1

Elliott Stafford and Associated

lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Cc:

10

2-12-2015

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

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
Ref; 20151202-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06- Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re Failure to comply with court order-etc

Sir/Madam,

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

hereby, I give notice that as I am representing myself as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and

Professional Advocate I intent to pursue cost.
The litigation has been marred by blatant disregard by your client Buloke Shire Council as well as by
yourself as legal practitioners and as result cause considerable undue work upon me. Stull despite of this
you have persisted in this line of conduct that requires an extraordinary compensation.
The following is not set out in any order of importance!
Your client failed to comply with the legal provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958
which I have in my previous material set out considerably hence no need to repeat it all, safe to
say that I did highlight also that remove all combustible material from land is in violation of
the legal provisions, hence s41D upon which your client relies cannot be enforced.
You persisted in filing the Summons for hearing in the magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
this even so it was not the proper venue. As however the court recording indicates you have
another case before this court and so it appears to me you misused/abused this to wrongly place
the matter before the wrong venue, against my numerous objections, and by this where I suffered
ongoing ill health prevented me to appear at the 20 August 2015 and 17 September 2015
hearings.
I understand that you failed to provide any evidence before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St
Arnaud on either or both hearing dates to prove jurisdiction, where I had submitted in writing in
my ADDRESS TO THE COURT my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, on each hearing
incident.
You likewise failed to present evidence on 30 October 2015 to prove jurisdiction even so you
knew or ought to have known from my ADDRESS TO THE COURT that was then before the
Court.
Counsel for Buloke Shire Council as I understood it deliberately misled His Honour Mullaly J by
claiming my request for the brief was only made yesterday even so the request was made days
earlier, as to obtain orders I view would otherwise not have been obtained, as such I view he
committed CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT and perverted the course of justice.
Where His Honour then issued orders that on or before 9 November 2015 this didnt eventuate,
even so in my 31 October 2015 I specifically referred to the brief issue.
In my 20151127-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire
Council -Re (preliminary) brief-etc-Re APPEAL-15-2502-OBJECTION TO SERVICE and
20151128-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council Re APPEAL-15-2502-'brief'-etc-OBJECTION TO SERVICE-Supplement-01 I did set olut
that I didnt accept service in violation of the orders of His Honour Mullaly J of 30 October
2015 as well as that the brief was not what I had requested for, etc. I highlighted for example
the hearing date being referred to as 18 March 2013 being about 20 months prior to the alleged
p1
2-12-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

offence having been committed, the brief referring to a 22 February 2016 hearing which was not
known prior to the 30 October 2015 hearing before His Honour Mullaly J when I requested the
brief. The copy that was emails didnt have either a copy of the Notice and neither the email nor
the copy located in the mail box had a copy of the Infringement Notice.
You caused another Form 11 to be delivered in my mailbox but it is a mere 3 pages. In my view
without conceding or implying there was any proper service, when one replaces a brief it must
be in totality and not ad hoc some parts.
You in my view committed CONTEMPT OF COURT for failing to comply with the orders of
His Honour Mullaly J of 30 October 2015 as to serve on or before 9 November 2015.
Your 2 September 2015 correspondence failing to accurately disclose the precise terms of orders
issued on 17 September 2015, as such I view was deceptive.

It should be understood that my request for a brief was:

15

QUOTE 27-10-2015 CORRESPONDENCE

Elliott Stafford and Associated
lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Cc:

20

27-10-2015

Mr Wayne Wall, Municipal Fire Prevention Officer buloke@buloke.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
Ref; 20151027-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council cc LSC-COM-2015-0873-Re Appeal

25

30

Sir/Madam,

Hereby I urge you to clarify the position of Buloke Shire Council if it intends to
oppose my appeal, etc.
It should be understood that Buloke Shire Council acting within s114 of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) has the same obligations as the Public Prosecutor of the
State of Victoria.
I received from a friend the following quote email, and well you may consider the content and
provide me with a preliminary brief or brief. After all I made known that Councillor Milne
claimed not to know what it was on about (the litigation) and as such the court may have to
p2
2-12-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

3
consider if you have any legal standing (as I disputed this) to act for and on behalf of Buloke
Shire Council considering that at least one councillor didnt appear to be able to give informed
consent to act for Buloke Shire Council. As such others may likewise not be aware of what the
litigation is about.
Obviously, I request not only for the brief/preliminary but also that Buloke Shire Council
produces records at least since 2009 as to how often it issued identical or nearly identical
FIRE PREVENTION NOTICES against landowners and how often any was against
Buloke Shire Council (Shire of Buloke).
After all I provided some but not all images of conditions in 2013 when Mr Wayne Wall issued
against me the (invalid) FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE and so the issue will be did he likewise
issue any against Buloke Shire Council, and if not why not? As the images I have indicates that
the growth on my property was at most similar to that along the roadside or lower, significant
lower!
Because this has been a systematic pestering upon me of FIRE PREVENTION NOTICES and
Buloke Shire Council persisted to proceed despite my ill health I view the court may have to
consider if the conduct of Mr Wayne Wall and so Buloke Shire Council and its legal
representatives was justified in the circumstances, and if not how the court may deal with this to
possibly prevent repeat of such harassment/vexations litigation upon me.
QUOTE 27-10-2015 EMAIL RECEIVED
Re: see attachment 20151027-Schorel-Hlavka to Country Fire authority -COMPLAINT
Important

Nigel W <changeling_au_2004@yahoo.com.au>

Today at 5:39 AM (27-10-2015)

To
25

30

35

40

45

50

Gerrit,
some things for you to consider:1) Have you received a full brief from the council yet? If not, demand one in writing - see what the Criminal
Procedure Act 2009 says about full briefs. If you have received one (or even a preliminary brief), does it list
Wayne Wall as one of the witnesses they'll be calling? If not, you'll need to subpoena him.
2) If your appeal is successful, you may want to consider applying for declaratory relief from the Supreme
Court declaring that the proceedings instituted against you by the council were a nullity. You can glean a bit
about this process from Dustday Investments Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2015] VSC 101 at 65-74
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VSC/2015/101.html>
3) You may wish to investigate suing the council in an action for the tort of collateral abuse of process. I
haven't looked into this tort in any detail, but some key cases are:Varawa v Howard Smith Company Ltd [1911] HCA 46
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1911/46.html>
Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34 <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/34.html>
Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Limited v SST Consulting Pty Ltd; Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Limited v Rickard
Constructions Pty Limited [2009] HCA 43 <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2009/43.html>
Bare in mind that such an action would need to be taken against the council NOT their lawyers, as the
lawyers aren't actually a party to the proceeding - see Leerdam & Anor v Noori & Ors [2009] NSWCA 90
<http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2009/90.html>
4) Also bare in mind that if the County court find against you, the only option then is a judicial review under
Order56 of the Supreme Court rules. The only way that a judicial review has any chance of success is if you
can demonstrate that the Judge has made an error of law on the face of the record, or has fallen into
jurisdictional error - see
Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58 <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1995/58.html>
A judicial review is somewhat similar to an appeal on a question of law. My recent successful appeal
judgment provides quite an insight into what a question of law is - and isn't. See Waddington v Kha [2015]
VSC 339 <http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2015/339.html>
I'm sure you'll have fun!

55

Nigel
END QUOTE 27-10-2015 EMAIL RECEIVED
p3
2-12-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

4
You did apply for cost regarding my writings and during the EX PARTE hearing was granted
this and as such I view the court is entitled to take it that where you charge for reading the
material then you should have presented to the court precisely what I was on about, including the
invalid FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE, I disputed all along. After all the Court may hold that
concealing such relevant details you may have deliberately perverted the course of justice.
While it was not your task to present my case however you were obligated to inform the court
what my position was and why your client had an opposite position.
If you didnt read the material but merely counted pages to claim a charge then I view this may
constitute fraud, as well as perverting the course of justice.
My view is that what you did was dishonourable and appalling and most unlettered persons may
end up having orders against them without knowing how to obtain justice. I am determined to
expose the rot and while I am aware you can try to continue using all kinds of ways to pursue
uncalled litigation do keep in mind that if the original FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE was
without legal justification then everything flowing from this (Like the Infringement Notice and
any subsequent court orders) likewise has no legal force.
I look forwards to your positive reply!

20

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!

Awaiting your response,

25

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

END QUOTE 27-10-2015 CORRESPONDENCE

Again
QUOTE 27-10-2015 CORRESPONDENCE

30

Obviously, I request not only for the brief/preliminary but also that Buloke Shire
Council produces records at least since 2009 as to how often it issued identical or
nearly identical FIRE PREVENTION NOTICES against landowners and how often
any was against Buloke Shire Council (Shire of Buloke).
END QUOTE 27-10-2015 CORRESPONDENCE

35

40

This request was not specifically refused but neither complied with whatsoever!
Below I provide some I view relevant Authorities, albeit it is not to be deemed to be the limitation of
Authorities that may be applicable, nor that I have any onus to seek to get you to understand what a legal
practitioner should know as to how to conduct proper litigation.
Regarding statutory interpretation where the court is to take the intention of the legislators and not
some ulterior motive a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer may use the Fire prevention Notice to seek to
achieve something that is contrary to legislative provisions/authority. Commissioner of State Revenue v
EHL Burgess Properties Pty Ltd [2015] VSCA 269 (29 September 2015) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2015/269.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=lta195890)

45

Regarding amending a charge within a 12 month period, for so far a charge can be amended where the
Notice itself is in valid. Bell v Dawson [2000] VSC 169 - Re 12 months amending charge
(https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=73428)

50

Re service out of time without seeking other partys approval or leave to serve out of time
application
having
been
granted
HYNDMAN
V
WALLST/ARMS
higc3453
(https://www.courtsni.gov.uk/enGB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2001/2001%20NIQB%2024/j_j_HIGC3453.htm)

http://www.drink-driving-lawyers.com.au/pleading-guilty-or-not-guilty END QUOTE

p4
2-12-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

The test is whether the evidence as it stood was such to prove that the respondent was given
reasonably sufficient information to know what was required of him and why: Rankin v
OBrien [1986] VR 67 and DPP v Blyth 16 MVR 159

END QUOTE

10

The fire prevention Notice not only violates the provisions of the Country fire authority Act 1958 but also
its demands are unreasonable, vague and aloof and fails to be the product of the required opinion.
The legislation, as I understand it limits the powers of a magistrate/Judicial Registrar to hear and
determine matters on a Full Brief if served upon the other party or in the alternative upon evidence by
the informant. I understand neither eventuated.
.

15

20

25

30

35

I requested the brief that existed or should have existed on 27 October 2015 regarding the Magistrates
Court of Victoria (at St Arnaud) hearings held on 20 August 2015 and 17 September 2015. His Honour
Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 didnt specifically mention which particular brief and as such where His
Honour Mullaly J did question Counsel for Buloke Shire Council as to the brief I had referred to in my
written submission in my ADDRESS TO THE COURT then it can be held that His Honour Mullaly J
referred to the brief that was to have existed prior to the 17 September 2015 hearing before the
Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud. Even if it was held that His Honour intended to refer to as
new brief regarding the 22 February 2016 hearing then it wouldnt diminish/avoid my right to have a cop
of the Full Brief that was existing at the time of 17 September 2015. In that case I am/was entitled to both
copies. Being the 17 September 2015 Full Brief within 14 days of my written request of 27 October 2015
meaning by 10 Nov ember 2015 (not including the date of the request) and with the Full Brief for the
appeal hearing before or on 9 November 2015.
QUOTE
HYNDMAN
V
WALLST/ARMS
higc3453
(https://www.courtsni.gov.uk/enGB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2001/2001%20NIQB%2024/j_j_HIGC3453.htm)
In Davis v NI Carriers [199] NI 19 Lowry LCJ (as he then was) said at page 20:
Where a time-limit is imposed by statute it cannot be extended unless that or
another statute contains a dispensing power. Where the time is imposed by rules
of court which embody a dispensing power, such as that found in Order 64, rule
7, the court must exercise its discretion in each case, and for that purpose the
relevant principles are:
(1)
whether the time is sped: a court will, where the reason is a
good one, look more favourably on an application made before the time
is up;
(2)
when the time-limit has expired, the extent to which the party
applying is in default;

40
(3)
the effect on the opposite party of granting the application and,
in particular, whether he can be compensated by costs;

45

(4)
whether a hearing on the merits has taken place or would be
denied by refusing an extension;
(5)
whether there is a point of substance (which in effect means a
legal point of substance when dealing with cases stated) to be made
which could not otherwise be put forward; and

50
(6)
whether the point is of general, and not merely particular
significance.
To these I add the important principle:

55
(7)

60

that the rules of court are there to be observed.

In this connection I could not hope to improve on what Lord Guest has said in
Ratnam v. Cumarasamy [1965] 1 W.L.R. 8, 12:

p5
2-12-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

6
The rules of court must prima facie be obeyed, and in order to
justify a court in extending the time during which some step in
procedure requires to be taken there must be some material
upon which the court can exercise its discretion. If the law
were otherwise, a party in breach would have an unqualified
right to an extension of time which would defeat the purpose
of the rules, which is to provide a time table for the conduct of
litigation.

10

15

20

25

30

35

The importance of the rules and compliance with them cannot be overlooked.
END
QUOTE
HYNDMAN
V
WALLST/ARMS
higc3453
(https://www.courtsni.gov.uk/enGB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2001/2001%20NIQB%2024/j_j_HIGC3453.htm)

Litigation is often a very exhausting issue for unlettered persons, and even for members of the legal
profession, when it relates to matters they ordinary do not equate with. Hence, even a barrister, (I
understood to charge himself about $20,000 a day representing a client) practicing for more than 2
decades, required me to represent him (on 4 occasions), because of my knowledge and expertise. I
therefore see no reasons why even so representing myself I should not be compensated for the extensive
work I involved to counter act the utterly vexatious Fire Prevention Notice and this ongoing ill-conduct
by legal representatives.
His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 made a specific order as to service, and they were blatantly
disregarded/ignored. Despite my 31 October 2015 (next day) correspondence regarding the brief this
was blatantly disregarded. Despite my indication I refused to accept proper service to have been executed
you have ignored to file for leave to served out of time, irrespective if the Court were to grand it or not.
Members of the legal profession should understand that they cannot have any more rights in the courts
then the client they represent. No court can tolerate that a party for having legal representation then can
flaunt its orders.
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

While His Hon our Mullaly J was understood by me to comment at commencement of proceedings
something like; You are a person who holds that the law applies to everyone else but yourself (to that
meaning) but to the contrary I pursue that the rule applies also to lawyers (judges) and politicians.

40

45

50

I obtained a court order and entitled to have my rights within that court order to be enforced. You mazy
no attempts to even communicate with me as to if I would accept service out of time. And failing to seek
leave to serve out of time and by today still not served a proper copy of the Full Brief I request on 27
October 2015 nor a complete copy of the brief as ordered by His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015
then I view the court must apply the rules of the court to hold my appeal is and remained unchallenged,
and I view orders cost against you specifically. Why on earth, as a so called ratepayer, should I have to
pay for legal representation Buloke Shire Council engages who in my view are amateurish and cannot
manage to even litigate to reasonable standards.
In my view it would be appropriate for the court to restrain Buloke Shire Council to issue any further Fire
Prevention Notices against me where this has been an abuse for several years, and yet despite s43 of the
Country Fire Authority Act 1958 nothing was done to ensure that along the highways the soft shoulders
were cleared properly from any fire danger, as I proved with the many images of the roadsides.

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
Awaiting your response,

55

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)

p6
2-12-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati