-

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Senior Member Ms Preuss vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au 19-1-2010
5
Cc; * Mr & Mrs Colosimo, 72 Shuter Avenue, Greendale, Vic 3341 francesco.c@live.com.au
* Mr Lindsay M Vowels Phd FAPS MAPA aeiou@netspace.net.au
* Maddocks (for Moorabool Shire Council) (Ref MYM:KJM:5285015
Email Annie.Bird@maddocks.com.au
10 * Deputy Registrar Ashe Whitaker VCAT – Guardian List) vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au
* Mr Brendan Hoysted brendan.hoysted@justice.vic.gov.au
* Mr. Peter Sier, Peter.sier@statetrustees.com.au
* Moorabool Shire Council Councillors info@moorabool.vic.gov.au
Cr Michael Tudball (mayor) mtudball@moorabool.vic.gov.au
15 Cr Allan Comrie Cr Pat Griffin Cr Pat Toohey Cr Tom Sullivan
Cr Russell Hendry Cr Philip Flack and/or any other councillor

Ref; G54449/00 (including V2/2007 & P194/2007 and other related proceedings) Mr Francis
James Colosimo Re Ms Preuss – ISSUE OF EVIDENCE - etc.
20 .
. Ms Preuss – ISSUE OF EVIDENCE- etc
Madam,
further to my previous correspondences I provide the following;
.
25 I understand from Mr Francis James Colosimo that he neither, as myself, is aware of what, if any
evidence the applicant Mr Brendan Hoysted, Duty officer of the Office of the Public Advocate is
on about and that Mr Francis James Colosimo continue to maintain his OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and will attend UNDER OBJECTION and nothing must be taken that in any
way he waives this objection.
30 .
It must therefore be clear that before any hearing can be held there is a need to address the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as well as the submission that you disqualify yourself from
proceedings, etc.
.
35 As you may recall on 22 October 2009 you made a ruling, as I understood it to be, that the
medical evidence did not support the Application.
.
As you may recall Mr Wells, for State Trustees Limited,, decided to embark upon the mental
state of Mr Francis James Colosimo as to his views about the RULE OF LAW etc, and despite
40 that I objected to this as besides the above stated, the hearing was to have been as a procedural
hearing only and not at all for cross-examination of Mr Francis James Colosimo and as such
neither was Mr Francis James Colosimo prepared for such cross-examination, etc. However you
overruled this and permitted Mr Wells nevertheless to cross-examine Mr Francis James
Colosimo and his direction was also clear trying to blame me for the alleged conduct of Mr
45 Francis James Colosimo. Quite frankly I all along expected Mr Wells to pursue this kind of
p1 19-1-20 10
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
 nonsense, but still as you were adamant to allow this and overruled my objection then not I but
yourself and Mr Wells made the legal issues relevant to the hearing, for so far it were to proceed
after all objections, etc, were to be purportedly dismissed (not that I seek to indicate this will
eventuate. When Mr Wells and yourself cross-examined Mr Francis James Colosimo you made
5 the blunder not first to have allowed myself to EXAMINE-IN-CHIEF Mr Francis James
Colosimo. I understand that a witness ordinary cannot be cross-examined before being examined.
What we now found that really both you and Mr Wells were so to say ganging up upon Mr
Francis James Colosimo and only in the end I was permitted to examine Mr Francis James
Colosimo about what he had been cross-examined about earlier.
10 .
Ordinary, a “cross-examination” can only be done, as the as the terms states “cross-examine”
being a cross-examination of the “examination-in-chief”. Hence any purported “cross-
examination” that eventuated prior to my examination that allegedly obtained “evidence’ was
and remains inadmissible and so cannot be relied upon. And as far as I learned over the decades
15 you start with “examination-in-chief” then followed by “cross-examination” and only upon the
issues raised in evidence already before the Court being it the affidavit material or other oral
evidence of the witness giving in the witness box and then a re-examination is permitted in
regard of any cross examination that raised a matter that may need to be clarified.
As I extracted from Mr Francis James Colosimo )after “examination-in-chief” contrary to the
20 implied allegation of Mr Wells that I somehow had been involved in the original dispute between
Mr Francis James Colosimo and Moorabool Shire Council it became clear that not until
December 2008 I became involved and only because Mr Francis James Colosimo contact me to
assist him in the matter.) that I had no part of how the dispute originated between Mr Francis
James Colosimo and Moorabool Shire Council and neither as to the views of Mr Francis James
25 Colosimo about constitutional issues. As such, I view Mr Wells made an utter fool of himself to
try to imply I may have somehow been the architect or otherwise been involved in the
commencement of the dispute.
If Mr Wells had so to say done his homework then he would have been well aware I do not fool
around in such manner but rather take the Commonwealth of Australia myself to task before the
30 Courts and have done so very successfully on various occasions including on 19 July 2006!
.
When I made my objections about how Mr Wells (Notably representing State Trustees Limited
who was to rather assist Mr Francis James Colosimo in future – that is if the orders were to be
remain validly in place – now appeared more to be the enemy!)you clearly overruled me and by
35 this, so to say, opened the door to argue constitutional issues. I made my objections and was
seeking you to be sensible to uphold those objections but personally had little doubt that you are
too incompetent to properly conduct proceedings and provide for NATURAL JUSTICE and
was also internally enjoying the prospect of Mr Wells to make himself an utter fool as well as
opening up the way to address the legal issues.
40 It should be remembered that Mr Wells specifically addressed the issue that a court order was
made and upon what “legal” grounds Mr Francis James Colosimo disputed them, and Mr Francis
James Colosimo gave his views about constitutional issues and you continue to overrule my
objections and allowed Mr Wells to continue his line of questioning about this issue. So to say
fool you for doing so because I haven’t been around the courts for some three decades assisting
45 people in their litigation as not to know how to set up a case for appeal and otherwise. As such,
where Mr Francis James Colosimo views about legality was so relevant then yet by all means if
his views about constitutional issues is relevant as the dispute with Moorabool Shire Council
hinges upon this then it is now time to address these issues, as I did before Her Honour Harbison
J on 16 March 2009 leading to Her Honour Harbison J then to order a PERMANENT STAY of
50 the CONTEMPT proceedings, out of which the application for administration arose, where Her
Honour Harbison J accepted that my submissions as to legalities was the correct one to apply.
p2 19-1-20 10
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
 .
I have made known that there was from onset a total failure about proper legal procedures and as
such well entitled to question your competence in that regard and indeed your qualifications to be
appropriately appointed as a lawyer and member of VCAT. It is my view you lack any proper
5 appointment to be a lawyer and as such can’t be a member of VCAT either.
Obviously you may seek me to set this out and what better then to show that to be a lawyer you
need “Australian citizenship” at least according to legal provisions and also to have an alliance to
the British Crown, etc. Now, so to say, try to worm yourself out of this one because you desired
to take on Mr Francis James Colosimo on his legal views and so be it. And for that also the
10 validity of Mr Brendan Hoysted to have been enrolled at the bar as a solicitor likewise is in
question as well as that of Mr Wells and any other lawyer.
You ought to have known better then to go into something I view you have absolutely no
understanding about as to so to say needle Mr Francis James Colosimo about his views about the
law. Again, you overruled my objections and as such Mr Francis James Colosimo is entitled now
15 to present material to indicate he is well entitled to those views and more over before her honour
Harbison J the opposing parties didn’t challenge any of the material and as it is subject to a
PERMANENT STAY they are and remain to be live issues.
Hence, you nicely did what I had hoped in a sense you would do and that is to open the door to
pursue constitutional issues to show why Mr Francis James Colosimo was entitled to his views
20 about the law and the lack of legal standing of Moorabool Shire Council, etc.
.
Obviously it is important that you provide the transcripts of past hearings, including that of
previous files as directed on 27-1-2009, as such those of the 27-1-2009 and other hearings
including that of 22 October 2009, as without it you cannot rely upon this and also any such
25 transcripts must be provided at least 14 days before any hearing commences as to give Mr
Francis James Colosimo to appropriately consider its content and perhaps to pursue any
corrections of the transcript where this may be required, as it was noted that the 16 March 2009
transcript had numerous errors contained in it.
Again, the request for the transcript is not intended and must not be perceived to be a waiver of
30 the legal rights and position of Mr Francis James Colosimo!
.
Anyhow, where I received correspondence on behalf of the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd I have
also addressed these issues to some extend so that you may just discover you may not even know
your own real nationality! Now, how can you be duly appointed as a lawyer (admitted to the bar)
35 if you have a nationality the High Court of Australia deemed to be that of an alien or foreigner
(remember Sue v Hill?)? As such I attach also the following documents as part of any evidence
where you were foolish enough to persist in this VEXATIOUS LITIGATION against Mr
Francis James Colosimo because most of it already was upheld by the County Court of Victoria
and as such where you lack any jurisdiction to overrule the County Court of Victoria it seems
40 you have to accept this as an Authority!
Don’t you understand/comprehend that for me having been able to defeat the lawyers of the
Commonwealth of Australia in a 5-year epic legal battle on all constitutional issues then I have
proven to know what I am talking about and it seems to me utter silly for you trying to take on
the issues of constitutional issues where you are already bound by the decision of the County
45 Court of Australia?
.
I have enclosed in the email as further attachments the following documents;
.
090308-V2-2007-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL-G54449-00-Part 1.pdf
50 .
090309-V2-2007-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL-G54449-00-Part 2.pdf
p3 19-1-20 10
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
 .
100101--Kevin Rudd - the federation-etc.pdf
.
100112-Kevin Rudd-citizenship-etc.pdf
5 .
100118-Kevin Rudd PM - MONARCHY - NATIONALITY - etc.pdf
.
As the correspondence on behalf of Kevin Rudd PM makes clear that the constitution
commission “assumed” there was legislative powers to legislate even so none was shown in the
10 Constitution.
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
15 Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE
.
Mr Francis James Colosimo has made it clear that he relies upon the RULE OF LAW and so his
constitutional rights and that where “citizenship” is not listed in the constitution then the
20 commonwealth legislation is ULTRA VIRES in that regard.
Likewise so where Municipal and Shire Councils are not part of the federation then (also
considering the veto with the 1988 referendum) Moorabool Shire Council had no legal position
as some purported “local government”
Also do notice that the ADDRESS TO THE COURT in two parts had the following heading
25 QUOTE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal 8-3-2009
55 King Street, Melbourne

30 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
* Harbison J C/o david.harbison@countycourt.vic.gov.au
35 * 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
Peter.sier@statetrustees.com.au
40 * 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
.
45 Sir/Madam,

END QUOTE

QUOTE
50 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) 9-3-2009
p4 19-1-20 10
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
 55 King Street, Melbourne

Cc; * Mr & Mrs Colosimo, 72 Shuter Avenue, Greendale, Vic 3341 francesco.c@live.com.au
* Maddocks (for Moorabool Shire Council) (Ref MYM:KJM:5285015
5 Email Annie.Bird@maddocks.com.au
. * Ms Preuss
* Harbison J C/o david.harbison@countycourt.vic.gov.au
* Mr Brendan Hoysted brendan.hoysted@justice..vic.gov.au
* Mr. Peter Sier, Senior Personal Financial Consultant, State Trustees
10 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 2
15 .
Sir/Madam,
END QUOTE
.
Both had the reference of “G54449/00” so that they related also to the review of the
20 administration orders and if you notice in both heading copies had been provided to those listed,
including State Trustees limited and Moorabool Shire Council as well as Mr Brendna Hoysted
the Duty Officer of the Office of the Public Advocate and also the applicant, and even you were
also mentioned. As such, even without reproducing the attachments they in effect were already
before you. And, I am not aware of any material the applicant Mr Brendan Hoysted since
25 provided to seek to challenge the material. And as is clear from the further correspondences now
included as attachments dated 1-1-2010, 12-1-2010 and 18-1-2010 the Commonwealth of
Australia by this 7-1-2010 correspondence has implied admitted that there is actually no
constitutional powers provided for in the constitution but merely it is “assumed” to be there.
.
30 Well, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have news for you, there is no such ability to amend or
otherwise twist and infringe upon the constitution other then where a s.128 referendum succeeds
and then only in regard of issues that can be subjected to a s.128 referendum and as the framers
of the Constitution made clear the British Crown wasn’t in it.
.
35 Yet again, it must be pointed out that Mr Francis James Colosimo maintains as he all along has
done since the commencement of any litigation before VCAT that he objects to its jurisdiction
and that he doesn’t recognise any validity of any orders made and where you persist then you act
without jurisdiction and as indicated in previous correspondence you can be privately sued for
any malicious damage/harm caused to Mr Francis James Colosimo.
40 .
QUOTE 090121-G54449-00-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL.pdf
The Respondent therefore was well entitled to maintain his constitutional and other legal
issues and it would have been for this better if the Court/Tribunal had taken appropriate
consideration of this and reheard the matters ensuring that the Respondent was given a
45 proper and adequate opportunity to present his case, if there was in the first place a CASE
TO ANSWER, this as without jurisdiction no valid Court/Tribunal orders issued has any
legal force!
END QUOTE
.
50 090827-Re HER Sen VCAT Member Ms Preuss-Re NO CASE TO ANSWER-etc.pdf
.
p5 19-1-20 10
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
 091214-G54449-00-Ms Preuss-NO CASE TO ANSWER-etc.pdf
.
And as Mr Francis James Colosimo, apart of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION has all
along claimed also NO CASE TO ANSWER, Then it doesn’t matter in law what Mr Francis
5 James Colosimo may have stated on 22 October 2009 because if you consult a competent judge
then this judge will tell you that the moment a party to proceedings submits a NO CASE TO
ANSWER then you can only determine upon the evidence presented by the opposing party being
it the Prosecutor or the applicant if the Prosecutor/applicant has presented sufficient evidence to
warrant the case to proceed for a hearing and request the Defendant/accused to continue with the
10 case. As such, as the Court of Appeal (including in the Supreme Court of Victoria) has made
clear any evidence of the party who claims NO CASE TO ANSWER cannot be considered as to
evaluate the Prosecutor/Applicants strength of evidence.
.
As such all and any material provided by or on behalf of Mr Francis James Colosimo cannot be
15 used or construed as being evidence to aid the Applicant Mr Brendan Hoysted the Duty Officer
of the Office of the Public Advocate as the claim NO CASE TO ANSWER prevents this to be
considered as such. As such, the entire litigation is and continued to be VEXATIOUS and
without legal justification.
.
20 Do understand that as long as you persist with this litigation and the hearing dates and something
adverse may happen to Mr Francis James Colosimo as was in regard of the 16 March 2009
hearing then you could so to say land yourself in a lot more hot water then you ever may have
imagine.
.
25 You made an order for a list of witnesses to be filed by 14 December 2009 and for so far I am
aware Mr Brendan Hoysted has not presented any list of witnesses and so neither can then call
any, and he has no credible evidence either to support his own application on upon that alone you
should never have continued with this already VEXATIOUS litigation. Still, are we, so to say, to
expect more of the same rot?
30 .
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant matters!
.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

.

35 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

p6 19-1-20 10
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