1

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria

daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc:

10

8-12-2015

Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au

Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J. judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Mr Wayne Wall & Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Ref; 20151208-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria -Re APPEAL-15-2502
Re Request for information-details (FOI)-etc

Sir,

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

on 9 December 2015 I made a request for information/details with a supplement 1 dated 11

December 2015 but so far I am not aware of any reply.
As I indicated the proceedings are listed for 22 February 2016 in the County Court of Victoria at Ballarat
venue and it is obvious that even if by some miracle the information/details were to be provided it would
leave insufficient time for me to consider all the relevant details for the hearing. As Buloke Shire Council
purportedly litigate using delegated State Government powers within the Country Fire Authority Act
1958 then I view the actual litigant is the State Government and its denial of the FOI act request without
any explanation is to obstruct the course of justice. My request was elaborate in details as to make sure the
FOI officer could ascertain that I was after and so not wondering if a request was a mere general request
not within the scope to be responded upon or within the confines of the provisions of the FOI Act.
As you were provided with copies of ongoing correspondences regarding the matters sought to be
litigated against me then it neither can be that you are unaware of the issues concerned.
QUOTE 0-1-2015 FOI Act request
this is a request for details/information, etc, as to assist/aid in court litigation currently before the
County Court of Victoria (Scheduled again for hearing on 22 February 2016 and as such
information/documentation/details are to be provided well before that date.) and as such any refusal/omission
to provide relevant details I would consider to be an conduct to pervert the course of justice. If you
refuse/deny to provide the information/details (as referred to below) and/or any part thereof then consider it a
request for so far refused/denied to be a request within the FOI Act. As to avoid huge cost on paperwork, etc,
I view that the providing of the details/information/documentation, etc, in electronic format on a DVD would
be acceptable.
As a senior citizen and holding a pension card 301-602-799V I seek all and any charges ordinary being
applicable to an FOI request to be waived, this also as this is a matter of public interest.
END QUOTE 0-1-2015 FOI Act request

I may note that I indicated also previously that the state government should have taken over the
case from Buloke Shire Council as their lawyers seems to me to be incompetent to litigate within
the legal provisions applicable for litigation.
The original fire prevention Notice was issued (ass others were) in defiance of the legal
provisions of the country fire authority act 1958 and as such should have been withdrawn. This
the lawyers appear not to understand/comprehend. The same with the 17 November 2014
Infringement Notice, which was based upon the defective Fire Prevention Notice.
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."
p1
8-12-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

2
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:
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

"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)

Then the legislation requires that the Infringement Notice is withdrawn before a summons is
issued, whereas the summons issued against me relies upon the Infringement Notice.
Then we have that the court hearing was listed for the incorrect Magistrates Court of Victoria
venue being at St Arnaud (apparently because the lawyers had other cases) where in fact
Heidelberg or Swan Hill venue were the appropriate venues.
Then we had that the legal proceedings were instituted for 20 August 2015 regarding the 17
November 2015 Infringement Notice but the lawyers provided a Form 11 with the full brief
that was signed on 25 November 2015 purportedly being before the Court for hearing on 18
March 2013, as such ab out 18 months before the Infringement Notice was issued ad more than a
year before the Fire Prevention Notice was issued. Is seems that the lawyers first arranged for a
court hearing and subsequently more than a year later decide to issue a Fire prevention Notice to
litigate upon, etc.
While I provided an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION this was acknowledged by the lawyers
in their 2 September 21015 correspondence but ignored by the Magistrates Court of Victoria on
20 August 2015 and so also subsequently on 17 September 2015, despite my written submission
to the court. In fact there was no evidence at all on 17 September 2015 but the
Magistrate/Judicial Registrar nevertheless in violation to the Hobson Bay Supreme Court of
Victoria authority still ordered cost against me. Again, without a shred of evidence.
I filed my appeal having been denied my various request for formal orders and reason of
judgment and so did so without having the precise terms of the 17 September 2015 orders.
Buloke Shire Council lawyers did not file as required by law any Notice of appearance but
nevertheless showed up. They didnt apply for Leave to file and serve out of time and it is a
matter of court records they did so in December 2015 without my consent or that of the court.
While on 30 October 2015 during the pre-appeal hearing before His Honour Mullaly J counsel
for Buloke Shire Council sub mitted that my request for the brief was only received
yesterday this even so my email records prove it was 3days earlier, His Honour Mullaly J then
ordered that the full brief was to be served via Australian Post by no later being posted by 9
November 2015. This didnt eventuate. While Buloke /Shire Council legal representatives ES&a
Legal Practitioners purported to provide me with a full brief via email on 25 November 2015
relating to a 18 March 2013 hearing albeit the Form 11 was dated 25 November 2015 it must be
clear that this was a concocted full brief not at all what I had requested on 27 October 2015
and ordered by His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015. I made known to Buloke Shire
Council as well as to its lawyers and others that I wouldnt accept service out of time and they
may require to apply for Leave to serve out of time, this however to my knowledge never
eventuated. Perhaps they are well aware they have no legally justified excuse to have blatantly
ignored the 30 October 2015 orders of His Honour Mullaly J and so to say dictate the court what
it must do.
Safe to say that the purported images of the purported full brief appears to be the product of
trespassing and as such inadmissible as evidence.
It also must be stated that the Fire Prevention Notice stipulate conditions as if the Municipal Fire
Prevention Officer now has taken on legislative powers which are beyond the scope of the
Country Fire Authority Act 1958 provisions.
p2
8-12-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

3
Worse is that this very Municipal Fire Prevention Officer seems to me to lack basic training to
form an opinion and as I proved with images along the high way growth is in excess of 1
meters high a real fire danger and unduly places firefighters at the peril of fire danger uncalled
for. Indeed the road side is littered with years of build-up of dead wood along the highway.
Perhaps the lawyers are so desperate of earning monies in litigation that they are willing to
pursue whatever, but as a person caused to pay rates (itself unconstitutional) I object to having
my precious monies being used to fund vexatious litigation against me.
My FOI Act request for details/information was to also prove to the court that this is not some
isolated incident but that this is a modus operandi by Buloke Shire Council and its legal
representatives to extort monies of citizens. It for example charges me about $360 a year for
garbage collection this even so there is none. And wasnt rates to be for this?
In my view you are obstructing the course of justice by failing to comply with the legal
requirements of the FOI Act.
I opposed having to travel on 22 February to the County court of Victoria at Ballarat as I
maintain it is the incorrect venue and one cannot have a hearing De Novo of a case which in
legal terms never existed this because the magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud never
disposed of my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION written submissions.
In my view the Country Court of Victoria can rightfully deal with the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and order exemplary damages against those who so to say ganged up
against me, where a competent lawyer ought to have made clear the Fire Prevention Notice was
without legal justification, so the Infringement Notice and so the summons, etc.
Buloke Shire Council I am informed by the Essential Service Commissioner to have a higher
increase of rates then the CPI and obviously I oppose this as it squanders monies on lawyers who
I view lack the basic understanding of litigation requirements.
The Magistrates Court Act (Vic) requires that a full brief is served no later than 14 days
before a hearing and how on earth a 25 November 29015 Form 11 signed document to certify the
full brief somehow could have been before the court on 18 March 2013 is beyond me.
As I understand it, then again I grew up in The Netherlands where the calendar years are
increasing year after year with one number, 2015 is followed by 2016, and not by 2013.
While Buloke Shire Councils purportedly sent some other pages as to pretend it now relates to
the 22 February 2016 hearing it cannot take away that this is not served within the terms of
legislative provisions, not served within the terms of the 30 October 2015 His Honour Mullaly J
orders to post by no later than 9 November 2015, and is not the full brief I requested on 27
October 2015 relating to the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud litigation against which
the appeal was instituted. As such Buloke Shire Council has no evidence before the court
whatsoever to seek to justify a hearing De Novo to support its purported charge against me.
In my view the State government has a responsibility not to allow such vexatious proceedings to
be conducted on its behalf (by delegated powers).
In my view it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to take over the case form Buloke
Shire Council and to indicate to the court, as well as myself, that it will not oppose the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION that is before the court, and for so far the appeal was to be
heard it neither will oppose the appeal and will leave it to the court to determine what, if any,
exemplary damages will be ordered in favour of me. Time is running out and so the AttorneyGeneral better doesnt waste time to address the relevant issues.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

50

(Our name is our motto!)

p3
8-12-2015
Mr 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: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati