v2 2007 Address To The Court Tribunal g54449 00 Part 1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal 8-3-2009

55 King Street, Melbourne
5
Cc; * Mr & Mrs Colosimo, 72 Shuter Avenue, Greendale, Vic 3341 francesco.c@live.com.au
* Maddocks (for Moorabool Shire Council) (Ref MYM:KJM:5285015
Email Annie.Bird@maddocks.com.au
. * Ms Preuss
10 * Harbison J C/o david.harbison@countycourt.vic.gov.au
* Mr Brendan Hoysted brendan.hoysted@justice..vic.gov.au
OPA Duty Officer at VCAT – Guardianship List, 5th Floor – 436 Lonsdale Street,
Melbourne, Vic, 3000, Ph; 9603 9500 – 1800 136 829 Fax 9603 9501 email
* Mr. Peter Sier, Senior Personal Financial Consultant, State Trustees
15 Peter.sier@statetrustees.com.au
* Moorabool Shire Council Councillors info@moorabool.vic.gov.au
Ref;
V2-2007-G54449/00 hearing 16-3-2009 ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL Part 1
20 .
Sir/Madam,
I have been requested to assist Mr and Mrs Colosimo in their horrific dealings
with Moorabool Shire Council accumulating in to numerous proceedings before VCAT, which
I did so in proceedings on 27-1-2009 and now for the scheduled 16-3-2009 hearing.
25 .
I am not a lawyer but I am a “CONSTITUTIONLIST” and I have assisted as an Attorney over
the decades in numerous cases and am Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series
on certain constitutional and other legal issues.
Reading the material provided to me by Mr Francis James Colosimo it is clear that the lawyers
30 for Moorabool Shire Council in their request for CONTEMPT proceedings made clear that
VCAT’s “integrity” must be upheld. This is precisely what this appeal will be about regarding
the decision to issue orders regarding guardianship.
.
Below is the ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL (Part 1) for the 16-3-2009 scheduled
35 hearing
N THE VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT MELBOURNE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST
40 Proceedings No. V2/2007
BETWEEN
MOORABOOL SHIRE COUNCIL
Applicant
And
45 FRANCES JAMES COLOSIMO
p1 8-3-2009 Hearing date 16-3-2009 (Part 1)
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
Respondent
ADDRESS TO THE COURT/VCAT (Part 1)

5 This document is presented on behalf of Mr Francis James Colosimo in two parts.
.
In this document where the “Respondent” refers to “Defendant” (being it quotations or
otherwise) it means “Respondent” unless the material itself does not justify this interpretation
and/or the material quoted does not indicate such in intention. Because some proceedings were
10 apparently held in the County Court of Victoria this document refers to Court/Tribunal so that
whatever location a hearing took place should not be an issue.
.
This ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL also relies upon the ADDRESS TO THE
COURT-TRIBUNAL and supplements that were filed in the G54449-00 proceedings for
15 GUARDIANSHIP LIST. This will avoid duplicating the same material for these proceedings.
.
The first issue is what on earth is holding these proceedings? Is it the County Court of Victoria or
the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal? After all, this is very important to any party in
proceedings to know if the judge is sitting as a judge of a court or is in fact sitting in persona
20 designate, as a Member of VCAT not as a judicial officer therefore of the County Court of
Victoria.
Below I will refer to correspondence that extensively deals with this issue also of which copies
were forwarded to all parties, including VCAT and others.
.
25 The issue before the COURT-TRIBUNAL for 16 March 2009 upon adjournment of a finding of
CONTEMPT of Mr Francis James Colosimo was to sentence him to a term of imprisonment,
as was demanded by Moorabool Shire Council and its legal representatives Maddocks
Lawyers. No appeal seems to have eventuated of this finding of CONTEMPT. Ordinary, where
no appeal is in train or has been successful then the COURT-TRIBUNAL can proceed with
30 exercising its powers to execute the sentence upon the contemnor Mr Francis James Colosimo.
It is here that Mr Francis James Colosimo has engaged Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka as to assist
him in these proceedings and as a consultant as well as being a CONSTITUTIONALIST as to
seek to convince this COURT-TRIBUNAL that irrespective that no appeal was files somehow
this COURT-TRIBUNAL has no jurisdiction whatsoever as to proceed with executing the
35 sentence to be pronounced upon Mr Francis James Colosimo, in fact it is argued that the entire
case was the product of a conspiracy to pervert the course of JUSTICE as to deliberately abuse
and misuse the legal processes as to manipulate the courts legal processes to inflict untold harm
upon Mr Francis James Colosimo.
.
40 Ordinary there is a course open to a party to proceedings to pursue a writs from a court of law, in
this case the Supreme Court of Victoria as to prevent a COURT-tribunal NOT TO PROCEED
WITH A CASE. This course has however not been followed by Mr Francis James Colosimo.
.Instead he has adapted the position that as not a single orders of VCAT and that includes the
finding of CONTEMPT by Harbison J has any constitutional validity then there is no need to
45 appeal or seek any orders as they are all ULTRA VIRES and so NULL AND VOID meaning
without legal force. This kind of approach is a very unusual indeed but what the COURT-
TRIBUUNAL has to consider is that on 27 January 2009 there was a ruling by VCAT Member
Ms Preuss, upon the submission of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka that Maddocks Lawyers had no
legal standing to be present at the hearing neither for their client Moorabool Shire Council or
50 for themselves, and subsequently a finding resulted by Ms Preuss that indeed they did not have a
LEGAL STANDING and were ordered to leave the hearing forthwith. This despite that
Maddocks Lawyers sought to argue that they did have a LEGAL STANDING. More over, since
the hearing Maddocks Lawyers by way of 24 February 2009 have indicated to the Registrar of
VCAT that Moorabool Shire Council has instructed them to “withdraw this proceeding”.
On face value it appears that this very much supports the submission that Moorabool Shire
5 Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers have no LEGAL STANDING.
.
As at this stage the proceedings are for sentencing only and as such the involvement of
Moorabool Shire Council and so its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers are not relevant to the
sentencing other that they pursued that because Mr Francis James Colosimo disregarded the 30
10 May 2007 orders of VCAT Member Philip Martin he should be given a term of imprisonment
both as a appropriate punishment as well as a deterrent to others.
The obvious question is that if Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers
not only were found by VCAT Member Ms Preuss not to have a LEGAL STANDING but
themselves appear to imply by seeking leave to withdraw not to have a LEGAL STANDING
15 then when did this come about? No known appeal was filed by Moorabool Shire Council and/or
Maddocks Lawyers as to having been wrongly ordered to leave the proceedings before Ms
Preuss and as such it can be taken that the decision was uncontested since and therefore implied
was accepted to have been appropriate in the circumstances. Surely, it is very odd indeed that a
party so successfully having litigated against Mr Francis James Colosimo and having obtained
20 a finding of CONTEMPT then so suddenly seeks to withdraw.
.
The material produced by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka sets out in far greater details then
Moorabool Shire Council and indeed its legal advisors Maddocks Lawyers ever did what
transpired and he also filed a CHRONOLOGY to reflect this. From this it is apparent that the
25 case that was placed before VCAT by way of 22 January 2007 application failed totally to set out
all relevant circumstances. It was never filed as required and more over a later 28 May 2007
Affidavit of Coral Lynnette Young completely omitted the relevant details that would have
shown that indeed there was never any LEGAL STANDING to institute proceedings in VCAT.
If indeed there was no LEGAL STANDING in the first place to institute proceedings but
30 somehow this was omitted by VCAT to be considered despite the known protest of Mr Francis
James Colosimo then obviously all and any orders would have been ULTRA VIRES, and that
includes any purported finding of CONTEMPT and as such no sentencing can proceed as there
is nothing to be sentenced about. It should however be of considerable concern for any COURT-
TRIBIUNAL that as Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka has sought to set out in considerable details the
35 litigation was a conspiracy to pervert the course of JUSTICE to deliberately inflict uncalled
harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo. It is ordinary extremely difficult for a party to trying
to prove that a conspiracy occurred and where then Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka at this late period
of litigation comes in without even having all files details, not having been present at any of the
hearing during 2007 and 32008 to then assert that such conspiracy nevertheless must be deemed
40 to have occurred involving also Maddocks Lawyers is an extra ordinary way to proceed with a
case, this as he would have to establish there is sufficient basis to indeed question the conduct of
those involved having conspired against Mr Francis James Colosimo.
It is however clear that at no time did either Moorabool Shire Council witnesses and/or
Maddocks Lawyers disclose to this COURT-TRIBUNAL various relevant details that were
45 critical to the case. More over, as Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka has extensively detailed the finding
of CONTEMPT was FRAUDULENTLY obtained.
If this is so then any COURT-TRIBUNAL can set aside a judgment that was obtained by
FRUADULENT means and no appeal for this is required. As such, if it can be shown that the
finding of CONTEMPT was the product of FRAUD then that is the end of the conviction as it
50 cannot stand. Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka for this has set out detailed how the 90-days applies and
in fact showed that by appropriate calculations the 900-days did not expire until midnight 28
August 2007, where as the report that was relied upon to make a finding of CONTEMPT was
actually produced during 28 August 2007, as such while the 90-days were still in progress and as
such without the report it must be clear that no finding of CONTEMPT could have been proven.
It is immaterial for all purposes if Mr Francis James Colosimo did or didn’t intent to complete
5 the works ordered to be done by midnight of 28 August 2007, as the issue was he was provided
with 90-days and entitled to the full extend of the 90-days and clearly this was denied.
There is no such thing as partly complying or not, as either there were 90-days provided or not.
On the basis of the calculations, and which has so far not been disputed by Moorabool Shire
Council and/or its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers the report was made on the 89th day and so not
10 relevant. Hence, the finding of CONTEMPT for this cannot stand and therefore must be deemed
to have been fraudulently obtained and is a nullity.
In particular where Maddocks Lawyers have charges involving three lawyers as well as counsel
and also Moorabool Shire Council being involved then there can be absolutely no excuse that
none of them even seemed to bother to ensure the 90-days as ordered were actually passed before
15 a report was compiled for the court. It is a very serious matter to have an innocent person held to
be guilty of CONTEMPT in particular where a term of IMPRISONMENT is so vigorously
pursued as a manner of punishment. It is safe to say that without Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka Mr
Francis James Colosimo would forever of the day have the stain of a conviction against his
name and worse could have ended up in imprisonment and as it appears have his property sold
20 from underneath of him to pay for the cost ordered from time to time against him.
.
Despite that Mr Brendan Hoysted of the Office of the Public Advocate was assisting Mr
Francis James Colosimo somehow this did not at all result to the exposure of a wrongful
conviction. This also should be of grave concerns. Here we have Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, a
25 person without formal legal education somehow is managing to expose the real legal issues that
has been left untouched by all lawyers involved. Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is a consultant with
the registered business MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® and while he does not intent to
charge Mr Francis James Colosimo, he holds that it would be appropriate that Moorabool
Shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers will provide a substantial payment to MAY JUSTICE
30 ALWAYS PREVAIL® for the considerable time and effort he has put into this case. Where the
records show that Maddocks Lawyers charged in excess of $11,000 just for the work they did
up and including the 28 May 2007 hearing and yet were unable to produce the kind of set out of
all relevant details as Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka produced then obviously cost for his service
should be made payable to MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® and such must be (without
35 GST) calculated into the payment.
.
The issue of sentencing clearly has been disposed off in that where the finding of CONTEMPT
was the product of fraud then no sentence can be issued. No COURT-TRIBINAL can proceed
with sentencing ignoring the legal reality which has now been presented to it.
40 The question that now eventuate is however that Moorabool Shire Council has instructed
Maddocks Lawyers to “withdraw this proceeding” and Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka for Mr
Francis James Colosimo has stated that it would be inappropriate for this COURT-TRIBUNAL
to allow for this. Obviously, if Moorabool Shire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers in the first
place had no LEGAL POSTION to litigate then they cannot somehow seek to achieve
45 recognition by having been permitted to withdraw as to imply they had a LEGAL POSITION.
There is another problem also and that is that to allow them to get out of the litigation and they
seek without orders for cost, it would leave Mr Francis James Colosimo in a position that he
has still orders for cost against him, he still has other findings against him and what stops
Moorabool Shire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers (the beneficiary of the cost they claimed)
50 then later to re-institute proceedings and claim that they had after all a LEGAL STANDING as it
was implied by the leave granted to withdraw.
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka’s position for Mr Francis James Colosimo is that nothing can
eventuate unless and until each and every decision against Mr Francis James Colosimo have
been vacated as having been without jurisdiction and so ULTRA VIRES. More over that this
5 kind of conduct against a ratepayer must be stopped and that Maddocks Lawyers being heavily
involved with councils may have a modus operandi in this regard and should have the full weight
of the law against it, and so Moorabool Shire Council as if the perpetrators of such criminal
activities are not duly and appropriate punished and made a deterrent for others then they will
terrorise others ratepayers if not again Mr Francis James Colosimo. Indeed that it is warranted
10 that a restraining order be put in place, in where the circumstances indicate this was a form of
STALKING perpetrated upon Mr Francis James Colosimo in specifically by Coral Lynnette
Young and in general with the assistance of Moorabool Shire Council and also its solicitors
Maddocks Lawyers.
.
15 When a person has suffered to such extend as Mr Francis James Colosimo did, and not to
forget the affect it all had upon his wife Mary and the possibility of her husband being
imprisoned and her house sold underneath of her, then the COURT-TRIBUNAL is bound to
make such orders that will protect an innocent party. In this case it is clear from the material so
voluminous produced by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka setting it all out that neiother Moorabool
20 Shire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers did anything at all to seek to stop this torment upon
Mr and Mrs Colosimo, and this despite the request by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to do so.
What appears to be that so to say their only interest was to try to get out of the entire legal mess
without cost. Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka however has exposed their lack of remorse about the
undue harm they inflicted both upon Mr Francis James Colosimo and his wife Mary and their
25 sheer ignorance and refusal to cooperate with him to see to appropriately resolve matters. It is
therefore abundantly clear that in such circumstances there is every likelihood that this kind it
TERRORISM upon Mr Francis James Colosimo and his wife Mary is to continue or to
reoccur again as such it is appropriate to issue orders which will put a stop to this kind of
conduct.
30 .
While Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka in his own writings does indicate that some of the errors that
were made may have been reasonable considered to have been accidentally made, nevertheless in
the overall it is clear that the conduct was a deliberate ploy to cause undue harm upon Mr
Francis James Colosimo and that the lawyers involved of Maddocks Lawyers either knew or
35 should have known that they were concealing relevant details from VCAT and that therefore they
must be deemed to have conspired to pervert the course of JUSTICE.
.
No conspiracy can be deemed to exist where a person acts upon his or her own accord without
any other person being involved. As such, the conduct of Coral Lynnette Young, regardless
40 how many errors she may have made in themselves cannot be regarded as a conspiracy to pervert
the course of JUSTICE, albeit she could have attempted to pervert the course of JUSTICE but
that is not a conspiracy
It is not claimed by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka for Mr Francis James Colosimo that those who
made reports were part of a conspiracy with Coral Lynnette Young as from all that is available
45 no such evidence can be ascertained. As such the conspiracy issues arises from where Coral
Lynnette Young and the solicitors were preparing the case for VCAT in the manner they did
and the subsequent Affidavit and other matters that may have taken place during the course of
the proceeding, that from all this there is an implied conspiracy. For this it is submitted that it
would have been unreasonable to accept that Coral Lynnette Young and the 3 lawyers involved
50 as well as counsel appearing would not somehow have been aware that the concealment of
relevant details were not critical to their case.
.
The issue therefore is to ascertain if all relevant details had been produced if then there was a
LEGAL STANDING. From what has been provided by the considerable amount of
correspondence produced by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka it is clear that considering the proper
5 application of the Infringement Act 2006 there was no jurisdiction for VCAT to deal with any
enforcement order in regard of a PENALTY INFRINGMENT NOTICE and that Maddocks
Lawyers as being lawyers engaged by other councils knew or should have known this. As such,
it can be established that on basis of the Infringement Act 2006 no justification existed to
institute proceedings in VCAT. If a firm of lawyers fail to be aware of this even so being paid for
10 their legal advise then they should perhaps find some other form of income but not one where
they ignore relevant provisions.
.
The point also has been made by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka that the PENALTY
INFRINGMENT NOTICE was issued without legal justification and he has set this out in details
15 in his correspondences about the 30-day clearance of the Building Notice and the subsequent re-
issue of the building Notice on 25 October 2006 and finally the cancellation within Section 116
of the Act which amount to a recognition of compliance with the Building Act and the Building
Regulations and as such the Penalty Infringement Notice could not be legally justified.
As such, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka for Mr Francis James Colosimo argued that on 17 January
20 2007 by the latest it was recognised by and on behalf of Moorabool Shire Council that Mr
Francis James Colosimo was not at all in breach of any laws and/or regulations. The fact that
then on 22 January 2007 the Application for enforcement orders was nevertheless filed may
underline this had nothing to do with some errors but a persistent TERRORISM upon Mr
Francis James Colosimo by Coral Lynnette Young and she deployed every avenue to what
25 appears to be maliciously get back upon Mr Francis James Colosimo for what was set out his
refusal to allow her to enter his FEE SIMPLE property, even when she demanded this with
police attendance. It must be stated that while Coral Lynnette Young did have police attending
to seek to force her way onto the property there was no warrant applied to enter the property or if
it had been it clearly had not been granted. More over, Mr Francis James Colosimo claims that
30 certain photographs that were reproduced in the 28 May 2007 Affidavit of Coral Lynnette
Young and claimed to have been made by herself besides being inadmissible in Court were the
product of trespassing.
In the overall setting it appears therefore that Coral Lynnette Young having confronted Mr
Francis James Colosimo and trying to bully him into allowing her to enter his property and
35 faced being refused this despite her even engaging a police officer for this must be deemed to
have displayed a very unhealthy interest into Mr Francis James Colosimo in particular where
she could have applied for a warrant to gain access, if that had been granted, and so no need to
create an escalation of conflict between her and Mr Francis James Colosimo. It is therefore
reasonable to conclude that Coral Lynnette Young, and also considering numerous other
40 matters set out in the material of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka abused and misused her position to
inflict maximum harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo. It can also be concluded that
Maddocks Lawyers knew or should have known from the files that any litigation to be instituted
in VCAT would be inappropriate at the very least and an abuse of its legal processes. When it is
then considered that since the ruling of Deputy President Helen Gibson of 14 March 2007 there
45 was a period of more then 2-months to produce an affidavit and yet they did not file this affidavit
until the day of the hearing on 28 May 2007 well knowing that Mr Francis James Colosimo as
an unrepresented Respondent would have no ability to digest this kind of thick affidavit then it
underlines that Maddocks Lawyers were not at all interested to provide Mr Francis James
Colosimo a reasonable opportunity to prepare his case against the Affidavit and so to deny him a
50 FAIR and PROPER trial.
.
Often when a COURT-TRIBUNAL is faced with different versions about some event then it is
bound to consider the credibility of each witness before it, or so the parties concerned and their
legal representatives.
.
5 From what Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka has set out in great detail it is clear that there was
deceptive conduct by Coral Lynnette Young and the solicitors Maddocks Laywers where as
there was no evidence of Mr Francis James Colosimo using such conduct. Indeed in the records
he produced he seems to state everything in a very open and honest manner. We therefore have
to consider if the version of Mr Francis James Colosimo that he was given the understanding
10 by law professor Errol Higgins was correct that Kate Morris of Maddocks Lawyers had
advised the 28 May 2007 hearing was adjourned or the version of Maddocks Lawyers. actually
they never disputed this account of Mr Francis James Colosimo and as such the COURT-
TRIBUNAL can only go by the version of Mr Francis James Colosimo that he was given the
understanding that the 28 May 2007 hearing was adjourned and as such he was entitled to rely
15 upon this. The question then arises if the phone calls of Kate Morris to Mr Francis James
Colosimo had any value as to seek him to attend to the hearing on 28 May 2007. Because of
what was seen as a deceptive conduct against Mr Francis James Colosimo it is reasonable to
accept that he could not rely upon whatever fell of the lips of Kate Morris. More over, where
Mr Francis James Colosimo was given the understanding that the hearing was adjourned and
20 he made alternative arrangement for the day then no disrespect was shown by him to refuse
subsequently to attend as he was entitled to proceed with what he had arranged and no COURT-
TRIBUINAL could expect a person who had made certain decisions in good fait and also was a
considerable distance residing from Melbourne somehow could then turn up at court and be
prepared for litigation for which he had absolutely no skill and more over would be faced with a
25 bulky affidavit of Coral Lynnette Young for which there would be absolutely no time for him to
respond.
.
VCAT may not have all formal procedures applied (as otherwise applicable in a court of law)but
it cannot expect an untrained person – in law- to suddenly turn up at proceedings and exhausted
30 from travelling and then face highly educated opponents who had all the time in the world as to
prepare the case and for some reason left the Affidavit to the last minute to file as what appears a
tactic to prevent Mr Francis James Colosimo to perhaps detect any inconsistencies and or
inadmissible evidence. It doesn’t matter if it is a COURT OF LAW or a TRIBUNAL such as
VCAT the essential requirement always exist that there must be FAIR and PROPER
35 proceedings. Even if Mr Francis James Colosimo had been attending at the hearing at
commencement of the hearing it is reasonable to assume that as an unlettered person in legal
matters he could not have appropriately considered what was filed in the TRIBUNAL by Coral
Lynnette Young in the bulky affidavit let alone it could be expected that somehow he carries
with him portable typewriter and printer as to be able to turn out an Affidavit, that also needs to
40 be sworn, in mere minutes.
Lawyers are OFFICERS OF THE COURT and must not abuse and misuse these privileges by
seeking to so to say bulldoze an unrepresented respondent/party.
The lawyers involved should be deemed to have had ample of knowledge about the kind of party
they were dealing with as they had received ample of written communication from him and as
45 such would or should have been aware that he was not running around with a mobile office
where he could park it outside the Court to produce whatever formal response was required.
As such, it is clear that Maddocks Lawyers must be perceived as having engineered to deny Mr
Francis James Colosimo a FAIR and PROPER trial by delaying the filing of the Affidavit until
the hearing actually commenced.
50 From the circumstances prevailing it was not relevant if Mr Francis James Colosimo was
present or not as he was set up to be denied a FAIR and PROPER hearing in the first place.
.
The COURTS-TRIBUNAL must be cautious that lawyers are not using the courts as their
personal playing field to use legal thuggery in a highly inappropriate manner to achieve orders in
favour of their clients. In this case it can not be said that Maddocks Lawyers provide Mr
5 Francis James Colosimo a reasonable opportunity to respond to the affidavit of Coral Lynnette
Young as it appears he was never served with a copy thereof. It may be argued that Maddocks
Lawyers did forward by way of 24 May 2009 correspondence a copy of the affidavit well an
DRAFT COPY, AS IT WAS NOT SWORN. Again, considering that Mr Francis James
Colosimo resides a long distance from Melbourne, where the lawyers are having their law
10 offices, then by the time the mail may have arrived it would have been likely 28 May 2007, the
day of the hearing. Now was Mr Francis James Colosimo supposed to wait at home for the
document while at the same time being all the way in Melbourne to attend the hearing?
Surely this is a total unacceptable situation. More over, the document purporting an unsworn
affidavit had no legal value as it was not sworn and there was obviously no evidence for Mr
15 Francis James Colosimo that an identical copy was filed in VCAT. As it turns out it has not
been on 24 May 2007 as not until 28 May 2007 an Affidavit was filed of Coral Lynnette Young
of which Mr Francis James Colosimo to this day still is not aware as to the precise version if
what was ultimately filed. What was provided to Mr Francis James Colosimo for all he knows
may not have been filed as such but a total different document with a complete different version
20 of events may have been filed. Now it is a bit rich to expect Mr Francis James Colosimo to rely
upon whatever opponents seek to let him know where already their conduct is in question.
Mr Francis James Colosimo was clearly entitled to ignore whatever Kate Morris was claiming
on 28 May 2007 and more over his presence would have not made one of iota difference in that
he simply would not have been in any position to make the long distance travelling and then
25 faced with some version of a bulky affidavit without being able to respond in an appropriate
manner.
.
While it is recognised that VCAT should deal with matters with as little formality as possible this
doesn’t mean then that it is game time for lawyers to abuse and misused its processes. Lawyers
30 should be well aware that the little as possible formality is to try to make is more appropriate for
unrepresented parties to pursue their case. As OFFICERS OF THE COURT they have an
obligation to ensure that their conduct is beyond reproach and not to unduly deny an
unrepresented party of a FAIR and PROPER hearing. Lawyers have the general advantage that
they are accustomed with legal technicalities and legislative provisions and their unrepresented
35 opponent is not and as such they must assist to balance the setting and not aggravate it to undue
advantage by withholding affidavit material to the last minute. As such, for all purposes the 28
May 2007 proceedings must be deemed to have been in the circumstances existing conducted EX
Parte. Obviously this also then questions the conduct of a finding for an ENFORCEMENT
ORDER regarding a “SECOND DWELLING” under clause 35.03-01 which never appeared on
40 any documentations formally issued upon Mr Francis James Colosimo. As such. there was no
enforcement of anything because there was a non-existing PENALTY INFRINGMENT
NOTICE being enforced. Again, besides the fact that a Magistrates Court and not VCAT by the
provisions of the Infringement Act 2006 could only adjudicate upon these matters it still leaves
the issue that even if VCAT had been provided jurisdiction by the Act it still would have been in
45 no position as to issue an ENFORCEMENT ORDER in regard of something that never in the
first place existed. The very term of ENFORCEMENT ORDER means it has to ENFORCE
something that already existed and not something that never existed at all.
How on earth can anyone defend himself against a non-existing notice?
And more over, the “SECOND DWELLING” finding resulted to a LEGAL FRUSTRATION
50 in that it was sheer impossible for Mr Francis James Colosimo to remove a non existing
“SECOND DWELLING”.
As such no finding of contempt could in that regard either be found proven because one cannot
comply to an order that relates to a non existing building.
It might be that VCAT Member Philip Martin may desired to have circumvented the legal
technicalities of the “OUTBUILDING” having been found lawfully erected then by referring it
5 to a DWELLING it could be claimed to be unlawful, but this is not how any COURT-
TRIBUNAL should operate. It was not for the tribunal member to try to make something that
was lawfully erected to become unlawful by a mere change of title of building.
The Tribunal was to adjudicate if an ENFORCEMENT ORDER should be issued and not to try
to bring within its scope something by classifying it differently where already Moorabool Shire
10 Council by the 7 and 17 January 2007 dated cancellation notice within Section 116 of the Act
had implied accepted it was lawfully erected.
.
There was also a clear LEGAL FRUSTRATION for there being a 30 May 2007 order to
remove a “SECOND DWELLING” which in reality didn’t exist. Clearly an OUTBUILDING is
15 not a DWELLING and as such having to remove a non-existing building is a bit ridiculous. Yet
strangely enough Harbison J found a prove CONTEMPT even so there was no such building
existing nor was any charge made against Mr Francis James Colosimo to be enforced about a
“SECOND DWELLING”.
.
20 EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!
Therefore when any government/parliament seeks to exercise constitutional powers then a citizen
has the right to challenge this. Deputy President Helen Gibson therefore has no position to
deny Mr Francis James Colosimo of this rights as she did on 9 March 2007. For that the High
Court of Australia is also on record that not even every Court of Record has enforcement powers.
25 Therefore, where VCAT is not a Court invested with Federal jurisdiction then all Deputy
President Helen Gibson could have done was to direct the prosecutor to go and get if they can a
ruling by a court invested with federal jurisdiction that VCAT could invoke jurisdiction. It is not
the respondent/defendant who needs to prove jurisdiction rather unless and until the prosecutor
does so there is no jurisdiction and hence all and any orders purportedly issued are a nullity and
30 of no legal force. What the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the Constitution was that
every citizen was entitled to DUE PROCESS OF LAW which included a “JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION” upon being heard.
Clearly the kind of STAR CHAMBER COURT hearing by VCAT is not a Court of law.
.
35 Why on earth Harbison found COMTEMPT to have been proven when the very report relied
upon was failing to provide for the 90-days also is a question that requires to be canvassed.
.
Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court)
"A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the burden of
40 endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by their own
advocacy"
.
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
“The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the
45 inalienable right of everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.”
.
In particular where there is an unrepresented defendant then the Court must act cautious, yet
instead it appears Harbison took for granted whatever the lawyers were putting before her. This
then must be considered that Harbison J being a judge of the County Court of Victoria actually
50 was not at all acting as a judge of the County Court of Victoria but rather as an ordinary Member

of VCAT not exercising her judicial position but nevertheless did so in the courtroom of the
County Court of Victoria as persona designate for the government.
For an unrepresented person it can be very intimidating to appear in a court room before a judge
not at all being aware that the person actually is not acting as s judge of the County Court of
5 Victoria but merely acting within the powers of persona designate for the government as a
member for VCAT. This is a deceptive conduct that never should be tolerated and the question is
then how many people were imprisoned in such a manner thinking they were orders to
imprisonment by a judge of the County Court of Victoria who actually was at that time not acting
as a judge of the County Court of Victoria at all.
10 After all, where an enforcement order in regard of a PENALTY INFRINGEMENT NOTICE by
the Infringement Act 2006 only can be litigated in the magistrates Court then it would be totally
absurd to argue that somehow a judge of the County Court of Victoria can circumvent legal
provisions in that regard and make an unlawfully issued enforcement order by this lawful.
Indeed, it is a danger to the position of what is to be a impartial judge of the County Court of
15 Victoria to sit with powers of persona designate for the government at VCAT. More over, as the
High Court of Australia clearly indicated that not even all Court or Record’s have powers to
enforce their own orders it would be absurd to hold that VCAT, not even being a court, somehow
could enforce its own orders, no matter how invalid they were issued by merely using a judge of
the County Court of Victoria to enforce it by a term of imprisonment.
20 It should be clear that there is a conflict of interest for a purported impartial judge to double as a
Member for VCAT using persona designate to act for the government.
It is deceptive to unsuspected defendants!
.
While Moorabool Shire Council and so its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers desire to “withdraw
25 this proceedings” the truth is that the COURT-TRIBUNAL has no legal position to provide for
this. Basically where the request to withdraw was made without having “WITHOUT
PREJUDICE” it therefore has placed itself IN LIMBO (SUSPENDED).
VCAT Member Ms Preuss on 27 January 2009 held, upon the submission of Mr G. H. Schorel-
Hlavka, that indeed Moorabool Shire Council and also Maddocks Lawyers had no legal
30 position in the proceedings and were ordered to leave. This even so previously orders were
obtained under Administration to enforce VCAT’s orders of cost, etc. As such where no appeal
was filed against the 27 January 2009 decision then this was clearly accepted by Moorabool
Shire Council as well as by its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers to be a correct decision. More
over, the facts that after a avalanche of correspondence by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka exposing
35 numerous matters that were done incorrectly, etc, Moorabool Shire Council instructed
Maddocks Lawyers to seek leave to “withdraw this proceeding”.
.
Upon submission of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka ordered that all files be provided to Mr G. H.
Schorel-Hlavka, albeit they still have not! Now, even in regard of the 16 March 2009 hearing
40 Ms Preuss directed that this hearing cannot proceed. What however is noticeable is that unless
the files are provided to Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka he still cannot conclude the extend of abuse
and misuse of legal processes by whomever was involved and as such no judge or member could
possible deal with the request for leave to withdraw as it might be that certain matters require
their attendances. As Moorabool Shire Council and so their solicitors Maddocks Lawyers are
45 basically on non-active they cannot participate in further litigation but can neither be free from it.
They simply have to stick it out whatever is coming to them pending when the investigation by
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is completed. After all, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is so far the only
person who despite of not being a Legal practitioner still was the one who exposed all the rot. As
such, while they are not released from the rot they created they can so to say still face the music.
50 Again, as long as the files have not been handed over and not sufficient time provided to work on
them to assess matters no hearing can either take place.
.
Because of the compromise upon judicial integrity of judges of the County Court of Victoria to
act using persona designate as members of VCAT then for this not a single judge could get
involved in further proceedings.
5 .
Member Philip Martin and also Deputy President Helen Gibson proved that they seem to lack
any proper perception/competence to hold FAIR and PROPER hearing then for this also no
hearing can eventuate until this mess is sorted out.
And as the OBJECTION TO JUSRIDICTION is still on foot for that part also no hearing can
10 proceed.
.
With Moorabool Shire Council having instructed Maddocks Lawyers to seek leave to
withdraw, one would not expect them then to go to a Court to try to prove jurisdiction for VCAT
knowing darn well that the is no case to pursue. As such which ever way one takes it there is no
15 way VCAT can hear and determine matters and neither any judge of the County Court of
Victoria as there is a so to say “CHECK MATE” position for Moorabool Shire Council,
Maddocks Lawyers, VCAT and the judges of the County Court of Victoria..
As Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka made known in his correspondences he needs all files, also of
Moorabool Shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers as there is no privileges attached to them of
20 client-lawyers because that went out of the wind when they conspired to pervert the course of
JUSTICE. It would therefore be appropriate that no proceedings are held and no orders are made
until at the very least Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is able to present a full report to VCAT or
others as to his findings in regard of the cases before VCAT regarding Mr Francis James
Colosimo. Both constitutionally and otherwise legally applicable.
25 .
It obviously may be a thorn in the eyes of lawyers that a non-lawyer had them kicked out of a
hearing and then takes control over an investigation that contains details that otherwise is
privileged information but then again they did it onto themselves. And, Mr G. H. Schorel-
Hlavka is bound to discover if items might be missing of the files and if so this would indicate
30 that there is further conduct to pervert the course of JUSTICE.
It should not be overlooked that Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is the only person who can
appropriately expose the wrongdoings and as such it should be accepted that he should without
hindrance and obstruction continue to do so, before any other action is contemplated.
.
35 The following list of documents relied upon also either were documents stating matters or are
copies of emails forwarded, albeit the list may not include al documents and as such must not be
perceived and neither is intended to be the entire list of documentation for consideration with the
ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL
40 090120-04-Constitutional-Frank-VCAT
090120-06-Constitutional-Frank-VCAT
090120-G54449-00-APPEAL
090121-06-Constitutional-Frank-MADDOCKS
090121-G54449-00-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL
45 090122-03-Constitutional-Frank-Maddocs
090122-G54449-00-SUPPLEMENT to ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL
50 090123-13-Constitutional-Frank-COMPLAINT
090123-16-Constitutional-Frank-Maddocks
090123-G54449-00-2nd SUPPLEMENT to ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL
090123-G54449-00-VCAT COMPLAINT
5 090126-01-Constitutional-Frank-MADDOCKS
090126-G54449-00-CHRONOLOGY & PRESENTATION
090126-G54449-00-Re Francis J Colosimo
090127-01 -Constitutional-Frank-VCAT
10 090127-G54449-00-OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
090128-FORMAL COMPLAINT-etc-COLOSIMO ISSUE-G54449-00
090129-CONTEMPT OF COURT-V2-2007 CCV
090212-State Trustees-G54449-00-Re Francis J Colosimo
15 090221-FORMAL COMPLAINT-etc-COLOSIMO ISSUE-G54449-00
090221-G54449-00-Formal request-REMINDER-etc
090226-G54449-00-Colosimo case
090228-V2-G54449-00-Maddocks Lawyers-REMINDER-etc
090301-G54449-00-Ms PREUSS-URGENT-CONFIDENTIAL
20 090304-V2-G54449-00-Maddocks Lawyers-Response-etc
090305-G54449-00-Harbison J-Re-COLOMISO
090305-G54449-00-Ms PREUSS-Re-COLOMISO
090305-V2-G54449-00-Maddocks Lawyers-Further Response-etc
090306-V2-G54449-00-V2-2007-VCAT REGISTRAR Jim Nelms
25 090307-COMPLAINT TO LAW INSTITUTE-Colosimo case-VCAT v2-2007 - G544449-00
090307-V2-G54449-00-V2-2007-VCAT REGISTRAR Jim Nelms-REPLACEMENT
.
What is evidently clear is that considering just the content of earlier documentation, such as;
30 090120-G54449-00-APPEAL
090121-G54449-00-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL
Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers should have been aware that
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka was so to say not going to take this lying down but was going to
35 generate ample of documentation to show that he did mean business to pursue JUSTICE.
Despite of this no attempt was made whatsoever by Moorabool Shire Council and/or
Maddocks Lawyers to as a matter of urgency and being aware that the 27 January 2009 hearing
was approaching as to try to communicate a reasonable approach. As such, the (what judges
describe as) “paper war” commenced albeit in electronic format. Even after the hearing on 27
40 January 2009 Mr Peter Sier, State Trustees, was claiming that Mr Francis James Colosimo
simply did fail to accept he acted in breach of legal provisions which also caused a lot of upset
with Mr Francis James Colosimo as to the man who was supposed to assist him had this view.
While it is acknowledged that Mr Peter Sier, albeit wrongly in his expressed, views was entitled
to them it did indicate however that up to the time that Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka so to say
45 entered the scene there was simply no one who seemed to understand what was really applicable.
While Ms Preuss can but only complimented for the manner she conducted the hearing on 27
January 2009 bar failing to deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, still the very core
issue the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION with which everything stood of fell was ignored.
The OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then filed was not just in regard of the proceedings
50 before Ms Preuss but refers to all cases involving Mr Francis James Colosimo before VCAT-
COURT.
Quote 27-1-2009 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal - Guardian List 27-1-2009
55 King Street, Melbourne
5
Cc; * Mr & Mrs Colosimo, 72 Shuter Avenue, Greendale, Vic 3341
* Maddocks (for Moorabool Shire Council) (Ref MYM:KJM:5285015
Email info@maddocks.com.au
.
10 Ref; G54449/00 hearing 27-1-2009 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
(Including V2/2007 & P194/2007 and other related proceedings)
.
Sir/Madam,
I have been requested to assist Mr and Mrs Colosimo in their horrific dealings
15 with Moorabool Shire Council accumulating in to numerous proceedings before VCAT.
As the material I provide to this Court/Tribunal will show indeed prove that regardless if one
consider constitutional issues or not in the end there never was any JURISDICTION for the
Court/Tribunal to hear and determine matters let alone issue orders against the unrepresented
Respondent Mr. Francis James Colosimo, as such, and relevant for these proceedings neither
20 to issue any ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS!
As Author and also publisher of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain
constitutional and other legal issues I publish material, including what is presented to this
Court/Tribunal. By this the Readers can be aware of the plight of the unrepresented Respondent
Mr Francis James Colosimo and the constitutional and other legal issues involved.
25 .
I am not a lawyer but I am a “CONSTITUTIONLIST” and I have assisted as an Attorney over
the decades in numerous cases and am Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series
on certain constitutional and other legal issues.
Reading the material provided to me by Mr Francis James Colosimo it is clear that the lawyers
30 for Moorabool Shire Council in their request for CONTEMPT proceedings made clear that
VCAT’s “INTEGRITY” must be upheld. This is precisely what this appeal will be about
regarding the decision to issue orders regarding guardianship.
The current PURPORTED orders by P Graves, Member of VCAT of 29 October 2008 are
subject to an appeal on 27 January 2009, albeit are deemed ULTRA VIRES and so without legal
35 force, as no jurisdiction existed to issue such orders.
END QUOTE 27-1-2009 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
.
Therefore the submission that Moorabool Shire Council and neither Maddocks Lawyers had
any legal standing was not just based upon the Guardianship List hearings on 27 January 2009
40 but in regard of all litigation involving Mr Francis James Colosimo and this subsequent
decision for Ms Preuss to then so to say boot out Maddocks Lawyers upon Mr G. H. Schorel-
Hlavka submission at commencement of the hearing was clearly then on basis of the general
case. And Maddocks Lawyers albeit protesting, so to say, like a little pig simply found being
booted out of the hearing. Still, despite this Maddocks Lawyers made no attempt whatsoever to
45 try to get some consensus of the minds between them and Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka as to how
to go from there. This left no alternative for Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, so to say, slowly turn
the screws on so as to get Maddocks Lawyers coming to its senses, if this was possible at all.
In the end it seems to be that Moorabool Shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers are
capitulating by having applied for leave to “withdraw this proceeding” albeit this is not the
50 proper conduct to go by. As set out in documentation referred to above there is no such thing as
to “withdraw this proceeding” rather to seek leave to “withdraw from proceeding”.
The proceedings themselves are in a status where a finding of CONTEMPT was made and the
sentencing is now between VCAT-COURT and Mr Francis James Colosimo and not a thing
Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers can do to stop these
proceedings. It is now up to VCAT/COURT as to decide what kind of sentence shall be imposed,
5 albeit this relates only to the request for leave to “withdraw this proceeding” as otherwise as
has been set out extensively VCAT-COURT cannot proceed to execute any sentence because
there is no validity in any of its orders.
.
It can be very humiliating for any firm of lawyers such as Maddocks Lawyers to discover they
10 are beaten by a non-lawyer and left no alternative but to conduct matters through him to seek to
resolve matters appropriately but there is simply no alternative to this. And while this litigation
goes ion it may deter councils to deal with Maddocks Lawyers if this is their kind of conduct to
ignore seeking to settle appropriately a gross wrongdoings which could backfire upon a council
badly.
15 .
VCAT-COURT is in a status that its jurisdiction was and has still been challenged and as such it
is in no position as to make any kind of orders. It has no JURISDICTION to determine the
jurisdictional issue and where Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers
were already rules not to have a LEGAL STANDING then they are in no position to institute
20 proceedings elsewhere in another court upon the same to seek to resolve the dilemma.
This STALEMATE is one that will obviously not go away unless and until Mr Francis James
Colosimo is having an opportunity to have his grievances settled, and so far neither Moorabool
Shire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers have made any attempt to seek to come to some
understanding about these issues., this, despite of the offers to do so as shown in the
25 correspondence of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to them. As Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka did make
clear he would pursue to file COMPLAINTS to the relevant Authorities and he has commenced
to do so. Where then the relevant Authorities were to conclude that Mooorabool Shire Council
and/or its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers had acted inappropriately and had colluded to conspire
to pervert the course of JUSTICE as to inflict untold harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo
30 then obviously their conduct of failing to show any remorse and indeed stubbornly refusing to
even stop the rot would go severely against them. Their conduct appears to be a well
orchestrated conduct as to ensure a conviction would eventuate where none was justified. This is
a very serious matter that should not be under estimated as to its affects. After all the conviction
of Mr Francis James Colosimo would for ever in the day have been a stain on his reputation
35 and each time another Court refers to this decision in other proceedings it would continue the
harm upon him as well as would set the wrong example as other Courts may rely upon this
conviction not aware it was the product of a conspiracy to pervert the course of JUSTICE. The
conviction also could have served as leverage by councils to warn other ratepayers that they
better obey the dictatorship of their council or face the same! This is the kind of TERRORISM
40 that creeps into society where those who are to represent the community are slowly using their
powers or better to state their purported powers to create their own little DICTATORSHIP.
Ordinary ratepayers have no power to fight such an onslaught upon their rights and as such Mr
Francis James Colosimo has no alternative but to fight it all the way. It is terrible when an
ordinary man who seeks no more but to build a shed so he can store food he was handing out to
45 the needy as he views is appropriate to do so in his religious beliefs then is tormented to such an
extend that he was bound to be imprisoned, at least that appears to have been made clear by
Harbison J when convicting him, and this for doing no more but what the Framers of the
constitution provided for and that is to stand up for your constitutional and other legal rights.
.
50 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
National Australasian Convention)
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
5 Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will
be a sentry.
.
Well, he did and found being thwarted by VCAT notably Deputy President Helen Gibson from
onset and so also others after already Moorabool Shire Council thwarted his efforts to pursue
10 what he was rightly entitled upon. And even so by the 7 and 17 January 2007 cancellation notice
within Section 116 of the Act he was deemed to be entitled to complete his shed nevertheless
Moorabool Shire Council started a considerable litigation war as to try by some other means to
make the live of Mr Francis James Colosimo extremely difficult and where possible to have
him ending up in imprisonment to learn a lesson that when you cross Moorabool Shire Council
15 then it is not relevant what your constitutional and/or other legal rights are as you will pay the
price for standing up against Mooorabool Shire Council no matter you have done no legal
wrong.
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
20 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.
25 END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been
30 made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but
not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it
embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all
have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
35 .
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

40 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
Again “protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution” and this requires a
45 CONSTITUTIONALIST to clarify what is implied in the Constitution!
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS are ordinary trained in legal matters not in constitutional matter! Put
a lawyer in a case and he will argue the same legal provisions pending which side he is
representing in different manner. A CONSTITUTIONALISTlike Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is
focussed upon what the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution were and how they are
50 embedded in the constitution. As such, not interested in that regard how it may assist any
particular party in proceedings as he is without bias.
As Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka for so long has promoted there should be an OFFICE OF THE
GUARDIAN that advises the Government,. The People, the Parliament and the Courts as to
constitutional powers and limitations. This is indeed very relevant to for example how VCAT
operates as it may just find that its conduct is far from constitutionally permissible. While this
5 unconstitutional conduct might be ignored by a government and even by VCAT members
nevertheless it doesn’t make it go away.
What is shown is that when a CONSTITUTIONALIST like Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka gets
involved in a case, such as he did with Pauline Hanson having that conviction overturned when
he published a book INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP, A book on CD about
10 Australians unduly harmed [(ISBN 0-9580569-6-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-
6-0] on 30 September 2003 and the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal subsequently in
November 2003 about word for word used the legal arguments Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka had
published as to overturn the convictions, then whatever seems to be lawful in convictions is
shown not to have been so at all.
15 .
Here we had Harbison J sitting, so to say, in a starting position to do no more but to pas
sentence upon Mr Francis James Colosimo and along comes Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka and
upset the applecart by making clear all the rules of appeal, etc, are not applicable as it is a total
different ball game once he gets involved. It is not that Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka attempt to
20 rewrite the rule book just that he exposes that there are different rules lawyers/judges simply
were unaware off existed and so it isn’t as it looked like at all.
.
Prior to Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka after a 5-year legal battle on 19 July 2006 comprehensively
defeating the crown on all constitutional and other legal issues he had submitted he published a
25 book on 6 July 2006 that contained all material placed before the Court and the book itself was
filed as evidence;
.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
30 ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3
.
As such there can be no question as to what was before the Court when the Crown was
comprehensively defeated and conceded to by consent the court making its orders in favour of
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka.
35 .
As Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka pointed out in his published book of December 2003;
.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & ADDRESS TO THE COURT
A book on CD, making litigation a more level playing field
40 ISBN 0-9580569-7-8 (After 1-1-2007; ISBN 978-0-9580569-7-7
.
the way to go about litigation is to take lawyers on upon their own field.
.
As DIXON CJ of the High Court of Australia made clear that if lawyers didn‘t keep abreast
45 what is legally applicable then even an “ALIEN FROM OUTER SPACE” could do better.
Well Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is not some alien from outer space but entered the
Commonwealth of Australia as an alien from The Netherlands and despite his “crummy English”
proved to be able to defeat the crown comprehensively on all constitutional and other legal
matters.
50 The relevance to this is that Mr Francis James Colosimo turned out to rely upon many of the
constitutional issues that successfully had been canvassed by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka in his
material and again it was all published in his book on 6-7-2006. As such, there is a DIRECT and
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL and Moorabool Shire Council as an organ/entity of the
government cannot circumvent this. When all authority-Generals way back in 2002 were
provided with an opportunity to challenge the Section 78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
5 MATTERS but by 19 July 2006 none had done so then so to say it would be a little bit rich to
try to argue that where they couldn’t care less then to challenge matters that somehow after a
finding by the Court in favour of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka upon all matters (none excluded)
they now might seek to challenge it through one of their organs because Mr Francis James
Colosimo is seen as an easy prey then the formidable CONSTITUTIONALIST being Mr G.
10 H. Schorel-Hlavka.
.
CONSESNSUS OF THE MIND & COST
It is very clear that Mr Francis James Colosimo relies also upon his FEE SIMPLE rights and
nothing so far has shown that Moorabool Shire Council is acknowledging this. As such,
15 nothing will be achieved as to these proceedings unless some CONSENSUS OF THE MIND
can be established where Mr Francis James Colosimo can go on with his life assisting the
needy, etc, without undue interference by Moorabool Shire Council.
.
It may be argued that VCAT-COURT may not have any particular judicial powers to issue
20 certain orders and this cannot be ignored however there are always avenues to deal with this.
For example Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka as an attorney was dealing with a case where the
magistrates Court limit was $40.000 where as he desired to settle all matters to the value of
$300,000 and so offered to withdraw the case upon a MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDERS/
AGREEMENT as an agreement between the parties that the opponent would be paid $10,000
25 and cost and the rest would remain with the persons Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka appeared for. As
was explained to the Court by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka that technically the Court could make
such an orders as the court did not make an order as to the $300,000 but merely that the matter
was withdrawn and the other party would be paid $10,000 and cost (about $2,500) on basis of
the consent between the parties. As such, albeit the Court made the orders within its limits it was
30 based upon a settlement far beyond its limits but it was not relevant as such.
Likewise, there is nothing to prevent the parties to come to a CONSESNSUS OF THE MINDS
as to settle in whatever terms and have this as the basis of any final decision.
Obviously, as both Moorabool Shire Council as well as Maddocks Lawyers have so far
showed a total and blatant disregard to seek to come to a CONSENSUS OF THE MINDS to
35 seek to settle the dispute a part 2 of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL will be
provided, that is so far about 600 pages but deals extensively with FEE SIMPLE and other
matters the very issues Mr Francis James Colosimo pursued from onset.
.
Because there are various court decisions on record about FREE SIMPLE and in particular
40 regarding how Queensland had legislated in that regard and now other State Courts are using it as
a authority it is then essential that this kind of so to say spell is broken.
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is but the only person in the Commonwealth of Australia who has
been able to expose the total FRAUD in what is going on and the part 2 of the ADRESS TO
45 THE COURT-TRIBUNAL will be addressing matters. Because he is a
CONSTITUTIONALIST he obviously commences to address the CONSTITUTIONAL issues
because this is after all where all legislative powers derives from.
.
Because Moorabool Shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers so far refused to act appropriately
50 to seek to resolve matters by a CONSENSUS OF THE MINDS it has left no alternative but to
file the part 2 of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL albeit the part 2 document is
still being worked upon and as such must not and neither is intended to present a total picture of
all issues in dispute. Obviously, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka as such is well entitled to pursue
financial compensation from the opponent party where the work is caused upon him by the
foolhardiness of both Moorabool Shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers to seek to achieve a
5 CONSENSUS OF THE MIND.
As was indicated from onset there were serious problems with how Moorabool Shire Council
with their solicitors Maddocks Lawyers commenced to litigate and one would have thought that
ordinary lawyers would be quickly of the mark to advise their client they have a hopeless case
and better settle as quick as possible before cost are mounting up. Neither Moorabool Shire
10 Council and Maddocks Lawyers could expect that somehow they can continue their deceptive
kind of litigation and avoid cost! Neither that Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is basically teaching
them the real rules of law and they get some free education. They are also wll aware that Mr
Francis James Colosimo has no financial position to incur huge cost for Mr G. H. Schorel-
Hlavka to assist him and neither should he where after all he is wronged against and Mooorabool
15 shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers despite getting, so to say, an eye opener from the start of
the involvement of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka nevertheless elected to so to say stick it out and
perhaps that somehow it would go away and they still succeed over Mr Francis James
Colosimo and have him imprisoned and for whatever it was possible to have his property sold to
pay cost, etc.
20 .
Whenever one deals with the issue of cost then one has to consider the conduct of both parties in
the dispute. On the one hand we have Mr Francis James Colosimo who throughout these
matters conducted himself honourable and was at all times honest and frank about his intentions
and to pursue matters in a lawful manner. On the other side we have Moorabool Shire Council
25 that basically TERRORISED Mr Francis James Colosimo and trespassed upon his property to
collect evidence disregarding the proper lawful course to pursue a warrant, perhaps because of
being aware that no magistrate in his right mind would grant a warrant for this, so they engage
police to seek to intimidate Mr Francis James Colosimo but to no avail and so the onslaught of
litigation commences with all kinds of notices, etc and then when the litigation is before VCAT
30 there is no let up to deceive VCAT by concealing relevant details and not satisfied with this even
go as far as to pervert the course of JUSTICE to even cause a wrongful conviction of
CONTEMPT and leaving Mr Francis James Colosimo staring to a term of imprisonment and
have his property sold to pay the ordered cost and all Mr Francis James Colosimo has left is
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka of MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® who is, so to say, to try
35 to save skin, reputation, etc, and this that he will not charge Mr Francis James Colosimo but
will provide a charge against his opponents for his services. The issue therefore is if the
assistance of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka justifies any consideration for cost to compensate him
for his time and effort over all those months in the cases before VCAT-COURT.
.
40 It should be apparent that where VCAT already accepted the submission on 27 January 2009 by
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka that neither Moorabool Shire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers
had any LEGAL STANDING already was a turning point in the litigation.
Further, that because of the relentless presentation of details by the writings of Mr G. H.
Schorel-Hlavka that Moorabool Shire Council instructed its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers to
45 seek Leave to “withdraw this proceeding”. As such, the turn about in the cases are because of the
assistance Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka has provided. Therefore the issue is now for Moorabool
Shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers to come to their senses and accept that they just have to,
so to say, cough up the monies to compensate Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka for his time and effort,
etc, as after all they created the utter mess in the first place.
50 .

Just for Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka’s to attend to the 27 January 2009 hearing there was an about
$25.00 parking fee alone and surely lawyers who desire to litigate must expect that if they stuff it
up, plainly stated, they have to compensate for cost, as much as they demanded in their
presentation against Mr Francis James Colosimo and obtained for this the 2 nd August 2007
5 orders from Member Philip Martin. Now, there was nothing in their cost provisions to VCAT
that they were not going to charge because they stuffed up big time. Maddocks Lawyers simply
held it was their right to seek cost regardless how immature or otherwise defective their conduct
was. At least Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka can be called as an expert witness to show why his
presentation as a CONSTITUTIONALIST is correct, and considering that he comprehensively
10 defeated the Crown on 19 July 2006 he is well entitled to present his statements as he has a court
finding in his favour. It also serves as a warning to councils in general that they better do not
disregard the FEE SIMPLE rights of rate payers as so to say it might just bite them in their bum.
They may just discover that it may work adversely then what they hoped to achieve.
Also, Moorabool Shire Council seems to have used the Administration orders as to enforce
15 what it claimed to be an about $10,000 outstanding rates and interest. Now, this also makes the
matter more difficult because it seems Moorabool Shire Council is seeking to use VCAT as a
way to enforce its own charges and VCAT seemingly allowed this where as in truth we are back
upon constitutional issues and so Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka that he has been corresponding with
the Federal government that in fact the State of Victoria has no legislative powers to allow for
20 interest charges to be applied because it only had legislative powers as to State Banks, and the
State Bank of Victoria is no more. And recent announcement by the Federal Government that it
is taking over all State credit matters may underline that the Federal government has realised that
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka as CONSTITUTIONALIST indeed exposed a grave wrongdoing.
As such VCAT was in no position to allow administration orders to be used and abused for
25 paying alleged interest charges Moorabool Shire Council claimed.
But there is more to it. Mr Francis James Colosimo clearly stated in his material that local
councils are unconstitutional and as such used this as a ground to refuse to pay rates. Again, this
is an issue that was canvassed in great details by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka in his books and was
before the court on 19 July 2006 and none of the Attorney-Generals disputed the submission that
30 municipal councils are not local councils within the federal context and that they are not a
constitutionally valid level of government. As such they cannot enact any so called “by-laws”
either.
.
Part 2 of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL will deal with these and more matters
35 and it may be clear that Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers may
never have anticipated in their wildest dreams that Mr Francis James Colosimo was, even
perhaps unbeknown upon himself, much upon the successes Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka had in
the courts against the Crown. The Framers of the Constitution made it very much known that
lawyers would try to use the Constitution as their playing field as to try to manipulate the
40 wording as may suit them. That is why a CONSTITUTIONALIST is so different as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST is only concerned to the organics of the Constitution regardless of his
or her personal views. While lawyers may look down upon others that they are all mighty
because they have some law degree the truth is that a law degree does not give intelligence and
many with their law degrees ended up being convicted as criminals. A
45 CONSTITUTIONALIST is not bound by financial greed as to be acting for a client to try to
win a case, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST must at all times present matters irrespective of who
seeks the presentation about constitutional powers and limitations. Actually lawyers may be in
the worst position to try to be a CONSTITUTIONALIST because they have been generally, so
to say, brainwashed during law courses and further training and by this are unable to be open
50 minded and actually read what is written.
.
Here we had the Office of Public Advocate attending to assist Mr Francis James Colosimo
and he and Legal Aid Commission neither could comprehend either what was constitutionally
applicable. As such all the lawyers involved in the case underline that being a lawyer is the worst
kind of position one may be in when trying to understand and comprehend what the
5 constitutional powers and limitations are about. This was underlined by the comprehensive
defeat of the Crown by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka.
.
What would be better is if Moorabool Shire Council and its lawyers (who claimed on 27
January 2009 before Ms Preuss, albeit without success, to have a personal standing in these
10 proceeding apart of representing Moorabool Shire Council) were to seek a CONSENSUS OF
THE MIND to try to settle matters rather then so to say dig a deeper grave for themselves. If just
they had pursued this even before the 27 January 2009 hearing eventuated they could have save
themselves having so to say being kicked out of the hearing and avoided the ever escalating
cases.
15 Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is bound to fight for the rights of Mr Francis James Colosimo to the
best of his ability and to present constitutional issues as an expert witness to the best of his ability
also as to avoid Mr Francis James Colosimo to be denied JUSTICE and be shielded from
further harm.
.
20 The issue of leave to “withdraw this proceeding”
VCAT-COURT had no powers to consent to provide any leave to “withdraw this proceedings”
and would only further place in question its own integrity if it were to purport to grant such a
leave.
.
25 As set out above extensively there are numerous issues that need to be resolved and the fact that
Maddocks Lawyers for Moorabool Shire Council pursues no cost while having already snared
cost against the innocent Mr Francis James Colosimo would indeed stretch it too far and would
beyond doubt the sanity of anyone who were to contemplate to grant such a leave, in the
circumstances prevailing currently. After all they cannot obtain the benefits of administration
30 orders to enforce rates and interest and then seek to depart without justifying the right for this. It
is nothing less then a FRAUDULENT conduct and VCAT-COURT could not participate in such
fraudulent charade. Neither Moorabool Shire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers have
bothered to provide an apology to Mr Francis James Colosimo about the harm inflicted upon
him and that may just underline their mentality!
35 .
JUDICIAL INQUIRY
There should be a judicial inquiry into the whole affairs as to establish what, if any, criminal
conduct was perpetrated and by whom, etc. Also as to the conduct of VCAT members and any
40 judges and as to their conduct, etc, as referred to in this document and other documentation.
.
As the issue of standing of credibility of VCAT was raised and indeed was the issue to pursue a
term of imprisonment of Mr Francis James Colosimo then let this be a guidance to award the
same with kindness to those who turned out to do it themselves and by their conduct or otherwise
45 placed in question the standing of integrity of VCAT. What is good for the Goose is good for the
Gander!
.
SETTLING MATTERS
.
50 As has been ongoing made clear by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka there is a willingness to settle
and this may also then show to any court at a later time that Moorabool Shire Council and/or
Maddocks Lawyers finally did show some remorse and sought to at least stop the onslaught of
harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo. This might be very relevant where an adverse finding
is made against the conduct of Moorabool Shire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers.
It must however be understood that no settlement terms can prevent any investigation to be held
5 into the alleged unlawful conduct as it is too important for the general community to
appropriately deal with such matters before the court and where appropriate inflict such a
punishment as a deterrent to others contemplating likewise conduct against innocent persons.
.
“withdraw this proceeding”
10 .
The term “withdraw this proceeding” in the 24 February 2009 correspondence from Maddocks
Lawyers to the Registrar (VCAT) could mean that Moorabool Shire Council instructed its
solicitors Maddocks Lawyers to seek leave to “withdraw this proceeding” in that they didn’t
desire the sentence upon Mr Francis James Colosimo to proceed in light of what was exposed
15 by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka in his correspondence. However, this turns out not to be so
because of the further statement “on the basis there be no order of cost” appears rather to mean
that Moorabool Shire Council seeks to withdraw “from” the proceedings and leave Mr Francis
James Colosimo still subject to whatever cost and conviction and term of imprisonment is
ordered against him and they still therefore seek the benefit of orders of cost for their fraudulent
20 conduct but desires to shield themselves against any order of cost to be issued against them.
.
Neither VCAT or any court could grant such a leave that is non-sensible in its request as
proceedings cannot be withdrawn by a party who has no LEGAL STANDING (as found by Ms
Preuss on 27 January 2009 on submission of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka) and in any event the
25 stage of the proceedings is where Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks
Lawyers completed their part to score the conviction against Mr Francis James Colosimo and
it is now basically a criminal matter between VCAT-COURT and Mr Francis James Colosimo
what the sentence is going to be and how it will be executed. After all he needs to be taught a
lesson not to place in question the standing of integrity of VCAT! Well, that was what they
30 sought and did accomplish to score the conviction of CONTEMPT.
.
Where then now Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka has extensively canvassed issues and basically
placed beyond a shred of doubt that the orders were all obtained without jurisdiction and
Moorabool Shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers both had no LEGAL STANDING then
35 unless and until matters have all been resolved, such as past orders for cost, etc, they will remain
to be relevant to the proceedings but will have no LEGAL STANDING unless and until any
order is made against them or contemplated against them.
.
The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
40 federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-
tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into
which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
45 And
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes
the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be
in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:
50 The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in
reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpos e; since unconstitutionality dates from
the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An

unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a
statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no
rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies
5 no acts performed under it. . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede
any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is
superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
10 Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
.
This means that even vacating each and every order of cost will not mean it gives a LEGAL
STANDING to either Moorabool Shire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers because where
15 they FRAUDULENTLY obtained the orders then they never had any rights in the first place.
.
The issue then will be in the final that VCAT could make orders against both Moorabool Shire
Council and Maddocks Lawyers for having scandalised VCAT, abused and misused its legal
processes and showed to recklessly to be determine and persistent in their conduct without at all
20 bothering to make VCAT aware that in light of the revelations as detailed in the documents
produced by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka then it is appropriate to make orders for cost.
.
The documents produced by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka disclosed clearly that ample of
opportunity was provided to both Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks
25 Lawyers to seek to come to a meeting of the minds as to get a CONSENSUS OF THE MINDS
as to how to settle as much as possible issues between them and Mr Francis James Colosimo
but there has been ongoing a blatant disregard to pursue that avenue.
Hence, VCAT would be well entitled to issue orders against either or both Moorabool Shire
Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers as both an appropriate compensation for Mr
30 Francis James Colosimo and other cost and associated and/or indirect cost, including that in
regard of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, incurred as well as to be a deterrent to others not to abuse
and misuse the legal processes of VCAT in such scandalous manner.
Further, a withdrawal of proceedings would not mean an end to the litigation in that Moorabool
Shire Council realising they all along pursued the wrong litigation venue as VCAT cannot
35 enforce a PENALTY INFRINGEMENT NOTICE in view of the provisions of the Infringement
Act 2006 then it simply can recommence their path of TERRORISM upon Mr Francis James
Colosimo and that surely is something that should not be permitted to eventuate. It must be clear
that no undertaking was given as a condition to seek leave to withdraw as not to re-litigate the
same in a Magistrates Court and as such considering the past deceptive conduct there is
40 absolutely no guarantee the same protracted fraudulent litigation will not be repeated elsewhere.
While ordinary VCAT would have no powers to restrain a party in litigation in a court from
exercising his or her rights and as such it would be beyond control of VCAT to prevent
Moorabool Shire Council to reinstitute litigation in a court, on the other hand while Moorabool
Shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers (as they claimed on 27 January 2009 before Ms Preuss
45 to have a LEGAL STANDING in their own rights, albeit it was denied to exist upon the
submission of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, then while Moorabool Shire Council and Maddocks
Lawyers are still locked into the legal battle currently raging on before VCAT-COURT they
effectively cannot commence litigating for the same in the Magistrate Court or other court.
As such as long as they are not granted such a leave they are in a status of suspended litigation
50 where they have no LEGAL STANDING but neither can get out of the litigation and so cannot
commence to reinstitute proceedings for the same elsewhere.
.

In ordinary circumstances it would be highly inappropriate for a COURT-TRIBUNAL not to
allow leave for a party to withdraw from litigation where it is appropriate such leave be granted,
however these are not ordinary circumstance but issues raised by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka are
that FRAUDULENT conduct was part of the litigation to obtain orders and a conviction against
5 Mr Francis James Colosimo and in those circumstances no such leave could be granted while
such very serious matters are still to be investigated and appropriate action is required as to what,
if anything, is to be done with all the orders that are on foot, etc. Therefore it would not be an
abuse of power not to grant the leave albeit VCAT-COURT can accept that by the request for
leave Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers have ABANDONED
10 any claims of entitlements upon past issued orders as well as to the conviction of CONTEMPT
to be executed by way of sentence to imprisonment. In light of this the issue of cost against
Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers can take appropriate
consideration if such ABANDONMENT at such late stage is not one that is totally unacceptable
and requires an appropriate order for cost against both as a deterrent to others.
15 .
16 March 2009 hearing
.
For the above stated, including the correspondence and part 2 of the ADDRESS TO THE
COURT-TRIBUNAL the hearing on 16 March 2009 cannot proceed and neither so can any
20 application for leave “withdraw this proceeding” be dealt with.
.
Basically, because Moorabool Shire Council instructed Maddocks Lawyers to seek leave to
“withdraw this proceeding” albeit without any explanation why such a dramatic change in
position, and this was not under the provision of “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” then Mr Francis
25 James Colosimo is entitled to take the position that effectively Moorabool Shire Council has
no further interest to litigate against him.
Maddocks Lawyers albeit also found the decision of Ms Preuss on 27 January 2009 that they
had neither any LEGAL POSITION, which they sought to claim, by their own statement then
have placed themselves in a position that as with Moorabool Shire Council they have no
30 LEGAL POSITION but they still are part of the orders in dispute.
.
Because the ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL before VCAT on 27 January 2009
specifically also referred to the proceedings of V2 of 2007 then any decision relates to that case
also.
35 .
As past orders are now all subject to being reviewed as to their constitutional and other legal
validity it is clear that no leave to “withdraw this proceeding” could be granted whatsoever, and
the 16 March 2009 hearing should be aborted and instead the Authorities are notified as to
investigate matters. That appears to be the correct path to follow in the current circumstances as
40 after all if it is found that indeed all orders of VCAT-COURT including cost and conviction were
without jurisdiction and are ULTRA VIRES then it would be darn silly indeed in the meantime
to ignore the opportunity to finally have the legal mess sorted out. For this also it is essential that
Part 2 of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL is filed by way of email so that it will
be part of any comprehensive investigation
45 .
For what it may be worth; Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka was in management of factories and he
would by this plan the production of factories in his charge. And this may indicate how he has a
general understanding how to plan ahead in litigation. In fact in a case filed a NO CASE TO
ANSWER nearly two years before the criminal trial was to be held, which ordinary a lawyer
50 would never do until after the conclusion of the presentation by the prosecutor, if anything to not
so to say awaken sleeping dogs, to alert them about legal technicalities, however when the case
finally did go to court the trial judge directed the JURY to return a verdict in regard of the
woman of NOT GUILTY because there was NO CASE TO ANSWER, this even so the
prosecutor had 4 police officers, a clerk of court and a deputy clerk of court as witnesses and she
had none called as she neither needed to present any defence.
5 As such the conduct of Moorabool Shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers was precisely what
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka contemplated for them so to say burry themselves deeper into their
own graves., albeit he would have preferred for the sake of Mr Francis James Colosimo that
they had taken a course of a lesser conflict and showed remorse and had the decency to make an
apology as well as seek to settle matters, albeit as expected it was not to be.
10 .
When one is faced with lawyers using litigation as their playing field then knowing the rules they
go by it can be used to counteract their game and turn it in to their disadvantage. Lawyers who
are too cocky to be reasonable then will, albeit too late, discover that they had done better not to
have ignored their opponent.
15 Likewise judges and other judicial officers may just have to understand that while they have the
power to inflict any order upon a party, no matter how inappropriate it might be, they can be held
accountable if they do so inappropriately and in particular if they were not shielded by their
ordinary status of being A Judge but acting within the powers of persona designate.
.
20 FURTHER Part ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL
.
As stated above this is part 1 that part 2 will be forwarded on 9 March 2009. The purpose of it is
that in the event that the second part is too large for email boxes to be received at least part 1 is
received and Part 2 can be provided subsequently at a later time.
25 .
Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA


v2 2007 Address To The Court Tribunal g54449 00 Part 1

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

v2 2007 Address To The Court Tribunal g54449 00 Part 1

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal 8-3-2009

N THE VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ADDRESS TO THE COURT/VCAT (Part 1)

p9 8-3-2009 Hearing date 16-3-2009 (Part 1)

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

p18 8-3-2009 Hearing date 16-3-2009 (Part 1)

p21 8-3-2009 Hearing date 16-3-2009 (Part 1)

p22 8-3-2009 Hearing date 16-3-2009 (Part 1)

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA

p24 8-3-2009 Hearing date 16-3-2009 (Part 1)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai