Page 1

Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J.

judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Cc:

28-11-2015

Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au

Mr Martin Pakula, Attorney-General martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au

Re: 20151128-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh

to His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-Re APPEAL-15-2502-LEGALPROCEDURES
Sir,

while Buloke Shire Council legal representatives\ in their documentation under the heading
FULL BRIEF refers to 22 February 2016, it must be clear this is not and cannot be the
FULL BRIEF (apart of its numerous defects the BRIEF I (27 October 2015)requested prior to
the hearing on 30 October 2015 before His Honour Mullaly J. This as the hearing date was
allegedly 22 February 2016 not a date that possibly have been known on 27 October 2015
unless His Honour Mullaly J and Buloke Shire Council legal representatives had already
determined this date prior to the hearing on 30 October 2015 which would indicate fraternising
between His Honour Mullaly J and Buloke Shire Council Representatives. This fraternising
would invalidate any subsequent orders. But wait there is more
To my understanding there is no validly in any 22 February hearing (at Ballarat) as His Honour
Mullaly J appeared to order on 30 October 2015. Surely I could have expected and indeed was
entitled to that His Honour Mullaly J would be well aware of the proper legal processes
applicable when a party objects to the jurisdiction of the court?
I urge you to provide the transcript of the hearing, and albeit the hearing may at the time not
have been transcribed into a transcript, nevertheless the onus is upon the court to provide the
transcript. After all, I made an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and the fact that His
Honour Mullaly J failed to deal with this then means His Honour Mullaly J never invoked
jurisdiction and by this any orders His Honour purported to make for a hearing De Novo in
Ballarat was without jurisdiction. Let me try to explain, what I view the correct process should
have been to follow: When I appeared before His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 and
provided my ADDRESS TO THE COURT containing my written submissions including
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then from that moment His Honour Mullaly J could do no
more but to attend to the jurisdictional issue. The fact that His Honour Mullaly J initially refused
to consider the content of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT (Already then in the possession of
His Honour Mullaly J) cannot deny me the right of proper legal procedures to be followed. As
such where His Honour failed to invoke jurisdiction then any orders purporting to adjourn
matters for hearing at the County court of Victoria at Ballarat venue is without jurisdiction and as
such has no legal validity. His Honour Mullaly J from onset having been provided with my
ADDRESS TO THE COURT containing my written submission of OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION then had only jurisdiction to hear and determine the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION. His Honour had to act in a manner not unduly to undermine my
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION which implied eventuated where His Honour purported to
adjourn further hearing of the matter De Novo to Ballarat venue.
p1
28-11-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 2
First the Ballarat venue was an issue to me as well as any De Novo hearing.
Moreover, it appears to me His Honour Mullaly J fails to understand/comprehend the proper
processes to be followed when an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is before the Court.
His Honour seemed to me as I understand it to make known I could object to matters at the
Ballarat venue when matters are heard. This is totally incorrect in law because an OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION must be heard on its own. In real terms the jurisdictional matter must be
heard first and only if the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is dismissed, not that I seek to
concede it will) then and only then can the court issue orders as to the conduct of the Appeal
itself and any De Novo hearing. Therefore the only powers His Honour Mullaly J possessed on
30 October 2015 was to either hear and determine that day the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and if this was dismissed (again not that I seek to concede it might be) then
and only then His Honour Mullaly J could have proceeded to issue orders as to the conduct of
any appeal hearing. Alternatively, His Honour Mullaly J could have adjourned the judicial matter
for hearing at a later time and ordered certain procedures to be followed, such as Buloke Shire
Council to submit to the court in writing, say in 2 weeks, as to why it held the court had
jurisdiction and then the Objector (that is me) to respond within 4 weeks as to any issue the
objector desires to make. Albeit both parties would be permitted to make further oral submission
as a subsequent jurisdictional hearing but limited to the submissions made to the court.
Thereafter, the Court would hold a jurisdictional hearing to determine upon the evidence if the
court could or couldnt invoke jurisdiction. Being it that the object tor has no onus to disprove
jurisdiction and Buloke Shire Council being the initiator of the summons had to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the court could invoke jurisdiction. As such Buloke Shire Council had to
prove every facet of law, including any legislation relied upon that it was properly gazetted, etc,
and also overcome each and every additional issues the objector may raise.
For all purposes and intent because the objector (that is me) objected also to the Ballarat venue)
His Honour Mullaly J therefore had no judicial powers to order any hearing to be held at Ballarat
venue for the hearing of the jurisdictional issue let alone for any purported hearing of the appeal
De Novo hearing because it would imply a pre-determined decision as to the jurisdictional issues
before the court heard and determined matters.
It must be made clear that ordinary a jurisdictional hearing is conducted by a judge not
hearing the Appeal, if that was to in the end proceeded with, this as the jurisdictional hearing
may deal with evidence or other matters which may not be admissible in an Appeal hearing.
His Honour Mullaly J indicating that he might deal with the matter in February 2016 clearly by
this indicated not to understand, at least in my view, the proper processes regarding a
jurisdictional hearing. If, and again I do not concede neither imply this, that the court would
dismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, then and only then could the court embark
upon dealing with the appeal matters and then anything that was stated during the
JURISDICTIONAL HEARING is irrelevant as all and any evidence has to be stated again.
The Courts have for long recognised that a party objecting to the jurisdiction of the court
shouldnt be prevented to litigate this to the full extend by raising issues which may not be used
as evidence in a subsequent hearing of the charges unless freshly presented. That is also why
when a party submits NO CASE TO ANSWER then anything the accused states when cross
examining the Prosecutors witness cannot be used by the trail judge against the accused.
The courts have for long recognised that the right of a party to challenge the Opponents veracity
of evidence cannot be hampered by fear that it could be used against the accused.
In the van Rooy case, as an example, I submitted to the DPP that there was NO CASE TO
ANSWER. The DPP responded to withdraw 2 out of 3 criminal charges. After a 5 day trail
where the Prosecutor presented its range of police officers, etc, as witnesses upon closing of the
Prosecutors case His Honour Wood J then directed the jury to return a verdict NOT GUILTY
without Ms van Rooy needing to present her case. The power of an OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and/or NO CASE TO ANSWER is considerable.
p2
28-11-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 3
Because His Honour Mullaly J didnt deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and
issued orders for a hearing De Novo in Ballarat venue to be heard His Honour Mullaly J
therefore undermined my right as an objector and the orders were without jurisdiction and as
such cannot be enforced as such. In my view, when His Honour Mullaly J finally did consider
my ADDRESS TO THE COURT containing the written Submissions of OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION His Honour Mullaly J then ought to have immediately have withdrawn his
earlier orders for a hearing in February 2016 at the Ballarat venue, and proceeded to deal with the
jurisdictional matter, or disqualify himself for failing to conduct a proper hearing from onset by
failing to consider the written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT.
It is beyond me why judges (and Associates) seems to have such extreme difficulties to
grasp what I consider basic/elementary legal processes.
Considering the High Court of Australia Wakim HCA27 of 1999 Authority I can ignore any
orders that were unconstitutional/without jurisdiction. However, I am trying to get the judiciary
to understand that what to me appears to be its modus operandi to deny ordinary citizens their
constitution and other legal rights is to undermine the administration of justice.
My appeal was filed in line to what the High court of Australia stated in Wakim and yet all I get
is what I deem a lot more garbage rather than having a competent judicial officer dealing with
matters within the rule of law. Perhaps judges and their Associates need to have a re-education in
what is legally appropriate? It was bad enough that despite my OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION to the Magistrates Court of Victoria it blatantly disregard this (twice) and I
had to incur cost to obtain a copy of the court recording of 17 September 2015. Meaning I am the
aggrieved party because I am caused to incur cost which should have been avoided where I made
an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. I could hypothetically be a mass murderer and getaway
it because the court cannot manage to conduct legal proceedings according to basic legal
requirements. The Albert Park racing charges proved that the legislation was not Gazetted, and as
such charges were without validity. This underlines the importance of an OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION to oppose any purported legislation that may constitutionally or otherwise not
be valid. If a judge however assumes that only lawyers can grasp legal complexities then they
better get re-educated! Before the Court every person must be deemed equal in rights regardless
if represented by legal representatives or not! Regardless if His Honour Mullaly J did or didnt
deal with the jurisdictional issues my ADDRESS TO THE COURT clearly did set out relevant
Authorities and as there were to my knowledge no submissions by Counsel for Buloke Shire
Council to prove jurisdiction then in that regard His Honour Mullaly J has no choice but to
withdraw his orders of 30 October 2015 purporting to order a hearing De Novo at Ballarat venue
and provide that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal for so far the
appeal related to orders of the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud where this court
neither invoked jurisdiction and as such the magistrates Court of Victoria never invoked
jurisdiction, and its orders are without legal jurisdiction and are to be set aside. The
Appellant/Objector is entitled to appeal orders which were not made but ought to have been
made. For so far the appeal relates to the failure of the Magistrates Court of Victoria to hear and
determine the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then before the Court the failure to any
orders being made and there being no evidence before the court by Buloke Shire Council to
prove jurisdiction then the orders must be held to have been made to upheld the OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION, and it hereby is so ordered.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all
issues/details.

Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
p3
28-11-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati