20160530-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To County Court of Victoria-Re Witness Statement-APPEAL-15-2502

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Witness statement Appeal 15-2502
Page 1
Witness statement
(pre-written on 28-5-2016)
5
County Court of Victoria at Melbourne

This witness Statement is subject to if the court may order the hearing to proceed upon material
disputes and the Court overruling my submission that there is NO CASE TO ANSWER.
There can be a considerable disadvantage of being a witness and representing oneself.

10 Actually, I recall some decades ago a barrister cross-examining me and demanding I would say
Yes or No and the judge telling me to do so. I refused as I explained that either way the
barrister could interpret this whichever manner he desired and I would only give an answer I
desired to give with any explanation I desired to give. The trial judge then accepted this.
It is totally wrong to accept some lawyer cross-examining a witness to try to trap the witness in
15 pretending having stated something that was not intended nor stated.
While an opponent can seek to expose that the credibility of a witness should be questionable,
this however should be done in a manner to bring out the truth and not a deceptive conduct as to
pervert the course of justice.
20 .
At the time of writing this document I wouldnt have a clue what evidence may come from any
witness from Buloke Shire Council, albeit the purported brief indicates only one witness being
Mr Wayne Wall. Hence, this pre-written statement likely will be complemented for so far the
witness may deem it needed with oral evidence.
25 .
Any material copied in this statement is to be deemed evidence.
There has been somehow an oversight regarding the provisions of the Country Fire Authority
Act 1958 which despite searches were not located at the time of writing the written submissions
but in any event will be addressed by me.
30 I rely upon my material in my written submissions in the various ADDRESSES TO THE
COURT as evidence albeit considering what I state further in this document as to any
corrections I view is appropriate.
The legislation does refer to owner and occupier and sometimes also to a person to whom
35 a notification might be directed.
This related to my son Richard who I had accepted to reside at the property with his 2 daughters
(my granddaughters) on the condition that while I would continue to pay the rates who would
look after the property and pay all incoming bills, as well as maintain the property and in return
40 he would not pay any rent.
45
50
120302-Buloke c-o Warwick Heine CEO B1349 and Notice 1,722

QUOTE
Well, as my past correspondence stated my son Richard (38 years old with two granddaughters) had been
given the authority to reside in Berriwillock, without paying rent provided he would pay all incoming bills
and also maintain the property. It now turns out Richard did anything but this.
In previous years when a Fire Notice was issued I authorised Buloke Shire Council to have this attended to
on my behalf and as such no issue arose from this because Buloke Shire Council clearly had dealt with the
matters then.
When this time a fire notice was issued I then request Buloke Shire Council to provide me with cost of
having Buloke Shire Council attending to this issue, as per previous years, but Buloke Shire Council simply
ignored altogether to respond and then later issued the purported Infringement Notice. It then subsequently
advised that it had changed its policy and that it no longer assisted in dealing with Fire Hazard issues. As
p1
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant
Appeal 15-2502
Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Page 2
such Buloke Shire Council itself was the culprit to change its policy without giving me advance notification
and letting me to await a never to come reply.
.
If there was really a fire danger issue as alleged by the fire hazard notice and Buuloke Shiore Council instead
of dealing with this fire danger is only interested in seeking to collect the Infringement Notice cost then
clearly Buloke Shire Council by its own conduct has shown that the fire hazard to the community really isnt
existing but it is pedantic as to us the fire notice as a way of collecting fines, or attempt to collect fines, to
boost the finances of Buloke Shire Council rather then being one of iota concerned about the safety of
residents.
END QUOTE
My son Richard used to reside in rainbow in a properly his (late) grandmother had purchased for
him, however years later after her dead the non-biological (step) grandfather decided to sell the
property as it never had been transferred into Richards name.
While Richard had previously visited the Berriwillock property, after I already resided in
Melbourne, he had done so removing a cast iron safe and having used my trailer to take it to
Rainbow, where she smashed the safe open expecting monies, but instead it contained 50 years
of my stamp collections. He I understand disposed of it dumping it in the Rainbow tip. I just
didnt know about this until months later the Rainbow police contacted me about my trailer and
then I became aware of what had eventuated.
The extensive stamp collection had been very valuable and so to say was to be my nest egg for
retirement.
For sure I was furious but never expressed this to my son Richard. Nothing gained from this
where he was using drugs and act as such.
When then Richard requested to be allowed to live at the Berriwillock with the 2 children I held
to give him another chance.
Well, as he didnt want me to be checking up on him I refrained from doing so.
When I did finally come to the property I discovered 2 of my cars were missing, all tools and
equipment were missing, huge amount of steel missing, etc. I understand that Richard simply had
sold it all for scrap metal.
20151114-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Chief Officer-Re Buloke Shire Council -Re Fire Prevention Notice 199-4423etc
QUOTE
My son Richard was residing at Berriwillock but mysteriously disappeared. I now obtained copies of
documentation indicating to me the police did an unlawful search of his vehicle, unlawfully arrested him, etc.
As result that his partial build fence was left as was, and with it part of the fence missing. As result unknown
persons were having access to the property and were dumping items such as shown below in images 16922,
163250 and 163266 from farmers. The house was left unlocked, and unknown person(s) caused destruction,
etc. It appears to me that Buloke Shire Council having limited access to the Berriwillock tip has resulted in
illegal dumping on my property. As result unwanted items having been abandoned on my property causing
problems with slashing/cutting. The (expensive) fencing I have put up ought to prevent dumping on my
property.
END QUOTE
45
Basically Richard had left a disaster area. I understand that the two granddaughters at some time,
albeit unknown to me when, moved in with my first wife Ingrid.
I slowly understood from a neighbour Jeff Secantedaan that he and his wife had been seeking to
assist Richard and in 2014 he had twice slashed the property after I had contact with him about a
50 Fire Prevention Notice having been received, upon which he gave me the understanding he
already had slashed the property but would do it again.
I understand that Mr Wayne Wall personally was informed by Jeff that he had slashed the
property in 2014.
.
p2
Appeal 15-2502
Page 3
I also understood from Jeff that Richard would come and go and at times was not seen for some
period of time but then was back again.
The following is quoted from a correspondence regarding the Fire Prevention Notice of 2014,
5 etc, albeit the original correspondence had Jeffs name concealed to avoid complications against
him, but I understand he did later identify himself to Mr Wayne Wall when he attended to the
property and was located inside the property by Jeff, albeit without prior permission to enter the
property.
20150101-Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire Council care of J Groves-DRAFT WITH NAMES
10 QUOTE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Buloke Shire Council
C/o J Groves
C/o buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
15
Re: Infringement Notice -Fire danger etc
Sir/Madam,
20
QUOTE
On Sunday, October 12, 2014 2:07 AM, Jefjoyful Secantedaan <jefjoyful@yahoo.com> wrote:
thank you mate.headding back 2morow.we will take it easy going back.
regards Jeff
25
On Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:22 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

<inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Jef,
congratulations to your wife and you regarding your sons wedding.
I am glad you are at least up and about.
Gerrit
30
Constitutionalist & Consultant
35
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN
(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 61394577209
.
Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
40
The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless specifically
otherwise stated.
45
If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do is to consider the
content appropriately!
50
A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING CONCERNED
TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.
END QUOTE
p3
Appeal 15-2502
Page 4
END QUOTE
On Monday, October 20, 2014 1:55 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Jeff,
I received a fire notice dated 16 October 2014.from Buloke Shire Council allegedly that the weed/grass was
not cut, or something to that effect. I do not know if you because of your illness was unable to do something
about my property. Could you let me know what the position is because if I have to drive up I need to get my
station wagon urgently repaired (change of gearbox) as it has been standing in the driveway waiting to get
repaired.
10
Gerrit
15
.
20
otherwise stated.
25
30
END QUOTE
35 QUOTE
Re: From Gerrit to Jef
People
40
Jefjoyful Secantedaan
21 Oct
To
45
me
Ok we cut it before we went away to the west.

just had a look around there and its the same as my. could do with another
cut. so as soon as we gat some parts for the ride on mower.it needs a new starter.
will arrive here on Friday.will cut it on the weekend again. for you no problem mate.
regards Jeff & Joy
END QUOTE
50
QUOTE
On Saturday, 25 October 2014, 2:08, Jefjoyful Secantedaan <jefjoyful@yahoo.com> wrote:
p4
Appeal 15-2502
Page 5
Halo gerrit
we have just cut your grass on Friday.
it's all ok mate.
regards Jeff
QUOTE
QUOTE
To
10
Jefjoyful Secantedaan
CC
me
Jef,
much appreciated.
I have booked in my station wagon for an inspection, that is they have no spot un til end next week and I was
advised that pending what repairs need to be done they will tell me how long it will take before they can do
the repairs. It seems that if certain parts are required it can take some time. At least I might finally be able to
travel again. Useless to have a stationwagon that isn't working.
.
Anyhow, how is it with your health? Is it settling?
.
Gerrit
15
20
25
.
30
otherwise stated.
35
40
END QUOTE
p5
Appeal 15-2502
Awaiting your response,

END QUOTE
Page 6
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
5 Again:
QUOTE
QUOTE
On Saturday, 25 October 2014, 2:08, Jefjoyful Secantedaan <jefjoyful@yahoo.com> wrote:
10
15
Halo gerrit
we have just cut your grass on Friday.
it's all ok mate.
regards Jeff
QUOTE
END QUOTE
On the basis of the email communication between Jeff and myself I had the understanding that
the property had been appropriately attended to.
20
While during visits to the Berriwillock property I didnt see Richard, as he was on and off on the
property I understand however from documentation received from VicRoads that Richards
residential address was listed at 10 Anderson Avenue the said property these proceedings relates
to.
25 I had on 29 April 2016 amended Richards postal address to Viewbank because while Richard is
away any mail not collected at the local post office is returned to sender.
It appears that Richard was taken into custody while residing at Berriwillock and had his
residential address of his driver licence at10 Anderson Berriwillock.
I understand that police had located Approx 1 gram Green Vegetable Matter in his car and
30 while he was arrested and later bailed failed to turn up at the next court hearing.
35
My concern of this is that it was an opinion to search while legislation requires suspicion.
And as such the search may have been unlawful.
p6
Appeal 15-2502
Page 7
When Richard was arrested is not clear, but sometime in 2014 at least as I understand from Jeff,
albeit Jeff also gave me the understanding that Richard was during 2014 Christmas visiting them.
p7
Appeal 15-2502
Page 8
We all make errors in life, and while Richard did his fair share in that regard, as his father I still
pursue to assist him.
I was a cigarette smoker consuming about 2 packets a day and when I desired to give up it was
extremely difficult. However, when I was in 1987 that I was able to quite what is called cold
5 turkey and pleased to have done so but it has given me a considerable understanding of how it
must be for others also, regardless if it is cigarette, drugs or whatever.
What I understand is that in 2013 I delivered new kitchen cabinets to the Berriwillock property
and Richard having noticed this then seemed to have had a change of conduct, as I understand
10 from Jeff that Richard started to show interest in doing some work on the property.
Because he was arrested this work then stopped.
The issue is that Richard was all along recorded by VicRoad to be residing at 10 Anderson
Avenue Berriwillock.
15 .
Buloke Shire Council charges me about $360 a year for garbage collection, this even so no garb
age is collected for this. As such it is so to say double dipping charging rates that supposedly
includes garbage rates, and then charge for a non-service. As my wife and are senior citizens on
a pension and facing then a major car repair of $2,000 then the about $360 is certainly a
20 considerable amount of monies.
Having a son who is a drug addict is problematic in itself but for Buloke Shire Council to add to
this I view is utterly deplorable.
25 I clearly notified Buloke Shire Council as to the circumstances existing and about the email
communication between Jeff and myself as well as problems governing Richard.
In the circumstances where Richard was essentially the occupier and I had really no way of
knowing when he was or wasnt at Berriwillock, and in fact was in custody, I have the view I
acted in a reasonable manner.
30 .
The problem is that the Fire Prevention Notice as I understand it is merely send out without the
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer even bothering to check out a property and so not knowing
how the property is and in what condition the Fire Prevention Notice obviously cannot then state
what precisely is alleged to be a fire danger.
35 I understood from Jeff that he too received Fire Prevention Notices and complained to Buloke
Shire Council that he had no grass and so why was such a notice issued against him.
The terms of the Fire prevention Notice as I understand it to be is in violation with the legislative
provisions of the Country fire Authority Act 1958 and as such I view invalid. Nevertheless I still
40 organised with Jeff for him to look again n after the property.
QUOTE
On Monday, October 20, 2014 1:55 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
45
Jeff,
I received a fire notice dated 16 October 2014.from Buloke Shire Council allegedly that the weed/grass was
not cut, or something to that effect.
END QUOTE
50 There was no clear indication what was intended with the Fire Prevention Notice specifically
required to be done.
p8
Appeal 15-2502
Page 9
The term remove all combustible material from the land as I understood it means to remove all
trees, wooden fence post, buildings and its content, motor vehicle, etc.
p9
Appeal 15-2502
Page 10
My understand in of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 is that what was intended was not a
micromanagement of any property as now appears to be pursued but to remove a real fire
danger and if this is not done then the Fire Brigade may become involved in the clearance.
To my understanding at no time was the Fire Brigade involved to clear my property.
5 And I provided to Mr Wayne Wall correspondence showing that while any grass at my property
was at most About 20 cm ac cross the road the grass/weed was along the highway about 1
metres high and years of dead wood had built up.
I understood from Mr Wayne Wall that he had no powers to force for example Ministry of
Housing to comply and that the road was done about a metre from the road way.
10 As I understand it Section 41 excludes a Fire Prevention Notice to be issued against a public
authority but can within s43 have any fire danger attended to and any cost incurred is payable to
the authority (being the Country Fire Authority Act 1958).
Country Fire Authority Act 1958
QUOTE
15 42Brigades may carry out fire prevention work
(1) The officers and members of any brigade, at the request of
(a) the owner or occupier of any land;
(b) a Minister in whom any land is vested;
(c) a municipal council or public authority
20
(i) in which any land is vested;

(ii) that has any land under its control or management;
(iii) that is responsible for the care and management of any road
may carry out on that land or road any work (including burning) for the removal or
abatement of any fire danger or for the prevention of the occurrence or spread of
fire.
25
(2) Any work carried out under subsection (1) must be paid for by the owner,
occupier, Minister, council or authority requesting the work and, if not paid, is
recoverable in the Magistrates' Court as a debt due to the Authority.
END QUOTE
30
QUOTE
41Fire prevention notices
(1) In the country area of Victoria, the fire prevention officer of a municipal council
35
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
END QUOTE
.
40 What we really have is that the legislation allows serious lawbreakers such as Buloke Shire
Council to ignore fire danger and yet pursue it against a property owner as if it is a major issue.
While the provisions state the following:
45 QUOTE
p10
Appeal 15-2502
Page 11
41Fire prevention notices

(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
5
(b) that there is no procedure under any other Act or regulations made under any
Act that is more appropriate in the circumstances to address that threat.
END QUOTE
Reality is that nothing has been shown to me that any such inspection took place for the
10 Municipal Fire Prevention Officer to form an opinion that the issue of a Fire Prevention Notice
was justified. Indeed the fact that year after year the Fire Prevention Notice uses the same
wording underlines it is issued without any proper inspection to form an opinion and required
action that is excluded by the act.
Even the 100mm in my view is outside the provisions of the act because it means that the
15 Municipal Fire Prevention Officer is somehow on his own accord providing some kind of a bylaw not provided for by the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 itself.
QUOTE
41
Fire prevention notices
(3)A fire prevention notice

20
(a) must be in the prescribed form;

(b) may require the owner or occupier to take the steps specified in the notice to
remove or minimise the threat of fire;
(c) must specify the time (not less than 7 days) within which the owner or
occupier must comply with the notice;
25
(d) must contain any prescribed information.

END QUOTE
While the Fire Prevention Notice stated remove all combustible material from the land yet on
6 November 2015 when faced with the same terms in a Fire Prevention Notice I was given the
30 understanding by Mr Wayne wall that he actually only wanted certain parts of the property to be
attended to and that I could put it on a heap on the property. As such not at all to be removed
merely that it was heaped up.
I was provided with certain imaged which indicated to me that for Mr Wayne Wall to have been
able to make the images he would have had to enter my property at least about 40 metres into it.
35 As Mr Wayne Wall knew I resided in Viewbank (Melbourne) and he posted year after year the
various Fire Prevention Notices to this address then it obviously could not have been that Mr
Wayne Wall attempted to contact me through the most direct line from the gate to the front door,
as the image indicates that he had been wandering around the property without any attempt to
first obtain permission/authority to do so.
40 Country Fire Authority Act 1958
QUOTE
41A
Service of notices
(1) A fire prevention notice may be served on an owner or occupier

(a) by giving it to or serving it personally on the owner or occupier; or
p11
Appeal 15-2502
Page 12
(b) by sending it by post to the owner or occupier at that person's usual or last
known residential or business address; or
(c) by leaving it at the usual or last known residential or business address of the
owner or occupier with a person on the premises who is apparently at least 16
years old and apparently residing or employed there; or
(d) in a manner prescribed by any other Act or law for service on a person or
class of persons of the same type as the owner or occupier.
END QUOTE
10 The legislation is clear that a Fire Prevention Notice could be issued to the occupier and so
where it was the residential address of Richard then it could be held that Mr Wayne Wall may
have attended to contact my son Richard that is if the Fire Prevention Notice had been in
Richards name. However having reproduced the Fire Prevention Notices in the written
submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT Supplement 2 at pages 5, 6 and 7 dated 17-215 2016 it clearly shows they are addressed to GH Schorel-Hlavka 107 Graham Road Rosanna (the
suburb since became known as Viewbank) and as such Mr Wayne Wall clearly having posted it
to my residential address had no legal justification in my view to enter upon my property.
I view Mr Wayne Wall violated my property rights. Also that therefore the product of his
trespassing is inadmissible.
20
As I often stated we all make errors of judgment, but with Buloke Shire Council it is placing
itself above the rule of law, at least in my view.
I was in ill health and made this known to Buloke Shire Council, its lawyers and Mr Wayne wall
25 but they so to say couldnt give a darn about it. No excuses, yet when it comes to their own
numerous violations they not even seek to excuse themselves but carryon disregarding it all.
They so to say are above the rule of law.
Quite frankly as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I very much belief in what the constitution stands
for, but view that regretfully the government (state/federal) and the courts do not give a darn
30 about what is constitutionally appropriate.
As I always keep saying we all make errors and I am no exception to this but at least in good
faith seek to act and when I do become aware of an error then I do not hesitate to acknowledge
this. I see no shame in acknowledging an error but do view that to ignore making errors and then
cause untold harm upon another person is not acceptable.
35 .
Her I took great effort to communicate with Buloke Shire Council and so Mr Wayne Wall and I
understood from Mr Wayne Wall that he reads every correspondence I sent and yet he
continues to pursue the litigation despite that I view he ought to have withdrawn each and every
fire prevention Notice.
40 I also made a 9 December 2015 FOI request to the Premier as to be provided for this litigation all
relevant details regarding the number of Fire Prevention Notices having been issued, how many
ended up in court, how much was paid into the Consolidated Revenue Funds and how much to
councils, etc.
I received no reply, even so the 45 days limit to respond since long passed.
45
When I was about 14 years old and living in The Netherlands I paid for a vocational assessment
(out of my holiday work earnings) and was given the advice I was best suited to be a police
officer, lawyer or social worker. However, as I had an uncle who was a lecturer at university but
understood from my father that he couldnt use his hand to fix thing, I decided to rather first
p12
Appeal 15-2502
10
15
20
25
Page 13
learn a trade and became a Fitter & Turner. The principal of the technical school called in my
parents that I should go to university instead but I refused determined to first learn a trade. I
never regretted this.
I was however always reading up on Dutch law reports including the constitution. I was called
up for army service and later was transferred to serve at the Iron Curtain in Germany within
NATO. I then became a regular but found my hands were actually cracking up that the blood
was flowing from it. On doctors advice I resigned from the army and migrated to Australia.
I didnt speak any English but that didnt stop me to get a job the day after I arrived even if it
was mere unloading wagons in a railway yard. However within 14 days found a job as a Fitter &
Turner. Over time I switched employers and worked myself up to end up from quality control in
management of factories. I just had a habit of finding whatever was wrong in the company and
as result being able to come with solutions ended up being promoted time and time again.
My hunger for legal issues however never stopped, as despite the lack of formal English
education I simply started to read law reports and the constitution.
Despite delegate Mr Howe in 1898 having succeeded during the Constitution Convention
Debates to have inserted in the constitution for invalid and age pensions I found that many
disabled soldiers are sleeping on the streets.
I hold the constitution is a work of art like others may hold of paintings and statutes or
architectures but with everything there always will be ample of wreckers.
Our legal system in my experiences is very corrupt that even court orders are issued days before
the trial is finished. As such judges have pre-decided the outcome regardless what the evidence
might be. I experienced that I was representing a party and well orders were issued, just that no
known application was made for it, let alone a hearing. I discovered eventually that the opponent
lawyers had numerous telephone get together with the judiciary and so at the hand of their
phone calls were able to get orders issued without a formal application or hearing.
I researched and researched though files to discover how members of the legal profession where
deceiving the courts big time.
A judge may hand down a decision which the judge may view is the product of proper
30 consideration of the evidence before the court, unaware that in fact the judge may have been
deceived.
For example I discovered that when a party filed a response the lawyers then would alter the
Affidavit on court file so that the judge had a different version then the other party had.
During cross-examination I exposed that there were errors or what seemed to be errors and when
35 comparing the Affidavit that was served versus the Affidavit that was on court file then at times
up to 8 alterations a page turned out to exist.
I will not delve into the details but lost confidence as to how the courts operates and seemingly,
at least to me, has become a puppet-on-a-string for the government and lawyers rather than to be
and be seen to be impartial and independent.
40
I was unable to properly hear what Counsel for Buloke Shire Council was stating on 17 May
2016 at the Ballarat hearing as to why Mr Wayne Wall failed to be at the hearing, other than that
there was something about Council versus Counsel. I state it often we all make errors but
surely even if Mr Wayne Wall somehow had made an error the lawyers involved could have
45 verified with him ahead of time about the date? After all they would have ordinary that is had
discussions about what evidence he was going to give, etc. Indeed, where I understood Counsel
on 17 May 2016 stated that there be 2 witnesses, this even so the purported brief only refers to
one witness being Mr Wayne Wall, then more than likely this was because of the lawyers having
had discussions with Mr Wayne Wall they held they needed another witness, perhaps to support
50 his kind of evidence.
p13
Appeal 15-2502
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Page 14
However I am totally left in the dark as to the identity of the witness and what this witness is
about and so unable to prepare for whatever this witness might be about.
And these proceedings are supposed to be criminal proceedings where I am entitled in advance
to be provided with all relevant details so I can prepare my case.
.
As these proceedings are of a criminal nature than I understand that the onus is upon the
Prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I committed an offence, whereas I have the
civil onus. As I have stated there was communication between Jeff and myself and nothing in
that communication even remotely in my view is that I somehow sought to undermine the
provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
Besides that the Fire prevention Notice violated legal provisions of the Country Fire Authority
Act 1958 I nevertheless sought to ensure that there was no high grass/weed and this even so
Richard was supposed to be looking after the property.
The fact that I had purchased an expensive (for me considering my financial position) ride-on
mower to perform the slashing/cutting when needed also ought to indicate that there was no
intention to deliberately defy the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
Indeed, I view had the Fire Prevention Notice not been vague and aloof then any directions
could have been lawful and have been attend to.
.
When I consider why I couldnt locate at some point of time the reference of the Infringement
Act 2006 in the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 I realised that I have different updated version
on my computer and as such must have had a version open that was prior to the existence of the
Infringement Act 2006. But, because I had closed down now my entire computer as to
commence the written statement as witness and so had to open the document of the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958 I then opened the latest version and became aware of the error and do not
hesitate to acknowledge this.
What I seek to indicate is that if Mr Wayne Wall likewise had each year started afresh to check
the legislation for any amendments, if any, then even if he had misconceived certain provisions,
the following year he could have then rectified any errors.
However, I received in late 2015 again a Fire Prevention Notice of the same content and this
indicates to me that Mr Wayne Wall totally disregarded my previous writing that the removal of
all combustible material is beyond the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958
While Mr Wayne Wall gave me the understanding on 6 November 2015 when we had an eye to
eye discussion that he read all my writings, it appears that he simply didnt bother to check the
legislation subsequently and attempted to rectify any errors he made.
While Mr Wayne Wall in 2014 trespassed onto my property , as appears from the images that the
lawyers of Buloke Shire Council provided to me, with the date and time on it, in November 2015
he then entered my property upon mutual arrangement doing so and Mr Wayne Wall then
pointing out what his concerns were. While Mr Wayne Wall provided for an extension of the
Fire Prevention Notice in real terms one cannot extend an invalid notice nor was there any need
for this because I had left the property before the time period on the invalid Fire Prevention
Notice had expired and no Infringement Notice followed.
In my various writings to Mr Wayne Wall I even suggested a special sign to alert motor vehicle
45 drivers of the danger of driving in to the soft shoulder of the highway where unbeknown to the
motorist their hot exhaust pipe could cause a grass fire. Indeed, when I travelled along the high
way I can see at times, and so also in the Shire of Buloke grass having been burned on the soft
shoulder of the highway. To my understanding nothing was done in that regard to alert drivers of
this danger.
p14
Appeal 15-2502
Page 15
I also provided Mr Wayne Wall with numerous images of deadwood underneath of bushes and
trees along the highway. I also provided Mr Wayne Wall with images as to grass/weed being as
high as to the shoulder of Mr Frank Colosimo.
It is my view absurd that fire danger directly along the highway that is a real risk of a fire danger
5 is not of concern while anything about 40 metres or more from a less frequently used highway
somehow is of a major concern.
.
Our legal system is in considerable disarray but regretfully the judiciary seems not to be aware of
the extent of it. They do not realise how seriously it undermine the impartiality and
10 independence of the administration of justice when a judge let lawyers of the hook of violating
without any reasonable excuse proffered rules/regulations and other legal provisions including
court orders.
15
20
25
30
And I stated I migrated to Australia in 1971 not having any knowledge of the English language
but forced myself to learn it, well I ended up with my self-professed crummy English and proud
of it. I learned English by well doing my hobby and that was buying up old law reports and read
them from cover to cover.
As I recall Dixon CJ once state that if lawyers do not keep abreast of legal provisions then even
an alien from outer space may prove to do better.
OK, I didnt come from outer space but as an alien from The Netherlands.
I pored over old files of law firms, and so discovered the rot that went on within the legal
profession. For example in a file a note was that the instructing solicitor asked the barrister to
seek the matter to be adjourned because of the sexual abuse allegations against the father needing
to be further investigated but with a warning note that the father already had been cleared of any
sexual abuse and so not to overplay this.
What this indicated to me that lawyers would fabricate excuses to adjourn matters at cost of their
client s or opposite parties.
I discovered that lawyers would go to the court file and tamper with the affidavit on court file
and amend it to counteract any affidavit material filed by the opponent. This where generally
unrepresented litigants do not check each document.
Indeed more than 30 years ago I wrote to the Federal Attorney-General about what I had
discovered, etc. But to my understanding this modus operandi by lawyers to pervert the course
of justice still continues.
35 Without any form of legal training but having loathes of research through law reports giving me
knowledge and faced with people desperate about having lost a case which they held they ought
to have succeeded in I became interested to seek to assist them with pointing out what I had
discovered as legal principle in law reports. It never was relevant to me if a person did or
didnt have lawyers as it was up top them what they wanted to do. However, at time lawyers
40 asked me if I was interested to work for them when they came across my material but I declined.
I have however at times been a constitutional consultant to lawyers but refused becoming an
employee of a law firm as I held this could undermine directly or indirectly my impartiality.
Because of my extensive knowledge about legal matters in particular Authorities, eve n way
back in 1985 His Honour Walsh asked me how come I knew so much about the law. I explained
45 that my mother had told me put the book under the pillow and the next day you know it all. His
Honour as I recalled commented laughing I deserved this. Obviously you have studied it.
Whatever was born out the suffering of so many and Mr Frank Colosimo case is but a mere
example when he was represented by a barrister and ended up under Administration and face
50 more than 6 CONTEMPT OF COURT hearings, albeit he then asked me to take over the case,
p15
Appeal 15-2502
Page 16
which I did and I successfully did the appeal against the administration orders and also before
Her Honour Harbison J had the CONTEMPT OF COURT litigation stopped in its tracks.
I understood from Victoria Legal Aid correspondence to Mr Frank Colosimo that they advised
him to purge his contempt.
5
The Office of the Public Advocate game me the understanding the Mr Frank Colosimo was
convicted for CONTEMPT OF COURT.
I will not dwell in the numerous legal technicalities of the case but safe to say that with about 20
lawyers (including the judicial officers) involved none had bothered to consider a Notice that
10 proved that Mr Frank Colosimo had acted within legal provisions. No one either had realised that
Mr Colosimo actually never was formally charged! A court orders providing for 90 days, I
discovered that a report was in fact compiled within 89 days and some hours, as such
inadmissible.
While the judiciary had the common view that one has to be a legal practitioner to represent a
15 party, this is incorrect. Ione has to be a legal practitioner to represent a party if one charges a fee,
etc, for doing so as a lawyer. As such I would obtain Enduring Power of Attorney and
assist/represent a party. I also represented parties, such as Mr Frank Colosimo as a Professional
Advocate having the same privileges and protection as a lawyer representing a party in the
Supreme Court of Victoria. I also did so as a CONSTITUTIONALIST which is a position
20 beyond the control of the Legal Service Commission, as it discovered after having extensively
investigate me but unable to obtain anything against me and then discovering I represented a
barrister with the LSC being the opponent on 4 occasions.
People often asked me why do you do this to assist even lawyers and do not charge, but the
25 simple answer is I belief in justice.
Because of how I speak up in court rooms people became attracted to me as to them so to say
here was a guy who actually dared to speak out about the injustices.
One group was the then well known BLACKSHIRTS under leadership of Mr John Murray
Abbott. Very briefly I was asked to see him at his business Dane Centre and di so. I gained the
30 understanding from Mr Abbott that he desired to hang every lawyer and destroy every court
house. No doubt to me he had his views. I was able to elicit from him why he had such views
and he gave me the understanding that the court had ordered him to pay his wife a certain
amount of moneys and if he failed the property would be sold by the Registrar. Mr Abbott
showed to me documentation he had in fact paid the require amount as orders in time but the
35 Registrar nevertheless went ahead with some sort of fire sale by this selling it for less than the
mortgage still on the property. I expressed my views to Mr Abbott that the Registrar is not an
OFFICER OF THE COURT and was bound by the terms of the court order and failing this he
ought to go back to the court about this. In the end on appeal as I understand it the full court
made known that the sale of the property was not proceeded with within the terms of the orders
40 but the court had no powers against the registrar as he had acted outside the provisions of the
court order. The only real benefit was that Mr Abbott had confirmed, as I had suggested, that the
Registrar had acted without legal justification.
I also then assisted other members of the BLACKSHIRTS as to their various issues with courts
and this resulted that members were leaving the BLACKSHIRTS because they had found to
45 have their issues resolved.
The demise of the BLACKSHIRTS was a natural response when members were leaving.
One members as I understood it desired to blow up a tanker in the midst of the public, another
indicated to desiring to blow up a court building, etc. And as such it never should be under
estimated that when a court disregard to act against a lawyer misusing/abusing the legal
50 processes then a person as result being utterly dissolution may seek a kind of revenge that may
p16
Appeal 15-2502
Page 17
result in the dead of innocent people. I advised at the time the then Premier Mr Jeff Kennet about
my concerns and I recommended to have metal detectors at court entrances and subsequently an
elaborate system eventuated to be installed.
I in 1982 commenced a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS
5 PREVAIL and not only persons contacted me who contemplated suicide but even those who
contemplated to kill their children as they held the children would be better off death than to live
in an immoral living condition. It is a very dangerous and risky thing to talk to someone over the
phone who is about to commit murder and to try to reason with the person within a few second to
avoid the murder to eventuate. As one person gave me the understanding he was sitting outside
10 his wife place with a crowbar and had made an alibi but at the last minute he had the urge to call
me and making known he was going to resolve matters. Not knowing precisely what he was ion
about but guessing from past communication he may desire to say his wife, I merely stated, as I
recall Whatever you do keep in mind that years from now you have to be able to tell your son it
was in huis best interest and wellbeing. He disconnected. Weeks later I arrived at the train
15 station and he was there waiting for me and then he gave me the understanding that because of
what I said he didnt go ahead with the planned killing of his wife.
This is what my life has been about to fight the gross injustices that are perpetrated in the courts.
At times it proved that a judicial officer had pre-determined the orders, at other time judges
fraternising with one of the parties, etc.
20
My son Richard likely harmed me more than any of my other children but in the end he is my
son and regardless of that he is already a grandfather, I still must try to assist him to get out of
the hell hole he so to say dug for himself.
I understand that when he was 7 years old and his mother and I separated he was forced to call
25 the mothers new boyfriend Dad and he resented that. Despite access orders my former wife
simply denied access. Actually my (then eldest) daughter then was 4 years old and one day I was
sitting in McDonalds in the city with one of my other daughters when I was explained to her that
one of the women sitting at the other table looked how her eldest sister would likely look liked.
Then suddenly the woman stood up and said Hi dad, and came over. That was more than 20
30 year that had passed since I last saw her, but afterwards I discovered she had collected photos of
me.
Back to Richard he was totally devastated to be ripped away from his father and well ended up
consoling himself in other matters, including drugs.
35
There is this ongoing publicity about violence against women not being acceptable, but the
problem is far deeper. I experienced sitting in a group of women where I understood woman to
advise a woman who had made known her husband and her were having business financial
difficulties for her to just get an intervention orders to separate, get a boyfriend and her husband
40 than would end up having to pay her, and he then would have all the debt. I understood the
woman protested that her husband had done no wrong and she loved him but well the other
women were not going to give up.
And this is a major problem with intervention orders, that they are obtained by deception and
strip the victim of the unjustified intervention order of his/her rights.
45 Ordinary by law I am not entitled to disclose identities of many such cases involved, but in my
books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issued I do
publish where I have been provided in writing consent by a party permission to disclose and in
the circumstances prevailing there is no legal impediment to do so.
p17
Appeal 15-2502
Page 18
I experienced a butcher knife to the throat when I wanted to leave my (second) wife (with whom
I was separated) having just dropped of the kids from access as she insisted I would stay the
night. While she was legally represented she pleaded guilty with no conviction recorded. And the
same with when she pleaded guilty of assault upon one of the children involving breaking a
5 cricket bat in the process, where no conviction recorded despite a guilty plea.
This is what cause the escalation of violence when a woman who is violent can so to say get
away with it.
Violence isnt generally not because some person likes to hit another person, often it is the
product of accumulation of teasing, etc.
10
The rights of the children are generally disregarded in the process, and so even by the courts, as
the originator of the conflicts usually ends up with custody.
In fact it was the Children Court who on request of DHS ordered children to be placed in my
custody because of discovering that the violence by the mother had been going on for about 10
15 years, but during that time non one would do anything about it.
I therefore understand the rot that goes on and how the courts in my view are miserably failing to
provide justice.
I could expand this statement with reams of paperwork about all kind of incidents but I leave that
for my books, and I only need to indicate my position why I have taken up the fight of justice
20 and why I pursue the misuse and abuse of the legal processes by lawyers.
I however quote a separate issue to show that people who read my writings do support it in
general as well as it may indicate their perceptions about matters
25 QUOTE EMAIL (the email address of Alan R was deleted on his request)
RE: Must read - Eloquently conveyed by Gerrit -FW: Re Myki & Infringement system
People
30
Alan R
Today at 21:16 (26-5-2016)
To
'healthachievers -'
CC
35
'Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.'

Message body
When using suburban train last year I had the adequate $ balance for the trip and went through the stiles at
Glen Waverley when the card was read to let me through. When I came to the Melbourne Central to go out
of the station the stiles would not open when I swiped the card.
40
The machine read on the display in sufficient balance. I tried swiping it three times without success and so I
drew the attention of the PTV dude nearby.
I said to him what is going on? He said to me that I must not use the system for free. I objected to his
comment and told him the stile at Glen Waverley let me through as the balance on the card was around $20
p18
Appeal 15-2502
Page 19
something. He told me to pay for the fare or I will be fined. I said to him I am honest and did not do as he
said.
So the rub is, are these cards faulty or did someone know I was using the system at the time and played with
the scanner to make it look like fare fraud?
I later got a transaction report and it showed the scanner at Melbourne Central was in error or someone
played with it.
You cant have it both ways, if Infringement Notices are in breach of the Imperial Acts without the correct
and lawful court then we cannot do the same.
I get the point though.
10
Jacinta Allan is hopeless. She has harmed me mid June last year for what she failed to do.
From: healthachievers - [mailto:healthachievers@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 26 May 2016 8:13 PM
Subject: Must read - Eloquently conveyed by Gerrit -FW: Re Myki & Infringement system
15
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 08:54:17 +0000

From: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
To: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Please scroll down For Gerrits' comments. My opinion is that the Myki System being a "paperless" contract
is a Breach of Contract and burdens the customer/constituent with all of the responsibility to ensure quickly
as they board on public transport in peak times to scan the Myki Card correctly - and if one's eye are not so
good - one cannot stop to look close to the small writing on the monitor. Further, when one disembarks the
bus - in my case, and if you have bags of shopping etc..., you have to locate your card to "board off" the bus.
It endangers us as we need to have one hand holding a part of the bus posts to give us body balance. Further,
we are being ripped of interest that the outsourced company and/or State Government is making on our
money that is deposited in the account to ensure that money is always on the card. Why do we not have a
System, that we choose the trip for
20
25
the day and receive a PAPER Ticket for the duration of time selected?????
totality. rgds Marg
I agree with Gerrit in
30 END QUOTE EMAIL

QUOTE EMAIL
Comment Re: Myki & Infringement system
35
Jim <jim.sovereign@optusnet.com.au>
Today at 21:55 (26-5-2016)
To
Message body
40
Gerrit,
Why do you need to ask bureaucrats for your right to issue an infringement notice against them for breaching
the law? Do they ask the people for their consent before fining and persecuting them for all kinds of trivial,
p19
Appeal 15-2502
Page 20
superficial and victimless alleged offences? Good luck trying to fine the government and enforce it. At least
they will have a good laugh over your demand and perhaps think, "Just let him try. We'll bury the old bastard
in court and bankrupt him." [grin]
Are you aware the bungled and cursed Myki smartcard system has cost the government $1.5 billion to date
and it still doesn't work properly as evidenced by thousands of public complaints against the Myki system?
The following Age article shed's further light on the subject.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/myki-still-a-disaster-and-public-transport-victoria-is-not-monitoring-itproperly-auditorgeneral-20150610-ghkj77.html
10
I suggest that you buy a bicycle before you take your car to the mechanic for a service or repairs in future. It
will save you a heck of a lot of walking and it's an efficient method of travelling around your local area.
You're a Dutchman so bike riding should be second nature to your people in view of bicycling's popularity in
the Netherlands.
15
If you're interested I can recommend a competent and reliable mobile mechanic (he doesn't charge a call out
fee) who will service or repair your car at your home for a reasonable fee, and thus save you travelling back
and forth to a mechanic's shop via public transport.
20
You made a good point about the Infringement court being a Star Chamber court operating as a private
corporation known as Tenix Solutions. If Public Transport Minister Jacinta Allan is aware of that fact, then I
expect she will play dumb and claim she doesn't know anything about it. Too bad you just gave her
constructive knowledge of its unconstitutional and outlawed status. Now let's see if she does her job properly
by investigating and resolving your complaint satisfactorily, or she acts like a typical useless politician and
resolves nothing.
25
Jim
30
----- Original Message ----From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

To: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 6:54 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: Myki & Infringement system
35
Let us demand equality that we can issue Infringement Notices against Government department for their
litany of breaches of law!
Gerrit
40
45
50
otherwise stated.
55
60
p20
Appeal 15-2502
Page 21
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. < admin@inspector-rikati.com>

To: jacinta.allan@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc: Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <admin@inspector-rikati.com>
Sent: Thursday, 26 May 2016, 18:51
Subject: Re Myki
Jacinta,
10
my wife and I as senior citizens have Myki cards and we have an automatic update, as such there is still
ample of funds on the cards. If however we were to use it the cards will not operate because they were deactivated (Not by us!). Meaning our moneys is held by the government unlawfully.
So, I attended to several service stations and to news agents and Rosanna train station but to no avail as each
time there was no facility to get the card re-activated or to have a replacement issued. And so we do not use
public transport.
15
For sure we get this crap to go to Southern Cross station to exchange the cards but then who pays for the train
fare? Are we to incur cost to get our cards reactivate where the monies are still on them and therefore should
never have been de-activated in the first place?
20
What is the use if cards can be de-activated so a State Government can steal the money that is on it and hold
card holders at ransom?
25
While you may argue this was a different Government reality is that a Government doesn't get elected as only
candidates are elected to become Members of Parliament, and then the Governor commission certain
Members of his/her liking to be constitutional advisers, and to manage Departments. As such nothing like
any political government as any Minister has to act for all citizens of the state irrespective of their personal
political views.
30
If I did the same to the State government to hold moneys unlawfully then I could go for fraud, then I view the
State government likewise commits fraud.
35
As for the card details, you do not need to bother to try this as an excuse because you will have both my wife
and my details on records. After all it was your department that originally contacted us to have Myki cards.
40
I urge you to provide me with the right to issue an Infringement Notice against your Department for failing to
allow us to use our cards and fraudulently keeping our monies. After all if you view that offenders should be
dealt with via Infringement Notices then this must be so to say a two way street so we can likewise charge
the State for this and caused out of pocket expenses.
When my car was in repair I had to walk some 4 to 6 kilometres to try to get to a news agent to seek to get a
Myki card replacement only to be told that their equipment had broken down. Well an about 10 kilometres
round trip is not fun when having problems with walking.
45
So I need to get a Myki card to be able to use a public transport to get a Myki card, where the Myki card in
my possession has now for years been de-activated but the State Government is making monies on interest,
etc. And this you consider is proper management? And you have the gall to claim that fare offenders should
be punished by the courts?
50
And while you are on it the SRO (State Revenue Office) is holding about $218 of my wife (she is 83) and so
far refused to hand over the full amount of monies to her. Perhaps the integrity of the SRO is such as to wait
till she dies, as after all they have this money for more than a decade, which in error by a provider was
transferred to the SRO claiming that they couldn't refund the monies (they had overcharged) not knowing
where my wife resided, this while all along and even now still having my wife as their customer on their
records and know where to send out new accounts.
55
So let us have an Infringement system directed against the State government where each time if it violates the
rights of a citizen it then has to pay out a fine. But let us make sure it is not the taxpayers who are feeding the
p21
Appeal 15-2502
Page 22
bill but the Minister who is incompetent to appropriately deal with matters. Then we might even get a
"responsible Government"!
My wife's details are Olga Hlavka-Schorel
My details are Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
Your Department records should hold further relevant details of us.
As the Letters patent published in the Victorian Gazettte on 2-1-1901 requires an "impartial administration of
justice" then any purported Infringement court can only deal with matters if both the state as well as the
citizens can institute legal proceedings against each other.
10
If this is not facilitated for then we are dealing with the outlawed STAR CHAMBER COURT now referred
to as an Infringement court. And let me know when you were able to sit in the public gallery of the
Infringement Court to listen to the Registrar dealing with cases, will you?
15
You may find it is a computer operated by a private corporation TENIX SOLUTIONS IMES incapable to act
as a court.
When the state fails to be a model citizens and rob senior citizens then little wonder we have so many of our
youth having a disregard for law and order, as the State give an example how engage in criminalities
20
25
30
-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL107 Graham RoadViewbank

3084, Victoria, AustraliaAuthor of INSPECTOR-RIKATI books on certain constitutional and other legal
issues.THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE
DISABLED
END QUOTE EMAIL
35
QUOTE EMAIL
REPLY - Hansard should Not be Edited: Hansard editing practices - Inquiry: Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlav
ka
People
healthachievers - <healthachievers@hotmail.com>
Today at 13:41 (26-5-2016)
To
40
Gerrit
Message body
I thank Gerrit alerting us to again another important issue.
45
In my opinion, if an error of words was made, then an asterisk ought to be underscored on the word and/or
words with a footnote
by the elected representative of the correct wording with his signature on the same page of the alteration.
50
rgds
Marg
55
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:51:43 +0000

From: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
To: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Subject: Fw: Hansard editing practices - Inquiry: Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlav ka
p22
Appeal 15-2502
Page 23
So it appears that the Hansard no longer can be relied upon as to what actually was stated and in what formal
by a MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.
.
Feedback welcome.
.
Gerrit
10

.
15
otherwise stated.
20
25
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <admin@inspector-rikati.com>

To: Hansard - Forum (DPS) <hansard.forum@aph.gov.au>
Cc: Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <admin@inspector-rikati.com>; "Fievez, Justine (DPS)"
<Justine.Fievez@aph.gov.au>
Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 21:42
Subject: Re: Hansard editing practices - Inquiry: Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlav ka
30
35
Justine,
thank you for your input but in brief could you confirm or deny that the transcript was altered as to what Mr
Barnaby Joye was correctly recorded to have stated to amend it because of Mr Barnaby Joyce insisting the
transcript had to be changed (for political reasons).
.
I will explain an indicant unrelated to the parliament but where in about 1985 I had court transcript amended,
and as such understand the system.
The (written) transcript read (in regard of a paternity case): "I told Mr Allan that Scotish bastard."
Where this was corrected upon my complaint that the transcript was in error to "I told Mr Allan that Scott
was the husbands."
The transcript service having listened to the tape recording realised they had made an error.
Because at the time I was reading out a written statement, it was clear that I knew the transcript was in error,
and that was accepted then by AusCript, once they checked the audio recording. .
.
However, if Hansard is changing what was stated as recorded to something different then what the Member
in the Parliament actually was recorded to have stated
I do have concerns that you state that the Hansard adds missing words such as "and" because it could alter the
meaning what actually was stated.
When I am at the bar table I often zero in to what is stated in the Hansard. UI quote Hansard with any error in
the transcript because to do otherwise is not correctly quoting it. With the Hansard records of the 1891, 1897
and 1898 Constitution Convention Debates there are a litany of errors, and at time a judge make known this
when he assumes I made a typing error but I make clear it is not for me to alter anything of the type version
of the Hansard. I must quote it with the errors included.
40
45
50
55
p23
Appeal 15-2502
Page 24
If the Hansard now is amended by staff to insert words or to delete words (where they were repeated) then
this can effectively alter what the member may have intended to say. At times a person may seek to
emphasise something by repeating a word such as "it was a very very dirty dog". In my view Hansard should
not then interfere with this repeat of a word. To do so removed the emphasis upon a particular word and so
alter what the Member intended.
.
If staff view that an alteration ought to be inserted or removed then I view it would do better to say do as
follows, as an example:
10
"John and Charlie went to the Parliament voted in the Chamber" to "John and Charlie went to the Parliament
[and] voted in the Chamber" In this manner a person reading this may conclude the word "and" was added.
Newspapers often use this system in articles when a person is quoted to have stated something and the
newspaper editor holds that for clarification something needs to be inserted to indicate to whom it was
applied.
.
Likewise, if a word is to be deleted then this I view could be done as follows:
"John and Charlie went to the Parliament Parliament voted in the Chamber" to "John and Charlie went to the
Parliament [ Parliament] [and]voted in the Chamber"
15
20
I now may never be able to trust the Hansard as to be accurate if Hansard is manipulating the transcript to
amend it to a version other then what actually was stated.
Gerrit
END QUOTE EMAIL
25
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I often find that lawyers representing clients are going by
whatever they learned during their law studies and when working to obtain their articles and do
not bother and/or have no time to explore matters otherwise.
30 We have for example that the Budget was handed down on 3 May, but anyone who would
understand and comprehend s57 of the constitution would be aware that about 6 months is
needed to allow for twice putting the Bills through the Parliament, to call for a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION and to hold and election and then have successful candidates taking up the
seats elected for and then having to convene the Parliament to put the Bill through the Parliament
35 and if failing again then provide for a joint sitting.
Clearly the budget Bills should be submitted to the Parliament no later than the new year
preceding the new financial year on 1st July following.
Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
40 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?
Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!
Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the
expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services and powers
given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States to the Commonwealth.
45
Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?

Mr. BARTON: Yes.
END QUOTE
50
p24
Appeal 15-2502
Page 25
Also the Framers of the Constitution made clear that once the bills were passed they couldnt be
increased during that financial year. Yet nevertheless so called mini-budgets are provided for by
politicians in violation of constitutional limitations.
Going to court to challenge the validity of the process is to get judges who themselves generally
5 do not have a clue what is applicable and with the 2006 WorkChoices judgment take matters out
of context, etc.
As such a judge may hold I am utterly and completely wrong not because I am but because the
judge is not open minded and consider what actually are the facts.
10 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-B&W)
15 A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision

ISBN 978-0-9751760-7-8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20
INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-Colour)

A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-8-5
I may also indicate as an example that I hold that the Federal government current absurd taxation
upon cigarettes is unconstitutional. Granted the Commonwealth has the unlimited powers to
legislate as to taxation bar for the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
25 What the commonwealth is doing is to apply a level of taxation to pursue people to give up
smoking, this even so the sale of cigarettes and the smoking of cigarettes is not unlawful if not
done in any prohibited areas.
30
35
.
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE
.
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. WISE.The result would be that the rights and liberties of every citizen in the community would be placed at
the mercy of a chance parliamentary majority.
40
Mr. GORDON.-That is the position now-the rights and liberties of every individual are at the mercy of a
parliamentary majority.
Mr. WISE.-The honorable member is now speaking of rights in respect to legislation. If the Parliament of
South Australia were to pass a law contravening the Merchant Shipping Act
45
Mr. GORDON.-I am not speaking of Imperial legislation.

Mr. WISE.-Suppose the Parliament of South Australia wanted to get rid of the Plimsoll Mark Act-even
though there were a majority it would be invalid, but according to the honorable member, when, we have
here a case exactly analogous, if the Constitution limits the power of the state, and enacts that certain powers
shall belong exclusively to the Commonwealth Parliament, and that if the state deals with them it invades the
authority of the Commonwealth Parliament, the individual is to have no rights unless he can persuade the
Government of the day to take up his case. It is in the interests of the poorer and uninfluential classes of
50
p25
Appeal 15-2502
Page 26
the community, it is. in the interests of the minority, that this amendment should be rejected, because it
places an obstacle in the way of obtaining that justice which ought to be free to every individual in the
community.
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I should like to add my protest against this new clause. I am bound to say
something, because the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) says it is only the conservative and timid lawyers
who would venture to oppose this proposal.
Mr. GORDON.-I did not say that. I said as a rule the legal profession is, according to Herbert Spencer, a
timid and conservative class.
Mr. HIGGINS.-That may be so, and if the honorable member says he did not make that statement it is all
right. Anyhow, I thought he said that only conservative and timid lawyers would oppose this clause. There is
no doubt the intention of the honorable member is excellent. He wants to diminish litigation. If he can show
that this will diminish litigation to any material extent, and, at the same time, will not involve us in a great
many dangers to our liberties, I will go with him, but he has not shown anything of the sort. As Mr. Wise has
shown, it will throw an unpopular minority into the power of a chance Ministry of the day. We must see today that the rights of individuals, even unpopular individuals, are preserved in the Constitution. I think
Sir John Forrest said that I personally had not got sufficient respect for the rights of individuals.
10
15
Sir JOHN FORREST.-No.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Do I understand him to refer merely to private property?
Sir JOHN FORREST.-Not the same respect as I have.
20
Mr. HIGGINS.-I understood the honorable member to put himself on the very highest pedestal, and by
contrast to put me on the very lowest. At all events, I feel that if this were carried, an unpopular individual, to
obtain his rights and liberties, would have to go cap in hand to and be at the mercy of the Government of the
day. I was thinking of the pig-tail case which occurred in California, and which I alluded to some time
ago, where an abominably unjust law was passed against Chinamen. It was passed to persecute them
in regard to their pig-tails, which they [start page 1689] regard with exceptional reverence. That law
was declared to be unconstitutional as a law passed by a state. I ask honorable members to consider the
great difficulty there would be in getting the Federal Congress or Federal Executive to interfere in the case of
Chinamen, so as to enforce their rights in such a case. There was an exceptional law which should never have
been passed. It was distinctly a persecuting law. Any practical politician would see the great difficulty there
would be in appealing to a Federal Executive, especially if there was an election approaching, to enforce the
just rights of Chinamen in such a case. The same thing might happen supposing a federal law were
passed which was outside the Constitution. Supposing that a majority of the state concerned happened
to regard the man as unpopular supposing a law were passed that no one bearing the name of Jones
should be admitted into the state of Virginia, the law might be directed against a certain person named
Jones, and it would be unconstitutional, and Jones could not enforce his rights to go into that state. I
ask, is he to be compelled to go cap in hand to the Attorney-General of the state of Virginia to enforce his
rights? I feel that, with the very best intentions my honorable friend is making the gravest of mistakes. So far
as regards the main purport of the amendment, it would mean this: That you could only get a point of this sort
decided by having a state or Commonwealth intervening as a party. You would turn judicial questions into
political questions. You would proclaim-"Here is a question between the state and the Commonwealth;
here is a political question"; and you would make the Judges partisans. It is one of the great
advantages of private persons being able to raise these points, and not the states or the
Commonwealth, that you keep the judicial bench free from the taint of political partisanship. I feel that
the more you look at this thing all round, the more inconsistent it is with the very first principles of justice. It
may be said-Even supposing the law does go beyond the Constitution in some degree, surely it ought not to
be left to a private person to upset it." I say it ought to be upset at once and at the very earliest point. As
soon as ever you find it has gone beyond the bounds you ought to say-"This thing is illegal." Otherwise
you will leave to the Ministry of the day these powers of which you are so careful, giving them to a
majority of the states and to a majority of the people. You would allow the Ministry of the day to
exercise a suspending power as to whether it would enforce a law or not, which is most dangerous. It is
one thing to induce a Government or Parliament to pass an unjust law, and it is quite another thing to induce
a Government for one excuse or another to hold its hand from acting. What I fear is that you would often
25
30
35
40
45
50
p26
Appeal 15-2502
Page 27
induce the Government to withhold its hand from acting, for fear it would incur opprobrium or unpopularity.
I sincerely hope the amendment will not be carried.
END QUOTE
5 Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
10
15
20
QUOTE
Mr. WISE:
The power of the senate to deal with money bills is so clearly defined that I doubt if any ingenuity could
suggest the possibility of dispute arising between the two houses on that question. That at once removes one
of the most prolific sources of dispute between the two chambers in the past. Then as to the second class of
dispute arising from social differences, all through this discussion, not, I admit, in this house but outside, the
controversialists of one party ignore, or seem to ignore, the limitations of federal government. They forget
that this commonwealth can only deal with those matters that are expressly remitted to its jurisdiction;
and excluded from its jurisdiction are all matters that affect civil rights, all matters that affect
property, all matters, in a word, affecting the two great objects which stir the passions and affect the
interests of mankind. I fail entirely and I shall be glad if some alarmist will enlarge my views on this
matter-to perceive in this bill any question on which there is any possibility of a conflict between the states
and the people, except, in one respect, and I will define that in the largest possible way. In legislation
affecting commercial interests, or financial interests, it is possible to imagine that the states will be brought
into conflict as states with the concentrated majority of the populations of the two large states over a question
of trade. It is possible to imagine the same thing arising over a question of commerce, or over a question of
finance.
END QUOTE
25 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown
in prosecuting criminals are.
END QUOTE
30 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
35
40
45
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
50 Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power?
55
Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly
any law the citizen has his right.
END QUOTE
p27
Appeal 15-2502
Page 28
The problem is that the ordinary person simply has no way to challenge the validity of the absurd
legislation to tax as such cigarettes because the courts are too complicated and the risk of the cost
to litigate is to terrorise ordinary citizens not to do so.
5
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
10
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
15 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
Regretfully the system in place is basically to deter anyone to litigate and more than likely a
20 VELVET REVOLUTION might be the only alternative.
I am constantly bombarded by people claiming that a Republic would be better because it would
stop politicians to abuse the system. Reality is that it more than likely will be worse.
25 HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:
I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of the
evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words as
they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any
powers beyond the ambit of those specified.
30
The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the
Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might
not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace,
order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be
contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the
parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their
legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is
sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good
government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full
consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had
better not be left out of the bill altogether.
35
40
45
The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting
Committee.
Amendment negatived.
p28
Appeal 15-2502
10
Page 29
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a
person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by
being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the
laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
Unduly taxing cigarettes for the purpose of curtailing certain citizens to smoke in my view is a
state legislative matter and the Commonwealth cannot using a backdoor obtain legislative
powers where it has none directly to prevent smoking. Using taxation to achieve this I view is
15 unconstitutional.
It is like a criminal holding the family members of a judicial officer at ransom for the judicial
officer to make a judgment this criminal desires. For sure the criminal is not the one handing
down the judgment but is forcing the judicial officer to do something the criminal himself/herself
has no direct power to achieve.
20
25
30

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Yes, since then, as is pointed out in a little handbook which my honorable friend lent me.
But the question for us to consider is whether a court like the Federal High Court or the Privy Council would
ever come to such a conclusion. One would think it highly improbable. The real question that may arise
under this Constitution is whether the Commonwealth can make a law establishing or prohibiting the free
exercise of any religion. I take it that in the absence of a provision in the Constitution conferring that
power upon the Commonwealth it will be impossible for the Commonwealth to do so. For this reason I
think we need scarcely trouble ourselves to impose any restrictions. Under a Constitution like this, the
withholding of a power from the Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
35
Mr. OCONNOR.-It is nicely wrapped up. Any one who reflects upon the conditions which must exist
before this provision can be brought into operation will see that it assumes that the states must be reduced to a
condition of pauperism before they can take advantage of it.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What would you do if they were?
Mr. OCONNOR.-I will come to that. Mr. Wise seems to be of opinion that there is some power
implied in the Constitution to give such aid. Now, from the consideration and study which I have been
able to give to the Constitution, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that there is no such power
implied. The Constitution is formed for certain definite purposes. There are definite powers of legislation and
definite powers of administration, and the clause that the Right Hon. Sir John Forrest called attention to
just now-clause 81-expressly provides that the revenues of the Commonwealth shall form one
consolidated fund, to be appropriated for the public services of the Commonwealth in the manner and
subject to the charges provided in this Constitution.
40
45
Mr. WISE-The order and good government of the Commonwealth would come under the term "public
services of the Commonwealth."
Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not agree with the honorable member in his interpretation of the powers of the
Commonwealth, especially when dealing with the expenditure of the money of the taxpayers. In such a
case there will be a great deal of care taken to keep the nose of the Federal Parliament to the grindstone in the
matter of this expenditure. I do not think any expenditure will be constitutional which travels outside
50
p29
Appeal 15-2502
Page 30
these limits. We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the
Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. If any Act were
carried giving monetary assistance to any state it would be unconstitutional, and the object sought
would not be attained. That brings me to the question of whether it is desirable that there should be any such
power either expressed or implied. I have no hesitation in saying that it would be a disastrous thing for the
future of the [start page 1109] Commonwealth if there was any such power given.
END QUOTE
10 Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-You are referring to paragraph (4) of clause 52?
Mr. HOLDER.-Yes.
Mr. OCONNOR.-But that money could not be spent upon any object the Federal Parliament thought
fit.
15
Mr. HOLDER.-I want an expression of opinion which shall be authoritative on the point. I see that,
according to the provision I have quoted, there is power given to the Federal Parliament to borrow money on
the credit of the Commonwealth, and I say again that I do not know of any limitation of the expenditure of
that money except the limitation which would be specified in the Loan Act authorizing the borrowing of the
money. Of course, these words cover the raising of the money for the building of railways for instance, and in
such a case the limitation would be the terms of the Loan Act. But is there anything anywhere to prevent a
Loan Act being passed by the Federal Parliament authorizing the raising of a certain sum of money, the
proceeds of which loan might be divided according to the terms of the Act among the states according to their
needs, or upon some other principle?
20
25
30
35
Mr. GLYNN.-The first three lines of clause 52 affect that point.

Mr. ISAACS.-The money must be expended with regard to "the peace, order, and good government
of the Commonwealth," not of the states.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE
.
.
40
45
50

QUOTE Mr. GORDON.The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may
be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have
this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the
p30
Appeal 15-2502
Page 31
Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask
permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE
5 Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I am trying to get at the ideas which are underlying the argument of hon.
gentlemen. I confess I have not got at them yet. The hon. member, Mr. Deakin, talks about the powers
exercised by the ministers of the Crown in Great Britain. They do not differ in any respect from the
powers exercised by ministers of the Crown in any other country.
10
Dr. COCKBURN: They are much superior to the powers of ministers here!
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH': Not in the east.
Mr. DEAKIN: The powers of our ministers are limited, and theirs are unlimited!
END QUOTE
15 As such a call for a Republic is merely so Ministers are able to obtain more power that they do
not have at this moment.
We have that the administration of justice was provided for not only under the provisions of the
constitution (Chapter III) to which the states created in section 106 subject to this constitution
is bound to comply with but also not a single judge can be rightfully adjudicate unless to validly
20 appointed by the Governor-General/Governor in the particular sphere of the administration of
justice. Hence, on 2 January 1901 the Victorian Gazette published the letters patent which
indicates the limits of the Governor for the State of Victoria to appoint judges to the impartial
administration of justice.
25 While the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill claimed that somehow that the Commonwealth
of Australia somehow became an independent country.
.
30
35
40
45

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to
create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make
provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this
political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is
to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the
slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this
constitution.
END QUOTE
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I cannot accept that any legislation or for that that High Court
of Australia can exercise powers that the Framers of the Constitution held was not within the
50 constitution.
p31
Appeal 15-2502
10
15
20
25
30
35
Page 32
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well.
END QUOTE
40
It therefore means that any judges who acts under a purported Queen of Australia would in my
view act without warrant of law. This was very much also the constitutional issue before the
County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 in which I successful was in both appeals and none of
the Attorney-Generals having been serve d with a s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
45 MATTERS then challenged my numerous submissions.
The then Attorney-General Rob Hulls for the state of Victoria stated to abide by the courts
decision, and as such Buloke Shire Council exercising delegated powers within the provisions of
the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 is bound by this.
50 QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
55
101 Inter-State Commission

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the
Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions
of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.
END QUOTE (Bold and red colour added by writer)
While often there are statements as to the 3 branches of Government, in my view one ought to
speak of the 4 branched of nationhood.
p32
Appeal 15-2502
1. The Parliament
2. The Federal Executives
3. Judiciary
4. Inter-State Commission. (Subject to appeals only based on error of law)
10
Page 33
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST (retired Professional Advocate) Attorney, Executor, Paralegal,

Author and Publisher I submit that I have the understanding what is required from the Inter-State
Commission within the framework of the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
The Inter-State Commission:

The Framers of the Constitution held that the Commonwealth of Australia should apply taxes,
duties, funding in a "UNIFORM" manner for the whole of the Commonwealth of Australia.
However, they also recognised that "uniformity" of application of federal laws may not in
15 certain instances be appropriate, considering the diversity of conditions from State to State, and
hence held that the s101 Inter-State Commission should exist as a permanent body within the
Commonwealth of Australia. The Inter-State Commission is not a executive body, nor a
legislator and neither a judicial body but a body to ensure that laws that were enacted without
political interferences would be applied to what a body of experts held was in the best interest of
20 each state concerned and so also the Commonwealth of Australia. its decisions could be appealed
on "error of law" to the High Court of Australia. I understand that since 1987 no Inter-State
Commission existed, and prior that only for a few years since about 1917. This is a serious
neglect of constitutional requirements and must not be permitted to continue.
25 We have that the federal government deals with Transpacific Treaties but again we need to look
upon the constitution and clearly as set out already it is my view that the Inter-State Commission
is the authority to deal with trade and commerce.
While the government can engage into treaties it can however not enforce them against citizens
adverse to them.
30
As I wrote his Honour French J (in WA) (as His Honour then was now CJ of the High Court of
Australia) stated that Section 51(xxxvii) did not more (putting it in my own words!) then to
provide for legislative powers of the commonwealth to accept any reference of legislative
powers.
35 It didnt nor could be held to be to authorise the State to do so, as this would be up to the citizens
of the state by way of a State referendum to authorise this.
.
As the Framers of the Constitution stated:
40 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
45
50
Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law
that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union,
because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power,
until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue
for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a
state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has anyand if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be
inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should
say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not
be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
END QUOTE
.
p33
Appeal 15-2502
Page 34
It must be clear that where a State purportedly refers legislative powers to the Commonwealth
then effectively it is amending its own constitution and more over is such as with Victoria
removing judicial powers from the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The separation of powers between the executives, legislators and the judiciary doesnt allow the
5 Parliament to remove judicial powers from the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The moment this was to be accepted then the Parliament could marginalise the judicial powers of
the Supreme Court of Victoria to whatever wimps it may have and reduce it to zero.
The judicial powers of the Supreme Court of Victoria can only be limited by the provisions of
10 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and its embedded legal principles
such as subject to this constitution and otherwise by State referendum that authorise the
reference of specific legislative powers to be approved by the electors.
When legislative powers is referred to the Commonwealth then with it so goes the judicial
15 powers of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Hence, it is beyond the powers of the State Parliament
to willy nilly refer legislative powers and with this judicial powers to the Commonwealth. The
separation of powers alone prevent this. Only the electors of the State of Victoria can authorise
this by State Referendum.
.
20 Because the State of Victoria has no specific legislation as to State citizenship and the
commonwealth that is constitutionally has no powers to legislate as to citizenship as I have
extensively canvassed in my written material then clearly any judicial officer to adjudicate would
require to be a State citizen as without it his/her appointment as a judicial officer in my view is
null and void.
25
30
Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

QUOTE Dr. QUICK.The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
END QUOTE
35 We now have that the TPP allegedly authorise foreign companies to sue the Government if
legislation is passed detrimental to such foreign companies in foreign jurisdictions.
It makes an utter mocekkery of the constitution which embeds in the constitution that any
litigation involving the Commonwealth or a person employed with the Commonwealth etc can
be sued in the High court of Australia exercising original jurisdiction.
40 As such any TPP purportedly authorising foreign courts to adjudicate is outside the sphere of the
constitution and so beyond the government power to agree to. And for so far it did it be ultra
vires.
The Government cannot either make an agreement such as the TPP which somehow would
interfere with the sovereign rights of the Parliament to legislate now or in future as it desires.
45 The Executives (Government) can only operate within the legislative powers provided for by the
Parliament and cannot interfere with the legislative powers of the parliament itself.
As I indicated I challenge the validity of Buloke Shire Council charging a delegated power of
land taxation called rates, because once the commonwealth commenced to legislate as to land
50 taxation then the States no longer could legislate upon this and as such any delegated powers
also was at an end. Effectively because Buloke Shire Council nevertheless (as like other
p34
Appeal 15-2502
10
15
20
25
Page 35
councils) charge rates it means they are pushing me in certain financial hardship which at the
time resulted that I couldnt get the Ford Station wagon repaired as I lacked the finances to do
so having to pay the garbage charges (even so no garbage collected) as well as the
unconstitutional rates.
In my view Buloke Shire Council by its conduct therefore prevented me if not directly then
indirectly to have my car (well registered in my wifes name) to have a new gearbox and without
a gearbox this car simply wouldnt drive.
The vehicle was booked in for that day to have the gearbox reconditions or replaced just that the
day before it I was stranded on a roundabout in Banyule and the RACV then had to tow the car
to my residence and the next day to the gearbox repairer as the gearbox had collapsed all
together.
As such it was clear that the vehicle was in no condition to tow a trailer with a drive on mower to
Berriwillock as for me to personally do the slashing/cutting. It also underlines that the fact that I
had prearranged with Jeff that he would assist to do the slashing/mowing indicates there was no
intention by me to deliberately flaunt any legal provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act
1958. This regardless of if Richard was the occupier or not.
It should be clear that the vague and aloof Fire Prevention Notice, besides of it being invalid
in law due to being in contradiction to the legal provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act
1958, prevented myself to be aware what really were the precise issues Mr Wayne Wall
intended to communicate. Hence, I was by this also denied to convey to Jeff what really was
intended by Mr Wayne Wall.
My position is that had Mr Wayne Wall, as he did the following year on 6 November 2015, had
set out what really he desired then both Jeff and myself could have been aware of the relevant
issues.
.
There are stacks of firewood on the property and it is common for people using open fires to use
wood for this. As such the stack of sleepers being combustible materials could somehow fall
within the definition of the Fire Prevention Notice having to be removed.
30 It is my position that no fair minded judge if he was in my position could have held that such a
Fire Prevention Notice was reasonable, and neither was stating as required by the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958 as to having been able to comply with the demands stated unless removing
even trees, buildings, content of buildings, motor vehicles, timber fence poles, etc of the property
to make it being vacant and having cleared of any combustible materials.
35
Another absurdity is the time of 7 days.
I also canvassed this on 19 July 2015 and this means that any time period less than 10 days must
be excluding public holidays and week-ends.
40 QUOTE
Email: buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
19-8-2014
Sir,
While Australian Post has replaced the postie who was dumping mail into the street for to my
knowledge more than 2 months instead of placing securely into the mail pillar, the problem is
that mail is missing such as that I have as yet not received any rate notice of property 250200504
(2013-2014 rate notice) of 10 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock. Hereby, I request you to advise
me if and when a rate notice was posted and if so can you provide a copy of the same by email to
50 me. To the above email address, as soon as possible?
45
p35
Appeal 15-2502
Page 36

Our name is our motto!)
(
END QUOTE
5 The above correspondence also underlines that Australia Post dumps mail on the street instead of
securely placing it in the Australian Post approved letterbox pillar.
I even have the following signage on display:
10
Yet mail is left sticking out by Australia Post men/women or just dumped on the street,
regardless of years of complaints about identity theft and lost mail.
15 This 19-8-2014 correspondence also shows I did advise Buloke Shire Council about problems
with mail deliveries.
20
QUOTE
41B Objection to notices
(1)
A person on whom a fire prevention notice has been served may lodge a written objection with the
fire prevention officer within 7 days of the service of the notice stating the grounds of objection.
END QUOTE
By this not only is Australia Post delaying deliveries but by the time any Fire Prevention Notice
25 is received the 7 days may already be gone.
Any fair minded judge would be well aware that people are not generally sitting next to their
mail box to wait for mail that may merely allow in total 7 days.
People go on holidays, go visiting family members and friends, etc.
As such lodging within 7 days an objection is I view unreasonable. And where I did so for
30 example in 2015 nothing really came from it as the Fire Prevention Notice was not withdrawn, as
I view should have been because it was in violation with legislative provisions of the Country
Fire Authority Act 1958.
p36
Appeal 15-2502
QUOTE
Mr Wayne Wall, Municipal Fire Prevention Officer
buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
5 Cc:
Page 37
2-11-2015
Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au

Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Ref; 20151102-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall-Re Buloke Shire Council
Re my view about a Fire Prevention Notice REQUIREMENTS-etc
10 Wayne,
As a matter of courtesy I provide you with an extract of my writings to the court.
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
QUOTE 20151102-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council
-APPEAL-15-2502- Re COMPLAINT -Supplement 2
The essence is that where the Court held that council exercising delegated powers of the State then had the
position of the state. Numerous other Authorities are of the same findings. This then applies also where a
council seeks to enforce State legislation as is with Buloke Shire Council it then is in a standing of the
position of the State and must comply with the limitations provided for by State legislation being the Country
Fire Authority Act 1958 and cannot upon its own undertaking exceeds the legislative powers delegated to a
council Municipal Fire Prevention Officer. Therefore, where the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 excludes
building and content then the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer has no powers to demand removal of all
combustible materials as it is in violation of the delegated powers. Using the terminology all combustible
material in itself indicates a violation of the exclusion provided for in the legislation as well as that the
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer continually year after year issuing such worded notices never really
understood nor applied appropriately his powers as a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer. In my view a Fire
Prevention Notice should be containing for example such as The removal of the 4 drums marked HAZARD
that are situated at the left side of the front gate. While I do not have such drums and merely use it as an
example, it is however a notification the land holder then knows what precisely is held to be a fire danger.
The landowner may then request the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer to amend his fire Prevention Notice
say because the drums do not contain hazardous materials but contains sand/soil as to form a protection
against motor vehicles accidentally driving onto the yard. As such a Fire Prevention Notice must be specific
as to allow the land holder to dispute any matter stated and the Municipal fire prevention officer who may
have had the opinion based on the marking of the drums there could be a fire danger then may find that the
content is not a fire danger and then amend or withdraw the Fire Prevention Notice. However a general fire
prevention Notice would deny a landowner to be aware what precisely was the issue that the Municipal Fire
Prevention Officer formed his opinion, and as such denied to be able to reasonably comply with the Fire
Prevention Notice. It might very well be that the Fire prevention Notice may have an issue with the location
of wood stacked up for an open fire and so may hold that it should be moved to another location within the
property to avoid for example sparks from the chimney to accidentally put the fire wood on fire. As such the
removal of all combustible material would fail to be a proper indication as to what might be the real issue
and denied the landholder his FEE SIMPLE rights in general. Numerous properties have fire wood stacked
up because of usage for open fires and the direction removal of all combustible material would unduly
interfere with a landholders rights and not intended as such with the provisions of the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958. It is absurd to hold that because a building may exist (on a property) that is of
combustible material then a Fire Prevention Notice is justified and without any evidence then the landholder
can be found guilty this even so the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 has no such intention!
While His Honour Mullaly appeared to me to indicate that I sought somehow to be excluded from
enforcement of legislation the truth is that I pursue the correct enforcement of legislation (albeit without
conceding the legislation to be valid in law as that is another constitutional issue). Because any property
ordinary contains combustible materials which may not at all be a fire hazard, the usage of the wording
removal of all combustible materials indicates that therefore the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer didnt
form an opinion because the Fire Prevention Notice is not issued specifically to the circumstances of a
particular property but rather is a general usage to whatever condition and circumstances there may exist and
as such violated the legal requirements of the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer to form an opinion.
The usage of the word opinion must in the context of the legislation be deemed to imply that the Municipal
Fire Prevention Officer has a proper training and understanding as to what is a fire danger and the notice will
specify what are the particular issues. The usage of removal of all combustible materials doesnt state what
specific issue is to be addressed and leaves it up to the landholder to guess what on earth was intended by the
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer. Clearly this is not what the legislation (Country Fire Authority Act
1958) intended!
50
55
60
p37
Appeal 15-2502
Page 38
END QUOTE 20151102-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire
Council -APPEAL-15-2502- Re COMPLAINT -Supplement 2
You may or may not have different views at least you might understand what my views are, and if I had
5 been in charge in Buloke Shire Council I certainly would have ensured that you would have been
provided with appropriate guidance that Fire prevention Notices would be issued that actually explains
the precise issues of concern. This so that a property owner has a fair and decent opportunity to act and
that the real fire danger, if there is any, can be addressed.
10 I look forwards to your positive reply!

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

15 Awaiting your response,
(Our name is our motto!)

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
END QUOTE
As Mr Wayne /Wall didnt withdraw the invalid Fire Prevention Notice I then pursued an appeal.
20 20151114-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Chief Officer-Re Buloke Shire Council -Re Fire
Prevention Notice 199-4423-etc.
QUOTE
25
41C
Appeal against notices

(1) If a person has lodged an objection under section 41B and
(a) the fire prevention officer has failed to confirm, vary or withdraw the notice within 14 days;
or
END QUOTE
30
I did also follow for example in 2015 this process and well now already in end May 2016 no
response was received.
QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE
Chief Officer Country fire Authority
14-11-2015
35 cfa-customer-support@cfa.vic.gov.au
Cc; Buloke Shire Council & Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated
lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
40
Ref; 20151114-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Chief Officer -Re Buloke Shire Council -Re Fire Prevention Notice 199-4423-etc
Sir/Madam,
I recently indicated in my email to Mr Wayne Wall that he misconceive s43 of the Country
Fire Authority Act 1958, as to his claims it doesnt provide powers to deal with the high grass/weed on
government properties. Such as Ministry of Housing and road side properties. As such for years on end
45 Mr Wayne Wall permitted a dangerous fire conditions to exist failing to act against them.
Mr Wayne Wall attended to my property at 10 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock, accompanied by a
female, and indicated he would provide a 2 week extension is required. However, his 6 November 2015
correspondence refers to 7 days.
In any event I complained that the Fire Prevention Notice was in violation to the Country Fire Authority
50 Act 1958 and as such cannot be extended. It is of no legal justification and Authority Ab Initio.
Within s41C I request you to review the decision of Mr Wayne Wall including his 6 November 2015
decision.
.
p38
Appeal 15-2502
Page 39
As I objected to the legal validity of the Fire prevention Notice, such as to remove all combustible
materials then the only option would have been to withdraw the entire notice. (See my previous
correspondences to Mr Wayne Wall about the same).
5 Currently there is an appeal on foot before the County Court of Victoria to which I also claim the fire
prevention Notice (2014) was invalid as this too was referring to all combustible materials
In my view within s45 of the County Fire Authority Act 1958 it would be appropriate for the Governor
in Council to remove Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention Officer. This as it appears to me he
10 was never appropriately trained and doesnt appear to understand/comprehend the relevant powers.
.
Mr Wayne Wall in his 6 November 2015 correspondence refer to
QUOTE
I am prepared to allow an extension of this notice provided that the work is undertaken by the date
15
specified above, and the standard of clearance is to my satisfaction.
END QUOTE
In my view it has got nothing to do with Mr Wayne Wall as Fire Prevention Officer having to be
satisfied it has to do with if there is a fire danger or not. Mr Wayne Wall may not be satisfied but that
20 may in itself not mean that there is a fire danger.
.
25
The images included below are those which also shows the roadside growth of weed/grass/etc and it must
be clear that this violates s43 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958, where my understanding is that Mr
Wayne Wall in misconception.
Mr Frank Colosimo was present when Mr Wayne Wall and his female companion attended to my
property (on 5 November 2015 to discuss matters), and can be shown on some of the images reproduced
below.
Some images (below) show Mr Francis James Colosimo.
30
35
20151104_182155-To Berriwillock-Calder Highway
20151104_182232-To Berriwillock-Calder Highway
Image 182232 shows growth to be as high as the chin of Mr Francis Colosimo along Calder
Highway on the soft shoulder.
20151104_182642-To Berriwillock-Calder Highway 182719-To Berriwillock-Calder Highway
p39
182947-To Berriwillock-Calder Highway
Appeal 15-2502
Page 40
There images show the collection of years of build-up leaves, dead branches, etc. the cable
barrier proves how closed it is to the road. This is just some of the numerous locations this build10 up is left year after year. In my view Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention Officer
should never have permitted this kind of dangerous build-up of fire hazards!
15 Image 190224 (above) shows that dangerous cuttings are left on the soft shoulder of the road
side and image 190359 (below) shows the height of what is left after slashing along the Calder
Highway. While s43 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 provides for the slashing (up to the
fence line) clearly this is not eventuating.
20
As I have shown in past correspondences similar conditions existed over the years along Calder
Highway and elsewhere. As such Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention Officer failed to
ensure to act appropriately. Image 190359 & 190633 shows what is left around trees. It appears
p40
Appeal 15-2502
Page 41
to me no one is supervising Buloke Shire contractors if they do an appropriate job. Yet with
motor vehicles travelling past here is the real fire danger!
The following images are taken on 5 November 2015 outside Berriwillock, to and from Swan Hill
10
20151105_142426- Swan Hill trip
20151105_173537- Swan Hill trip
142430- Swan Hill trip
20151105_142509- Swan Hill trip
20151105_173553-Swan Hill
Between Berriwillock and Ultima the growth (within the Shire of Buloke) is shown to be far
more than the 100mm Mr Wayne Wall demands of property owners. In fact no clearing appears
to have been done at all, and the properties that are shown shows high growth also!
The following images are taken on 5 November 2015 Berriwillock (old back fence)
15
180123-Berriwillock-10 Anderson Ave-cr-01 180139-Berriwillock-10 Anderson Ave
The following images are taken on 6 November 2015 Berriwillock (back fence-with new fencing)
20
20151106_152658-Berriwillock-10 Anderson Ave
20151106_152810-Berriwillock-10 Anderson Ave
My son Richard was residing at Berriwillock but mysteriously disappeared. I now obtained
copies of documentation indicating to me the police did an unlawful search of his vehicle,
unlawfully arrested him, etc. As result that his partial build fence was left as was, and with it part
25 of the fence missing. As result unknown persons were having access to the property and were
p41
Appeal 15-2502
Page 42
dumping items such as shown below in images 16922, 163250 and 163266 from farmers. The
house was left unlocked, and unknown person(s) caused destruction, etc. It appears to me that
Buloke Shire Council having limited access to the Berriwillock tip has resulted in illegal
dumping on my property. As result unwanted items having been abandoned on my property
5 causing problems with slashing/cutting. The (expensive) fencing I have put up ought to prevent
dumping on my property.
The following images are taken on 6 November 2015 Berriwillock
10
162922-Berriwillock-Bitumen 163250-Berriwillock
163255-Berriwillock
The following images are taken on 6 & 7 November 2015 Berriwillock
15
20
163543-Berriwillock-10 Anderson Ave
p42
Appeal 15-2502
Page 43
My property (above) as was already prior to the issue of the Fire Prevention Notice, as I
5 understand Jeff made known to Mr Wayne Wall that he had been slashing it, as he did last year
also! While Mr Wayne Wall appears to be so to say nit picking upon my property reality is that
growth is everywhere on numerous properties, as shown some below.
The following images are taken on 7 November 2015 around Berriwillock
10
185951-Berriwillock-Wight
185956-Berriwillock-Wight
190117-Berriwillock
190122-Berriwillock
190125-Berriwillock
192433-Milne-General Store
15 The following images are taken on 8 November 2015 leaving Berriwillock along Calder Highway
Frank Colosimo's camera-Photo0045
p43
Appeal 15-2502
Page 44
The above pictures taken with Mr Frank Colosimo camera underlines how high the growth is
along Calder Highway.
10 Do consider that the following is applicable to my property at10 Anderson Avenue Berriwillock!
p44
Appeal 15-2502
Page 45
I understand from Jeff (the person looking after my property) that Mr Wayne Wall gave him the
understanding that he can enter my property as he desires. This is not at all permissible. I
understand that nevertheless Mr Wayne Wall entered my property (Prior to 5 November 2015
without my authority) to obtain photos of my property, which I view were unlawfully obtained.
5 In my view all previous issued Fire Prevention Notices should be withdrawn and monies
refunded to those who paid the Infringement Notices as to enforce unlawful Fire Prevention
Notices serves no use to the safety of the community, but is as I view it an extortion misusing the
purpose of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958. In my view Buloke Shire Council would have
done better to have its legal representative training Mr Wayne Wall instead of litigating against
10 me, as now it embarked upon an expensive litigation which I view it cannot win!
15
20
25
30
I was serious ill, but nevertheless Buloke Shire Council through ES&a Legal Practitioners
pursued to litigate (in my absenteeism), at the wrong venue at the Magistrates Court of Victoria
at St Arnaud, on 20 August 2015 and 17 September 2015 in disregard of my OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION. I have since filed an appeal. Obviously, Mr Wayne Wall can persist in
litigation but I can assure you that I will expose what really is going on. Councillor Mr Milne
wrote to me that he doesnt understand what it is about (the litigation). That to me is of concern.
Surely before litigation is commenced councillors should be informed about what is proposed
and why considering the legal cost involved?
It appears to me that Mr Wayne Wall has been using the provisions of the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958 as to inappropriately obtain monies for Buloke Shire Council with defective
Fire Prevention Notices while blatantly disregarding his duties and obligations to deal with the
real fire danger such as along Calder Highway, year after year.
For the record, Mr Wayne Wall was aware I was at Berriwillock when he forwarded the 6
November 2015 correspondence to my residential address in Viewbank, and I didnt receive it
until late Sunday evening, 8 November 2015, when arriving home. And in any event in law
unless otherwise provided for in the legislation, 7 days is excluding weekends and public
holidays.
See also my previous correspondence: 20151028-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Country Fire
Authority -Health safety issue regarding CFA fire fighters
I look forwards to your positive reply!
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

35
(Our name is our motto!)

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

QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE
40
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Premier D. Napthine
denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
3-12-2013
45 Cc: Country Fire Authority

8 Lakeside Drive Burwood East 3215 cfa@cfa.vic.gov.au
Buloke Shire CouncilC/o Wayne Wall C/o buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
p45
Appeal 15-2502
Page 46
Re: Fire danger etc
COMPLAINT
5
Sir,
on 2 and 3 October 2013 I attended to my Berriwillock property assisted by my friend Ray for
the purpose of clearing the property of weeds, etc. Likewise we attended to the property Ray and
his partner Alice purchased elsewhere.
To my surprise I received nevertheless a fire notice dated 19 November 2013, which includes the
10 following:
p46
Appeal 15-2502
p47
Appeal 15-2502
Page 47
10
15
20
25
30
Page 48
Subsequently, after receiving this notice I contacted a friend of mine, a neighbour to the property
and he wrote back to me that the wed/grass was about 3 inches high. As such well below the
100 mm. Nevertheless on my request he attended to the property and reported back that the
properly is nice and clean.
What however is to be considered is upon what legal basis can Shire of Buloke demand I attend
to the nature strip (regardless it was cut) as Anderson avenue Berriwillock in fact is ordinary
listed as the Birship-Berriwillock Highway, a major highway between 2 towns.
If the Shire can demand that I provide compulsory services as conscription for maintaining its
roads, then what else may follow from this?
Under what delegated power, if any, of the State Government can any council apply forced
labour upon a property owner regarding works to be carried out at his/her own expense on a
major arterial highway? As the nature strip is a part of the highway and not limited to the
boundaries of a private property, then can I be expected to slash/mowe the weed/grass along the
about 30 odd kilometres on both side of the highway between Birship and Berriwillock, even so
the weed/grass is actually more likely to be the result of growing from seeds blown over from
farming property and not at all from my residential housing block property.
Further, this appears to be a generically created fire notice and not at all as result of a proper
inspection, this as the photos below shows I had slashed/mowed the week.
In fact ever since I commenced the property in 1987 this year it was the lowest ever. I used to
have in years that the week was up to 1 metres high by the time the summer commenced,
whereas now it was generally about 20 centimetres high. A stark contrast and dispels and indeed
disproves the allegations by Buloke Shire Council about the fire danger and the growth of weed,
etc, because of rain. Indeed, when I arrived on 2 October 2013 I was amazed how low the
weed/grass was on the property, after Buloke Shire Council having advanced their inspections
allegedly because of increased fire danger.
The question that should be asked (considering also the evidence of the photos reproduced
below) how many times in not only this year but also in previous years did Wayne Wall the
MUNICIPAL FIRE PREVENTION OFFICER issue any fire notice upon Buloke Shire itself?
After all, as I have also reported in the past, including photos, the highway is littered with high
grass/weed along the Calder Highway within the Shire of Buloke and so any delegated authority,
if any, by the Shire of Buloke on behalf of the State government must be as a model litigant (as
the fire notice is deemed a legal document) and so it must itself show compliance with its own
rules and regulations.
35
The question then is when is service deemed having eventuated? Was it when the document was
dated or posted or when it was, if ever at all, received in the mail?
p48
Appeal 15-2502
Page 49
Not everyone can respond within 7 days, as a person may be away for a week or so. And if the
was a delay in the mail (often postal articles may not be delivered for weeks if ever at all) then
when is service deemed to have eventuated, if ever at all?
5 Unlike previous years, this time a lot of the fire wood (that was kept for the open fire in the
house) was now removed by the next door neighbour Mr Ian Wight, the local Captain of
Berriwillock fire brigade, as per previous arrangements as well as Ray did the clearing of under
the trees, etc.. As such, the notice appeared to have been send out not as result of an actual
inspection but merely generated as it appears to me, to a property owner irrespective if there was
10 any legal justification for this or not.
To me this constitutes not only abuse of power but also a form of terrorism.
.
As I indicated in the past Shire of Buloke clearly fails to maintain highways in a proper condition
to avoid a fire danger and as such cannot be trusted to exercise any alleged delegated powers
15 within the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
It appears to me that the Municipal Fire officer failed to notify the country fire authority of
ongoing failures by Buloke Shire as to the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 legal requirements,
this even so I provide in the past photographic evidence of not only high weed/grass along the
Calder Highway within the Shire of Buloke but also highlighted the fact that there had been
20 grass fires on the shoulder of Calder Highway and referred to this also in my correspondence of
28 January 20913 to the then Premier Mr Ted Bailleu.
And, I also will now quote of some of my past writings to you;
QUOTE 28-10-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
25

Buloke Shire is preparing again for the coming fire season and will be starting property inspections in towns
across the Shire in early September.
END QUOTE 20-8-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
Early September could be even on 1 September 2013, and I view this hardly is a reasonable time for notification. It
30 may not be done on 1 September 2013, but that is not for me to know.
35
Hence, we have to consider the following also:

Given the wet weather experienced over the winter months the spring growing season is likely to be
vigorous so you will need to keep an eye on your property to ensure that it is maintained in a safe condition.
40
It appears to me that this is not some incident that arose suddenly in the last few days, rather that someone just
happen to decide to now bring the inspections forwards, as I understand this used to be in October, and hence made
my wife aware that in October I would have to go to Berriwillock for the preparation of the fire season, and as such
any medical appointments she needs to have must be before October.
.
45
In my view, this rain wasnt just coming now, but was obviously happening for some months and as such one has to
ask why on earth no earlier warning but leave it with no more but the coming weekend at the very least in time
notification. Surely, if Buloke Shire was sincere about fire danger it would work with landowners as to ensure they
had ample of time of notification.
.
50
55
While councillors may spend their monies, being that of ratepayers as if there is no tomorrow, such as adverting for
the Yes referendum that didnt proceed, It would in my view be more responsible if councillors were to consider that
any genuine attempt to prepare for a fire season must be in a progressive manner and not so to say backstabbing as
to get some fine for landholders due to insufficient lack of time.
There are many people who as I am retired and need to budget for expenses, and so well aware in advance that a
October trip had to be financed. Again, councillors may use rate payers monies but I do not have this luxury and
need to budget for it. As such, having to pay rates in September, I worked upon the basis that with expected fire
inspections in October, then I would be travelling to Berriwillock in early October as to avoid a fire notice being
issued. For this, I seek that any inspection is done, if needed to be done in September, as late as possible in
September, so that my planned travel to Berriwillock in early October can still be catered for.
p49
Appeal 15-2502
Page 50
Lets be clear about it, I purchased the ride on mower and only use it for Berriwillock, and so in that regard have the
ride on mower available when I can travel.
As for the Shire it self failing to keep road side overgrow down, I view that the councillors should be personally held
5 accountable, and not rate payers having to fork out the fines. After all, if councillors can justify property owners to
be fined then they as councillors should be equal under the law. After all the law must be applied to all and not give
Shires an exemption where in fact roadside fires are more common along highways.
10
15
20

Fines prescribed by the Victorian Government set the penalty for failure to comply with the notice at 10
penalty units which is a minimum fine of $1,443.60(The current value of a penalty unit is $144.36) Council
has no discretion to vary this penalty and. if it requires to refer the matter to a Magistrates Court, a Magistrate
can impose a penalty up to 120 penalty units for imprisonment or both.)
Again, we need to act reasonable and responsible and neither expect that a landowner has to make an additional trip
because of the fire danger not existing in September and then any grass/weed may still grow afterwards. The issue is
to leave matters to the latest when there is a possible fire danger and not have it in say the midst of the rain season
for no more but to try to be difficult whereas the Shire itself as I indicated failed to comply with slashing
appropriately.
If the risk to lives and property is a real issue and not some pretended issue then I expect the fullest corporation.
After all I highlighted in the past that the shire having done away with its own services of slashing grass/weed shows
an ignorance to lives and safety. Who needs a council if it is not willing to represent all rate payers in the rightful
manner.
25 END QUOTE 28-10-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
Why indeed the nonsense by Wayne Wall the MUNICIPAL FIRE PREVENTION OFFICER
30 about the rains, etc, to do earlier inspections, because of the increased fire danger where he
seems to give out the Fire notices as some lollies in a lolly shop rather than based upon an actual
inspection? Indeed, disregarding the extreme dangerous situation along the Calder Highway
within the Shire of Buloke and for that along the Birship Berriwillock Road, for many kilometres
on end. As I pointed out in the past it appears to me that Wayne Wall the MUNICIPAL FIRE
35 PREVENTION OFFICER is doing no more but seeking to misuse/abuse the Country Fire
authority Act 1958 provisions as a way to seek to generate funds for Buloke Shire rather than for
the right purpose as to ensure that everyone, and so also the Shire of Buloke will exercise in a
diligent manner the maintain of safe standards along highways.
p50
Appeal 15-2502
Page 51
It would be utter and sheer nonsense to hold that the shoulder of highways, despite the fire at
locations due to cars pulling onto the shoulder, somehow is not a fire danger, even so of the
number of vehicles travelling along it and even if not pulling up on a shoulder they can
nevertheless create sparks from their vehicles that can cause a resulting fire. Therefore I maintain
5 to press on the issue that the Shire of Buloke, as any municipal/shire council, should show to be
a model litigant and first of all before commencing, if any at all, to issue fire notices it has itself
complied and executed all slashing/moving of weed/grass along the highways and elsewhere that
are within its boundaries and under its control.
10
I enclose hereby some photos and also a copy of my 21 September 2013 correspondence.
QUOTE from my 21 September 2013 correspondence
Sir,
further to my 29 August 2013 correspondence, I wish to express my concern about
Buloke Shire Council having made the inspections earlier, allegedly because of rain,
15
where in fact it was reported through the media that the recent winter was the hottest on
record of the last 150 years and rain was about average and the fire danger just above
average.
While I still contemplate to travel to Berriwillock in the early part of October, in view that
my wife has already her medical appointments for September, still I do view that if Buloke
20
Shire Council is uses what appears to be unreasonable excuses to bring forwards
inspections then it may undermine public confidence and then one day when it is important
people may simply have lost trust in Buloke Shire Council.
END QUOTE from my 21 September 2013 correspondence
25 There can be absolutely no doubt about it that when I travelled on 2 October 2013 to Shire
Council had not ensured any slashing of weed/grass had occurred. At some places the weed
along the highway was more than 1 metre high. Indeed, even near Berriwillock signs the weed
was about 1 metre high.
And yet Buloke Shire Council pursued to do inspections in September, and as result of bringing
30 this forwards I attended on 2 October 2013 to my property in Berriwillock and slashed the weed,
etc.
35
40
45
50
Photo (below) taken on 2 October 2013 near Nullawil sign. Actually, I held it was utter nonsense
to have caused me to slash the weed at that time where it was senseless in that the rain period
had not finished and growers, etc, neither had slashed on their lands. Clearly, the slashing of one
property where at the time the weed was about 200mm high versus some 1 to 1.5 metres at many
places along Calder Highway then I view it had nothing to do with safety of anyone but it seems
to me that Buloke Shire Council does no more but being a terrorist to terrorise ratepayers
uncalled for so perhaps it can then issue infringement notices for more about $1,444.00 even so
no justification exist for this. As such a money grabbing exercise.
Indeed, as they ordinary refer to the Government (so council) must be a model litigant who by
its own conduct shows a good example. This clearly cannot be claimed from Buloke Shire
Council. And, when I go through the numerous photos of my travelling in December 2012 then
too I found that weed along the Calder Highway within the Shire of Buloke was at various places
more than 1 metre high. How on earth can Buloke Shire Council claim this is a safety issue
when it totally ignore itself to act as a concerned council?
It appears to me that Wayne Wall the MUNICIPAL FIRE PREVENTION OFFICER doesnt
seem to get it that in fact he in my view could be held personally legally liable if any person was
harmed as result of a fire along the Calder Highway or elsewhere where he failed to act
appropriately. So, while he may continue to deliberately ignore the fire danger for example along
the Calder Highway, in my view, were a person be aggrieved then that person could sue him for
p51
Appeal 15-2502
Page 52
failing to have acted appropriately despite that he was advised by my writings of the various fire
dangers along the Calder Highway. It might teach him that instead of terrorising a property
holder or holders he may do better to stick to the real issues of his job and get Buloke Shire
Council to comply first of all with legal requirements within the Country Fire Authority Act
5 1958, as should do other councils also.
The 4 pictures below are of Banyule City Council, how it seems to comply with the Fire
Authority Act 1958!
10
Look at the photo below how high the weed/grass is!
15 Look at the photo below how the slashed weed/grass is left as a fire danger!
What this shows is grass/weed in excess of 1 metre high and the lower picture shows that what
20 was slashed/cut is simply left to dry out and rot, as another fire danger.
While I never had a Fire Notice regarding my Viewbank property, nevertheless when I look
around Banyule Shire Council cleaning land under its control then you find that it slashes high
weed/grass but somehow not along the water ways where it can be 1 metre or higher. See photos
below where the left side weed/grass is to to about 1 metre high! As if fire distinguish between
25 where the grass is low or not, as not to go in high weed/grass areas. As if there will be no fire
p52
Appeal 15-2502
Page 53
danger as such! It appears to me Country Fire Authority itself seems to fail to inspect this and to
issue fire notices upon councils about this. One therefore has to ask if this really about fire safety
or merely to generate a cash flow?
If one look along the freeways where there is ample of high weed/grass with millions of cars
5 travelling past and anyone who were to claim that is not a fire danger doesnt know what he/she
is talking about. So, if the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 has any legal meaning then I view
the Country fire authority itself should start taking over the responsibilities of enforcing the act
and in particularly so against each and every council failing to comply.
10 When I was travelling along the Calder Highway near the Nullawil sign (see photo below) this is
the height of the weed/grass along it. It nearly touched the lower part of the sign!
Photo (below) taken on 2 October 2013 just outside Berriwillock along the Calder Highway.
15 the weed/grass is level to the side mirror of my motor vehicle, that high!
Clearly over a metre high weed/grass!
p53
Appeal 15-2502
Page 54
Photo (below) taken on 2 October 2013 just outside Berriwillock, along the Calder Highway.
5
Berriwillock property (below), at arrival on 2 October 2013. Weed a lot lower then along the
highway! Weed/grass is a mere about 200 mm high, a lot lower then it is at the Calder Highway!
p54
Appeal 15-2502
Weed/Grass along Calder Highway in Shire of Buloke (Photo below)

5
Weed/Grass along Calder Highway in Shire of Buloke (Photo below)
10
How my property was left after slashing the weed/grass. (Photo below)
QUOTE
15
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
C/o Wayne Wall
p55
Appeal 15-2502
Page 55
Page 56
C/o buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Re: Fire danger etc
Sir,
further to my 29 August 2013 correspondence, I wish to express my concern about Buloke
5 Shire Council having made the inspections earlier, allegedly because of rain, where in fact it
was reported through the media that the recent winter was the hottest on record of the last 150
years and rain was about average and the fire danger just above average.
While I still contemplate to travel to Berriwillock in the early part of October, in view that my
wife has already her medical appointments for September, still I do view that if Buloke Shire
10 Council is uses what appears to be unreasonable excuses to bring forwards inspections then it
may undermine public confidence and then one day when it is important people may simply have
lost trust in Buloke Shire Council.
As I also view it councils are there to provide a service and its own cancellation of mowing
15 service only may underline its inability to understand what councils are about. why have a
council if all it does is delegate matters to contractors or cause rate payers to rely upon
contractors? While I purchased my ride on mower, with its only use for Berriwillock, I
nevertheless urge that such a crazy situation should never be forced upon others.
I recall Mr Keating was doing mowing for the Shire, and while he may no longer work for the
20 Shire I view this service should never have been stopped as council has a responsibility towards
rate payers, and not just become some kind of dictator ignoring its own responsibilities..
25

(
END QUOTE
30 Now consider the thousands of motor vehicles (including trucks and busses, etc) travelling along
the Calder Highway and there is the danger zone. Cars do pull up along the highway for a
number or reasons. If you ever had children then you may know they can have an urgent need
and cannot wait till the next town. So, motor vehicles do stop for a variety of reasons, and often
pulling into the side of the road where the high weed/grass is. They do not drive onto my
35 property that is not along the Calder Highway! As such the real culprit of endangering the goods
and lives of others is Buloke Shire itself! Why are there no Infringement Notices issued against
Buloke Shire where it blatantly disregard the rule of law? It seems to have placed itself above the
rule of law and then terrorise ratepayers with threats of fines where itself is the worst offender.
This underlines that any fire risk inspection should be performed independently from the
40 municipal/shire councils so that it too can be held accountable.
.
It seems to me that it would be much better if Buloke Shire Council was more attend to the
safety and security of residents.
first of all why does it not speak up against GWMWater for failing to provide suitable drinking
45 water to small towns? Surely that is a dangerous situation?
Also, after arriving at Berriwillock I fell severely ill and even now still recovering of it. As I now
understand it the federal government hasd in the past allowed cholera testing to be done and now
is considering to allow Cholera live bacteria to be sprayed in Victoria, and other states.
p56
Appeal 15-2502
Page 57
My correspondence 131117-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM- Re

COMPLAINT, OBJECTION TO CHOLERA TESTING, INVESTIGATION REQUIRED sets
out my objections.
QUOTE MY 17-11-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott MP
Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au, info@pm.gov.au
Cc:
Mr Clive Palmer Palmer United Party Admin@PalmerUnited.com

Premier Denis Napthine, Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
10
Ref: 131117-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PMRe COMPLAINT, OBJECTION TO CHOLERA TESTING, INVESTIGATION REQUIRED
Tony,
I understand an application was made within the provisions of the Gene Technology Act 2000 by
PaxVax Australia Pty Ltd (PaxVax) for a License Application DIR 126 Limited and controlled release of
a genetically modified live bacterial vaccine against Cholera With clinical sites in Queensland, South
Australia, Victoria and Western Australia
15
20
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST it appears to me that the purpose of the application falls outside the
constitutional legislative powers of the Commonwealth of Australia. This application is proposing an
experiment upon humans residing within the Commonwealth of Australia, of which they may have no
knowledge they are used as guinea pigs, and so without their knowledge and/or consent. Neither do I accept
that any parent or guardian can authorise the usage of children in such experiment where the relevant
children do not suffer from Cholera.
END QUOTE MY 17-11-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
25 And
30
35
QUOTE MY 17-11-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

After I came back in Viewbank I became very ill, so much that my wife commented one day at 4 pm that she
came in just to check if I was still alive. Having now seen the ailments associated with Cholera it seems that
this may have been what I suffered from.
About 2 weeks ago I saw my local doctor and he had blood test done but the blood test showed no issues of
concern. As such the blood test was performed not because of the 16 November emails I received but was
done about 2 weeks ago.
.
Besides the gastroenteritis I suffered from dizziness, dehydration, etc, and no explanation as to why I fell so
ill. Hence, reading about the Cholera testing and that this already may have been done, I now wonder if the
same is already being done if not by PaxVax Australia Pty Ltd (PaxVax) then perhaps by any other company,
with or without a license.
END QUOTE MY 17-11-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
40 It seems to me that if indeed Cholera testing was done in the Mallee then Buloke Shire would do
better to sort this rot out as that is a real and not an imaginary safety issue!
Then ask yourself when fire fighters are using tap water at a property they may not be aware the
tap water is not suitable for drinking water!
45 QUOTE (GWMWater bills)
Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparations without
further treatment
END QUOTE (GWMWater bills) (Note: The red colour is on the bill in black)
p57
Appeal 15-2502
Page 58
It is my view that all fire notices, not just the one issued against my Berriwillock property should
be withdrawn and a proper investigation is conducted as to why councils disregard proper
5 compliance with the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 and any MUNICIPAL FIRE
PREVENTION OFFICER fails to act appropriately in that regard. If the legislation is to seek to
prevent harm and even loss of life then let it be enforced appropriately not the most severe
culprits left of the hook. Keep in mind that for a multitude of reasons drivers pull over into the
shoulder of highways and not realising that their hot exhaust can trigger a fire with high
10 weed/grass on the shoulder and hence I view my design of the sign ought to be implemented
along roads to warn motorist of such danger.

15

END QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE
20
p58
Appeal 15-2502
Page 59
I have canvassed extensively the issues but to no avail.

I did ongoing advice Buloke Shire Council, its lawyers, the Premier, the Attorney-General and
others including Mr Wayne Wall about relevant issues but basically they couldnt care less.
The invalid Fire Prevention Notices kept coming year after year and I understand so also too
5 many neighbours irrespective that there was no fire danger.
This I view is a very serious issue where clearly the provisions of the Country Fire Authority
Act 1958 was used for ulterior purposes.
.
10 Yes, I made an error to rely upon a version of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 that was
prior to the Infringement Act 2006 being in force when preparing my previous written
submissions in the ADDRERSS TO THE COURT but surely that is something as severe as to
place lives and property at danger as I view Buloke Shire Council and others are doing.
.
15 Country Fire Authority Act 1958
QUOTE
41E
Fire prevention infringement notices

(1) An authorised officer may serve a fire prevention infringement notice on a person the officer has
reason to believe has committed an offence against section 41D.
20
(1A) An offence referred to in subsection (1) for which a fire prevention infringement notice may be
served is an infringement offence within the meaning of the Infringements Act 2006.
END QUOTE
25
Contrary to my written submission, when I had not located this part even so searched for it, the
Country Fire Authority Act 1958 does provide for Infringement Notice in section 41E.
But even with this Section 41E it specifically states An authorised officer may serve a fire
30 prevention infringement notice on a person the officer has reason to believe has committed an
offence against section 41D and in my view Mr Wayne Wall never could have had this kind of
reasonable belief where he himself didnt provide specific details as to what exactly he was
referring to.
35 I refer back to when I represented Mr Frank Colosimo and the order was that Mr Colosimo had
to remove a secondary residence. As I submitted to her honour there never was a secondary
residence but a shed. As such no one in the world reasonably could comply with the order.
Opposing Counsel provided even (albeit it appears in error) with an Authority that I detected
described the requirements of a building to be a residence, and as I pointed out to Her Honour
40 Harbison clearly the shed had none of those items required to be deemed a residence.
As I also submitted that in fact a Notice was issued that the shed was in compliance with relevant
legislative provisions.
The problem with municipal/shire councils is that they use ratepayers monies to litigate and
45 cause utter destruction to the rights of citizens and then walk away as if there is nothing to it if a
court were to denounce the conduct of the council, which seldom eventuate.
That is why I view this court must take a stand and not tolerate this kind of misuse and abuse of
the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 as what I have attempted to expose is
that the real fire danger is that along the highways which is considerably ignored.
p59
Appeal 15-2502
Page 60
For sure Mr Wayne Wall gave me the understanding that at some placed the overgrow and dead
wood along the highway was cut back/slashed to up to 2 metres from the road way. But if he
pursued that somehow a fire danger exist more than 40 metres from a highway then surely 2
metres, albeit images shows right along the roadway, cannot be accepted as proper.
5
This is not a case where I deliberately left a fire danger without seeking to address issues. What
we have here is more of a form of terrorism by the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer to seek to
micro-manage a property by default by misusing and abusing the provisions of the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958 while at the same time blatantly disregard the real fire dangers.
10
I do belief that the Form 11 with the 18 March 2013 date was an old Form 11 that was
inappropriately used by the lawyers acting for Buloke Shire Council and was it not for me to
expose this they would have left it as is.
.
15 I have to some extend been denied to prepare my case as Buloke Shire Council aided by its
lawyers have denied me to be provided with copies of documentation it used on 17 September
2015 as to obtain orders for cost in the Magistrates Court of Victoria as St Arnaud. Likewise the
failure by the Premier to provide the details/material requested within the FOI act and making
clear that I required the details/material in regard of these proceedings then I view this was an
20 elaborate obstruction, and combined with the numerous failures by Buloke Shire Council to
comply with the rules/regulation and other legal provisions including court orders I hold the
view that this court cannot ignore the severely of their conduct and must not tolerate this
unpunished.
.
25
20151209-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria -Re APPEAL-15-2502Re Request
for information-details (FOI)-etc
20151211-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria -Re APPEAL-15-2502Re Request
for information-details (FOI)-etc-Supplement-01
30 .
For sure Buloke Shire Council likely will again complain about the volume of writings but lets
us be clear about it, if they had acted appropriately in the first place then this all could have been
avoided.
35 I have received numerous emails as follows (albeit the date changes)
QUOTE
Re: see attachment Re Appeal 15-2502

From
attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
To
admin@inspector-rikati.com
Date
Today 01:26 (25-5-2016)
Good Morning
40
We would like to confirm that we have received your email addressed to the Attorney-General, Hon
Martin Pakula MP.
Your correspondence is currently being considered.
45
Kind Regards
Office of the Hon Martin Pakula MP
p60
Appeal 15-2502
Page 61
Attorney-General and Minister for Racing

Level 26, 121 Exhibition Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
PH: 03 8684 1111 E: attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

The content of this e-mail and any attachments may be private and confidential, intended only for
use of the individual or entity named. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you
must not read, forward, print, copy, disclose, use or store in any way the information this e-mail or
any attachment contains.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all
copies of this e-mail and any attachments.
Our organisation respects the privacy of individuals. For a copy of our privacy policy please go to
our website or contact us.
10
15 END QUOTE
Reality is that nothing else comes from this. No follow up correspondence.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
http://www.heineraffair.info/site_pages/heiner_affair_quotes.html
".So far as public confidence in the administration of justice is concerned, the position is even worse
if, as is usually the case, the law enforcement agents or those acting on their behalf are not brought to
account for their criminal acts. In cases of that kind, the courts are brought into greater disrepute
because they give the appearance of sanctioning illegality. And that appearance is given even if
criticism is made of the police conduct involved. Indeed, criticism may well appear to be mere humbug
and, itself, lead to a further erosion of confidence in the courts. "
Justice Gaudron in John Anthony Ridgeway v The Queen F.C. No. 95/016 (1995) 129 ALR 41
(1995) 69 ALJR 484 at 39
Our society relies on public confidence in its public institutions otherwise good government can
disintegrate into chaos. Maintaining that public confidence is the highest duty of public officials.
Perception and reality should not divide on this duty, moreover, it cannot afford to. While we may all
have different political and philosophical views about the role of government and life in general, the
heritage given to us by those who have gone before, has decreed that we can all play the political game
without hindrance so long as we stay within the framework of the rule of law under our
Constitutional Monarchy.
Kevin Lindebergs Opening Statement to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal
and Constitutional Affairs in Brisbane on 16 March 2004.
We believe that it is the democratic right of every Australian to expect that the criminal law shall be
applied consistently, predictably and equally by law-enforcement authorities throughout the
Commonwealth of Australia in materially similar circumstances. We believe that any action by
Executive Government which may have breached the law ought not be immune from criminal
prosecution where and when the evidence satisfies the relevant provision. To do otherwise, we
suggest would undermine the rule of law and confidence in government. It would tend to place
Executive Government above the law.
The August 2007 Judges Statement of Concern about the unresolved Heiner affair
This written statement is pre-written and may be supplemented by oral submissions, and the
content ought to be deemed as an exhibit in the hearing. Again I seek that the court reserve its
judgment/orders as to have sufficient time to consider all material and to provide exemplary
damages in my favour where the court find that Buloke Shire Council could and should have
55 acted more appropriately and its failure to do so caused uncalled litigation to eventuate.
Any appearance by me to a 30 May 2016 hearing will be under objection and is not
intended and neither must be perceived that I discontinue any objections.
Appellant
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. 24-5-2016
60
p61
Appeal 15-2502

20160530-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To County Court of Victoria-Re Witness Statement-APPEAL-15-2502

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

20160530-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To County Court of Victoria-Re Witness Statement-APPEAL-15-2502

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

County Court of Victoria at Melbourne

There can be a considerable disadvantage of being a witness and representing oneself.

120302-Buloke c-o Warwick Heine CEO B1349 and Notice 1,722

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

On Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:22 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Constitutionalist & Consultant

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Ok we cut it before we went away to the west.

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Constitutionalist & Consultant

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Awaiting your response,

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

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

(i) in which any land is vested;

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

41Fire prevention notices

Fire prevention notices

(3)A fire prevention notice

(a) must be in the prescribed form;

(d) must contain any prescribed information.

(1) A fire prevention notice may be served on an owner or occupier

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

'Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.'

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 08:54:17 +0000

I agree with Gerrit in

30 END QUOTE EMAIL

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant

Re 30-5-2016 hearing- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Appeal 15-2502

----- Original Message ----From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Witness statement Objector/Appellant