Page 1

ADDRESS TO THE COURT

County Court of Victoria
His Honour Mullaly
250 William Street, Melbourne
Cc:

Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au

Reference AP 2502 Buloke Shire Council for State of Victoria (s114 of the constitution) v Schorel-Hlavka

Your Honour,
I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and (retired) Professional Advocate and as such
gained over the decades an understanding about legal matters.
At this time (of writing this ADDRESS TO THE COURT Thursday 7.30PM 29-10-2015) I
have been left without any information from the prosecutor Buloke Shire Council (so its legal
representatives) as to what its intentions are regarding the appeal, this despite my written request
for the prosecutors brief, etc.
My position is that the orders appealed against of the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
are without legal basis and jurisdiction and as such (Wakim) I can ignore those orders. However,
we all are aware that the Sheriffs Office will force people to pay up or to detain a person
regardless the orders being illegal and hence this appeal is to try to protect myself of this abuse
and misuse of powers to enforce the 17 September 2015 orders issued without jurisdiction and
also without any evidence, despite that it was/is in fact a criminal litigation against me.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE

For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue
estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders
made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel
safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying on the
earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
.
On 20 August 2015 the matter came before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud, to
which I made an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION on various grounds.
Not limited to but as an example (not set in out in any order of importance)
On 19 July 2006 in AEC (Commonwealth) v Schorel-Hlavka before the County Court of
Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction I successfully appealed the validity of the
Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg to dismiss my OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and to record 2 conviction for FAILING TO VOTE, upon which a
s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS was filed and served upon all
Attorney-Generals. The then Attorney-General Mr Rob Hulls for the State of Victoria
made known that the State of Victoria would abide by the decision of the court. As this
was an appeal pertaining the failure of the courts to be impartial administration of
justice as required by the 2-1-1901 published in the Gazette Letters Patent, then Buloke
Shire Council seeking to exercise within s114 of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) the State legislation cannot overcome this County Court of
Victoria of 19 July 2006 and cannot therefore seek to litigate or re-litigate the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION issue as in HCA 27of 1999 Wakim the High Court
of Australia made clear the same parties cannot re-litigate a constitutional issue. As
Buloke Shire Council is acting within s114 of the constitution for the State of Victoria it
is therefore bound by what applies to the State of Victoria. Its proper course would have
been at the time of 19 July 2006 to oppose orders and/or to appeal the decision but that
p1
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Appeal 15-2502

Page 2
didnt eventuate and I submit it is not for this court at this late stage, years after the
decision was handed down, to seek to undermine the benefits I gained in those successful
appeals. Neither do I view this court has any jurisdiction to do so.

I also challenged the venue of St Arnaud as it was not the appropriate court venue. The
Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud had obviously the jurisdiction to determine if
it had jurisdiction or not, this however it never did. Hence, it never invoked on 20 August
2015 any jurisdiction. And while it purportedly ordered the matter to be heard and
determined on 17 September 2015 at St Arnaud, it lacked the jurisdiction to do so as it
couldnt go behind the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, to which I understand Buloke
Shire Council legal representatives not only were aware of (as they refer to it in their 2
September 2015 correspondence to me) but I understand also as advised Judicial
Registrar of there being an objection on 17 September 2015.

Another issue is that as I made known comprehensively to Buloke Shire Council and its
legal representatives the FIRE PROTECTION NOTICE was issued in violation of the
Country Fire Authority Act 1958 and as such the court cannot base any litigation to be
heard where the notice is in violation of the legal requirements.
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998)
Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing the statutory provision in that
case: "substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible. Either there
was compliance or there was not."
The reasoning of Fullagar J in Clayton v. Heffron (supra) in relation to the provisions of s 5B of the
Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) is material in this context:
"A manner and form are prescribed by section 5B, and that manner and form must be observed if a valid
law is to be produced. Any prescription of manner and form may be repealed or amended, but, while it
stands, the process prescribed by it must be followed. That was decided Trethowan's case and I think
that the whole of what is prescribed by section 5B relates to manner and form. It does not seem to me to be
possible to say that some of the requirements of the section are matters of manner and form while others are
not. The section describes one entire process - a series of steps, one following on another - and only the
completion of the entire process can produce a valid law." (Supra at 262)

The issue of a court being able to invoke jurisdiction without having disposed of first
with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was not long ago held not permissible in
When the Fair Work commission sought to delay an OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION, until after hearing the matter, Kathy Jackson then placed the matter
before the Federal Court of Australia who then ruled that the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION had to be dealt with first.
QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and
must be decided.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.
Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature,
their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27
Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to
act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. .
END QUOTE

p2

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Appeal 15-2502

Page 3

QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,

Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
END QUOTE
QUOTE Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.
END QUOTE
QUOTE In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction
to hear is void, ab initio.
END QUOTE
QUOTE (Jagens v. Lavine, 415 S.Ct.768).
Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.
Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be
proven.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court
lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the
action.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without

jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on
person or property.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction."
END QUOTE
QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,
No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.
When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge
of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts
in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.

p3

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Appeal 15-2502

Page 4
Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity
and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon
direct collateral attack.
END QUOTE

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

I had to file the appeal without, despite my numerous written request having any sealed
orders, treason of judgment or transcript. By this when I filed the appeal the Registrar at
Broadmeadows first claimed the orders were issued by a Judicial Registrar but then
changed it that the Judicial Registrar was made a magistrate. To me it is of concern that a
Judicial Registrar would become a judge when failing to ensure basic legal requirements.
This matter I understand is a criminal prosecution where the prosecutor has to prove
beyond reasonable doubt its case. Having paid $55.00 to obtain a copy of the court
recording on 17 September 2015 it appears to be the Judicial Registrar at no time had
anyone entering the witness box. The female legal practitioner (for Buloke Shire Council)
seemed to make statements from the bar table without entering the witness box to confirm
it as evidence, and upon this the Judicial registrar purportedly issued his orders.
SCHOREL v. SCHOREL (1982) C 66117 of 1982 Unreported Transcript 11-3-82 and
12-3-82 before Emery SJ.
(In regard of the former husbands statements from the bar table earlier during the
proceedings about matters on the lists)
QUOTE Page 115: (Emery SJ examine-in-chief Mr Schorel in the witness box)
You made or gave me some information while you were standing at the bar table just a little while
ago about the two lists of furniture that your wife produced this morning, exhibits A and B. What
you said from the bar table is true, is that right?- - - That is correct, your Honour.
Yes. Well, that makes it all evidence that you have given instead of just a statement.
END QUOTE

The Judicial Registrar appeared to accept the statements from the bar table as evidence to
issue orders for cost, where the legal practitioner appeared to claim cost for more than
200 pages of writings. As such where she claimed cost for reading the writings she must
be held to have considered and be aware of the writings and as such her failure to inform
p4

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Appeal 15-2502

Page 5
the court about the relevant Authorities that I had listed in my writings I view was a
violation of her position as an OFFICER OF THE COURT.
It is not that she had to argue the case on my behalf but was bound to set out what she
understood was my case versus that of her client. That I understand she never did
appropriately!
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
QUOTE
As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or
choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client.
I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court
which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what
he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a
higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He
must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is,
without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are
against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that
are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with
his duty to the court.
END QUOTE

The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it

does to federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdicti
on.htm
QUOTE
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."
END QUOTE

Another problem is that other than the FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE, the Infringement
Notice and the summons despite my written requests no further details were provided. It
appears to me that Buloke Shire Council legal representatives were counting pages of my
writings to claim cost but ignoring the content of the same. The Country fire Authority
Act 1958 requires the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer to have an opinion to issue a
Fire prevention Notice, and as I provided in considerable details the Fire prevention
Notices issued over the years are all in violation of the provisions of the Act as well as
they appear to be issued automatically regardless that there is no legal justification to
issue the fire prevention Notice as I provided Buloke Shire Council and its legal
representatives with details information including images where despite that the property
had been appropriately cared for the Municipal fire officer nevertheless some 6 weeks
later issued a Fire Prevention Notice but then never pursued it further. As such the modus
operandi is to act in violation of the legal provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act
1958 as not to form an opinion (which means a consideration of the relevant
circumstances) but that the Municipal Fire prevention Officer merely send out the fire
Prevention Notices and there after some weeks later for the first time check if there is
some violation of the Fire prevention Notice. It is my submission that this violated the
required opinion of the act and each and every fire Prevention Notice issued fails
therefore to be valid in law.
Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration)
QUOTE

Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and
painstaking consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether
the consideration was sufficient in law.
END QUOTE

I understand that in the case of MORIATY v LONDON, CHATMAM & DOVER RY

p5
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Appeal 15-2502

Page 6
Queens Bench 1870 L.R. 5 Q.B. 314;39 L.T.Q.B. 109;22 L.T. 163;34 J.P. 692;18 W.R.
625 in which the plaintiff sued a railway company for personal injuries sustained and this
plaintiff has gone about suborning false evidence and it was held by the Court that even
so the plaintiff would have had a genuine and justify to case to sue normally, by the
plaintiff conduct to suborn false evidence this was seen by the Court that this
conduct amounted to an admission that he had no case.
In my submission Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives by omitting relevant
details may be considered to have acted in a false and misleading conduct to pervert the
course of justice, and likely knowing that the Municipal fire prevention officer didnt
inspect any properties before forming an opinion as to issue a Fire Prevention Notice
and as such had no evidence at all. As usually another Fire Prevention Notice was issued
on 13 October 2015, in precise the same terms as previous Fire Prevention Notices and
apparently all stamped with a signature stamp, and then on 27 October 2015 as I
understand it the Municipal Fire prevention officer having attended to my property to
make photos. As such, about 14 days after issuing the Fire Prevention Notice he decides
to have a look at the property. This is clearly in violation with the legal requirements of
the Country Fire Authority Act 1958, only if the fire prevention officer forms the opinion
Version No. 151, Country Fire Authority Act 1958, No. 6228 of 1958, Version incorporating
amendments as at, 23 September 2015
QUOTE
41

Fire prevention notices

(1) In the country area of Victoria, the fire prevention officer of a municipal council may serve a fire
prevention notice on the owner or occupier of land in the municipal district of that council (other
than a public authority) in respect of anything
(a) on that land, other than a building or in a building;
(b) on the adjacent half width of any private street that abuts that land
(other than a prescribed thing or class of things) that by its nature, composition, condition or
location constitutes or may constitute a danger to life or property from the threat of fire.
(2) A fire prevention notice may be served only if the fire prevention officer forms the opinion

(a) that it is necessary, or may become necessary, to do so to protect life or property from the
threat of fire; and
END QUOTE

It is my submission that to issue the same version of Fire Prevention Notices without
having bothered to actually inspect each property first invalidates the Fire Prevention
Notice and the courts cannot invoke jurisdiction to somehow deal with the Fire
Prevention Notice. It merely in my view is a financial scam/racketeering to extract
monies from property owners.
Bowers v Smith (1953) 1 ALL ER 320 (Re Clarke Hall) and (Morrison on Children, 7 Ed, P3)
QUOTE
"... the first business of the court is to try to issue whether or not the case is bought within the terms of
the statute, and only if this be proven by proper evidence can the court proceed to decide upon
treatment"
END QUOTE

No evidence was to my understanding presented to the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St

Arnaud, and none was provided to me whatsoever.
QUOTE Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is
deprived of juris.
END QUOTE

In my view there is something terribly wrong where a Magistrates Court of Victoria can
issue orders in a criminal matter with a total disregard to proper legal procedures. And
Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives also failing to provide any evidence or
p6

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Appeal 15-2502

Page 7
brief as to its allegations (This as a fire prevention Notice and an Infringement Notice are
no more but allegations.) then it appears that Buloke Shire Council and its legal
representatives have the modus operandi to have the court issuing orders with a disregard
of proper criminal procedures.
As the States are created within s106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) subject to this constitution they are thereby bound by the legal
principles embedded in the constitution:
.Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration
of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of
suspicion;
END QUOTE
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on
the point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused
must be heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament
%22#fn50
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of
its makers[51].
END QUOTE
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE

I understand from Hobsons Bay City Council v Viking Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2010]
VSC 386 (27 August 2010 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2010/386.html) that cost
should not be ordered where the State itself ordinary doesnt pursue cost in criminal matters. Yet, the
Judicial registrar nevertheless did so. This in itself is a ground of appeal also.

As
I
understand
it
the
Victorian
Parliament
for
example
Assembly_Daily_Extract_Wednesday_14_September_2011_from_Book_13 refers
to time of receipt of the electronic communication where the parliament was having its
attention drawn to the fact that documents are filed in court by way of electronic systems.
There could be a possible argument/submission by Buloke Shire Council legal
representatives that my writings were forwarded to the coordinator of the Magistrates
Court of Victoria at St Arnaud which it may claim was not the correct email address. To
me this holds no water, because the Magistrates Court of Victoria provides the email
address for the St Arnaud venue starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au,
Therefore if the email address listed on the Magistrates Court of Victoria website was not
the appropriate mail address then the coordinator had an obligation and duty to inform me
of this and to provide an alternative email address. The coordinator at no time advised me
p7

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Appeal 15-2502

Page 8
of any problems as such and for this I was entitled to accept that the email address was
correct. In any event the coordinator would have had an obligation to redirect the email
correspondences.

QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT

ADDRESS TO THE COURT
Magistrates Court of Victoria
AT: St Arnaud (or alternative court location)
IN THE MATTER:
Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka
(Alleged) Hearing date 19-9-2015
Sir/Madam,
In my 20-8-2015 ADDRESS TO THE COURT I stated at commencement:
QUOTE
I object to the jurisdiction of this court, as I indicated to Buloke Shire Council.
As I have encountered in the past judicial officers who failed to understand/comprehend the legal
processes involved in an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTIONI I will attempt to explain this.
END QUOTE

And
QUOTE
I do not accept that this court can grand the summons to be withdrawn, for that unless it deals with the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION first, this as it has no judicial powers to invoke to allow for the
summons to be withdrawn.
.
As this is an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION the court cannot take any plea.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27
Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to
act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. .
END QUOTE

While due to ill health I was not able to personally attend to the hearing at the Magistrates
Court of Victoria at St Arnaud, nevertheless having made an OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION then the issue before the Court was the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION as any matter of the summons no longer could be heard and
determined unless the court first disposed of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION if
that is what it were to have done, not that I seek to indicate the Court were to have done
so. This ADDRESS TO THE COURT, containing the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION was accompanied by a 17 August 2010 correspondence which was
emails to the court on 17 August 2015.
It is my submission and set out to some extend further below in addition to my
previous writings, that the Magistrates Court of Victoria (at St Arnaud) only can
but dismiss the Summons (charges) for want of jurisdiction.
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT

Not until after the appeal was filed and a date was given did I discover from the appeal
documents I had to sign that there was without conviction. Surely I should have been
provided with the precise orders that were issued on 17 September 2015 before I had to
lodge an appeal, but despite numerous written request was denied this. Likewise any
reason of judgment.
p8

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Appeal 15-2502

Page 9
QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780
As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes
the appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made
in the lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the
appellant or the respondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me
to the point of the absence of reason for the magistrates decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given
orally but not recorded for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the
appeal process, there is the basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up,
argue their case and attempt to controvert the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they
lost. If they are given no reason they may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in
prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not mere ordinary
trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of responsibility which
administrations of the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching consequences of the orders that they
make thereafter entail. [Baker v Baker (1906) 95 LT 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and
again in Cobb v Cobb (1900) p145] it was stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an
appeal to other courts, it is the duty of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence,
and of his decision, but to give the reasons for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his reasons...
Elaborate judgements are not required, but the reasons which lead the magistrate to make his order must
be explicitly stated.
END QUOTE

There was in my submission a gross denial of judicial procedures, denial of natural

justice and a denial of a FAIR and PROPER hearing
QUOTE
JURISDICTION the power to hear and determine a case. 147 P.2d 759, 761. This power may be
established and described with reference to particular subjects or to parties who fall into a particular
category. In addition to the power to adjudicate, a valid exercise of jurisdiction requires fair notice
and an opportunity for the affected parties to be heard. Without jurisdiction, a court's judgment is
void. A court must have both SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION and PERSONAL
JURISDICTION (see below). See also territorial jurisdiction; title jurisdiction."
END QUOTE
QUOTE 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 endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by their own
advocacy
END QUOTE

Even without my presence because of ill health the Judicial Registrar was bound to
consider the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION first, as even if it was claimed the
coordinator had failed to place the document on court file the legal representatives of
Buloke Shire Council were well aware (their 2 September 2015 correspondence refer to
the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, that this was an issue and hence the court was
bound to consider this OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and could hear and
determine this matter and/or issue orders as to each party to file and serve in writing
why it held or opposed jurisdiction to exist.

It is my submission that even without having argued the issue of evidence of Buloke
Shire Council, that is if it has any at all, it ought to be clear that Buloke Shire Council
with its legal practitioners basically so to say hoodwinked the magistrates Court of
Victoria at St Arnaud in issuing orders which I submit were without legal jurisdiction and
totally unjustified.
QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343
Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Penfold and Penfold (1980) 5 FLR at 579 High Court
p9
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Appeal 15-2502

Page 10
Presentation of a false Statement of Financial Circumstances, which puts the other party to trouble and
expense of disproving it is a circumstance which justifies an order for costs.
END QUOTE

I have been burdened to write considerable material to try to avoid the litigation and even
when it was instituted I provided comprehensive details why the litigation was
unjustified. Nevertheless Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives specifically
against my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION went ahead despite being made well
aware of my ongoing ill health. As I indicated I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and
retired Professional Advocate. I represented Queens Counsellor Mr Johnson 4 times
(including in the Supreme Court of Victoria) in Legal Service Commission versus
Harold James Johnson (actually the last case I did before permanently retiring) in which
Smithers J held that a comment made by Mr Johnson even so acting in his own personal
litigation in the Family Court of Australia nevertheless he acted as a legal practitioner and
hence his derogative comments upon other members of the legal profession was to be
dealt with. As such as I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and a (retired) Professional
Advocate I view that likewise my self representation nevertheless should then entitled me
to compensation where Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives pursued a
vexatious/frivolous case. In my submission no court can tolerate this gross abuse and
misuse of legal provisions and the court processes as was eventuating with Buloke Shire
Council and its legal representatives.
In my submission a declaration for relief is appropriate Dustday Investments Pty Ltd v Minister
for Planning [2015] VSC 101 at 65-74
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VSC/2015/101.html>

Also a possible action for tort;

Varawa v Howard Smith Company Ltd [1911] HCA 46
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1911/46.html>
Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34 <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/34.html>
Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Limited v SST Consulting Pty Ltd; Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Limited v Rickard
Constructions Pty Limited [2009] HCA 43 <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2009/43.html>
see Leerdam & Anor v Noori & Ors [2009] NSWCA 90
<http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2009/90.html>

I submit to the court that this kind of conduct is very serious to pervert the course of
justice. The Country Fire Authority Act 1958 leaves it to the council to appoint a person
as a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer but because the act requires the Municipal fire
prevention Officer to form an opinion then I submit this implies the person must be
competent in fire management to be able to consider relevant circumstances. And if this
matter would go to a full blown trial then as I have already provided to Buloke Shire
Council and its legal representatives I have images to show that Buloke Shire Council had
weed/grass along Calder Highway in excess of 1metres high, which is nearby my
property in violation of the provisions of the Country fire Authority Act 1958 and as such
indicating that the Municipal fire prevention Officer failed to enforce State law in an
appropriate manner and this then questions his ability to be an expert witness and goes
against his credibility as a witness.
Without limiting my submission with the above stated not having been provided, despite my
written requests, with any relevant information/details such as the alleged , if any, evidence that
Buloke Shire Council relies upon to prove the validity of the fire Prevention Notice I am in no
position to be able to prepare my case for an appeal hearing. In my submission I am entitled to
know what the evidence of the Prosecutor is so I can prepare a defence. After all, it might be that
the Prosecutor turns out to have evidence that related to a different property not owned by me.
the veracity of the evidence should be allowed to be challenged and as such I am entitled to being
provided prior to any trail or appeal hearing what evidence the Prosecutor (in this case the
respondent Buloke Shire Council) relies upon.
Marriage of Baines (No. 2) (1981) 7 Fam LR 232 at 237;p10

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Appeal 15-2502

Page 11
QUOTE
We recognise that each party is entitled to a Fair and Proper trial and to an adequate opportunity to adduce
relevant evidence and to test the quality and veracity of the evidence adduced by the other party.
END QUOTE
.
Marriage of Baines (1981) 7 Fam LR 226 at 229
QUOTE
The adversary system involves the presentation of facts ascertained by questions put to witnesses, or legal
representations to the court. The role of the judge is that of adjudicator. This does not mean that he can ask
no questions but he is at common law restricted in that he cannot in general call witnesses himself.
END QUOTE

Where the court failed to make orders which it ought to have, such as to make orders regarding
the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then this also is a legitimate ground of appeal.
.

In Preston Ice and Cool Stores Pty Ltd. v. Hawkings (1955) V.L.R. 89; (1955) Austin Digest 337.
QUOTE
It was held that where there is a review/appeal the party having sought such review/appeal is not bound by
the grounds used in the original hearing but may refer to other grounds even so, such grounds had not been
upon which the original order was based.
END QUOTE

In my submission the appeal is in the circumstances to be heard in the County Court of Victoria
at Melbourne, being the appropriate venue.
It is my submission that appropriate orders are required to be issued to ensure that Buloke Shire
council provides me with all relevant details/information it seeks to rely upon for any trail so
that I can prepare my defence, where it to eventuate to a full blown trail. If Buloke Shire
Council has no such evidence then it should have all along admitted to this. The fact that it didnt
clarify any such issues underlines that it proceeded to secure court orders which Buloke Shire
Council and/or its legal representatives knew or ought to have known was to pervert the course
of justice. In my submission no court can endorse or tolerate this kind of conduct, in particular
where most unlettered persons would lack the ability to fight such modus operandi of abuse and
misuse of the legal processes.
Appellant

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p11

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Appeal 15-2502