WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Senior Member Ms Preuss vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au 6-2-2010

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
* Deputy Registrar Ashe Whitaker VCAT – Guardian List) vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au
10 * 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 mtudball@moorabool.vic.gov.au
Cr Allan Comrie Cr Pat Griffin Cr Pat Toohey (mayor) Cr Tom Sullivan
15 Cr Russell Hendry Cr Philip Flack and/or any other councillor
Victorian Government Solicitors Office, 1072628 C/o Monika Pekevska Stephen.Lee@vgso.vic.gov.au
.
Ref; G54449/00 (including V2/2007 & P194/2007 and other related proceedings) Mr Francis James Colosimo Re
Ms Preuss – Re Prohibition to publish - etc.
20 .
. Ms Preuss – Re Prohibition to publishn - etc
Madam,
By way of my 3-2-2006 correspondence to you I urged “cooperation” but it appears to
me now that instead you may have involved the Victorian Government Solicitors Office as to try
25 to deny me my constitutional rights, and also that of Mr Francis James Colosimo also.
.
But firstly, on 27 January 2006 I submitted that you vacate the hearing dated that were notified
for 1 & 2 February 2010 but since I received notification that the hearing dates for 2 and 3
February 2010 were vacated. Seems to me that you cannot even manage such simple matter to
30 deal appropriately with details. it now seems that therefore you never did vacate the 1 February
2010 hearing date but you did vacate the non-existing 3 February 2010 hearing date.
While you may argue this is merely a minor technical issue, the truth is that this is ongoing
happening. When one then take it all together is shows how absurd VCAT goes about matters.
Did you duplicate perhaps the conduct of Moorabool Shire Council as to try to litigate without
35 full disclosure of details?
.
Remember, Moorabool shire Council commenced it’s rot by never disclosing its 17 January 2007
notice that acknowledged that Mr Francis James Colosimo acted all along lawfully with the
building of the “outbuilding” (SHED)? Well, I recognise that you like anyone else is entitled to
40 litigate against me but then I have the right to expose your utter and sheer nonsense and to object
to the jurisdiction of any court as where in the first place VCAT never invoked jurisdiction
regarding Mr Francis James Colosimo then the VCAT legislation regarding Schedule1, Clause
37(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Act 1998 (Vic) (“the VCAT Act’)”. Entitled
“Confidentiality of proceedings’ stipulates the following:
45
‘Unless the Tribunal orders otherwise, a person must not publish or broadcast or cause to
be published or broadcast any report of a proceeding under the

p1 6-2-2010
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
 Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 that identifies, or could reasonably lead to the
identification of, a party to the proceeding.’

Penalty: 20 penalty units.’

5 .
As VCAT itself has published ongoing the identity of Mr Francis James Colosimo on its
website, such as I have set out in my correspondence dated 6-2-2010 to the Victorian
Government Solicitors Office then obviously VCAT having itself already disclosed the identity
of Mr Francis James Colosimo hardly has any standing to argue that then others cannot do the
10 same and publishing the truth about matters. After all it really is about trying to prevent Mr
Francis James Colosimo and my own VICIL RIGHTS.
.
For so far I am aware of you so to say cannot go to court with dirty hands. Meaning, you cannot
complain about someone doing something you have already done yourself. As such, where
15 VCAT ongoing published details and in a manner that very much placed in question the standing
and integrity of Mr Francis James Colosimo then you cannot pursue that others are denied to
respond. As such if you don’t like criticism and in particularly the truth to be published then
don’t start it yourself, as VCAT did all along and so at least 18 months before I became involved
in the case.
20 .
Publishers all the time publish books such as the Law Reports and I am not aware that any book
publisher then request any court or tribunal to have permission to disclose matters. Indeed, was it
not for all the publications I have researched over about 30 years I would unlikely have been
aware of the countless legal principles. As such, where I also specifically pointed out on 22
25 October 2009 that I am a registered (book) publisher and indeed my written material shows that I
am Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other
legal issues and have published already numerous books in legal matters then your response to
Mr Well counsel for State Trustees Limited where he submitted to have me dealt with for
contempt to publish was as I recall “I am not going to get involved”. I perceived this that you
30 understood that I all along acted lawfully. Even if you didn’t nevertheless you cannot complain
afterwards of something you at the time refused to deal with.
.
Also, any court that were to prohibit me as a publisher to publish the material would by this
imply that other book publishers neither could publish without any specific order of a
35 court/tribunal for each case they publish. Now, fancy every book publisher, being it about law
reports or other legal matters having to intervene in each case seeking leave to publish? In my
view no judge in his right mind would pursue such kind of nonsense.
.
There is also the issue if a party to litigation or purported litigation can identify himself/herself as
40 being a party in such kind of litigation.
On 6 July 2006 I published:
.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
45 ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3
.
This book was subsequently filed by me as evidence in the long running criminal trial against me
for allegedly FAILING TO VOTE.
.
50 It may be unheard of for a Defendant to publish in a book details about a 5-year epic litigation
and even admit in it not having voted the core issue of charges against him but as a Publisher I
p2 6-2-2010
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
 was entitled to publish and my innocence or guilt was not relevant because the issue was that the
relevant legislation was unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES and so without legal force.
.
On 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria upheld both cases on all constitutional issues
5 against the Commonwealth of Australia! As such my legal position was vindicated
comprehensively without any challenge either by the Commonwealth of Australia and/or any of
the State Attorney-General’s who all had been served with a 3 December 2002 NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS. Hence, it is a little bit late for the Victorian government
Solicitors office now to try to argue against issues that were extensively canvassed by me on 19
10 July 2006. And, as the State Attorney-General or for that neither anyone else pursued to appeal
against this comprehensive defeat by the Commonwealth of Australia then time to re-litigate the
same is well and truly gone.
.
Hence, the right of a party to publish about his own case is to be recognised.
15 .
Mr Francis James Colosimo has suffered considerable mental, emotional and financial harm to
which he again alluded on 27 January 2010 to you and he requested me to publish details so that
perhaps the general public might be come aware of this VEXATIOUS litigation against him and
such as how you continue to disregard the RULE OF LAW! It is his right to fend himself
20 against what he views to be slanderous allegations posted by VCAT on the Internet for so long!
.
While it appeared to me that both yourself and Mr Wells counsel for the State Trustees Limited
sought to implicate me that this long running litigation dispute was as result of what I am writing
about, as Mr Francis James Colosimo made clear on 22 October 2009 that it was already going
25 on for years before he contacted me in December 2008. As such, stop trying to kill the messenger
for the bad tiding, as all I am doing is to expose the rot. As you indicated yourself that within
s.62 VCAATA I am representing Mr Francis James Colosimo then even if the VCAT act were to
be applied then still the publication would be legal as you cannot deny the victim of the
VEXATIOUS litigation to publish the truth of have it published through me where I am
30 representing him.
.
Seems to me you made yet another blunder where the Victorian Government Solicitors Office in
their 5-2-2010 correspondence stated:

35 QUOTE
Specifically identifying Mr Francis James Colosimo (‘the confidential materials’)/ As you
are aware, Mr Colosimo is a party to legal proceedings pursuant to the Guardianship and
Administration Act 1986 (Vic).
END QUOTE
40 .
Surely you should have informed the Victorian Government Solicitors Office that all along you
refused to invoke jurisdiction by not disposing of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and
that it was made clear that Mr Francis James Colosimo attended “UNDER PROTEST” and
didn’t relinquish his legal rights and as such legally the purported “legal proceedings” are a
45 nullity and do not and cannot invoke VCAATA legal provisions.
.
You will find that the material published pursue the proper application of the RULE OF LAW.
There is no argument in it that promotes a violation of legal procedures to the contrary it is all
about the proper enforcement of the RULE OF LAW. Fancy you pursuing to take the matter to
50 court to argue against the proper application of the RULE OF LAW!
.
p3 6-2-2010
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
 AUSTRALIAN LAW HAS BEEN BUILD UP OVER THE CENTERIES AND IN THE
PROCESS MANY HAVE SACRAFICED SO MUCH, EVEN THEIR LIVES AT TIMES
OF WAR, TO SEEK TO PROTECT THE CIVIL, POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS
LIBERTIES WE ALL NOW ARE ENTITLED TO ENJOY BY THE COMMONWEALTH
5 OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT 1900 (UK) WHICH BY s.106 PROVIDES FOR
THE CREATION OF THE STATES FROM THE COLONIES.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I for one pursue the true meaning and application of the
constitution and hence Mr Francis James Colosimo having his run longing VEXATIOUS legal
10 battles against him requested my assistance for this. I am obligated to the general public at large
to expose the rot that is going on and while you may not like this kind of disclosure in the end if
you had acted appropriately in the first place to deal with the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION on 27 January 2009 then you very well could have avoided not only this
protracted purported VEXATIOUS litigation but more above have avoided the mental,
15 emotional and financial harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo and his family.
.
As you claimed on 27 January 20010 to have the carriage of the case and no longer the office of
the Public Advocate, then it seems to me that you better get some legal advise as to the possible
damages you could suffer personally when acting in disregard to the RULE OF LAW and so
20 without jurisdiction would Mr Francis James Colosimo sue you for the persistent conduct to
inflict mental, emotional and financial harm upon him by insisting to continue VEXATIOUS
litigation without having invoked jurisdiction. And as I made clear, and indeed my previous
correspondence also quote parts of the DRAFT of a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS, that jurisdiction of VCAT maintains to be challenged then I view the so to say
25 tactic to involve the Victorian government solicitors office purportedly seeking to deal with
unlawful publications where as set out above there is none, then this might be also construed that
you are seeking to inflict more emotional, mental and financial harm upon Mr Francis James
Colosimo. After all, he is entitled to call upon the general community to pursue this kind of utter
and sheer nonsense of protracted VEXATIOUS litigation to be stopped as after all they as
30 taxpayers are so to say in the end paying for this.
.
As for the VCAT President Bell J also as I understand to be a sitting judge of the supreme Court
of Victoria as like any other sitting judge I view there is a conflict of duties and obligations as a
sitting judge must be seen as being impartial and cannot be where he also so to say as a stooge
35 (persona designata) acts for the State government. By this it places in my view then the entire
judiciary of the Supreme Court of Victoria in question as after all how are they going to
adjudicate involving one of their own. The same with the County Court of Victoria where Her
Honour Harbison J conduct 6 purported (VEXATIOUS) CONTEMPT hearings without having
bothered to formally charge Mr Francis James Colosimo, as ordinary is a legal requirement in
40 law! And the holding of VCAT hearings before a judge in the county Court of Victoria itself in
my view is also an utter disgrace to deceive a person that he/she is appearing before a “COURT
OF LAW” where clearly this is not so at all.
.
It should be understood that a judge of a court must be impartial and therefore cannot be a judge
45 or a judicial member of a tribunal that is an organ for the State government because it infringes
upon Chapter III of the constitution separation of powers.
.
The purported Guardianship and Administration Act litigation arose from the purported
CONTEMPT proceedings and as such where those proceedings were all along also without
50 jurisdiction then no subsequent order or litigation can validate the invalidity of the original
purported orders/litigation.
p4 6-2-2010
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
 .
More over, when I assisted Mr Francis James Colosimo before Her Honour Harbison J I stated at
commencement the following also; (My surname was wrongly spelled)
.
5 QUOTE Transcript 16 March 2009-03-30 before Her Honour Habrison J.
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : first of all, I’m not a lawyer. I‘ve no legal training. I’m a
constitutionalist. That means I deal with matters on constitutional matters mainly.
HER HONOUR : All right. Do you have some – you don’t have any legal training?
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : Absolutely not.
10 END QUOTE
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I pursue the RULE OF LAW and not that abuse of power can
be justified for the end result.
You have been informed time and time again that the protracted (purported) litigation causes
15 emotional, mental and financial harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo and I view that therefore
when it comes to malicious conduct you fit the conduct as such against Mr Francis James
Colosimo. After all, as I view it, if Mr Francis James Colosimo were to sue you personally then
you would have to show that your conduct was not maliciously despite having been informed
time and time again that your conducted the litigation without invoking jurisdiction and persisted
20 to do so despite having even verbally advised by Mr Francis James Colosimo that this caused
emotional, mental and financial harm upon him. If the Victorian Government Solicitors
Officer were to inflame this even more by failing to first appropriately investigate the
circumstances before writing its 5 February 2010 correspondence to me then coupled with the
President Review failure to resolve this scandalous protracted VEXATIOUS litigation I view the
25 damage claim may be substantial. Then again, you all need to suffer the legal consequences
where you refuse to use common sense and the RULE OF LAW.
.
In my view you would do better to vacate the 16 and 17 February 2010 hearing dates in
regard of Mr Francis James Colosimo and have the Victorian Government solicitors Office to
30 appoint someone with enough intelligence who can understand that ultimately we all must
operate within the RULE OF LAW, and so this person may become engaged to seek to resolve
the problems and finally abort the purported administration orders, as well as to ensure just
compensation for Mr Francis James Colosimo for the emotional, mental and financial harm
caused to both himself as well as to his family.
35 .
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant matters!
.

.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

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

p5 6-2-2010
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