Page 1

Elliott Stafford and Associated

lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Cc:

11-8-2015

Legal Service Commissioner admin@lsbc.vic.gov.au

Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
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
Re: 20150811-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Elliott Stafford and Associates Your ref LA-05-06Re Buloke Shire Council cc LSC-COM-2015-0873-Supplement 2

Sir/Madam,
So far I have not received any response from you regarding the Summons issued, etc,
despite that I indicated the 20 August 2015 hearing date should be vacated.
As you rely upon the notice and the Infringement Notice then all correspondence I forwarded
to Buloke Shire Council (Shire of Buloke) then for legal arguments are relevant to the matters in
issue. As I also claimed an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then this is so to say the first
cab of the rank. As I also made clear there is NO CASE TO ANSWER this means anything I
write cannot be used against me by the prosecutor against me as evidence. As I also indicated the
summons cannot be withdrawn once an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION has been made to
the other party. The court however can stay proceedings pending the issue of OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION having been dealt with.
A stay of proceedings however prevents either party to litigate the same issues in any other
litigation.
In 1988 my then 2 year old daughter was arrested by the Victorian Police having obtained a
WARRANT for her arrest. I submitted to the Supreme Court of Victoria on the hearing that was
held 5 days later, that the warrant was contrary to the Supreme Court of Victoria court orders.
The Supreme Court of Victoria set aside the warrant as having been unlawfully obtained.
Subsequently I attempted to sue the state of Victoria for the harm it caused, but at the hearing out
of the blue council for the State of Victoria sub mitted that it OBJECTED TO THE
JURISDICTION of the Court. The trail judge then indicated \me that I had the onus to prove
jurisdiction. I then responded the Supreme Court of Victoria had jurisdiction in all matters and
quested the legislation I relied upon but His Honour l pointed out I had the onus to prove the
legislation was validly enacted, etc. As I was not prepared for this the case was at an end due to
lack of jurisdiction. I held it was reprehensible but nevertheless accepted that in law the trail
judge acted correctly.
.
p1
11-8-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 2
In my writings to Buloke Shire Council I pointed out that the 2-1-1991 proclamation constituting
the Office of the Governor the Governor was to appoint impartial judgers. As such lawyers who
are admitted to the bar to practice law as legal practitioners cannot be appointed as a
judge/magistrate as they first must have resigned from being a member of the bar. 20150811Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Elliott Stafford and Associates Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire
Council cc LSC-COM-2015-0873-Supplement 2 his as being a member of the bar and so
prosecuting lawyers would imply the judicial officer is bias or implied bias.
The High Court of Australia in Sykes v Cleary held that resignation afterwards cannot validate
the earlier appointment.
It should be understood that Registrars are not officers of the court and must be supervised by
a judge. As (Harris v Caladine High Court of Australia)
A purported judge who at the time was he/she was appointed as a judge while being a member
of the bar therefore cannot delegate powers as he/she is not validly appointed as a judge and any
judicial decision handed down by such a purported judge is null and void also, including any
purported delegation of powers.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/9.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="otherwise%20fell%20outside%20its%2
0jurisdiction%20"
Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)
QUOTE
The Full Court on appeal from Maxwell J. held that the review of the Deputy Registrar's decision was
confined to an inquiry whether the parties did in fact consent to the terms of the order and whether the terms
agreed upon were in a form appropriate to the type of order sought and were enforceable. But the order made
by the Deputy Registrar must have been made pursuant to s.79 - the section which confers power upon the
Court to order a settlement of or an alteration in the property interests of the parties. The Court could not
make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties consented to it
and it follows, a fortiori, that a Registrar, exercising a delegated power, could not do so. Thus, for instance,
under s.80(1)(j) of the Act the Court may make an order by consent, but only in exercising its powers under
Pt VIII. Section 37A(1)(g) allows the delegation to the Registrar of the power to make an order by consent,
but only where it is a power of the Court. And O.36A, r.2(1)(n) delegates to the Registrar the power referred
to in s.37A(1)(g).
END QUOTE

In my view a competent lawyer may have advised Buloke Shire Council better not to litigate in
particular where I am entitled to rely upon the decision of the County Court of Victoria
(exercising federal jurisdiction) to which the then Attorney-General Robert Hulls indicated the
State of Victoria would abide by, the issues I then canvassed cannot be interfered with by a
Magistrate, even if he had jurisdiction otherwise. Not that I seek to imply the Magistrates Court
of Victoria has jurisdiction.
.

While I have, even if a hearing were to proceed the onus of civil standard of prove the prosecutor
has the onus of criminal standard of proof!
.

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
p2
11-8-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 3
As I indicated in my writings to Buloke Shire Council that due to the unconstitutional so called
council rate charges I was prevented to have the station wagon repaired in time for myself to
attend to the property (and the vehicle was towed by the RACV to a repairer) and so relied upon
someone else attending to my property, and I understand he did so twice.
Then even if Buloke Shire Council were to circumvent somehow all legal issues to that, then
even if Buloke Shire Council were to overcome numerous legal hurdles as to jurisdiction, not
that I concede it might do so, then it still would have this problem that it must overcome each and
e very excuse proffered. If there are so to say 1001 excuses and the prosecutors overcome 1,000
but not the one then it cannot succeed.

As already the issue of the courts being registered as BUSINESS UNIT 19 with the
government and have an ABN number then the separation of power as required by the
proclamation to have impartial judges clearly is non-existing. As the ABN issue was canvassed
by me as a constitutional issue and not challenged by the other parties) in my successful appeals
on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria then clearly as the High Court of Victoria made
clear in Wakim HCA 27 that the same parties cannot re-litigate the same constitutional issues
already canvassed by the courts.
Therefore I view a competent lawyer would not have gotten involved in advising for me to
contact Mr Wayne Wall, considering the large amount of legal issues I had raised already which
obviously to me was well beyond the competence of Mr Wayne Wall to grasp and comprehend.
If by the end of today I have no notification that the 20 August 2015 hearing day has been
vacated then I have little choice but prepare for the case and you may understand there are legal
consequences when a party fails to act reasonable in the circumstances.
A stay of proceedings I would consent to if the court were to order that I am the only person who
can request the case to be reinstated for hearing. This is what Her Honour Harbison J did in the
Colosimo case when I sub mitted a stay of proceedings when I represented him in a CONTEMPT
OF COURT case, which Her Honour granted. As such I am well aware that this kind of order can
be made, without the court entertaining the issue of jurisdiction, rather make it that the issue of
jurisdiction is permanently stayed unless I request to have the matter reinstated for further
hearing.
Because my wife at times has spontaneous bleedings from her leg, where so to say she springs a
leak, for which she is awaiting a an operation to seek to resolve this issue, a problem would be
for me to travel all the way to Ararat on 20 August 2015 with the risk I cannot make it back in
time were she once again have a bleeding. Hence for this also any litigation ought to have been,
for so far there is jurisdiction, in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg.
While you may so to say be cocky not to desire to communicate about matters, as I discovered in
the past with various lawyers representing the Government, in the end when they lost the cases
they got what was so to say what they deserved for their cockiness. In my view it is in the
interest of what is your client to ensure appropriate communication rather than confrontation is in
order.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all
issues/details.
Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

p3
11-8-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati