Page 1

Melinda Hampshire Registrar

20-2-2016

Melinda.Hampshire@courts.vic.gov.au & registry.ballarat@countycourt.vic.gov.au

Cc:

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

Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated
lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
County Court of Victoria crim.reg@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J. judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Re: 20160220-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Melinda Hampshire Registrar-Re APPEAL-15-2502--Re COMPLAINT

Melinda,

considering that a judge on circuit requires to know what hearing time allocation is needed
and the basic issues of the case to conceal from the judge the written submissions (ADDRESS
TO THE COURT) from the court file means from onset that the judge from onset will be
misled by court staff about what the case is about, as I stated in my 18-2-2016 correspondence:
QUOTE 18-2-2018 correspondence
As the written submissions (ADDRESS TO THE COURT) supplement 2 (17-2-2016) on the last page sis
submit that orders and judgment be reserved then clearly a judge could consider it all and then if desiring to
do so hand down a reason of judgment and orders upon the content of the written submissions (ADDRESS
TO THE COURT) with its supplement 1 & 2, considering also no (valid) material was filed and/or served
by Buloke Shire Council.
END QUOTE 18-2-2018 correspondence

Technically this matter is too comprehensive & complicated to be heard by way of circuit
hearing, and should be transferred to William Street, Melbourne venue at the very least!
For example as stated in
20160214-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL-15-2502ADDRESS TO THE COURT-Supplement 1
QUOTE

Some of the issues but not in any of priority

OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
Fire Prevention Notice in violation to the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958
Fire Prevention Notice contains demands exceeding delegated powers.
Fire prevention Notice in valid in law
Infringement Notice invalid in law based on invalid Fire prevention Notice.
Summons invalid in law based on Invalid Infringement Notice.
Summons invalidly issues as Infringement Noticed failed to have been withdrawn.
Summons hearing in the wrong court venue
Failure to serve full brief
No evidence to prove jurisdiction.
No evidence whatsoever to justify 20 August 2015 orders at St Arnaud venue
No evidence to legally justify 17 September 2015 orders at St Arnaud venue
Failing to file and serve Notice of Appearance regarding appeal
Failing to file and serve for Leave to file and serve out of time Notice of Appearance
Failure to provide 27 October 2015 requested brief
Failing to comply with 30/10/2015 order to serve via Australia Post by 9/11/2015 full brief
p1
20-2-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 2

Failing to request leave to serve out of time full brief.

Providing misleading Form 11 statement dated 25/11/2015 re 18/3/2013 alleged hearing
Provide different Form 11 for 22/2/2016 hearing without full brief
Failure by State Government to provide relevant FOI material requested 9/12/2015
END QUOTE

It should be clear that I am not the kind of person who will let these issues go and I view that no
competent legal practitioner would ignore such issues. A trail judge cannot ignore those issues
either and it may take considerable time, if not days, to hear and determine these issues. And
possibly orders that the court may deem appropriate and numerous further hearings. Hearing
times on circuit are very precious as people residing in the country need to be heard without
having to travel to Melbourne for this, albeit major complicated cases generally have to be heard
at Melbourne. The judge on circuit cannot allocate numerous days to deal with one case and so
repeated returns to the Ballarat venue in itself would be a gross denial of justice, this besides my
health problems. As I reside in Viewbank, a suburb of Melbourne and Buloke Shire Council
lawyers are based in Clifton Hill, a suburb of Melbourne then it simply doesnt make sense in
that regard to have a hearing in Ballarat. Moreover,
QUOTE 2 20151029-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL-15-2502

The fact that Buloke Shire Council as well as its legal representatives were made aware even before they instituted
litigation in the magistrates Court of Victoria at Collingwood but for a very strange reason chose a difficult venue at St
Arnaud to have it heard they were made aware of the 19 July 2006 judgment of the County Court of Victoria setting aside
the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg orders which I had challenged in an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
and as such its persistence to nevertheless institute litigation was and still remains of great concern to me. In particular
where I had notified both Buloke Shire Council as well as its legal representatives that I was in ill health. (My mobile can
show the numerous medical appointment that were confirmed to have been made, also on the days of the hearings). While
the Heidelberg venue was closed due to water damage the advice was that the magistrates Court of Victoria at Melbourne
(city), Broadmeadows and Ringwood would be the alternatives. In any circumstances as I reside in Viewbank St Arnaud
was not the correct venue. It should be of concern to any judge that this tactic to elect a venue that is most difficult to attend
to is as to obstruct access to the courts, in particular where a person is suffering of ill health. See also [2011] UKPC 31
Privy Council Appeal No 0101 of 2010 Electra Daniel Administrator for the estate of George Daniel (deceased) (Appellant)
v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Respondent) while this was a wheelchair access issue, nevertheless the
judgment itself refers to access to the courts. As a senior citizen I view the Age Discrimination Act 2004 applies also,
considering also that a Magistrates Court of Victoria court facility at Heidelberg is about 4 KM away from my residence
(the City, Broadmeadows and Ringowood venues are each about 20 kilomtres away. The distance of Melbourne to St
Arnaud is 244 KM.
END QUOTE 20151029-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL-15-2502

The same applies to the Ballarat venue where despite my health problems I am forced to attend
to some distant circuit court hearing. Obviously the court do video hearing for me to attend to
Melbourne, William Street venue, but that surely would be silly to use court facilities at 2 court
venues where William Street can be used on its own.
I understand now that you have placed the written submission on the correspondence file
instead of the court file. Hence, I will set out the following:
A trail judge (decades ago) refused to read the written submissions (ADDRESS TO THE
COURT) but on appeal the Full Court set aside the orders stating His Honour made an error in
law, as His Honour was obligated to consider the content of the (ADDRESS TO THE
COURT)! When His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 initially refused to consider the
(ADDRESS TO THE COURT) I alerted His Honour Mullaly J to this and His Honour Mullaly
J then adjourned the hearing to consider its content. When I had my 19-7-2006 successful
appeals my written submissions (ADDRESS TO THE COURT) was follows:
Part 1 contained 150 pages + Part 2 contained 135pages + Part 3 contained 127 pages = TOTAL: 412 pages

When I had another successful appeal in 1994 it was 11 parts of about 800 pages. The Full Court
in fact complimented me for this and recommended lawyers should follow my example!
When I had a matter before the High Court of Australia the written submissions (ADDRESS
TO THE COURT) was a mere about 100 pages but during the hearing one of the judges was
able to recite of head page number and statement I had made, indicating His Honour had read
the written submissions (ADDRESS TO THE COURT).
p2
20-2-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 3
When for example I represented Mr Frank Colosimo in both an appeal as well as a CONTEMPT
case against Mr Colosimo I had provided again more than 700 pages written submissions
(ADDRESS TO THE COURT) hence the success in both cases, whereas the opponent barrister
filed at the hearing a pile of printed out authorities only for me to immediately expose that one of
the authorities actually was proving Mr Colosimos case and not has counsel had claimed was
supporting her clients case. Counsel then sought to excuse herself that she had not reads the case
herself and relied upon her instructing solicitor. What was unfair and in fact denied a FAIR AND
PROPER HEARING was that counsel filed the Authorities at the time she presented her clients
case and obviously there was no way I could read a pile of authorities then. However just flicking
through the pile of Authorities I happen (within seconds) to notice the contradiction in one
authority. Regretfully I understand that lawyers have a habit of presenting piles of Authorities
when they open their address to the court well aware their opponent wouldnt have the time
and/or the ability to read and consider it all.
A judge rather reads the written submissions (ADDRESS TO THE COURT) then having to sit
for days listening to me having to read it all out at the bar table.
With my written submissions (ADDRESS TO THE COURT) I provide the material in
advance of a hearing giving opponents an opportunity to read and consider it all. This as well as
the court itself has the opportunity to read it all and knowing what the case is about rather than to
get involved in time wasting by a judge who doesnt understand/comprehend the case.
I see absolutely no legal justification why the court would for example place on court file the
disputed purported Notice of Appearance of Buloke Shire Council but conceal from the court file
my objections. The same can be stated regarding any purported (disputed) full brief.

As I indicated I am well aware that legal practitioners have so to say their private communication
line with the court and court staff and as I exposed with a judge she had issued orders without
any formal application and hearing but merely upon a phone call by opponent lawyers. Her
Honour had no choice but to disqualify herself, upon my written submission!
So, now it appears to me that Buloke Shire Council lawyers seems to have some private
communication channelled I am not privy to where perhaps arrangements are made that my
material is concealed from the court file and placed on correspondence file so a judge will be
unaware of my written submissions (ADDRESS TO THE COURT) while then dealing with
matters as if Buloke Shire Council has a legitimate case.
When I was a constitutional consultant to a law firm I understood from a lawyer that the court
somehow had gone against his client but unknown why. I suggested it might be that the opponent
may have filed documents without ever serving them and so the judge was dealing (without any
hearing) on documentation unknown to him. The lawyer didnt hold that the court would engage
in such conduct but nevertheless was willing to have it checked out. I was authorised to search
the court file and copied an Affidavit of more than 100 pages which never was served upon the
other party. The opponent barrister turned out to have been a long time friend of the judge, and in
fact the mentor of the judge before he even was a lawyer.
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE

I have over the decades at the bar table exposed how often court staff (allegedly in error) had
placed critical documents in the correspondence file instead of the court file and so when I
checked with a trail judge if His Honour/Her Honour had all relevant documents then often it
was discovered that certain documents such as filed Affidavits were not on court file.
So to say a legal practitioner merely has to be friends or sleep with court staff and then the court
file with be tampered with that so to say accidentally documents goes missing from court the
p3
20-2-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 4
court file. Even if the trail judge himself/herself may be unaware of what is going on it still
cannot be excused because the trail judge should not tolerate this kind of conduct. Judges should
be given a check list they have to follow at commencement of a trail as to what documents
should be before the court and if not why not. Too often I had to provide the judge with a (spare)
sealed copies because various documents were missing from court file and couldnt be locate,
even after a short adjournment. No wonder unrepresented parties at time lose a case regardless of
the overwhelming evidence in their favour because unbeknown to them Affidavits are removed
from the court file so the trail judge will not be aware of the content of the Affidavit. And now it
seems you indicate to me as I understand from your writings that you are involved in keeping my
written submissions (ADDRESS TO THE COURT) from the court file. And also my
objections against the purported Notice of Appearance, etc. But I am not aware you are doing
this with the material allegedly filed by Buloke Shire Council (so it lawyers)!
I ordinary publish my writings so others will be aware of the rot that goes on in the court system.
With my special life line service since 1982 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL I
encountered many a person contemplating suicide because they held their case was railroaded.
This is why also I am so critical upon what is going on and the misuse and abuse of court rules
by lawyers and the court itself (including court staff). As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I much
agree with the Late His Honour Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the USA
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4n8gOUzZ8I&feature=player_embedded#t=1058) (Antonin Scalia and
Stephen Breyer Re constitution) that the constitution can only be amended by the People, and not
by judges.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states
on terms that are just to both. END QUOTE
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must
be heard. Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard. END QUOTE

Clearly, both sides are not heard when past of the documentation is concealed from the court by
being either removed inappropriately from the court file, being unlawfully amended and/or is not
placed at all on court file and by this causing a judge to deal with a matter that may not at all
represent what the case really is about. Obviously one has to ask how often this is done as some
modus operandi by the court and/or court staff.
My written submissions (ADDRESS TO THE COURT) are formal written documents that
should be on court file and any purported Noticed of appearance and/or full brief and or other
documents that are subject to objections cannot be placed on court file as if there are no
objections but should be placed in a sealed envelope on court file for a judge first to determine if
considering the objection(s) the document(s) should or shouldnt be accepted to form part of the
court file. What now appears to me is that the County Court of Victoria still hasnt managed to
have a proper system in place, and is subject to any abuse/misuse/corrupt conduct by court staff.
It is clear that matters need to be fully investigated because no judge can rely upon the court file
to be in a proper state of affairs to hear and determine matters. It is not for me to do the job of the
Chief Justice to manage the court system appropriately. Stop the private communication with
lawyers and ensure my complaint is independently and appropriately dealt with.
I look forwards to your reply and confirming appropriate resolve to the issues raised in this
correspondence.
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
20-2-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati