20150905 -schorel-hlavka o.w.b. to magistrates court of victoria at st arnaud cc es&a...

p1 5-9-2015 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, See also

Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati Email: [email protected]

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud 5-9-2015 c/o the coordinator [email protected]

Cc: Elliott Stafford and Associated [email protected]

Re: 20150905-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council

Sir/Madam,

In my 4-9-2015 correspondence emails to you the same day in error in the heading I

referred to “Re: 20150826-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud” This

ought to have been “Re: 20150904-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud”,

as per date of this correspondence.

Alison J May correspondence 2 September 20015 stated also: “The above matter was listed for

before the Magistrates’ Court at St Arnaud on 20 August 2015 and we acknowledge your

numerous items of correspondence. We do not propose to respond to a majority of the matters

raised therein. The purpose of this letter is to confirm that as you did not appear the matter has

been adjourned for hearing at the St Arnaud Magistrates’ Court on 17 September 2015 at

8.30am In the event you do not appear on that date the matter will proceed in your absence.”

Further, ES&a Lawyers in their 2 September 2015 correspondence stated; “We note your

purported objection to jurisdiction contained in your letter dated 17 August2015 and strongly

suggest that you take legal advice with respect to same.” As I understand it using the wording

“purported” can mean supposed, claimed, alleged, ostensible, unsupported, unsubstantiated,

professed, maintained. As ES&a lawyers acknowledge there is an OBJECTION TO

JURISDICTION then the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud couldn’t have adjourned

the matter (prosecution) to be heard on 17 September 2015, regardless if I attend, as it only could

have adjourned the matter pending/subject to the determination of the OBJECTION TO

JURISDICTION. As such the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was the only matter that

was before the court. Therefore the Court not having invoked jurisdiction could not have ordered

the matter to proceed in my absenteeism.

As I indicated that on 19 July 2006 is unchallenged on all and any of the constitutional issues I

submitted the County Court of Victoria upheld both appeals, which included my OBJECTION

TO JURISDICTION against the jurisdiction of Magistrates Court of Victoria (then at

Heidelberg) as to that by the usage of the ABN number of the Attorney-General Department it

failed to be “impartial” and violated the “separation of powers” between the executive, the

Parliament and the judiciary. As such, I for one cannot see how my OBJECTION TO

JURISDICTION could be unsupported as I have a County Court of Victoria ruling upholding

both appeals. The Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud has in my view no jurisdiction to

overrule, undermine or otherwise interfere with the orders of the county court of Victoria nor do

so against the rights I obtained by those orders. Again, they were based upon constitutional issue

involving all Attorney-Generals and the then Attorney-General for the State of Victoria Mr

Robert Hulls made known that the State of Victoria would abide by the Courts decision. I do not

need to disprove jurisdiction rather it is for the prosecutor to prove jurisdiction. As such I do not

need to substantiate any OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION at all but the prosecutor must

overcome each and every element I may proffer in support of my OBJECTION TO

http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

mailto:[email protected]








JURISDICTION. It is nevertheless very clear that ES&a Lawyers were well aware that I had an

OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION before the court. And in this case it also included my

objection to have the matter heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud, due to the

distance as well as that it sits only 1 day in the week, and when I did the OBJECTION TO

JURISDICTION it lasted 2 days and it would be unreasonable to hear a matter that would

require me to repeatedly travel to St Arnaud where clearly alternative venue to deal with the

matter is available about 4 kilometres from my residence at Heidelberg.

As I also outlined in 1988 the Supreme Court of Victoria then made clear that the moment the

respondent object to the jurisdiction of the court the onus is upon the prosecutor to prove each

and every element of the issue of jurisdiction as the court can do no more but adjudicate upon the

material before it, if it proves jurisdiction or not. Hence, the question is therefore did the

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud dismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION,

including the objection to the St Arnaud venue or did it not?

Was it merely that ES&a lawyers directed the Registrar (not being an officer of the court) what

to do and just adjourn the matter and so upon what legal basis? Was there an actual hearing and

what transpired before the court? It should be clear that unless the court itself clarifies this matter

it cannot proceed with hearing anything at all.

If the court did hear and determine part of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, such as the

venue then it should have provided a formal court ruling and reasons, as I clearly also relied upon

Authorities. By this the onus is upon the court to provide me with written copy of the transcript

to show what ES&a Lawyers presented to the Court to oppose my objection against the St

Arnaud venue. As clearly the court by adjourning the matters to 17 September 2015 made a

ruling which I am entitled to know on what legal basis it made a ruling in violation to my

OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. As I indicated in my 4-9-2015 correspondence ES&a

Lawyers indicated that on 17 September 2015 the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

would proceed with the matter even if I do not attend, this to me indicates that this implies that

the Magistrates Court of Victoria had made a ruling to dismiss my OBJECTION TO

JURISDICTION because it otherwise couldn’t proceed with hearing the matter in violation to

an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. Either ES&a Lawyers fraudulently claimed the could

would proceed on 17 September 2015 hearing the matter or the magistrates Court of Victoria at

St Arnaud made this ruling in defiance of my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. After all

once I made my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION there is nothing before the court

whatsoever other than my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.

It is beyond the powers of the Registrar of the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud to deal

with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and as such if not a Magistrate but the Registrar

adjourned the matter on the basis that the matter will proceed on 17 September 2015 then this I

submit was beyond the powers of a Registrar. Again, there is no case before the court other than

an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and ass such any decision to proceed on 17 September

2015 , even in my absenteeism, indicates the court has formally dismissed my OBJECTION TO

JURISDICTION as otherwise it never could have made such a ruling. As I have not been

provided by the court any formal orders and reason of judgement then it appears to me that the

court was fraternizing with the prosecutor and that in itself would violate any orders it issued.

While ordinary a party may seek a copy of transcript against payment in this matter considering

the claims made by ES&a lawyers which I view undermines the integrity of the Magistrates

Court of Victoria (at St Arnaud) the court itself must appropriately clarify matters, as a matter of

extreme urgency, including providing transcript of what transpired before the court on 20 August

2015, free of charge. It is obviously essential that this is provided to me without undue delay as I

need time to prepare for the matter, and as such any last minute or no details at all being provided

would in itself deny me a fair and proper hearing.

In my view as the venue was an issue the Court having no other matter before it but the

OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION including the location of the venue, then could have partly








heard the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION regarding the issue of the venue, and handed

down formal orders and reasons as to why it dismissed that part of the OBJECTION TO

JURISDICTION and adjourned the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION for further hearing on

17 September 2015. The court would have been obligated to provide with those orders reason of

judgment as to why it made the orders and upon what legal basis. However it had no legal

position to issue any orders (as I understand ES&a Lawyers allege) that the court will adjourn

matters till 17 September 20145 and then will proceed with hearing and determining the matter

ES&a Lawyers has placed before the court, this as it effectively would imply it dismissed , albeit

inappropriately, or indicate it would in a bias manner dismiss my OBJECTION TO

JURISDICTION regardless of any evidence by ES&a lawyers for its alleged client, to prove

there is jurisdiction. As I made clear Buloke Shire Council at least by its summons is claiming to

seek to enforce State legislation and as such appears to act for and on behalf of the State of

Victoria which shares the same ABN number with the Magistrates Court of Victoria. And this

clearly is an implied bias. It defies the authority of the court to be an “impartial administration

of justice” and as such no court could overrule this legal authority to be an “impartial

administration of justice”. If therefore Alison J May legal Practitioner and author of the 2

September 2015 correspondence of ES&a Lawyers do not understand this legal issue and what

an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION stands for then perhaps she may do better to so to say

sell fish and chips then to practice as a lawyer.

Alison J May also indicated in her 2 September 2015 correspondence; “Council will not consent

to any change of venue and we note that the Collingwood Magistrates’ Court is not the

appropriate venue for your matter in any event as it deals with matters only where the offence

has taken place within the strict boundary of a small proportion of the City of Yarra or where the

accused resides within that same boundary.”. This presents 3 issues. The first being that I

referred to Heidelberg venue not Collingwood. The second is that as I am as resident within the

area of the Heidelberg venue then by her own statement “or where the accused resides within

that same boundary.” The Heidelberg venue would have been appropriate. The third one is that

it is not for Council to consent or not to a change of venue as my matter (As Alison J may refers

to “for your matter”) is the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, and not the matter of the

Council to prosecute me, as if there is no jurisdiction there is no case for the prosecution.

Alison J May also argues in her 2 September 2015 correspondence that the Magistrates Court of

Victoria at Swan Hill is closer to Berriwillock then St Arnaud but would be at a greater distance

from my residence. And that the St Arnaud venue is closer to the residence of where the offence

took place compared to Collingwood venue, etc. As such she appears to east the cake and have it.

Acknowledging that the St Arnaud venue is not the correct location but Swan Hill is and then

argue against Collingwood venue, whereas I referred to the Heidelberg venue being about 4

kilometres from my residence. Because there is no case before the Magistrates Court of Victoria

at St Arnaud, as I made my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then considering the Age

disability provisions I refer to previously, and authority, then the OBJECTION TO

JURISDICTION could have been heard at the Heidelberg venue. And only if the court at the

Heidelberg venue, not that I concede it would or could do so, were to dismiss my OBJECTION

TO JURISDICTION then the issue of venue where the matter was to be heard would arise.

In my view the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud (And also considering the statement

by Alison J May in her 2 September 2015 correspondence that implies that the Heidelberg venue

would have been the appropriate venue for the hearing, even so it may not have been intended by

her to do so.) inappropriately issued orders, as alleged by Alison J may to hear and determine the

matters on 17 September 2015, even in my absenteeism, and those orders cannot stand. Hence

the order(s), if there were any in the first place, should be vacated and the matter must be deemed

to have come to an end, in that the court failing to appropriately dispose of the OBJECTION

TO JURISDICTION and failing to provide for the matter to be heard at the venue where I

reside, by this failed to follow proper legal procedures.








It may have been that the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud could have ruled that the

OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is the only matter to which the court can be concerned

with and that unless and until if ever at all the court were to dismiss the OBJECTION TO

JURISDICTION there is no case of the prosecutor to be entertained, then in the circumstances

where the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg is the venue nearest to where the objector

resides (As Alison J may refers in her 2 September 2015 correspondence to “for your matter”

and “or where the accused resides within that same boundary.”) the matter should be

transferred to this Court for hearing and determining the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

and if this court were to dismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, where this court

doesn’t wish to imply the Heidelberg venue may do so, then the court at the Heidelberg venue

shall determine if the matter then before it by the prosecutor shall be heard and determined at this

Heidelberg venue or at any other venue the Court in the circumstances may deem appropriate.

An objector never should be unduly placed in difficulties and expenses to object to the

jurisdiction of a court, including a venue, merely because the party seeking to prosecute may do

so to cause undue expenses upon the objector such as to travel, etc, as to make it as difficult as

possible for the objector to exercised his/her legal rights.

As Alison J may refers in her 2 September 2015 correspondence to “for your matter” and “or

where the accused resides within that same boundary.” It must be clear that the Magistrates

court of Victoria at Heidelberg was the appropriate venue to hear and determine the

OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and therefore for Council (referring to Buloke Shire

Council acting for and on behalf of the State of Victoria) therefore are deemed to pursue

vexatiously/frivolously to insist on a venue in St Arnaud it concedes itself is not the appropriate

venue, hence the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION must be deemed to have been successful

and the matter of the prosecutor be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In my view and I submit

the Court should provide additional orders that Buloke Shire Council is restrained from

instituting further legal proceedings against the objector without first obtaining the leave of the

Court to do so. This to me has been a considerable legal harassment upon me and has also

affected my wife, who also is in ill health, and it is clear that Buloke Shire Council has persisted

to litigate in an unreasonable manner that I view the court must protect in particularly also the

elderly to be subjected to. As Alison J may by her own writings clearly implies the St Arnaud

venue is not the appropriate venue then its persistence to nevertheless have the matters heard at

the St Arnaud venue must be condemned and deplored and failing it having acted reasonably and

appropriately Buloke Shire Council and its legal representatives must be restrained.

While it may not affect the above stated, I did attend to a doctor on 19 August 2015 who issued a

certificate regarding 20 August 2015, and on that day (20 August 2015) various test were done

upon me. Due to my ill health part of the tests had to be redone 2 weeks later, as my ill health

had affected certain test results.

I make it clear that I object to the 17 September 2015 hearing to proceed, and any

appearance by me, if I were to attend, as I am still in ill health, would be without conceding

jurisdiction and neither to accept the alleged adjournment was legally appropriate.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)



20150905 -schorel-hlavka o.w.b. to magistrates court of victoria at st arnaud cc es&a...

Documents