appears to me that His Honour
Carmody J having claimed on 17 May 2016 to have read all material on file nevertheless
appeared to have disregarded this.
Having FEE SIMPLE rights seems to be totally sidestepped by the court. One has to question
why when it should be an impartial administration of justice? The Prosecutor obviously elected
not to respond to the numerous issues I raised, and that is it right, but then His Honour Carmody
J should have upheld my complaints as they were unchallenged.
p70
12-6-2016
Page 71
FAI,LING TO WITHDRAW INFRINGEMENT NOTICE
Ample of references by the witnesses as to some alleged committee but on what legal ground
is this based? After all while the Prosecutor during cross-examination claimed 2 correspondences
were sent out, no evidence actually provided by any witness for the Prosecutor that the
documents had actually been sent out. In fact they were not even part of the brief and neither
filed by the Prosecutor when presenting his case. However, considering that such correspondence
had been sent out it would only underline that the Infringement Notice had not been withdrawn
and the 10 June 2015 correspondence from ES&a Associates, lawyers for Buloke Shire Council
underlined this, then the summons was invalidly instituted this as the Infringement Act 2006
requires the Infringement Notice to be withdrawn prior to any summons being issued.
QUOTE 20160105-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06-Re APPEAL-15-2502 -Re TO
WITHDRAW OR NOT-etc
In my view the court has to consider if a reasonable person would hold that Buloke Shire
Councillors/Mr Wayne Wall/ES&a lawyers ought to have withdrawn the Fire Prevention Notice
and the subsequent Infringement Notice long ago but failing to do so unduly protracted the
litigation. Also, that one cannot have both an Infringement Notice as well as a summons to pursue
the same matters. As I understand it the issuing authority must formally withdraw any Infringement
Notice before instituting a Summons. In this case the Summons relies (in my view wrongly) upon
the Infringement Notice
If so much can go wrong to what supposed to be an easy legal issue then how often is the same
eventuating with others accused who may not have the stamina, determination, etc, to fight what
generally is perceived a corrupt court system?
END QUOTE 20160105-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06-Re APPEAL-15-2502 -Re TO
WITHDRAW OR NOT-etc
In my view the Prosecutor ought to have notified His Honour Carmody J that it has failed to
withdraw the Infringement Notice
.
QUOTE
END QUOTE
.
However, when I made the submission that the Prosecutor had no legal standing, it was in fact
His Honour Carmody J who appeared so to say to do the bidding for the Prosecutor, and by this
failed to be impartial and was in my view bias and denied a FAIR and PROPER trail in that His
Honour Carmody J ought to have left it to the Prosecutor to present his case as it if it had legal
standing. The Prosecutor well aware of my correspondence obviously was so to say shielded by
His Honour Carmody J to answer my challenge to the legal position by the Prosecutor.
INFRINGEMENTS ACT 2006 - AustLII
QUOTE
www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ia2006161/
p71
12-6-2016
Page 72
Victorian Current Acts ... Act to be read as one with Magistrates' Court Act 1989 and Criminal
Procedure Act 2009 5. Guidelines 6. Reports to Attorney-General 7. Infringement offences to
which this Act applies PART 2--INFRINGEMENT ...
END QUOTE
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ia2006161/
Infringement Act 2006
QUOTE
(iii)
internal review by an enforcement agency under this Act, including the conduct of
internal reviews;
END QUOTE
Division 3Internal reviews

QUOTE
22Application for internal review

(1) A person who has been served with an infringement notice or a person acting on
that person's behalf with the first-mentioned person's consent, may apply to the
relevant enforcement agency for review of the decision to serve the infringement
notice if the person believes
(a) the decision
(i) was contrary to law; or
(ii) involved a mistake of identity; or
(b) that special circumstances apply to the person; or
(c) the conduct for which the infringement notice was served should be excused
having regard to any exceptional circumstances relating to the infringement
offence.
(2) An application under subsection (1)
(a) may be made
(i) in the case of
(A) a lodgeable infringement offence for which an infringement notice
was served on a person other than a child, at any time before the
details of the infringement penalty in respect of that offence are
lodged with an infringements registrar under section 54; or
(B)
an infringement offence for which an infringement notice was
served on a child, at any time before the infringement penalty in respect of that
offence is registered with the Children's Court under clause 4 of Schedule 3 to
the Children,
Youth and Families Act 2005; and
(ii) in the case of any other infringement offence, at any time before the
expiry of the period for bringing a proceeding in relation to the offence
to which the infringement notice relates; and
(b) must be in writing; and
(c) must state the grounds on which the decision should be reviewed; and
p72
12-6-2016
Page 73
(d) must provide the applicant's current address for service of the notice under
section 24(3) of the outcome of the decision; and
(e) may only be made once in relation to any one infringement offence in respect
of the applicant.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
24Review by enforcement agency

(1) If an enforcement agency receives an application for review under section 22, the
enforcement agency must
(a) review the decision to serve an infringement notice on the person; and
(b) suspend any procedures that are being used for the enforcement of the
infringement penalty in respect of the infringement offence until
(i) the review is complete; and
(ii) the applicant is sent advice of the outcome.
(2) An enforcement agency must ensure that a review under this section is conducted
by a person who was not involved in making the decision to serve the infringement
notice which is the subject of the review.
(3) An enforcement agency must
(a) review a decision
(i) within the prescribed time; or
(ii) if an enforcement agency requests additional information under
section 23, within the prescribed period referred to in subparagraph (i)
plus 35 days, whether or not the additional information was received by
the agency; and
(b) within 21 days of deciding the review, serve on the applicant a written notice
advising of the outcome of the review.
(4) If an enforcement agency fails to comply with subsection (3), the infringement
notice is deemed to be withdrawn.
(5)Nothing in this section limits the power of an enforcement agency to review a decision to
serve an infringement notice on any other basis.
25 What can an enforcement agency decide on review?
(1) Subject to subsection (2), after reviewing a decision under section 24, an
enforcement agency may
(a) confirm the decision to serve an infringement notice;
(b) withdraw the infringement notice and serve an official warning in place of the
infringement notice;
(c) withdraw the infringement notice;
(d) withdraw the infringement notice and refer the matter to the Court in
accordance with this Part or, in the case of an infringement notice served on a
p73
12-6-2016
Page 74
child, withdraw the infringement notice and file a charge-sheet and summons
in the Children's Court for the matter to be dealt with in that Court;
(e) in the case of an infringement offence involving additional steps, alter or vary
those steps provided the alteration or variation is consistent with the Act or
other instrument establishing the offence;
(f) waive all or any prescribed costs;
(g) approve a payment plan;
(h) do any combination of any of the actions referred to in paragraphs (a) to (g).
(2) In the case of an application made under section 22(1)(b) on the grounds that
special circumstances apply to the person served with the infringement notice, after
reviewing a decision under section 24, an enforcement agency may
(a)confirm the decision to serve an infringement notice;
(b) withdraw the infringement notice and serve an official warning in place of the
infringement notice;
(c) withdraw the infringement notice.
(3) If an enforcement agency makes a decision under subsection (2)(a) confirming the
decision to serve the infringement notice, the enforcement agency must refer the
matter to the Court in accordance with this Part or, in the case of an
infringement notice served on a child, withdraw the infringement notice and file a
charge-sheet and summons in the Children's Court for the matter to be dealt with in
that Court.
END QUOTE
The evidence of me as a witness was that I was unaware of any such correspondence by the
committee even so the Prosecutor provided a correspondence dated (as I recall it) 4 January
2015. Moreover the Prosecutor then produced another correspondence allegedly dated 14
January 2015 claiming to have been in response to my email regarding the 4 -1-2015
correspondence. Upon which I stated I recall something to this. However, as I was unable to
have any power supply at the court I was unable then to verify with my computer if indeed those
emails sent to Buloke Shire Council did in fact refer to the decision not to withdraw the
Infringement Notice. Afterwards I was unable to locate any correspondence on my computer
specifically referring to the alleged correspondences of Buloke Shire Council refusing to
withdraw the Infringement Notice.
Neither was I ever notified that the Infringement Notice was withdrawn!
Infringement Act 2006:
QUOTE
(d)
withdraw the infringement notice and refer the matter to the Court in
accordance with this Part
END QUOTE
As a matter of fact the Infringement notice was never withdrawn this as the 10 June 29015
correspondence of Buloke Shire Council lawyers pursued:
QUOTE
p74
12-6-2016
Page 75
END QUOTE
It is clear that even as on 10 June 2015 the Infringement Notice never was withdrawn.
It must be clear that the Infringement Notice never was withdrawn and hence the
Summons was wrongly instituted.
As I submitted to His Honour Carmody J that the lawyers for Buloke Shire Council had no legal
standing. They clearly in numerous ways failed to comply with the court orders,
rules/regulations/legal provisions.
The Brief simply failed to disclose documentation such as the correspondences the Prosecutor
relied upon being 4 and 14 January 2015 purported correspondences. Which may or may never
have been created at the time of the alleged dates, and even if had been might never have been
posted, as I never received them.
The invalid brief and the failure to include all relevant alleged evidence such as the alleged
correspondences of 4 January 2015 and 14 January 2015 which were not included in the brief
and neither does any of my records refer to those documents having been received by me.
Neither were those alleged correspondences as I recall filed as exhibits nor was part of evidence
by Mr Wayne Wall or Mr Grover.
It would be extra ordinary that despite my considerable detailed record holdings I have not been
able to find any correspondences regarding the 2 alleged correspondences that were claimed to
have been forwarded via Australian post and my data records show that I forwarded the 1
January 2015 and 13 January 2015 correspondences to Buloke Shire council C/o Mr Groves and
then the next correspondence was dated
p75
12-6-2016
Page 76
QUOTE 2-5-2015 CORRESPONDENCE TO Buloke Shire Council
As I indicated in past correspondences (for example 20150112-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire
Council care of J Groves Re NO CASE TO ANSWER & 20150113-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke
Shire Council care of J Groves Regarding incorporation of the courts, etc, failing to have an
impartial/independent courts system) the Infringement Notice is without legal basis.
END QUOTE 2-5-2015 CORRESPONDENCE to Buloke Shire Council
This may underline that I was not at all aware of any alleged correspondence from Buloke Shire
Council to me and no evidence was before the Court that such alleged letters in fact had been
posted to me.
Counsel for Buloke Shire Council clearly could have requested either witness if they had been
aware of and knew the alleged correspondences had been sent out but didnt And prior to
Counsel for Buloke Shire Council introducing g those purported correspondences when cross
examining me, he had not revealed the correspondences nor had Mr Groves known about the
correspondences as I extensively cross examined him about my 1 January 2015 correspondence
and he made clear he didnt know what had eventuated in regard of that correspondence, that was
filed as exhibit by me I(when I cross-examined Mr Wayne Wall). Mr Wayne Wall during my c
ross-examination about this 1january 2015 correspondence neither raised any issue that he had or
had been aware that alleged correspondences were send to me via Australia Post in response. As
such I view it was absurd that those alleged claimed correspondences of Buloke Shire Council
were introduced without that they had been part of the brief and neither were part of evidence
of either Mr Wayne Wall or Mr Grover. Even if those correspondences were not fabricated to
pervert the course of justice, but had been located on the file, by Mr Wayne Wall then it doesnt
prove at all that those alleged letters were actually posted to me. This as there appears to be a
disorganisation within Buloke Shire Council as to who is a committee and who does what, where
Mr Grover despite having been sent by me correspondences was never, so his evidence claimed
during cross-examination, aware of the correspondence. The very purpose of a brief is to give
the accused ample of prior notification as to the alleged evidence, and yet besides that no proper
brief was provided as to legal requirements, including the orders of His Honour Mullaly J of 30
October 2015 clearly Buloke Shire council concealed relevant material from any brief and by
this prevented me to prepare for the matter appropriately.
Obviously as to prevent me to provide to the court my responses such as to counter act the
alleged writings having been received as well as with the GPS records as to if what was alleged
by Mr Wayne Wall and Mr Grover during extensive cross-examination could have been
physically possible.
My evidence under cross-examination was that I did not recall the 4-1-2015 alleged
correspondence from Buloke Shire Council but the 14 January 2015 correspondence somehow
appeared to me to recollect. Obviously this recollection was incorrect where my records show no
such correspondence having been received by me and as I deal with other cases regarding
Infringement Notices it must be obvious that I may have referred to a different issue. This is why
Buloke Shire Council should in its brief have disclosed the alleged correspondences so I could
have prepared for this and checked my records, which I was unable to do before hand and neither
could do so in the witness box. As such a kind of bulldozer tactic to produce documentation that
were not revealed beforehand should never have been accepted as a conduct in legal
proceedings, this because Parliament with its provisions clearly desired that an accused is given
advanced information as to be able to prepare for any responses and to possibly disprove e any
allegations.
.
FAILURE BY TRIAL JUDGE His Honour Carmody J to disclose what documents were on
court file and so prevented the Appellant a FAIR AND PROPER TRIAL
While I had indicated to His Honour Carmody J that I had not been provided with sealed copies
of the orders nor reason of judgment from the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud and to
my knowledge no witness nor any evidence was filed His Honour Carmody J didnt clarify if in
p76
12-6-2016
Page 77
fact any material was on court file, considering that ordinary to obtain orders one must provide
evidence to the court. As Buloke Shire Council allegedly on 17 September 2015relied upon
correspondences to obtain orders I view His Honour Carmody J had an obligation what if any of
the alleged correspondences had been placed on court file on 17 September 2015. His reason of
judgment didnt show any consideration as to any of the written submissions either and as such I
view the reason of judgment lacked to justify any proper consideration of what I had placed
before the court, either during the hearings and/or in written submissions in the various
ADDRESSES TO THE COURT and their supplements.
NON-DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES BY Council for Buloke Shire

Council
QUOTE
END QUOTE
.
The correspondences of 1 January 2015, 13january 2015 and 2 May 2015 all contained numerous
Authorities and legal challenges and as such I view that Council for Buloke Shire Council failed
to disclose to the court those authorities.
S224(7) versus High Court of Australia rulings
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/operation
QUOTE
Decisions of the High Court are binding on all other courts throughout Australia.
END QUOTE
The written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT refers to signage at the property
that included
QUOTE
END QUOTE
p77
12-6-2016
Page 78
In fact the document 20160517-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re

Written submission ADDRESS TO THE COURT-APPEAL-15-2502 included
p78
12-6-2016
Page 79
QUOTE
It may also be stated that I informed the informant that has any evidence he may give can
be used against him regarding trespassing on my property. This, as I understand Buloke
Shire Council has images with time and date proving that the informant unlawfully entered
my property without even having attempted any prior permission/consent to do so. No such
right to enter is provided for within the provisions of the County Fire Authority Act 1958.
HALLIDAY v NEVILL [1984] HCA 80; (1984) 155 CLR 1 (6 December 1984), GEORGE v ROCKETT [1990] HCA
26; (1990) 170 CLR 104 (20 June 1990), PLENTY v DILLON [1991] HCA 5; (1991) 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004, NSW v
IBBETT [2006] HCA 57; (2006) 231 ALR 485; (2006) 81 ALJR 427, KURU v STATE OF NSW [2008] HCA 26 (12
June 2008)
END QUOTE
On 17 May 2016 His Honour Carmody J during the hearing then made known he had read the
material! As such it cannot be argued His Honour was unaware of this and yet His Honour
Carmody J in the reason of judgment on 30 May 2016 did not even elude to this.
The question is therefore did His Honour Carmody J consider the conflict of s224(7) of the
purported Local Government Act versus High Court of Australia rulings considering the
notifications I had posted on the property.
.
Did for this reason witnesses conceal the front of the property as to avoid the court to notice the
signage on the property?
.
The references to the High Court of Australia decisions also were referred to in the document
20160222-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council APPEAL-15-2502-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-Supplement 3
QUOTE
In my view Mr Wayne Wall can be charged within the provisions of s127of the
Infringement Act 2006 as well as regarding trespassing if he were to end up giving
evidence under oath. I view he should be informed of the inherent dangers if he were to
give evidence.
Re trespassing see also:
The problem Mr Wayne Wall has is that he provided images that has the date and time of
what appears to be his trespassing upon my property and I am not aware any court order
was obtained by him to enter my property for the purpose he appeared to have done so.
The court could hardly entertain litigation based upon criminal conduct of the informer.
I didnt make the rules of the court, neither that I didnt make the constitution, and I didnt
make the judgments I am quoting. I am simply relying upon, legal and other provisions
including authorities that are within the legal principles of the constitution. And I am not a
shame to pursue this.
What I feel sorry about is those people who have had their person tarnished by judges like
His Honour Mullaly J abusing/misusing judicial powers for ulterior motives nothing to do
with enforcing the rule of law!
I view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST that constitutionally we do not have a valid state
constitution (that was also unchallenged in the 19 July 2006 successful appeals) and neither
valid elections or valid governments. It seems however that while I placed matters before
the courts willing to litigate it in every details it are the governments that fear to litigate the
subject matters.
p79
12-6-2016
Page 80
I can do no more but to place matters before the court and well expect a competent judge to
understand/comprehend what is constitutionally appropriate and adjudicate upon the
evidence before the court and not to be bias thinking to be part of the government.
This ADDRESS TO THE COURT supplement 3 should be considered together with the
ADDRESS TO THE COURT (incorrectly referring to a 22-2-2006 hearing which should
be 22-2-2016) ADDRESS TO THE COURT supplement 1 and ADDRESS TO THE
COURT supplement 2.
This written submission is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all
relevant issues and oral supplement may be made. After all it is unknown to me what, if
any, other matter may arise before the hearing is held.
END QUOTE
Refusal by His Honour Carmody J for Mr Groves to give evidence in chief, before I would
cross examine Mr Wayne Wall, when I submitted to be done because of my strategy.
While a trail judge may desire to hold expedient hearings, in this case where I made the extra
ordinary request to leave cross-examination of Mr Wayne Wall until after Mr Groves had given
his evidence in chief making known I didnt want to expose my strategy, nevertheless His
Honour Carmody J refused me to do so. When faced with so to say hostile witnesses (generally
one refer to them when one summonsed an adversary to give evidence) who is more concerned to
protect his own personal interest than to tell the truth, it is critical for a person doing crossexamination to try to hide the real purpose of questions put to the witness until perhaps another
witness may have first given evidence in chief and so both can be exposed to have conceited
evidence to pervert the course of justice. Here we had purported evidence involving both
witnesses provided to the lawyers of Buloke Shire Council and used as evidence only to be
exposed during cross examination to have been of another property. However Mr Groves
unaware of this first initially backed up Mr Wayne Walls evidence during evidence in chief and
only made an amendment when specifically asked a leading question by Counsel (to which I
objected) for the prosecutor and having the note of His Honour Carmody J on the photo that
identified it not being of my property. Nevertheless what should be considered is that this was an
appeal and so if this brief had been before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud then
obviously it had been misled. And one has to ask how often this has eventuated where lawyers
perhaps too lazy to check back with is not relevant to a particular property then obtain orders
which may be based upon allegations/evidence that is totally misleading. It app-ears to me that
the judicial system simply is not up to standards and so the legal profession either that numerous
errors, etc, are made. It was to no use to me to try to cross-examine the witnesses as to the issue
of nature strip and/or noxious weeds etc, because with the way His Honour Carmody J dealt
with the branches issue I realised that I had His Honour Carmody J not as an impartial/in
depended judge but as an opponent acting for and on behalf of the Prosecutor.
It may be stated that a proper consideration of Exhibit 1 filed by Counsel for the prosecutor
indicates various errors, such as the omission of excluding of buildings and their content. With
the Fire Master Plan further adding to the misconceptions, etc, we have so to say an Irish Stew
that inherently will cause invalid Fire Prevention Notices to be continued to be issued and for
ulterior purposes then the Country fire Authority act 1958 is providing for.
What needs to be considered also is the drain of facilities upon the courts as result which
underlines that the issues raised by me should be appropriately addressed.
Considering what is left along the Calder Highway it should be clear that those contractors
involved simply havent got a clue what is required for fire prevention. The years ofbuild up of
p80
12-6-2016
Page 81
branches along the road side underlines that the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer simply lacks
any proper command and understanding of what his position requires and by this it goes down
the line.
And this very much is regretfully aided by His Honour Carmody J as noted in the extent issue
refusing to allow me to file all relevant photos this even so unlike the Prosecutor they were
provided to them way back on 14 November 2015 whereas the Prosecutor dumps material at the
hearing to deny me sufficient time to prepare any responses.
When a judge comes across a citizen who is taking on the judiciary and the legal profession on
their own field then while they may cringe they should accept that such a citizen is trying to fix
the problems they have created or have allowed to continue.
Judges are limited in what they can do, as they are limited by what the parties are presented to
the court, but then when a party like myself spend a huge amount of time, indeed decades to
research certain matters and to expose it, and try to come/present solutions then the last thing the
Court should do, as His Honour Mullaly J did on 30 October 2015 as to argue about wasting
courts time. This, as fixing the problems would eventually save a lot of court time, where now it
is bogged down in litigation that the Prosecutor never should have initiated in the first place.
Worse, the Prosecutor has allowed considerable fire dangers to continue and so undermine
precisely the intention of Parliament to seek to eradicate/diminish fire dangers.
Currently the system effectively is misused/abused for easy quick unconstitutional monies in the
kitty of municipal/shire councils and ignore the real fire dangers such as along Calder Highway.
Had His Honour Carmody J really read the material as His Honour Carmody J claimed on 17
May 2016 then I view His Honour Carmody J should never have denied me my submission to
first let Mr Groves give evidence before Mr Wayne Wall was cross examined.
Refusal to allow me to file photos exhibits even so many of the photos were already in black
and white part of the 1 January 2015 correspondence that was filed as an exhibit and
acknowledged during cross-examination by Mr Wayne Wall having been received and read
by him, as well as being in the 14-11-2015 correspondence in possession of the Prosecutor
but concealed by the Prosecutor from the court.
The material that was provided to the parties and in possession of the Prosecutor such as the 14
November 2015 correspondence clearly proved the fire danger along Calder Highway.
While His Honour Carmody J sought to limit evidence to the actual date of the alleged offence it
was Counsel for the Prosecutor who raised the issue of the lack of complaint to the Country Fire
Authority, and as such made it an issue. Counsel for the Prosecutor may simply have not realised
that the photos he was shown by me during an adjournment of the 30 May 2016 hearing and part
of correspondence he had on file was
BIAS
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.It is one of the great advantages of private persons being able to raise these points, and not the states or
the Commonwealth, that you keep the judicial bench free from the taint of political partisanship.
END QUOTE
END QUOTE
p81
12-6-2016
Page 82
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
His Honour Carmody J himself raised the issue that 2 photos claimed by witness Mr Wayne Wall
showed that the GPS was not working, yet somehow the aerial view of Berriwillock alleged that
the GPS was working as red dots indicated the taking of images of both the highway of 10
Anderson Avenue as well as the rear lane. Yet His Honour in his reason of judgment seemed to
me to state that he accepted the evidence from the witnesses.
Witness Mr Groves stated from onset in examination in chief that he confirmed all evidence of
the previous witness Mr Wayne wall (without knowing what Mr Wayne Wall had stated as he
was outside the court room) and as such either they had discussed prior to the hearing what to say
or Mr Groves and Mr Wayne Wall had discussed matters during the adjournment when
subsequently during cross examination Mr Groves indicated that the photo with the different
clothesline was of another property. Clearly, Mr Groves was contradicting his own previous
evidence.
As to the large cactuses in front of the house, Mr Groves gave evidence during cross examination
that the photo was taken from the rear lane and as such was a close up. However under further
cross examination he then claimed that the photo was taken from 10 Anderson Avenue Highway,
when it became clear that the front of the house was facing 10 Anderson Avenue highway and
not the rear lane. Clearly Mr Groves was contradicting his own evidence. There were 3 red dots
of alleged photos taken from 10 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock but 3 photos were not presented
as evidence.
While Mr Wayne Wall gave evidence under cross-examination that the photos had been taken
by a camera that could so to say take long range pictures, the exhibit I filed during crossexamination of Mr Wayne Wall, being exhibit A clearly showed bushed and trees on the Google
aerial views between 10 Anderson Avenue and the house about 70 metres from the highway. As
such the evidence of Mr Goves and Mr Wayne Wall was in conflict to the aerial view exhibits I
had filed.
Moreover, the very GPS exhibit filed by Counsel for Buloke Shire Council of the date of the
inspection also showed the same bushes and trees to exist. Yet, His Honour somehow pursued
the point that I provided pictures not being of the dater of inspection, where so to say Counsel for
Buloke Shire Council himself provided the very evidence that the bushes/trees on the date of
inspection being 17 November 2014 existed. As such, where the Prosecutor himself provide
incriminating evidence and examine in chief its own witness Mr Wayne Wall, who confirmed
that the aerial picture of the GPS was taken on that day, then I view His Honour failed to
properly consider the evidence before the court by the Prosecutor submitted as evidence.
.
On the basis of the photo Mr Groves claimed to have made from the highway some about 70
metres or more away without having been blocked by any bushes and trees that were situated
between the highway and the house it would have been impossible even with a tele-lens to be
able to make such pictures. Indeed, the exhibits filed, also from Google, showed that from the
position on the road side of 10 Anderson Avenue the bushes and trees prevented any clear view
of the residence.
The prosecutor filed a set out which he claimed was not a legal requirement but showed what
was followed by the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer. And this 5 page exhibit clearly showed
p82
12-6-2016
Page 83
that on page 5 under A this was the text that was in every Fire Prevention Notice and as such
as I had claimed in my written submission was clearly a standard format and didnt show the
opinion required by the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 within Section 41.
This exhibit also indicated that a mere 10 metres of clearance could be requested. Clearly His
Honour failed to consider in his reason of judgment why in excess of some 70 metres from the
highway a Fire Prevention Notice was issued where in fact other properties may have a mere 10
metre clearance.
His Honour questioned me as to what relevant photos taken (on 2 October 2013) had to the 2014
alleged violation, where as I stated this goes to questioning the credibility of the witness as an
expert witness. His Honour then elicited from the witness Mr Wayne Wall that the photos
showed a fire danger near the Berriwillock signage, but then commented that it was green. In my
view this was very bias as it showed growth along the highway in ex cess of 1metres well above
the 100 millimetres Mr Wayne Wall demanded in his Fire Prevention Notice from me, and also
where His Honour had refused me to file further photos as exhibits which I indicated was over a
length of more than 100 kilometres which I indicated already had been shown to Counsel for
Buloke Shire Council which showed dried growth partly cut along the highway.
I quote the exhibit dated 1-1-2015 I filed during cross examining Mr Wayne Wall;
QUOTE
Below I set out some matters as to how on 2 October 2013 and the following day on 3 15 October 2013
weed along Calder Highway in Buloke Shire Council was at places higher than 1 metre!
Even if Buloke Shire Council were to argue that it had contractors which must have failed to
mowe/slash as was required in the end it cannot then argue against a resident who relies upon a
neighbour as Buloke Shire Council does on a contractor. In particular where the 20 neighbour
slashed/mowed the property and so indicated it was the same as his own property and he was not
issued with a fire notice nor any Infringement Notice then I view Buloke Shire Council so to say went
overboard to issue an Infringement Notice where clearly the property had been mowed ion 2 occasions
in October 2014. The same couldnt be claimed by Buloke Shire Council whereas the images below
indicate the weed along 25 Calder Highway was at some places higher than 1 metre. And because this
is a major transport route the fire danger ALONG Calder Highway is considerable.
Despite that I designed the image below as to warn motorist of the fire danger when pulling over onto a
soft shoulder of the highway nevertheless it appears to me Buloke Shire Council has done nothing to
seek such a signage implemented. Regardless there are at times fires 30 along the shoulder of Calder
Highway.
END QUOTE
In evidence I stated that Jeff had 3 times mowed/slashed the property and Mr Wayne Wall in
evidence during cross examination did concede there had a minor change to the property.
However, as I also pointed out during cross examination he had not provided any photos of the
front of the property that was some massive about 70 metres directly with the highway. As such
prevented the court to be able to see the whole of the property and so the condition at the alleged
first inspection and the alleged second inspection.
Moreover Mr Wayne Wall under cross-examination claimed that both cameras used on the first
inspection had failed while also the GPS records of that day had been wiped out by the
subsequent GPS recording of 17 November 2014.
In my view His Honour failed to consider appropriately the absurdness of such claims.
In my view as His Honour Carmody J was made well aware on 17 May 2016 I had written to
Mr Wayne Wall that if he gave evidence it could be used against him for tress passing and I view
that is why the then photos were claimed not to exist, as to avoid causing self-incrimination.
.
p83
12-6-2016
Page 84
While s224(7) indicates that a person may enter a property for enforcement of any act, I had in
my written submissions challenged on constitutional grounds the validity of the entire Local
government Act and as such it was not for His Honour Carmody J to assume that the Local
Government Act let alone section 224(7) was valid.
His Honour Carmody J also was arguing for the Prosecutor, rather than to leave it for the
Prosecutor to do so, that the Fire prevention Notice referred to branches and as such was
applicable and by this sought to counter act my claim that the Fire prevention Notice was invalid
and in fact I read out the following:
QUOTE
END QUOTE
After His Honour made his comment about the branches I tactfully cross-examined Mr Wayne
Wall about the issue that I had taken him on 5 November 2015 between 2 sheds where there was
on one side a pile of sleepers and on the otherwise a stack of branches as firewood and in
between glass and asked Mr Wayne Wall if he could remember making a comments about the
glass, which he stated he didnt. He did however not deny that there was there a stack of
branches as firewood and another stack of sleepers.
As was clear from the evidence that despite the stack of branches for firewood on 5 November
2015 being there, besides the stack of sleepers, that Mr Wayne Wall gave evidence during crossexamination then no Infringement Notice was issued as the work he required to be done was
completed to his satisfaction as indicated on 5 Nov ember 2015. As such, as I also submitted it
was the lack of clarity the Fire Prevention Notice being vague and aloof that was the problem
and failing to indicate what precisely was the issues intended on 17 November 2014.
It is in my view therefore not for His Honour Carmody J to argue, as His Honour Carmody J did
that the fire Prevention Notice referred to branches as clearly by the cross-examination it was
established that not all branches were subject to the fire Prevention Notice.
.
As I read out to His Honour Carmody J of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958
QUOTE
(a)on that land, other than a building or in a building;

END QUOTE
Australia has a diversion of people who may or may not command the English language in full
and any legal notice must be deemed to be in a manner that ordinary persons can
understand/comprehend this. As such, for a judge to argue that somehow a person faced with a
Fire Prevention Notice then the person must evaluate what may or may not as branches fall
within the terms of the Fire Prevention Notice I view is totally absurd. It was not relevant if I
assumed if the buildings did or didnt include being within the all combustible material
referred to in the Fire Prevention Notice, but what the Fire Prevention Notice claimed to be
required to be done in violation to the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 which clearly excluded
buildings and its content.
p84
12-6-2016
Page 85
There is special legislation as to the meaning and transport/storage of certain combustible
materials, and as I made clear the word assault is meaningless as it could be emotionally,
mentally or physical and so one had to set out the alleged facts so an accused person can respond
to those alleged facts, such as if it was claimed you hit me in the face then the person can say
he did or didnt do so.
Using the term combustible as such has no specifically meaning. Indeed s41 of the Country
Fire Authority Act 1958 refers to exclusion of combustible materials such as buildings and
content. As such, the Fire Prevention Notice must be specific in the location of the combustible
materials because branches and sleepers were also stored in the huge sheds as firewood. As such,
unless specific combustible materials had been identified and its location the generic word
combustible let alone all combustible material couldnt be deemed to be within the
provisions of s41 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
My evidence was that I had given away thousands of dollars off sleepers (used as firewood) as I
understood held that they were of combustible material where in the end afterwards it was not
intended they had to be removed. This even so the Fire prevention Notice clearly stated that all
combustible material be removed from the land.
As was also the evidence of Mr Wayne Wall in cross-examination that on 5 November 2015 he
had not demanded that any combustible material was to be removed from the land but merely
to be heaped up in stacks on the property.
As such what the fire prevention Notice claimed to be required versus what Mr Wayne Wall
during cross-examination conceded he was after clearly was totally different, this even so all Fire
Prevention Notices were identical in requirements.
.
Council for Buloke Shire Council submitted from the bar table that Fire Prevention Notices were
issued over a number of years and referred as I recall it to 2009, 2010, 20111, 2012, etc. And
Mr Wayne Wall gave evidence that he issued about 500 Fire Prevention Notices every year of
which about 20 would go to court. That is about $29,000 in Infringement Notices before the
Court, which makes this a financial windfall for Buloke Shire Council even so it is a state matter.
Yet, despite the provisions of section 4r2 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 that the
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer can have areas under management of the government and
council cleared the evidence under cross-examination from Mr Wayne Wall was that he had
contacted VicRoads and requested them to clear it. No evidence was provided to the Court to
prove such request was actually made.
And even if actually made, then where VicRoads failed to clear the area appropriately, as after all
we are referring to the about first 5 meters or so along the highway and not more than 70 metres
from any highway, then clearly Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention Officer could and
should have stepped in to have the areas for over 100 kilometres cleared and not leave a fire
hazard along the road.
Mr Wayne Wall during cross examination stated that he was not permitted under the act (s41) to
issue A Fire Prevention Notice against a government authority, but clearly Section 42 allows him
to have the area cleared without the need for a Fire Prevention Notice.
In my view it is absurd that where there is a real fire danger somehow the Government and its
department can allow the continuation of a fire danger, despite tens of thousands of vehicles
traveling past it and yet a property that is on a considerable less frequent used highway must be
cleared more than 70 metres from that highway.
QUOTE
42Brigades may carry out fire prevention work
(1) The officers and members of any brigade, at the request of
p85
12-6-2016
Page 86
(a) the owner or occupier of any land;
(b) a Minister in whom any land is vested;
(c) a municipal council or public authority
(i) in which any land is vested;
(ii) that has any land under its control or management;
(iii) that is responsible for the care and management of any road
may carry out on that land or road any work (including burning) for the removal or abatement of
any fire danger or for the prevention of the occurrence or spread of fire.
(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.
(3)Subject to the general direction of the Authority and the Chief Officer, the officers and members of any brigade,
with the consent of the relevant owner, occupier, Minister, council or authority, may carry out any
work (including burning) that the officer in charge of the brigade thinks necessary or expedient for
the prevention of the occurrence or spread of fire.
(4) Subject to the general direction of the Authority and the Chief Officer, the officers and members of
an industry brigade may assist other brigades in carrying out any work under subsection (1) if
(a) the officer in charge of the relevant brigade has made a request for assistance to the officer in
charge of the industry brigade; and
(b) the relevant owner or group of relevant owners in relation to the industry brigade have agreed
to the industry brigade providing assistance.
43 Duties and powers of councils and public authorities in relation to fire
(1) In the country area of Victoria it is the duty of every municipal council and public authority
to take all practicable steps (including burning) to prevent the occurrence of fires on, and
minimise the danger of the spread of fires on and from
(a) any land vested in it or under its control or management; and
(b) any road under its care and management.
(2) A municipal council or public authority may
(a) acquire any equipment;
(b) do any thing;
that is necessary or expedient for the purpose of fulfilling its duty under subsection (1).
(3) If the cost of maintenance of a road is apportioned between municipal councils or public
authorities or both the cost of fulfilling the duty imposed by subsection (1) must be
apportioned in the same manner.
END QUOTE
While Mr Wayne Wall did give evidence during cross-examination that he had contacted a
contractor to attend to my property but this contractor had refused to do so as it was too
dangerous, upon which His Honour Carmody J then asked if a second contractor was requested
to do the job, which Mr Wayne Wall indicated he had not, the issue is that no such conduct was
followed when it came to the fire danger along more than 100 kilometres of the Calder Highway.
Nothing in the reason of judgment even remotely raised any criticism upon this (ignorance of fire
danger) or any other conduct of the Prosecutor and its witnesses.
QUOTE
I yet again stress that any appearance by me to a 30 May 2016 hearing will be under objection and is
not intended and neither must be perceived that I discontinue any objections.
END QUOTE
p86
12-6-2016
Page 87
This kind of statement repeatedly stated in correspondence and written submissions and their
supplements surely indicated I maintained my objections yet His Honour Carmody J never raised
this issue but seemed to just ignore it. Despite that this is a very critical issue because as long as a
party maintains to state so it cannot be argued that the party doing so has relinquished his/her
objections.
QUOTE 14-11-2015 correspondence to the CFA
Chief Officer
Country fire Authority
14-11-2015
Cc; Buloke Shire Council & Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Ref; 20151114-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Chief Officer -Re Buloke Shire Council -Re Fire Prevention Notice 199-4423-etc
Sir/Madam,
I recently indicated in my email to Mr Wayne Wall that he misconceive s43 of the Country
Fire Authority Act 1958, as to his claims it doesnt provide powers to deal with the high grass/weed on
government properties. Such as Ministry of Housing and road side properties. As such for years on end
Mr Wayne Wall permitted a dangerous fire conditions to exist failing to act against them.
Mr Wayne Wall attended to my property at 10 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock, accompanied by a female,
and indicated he would provide a 2 week extension is required. However, his 6 November 2015
correspondence refers to 7 days.
In any event I complained that the Fire Prevention Notice was in violation to the Country Fire Authority
Act 1958 and as such cannot be extended. It is of no legal justification and Authority Ab Initio.
Within s41C I request you to review the decision of Mr Wayne Wall including his 6 November 2015
decision.
.
As I objected to the legal validity of the Fire prevention Notice, such as to remove all combustible
materials then the only option would have been to withdraw the entire notice. (See my previous
correspondences to Mr Wayne Wall about the same).
Currently there is an appeal on foot before the County Court of Victoria to which I also claim the fire
prevention Notice (2014) was invalid as this too was referring to all combustible materials
In my view within s45 of the County Fire Authority Act 1958 it would be appropriate for the Governor
in Council to remove Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention Officer. This as it appears to me he
was never appropriately trained and doesnt appear to understand/comprehend the relevant powers.
.
Mr Wayne Wall in his 6 November 2015 correspondence refer to
QUOTE
I am prepared to allow an extension of this notice provided that the work is undertaken by the date
specified above, and the standard of clearance is to my satisfaction.
END QUOTE
In my view it has got nothing to do with Mr Wayne Wall as Fire Prevention Officer having to be
satisfied it has to do with if there is a fire danger or not. Mr Wayne Wall may not be satisfied but that
may in itself not mean that there is a fire danger.
.
The images included below are those which also shows the roadside growth of weed/grass/etc and it must
be clear that this violates s43 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958, where my understanding is that Mr
Wayne Wall in misconception.
Mr Frank Colosimo was present when Mr Wayne Wall and his female companion attended to my
property (on 5 November 2015 to discuss matters), and can be shown on some of the images reproduced
below.
Some images (below) show Mr Francis James Colosimo.
p87
12-6-2016
Page 88
20151104_182155-To Berriwillock-Calder Highway
20151104_182232-To Berriwillock-Calder Highway
Image 182232 shows growth to be as high as the chin of Mr Francis Colosimo along Calder
Highway on the soft shoulder.
20151104_182642-To Berriwillock-Calder Highway 182719-To Berriwillock-Calder Highway
183019-To Berriwillock-Calder Highway
There images show the collection of years of build-up leaves, dead branches, etc. the cable
barrier proves how closed it is to the road. This is just some of the numerous locations this buildp88
12-6-2016
Page 89
up is left year after year. In my view Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention Officer
should never have permitted this kind of dangerous build-up of fire hazards!
Image 190224 (above) shows that dangerous cuttings are left on the soft shoulder of the road side
and image 190359 (below) shows the height of what is left after slashing along the Calder
Highway. While s43 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 provides for the slashing (up to the
fence line) clearly this is not eventuating.
As I have shown in past correspondences similar conditions existed over the years along Calder
Highway and elsewhere. As such Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention Officer failed to
ensure to act appropriately. Image 190359 & 190633 shows what is left around trees. It appears
to me no one is supervising Buloke Shire contractors if they do an appropriate job. Yet with
motor vehicles travelling past here is the real fire danger!
The following images are taken on 5 November 2015 outside Berriwillock, to and from Swan Hill
20151105_142426- Swan Hill trip
20151105_173537- Swan Hill trip
142430- Swan Hill trip
20151105_142509- Swan Hill trip
20151105_173553-Swan Hill
p89
12-6-2016
Page 90
Between Berriwillock and Ultima the growth (within the Shire of Buloke) is shown to be far
more than the 100mm Mr Wayne Wall demands of property owners. In fact no clearing appears
to have been done at all, and the properties that are shown shows high growth also!
The following images are taken on 5 November 2015 Berriwillock (old back fence)
180123-Berriwillock-10 Anderson Ave-cr-01 180139-Berriwillock-10 Anderson Ave
The following images are taken on 6 November 2015 Berriwillock (back fence-with new fencing)
20151106_152658-Berriwillock-10 Anderson Ave
20151106_152810-Berriwillock-10 Anderson Ave
My son Richard was residing at Berriwillock but mysteriously disappeared. I now obtained
copies of documentation indicating to me the police did an unlawful search of his vehicle,
unlawfully arrested him, etc. As result that his partial build fence was left as was, and with it part
of the fence missing. As result unknown persons were having access to the property and were
dumping items such as shown below in images 16922, 163250 and 163266 from farmers. The
house was left unlocked, and unknown person(s) caused destruction, etc. It appears to me that
Buloke Shire Council having limited access to the Berriwillock tip has resulted in illegal
dumping on my property. As result unwanted items having been abandoned on my property
causing problems with slashing/cutting. The (expensive) fencing I have put up ought to prevent
dumping on my property.
The following images are taken on 6 November 2015 Berriwillock
162922-Berriwillock-Bitumen 163250-Berriwillock
163255-Berriwillock
The following images are taken on 6 & 7 November 2015 Berriwillock
p90
12-6-2016
Page 91
163543-Berriwillock-10 Anderson Ave
My property (above) as was already prior to the issue of the Fire Prevention Notice, as I
understand Jeff made known to Mr Wayne Wall that he had been slashing it, as he did last year
also! While Mr Wayne Wall appears to be so to say nit picking upon my property reality is that
growth is everywhere on numerous properties, as shown some below.
The following images are taken on 7 November 2015 around Berriwillock
185951-Berriwillock-Wight
185956-Berriwillock-Wight
190117-Berriwillock
p91
12-6-2016
Page 92
190122-Berriwillock
190125-Berriwillock
192433-Milne-General Store
The following images are taken on 8 November 2015 leaving Berriwillock along Calder Highway
Frank Colosimo's camera-Photo0045
p92
12-6-2016
Page 93
The above pictures taken with Mr Frank Colosimo camera underlines how high the growth is
along Calder Highway.
Do consider that the following is applicable to my property at10 Anderson Avenue Berriwillock!
I understand from Jeff (the person looking after my property) that Mr Wayne Wall gave him the
understanding that he can enter my property as he desires. This is not at all permissible. I
understand that nevertheless Mr Wayne Wall entered my property (Prior to 5 November 2015
without my authority) to obtain photos of my property, which I view were unlawfully obtained.
In my view all previous issued Fire Prevention Notices should be withdrawn and monies
refunded to those who paid the Infringement Notices as to enforce unlawful Fire Prevention
Notices serves no use to the safety of the community, but is as I view it an extortion misusing the
purpose of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958. In my view Buloke Shire Council would have
done better to have its legal representative training Mr Wayne Wall instead of litigating against
me, as now it embarked upon an expensive litigation which I view it cannot win!
I was serious ill, but nevertheless Buloke Shire Council through ES&a Legal Practitioners
pursued to litigate (in my absenteeism), at the wrong venue at the Magistrates Court of Victoria
at St Arnaud, on 20 August 2015 and 17 September 2015 in disregard of my OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION. I have since filed an appeal. Obviously, Mr Wayne Wall can persist in
litigation but I can assure you that I will expose what really is going on. Councillor Mr Milne
wrote to me that he doesnt understand what it is about (the litigation). That to me is of concern.
Surely before litigation is commenced councillors should be informed about what is proposed
and why considering the legal cost involved?
It appears to me that Mr Wayne Wall has been using the provisions of the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958 as to inappropriately obtain monies for Buloke Shire Council with defective
Fire Prevention Notices while blatantly disregarding his duties and obligations to deal with the
real fire danger such as along Calder Highway, year after year.
For the record, Mr Wayne Wall was aware I was at Berriwillock when he forwarded the 6
November 2015 correspondence to my residential address in Viewbank, and I didnt receive it
until late Sunday evening, 8 November 2015, when arriving home. And in any event in law
unless otherwise provided for in the legislation, 7 days is excluding weekends and public
holidays.
See also my previous correspondence: 20151028-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Country Fire
Authority -Health safety issue regarding CFA fire fighters
I look forwards to your positive reply!
p93
12-6-2016
Page 94
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
END QUOTE 14-11-2015 correspondence to the CFA
While I do not doubt that His Honour Carmody J appeared to act in a manner that he may
have genuinely believed he acted appropriately, nevertheless from my point of view His
Honour Carmody J acted with bias.
His Honour Carmody J finding me guilty but not issuing an order for cost, etc, but seeking to
leave any penalty as to a 2 years probation in itself may underline that His Honour Carmody J
sought not to give too much of a punishment in view as to what transpired during the
proceedings and what I had exposed. Regretfully however it still has a considerable impact upon
my life and can eventuate in huge problems which I can do well without where I am involved
since 1982 in a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS
PREVAIL.
In my view had His Honour Carmody J followed proper legal procedures then I have
absolutely no doubt that the case so to say would have been thrown out from onset.
Unlike mostly other unrepresented persons suddenly facing court litigation in a system they may
have little or no knowledge/understanding have about I was well prepared as to combat future
litigation and indeed prepared for this months before any litigation commenced. Indeed, the very
purpose of having made photos in 2013 was because I expected all along that Buloke Shire
Council would seek to target me due to past disputes. Somehow I had expected that any judge
coming ac cross my writings would have realised that I was not the ordinary unrepresented
accused and so the court would seek to adhere to legal processes. But I discovered that the
Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud simple went way of the track, and well from thereon
it continued regardless being in the County Court of Victoria.
And this obviously is of concern because when an appeal court applies similar tactics that were
employed in a court below and refuses to deal with members of the legal profession for their
avalanche of breaches and violation of court orders then the picture is that there is a cancerous
growth that cannot be isolated unless some hard hitting action is taken.
It appears to me that the bias I view His Honour Carmody J appeared to have was one not
specifically intended but simply being created by those growing through the ranks of the
judiciary as if it is normal. And this is of concern because this to me indicates this bias is likely
rife amongst the judiciary and extremely difficult to get rid of.
When I was in management of factories I discovered that apprentices were taking on the faulty
habits of long employed employees and didnt realise they did anything wrong until I explain to
them what was being done wrong. Merely explaining it in the right manner resulted a
dramatically increase in production because less breaking down of machinery and less stand
down time of machinery as well as less cost on tool replacements.
I reorganised the entire factory and workers were pleased about it because less time to rectify
errors and resulting in increased bonus payments, etc.
I can see that the courts need an all mighty shake up as obviously my correspondences to the
Chief Justice have shown no response whatsoever and this to me underlines that not even the
Chief Justice seems to care about what is going on and so what is going wrong.
In my view this bias in ingrained into the legal system and needs to be stopped.
What I view is needed is for judges to be given so to say a menu as to things to do, such as to
ensure that all parties are aware of what documents are before the court. After all if the court has
documents before it unknown to one of the parties than how can the party unknown to this have a
FAIR and PROPER hearing?
p94
12-6-2016
Page 95
Also, the court must ensure that any party appearing before it has complied with any orders,
rules, regulations and other procedures/requirements as to ensure that in particular members of
the legal profession are not deceiving the court.
What I discovered over the decades is that often Counsel for a party will make deceptive
statements to the court such as purportedly quoting some Authority when in fact Counsel has
made alterations to the purported quotations. I discovered this when checking what a Counsel
submitted to the court versus the actually record of the authority quoted.
As such, the legal system doesnt cater for honesty and honourable conduct but rather for
deception, and well even if afterwards this is exposed there is really no system in place to hold
the member of the legal practitioner legally accountable.
After all one only has to consider the list of breaches I have listed in this document and well it
seems that the lawyers couldnt care less as they earn more money the more problems they
create and so there is no incentive for them to change tactics even if they currently
undermine/pervert the course of justice.
His Honour Carmody J even went as far to demand I apologise to Alison J May even so I did no
more but to state about something that it seems to me not knowing the identity of any legal
practitioner where as she seemed to be involved in ongoing violations/breaches and misusing and
abusing the legal processes. As such this also underlines the bias by His Honour Carmody J.
FOOTNOTE:
I make it very clear that during both hearings on 17 May 2016 and 30 May 2016 I held that His
Honour Carmody J appeared to act without malice and not being pedantic and just acted as he
saw appropriate, regardless that I may severely criticise his conduct in those hearings. It is like
when attack the credibility of a witness you are putting in question his credibility as a witness
and not his credibility as a person. Therefore, nothing in my writings is intended and neither must
be perceived to question the conduct of His Honour Carmody J as a person, as what I am on
about is his conduct as a judge regarding legal issues.
QUOTE
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are offences
committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and the only cases to
which Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the criminal law of the state was in
conflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in any other cases there would be no necessity to
change the venue, and select a jury of citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in
modern or in ancient times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by
an Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal offences, and I do
not at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of the honorable member a state of affairs
in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive.
It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular
state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to
exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences
against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its
condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was
originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which
should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the
citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by
this Constitution.
END QUOTE
p95
12-6-2016
Page 96
If anything I perceived His Honour Carmody J as to be a very decent judge who expressed
himself on 17 May 2016 as to being the kind applying nullification, etc. Regretfully I view that
His Honour Carmody J as so many other judges do not realise/understand the errors they are
making in legal proceedings.
His Honour Carmody J now has the option to reconsider what he did and if he deems appropriate
to withdraw his orders or leave it up for a JUDICIAL REVIEW and risk that if then the
JUDICIAL REVIEW upholds my complaint then this might be an official recorded mark
against him.
His Honour Carmody J was not some judge trying to patronise me to the contrary I view he is
one of the better judges in the courts who is and remains polite and very courteous and I view
many a self-represented litigant could benefit from this, if only His Honour Carmody J was more
alert to the required legal procedures to deal with legal issues.
Because I consider the option of a JUDICIAL REVIEW if His Honour Carmody J fails to
withdraw his orders of 30 May 2016 I have no alternative but to set out why I pursue this. In the
past I have taken on senior judges and succeeded and had orders set aside, this as I am very
diligent in legal aspects to set them out.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
p96
12-6-2016

20160612-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Associate Sarah Gall To His Honour Carmody J CCV-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re Void Orders of His Honour Carmody, Etc-Supplement 2

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

20160612-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Associate Sarah Gall To His Honour Carmody J CCV-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re Void Orders of His Honour Carmody, Etc-Supplement 2

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Page 1

Associate Sarah Gall to His Honour Carmody J

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

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

20160110-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall & ORS-Re APPEAL-152502-Re exemplary damages-etc

Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

PH: 03 8684 1111 E: attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au

Appeal against notices

Mr Wayne Wall, Municipal Fire Prevention Officer buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au

20151027-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Country fire Authority -COMPLAINT

CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS OR LACK THEREOF

41Fire prevention notices

PDF]Buloke Shire Council Municipal Fire Management Plan 2012.pdf

Quid pro quo

Jump to: navigation, search

Trees, nature strips and councils: know

Cutting down trees

overhang your property,

City of Whittlesea 2014, Nature Strip Guidelines, viewed 23 March 2015,

Nature strip guidelines

Urban Nature Strip Guidelines (Word - 1.1MB)

Nature Strip Modification Application (PDF - 370KB)

Mowing and slashing land

Slashing vegetation on Council land

Rural scrub clearance

We have the Exhibit 1 last page which showed:

Create a 10 metre fire break around the perimeter of the property

Rural scrub clearance

A-Z of weeds | Weeds | Pests, diseases and ... - Agriculture Victoria

Invasive Plant Classifications | Weeds | Pests ... - Agriculture Victoria

Declared noxious weeds and pest animals in Victoria | Legislation ...

Invasive Plant Classifications

State Prohibited Weeds

Regionally Prohibited Weeds

Regionally Controlled Weeds

State prohibited weeds

Regionally prohibited weeds

Regionally controlled weeds

DE NOVO & OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION & FAILING TO INVOKE

INDEPENDENT/IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J. judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au

Some of the issues but not in any of priority

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

The following was provided to the Court prior to the hearing:

Some of the issues but not in any of priority

Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J. judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au

In my view this also applies to Mr Wayne Wall!

Awaiting your response,

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

Let me explain that I as a CONSTITUTIONALIST on 19 July 2006 I comprehensively

The following authority (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html) Ex Parte Young - 209

Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942

It was said in Henderson v Henderson that:

There are numerous other statements that indicate likewise equality. .

HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

No. 2.] WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2. [1901.

QUOTE 21-2-2016 correspondence

The Hon Justice Margaret McMurdo AC

This document deals with independents of the judiciary.

In this you refer to self -represented litigants, etc.

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates