Page 1

Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J.

judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Cc:

24-11-2015

Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au

Mr Martin Pakula, Attorney-General martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Re: 20151124-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh
to His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Communication

Sir,

one of the worst things I have come across with dealing with lawyers/judges/politicians is that
they read what they want to read, and not at all what may be actually written or intended with the
writings. THE QUEEN v STEVEN KING FISHER No 777 of 2008 Supreme Court of Victoria
(https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=93769) makes it very clear that communication to
influence a judge (judicial officer) is inappropriate. However this Authority doesnt indicate that
communication between a party and the Associate of a Judge (not being the judge himself) is
inappropriate where it comes to seeking a special hearing, etc, upon special grounds. Indeed, a
judge may hold that a failure by a party to inform the court say of a party having committed
CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT and by this perverted the course of justice
and/or CONTEMPT OF COURT should then bear the cost of raising it at the trail (causing
undue delays) where this should have been raised earlier. This in particular where the failure by a
party to comply may affect the ability of the court to proceed with hearing the matter. Obviously
the court wouldnt want to have a party to file for CONTEMPT OF COURT and/or
CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT based upon misconceptions. Hence, it is
better for a party suspecting any form of contempt to make this known to the Associate of the
judge, who then can take the matter further or may indicate the reporting party misconceived the
orders, etc. Buloke Shire Council legal representatives had their own form of private
communication with the court without at the time involving me, as to have the Melbourne
hearing allegedly to be altered to Ballarat, when they advised me that the Registrar had agreed
that Ballarat was the correct venue for the appeal. I then had to write to the Registrar this this was
inappropriate as Melbourne was the correct venue. Hence the hearing went ahead on 30 October
2015 in Melbourne, even so it was a pre-appeal hearing. As I did write in 20151031-SchorelHlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL-15-2502Re COMPLAINT & disqualification Mullaly J with a copy forwarded those listed as Cc
QUOTE
Mr Peter Kidd CJ
31-10-2015
County Court of Victoria, 250 William Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
Email: feedback@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Cc: Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Mr Martin Pakula, Attorney-General martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated
lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Re: 20151031-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mrf Peter Kidd CJ County Court of VictoriaRe Buloke Shire Council -AP-15-2502 -Re COMPLAINT & disqualification Mullaly J
Sir,
p1
24-11-2015
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
END QUOTE

that there ought to be a judicial review, etc. As such Buloke Shire Council as well as its legal
representatives are well aware of this in view that they received a copy of the same and any
supplement to it.
It is not my task nor my duties to try to give legal advice to Buloke Shire Council and/or its legal
representatives and if anything their conduct so far I view has been absolutely miserable. It is
therefore appropriate for me where I suspect that Counsel for Buloke Shire Council committed
CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT and by this perverted the course of justice that
the Court then look into this matter. The same where Buloke Shire Council and so its legal
representatives fail to comply with orders issued (CONTEMPT OF COURT) then I view it is
appropriate for the Court to attend to this also. THE QUEEN v STEVEN KING FISHER
doesnt prevent this kind of communication whatsoever, as it had no issue with the DPP
contacting the Associate to seek a hearing for alleged deception by the accused (his counsel), but
rather that the court cannot consider private information not known to the accused. As such,
where you are an OFFICER OF THE COURT then you are duty bound to inform the court that
upon you checking details with the court records there appears to have been CONTEMPT IN
THE FACE OF THE COURT and/or CONTEMPT OF COURT. Because parties are equal in
standing before the court it cannot be held that a party using lawyers then can defy court orders
whereas a party not using lawyers is bound to comply. The onus upon any OFFICER OF THE
COURT whom is informed about alleged breaches and/or contempt takes appropriate steps to
have the matters attended to. If the OFFICER OF THE COURT finds that there seems to be a
contempt then it is for the court to charge the party as such and then and only then the line of
communication referred to in THE QUEEN v STEVEN KING FISHER can be deemed
relevant. It is to prevent a prosecutor to unduly seek to get the court to consider material that is
not known to the accused. As such, once a party has been charged then the line of
communication to the issues of the charge should be known to both parties. However, THE
QUEEN v STEVEN KING FISHER doesnt prevent the communication by one party to the
court as to alert it to suspected violations of court orders and/or otherwise. After all when a court
issues orders it retains the management of those orders and as such it must rely upon any party
unduly harmed in his/her rights to have the court attending to matters of concern.
To alert the Court as to allege unlawful conduct of another party in itself is not a violation of the
THE QUEEN v STEVEN KING FISHER Authority, as long as the trail judge when dealing
with an offender doesnt rely upon the so to say correspondence file but relies upon the
evidenced that is before the court, as THE QUEEN v STEVEN KING FISHER Authority
makes it very clear. As I have spent about 4 decades at the Bar table (including
representing/assisting solicitors/barristers) I am well aware of the DOUBLE STANDARDS used
in the courts, and when it comes to contempt applications I understand the court far too often to
my understanding seeks to railroad an application for contempt.
I will now quote part of the transcript in the Colosimo case in which I represented Mr Colosimo.
Opponent lawyers had attempted to get the Associate of Her Honour Harbison J to accept the
withdrawal of the contempt application (against Mr Colosimo), but when I afterwards discovered
this I opposed this, and Her Honour Harbison J approved of my position as such:
Transcript 16 March 2009 page 53 line 12 (Her Honour HARBISON J)
QUOTE
HER HONOUR: THANK YOU.
Now, this is an application by the Moorabool shire Council, who is the applicant in contempt proceedings to withdraw those proceedings
on the basis that there be no further order as to cost of the proceedings. The application was made under s.74 (1) of the VCAT
Act.
Normally an application to withdraw a proceeding is a routine matter. There are some aspects of this case which are not routine,
and the principal aspect of the case which is not routine is that this is a contempt proceeding. Once contempt proceedings are
issued, then the proceedings are not the property of the applicant, they are the property of the tribunal, as was correctly pointed
out on behalf of Mr Colosimo.
So it is not simply a matter of the proceedings finishing when an applicant decides to withdraw, it is a matter of the tribunal itself
having the responsibility to decide whether or not the course of conduct which has been engaged in by the respondent is in truth
contempt of the tribunal.
END QUOTE

p2
24-11-2015
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

Again
QUOTE
Once contempt proceedings are issued, then the proceedings are not the property of the applicant, they are the property of the
tribunal, as was correctly pointed out on behalf of Mr Colosimo.
So it is not simply a matter of the proceedings finishing when an applicant decides to withdraw, it is a matter of the tribunal itself
having the responsibility to decide whether or not the course of conduct which has been engaged in by the respondent is in truth
contempt of the tribunal.
END QUOTE

As the CONTEMPT application becomes the property of the Court then I view where a party
advises an OFFICER OF THE COURT (Associate or otherwise) of an alleged contempt then
there is no need for the reporting party to file a formal application for contempt as the OFFICER
OF THE COURT is duty bound to report this to the court. Where I have objected to His Honour
Mullaly J to hear and determine further matters then obviously where this were to be upheld then
there is in that regard no issue either of a denial of NATURAL JUSTICE, fair and proper
hearing, etc. (Consider also: Brook & Delcomyn, In re,(1864) English Report case on not bound by judgment of court
without being heard first. AG v Times Magazine Newspapers May to July 1973 House of Lords UK, Raymond v Honey [1981]
UKHL 8 (04-03-1981) All Lords confirm right to unimpeded access to the courts incTimes Newspaper 1974 HL case, Hunter v
Chief Const of West Midlands Police & Anors UKHL 13 (19 Nov 1981) Appeal dismissed, St. James's Evening Post Case,
Roach v Garvan (or Hall) Case 291 3 Dec 1742 ATK 269 E.R 142 pg 463. Contempt of court & access to the courts case ).

I consider to pervert the course of justice by a lawyer to be a very serious issue! One has to
consider if the judge would have issued the same kind of orders had he not been deceived!
Why on earth should I risk having some bias judge to railroad any contempt application, I may
file, and then order cost against me, where it is the court that really is the injured party where the
court was deceived, and there was a failure to comply with court orders? For sure, my rights also
were undermined, but one cannot ignore that the court itself was violated.
In my view the same applies to an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, that once it has been
made it becomes the property of the Court, and cannot be withdrawn. This is also very obvious
as to avoid someone to file for CONTEMPT OF COURT proceedings and/or OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION as a weapon against an opposing party and then seek to perhaps extract
the other party to make a settlement normally not likely to eventuate. As such, the court is bound
to deal with the matter, this His Honour Mullaly J failed to do from onset.
While obviously Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives may claim that on this basis
His Honour Mullaly J never invoked jurisdiction and as such there could be no CONTEMPT
IN THE FACE OF THE COURT and/or CONTEMPT OF COURT that is however an issue
for them to decide if they desire to follow that path or not.
A problem I encounter with lawyer/judges/politicians is that often they read what they like to
read and not at all what is actually written.
QUOTE 24-11-2015 PRESS STATEMENT

ISSUE: ISSUE -Which State/Federal Member of Parliament is a 'Sentry'? & the constitution
Ever heard the saying that someone sounds like a broken record? Well, in this case I often get responses
from State/Federal Members of Parliament that the issue I raised is for someone else but for them!
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am obviously aware of and considering the legal principles
embedded in the constitution.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a state
Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law
passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind
the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE

Oops, that means that those Members of Parliament failing to understand/comprehend that it is relevant to
them are in fact failing to represent their constituents appropriately.
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. CARRUTHERS QUOTE
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
p3
24-11-2015
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 4
.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. ISAACS.- QUOTE

We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE

How many times did you as a Member of Parliament vote for a Bill in which the language of the bill was
beyond the comprehension of the unlettered person and even lawyers turn out in court to lose the case for
their clients because they couldnt even understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of the
legislation, or even a judge making errors because of the technical complications to understand what
really is required/applicable by the legislation? Well, unless you as like every other Members of
Parliament are willing to open your mind to the broader horizon and learn what the constitution stands for
rather than live within your narrow space you will continue to be a massive failure for your constituents
and so to say nothing more but are/become a parasite leaching upon the public purse, with failing to
properly represent and perform your duties and obligations. Lost in translation Council seeks plain
language English expert to spread the word Herald Sun Wednesday, November 18, 2015. That is
precisely what every State/Federal Member of Parliament should pursue, so their constituents can actually
understand/comprehend what the legislation stands for! And we might even then arrive at that
lawyers/judges also can understand the true meaning and application of legislation.
I might not be a Member of Parliament, and not getting paid for what I am writing about, but at least since
I arrived in Australia in 1971 made it an issue to research what the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) stands for, and that the States are created within s106 subject to this
constitution, and as such all legislation State/Federal must be in a language that can be understood/
comprehend by the unlettered person. As such for those who write it is not their issue you failed
miserably this is because each time you voted for a bill that is beyond the understanding/comprehension
of an unlettered person you failed to act as a Sentry. Spare me your response it doesnt apply to you
because it does, you just dont understand/comprehend it!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all relevant issues/details.

Awaiting your response,

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

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

END QUOTE 24-11-2015 PRESS STATEMENT

In my view it is appropriate that you as an OFFICER OF THE COURT exercise your duties
and obligations, and deal with the alleged contempt issues, and if you conclude that there might
be contempt issues then it is for you to advise the court thereof (Regardless who will be the
presiding officer hearing and determining the matters.). Then it will be for the court to demand
Buloke Shire Council and so its legal representatives to answer any charges, and it is then that
the court upon considering any evidence given during the proceedings that there appears to be
validity in this then it is to hand down its decision. I could simply wait until a trail (if there is any
as the judicial review may result no justification for any trail is there)) and then raise the issues
and the trail then likely cannot go ahead, and so possibly wasting courts time by the delay, or
raise it now so there is ample of time for the court to attend to matters, and may make a decision
that may affect any trail (if it were to be proceeded with), if there is any then eventuating. It is
not for me to advice you how to go about your job as an Associate safe to say I reported the
matter, and it is now for the court to deal with it! As I made clear to Mr Peter Kidd CJ in my
31-10-2015 complaint His Honour Mullaly J failed to invoke jurisdiction, by refusing to consider
from onset the ADDRESS TO THE COURT (containing the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION), and as such ordering a trail De Novo, which I view was highly inappropriate,
as the orders appealed against were issued by the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
without either invoking jurisdiction. One cannot hear something De Novo that doesnt legally
exist! (Consider also Wakim J HCA 27 of 1999 Re comments that Mr Gould could ignore orders!)
Obviously, it is important that both parties are provided with the (written) transcript by
the court to ascertain what precisely was recorded, and so avoid misconceptions also!
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!)

p4
24-11-2015
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