G54449 00 John Brumby Premier COMPLAINT Etc

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
John Brumby Premier of the State of Victoria 11-2-2010

john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au
5 .
Cc; * Mr & Mrs Colosimo, 72 Shuter Avenue, Greendale, Vic 3341 francesco.c@live.com.au
* Mr Lindsay M Vowels Phd FAPS MAPA aeiou@netspace.net.au
* Maddocks (for Moorabool Shire Council) (Ref MYM:KJM:5285015
Email Annie.Bird@maddocks.com.au
10 * Deputy Registrar Ashe Whitaker VCAT – Guardian List) vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au
* Senior Member Ms Preuss vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au
* Mr Brendan Hoysted brendan.hoysted@justice.vic.gov.au
* Mr. Peter Sier, Peter.sier@statetrustees.com.au
* Moorabool Shire Council Councillors info@moorabool.vic.gov.au
15 Cr Michael Tudball mtudball@moorabool.vic.gov.au
Cr Allan Comrie Cr Pat Griffin Cr Pat Toohey (mayor) Cr Tom Sullivan
Cr Russell Hendry Cr Philip Flack and/or any other councillor
* Victorian Government Solicitors Office, 1072628 C/o Monika Pekevska Stephen.Lee@vgso.vic.gov.au
* Dr Lindsay M Vowels Phd FAPS MAPA aeiou@netspace.net.au
20 .
Ref; G54449/00 (including V2/2007 & P194/2007 and other related proceedings) Mr Francis James Colosimo Re
John Brumby Premier - COMPLAINT - etc.
.
. John Brumby Premier - COMPLAINT - etc
25 John,
this is a formal complaints against the conduct of Stephen lee, Assistant Victorian
Government Solicitor and others.
I received a 5 February 2010 correspondence from Stephen lee indicating that VCAT had
30 instructed him that I was in breach of s37(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administration Act 1988
publishing details that identified Mr Francis James Colosimo and unless by 4 PM on Wednesday
10 February 2010 I would withdraw the publications from various Internet websites he would
commence legal proceedings, etc.
35 Upon this I wrote a series of correspondences which includes quotations of VCAT’s own website
were it had not only been publishing the identity of Mr Francis James Colosimo but in fact had
also published considerable details about their “victim” Mr Francis James Colosimo, albeit being
concocted to what it prefers to publish and as I represent within s.62 of the VCAT act Mr Francis
James Colosimo and he request me to publish as well as that I did also request him if he would
40 consent for me to publish, upon which he agreed also, I held it appropriate that as a registered
book publisher of book in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and
other legal issues it therefore was appropriate for me to publish details.
p1 11-2-20 10
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Again, VCAT all along had publish the identity of Mr Francis James Colosimo and as such I
could not publish his identity more then VCAT already had done for about 2 years prior to that I
began to publish details about the identity of Mr Francis James Colosimo.
5 On 22 October 2009 Mr Wells counsel for the State Trustees limited then was waiving around
copies of posters I had printed and published claiming to Senior VCAT member Ms Preuss that I
was acting in CONTEMPT of VCAT provisions. Upon this I explained to Ms Preuss that I was
lawfully publishing details and entitled to do so. Ms Preuss upon this responded (see transcript)
“I am not going to get involved in this”.
10 .
Ms Preuss being well aware form the material I submitted that I registered the book title;
.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on VCAT as a STAR CHAMBER & KANGAROO COURT-No1
A Book on DVD about the injustice upon Mr Francis James Colosimo
15 ISBN 978-0-9803712-7-7
As author of those books I have canvassed to great length how VCAT continually disregard the
rule of law and indicated that Mr Francis James Colosimo may personally sue her for acting
without jurisdiction. Hence, it seems to me that Ms Preuss now may seek to stop publications
20 that exposes what I view to be her illegal activities.
As per Stephen Lee’s correspondence to contact Monika Pekevska I did so albeit making sure
that the correspondence were forwarded via Stephen lee’s email address
Stephen.Lee@vgso.vic.gov.au as to avoid any later argument that he might be unaware of the
25 correspondences.
On 27 January 2010 Ms Preuss during a purported directions Hearing then argued that my
correspondence were not relevant as they were not that of Mr Francis James Colosimo. I then
pointed out that Mr Francis James Colosimo had recently written correspondence to her in his
30 own handwriting that he relied upon my correspondences and as such they were relevant. Ms
Preuss then commented that she had not read the correspondence I had forwarded upon which I
pointed out that VCAT had acknowledged to me having received the correspondence.
What we therefore had that as I view it Ms Preuss tried to play some kind of cat and mouse game
pretending first my writings were not relevant and when she was caught out with this then
35 pretending she had not read the correspondence and obviously I made clear I had been notified
VCAT had received it. More over my 19 January 2010 correspondence pointed out to Ms Preuss
that she had absolutely no evidence to proceed with any hearing and Ms Preuss upon this then
called an urgent hearing in the afternoon of 25 January 2010 (26 January 2010 being a public
holiday) for a 27 January 2010 urgent Directions hearing.
40
If Ms Preuss had no knowledge of the content of my 19 January 2010 correspondence, pointing
out that legally she had no evidence before her, then she would hardly have called the 27 january
2010 directions hearing for Mr Francis James Colosimo to file “incriminating” evidence against
himself. (STAR CHAMBER COURT kind of litigation)
45
I pointed out to Ms Preuss that as she had failed since 27 January 2009 to deal with the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then she actually never did invoke jurisdiction and any
p2 11-2-20 10
orders she purportedly had issues were without legal force! (KANGAROO COURT kind of
litigation)
Thompson v Tolmie 27 U.S. 157 (1829) Page 27 U.S. 157, 169

5 QUOTE
When a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question that occurs in the
cause; and whether its decisions be correct or not, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded
as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and
orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no
10 bar to a recovery sought in opposition to them even prior to a reversal.'
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are
15 a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may
be rejected upon direct collateral attack.
END QUOTE
VCAT previously had since early 2007 published material about Mr Francis James Colosimo
20 which I view are slanderous upon the person and so character of Mr Francis James Colosimo and
from onset Mr Francis James Colosimo OBJECTED to the JUSTRISDICTION orf VCAT but
ongoing VCAT failed to deal with this appropriately and never did invoke jurisdiction.
(KANGAROO COURT kind of litigation)
25 In December 2009, Mr Francis James Colosimo contacted me requesting me to assist him in

view that I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST as the matters before VCAT pertained constitutional
issues. I accepted doing so, by then the litigation has gone on for about 2 years already.
On 16 March 2009 I assisted Mr Francis James Colosimo before Her Honour Harbison J judge of
30 the County Court of Victoria but also member of VCAT in regard of the 6 th CONTEMPT
hearing against Mr Francis James Colosimo. I pointed out to Her Honour Harbison J that the
lawyers had used her like a fool (in transcript) as Mr Francis James Colosimo had all along acted
within legal provisions but they had fabricated a version of events and concealed relevant details.
I then read out the 7 and 17 January 2007 notice of Moorabool Shire Council which
35 acknowledged that Mr Francis James Colosimo constructed lawfully an outbuilding (shed).
I submitted that the CONTEMPT proceedings were ill conceived, etc. In the end Her Honour
Harbison J made known she accepted my submissions and ordered a PERMENTN STAY of the
proceedings, as well ordered I be provided with all transcripts of the contempt hearings.
40
When I received the transcripts the first thing I obviously was looking for was the precise
CONTEMPT charge Her Honour Harbison J had stated against Mr Francis James Colosimo only
to discover that Her Honour Harbison J actually never had formally charged Mr Francis James
Colosimo! Neither had Her Honour Harbison J attended to the NOTICE OF
45 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER that was on file, etc. As such a total disregard to follow proper
legal procedures. And again VCAT still had not invoked any jurisdiction. (KANGAROO
COURT kind of litigation)
p3 11-2-20 10
On 12 June 2008 Her Honour Harbison J then requested the Office of the Public Advocate to
investigate if Mr Francis James Colosimo had wilfully been in contempt with the 30 May 2007
EX PARTE orders of Member Phillip that required for example to remove a “second dwelling”,
5 this even so no “second dwelling” was ever erected and so neither existed and neither were any
charged made against Mr Francis James Colosimo of erecting a “second dwelling”. It just was
fabricated by Member Phillip martin during the EX PARTE hearing to be a “second dwelling”
even so the shed previously had been registered by Footscray TAFE college as a “shed”.
10 Transcript 29-5-2008 Her Honour Harbison J

QUOTE
HER HONOUR : All right. Mr Colosimo, I will allow Mr Higgins to present the case for
you, but I want to make sure that you understand that it’s your case, because you are
the person who has been charged with contempt. You are the person who may go
15 to goal if you’re found guilty of contempt
END QUOTE
.
Again, Her Honour Harbison J had never formally charged mr Francis james colosimo during
any of the 6 purported CONTEMPT hearings.
20
It may be noticed that the 16 March 2009 transcript in the CONTEMPT proceedings before Her
Honour Harbison J when I was assisting Mr Francis James Colosimo, sets out the following;
(Do note the error in my surname spelling, (SHOREL-HLAVKIA should be; Schorel-Hlavka)
QUOTE Transcript 16 March 2009-03-30 QUOTE
25 MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : first of all, I’m not a lawyer. I‘ve no legal training. I’m a
constitutionalist. That means I deal with matters on constitutional matters mainly.
HER HONOUR : All right. Do you have some – you don’t have any legal training?
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : Absolutely not.
END QUOTE
30
QUOTE G54449/00 hearing 27-1-2009 CHRONOLOGY & PRESENTATION
QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees
The contempt proceeding was again heard by Her Honour on 6 November 2008. Following
submissions, and allowing that the administration order was only made eight (8) days earlier,
35 Her Honour adjourned the matter for a full hearing on 16 March 2009. The Court is
satisfied that the charge is proven. The parties are to consult as to the further conduct of
the hearing by 2 March 2009.
As the contempt proceedings are of a criminal nature, State Trustees cannot provide
instructions on behalf of Mr Colosimo.
40 END QUOTE
END QUOTE G54449/00 hearing 27-1-2009 CHRONOLOGY & PRESENTATION
Again
45 The Court is satisfied that the charge is proven.
END QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees
p4 11-2-20 10
Now consider what subsequently Her Honour Harbison J stated on 16 March 2009;
Transcript 16 March 2009 page 24 at 18

QUOTE
5 MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA: And half-way at the bottom part of it, it states – what I stated
was, “After Harbison J already found contempt to have been proven and therefore the
matter is now one between VCAT and Mr Francis James Colosimo as to determine
what if any term of imprisonment should be measured out.” So – that’s what Her
Honour indicated earlier. So this is a matter regarding sentencing itself.
10 HER HONOUR: No, no, that’s not quite right. I haven’t found Mr Colosimo guilty of
contempt because one of the elements that I need to be satisfied about as to
whether or not he’s committed a contempt, is whether his actions were willful.
And that’s the reason the matter went to the Guardianship Tribunal, because I
didn’t know whether he was intentionally disobeying the order or because he
15 was doing so because he had a medical condition. So that’s the matter that the
guardianship application was to explore.
END QUOTE
Again, do carefully consider what Her Honour Harbison J was on about (albeit do not forget that
20 in view of the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER already before Her Honour
Harbison J she had no power (jurisdiction) in any event to pursue an assessment as to the mental
competence of Mr Francis James Colosimo:
It should be noted that as I recall it the State Trustees Limited had submitted to you that Mr
25 Francis James Colosimo was found GUILTY of contempt and I disputed this!
QUOTE 6-2-2010 correspondence

In my view you would do better to vacate the 16 and 17 February 2010 hearing dates in
regard of Mr Francis James Colosimo and have the Victorian Government solicitors Office to
30 appoint someone with enough intelligence who can understand that ultimately we all must
operate within the RULE OF LAW, and so this person may become engaged to seek to resolve
the problems and finally abort the purported administration orders, as well as to ensure just
compensation for Mr Francis James Colosimo for the emotional, mental and financial harm
caused to both himself as well as to his family.
35 END QUOTE 6-2-2010 correspondence
Despite this Ms Preuss seemingly holding various hearings, I am not aware Ms Preuss even once
raised the very issue that Her Honour Harbison J was about:
40 I need to be satisfied about as to whether or not he’s committed a contempt, is

whether his actions were willful.
And that’s the reason the matter went to the Guardianship Tribunal,
p5 11-2-20 10
because I didn’t know whether he was intentionally disobeying the order or because
he was doing so because he had a medical condition.
So that’s the matter that the guardianship application was to explore.
5
I have raised this issue in past but somehow Ms Preuss was more concerned about everything
else, such as if Mr Francis James Colosimo can or cannot appoint a Enduring Power of Attorney,
and when Ms Preuss was provided with statements he is competent for this Ms Preuss still after
one year maintain a prohibition for him to appoint an Enduring Power of Attorney, but to my
10 knowledge never ever bothered in more then one year of ongoing litigation to address the issue
of “wilful contempt”!
Likewise Member Graves in his 29 October 2008 reasons/orders referred to this, albeit he made
clear that a reassessment was to be held before 30 June 2009. As this never eventuated then the
15 20 August 2009 orders technically expired for this and the review no longer can review an order
that no longer is on foot. While Ms Preuss as I view it tried to con Mr Francis James Colosimo as
to choose between a “review” and an “reassessment” so that somehow she could try to claim
jurisdiction the truth is that her as I view it extra ordinary illegal activities has caused ongoing
mental, emotional and financial harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo and the transcript will
20 show that this was also stated to Ms Preuss.
While formal complaints were lodged to the president of VCAT as well as to the president
Review nothing came from this and this seems to me to underline that what I view as illegal
activities is a modus operandi so grinded into VCAT that it may be a norm to those acting as
25 judicial officers in VCAT.
I have below again reproduced a copy of the correspondence of the Registrar of VCAT and
it must be clear that publication by me is lawfully executed.
30 QUOTE Publication by VCAT Principal Registrar

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUARDIANSHIP LIST
35 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
PENALTIES FOR DISCLOSURE OF
INFORMATION
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is

40 Providing the attached documents to you on a confidential basis.
Section 34, 35 and 36 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative

Tribunal Act 1998 provide that you must not, directly or
indirectly, disclose this information to any person to whom the
45 information has not been released or make copies of documents
containing the information. You may be liable for a penalty of
up to $6,000.00 if you do so.
p6 11-2-20 10
(The VCAT ACT may be reviewed at www.vcat.vic.gov.au)
You may disclose information if you have the written consent of

5 the person to whom it relates or in other circumstances, such as
in reporting to police a suspected offence, or assisting police
investigating a suspected offence.
Otherwise,, if you wish to disclose the information to another

10 person you must contact VCAT and seek permission to do so.
Principal Registrar
VCAT
15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55 King Street, Melbourne Vic 3000 Vic. Toll Free 1800 133 055 Telephone 03 9628 9911
20 GPO Box 5408CC Melbourne Vic 3001 Internet ww.vcat.vic.gov.au Facsimile 03 9628 9932
END QUOTE Publication by VCAT Principal Registrar
END QUOTE 100208-G54449-00-VGSO-Monika Pekevska-Re NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS-etc.doc
25 Again:
QUOTE
You may disclose information if you have the written consent of
the person to whom it relates or in other circumstances
END QUOTE
30
As the transcripts were provided and refer also to my presentation before Her Honour
Harbison J I am well entitled to reveal the details in that regard. Further, as Mr Francis
James colosimo requested me to publish matters on his behalf then again the publication is
permitted. Further the term “or in other circumstances” is not limited to police
35 investigations and I view likewise can be applied to exposing inappropriate conduct by
VCAT members, etc.
The following documents were forwarded to Stepehen Lee’s office:

100206-G54449-00-VGSO-Monika Pekevska
40 84 Pages
100206-G54449-00-Ms Preuss-Re Prohibition to publish-etc
5 pages
45 100207-G54449-00-Ms Preuss-Re Wilful contempt-etc

2 Pages
100207-G54449-00-VGSO-Monika Pekevska-Re PUBLISHING-etc
30 Pages
50
p7 11-2-20 10
100208-G54449-00-VGSO-Monika Pekevska-Re NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS-etc
22 pages
5 100209-G54449-00-VGSO-Monika Pekevska-Re Newspaper 14-8-2007 publication-etc
49 Pages
100209-G54449-00-VGSO-Stephen Lee AVGS-etc.doc

6 pages
10
The application to Guardianship List by Mr Brandan Hoysted, Duty Officer, Office of the Public
Advocate reveals the following, under the heading “Issues to be determined”;
QUOTE 16-7-2008 Application by Office of the Public Advocate

15 Mr Colosimo is the
respondent in Contempt
Proceedings. That matter
was adjourned pending
investigation by OPA
20 +, if appropriate, applic-
ation to the Guardianship
list if VCAT for an order
of administration.
Dr Stobart says Mr
25 Colosimo suffers from a
mental disorder + that he
is not capable of managing
his own affairs – in
particular the contempt
30 proceedings.
END QUOTE 16-7-2008 Application by Office of the Public Advocate
The issue is that it was not at all about if Mr Francis James Colosimo could manage the
contempt proceedings but if he was mentally competent to stand trial.
35 Ample of people are not able to manage contempt proceedings and may enlist the
assistances of a lawyer but they can still be mentally competent to stand trial for contempt!
The application in my view does not at all reflect what was requested by Her Honour
Harbison J to be assessed and that is the mental competence of Mr Francis James Colosimo
to stand trial.
40 In my view it is a very serious matter if the Duty officer of the office of the Public Advocate
cannot distinguish the difference between assessing a person for mental competence to
stand trial or between assessing the mental competence of a person to administer his own
financial affairs!
45 Lets now check the terms of the order of administration!
QUOTE 29-10-2008 order

ORDER
p8 11-2-20 10
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL GUARDIANSHIP LIST
Proceeding in relation to Francis Colosimo under
5 Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 Section 43 administration order.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the pproposed person has a disability: is unable by reason of that
disability to make reasonable judgment about their estate: and needs an administrator.
10 And
3. This administration order be reassessed no later than 30 June 2009.
END QUOTE 29-10-2008 order
And
15 QUOTE 29-10-2008 order
6. The administrator is to restrict intervention to areas necessary to achieve resolution of issues
related to disputes with the Moorabool Shire Council concerning overdue rates: and to matters
relating to planning permits and associated issues which are before VCAT.
END QUOTE 29-10-2008 order
20
Not only does this order not at all address the competence of Mr Francis James Colosimo as to
mental competence to stand trial for contempt, but it goes of so to say into the deep end about
overdue rates not at all an issue before Her Honour Harbison J as a purported CONTEMPT issue.
25 More over, it refers to “and to matters relating to planning permits and associated issues
which are before VCAT” and as Moorabool Shire Council by its NOTICE dated 7 and 17
January 2007 acknowledged that Mr Francis James colosimo was in compliance with relevant
legislative provisions for building the “OUTBUILDING” (SHED) then the purpose of the
orders was clearly not at all for which Her Honour Harbison J requested the office of the Public
30 Advocate to investigate!
QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees Limited
The Tribunal's Order dated 29 October 2008, clause 6 states:
35 "The administrator is to restrict intervention to areas necessary to achieve

resolution of issues related to disputes with the Moorabool Shire Council
concerning overdue rates; and to matters relating to planning permits and
associated issues which are before VCAT".
END QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees Limited
40
The Council has their order and will continue to ensure that it is enforced, this meaning that the
shed will ultimately be dismantled and removed from the property.
45
It seems that now it is a shed after all?
p9 11-2-20 10
The council have the provision, under the Local Government Act 1989, to engage the
services of a contractor to demolish the building and restore the land to its origin al state.
5 The council would pay the contra ctor and then charge that cost directly to Mr Colosimo.
Further discussions with the council will be dependent on the outcome of the rehearing,
for the need for an administration order.
The great concern in this matter is that Mr Colosimo, because of his personal beliefs, well
intentioned as they are, may receive a custodial sentence, with a possibility that he may
10 also lose his family home.
-
Mr Peter Sier will attend the rehearing on behalf of State Trustees.
15
What we have is that while there is no legal dispute about the “OUTBUILDING” (shed) as
Moorabool Shire Council by way of 7 and 17 January 2007 dated NOTICE acknowledged this
was build within legal provisions, somehow Mr Peter Sier for State Trustees Limited
nevertheless indicates to have this lawfully build “shed” demolished at cost of Mr Francis James
20 Colosimo, and so in direct breach to the terms of the 29 October 2008 administration orders, as
these orders do not at all authorise the removal of a lawfully build shed!
Also consider the sheer arrogance by Mr Peter Sier in the following quotation of his 21-1-2009
correspondence stating “Neither of these gentlemen hold a current practicing legal certificate.”
25 As this clearly is not relevant within s.62 of the VCAATA! And, he himself is not to my
knowledge a legal practitioner and obviously has problems to understand the true meaning and
application or terms of orders!

30 We have met with Mr Colosimo at his home on two occassions and had a number of
telephone conversations. At our second meeting with him, we also involved his wife, Mary,
in the conversation. Mr Colosimo contends that he has never been given due process, that
he has never been properly listen to. He has been refused legal aid, on the grounds that he
has a high equity in his proper ty. He does not have the financi al resourc es to engage a
35 private solicitor. Mr Erroll Higgins has represented Mr Colosimo, it would appear in a
somewhat ad-hoc manner. Mr Colosimo will be represented at the rehearing by Mr Gerrit
Schorel-Hlavka. Neither of these gentlemen hold a current practicing legal certificate.
40 It is obvious that instead of having court litigation it is conducted by a tribunal there is nothing
but errors made ongoing and below some more to underline the total absurdity as to have
something like VCAT dealing with legal issues where obviously, in my view, it is totally
incompetent to do so.
p10 11-2-2010
Preston Ice and Cool Stores Pty Ltd. v. Hawkings (1955) V.L.R. 89; (1955) Austin Digest 337.
QUOTE
It was held that where there is a review/appeal the party having sought such
review/appeal is not bound by the grounds used in the original hearing but may refer to
5 other grounds even so, such grounds had not been upon which the original order was
based.
END QUOTE
While Ms Preuss may have preferred to rely upon the 21 January 2009 statement of Mr Peter
10 Sier of State Trustees Limited nevertheless as a judicial officer she had an obligation to consider
the material I had placed before her for Mr Francis James Colosimo and clearly her failure to do
so is no excuse.
But it gets even worse! What did eventuate as to the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
15 MATTER?
20
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the
25 inalienable right of everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
END QUOTE
No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:

LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO
30 (1936) A.C. 332, at 335
QUOTE
But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of
justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the
ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat
35 of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to err
therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to
those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of
criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they
are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny
40 and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary man
END QUOTE
The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER “THE EVENING
45 NEWS” (1880) N.S.W. LR 211 AT 239.:
QUOTE
p11 11-2-2010
The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be
disputed. Our practice of sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions
as we do, always in the broad light of day, would be shown of some of its value if the public
opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be rigidly suppressed. We claim no
5 immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
END QUOTE
As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
(a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368
10 (b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
(c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
(d) SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31
QUOTE 6-2-2010 CORRESPONDENCE

15 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Victorian Government Solicitors Office 6-2-2010
C/o Monika Pekevska Stephen.Lee@vgso.vic.gov.au
.
20 * Maddocks (for Moorabool Shire Council) (Ref MYM:KJM:5285015
*Senior Member Ms Preuss vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au
* Deputy Registrar Ashe Whitaker VCAT – Guardian List) vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au
25 * Mr. Peter Sier, Peter.sier@statetrustees.com.au
Cr Michael Tudball mtudball@moorabool.vic.gov.au
30 .
Monika Pekevska,
Thank you for your 5 February 2010 correspondence but I am a little
puzzled as to what you refer to as being confidential details. The question is if the legislation is
applicable in the circumstances as I explain also to some extend below. I will take the position
35 that you obviously are not at all aware of what the circumstances are and do not intend to
obstruct the course of justice and neither to seek to interfere with the rights of Mr Francis James
Colosimo in that regard but I do seek you to understand that I made known to Ms Preuss on 27
January 2010 that a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS will be filed and below
some details will be set out in that regard also as to enable you to understand you might do better
40 to not make the matters worse against Mr Francis James Colosimo and perhaps do give Ms
Preuss some sound legal advise that she is bound by the RULE OF LAW regardless if she
doesn’t like it. Still, whatever may be argued about this nevertheless Member Philips Martin
himself in the 30-5-2007 reasons referred to;
QUOTE
45 As indicated above, the Respondent did not make its position any easier by failing to
provide the Tribunal with any real arguments against the enforcement orders, apart from
the jurisdictional challenge which the Deputy President Gibson indicated in her 14 March
2007 orders should be pursued at the Victorian Supreme Court rather than at the Tribunal.
END QUOTE
50 As set out below, there is no such thing as a Respondent to prove jurisdiction as the onus is
upon the prosecutor and unless and until, if ever at all the is a formal order and reason of
judgment to dismiss the objection to jurisdiction no jurisdiction ever was invoked and no
p12 11-2-2010
order made has any legal validity. Do keep in mind that Her Honour Harbison J held 6
purported CONTEMPT proceedings against Mr Francis James Colosimo and as set out
below claimed she could imprison Mr Francis James Colosimo even so as I detected from
the 6 transcripts Her Honour Harbison J actually never had formally charged Mr Francis
5 James Colosimo, and it out of these VEXATIOUS CONTEMPT proceedings that the
administration orders eventuated! And identification of a party to the proceedings
eventuate the moment VCAT itself published details for listing even on the Internet as I
understood it to eventuate on various occasions, even before I published any!
QUOTE Internet 6-2-2010 publications
10 http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256DBB0022825D/HomePage?ReadForm&1=Home~&2=~&3=
~
click on;
Daily Law List

15 You then go to:
http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256DBB0022825D/page/Daily+Law+List?OpenDocument&1=2
0-Daily+Law+List~&2=~&3=~
click on;
Guardianship law list
20
The following list the identities of persons involved in guardianship cases that were held on 5
February 2010!
http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256DBB0022825D/page/Daily+Law+List-
Guardianship+Law+List?OpenDocument&1=20-Daily+Law+List~&2=10-
25 Guardianship+Law+List~&3=~
Guardianship Law List Print this page
Please note: The law list for the next working day is published each day between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m.
subject to late changes.
FRIDAY, 5 FEBRUARY 2010
Hearing Room G.5, Ground Floor, 55 King Street, Melbourne

Member Kefford
09:30 AM Elizabeth Gacsi G59097/00

10:30 AM Mavis Irene James G50099/06
11:30 AM Mahmud Gulad G59063/00
02:00 PM Roma George G58986/00
02:45 PM William Barry Howe G39349/04
Hearing Room G.7, Ground Floor, 55 King Street, Melbourne

Senior Member Scott
09:30 AM Harold (Harry) Francis G30544/05

10:30 AM Jack Williams G59037/00
11:15 AM Miriam Lewis G59041/00
12:00 PM Darren Grant Coulton G14917/07
p13 11-2-2010
02:00 PM Eden Stockman G58975/00
03:30 PM Joan Bullock G51007/01
Law Courts, Nicholson Street, Bairnsdale

Member Lightfoot
02:00 PM Allan David Baines G34312/05

02:15 PM Winifred Mary Bowyer G59035/00
03:15 PM James Ireland G55054/01
Moorabbin Court, 1140 Nepean Highway, Highett

Member Holloway
09:30 AM Sophia Skouteri G56712/01

11:30 AM Phyllis Agnes Le Grand G58525/00
12:15 PM Helen Zacharia G33247/07
02:00 PM Wilma Marks G56128/01
02:45 PM Yun Kuong G48036/02
03:30 PM Kylie-Anne Caroline Hyder G30560/08
http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256DBB0022825D/page/Daily+Law+List-
Guardianship+Law+List?OpenDocument&1=20-Daily+Law+List~&2=10-
Guardianship+Law+List~&3=~
5 click on:
Decisions
And you go to:
VCAT decisions are available for download from the Australasian Legal Information Institute
website (AustLii) at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/
10
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
You are here: AustLII >> Databases >> Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Help]
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

15 Database last updated: 6 February 2010
Most recent decision: 27 January 2010
Number of decisions: 26302
Decisions beginning with ...
0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
20 Decisions for the years ...
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decisions beginning with C ...
25 Then at:
p14 11-2-2010
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=boolean&query=colosimo&meta=%2Fau&mask_path=au%2Fcases%2
Fvic%2FVCAT
5 You can download details such as those listed cases:

o Show All Sections
 By Title
1. Colosimo v Moorabool SC [2007] VCAT 948 (30 May 2007) [100%]

(From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 30 May 2007; 33 KB)
10 2. Colosimo Ors v Director of Liquor Licensing (Occupational and Business Regulation)

[2008] VCAT 1616 (24 June 2008) [88%]
(From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 24 June 2008; 17 KB)
3. Moorabool SC v Colosimo [2007] VCAT 1367 (1 August 2007) [45%]

(From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 1 August 2007; 17 KB)
15 4. Morgan v Clark Bros Painters Renderers (Domestic Building) [2007] VCAT 1908 (3
October 2007) [2%]
(From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 3 October 2007; 12 KB)
5. Walter Or v Manningham CC [1999] VCAT 987 (31 May 1999) [1%]

(From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 31 May 1999; 61 KB)
20 6. The King David School v Stonnington CC [2009] VCAT 558 (27 March 2009) [1%]
(From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 27 March 2009; 89 KB)
7. Frobose v Victorian College of the Arts [2000] VCAT 1282 (30 June 2000) [1%]
(From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 30 June 2000; 78 KB)
END QUOTE Internet 6-2-2010 publications
25 .
QUOTE Colosimo v Moorabool SC [2007] VCAT 948 (30 May 2007). Doc
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2007/948.html?query=title(COLOSIMO)
Colosimo v Moorabool SC [2007] VCAT 948 (30 May 2007)

30 Last Updated: 8 June 2007
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
END QUOTE 6-2-2010 CORRESPONDENCE
35
QUOTE 6-2-2010 CORRESPONDENCE
Seems to me that VCAT itself published considerable amount of material about Mr
Francis James Colosimo well before I ever became involved in the case and worse is
that it all purports that Mr Francis James Colosimo acted in breach of law where he
40 never did so! Now, if you content that this kind of slander against his person and so
his character should be left unanswered then obviously you do not seem to understand
what legal rights a person has. It should be clear that my first appearance before VCAT in
the co0losimo case was on 27 January 2009 after Mr Francis James Colosimo contacted me
in December 2008 that he had this long running case, and then I was able to down load
p15 11-2-2010
from VCAT website the details, and not just his identity but a lot more. As the above
quoted material downloaded from VCAT website indicates. Now fancy you going to court
and claiming it is alright for VCAT to disregard the RULE OF LAW and terrorist this Mr
Francis James Colosimo with VEXATIOUS LITIGATION without jurisdiction but no
5 one should be entitled to publish the truth!
.
Look at all the names of cases I downloaded from VCAT website about cases involved
in Guardianship List, and for that also on the president review website there are
identities available and for so far I am aware of you cannot prevent the publication of
10 details that are already readily otherwise available such as on the VCAT website! I
urge you to get real and apply common sense and to rather advice VCAT to stop their kind
of terrorism upon Mr Francis James Colosimo with their long running VEXXATIOUS
LITIGATION without jurisdiction!
.
15 Her Honour Harbison J on 16-3-2009 accepted my submission to stay the
CONTEMPT proceedings, as I submitted to Her Honour Harbison J there was no
jurisdiction, there was no valid order, there was no “second dwelling”, no one in the
world could comply with the terms of the order, Mr Francis James Colosimo had not
committed any offence and the lawyers had used her as a fool!
20 Clearly, Mr Francis James Colosimo from onset objected to the jurisdiction of VCAT since
at least January 2007 and as long before I became involved in the case and as yet this was
never formally attended to and hence VCAT never in the first place invoked legal
jurisdiction and hence no VCAT legislation can be then enforced against Mr Francis James
Colosimo, on who’s request I commenced to publish matters, because he desires the public
25 to know about the grave injustice done to him and the VEXATION litigation that is
maintained by Ms Preuss in conflict of Mr Francis James Colosimo CIVIL and other
constitutional rights.
30 QUOTE 6-2-2010 CORRESPONDENCE

QUOTE vcaata1998428
107 Dealing with questions of law
(1) A question of law arising in a proceeding must be decided by a judicial member or
a member who is a legal practitioner.
35 (2) If the Tribunal is constituted in a proceeding by more than one judicial member or
legal practitioner (or both), a question of law arising in the proceeding must be
decided by the presiding member.
(3) If a question of law arises in a proceeding where the Tribunal is constituted by a
member or members who are not judicial members or legal practitioners—
40 (a) the question must be decided by another member who is a judicial member or
legal practitioner; and
(b) for that purpose only, the Tribunal in the proceeding is to be reconstituted to
include that other member.
(4) In this section, question of law includes a question of mixed law and fact.
45 END QUOTE vcaata1998428
.
p16 11-2-2010
As VCAT is not a “court’ within Chapter III of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) (see also the 1956 Boilermakers case) but is an organ of the State government
and not being a court that can invoke federal jurisdiction and hence cannot either deal with
matters concerning the (federal) constitution, then it is a violation of Mr Francis James Colosimo
5 CIVIL RIGHTS to have him without legal justification subjected to purported VCAT
administration orders without legal justification!
.
Bowers v Smith (1953) 1 ALL ER 320 (Re Clarke Hall) and (Morrison on Children, 7 Ed ,P3)
QUOTE
10 "... the first business of the court is to try to issue whether or not the case is bought
within the terms of the statute, and only if this be proven by proper evidence can the
court proceed to decide upon treatment"
(See CROSS v. DE VALLE, 68 U.S. 5 (1863) and other cases in Folder 11 of the CD)
END QUOTE
15 .
QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it
must be proven.
END QUOTE
20
QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,
Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
END QUOTE
25 QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,

No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
30 Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.
Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial
35 proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and
afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.
END QUOTE
.
Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
40 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
45 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
.
50 QUOTE R. Watson; Ex Parte Armstrong: Full Court of the HIGH COURT: (1976) 1 FLR
11, 297; 9 ALR 551;(1976) FLC 90-059
p17 11-2-2010
exercises judicial power and must discharge his duties judicially.
END QUOTE
.
The High Court of Australia held that where a party pleads the non-application of a State Act
5 because of Commonwealth legislation then the State Court is exercising Federal jurisdiction.
(However only if the State Court can invoke jurisdiction, which VCAT cannot and neither is a
court!) Troy v Wrigglesworth (1919) 26 C.L.R. 305; 25 (1926) 38 C.L.R. 441; 33 A.L.R. 66.
.
QUOTE In the marriage of Smith v Saywell (1980) Fam LR 6 245 at 258
10 Where a case pending in a federal court other than the HIGH COURT or in a court of a state
or territory involves a matter arising under the Constitution involving its interpretation, it is
the duty of the court not to proceed in the cause unless and until the court is satisfied that
notice of the cause, specifying the nature of the matter has been given to the Attorney
General of the commonwealth and (a) if the cause is pending in a court of a state - to the
15 Attorney General of that state; or (b) if the cause is pending in a Federal court and was
initiated in a state - to the Attorney General of that state, and for a reasonable time elapsed
since the giving of the notice for consideration by that Attorney General or by those
Attorney General, of the question of intervention in the proceedings or the removal of the
cause to the HIGH COURT.
20 END QUOTE
.
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
25 the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and
secure to him.
30 END QUOTE
.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
35 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
Constitution,
END QUOTE
40
At no time did VCAT invoke jurisdiction and conducted numerous VEXATIOUS hearings
causing ongoing emotional, mental and financial harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo.
Without seeking to indicate that Mr Graves had jurisdiction to deal with matters concerning Mr
45 Francis James Colosimo, as this remains disputed, the point is that his 29 October 2008 orders
stipulated an reassessment before 30 June 2009, this did not eventuate and as such in any event
those orders seized to be applicable by failure of a reassessment.
p18 11-2-2010
A review of a decision, but not ignoring the fact you never invoked jurisdiction either by failing
to deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, etc, you had a legal obligation, yes a legal
obligation, to competently conduct matters within a reasonable time span. The courts have at
times dismissed charges where it held that the prosecution of charges were not executed within a
5 reasonable time and the time delay itself is an injustice upon the accused. Hence any judicial
officer has to diligently deal with litigation with the least amount of delay.
A FAIR MINDED PERSON therefore may conclude that the Guardianship List hearings never
10 at all were held for the very purpose that Her Honour Harbison J requested matters to be
investigated as to if Mr Francis James Colosimo was mentally competent to stand trial for
CONTEMPT.
While Graves in his orders indicate for State Trustees limited to deal with planning issues, and
15 not at all the demolition of a lawfully build shed, as Moorabool Shire Council itself by way of 7
and 17 January 2007 notice acknowledged the shed was build within legal provisions,
nevertheless the 21 January 2009 correspondence of State Trustees Limited indicated that Mr
Peter Sier of State Trustees Limited was making arrangements with Moorabool Shire Council to
demolish and remove the shed as cost of Mr Francis James Colosimo. Clearly, this was outside
20 the terms of the orders of Graves. As such even if it was deemed, not that we concede this, there
was jurisdiction for the 29 October 2008 orders of Graves then State Trustees Limited clearly
intended to act in defiance of these orders.
Despite of my comprehensive writings and my requests to withdraw the content of the 5

25 February 2010 correspondence Stephen Lee Acting Victorian government solicitor failed to do
so and when then my 77 year old wife read his 5 February 2010 correspondence she started to
have very much difficulties because of what was stated in this correspondence.
In my view Stephen Lee acted without due and proper regard to first investigate matters and
without due and proper regard to withdraw the content of the 5-2-2010 correspondence when it
30 should have been obvious to him that so to say VCAT had led him up to a garden path and not
disclosed the true legal position that was applicable.
I view it scandalous enough that VCAT has continue the VEXATIOUS litigation against Mr
Francis James Colosimo for so long but if it now proposes to take me on then so to say they have
35 something coming to them because I will continue to publish matters as permitted within my
constitutional and other rights.
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
40 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and
45 secure to him.
END QUOTE
p19 11-2-2010
.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
5 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
Constitution,
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

10 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the
provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the
people.
15 END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains
20 unwritten,
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
25 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can
reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also
a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
whom it will embrace and unite.
30 END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about
35 to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about
to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
40 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
45 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
p20 11-2-2010
those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
5 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
10 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

15 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
20 .
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
25 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
30
Because the states were created within s.106 of the federal constitution “subject to this
constitution” it means that all legal principles embedded in the federal constitution also applies
to the States.
35 QUOTE Re: Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458 James LJ

A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom
a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or
wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something.
END QUOTE
40
QUOTE
Privy Council in Att Gen of Gambia v N'Jie (1961) AC 617
But the definition of James LJ is not to be regarded as exhaustive. Lord M R pointed out in
Ex Parte Official Receiver, re Reed Bowen and Co. (1887) 19 QBD 174 at p178. The
45 words person aggrieved are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restrictive
interpretation. They do not include, of course, a mere busy body who is interfering in things
p21 11-2-2010
that do not concern him; but they do include a person who has a grievance because an order
was made which prejudicially affects his interests.
END QUOTE
5 QUOTE
In R v Hall (Warwick & Asizes, 1-4-1845. Maule J.) (1845)
Be it so; yet you had no right to take the law into your own hands, I will tell you what you
ought to have done, and if you did know, I will tell you that the law conclusively presumes
that you did.
10 END QUOTE
In my view Stephen lee should have appropriately checked the files if there were any statement
on file (so also transcript) that would indicate that I was lawfully publishing details that
identified Mr Francis James Colosimo. Keeping in mind that it is not the publication of details
15 but the cause to identify him that is in issue in the legislation, and this clearly was all along done
by VCAT’s own website publications about 2 years prior to that I commenced to publish details.
then clearly there can be no breach of legislative provisions either even if, not that this is
conceded, VCAT had invoked jurisdiction and so the provisions of the VCAATA applied.
Where VCAT never invoked jurisdiction then it is irrelevant if then I did or didn’t publish
20 because without jurisdiction the VCAT provisions as to publication cannot be maintained either.
While ordinary Stephen lee as Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor was entitled to pursue
the proper application of legislative provisions and to forward the 5 February 2010
correspondence, even if having misconceived the legal position, however, once he was made
25 aware by the content of my correspondences that he had it completely wrong that the
publications were lawful then I view he had a legal obligation to immediately withdraw the
content of his 5 February 2010 correspondence and not persist with it, as it now also caused
considerable harm upon my wife when she read the correspondence on 9 February 2010 and by
then Stephen lee had disregarded as I understand he still has by the time of writing this complaint
30 to withdrew his correspondence and the threats contained therein.
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
35 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
40 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
45 the court.
END QUOTE
p22 11-2-2010
Stephen Lee as an OFFICER OF THE COURT should have been well aware that he uses a
special position and should neither recklessly engage in threats and litigation at cost of taxpayers
while he should or could have been aware that I lawfully published details that identified Mr
Francis James Colosimo after VCAT already had done so for some 2 years on the Internet!
5 .
It should be obvious that Section 37(1) is seeking to avoid disclosure of identity of Mr Francis
James Colosimo and as VCAT itself already had ongoing disclosed this since early 2007 then
any publication by me never could have disclosed his identity more then already have been done
by VCAT.
10
QUOTE 9-2-2010 correspondence to the office of Stephen Lee
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Victorian Government Solicitors Office 9-2-2010
C/o Monika Pekevska Stephen.Lee@vgso.vic.gov.au
15 .
* MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER Melton@leadersnewspapers.com.au Editor. A Jefferson
* Maddocks (for Moorabool Shire Council) (Ref MYM:KJM:5285015
20 *Senior Member Ms Preuss vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au
* Deputy Registrar Ashe Whitaker VCAT – Guardian List) vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au
* Mr. Peter Sier, Peter.sier@statetrustees.com.au
25 Cr Michael Tudball mtudball@moorabool.vic.gov.au
.
Monika Pekevska,
30 Further to my previous correspondence let me remind you about the following:
In this document I will set out albeit in a limited manner the need to publish details in particular
where I view already way back on 14 August 2007 MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER
published an article about Mr Francis James Colosimo I view is slanderous and failed to present
35 a balanced account of the real issues. I will below quote one particular article I am aware of that I
view also place in question the conduct of Moorabool Shire Council having pursued litigation
and presenting matters deceptively for the article despite that it knew or ought to have known
that by its 7 and 17 January 2007 notice (prior to any litigation being on foot) it had
acknowledged that Mr Francis James Colosimo actually lawfully was building his shed!
40
In particular in a small community like MOORABOOL any adverse publication such as this by
MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER of 14 August 2007 about Mr Francis James Colosimo in
my view has a dramatically mental, emotional and financial harm upon Mr Francis James
Colosimo and his family. I am not aware that MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER ever since
45 published a retraction and/or correction to clarify its error in presenting an account that clearly
did not at all reflect the true legal circumstances.
In my view it is the inherited right of a person aggrieved by deceptive statements to set out his
case as he deems appropriate and where I assist/represent Mr Francis James Colosimo and been
50 requested to publish matters then I am well entitled to do so as well as seek that MELTON
p23 11-2-2010
MOORABOOL LEADER retracts its article and/or in the alternative publish a corrected
version that reflects the true legal circumstances as was all along applicable and publish also a
formal apology to Mr Francis James Colosimo and his family for having causes either directly or
indirectly for so long harm upon him and his family.
5
QUOTE 090126-G54449-00-CHRONOLOGY & PRESENTATION
14-8-2007 Melton Moorabool publish article as to the 30-5-2007 ruling of VCAT member
Philip Martin against unrepresented Respondent Mr. Francis James Colosimo
and by this reveals the statement of Moorabool chief executive Robert
10 Dobrzynski; “VCAT has made the ruling the council would expect it to have
made”. As such it could be perceived that Moorabool Shire Council apparently
expected no matter the legalities that VCAT would, so to say. tow its line.
END QUOTE 090126-G54449-00-CHRONOLOGY & PRESENTATION
15 VCAT was therefore made aware by me not only about the publication regarding Mr Francis
James Colosimo but also as it appears to me to indicate that VCAT did what was expected to be
done for Moorabool Shire Council regardless how unlawful and unconstitutional it might be, as
after all Moorabool Shire Council should or would have been aware from its own files that Mr
Francis James Colosimo was lawfully building his shed!
20
While concealing the truth from MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER may be perhaps
indicating the dishonesty with Moorabool Shire Council and manipulation of the truth and I view
the lack of proper journalistic investigation for the article, on the other hand to do so and conceal
from adjudicators the true legal circumstances as to fraudulently obtain orders and cause
25 VEXATIOUS LITIGATION on a grand scale against Mr Francis James Colosimo I view should
not be overlooked as it is and has been ongoing to pervert the course of JUSTICE and cause
undue emotional, mental and financial harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo.
.
30 Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF
AUSTRALIA.
QUOTE
In my opinion, the words 'false evidence' in s79A(1) do not mean evidence which is
willfully false. The sub-section should be read according to its terms. To say that 'false
35 evidence should be read as 'willful false evidence' is to introduce a provision not
expressed by the provision; cf s6H of the Royal Commission Act 1902 which speaks of a
witness 'who knowingly gives false testimony'. This interpretation is reinforced by
reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and suppression of
evidence which would comprehend cases of willful false evidence. At common law, a
40 judgement will be set aside if it has been obtained by fraud. In the exercise of this
jurisdiction, it has been held that an applicant must show something more than perjury, ie.
new facts (Baker v. Wadsworth [1898] 67 LJQB 301; Everett V. Ribbands [1946] 175 LT
143). This tends to suggest that the words 'false evidence' should be given their literal
meaning
45 END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
p24 11-2-2010
In my opinion, the jurisdiction extends not only to the setting aside of judgements which
have been obtained without service or notice to a party (Craig v. Kanssen [1943] KB
256 at 262 - 263) but to the setting aside of a default or ex-parte judgement obtained
when the absence of the party is due to no fault on his part. I can find no indication in the
5 Family Law Act of an intention to displace this inherent jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343

Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is
10 true.
END QUOTE
QUOTE 26-1-2009 CHRIONOLOGY & PRESENTATION

Having gone over Unrepresented Respondent Mr Francis James Colosimo’s case there
15 are various issues of concern I be raising with the Tribunal.
.
Some but not all of the issues, albeit not all and neither stated in any order of importance,
and while constitutional issues have been left out of this list it doesn’t mean they are not in
issue as the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is maintained, hence any appearance is
20 UNDER PROTEST;
.
1. By the 7 or 17 January 2007 dated cancellation of the notice of 6 December 2006 within
Section 116 of the Building Act 1993 this in effect created an ESTOPPEL as by then it
was to be held that Council had accepted the shed to be lawfully there, upon having
25 reviewed the matters. Hence, the subsequently instituted proceedings are without legal
basis. (See extensive set out below also!)
2. The Infringement Act 2006 only provides for enforcement of a Penalty Infringement
Notice to be pursued through a Magistrates Court. VCAT has no authority, as set out
30 below!
3. Coral Lynnette Young (Manager Moorabool Shire Council and Maddocks lawyers
concealed from the Court/Tribunal that in fact on 7 or 17 January 2007 the council had
within Section 116 of the Building Act 1993 reconsidered matters and accepted
35 Unrepresented Respondent Mr Francis James Colosimo’s submission cancelling the 6
December 2006 notice. In my view this is a very serious matter to pervert the course of
justice as such. Cancelation could not have been done unless the building, etc, were
within Building Act and Building regulations provisions, as set out below extensively!
40 4. The purported 22 January 2007 filed application again failed to be valid as the legal
requirement is that the person who signs it is witnessed by an adult. This part was left
blank. Hence it lacks legal validity. As such from onset no valid application was filed to
justify the commencement of any legal proceedings.
45 5. Coral Lynnette Young in her Affidavit claims that she instructed on 22 January 2007 for
Maddocks to file her application however the bill from Maddocks reveals that she did so
on 9 January 2007 and had no contact with Maddocks since 17 January 2007 and as such
for her to deceive the Court/Tribunal about this what otherwise might be deemed to be
important alerted me to then be more careful as to her material.
p25 11-2-2010
6. A Court/Tribunal cannot assume JURISDICTION but must decide by way of
JUDICIAL DECISION its jurisdiction or the lack thereof. In view that VCAT has no
invested federal jurisdiction it cannot hear and determine any jurisdictional matters in that
5 regard. As the Prosecutor has the obligation to prove jurisdiction and also overcome each
and every element of Unrepresented Respondent Mr Francis James Colosimo‘s
objections then it was for the prosecutor to seek a ruling from the High Court of Australia
in regard of all and any constitutional matters Unrepresented Respondent Mr Francis
James Colosimo raised. While each party is entitled to pursue a writ for mandamus,
10 prohibition, etc, Unrepresented Respondent Mr Francis James Colosimo was not
obligated to do so and it has no affects upon his objection to jurisdiction not having done
so.
END QUOTE 26-1-2009 CHRONOLOGY & PRESENTATION
15 MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER

Melton@leadersnewspapers.com.au
30 Station Street, Sunbury, 3429
Tel; 9744 9333
Editor Andrew Jefferson
20
Circulation 37,565
Readership 59,000
Frequency Weekly
.
25 The following newspaper article in MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER of 14 August 2007
incorrectly/wrongly alleges that the building was illegal as the outbuilding (SHED) was held by
Moorabool Shire Council to be within legal provisions. The order of VCAT member P. martin
referred to a “second dwelling” and as I submitted to Her Honour Harbsion J on 16 March 2009
not a person in the world could comply with terms of orders referring to a non existing “second
30 dwelling”.
What we have however is that Moorabool Shire Councils’s Mr Dobrzynski didn’t hesitate to
disclose Mr Francis James Colosimo identity and so did MOORABOOL SHIRE COUNCIL
35 and MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER as well as VCAT and somehow for me to publish
the truth as a book publisher, and on request of Mr Francis James Colosimo seems to be
unlawful? Come on!
QUOTE 14-8-2007 MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER

40 Building illegal
Jane Blakeley
A GREENDALE man has been ordered to pull down a partially built room on his property
after the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled the dwelling had been illegally
built.
45 Frances James Colosimo was ordered to demolish the building at his Shuter Ave property
before the end of this month.
p26 11-2-2010
The matter appeared before the state’s planning tribunal after Mr Colosimo erected the
building on his property without seeking building or planning approval from Moorobool
Council. A previous residence already existed ion the land.
The tribunal heard the council became aware of the illegal construction last year and tried
5 to carry out an inspection of the building, but mr colosimo blocked council officers from
attending.
And alternative inspection took place in September last year from an adjoining property.
The council lodged an enforcement application on 22 january 22 to stop Mr Colosimo’s
work, saying the land was being used in contradiction to the Moorabool Planning Scheme.
10 The tribunal heard Mr Colosimo did respond to the council’s notice with two letters on
February 16 and 18 that said the council had no statutory ability or jurisdiction to take
enforcement action against him.
“It would appear the respondent regards the rights which he holds in regard as arising from
either god or otherwise from the respondent;’s various property rights which he believes
15 flow from his registered ownership title to the subject land.” VCAT member Phillip martin
said in his summary. Mr martin said evidence presented to the tribunal suggested the part-
completed dwelling was intended for occupation.
Moorabool chief executive Robert Dobrzynski said the council was pleased with the
outcome.
20 “VCAT has made the ruling the council would expect it to have made.” Mr Dobrzynski
said.
“Although the council made requests to the owner to submit retrospective building and
planning applications on numerous occasions, these request were ignored.”
END QUOTE 14-8-2007 MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER
25
In my view this article could constitute deformation of Mr Francis James Colosimo as it
presents to portray Mr Francis James Colosimo as being a person who has acted in defiance of
legal provisions where as his representatives in proceedings a I have made it very clear that there
is absolutely no reliable evidence to prove Mr Francis James Colosimo actually was in breach of
30 Moorabool Shire Council planning provisions. The article doesn’t appear to me to have provided
any proper set out of all relevant issues!
It should be understood that on 16 march 2009 I assisted Mr Francis James Colosimo in the
CONTEMPT proceedings before Her Honour Harbison J and prior to the hearing provided the
35 following to Her Honour Harbison in the “090308-V2-2007-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-
TRIBUNAL-G54449-00-Part 1” and her honour harbison at the end of the proceedings did as
per my submission PERMANENTLY STAY the proceedings.
QUOTE 9-2-2010 correspondence to the office of Stephen Lee
40 As for any argument that Stephen Lee may not have had time to peruse the extensive material
provided by me to him that to me is no excuse. He took it upon himself to provide me with his
demand and then should have expected a response. He provided the very limited time limit and
so by this placed the onus upon himself to having to deal with my elaborate set outs to show he
had it all wrong.
45 There is no excuse for him to have ignored this because after all had he been more reasonable he
could have instead of his demands written an invitation for me to show cause why my
publications should not be removed in view of Section 37(1) and as such he would have taken a
more gentle approach and avoided making as I view it an utter fool of himself.
p27 11-2-2010
As a solicitor he should at least understand the basics of litigation and that is that before writing a
threatening letter to institute proceedings if material is not withdrawn he could have instead have
a more friendly kind of correspondence leaving space that in case he was misconceiving matters
he would avoid making an utter fool of himself. HE THEN COULD HAVE ALSO
5 CHECKED THE FILES AND BEEN AWARE THAT WHAT VCAT DEMANDED WAS
NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES!
QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by
10 actual injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is
not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.
END QUOTE
In my view in the overall of the material it appears to me that VCAT conspired with the
15 Victorian Government Solicitors Office to try to prevent me to lawfully disclose details as to set
out the correct versions of events and to expose the rot within VCAT and to me that is a very
serious issue. The issue being also that despite my extensive writings in response to the 5
February demand Stephen Lee ignored/refused to withdraw his demand for me to remove all
publications even so he knew or should have been aware that in all circumstances prevailing he
20 had no legal position to maintain this demand, where in the first place the demand was ill
conceived. Victorian Government Solicitors Office should not operate funded by taxpayers as to
abuse and misuse its legal position as in this case cause also considerable harm upon my 77 year
old wife where clearly Stephen Lee could have avoided this had he withdrawn the demand
contained in his 5 February 2010 correspondence as I view any FAIR MINDED PERSON
25 would have done. Hence a formal COMPLAINT against Stephen Lee is in my view justified
and should be upheld and appropriate action be taken to deal with matters.
Nothing in this or any other correspondence is intended and neither must be perceived that
Mr Francis James Colosimo conceded that VCAT had and/or invoked jurisdiction
30
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant matters!
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
35 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
p28 11-2-2010

G54449 00 John Brumby Premier COMPLAINT Etc

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

G54449 00 John Brumby Premier COMPLAINT Etc

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

John Brumby Premier of the State of Victoria 11-2-2010

Thompson v Tolmie 27 U.S. 157 (1829) Page 27 U.S. 157, 169

25 In December 2009, Mr Francis James Colosimo contacted me requesting me to assist him in

10 Transcript 29-5-2008 Her Honour Harbison J

Transcript 16 March 2009 page 24 at 18

QUOTE 6-2-2010 correspondence

40 I need to be satisfied about as to whether or not he’s committed a contempt, is

So that’s the matter that the guardianship application was to explore.

30 QUOTE Publication by VCAT Principal Registrar

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is

Section 34, 35 and 36 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative

You may disclose information if you have the written consent of

Otherwise,, if you wish to disclose the information to another

The following documents were forwarded to Stepehen Lee’s office:

45 100207-G54449-00-Ms Preuss-Re Wilful contempt-etc

100209-G54449-00-VGSO-Stephen Lee AVGS-etc.doc

QUOTE 16-7-2008 Application by Office of the Public Advocate

45 Lets now check the terms of the order of administration!

QUOTE 29-10-2008 order

Proceeding in relation to Francis Colosimo under

5 Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 Section 43 administration order.

QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees Limited

The Tribunal's Order dated 29 October 2008, clause 6 states:

35 "The administrator is to restrict intervention to areas necessary to achieve

END QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees Limited

QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees Limited

No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:

QUOTE 6-2-2010 CORRESPONDENCE

Daily Law List

FRIDAY, 5 FEBRUARY 2010

Hearing Room G.5, Ground Floor, 55 King Street, Melbourne

09:30 AM Elizabeth Gacsi G59097/00

Hearing Room G.7, Ground Floor, 55 King Street, Melbourne

09:30 AM Harold (Harry) Francis G30544/05

Law Courts, Nicholson Street, Bairnsdale

02:00 PM Allan David Baines G34312/05

Moorabbin Court, 1140 Nepean Highway, Highett

09:30 AM Sophia Skouteri G56712/01

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Decisions beginning with ...

20 Decisions for the years ...

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decisions beginning with C ...

5 You can download details such as those listed cases:

1. Colosimo v Moorabool SC [2007] VCAT 948 (30 May 2007) [100%]

10 2. Colosimo Ors v Director of Liquor Licensing (Occupational and Business Regulation)

3. Moorabool SC v Colosimo [2007] VCAT 1367 (1 August 2007) [45%]

5. Walter Or v Manningham CC [1999] VCAT 987 (31 May 1999) [1%]

Colosimo v Moorabool SC [2007] VCAT 948 (30 May 2007)

END QUOTE 6-2-2010 CORRESPONDENCE

30 QUOTE 6-2-2010 CORRESPONDENCE

25 QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,

Despite of my comprehensive writings and my requests to withdraw the content of the 5

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

35 QUOTE Re: Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458 James LJ

QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343

QUOTE 26-1-2009 CHRIONOLOGY & PRESENTATION

15 MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER