090308 v2 2007 Address to the Court Tribunal g54449 00 Part 1

8/14/2019 090308 v2 2007 Address to the Court Tribunal g54449 00 Part 1

1/24

p1 8-3-2009 Hearing date 16-3-2009 (Part 1)INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax

0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail [email protected] See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

WITHOUT PREJUDICEVCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal 8-3-200955 King Street, Melbourne

5Cc; * Mr & Mrs Colosimo, 72 Shuter Avenue, Greendale, Vic 3341 [email protected]

* Maddocks (for Moorabool Shire Council) (Ref MYM:KJM:5285015Email [email protected]

. * Ms Preuss* Harbison J C/o [email protected]* Mr Brendan Hoysted [email protected]

OPA Duty Officer at VCAT Guardianship List, 5th

Floor 436 Lonsdale Street,

Melbourne, Vic, 3000, Ph; 9603 9500 1800 136 829 Fax 9603 9501 email* Mr. Peter Sier, Senior Personal Financial Consultant, State Trustees

[email protected]* Moorabool Shire Council Councillors [email protected]

Ref;V2-2007-G54449/00 hearing 16-3-2009 ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL Part 1.20Sir/Madam,

I have been requested to assist Mr and Mrs Colosimo in their horrific dealingswith Moorabool Shire Council accumulating in to numerous proceedings before VCAT, which

I did so in proceedings on 27-1-2009 and now for the scheduled 16-3-2009 hearing..25I am not a lawyer but I am a CONSTITUTIONLIST and I have assisted as an Attorney overthe decades in numerous cases and am Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI serieson certain constitutional and other legal issues.Reading the material provided to me by Mr Francis James Colosimo it is clear that the lawyersfor Moorabool Shire Council in their request for CONTEMPT proceedings made clear that30VCATs integrity must be upheld. This is precisely what this appeal will be about regardingthe decision to issue orders regarding guardianship..Below is the ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL (Part 1) for the 16-3-2009 scheduledhearing35

N THE VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT MELBOURNE

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LISTProceedings No. V2/200740

BETWEENMOORABOOL SHIRE COUNCIL

ApplicantAnd

FRANCES JAMES COLOSIMO45


2/24




Respondent

ADDRESS TO THE COURT/VCAT (Part 1)This document is presented on behalf of Mr Francis James Colosimo in two parts.5.In this document where the Respondent refers to Defendant (being it quotations orotherwise) it means Respondent unless the material itself does not justify this interpretationand/or the material quoted does not indicate such in intention. Because some proceedings wereapparently held in the County Court of Victoria this document refers to Court/Tribunal so that10whatever location a hearing took place should not be an issue..This ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL also relies upon the ADDRESS TO THECOURT-TRIBUNAL and supplements that were filed in the G54449-00 proceedings forGUARDIANSHIP LIST. This will avoid duplicating the same material for these proceedings.15.The first issue is what on earth is holding these proceedings? Is it the County Court of Victoria orthe Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal? After all, this is very important to any party in

proceedings to know if the judge is sitting as a judge of a court or is in fact sitting in personadesignate, as a Member of VCAT not as a judicial officer therefore of the County Court of20Victoria.Below I will refer to correspondence that extensively deals with this issue also of which copieswere forwarded to all parties, including VCAT and others..The issue before the COURT-TRIBUNAL for 16 March 2009 upon adjournment of a finding of25CONTEMPT of Mr Francis James Colosimo was to sentence him to a term of imprisonment,as was demanded by Moorabool Shire Council and its legal representatives MaddocksLawyers. No appeal seems to have eventuated of this finding ofCONTEMPT. Ordinary, whereno appeal is in train or has been successful then the COURT-TRIBUNAL can proceed with

exercising its powers to execute the sentence upon the contemnor Mr Francis James Colosimo.30It is here that Mr Francis James Colosimo has engaged Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka as to assisthim in these proceedings and as a consultant as well as being a CONSTITUTIONALIST as toseek to convince this COURT-TRIBUNAL that irrespective that no appeal was files somehowthis COURT-TRIBUNAL has no jurisdiction whatsoever as to proceed with executing thesentence to be pronounced upon Mr Francis James Colosimo, in fact it is argued that the entire35case was the product of a conspiracy to pervert the course of JUSTICE as to deliberately abuseand misuse the legal processes as to manipulate the courts legal processes to inflict untold harmupon Mr Francis James Colosimo..Ordinary there is a course open to a party to proceedings to pursue a writs from a court of law, in40

this case the Supreme Court of Victoria as to prevent a COURT-tribunal NOT TO PROCEEDWITH A CASE. This course has however not been followed by Mr Francis James Colosimo..Instead he has adapted the position that as not a single orders of VCAT and that includes thefinding of CONTEMPT by Harbison J has any constitutional validity then there is no need toappeal or seek any orders as they are all ULTRA VIRES and so NULL AND VOID meaning45without legal force. This kind of approach is a very unusual indeed but what the COURT-TRIBUUNAL has to consider is that on 27 January 2009 there was a ruling by VCAT MemberMs Preuss, upon the submission ofMr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka that Maddocks Lawyers had nolegal standing to be present at the hearing neither for their client Moorabool Shire Council orfor themselves, and subsequently a finding resulted by Ms Preuss that indeed they did not have a50LEGAL STANDING and were ordered to leave the hearing forthwith. This despite that


3/24




Maddocks Lawyers sought to argue that they did have a LEGAL STANDING. More over, sincethe hearing Maddocks Lawyers by way of 24 February 2009 have indicated to the Registrar ofVCAT that Moorabool Shire Council has instructed them to withdraw this proceeding.On face value it appears that this very much supports the submission that Moorabool ShireCouncil and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers have no LEGAL STANDING.5.As at this stage the proceedings are for sentencing only and as such the involvement ofMoorabool Shire Council and so its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers are not relevant to thesentencing other that they pursued that because Mr Francis James Colosimo disregarded the 30May 2007 orders of VCAT Member Philip Martin he should be given a term of imprisonment10both as a appropriate punishment as well as a deterrent to others.The obvious question is that if Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyersnot only were found by VCAT Member Ms Preuss not to have a LEGAL STANDING butthemselves appear to imply by seeking leave to withdraw not to have a LEGAL STANDINGthen when did this come about? No known appeal was filed by Moorabool Shire Council and/or15Maddocks Lawyers as to having been wrongly ordered to leave the proceedings before MsPreuss and as such it can be taken that the decision was uncontested since and therefore impliedwas accepted to have been appropriate in the circumstances. Surely, it is very odd indeed that a

party so successfully having litigated against Mr Francis James Colosimo and having obtaineda finding ofCONTEMPT then so suddenly seeks to withdraw.20.The material produced by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka sets out in far greater details thenMoorabool Shire Council and indeed its legal advisors Maddocks Lawyers ever did whattranspired and he also filed a CHRONOLOGY to reflect this. From this it is apparent that thecase that was placed before VCAT by way of 22 January 2007 application failed totally to set out25all relevant circumstances. It was never filed as required and more over a later 28 May 2007Affidavit of Coral Lynnette Young completely omitted the relevant details that would haveshown that indeed there was never any LEGAL STANDING to institute proceedings in VCAT.If indeed there was no LEGAL STANDING in the first place to institute proceedings but

somehow this was omitted by VCAT to be considered despite the known protest of Mr Francis30James Colosimo then obviously all and any orders would have been ULTRA VIRES, and thatincludes any purported finding of CONTEMPT and as such no sentencing can proceed as thereis nothing to be sentenced about. It should however be of considerable concern for any COURT-TRIBIUNAL that as Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka has sought to set out in considerable details thelitigation was a conspiracy to pervert the course of JUSTICE to deliberately inflict uncalled35harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo. It is ordinary extremely difficult for a party to tryingto prove that a conspiracy occurred and where then Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka at this late periodof litigation comes in without even having all files details, not having been present at any of thehearing during 2007 and 32008 to then assert that such conspiracy nevertheless must be deemedto have occurred involving also Maddocks Lawyers is an extra ordinary way to proceed with a40

case, this as he would have to establish there is sufficient basis to indeed question the conduct ofthose involved having conspired against Mr Francis James Colosimo.It is however clear that at no time did either Moorabool Shire Council witnesses and/orMaddocks Lawyers disclose to this COURT-TRIBUNAL various relevant details that werecritical to the case. More over, as Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka has extensively detailed the finding45ofCONTEMPT was FRAUDULENTLY obtained.If this is so then any COURT-TRIBUNAL can set aside a judgment that was obtained byFRUADULENT means and no appeal for this is required. As such, if it can be shown that thefinding ofCONTEMPT was the product of FRAUD then that is the end of the conviction as itcannot stand. Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka for this has set out detailed how the 90-days applies and50in fact showed that by appropriate calculations the 900-days did not expire until midnight 28


4/24




August 2007, where as the report that was relied upon to make a finding of CONTEMPT wasactually produced during 28 August 2007, as such while the 90-days were still in progress and assuch without the report it must be clear that no finding ofCONTEMPT could have been proven.It is immaterial for all purposes if Mr Francis James Colosimo did or didnt intent to completethe works ordered to be done by midnight of 28 August 2007, as the issue was he was provided5with 90-days and entitled to the full extend of the 90-days and clearly this was denied.There is no such thing as partly complying or not, as either there were 90-days provided or not.On the basis of the calculations, and which has so far not been disputed by Moorabool ShireCouncil and/or its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers the report was made on the 89th day and so notrelevant. Hence, the finding of CONTEMPT for this cannot stand and therefore must be deemed10to have been fraudulently obtained and is a nullity.In particular where Maddocks Lawyers have charges involving three lawyers as well as counseland also Moorabool Shire Council being involved then there can be absolutely no excuse thatnone of them even seemed to bother to ensure the 90-days as ordered were actually passed beforea report was compiled for the court. It is a very serious matter to have an innocent person held to15be guilty of CONTEMPT in particular where a term of IMPRISONMENT is so vigorouslypursued as a manner of punishment. It is safe to say that without Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka MrFrancis James Colosimo would forever of the day have the stain of a conviction against his

name and worse could have ended up in imprisonment and as it appears have his property soldfrom underneath of him to pay for the cost ordered from time to time against him.20.Despite that Mr Brendan Hoysted of the Office of the Public Advocate was assisting MrFrancis James Colosimo somehow this did not at all result to the exposure of a wrongfulconviction. This also should be of grave concerns. Here we have Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, aperson without formal legal education somehow is managing to expose the real legal issues that25has been left untouched by all lawyers involved. Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is a consultant withthe registered business MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL and while he does not intent tocharge Mr Francis James Colosimo, he holds that it would be appropriate that MooraboolShire Council and Maddocks Lawyers will provide a substantial payment to MAY JUSTICE

ALWAYS PREVAIL for the considerable time and effort he has put into this case. Where the30records show that Maddocks Lawyers charged in excess of $11,000 just for the work they didup and including the 28 May 2007 hearing and yet were unable to produce the kind of set out ofall relevant details as Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka produced then obviously cost for his serviceshould be made payable to MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL and such must be (withoutGST) calculated into the payment.35.The issue of sentencing clearly has been disposed off in that where the finding of CONTEMPTwas the product of fraud then no sentence can be issued. No COURT-TRIBINAL can proceedwith sentencing ignoring the legal reality which has now been presented to it.The question that now eventuate is however that Moorabool Shire Council has instructed40

Maddocks Lawyers to withdraw this proceeding and Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka for MrFrancis James Colosimo has stated that it would be inappropriate for this COURT-TRIBUNALto allow for this. Obviously, ifMoorabool Shire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers in the firstplace had no LEGAL POSTION to litigate then they cannot somehow seek to achieverecognition by having been permitted to withdraw as to imply they had a LEGAL POSITION.45There is another problem also and that is that to allow them to get out of the litigation and theyseek without orders for cost, it would leave Mr Francis James Colosimo in a position that hehas still orders for cost against him, he still has other findings against him and what stopsMoorabool Shire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers (the beneficiary of the cost they claimed)then later to re-institute proceedings and claim that they had after all a LEGAL STANDING as it50was implied by the leave granted to withdraw.


5/24




.Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavkas position for Mr Francis James Colosimo is that nothing caneventuate unless and until each and every decision against Mr Francis James Colosimo havebeen vacated as having been without jurisdiction and so ULTRA VIRES. More over that thiskind of conduct against a ratepayer must be stopped and that Maddocks Lawyers being heavily5involved with councils may have a modus operandi in this regard and should have the full weightof the law against it, and so Moorabool Shire Council as if the perpetrators of such criminalactivities are not duly and appropriate punished and made a deterrent for others then they willterrorise others ratepayers if not again Mr Francis James Colosimo. Indeed that it is warrantedthat a restraining order be put in place, in where the circumstances indicate this was a form of10STALKING perpetrated upon Mr Francis James Colosimo in specifically by Coral LynnetteYoung and in general with the assistance of Moorabool Shire Council and also its solicitorsMaddocks Lawyers..When a person has suffered to such extend as Mr Francis James Colosimo did, and not to15forget the affect it all had upon his wife Mary and the possibility of her husband beingimprisoned and her house sold underneath of her, then the COURT-TRIBUNAL is bound tomake such orders that will protect an innocent party. In this case it is clear from the material so

voluminous produced by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka setting it all out that neiother MooraboolShire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers did anything at all to seek to stop this torment upon20Mr and Mrs Colosimo, and this despite the request by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to do so.What appears to be that so to say their only interest was to try to get out of the entire legal messwithout cost. Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka however has exposed their lack of remorse about theundue harm they inflicted both upon Mr Francis James Colosimo and his wife Mary and theirsheer ignorance and refusal to cooperate with him to see to appropriately resolve matters. It is25therefore abundantly clear that in such circumstances there is every likelihood that this kind itTERRORISM upon Mr Francis James Colosimo and his wife Mary is to continue or toreoccur again as such it is appropriate to issue orders which will put a stop to this kind ofconduct.

.30While Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka in his own writings does indicate that some of the errors thatwere made may have been reasonable considered to have been accidentally made, nevertheless inthe overall it is clear that the conduct was a deliberate ploy to cause undue harm upon MrFrancis James Colosimo and that the lawyers involved of Maddocks Lawyers either knew orshould have known that they were concealing relevant details from VCAT and that therefore they35must be deemed to have conspired to pervert the course of JUSTICE..No conspiracy can be deemed to exist where a person acts upon his or her own accord withoutany other person being involved. As such, the conduct of Coral Lynnette Young, regardlesshow many errors she may have made in themselves cannot be regarded as a conspiracy to pervert40

the course of JUSTICE, albeit she could have attempted to pervert the course of JUSTICE butthat is not a conspiracyIt is not claimed by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka for Mr Francis James Colosimo that those whomade reports were part of a conspiracy with Coral Lynnette Young as from all that is availableno such evidence can be ascertained. As such the conspiracy issues arises from where Coral45Lynnette Young and the solicitors were preparing the case for VCAT in the manner they didand the subsequent Affidavit and other matters that may have taken place during the course ofthe proceeding, that from all this there is an implied conspiracy. For this it is submitted that itwould have been unreasonable to accept that Coral Lynnette Young and the 3 lawyers involvedas well as counsel appearing would not somehow have been aware that the concealment of50relevant details were not critical to their case.


6/24




.The issue therefore is to ascertain if all relevant details had been produced if then there was aLEGAL STANDING. From what has been provided by the considerable amount ofcorrespondence produced by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka it is clear that considering the properapplication of the Infringement Act 2006 there was no jurisdiction for VCAT to deal with any5enforcement order in regard of a PENALTY INFRINGMENT NOTICE and that MaddocksLawyers as being lawyers engaged by other councils knew or should have known this. As such,it can be established that on basis of the Infringement Act 2006 no justification existed toinstitute proceedings in VCAT. If a firm of lawyers fail to be aware of this even so being paid fortheir legal advise then they should perhaps find some other form of income but not one where10they ignore relevant provisions..The point also has been made by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka that the PENALTYINFRINGMENT NOTICE was issued without legal justification and he has set this out in detailsin his correspondences about the 30-day clearance of the Building Notice and the subsequent re-15issue of the building Notice on 25 October 2006 and finally the cancellation within Section 116of the Act which amount to a recognition of compliance with the Building Act and the BuildingRegulations and as such the Penalty Infringement Notice could not be legally justified.

As such, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka for Mr Francis James Colosimo argued that on 17 January2007 by the latest it was recognised by and on behalf of Moorabool Shire Council that Mr20Francis James Colosimo was not at all in breach of any laws and/or regulations. The fact thatthen on 22 January 2007 the Application for enforcement orders was nevertheless filed mayunderline this had nothing to do with some errors but a persistent TERRORISM upon MrFrancis James Colosimo by Coral Lynnette Young and she deployed every avenue to whatappears to be maliciously get back upon Mr Francis James Colosimo for what was set out his25refusal to allow her to enter his FEE SIMPLE property, even when she demanded this withpolice attendance. It must be stated that while Coral Lynnette Young did have police attendingto seek to force her way onto the property there was no warrant applied to enter the property or ifit had been it clearly had not been granted. More over, Mr Francis James Colosimo claims that

certain photographs that were reproduced in the 28 May 2007 Affidavit of Coral Lynnette30Young and claimed to have been made by herself besides being inadmissible in Court were theproduct of trespassing.In the overall setting it appears therefore that Coral Lynnette Young having confronted MrFrancis James Colosimo and trying to bully him into allowing her to enter his property andfaced being refused this despite her even engaging a police officer for this must be deemed to35have displayed a very unhealthy interest into Mr Francis James Colosimo in particular whereshe could have applied for a warrant to gain access, if that had been granted, and so no need tocreate an escalation of conflict between her and Mr Francis James Colosimo . It is thereforereasonable to conclude that Coral Lynnette Young, and also considering numerous othermatters set out in the material of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka abused and misused her position to40

inflict maximum harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo. It can also be concluded thatMaddocks Lawyers knew or should have known from the files that any litigation to be institutedin VCAT would be inappropriate at the very least and an abuse of its legal processes. When it isthen considered that since the ruling of Deputy President Helen Gibson of 14 March 2007 therewas a period of more then 2-months to produce an affidavit and yet they did not file this affidavit45until the day of the hearing on 28 May 2007 well knowing that Mr Francis James Colosimo asan unrepresented Respondent would have no ability to digest this kind of thick affidavit then itunderlines that Maddocks Lawyers were not at all interested to provide Mr Francis JamesColosimo a reasonable opportunity to prepare his case against the Affidavit and so to deny him aFAIR and PROPER trial.50.


7/24




Often when a COURT-TRIBUNAL is faced with different versions about some event then it isbound to consider the credibility of each witness before it, or so the parties concerned and theirlegal representatives..From what Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka has set out in great detail it is clear that there was5deceptive conduct by Coral Lynnette Young and the solicitors Maddocks Laywers where asthere was no evidence of Mr Francis James Colosimo using such conduct. Indeed in the recordshe produced he seems to state everything in a very open and honest manner. We therefore haveto consider if the version of Mr Francis James Colosimo that he was given the understandingby law professor Errol Higgins was correct that Kate Morris of Maddocks Lawyers had10advised the 28 May 2007 hearing was adjourned or the version ofMaddocks Lawyers. actuallythey never disputed this account of Mr Francis James Colosimo and as such the COURT-TRIBUNAL can only go by the version of Mr Francis James Colosimo that he was given theunderstanding that the 28 May 2007 hearing was adjourned and as such he was entitled to relyupon this. The question then arises if the phone calls of Kate Morris to Mr Francis James15Colosimo had any value as to seek him to attend to the hearing on 28 May 2007. Because ofwhat was seen as a deceptive conduct against Mr Francis James Colosimo it is reasonable toaccept that he could not rely upon whatever fell of the lips of Kate Morris. More over, where

Mr Francis James Colosimo was given the understanding that the hearing was adjourned andhe made alternative arrangement for the day then no disrespect was shown by him to refuse20subsequently to attend as he was entitled to proceed with what he had arranged and no COURT-TRIBUINAL could expect a person who had made certain decisions in good fait and also was aconsiderable distance residing from Melbourne somehow could then turn up at court and beprepared for litigation for which he had absolutely no skill and more over would be faced with abulky affidavit ofCoral Lynnette Young for which there would be absolutely no time for him to25respond..VCAT may not have all formal procedures applied (as otherwise applicable in a court of law)butit cannot expect an untrained person in law- to suddenly turn up at proceedings and exhausted

from travelling and then face highly educated opponents who had all the time in the world as to30prepare the case and for some reason left the Affidavit to the last minute to file as what appears atactic to prevent Mr Francis James Colosimo to perhaps detect any inconsistencies and orinadmissible evidence. It doesnt matter if it is a COURT OF LAW or a TRIBUNAL such asVCAT the essential requirement always exist that there must be FAIR and PROPERproceedings. Even if Mr Francis James Colosimo had been attending at the hearing at35commencement of the hearing it is reasonable to assume that as an unlettered person in legalmatters he could not have appropriately considered what was filed in the TRIBUNAL by CoralLynnette Young in the bulky affidavit let alone it could be expected that somehow he carrieswith him portable typewriter and printer as to be able to turn out an Affidavit, that also needs tobe sworn, in mere minutes.40

Lawyers are OFFICERS OF THE COURT and must not abuse and misuse these privileges byseeking to so to say bulldoze an unrepresented respondent/party.The lawyers involved should be deemed to have had ample of knowledge about the kind of partythey were dealing with as they had received ample of written communication from him and assuch would or should have been aware that he was not running around with a mobile office45where he could park it outside the Court to produce whatever formal response was required.As such, it is clear that Maddocks Lawyers must be perceived as having engineered to deny MrFrancis James Colosimo a FAIR and PROPER trial by delaying the filing of the Affidavit untilthe hearing actually commenced.From the circumstances prevailing it was not relevant if Mr Francis James Colosimo was50present or not as he was set up to be denied a FAIR and PROPER hearing in the first place.


8/24




.The COURTS-TRIBUNAL must be cautious that lawyers are not using the courts as theirpersonal playing field to use legal thuggery in a highly inappropriate manner to achieve orders infavour of their clients. In this case it can not be said that Maddocks Lawyers provide MrFrancis James Colosimo a reasonable opportunity to respond to the affidavit of Coral Lynnette5Young as it appears he was never served with a copy thereof. It may be argued that MaddocksLawyers did forward by way of 24 May 2009 correspondence a copy of the affidavit well anDRAFT COPY, AS IT WAS NOT SWORN. Again, considering that Mr Francis JamesColosimo resides a long distance from Melbourne, where the lawyers are having their lawoffices, then by the time the mail may have arrived it would have been likely 28 May 2007, the10day of the hearing. Now was Mr Francis James Colosimo supposed to wait at home for thedocument while at the same time being all the way in Melbourne to attend the hearing?Surely this is a total unacceptable situation. More over, the document purporting an unswornaffidavit had no legal value as it was not sworn and there was obviously no evidence for MrFrancis James Colosimo that an identical copy was filed in VCAT. As it turns out it has not15been on 24 May 2007 as not until 28 May 2007 an Affidavit was filed of Coral Lynnette Youngof which Mr Francis James Colosimo to this day still is not aware as to the precise version ifwhat was ultimately filed. What was provided to Mr Francis James Colosimo for all he knows

may not have been filed as such but a total different document with a complete different versionof events may have been filed. Now it is a bit rich to expect Mr Francis James Colosimo to rely20upon whatever opponents seek to let him know where already their conduct is in question.Mr Francis James Colosimo was clearly entitled to ignore whatever Kate Morris was claimingon 28 May 2007 and more over his presence would have not made one of iota difference in thathe simply would not have been in any position to make the long distance travelling and thenfaced with some version of a bulky affidavit without being able to respond in an appropriate25manner..While it is recognised that VCAT should deal with matters with as little formality as possible thisdoesnt mean then that it is game time for lawyers to abuse and misused its processes. Lawyers

should be well aware that the little as possible formality is to try to make is more appropriate for30unrepresented parties to pursue their case. As OFFICERS OF THE COURT they have anobligation to ensure that their conduct is beyond reproach and not to unduly deny anunrepresented party of a FAIR and PROPER hearing. Lawyers have the general advantage thatthey are accustomed with legal technicalities and legislative provisions and their unrepresentedopponent is not and as such they must assist to balance the setting and not aggravate it to undue35advantage by withholding affidavit material to the last minute. As such, for all purposes the 28May 2007 proceedings must be deemed to have been in the circumstances existing conducted EXParte. Obviously this also then questions the conduct of a finding for an ENFORCEMENTORDER regarding a SECOND DWELLING under clause 35.03-01 which never appeared onany documentations formally issued upon Mr Francis James Colosimo. As such. there was no40

enforcement of anything because there was a non-existing PENALTY INFRINGMENTNOTICE being enforced. Again, besides the fact that a Magistrates Court and not VCAT by theprovisions of the Infringement Act 2006 could only adjudicate upon these matters it still leavesthe issue that even if VCAT had been provided jurisdiction by the Act it still would have been inno position as to issue an ENFORCEMENT ORDER in regard of something that never in the45first place existed. The very term of ENFORCEMENT ORDER means it has to ENFORCEsomething that already existed and not something that never existed at all.How on earth can anyone defend himself against a non-existing notice?And more over, the SECOND DWELLING finding resulted to a LEGAL FRUSTRATIONin that it was sheer impossible for Mr Francis James Colosimo to remove a non existing50SECOND DWELLING.


9/24




As such no finding of contempt could in that regard either be found proven because one cannotcomply to an order that relates to a non existing building.It might be that VCAT Member Philip Martin may desired to have circumvented the legaltechnicalities of the OUTBUILDING having been found lawfully erected then by referring itto a DWELLING it could be claimed to be unlawful, but this is not how any COURT-5TRIBUNAL should operate. It was not for the tribunal member to try to make something thatwas lawfully erected to become unlawful by a mere change of title of building.The Tribunal was to adjudicate if an ENFORCEMENT ORDER should be issued and not to tryto bring within its scope something by classifying it differently where already Moorabool ShireCouncil by the 7 and 17 January 2007 dated cancellation notice within Section 116 of the Act10had implied accepted it was lawfully erected..There was also a clear LEGAL FRUSTRATION for there being a 30 May 2007 order toremove a SECOND DWELLING which in reality didnt exist. Clearly an OUTBUILDING isnot a DWELLING and as such having to remove a non-existing building is a bit ridiculous. Yet15strangely enough Harbison J found a prove CONTEMPT even so there was no such buildingexisting nor was any charge made against Mr Francis James Colosimo to be enforced about aSECOND DWELLING.

.EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DONT!20Therefore when any government/parliament seeks to exercise constitutional powers then a citizenhas the right to challenge this. Deputy President Helen Gibson therefore has no position todeny Mr Francis James Colosimo of this rights as she did on 9 March 2007. For that the HighCourt of Australia is also on record that not even every Court of Record has enforcement powers.Therefore, where VCAT is not a Court invested with Federal jurisdiction then all Deputy25President Helen Gibson could have done was to direct the prosecutor to go and get if they can aruling by a court invested with federal jurisdiction that VCAT could invoke jurisdiction. It is notthe respondent/defendant who needs to prove jurisdiction rather unless and until the prosecutordoes so there is no jurisdiction and hence all and any orders purportedly issued are a nullity and

of no legal force. What the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the Constitution was that30every citizen was entitled to DUE PROCESS OF LAW which included a JUDICIALDETERMINATION upon being heard.Clearly the kind of STAR CHAMBER COURT hearing by VCAT is not a Court of law..Why on earth Harbison found COMTEMPT to have been proven when the very report relied35upon was failing to provide for the 90-days also is a question that requires to be canvassed..Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court)

"A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the burden ofendeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by their own40

advocacy".Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335

The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and theinalienable right of everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.45

.In particular where there is an unrepresented defendant then the Court must act cautious, yetinstead it appears Harbison took for granted whatever the lawyers were putting before her. Thisthen must be considered that Harbison J being a judge of the County Court of Victoria actuallywas not at all acting as a judge of the County Court of Victoria but rather as an ordinary Member50


10/24




of VCAT not exercising her judicial position but nevertheless did so in the courtroom of theCounty Court of Victoria as persona designate for the government.For an unrepresented person it can be very intimidating to appear in a court room before a judgenot at all being aware that the person actually is not acting as s judge of the County Court ofVictoria but merely acting within the powers of persona designate for the government as a5member for VCAT. This is a deceptive conduct that never should be tolerated and the question isthen how many people were imprisoned in such a manner thinking they were orders toimprisonment by a judge of the County Court of Victoria who actually was at that time not actingas a judge of the County Court of Victoria at all.After all, where an enforcement order in regard of a PENALTY INFRINGEMENT NOTICE by10the Infringement Act 2006 only can be litigated in the magistrates Court then it would be totallyabsurd to argue that somehow a judge of the County Court of Victoria can circumvent legalprovisions in that regard and make an unlawfully issued enforcement order by this lawful.Indeed, it is a danger to the position of what is to be a impartial judge of the County Court ofVictoria to sit with powers of persona designate for the government at VCAT. More over, as the15High Court of Australia clearly indicated that not even all Court or Records have powers toenforce their own orders it would be absurd to hold that VCAT, not even being a court, somehowcould enforce its own orders, no matter how invalid they were issued by merely using a judge of

the County Court of Victoria to enforce it by a term of imprisonment.It should be clear that there is a conflict of interest for a purported impartial judge to double as a20Member for VCAT using persona designate to act for the government.It is deceptive to unsuspected defendants!.While Moorabool Shire Council and so its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers desire to withdrawthis proceedings the truth is that the COURT-TRIBUNAL has no legal position to provide for25this. Basically where the request to withdraw was made without having WITHOUTPREJUDICE it therefore has placed itself IN LIMBO (SUSPENDED).VCAT Member Ms Preuss on 27 January 2009 held, upon the submission of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, that indeed Moorabool Shire Council and also Maddocks Lawyers had no legal

position in the proceedings and were ordered to leave. This even so previously orders were30obtained under Administration to enforce VCATs orders of cost, etc. As such where no appealwas filed against the 27 January 2009 decision then this was clearly accepted by MooraboolShire Council as well as by its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers to be a correct decision. Moreover, the facts that after a avalanche of correspondence by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka exposingnumerous matters that were done incorrectly, etc, Moorabool Shire Council instructed35Maddocks Lawyers to seek leave to withdraw this proceeding..Upon submission of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka ordered that all files be provided to Mr G. H.Schorel-Hlavka, albeit they still have not! Now, even in regard of the 16 March 2009 hearingMs Preuss directed that this hearing cannot proceed. What however is noticeable is that unless40

the files are provided to Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka he still cannot conclude the extend of abuseand misuse of legal processes by whomever was involved and as such no judge or member couldpossible deal with the request for leave to withdraw as it might be that certain matters requiretheir attendances. As Moorabool Shire Council and so their solicitors Maddocks Lawyers arebasically on non-active they cannot participate in further litigation but can neither be free from it.45They simply have to stick it out whatever is coming to them pending when the investigation byMr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is completed. After all, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is so far the onlyperson who despite of not being a Legal practitioner still was the one who exposed all the rot. Assuch, while they are not released from the rot they created they can so to say still face the music.Again, as long as the files have not been handed over and not sufficient time provided to work on50them to assess matters no hearing can either take place.


11/24




.Because of the compromise upon judicial integrity of judges of the County Court of Victoria toact using persona designate as members of VCAT then for this not a single judge could getinvolved in further proceedings..5Member Philip Martin and also Deputy President Helen Gibson proved that they seem to lackany proper perception/competence to hold FAIR and PROPER hearing then for this also nohearing can eventuate until this mess is sorted out.And as the OBJECTION TO JUSRIDICTION is still on foot for that part also no hearing canproceed.10.With Moorabool Shire Council having instructed Maddocks Lawyers to seek leave towithdraw, one would not expect them then to go to a Court to try to prove jurisdiction for VCATknowing darn well that the is no case to pursue. As such which ever way one takes it there is noway VCAT can hear and determine matters and neither any judge of the County Court of15Victoria as there is a so to say CHECK MATE position for Moorabool Shire Council,Maddocks Lawyers, VCAT and the judges of the County Court of Victoria..As Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka made known in his correspondences he needs all files, also of

Moorabool Shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers as there is no privileges attached to them ofclient-lawyers because that went out of the wind when they conspired to pervert the course of20JUSTICE. It would therefore be appropriate that no proceedings are held and no orders are madeuntil at the very least Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is able to present a full report to VCAT orothers as to his findings in regard of the cases before VCAT regarding Mr Francis JamesColosimo. Both constitutionally and otherwise legally applicable..25It obviously may be a thorn in the eyes of lawyers that a non-lawyer had them kicked out of ahearing and then takes control over an investigation that contains details that otherwise isprivileged information but then again they did it onto themselves. And, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is bound to discover if items might be missing of the files and if so this would indicate

that there is further conduct to pervert the course of JUSTICE.30It should not be overlooked that Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is the only person who canappropriately expose the wrongdoings and as such it should be accepted that he should withouthindrance and obstruction continue to do so, before any other action is contemplated..The following list of documents relied upon also either were documents stating matters or are35copies of emails forwarded, albeit the list may not include al documents and as such must not beperceived and neither is intended to be the entire list of documentation for consideration with theADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL

090120-04-Constitutional-Frank-VCAT40

090120-06-Constitutional-Frank-VCAT090120-G54449-00-APPEAL090121-06-Constitutional-Frank-MADDOCKS090121-G54449-00-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL090122-03-Constitutional-Frank-Maddocs45090122-G54449-00-SUPPLEMENT to ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL090123-03-Constitutional-Frank-MADDOCKS090123-08-Constitutional-Frank-VCAT090123-09-Constitutional-Frank-VCAT090123-13-Constitutional-Frank-COMPLAINT50090123-14-Constitutional-Frank-MADDOCKS


12/24




090123-16-Constitutional-Frank-Maddocks090123-17-Constitutional-Frank-VCAT090123-G54449-00-2nd SUPPLEMENT to ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL090123-G54449-00-VCAT COMPLAINT090126-01-Constitutional-Frank-MADDOCKS5090126-01-Constitutional-Frank-VCAT090126-G54449-00-CHRONOLOGY & PRESENTATION090126-G54449-00-Re Francis J Colosimo090127-01 -Constitutional-Frank-VCAT090127-G54449-00-OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION10090128-FORMAL COMPLAINT-etc-COLOSIMO ISSUE-G54449-00090129-CONTEMPT OF COURT-V2-2007 CCV090130-01-Constitutional-Frank-MADDOCKS090212-State Trustees-G54449-00-Re Francis J Colosimo090221-FORMAL COMPLAINT-etc-COLOSIMO ISSUE-G54449-0015090221-G54449-00-Formal request-REMINDER-etc090226-G54449-00-Colosimo case090228-V2-G54449-00-Maddocks Lawyers-REMINDER-etc

090301-G54449-00-Ms PREUSS-URGENT-CONFIDENTIAL090304-V2-G54449-00-Maddocks Lawyers-Response-etc20090305-G54449-00-Harbison J-Re-COLOMISO090305-G54449-00-Ms PREUSS-Re-COLOMISO090305-V2-G54449-00-Maddocks Lawyers-Further Response-etc090306-V2-G54449-00-V2-2007-VCAT REGISTRAR Jim Nelms090307-COMPLAINT TO LAW INSTITUTE-Colosimo case-VCAT v2-2007 - G544449-0025090307-V2-G54449-00-V2-2007-VCAT REGISTRAR Jim Nelms-REPLACEMENT.What is evidently clear is that considering just the content of earlier documentation, such as;

090120-G54449-00-APPEAL30090121-G54449-00-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL

Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers should have been aware thatMr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka was so to say not going to take this lying down but was going togenerate ample of documentation to show that he did mean business to pursue JUSTICE.35Despite of this no attempt was made whatsoever by Moorabool Shire Council and/orMaddocks Lawyers to as a matter of urgency and being aware that the 27 January 2009 hearingwas approaching as to try to communicate a reasonable approach. As such, the (what judgesdescribe as) paper war commenced albeit in electronic format. Even after the hearing on 27January 2009 Mr Peter Sier, State Trustees, was claiming that Mr Francis James Colosimo40

simply did fail to accept he acted in breach of legal provisions which also caused a lot of upsetwith Mr Francis James Colosimo as to the man who was supposed to assist him had this view.While it is acknowledged that Mr Peter Sier, albeit wrongly in his expressed, views was entitledto them it did indicate however that up to the time that Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka so to sayentered the scene there was simply no one who seemed to understand what was really applicable.45While Ms Preuss can but only complimented for the manner she conducted the hearing on 27January 2009 bar failing to deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, still the very coreissue the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION with which everything stood of fell was ignored.The OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then filed was not just in regard of the proceedingsbefore Ms Preuss but refers to all cases involving Mr Francis James Colosimo before VCAT-50COURT.


13/24




Quote 27-1-2009 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTIONWITHOUT PREJUDICE

VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal - Guardian List 27-1-200955 King Street, Melbourne

5Cc; * Mr & Mrs Colosimo, 72 Shuter Avenue, Greendale, Vic 3341

* Maddocks (for Moorabool Shire Council) (Ref MYM:KJM:5285015Email [email protected]

.Ref; G54449/00 hearing 27-1-2009 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION10

(Including V2/2007 & P194/2007 and other related proceedings).Sir/Madam,

I have been requested to assist Mr and Mrs Colosimo in their horrific dealingswith Moorabool Shire Council accumulating in to numerous proceedings before VCAT.15As the material I provide to this Court/Tribunal will show indeed prove that regardless if oneconsider constitutional issues or not in the end there never was any JURISDICTION for theCourt/Tribunal to hear and determine matters let alone issue orders against the unrepresented

Respondent Mr. Francis James Colosimo, as such, and relevant for these proceedings neitherto issue any ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS!20As Author and also publisher of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certainconstitutional and other legal issues I publish material, including what is presented to thisCourt/Tribunal. By this the Readers can be aware of the plight of the unrepresented RespondentMr Francis James Colosimo and the constitutional and other legal issues involved..25I am not a lawyer but I am a CONSTITUTIONLIST and I have assisted as an Attorney overthe decades in numerous cases and am Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI serieson certain constitutional and other legal issues.Reading the material provided to me by Mr Francis James Colosimo it is clear that the lawyers

for Moorabool Shire Council in their request for CONTEMPT proceedings made clear that30VCATs INTEGRITY must be upheld. This is precisely what this appeal will be aboutregarding the decision to issue orders regarding guardianship.The current PURPORTED orders by P Graves, Member of VCAT of 29 October 2008 aresubject to an appeal on 27 January 2009, albeit are deemed ULTRA VIRES and so without legalforce, as no jurisdiction existed to issue such orders.35END QUOTE 27-1-2009 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.Therefore the submission that Moorabool Shire Council and neither Maddocks Lawyers hadany legal standing was not just based upon the Guardianship List hearings on 27 January 2009but in regard of all litigation involving Mr Francis James Colosimo and this subsequent40

decision for Ms Preuss to then so to say boot out Maddocks Lawyers upon Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka submission at commencement of the hearing was clearly then on basis of the generalcase. And Maddocks Lawyers albeit protesting, so to say, like a little pig simply found beingbooted out of the hearing. Still, despite this Maddocks Lawyers made no attempt whatsoever totry to get some consensus of the minds between them and Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka as to how45to go from there. This left no alternative for Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, so to say, slowly turnthe screws on so as to get Maddocks Lawyers coming to its senses, if this was possible at all.In the end it seems to be that Moorabool Shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers arecapitulating by having applied for leave to withdraw this proceeding albeit this is not theproper conduct to go by. As set out in documentation referred to above there is no such thing as50to withdraw this proceeding rather to seek leave to withdraw from proceeding.


14/24




The proceedings themselves are in a status where a finding of CONTEMPT was made and thesentencing is now between VCAT-COURT and Mr Francis James Colosimo and not a thingMoorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers can do to stop theseproceedings. It is now up to VCAT/COURT as to decide what kind of sentence shall be imposed,albeit this relates only to the request for leave to withdraw this proceeding as otherwise as5has been set out extensively VCAT-COURT cannot proceed to execute any sentence becausethere is no validity in any of its orders..It can be very humiliating for any firm of lawyers such as Maddocks Lawyers to discover theyare beaten by a non-lawyer and left no alternative but to conduct matters through him to seek to10resolve matters appropriately but there is simply no alternative to this. And while this litigationgoes ion it may deter councils to deal with Maddocks Lawyers if this is their kind of conduct toignore seeking to settle appropriately a gross wrongdoings which could backfire upon a councilbadly..15VCAT-COURT is in a status that its jurisdiction was and has still been challenged and as such itis in no position as to make any kind of orders. It has no JURISDICTION to determine thejurisdictional issue and where Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers

were already rules not to have a LEGAL STANDING then they are in no position to instituteproceedings elsewhere in another court upon the same to seek to resolve the dilemma.20This STALEMATE is one that will obviously not go away unless and until Mr Francis JamesColosimo is having an opportunity to have his grievances settled, and so far neither MooraboolShire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers have made any attempt to seek to come to someunderstanding about these issues., this, despite of the offers to do so as shown in thecorrespondence of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to them. As Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka did make25clear he would pursue to file COMPLAINTS to the relevant Authorities and he has commencedto do so. Where then the relevant Authorities were to conclude that Mooorabool Shire Counciland/or its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers had acted inappropriately and had colluded to conspireto pervert the course of JUSTICE as to inflict untold harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo

then obviously their conduct of failing to show any remorse and indeed stubbornly refusing to30even stop the rot would go severely against them. Their conduct appears to be a wellorchestrated conduct as to ensure a conviction would eventuate where none was justified. This isa very serious matter that should not be under estimated as to its affects. After all the convictionof Mr Francis James Colosimo would for ever in the day have been a stain on his reputationand each time another Court refers to this decision in other proceedings it would continue the35harm upon him as well as would set the wrong example as other Courts may rely upon thisconviction not aware it was the product of a conspiracy to pervert the course of JUSTICE. Theconviction also could have served as leverage by councils to warn other ratepayers that theybetter obey the dictatorship of their council or face the same! This is the kind of TERRORISMthat creeps into society where those who are to represent the community are slowly using their40

powers or better to state their purported powers to create their own little DICTATORSHIP.Ordinary ratepayers have no power to fight such an onslaught upon their rights and as such MrFrancis James Colosimo has no alternative but to fight it all the way. It is terrible when anordinary man who seeks no more but to build a shed so he can store food he was handing out tothe needy as he views is appropriate to do so in his religious beliefs then is tormented to such an45extend that he was bound to be imprisoned, at least that appears to have been made clear byHarbison J when convicting him, and this for doing no more but what the Framers of theconstitution provided for and that is to stand up for your constitutional and other legal rights..Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the50National Australasian Convention)


15/24




Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every

member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a stateParliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the FederalParliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will5be a sentry.

.Well, he did and found being thwarted by VCAT notably Deputy President Helen Gibson fromonset and so also others after already Moorabool Shire Council thwarted his efforts to pursuewhat he was rightly entitled upon. And even so by the 7 and 17 January 2007 cancellation notice10within Section 116 of the Act he was deemed to be entitled to complete his shed neverthelessMoorabool Shire Council started a considerable litigation war as to try by some other means tomake the live of Mr Francis James Colosimo extremely difficult and where possible to havehim ending up in imprisonment to learn a lesson that when you cross Moorabool Shire Councilthen it is not relevant what your constitutional and/or other legal rights are as you will pay the15price for standing up against Mooorabool Shire Council no matter you have done no legalwrong..

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates ofthe National Australasian Convention)20QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individualcitizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection andsecure to him.

END QUOTE25.HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. 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, but30not 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 allhave been the work of Australians.

END QUOTE.35HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates ofthe National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its40

Constitution,END QUOTE.Again protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution and this requires aCONSTITUTIONALIST to clarify what is implied in the Constitution!45LEGAL PRACTITIONERS are ordinary trained in legal matters not in constitutional matter! Puta lawyer in a case and he will argue the same legal provisions pending which side he isrepresenting in different manner. A CONSTITUTIONALISTlike Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka isfocussed upon what the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution were and how they areembedded in the constitution. As such, not interested in that regard how it may assist any50particular party in proceedings as he is without bias.


16/24




As Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka for so long has promoted there should be an OFFICE OF THEGUARDIAN that advises the Government,. The People, the Parliament and the Courts as toconstitutional powers and limitations. This is indeed very relevant to for example how VCAToperates as it may just find that its conduct is far from constitutionally permissible. While thisunconstitutional conduct might be ignored by a government and even by VCAT members5nevertheless it doesnt make it go away.What is shown is that when a CONSTITUTIONALIST like Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka getsinvolved in a case, such as he did with Pauline Hanson having that conviction overturned whenhe published a book INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP, A book on CD aboutAustralians unduly harmed [(ISBN 0-9580569-6-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-106-0] on 30 September 2003 and the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal subsequently inNovember 2003 about word for word used the legal arguments Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka hadpublished as to overturn the convictions, then whatever seems to be lawful in convictions isshown not to have been so at all..15Here we had Harbison J sitting, so to say, in a starting position to do no more but to passentence upon Mr Francis James Colosimo and along comes Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka andupset the applecart by making clear all the rules of appeal, etc, are not applicable as it is a total

different ball game once he gets involved. It is not that Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka attempt torewrite the rule book just that he exposes that there are different rules lawyers/judges simply20were unaware off existed and so it isnt as it looked like at all..Prior to Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka after a 5-year legal battle on 19 July 2006 comprehensivelydefeating the crown on all constitutional and other legal issues he had submitted he published abook on 6 July 2006 that contained all material placed before the Court and the book itself was25filed as evidence;.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI & What is the -Australian way of life- really?

A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights

ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-330.As such there can be no question as to what was before the Court when the Crown wascomprehensively defeated and conceded to by consent the court making its orders in favour ofMr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka..35As Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka pointed out in his published book of December 2003;.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI & ADDRESS TO THE COURT

A book on CD, making litigation a more level playing fieldISBN 0-9580569-7-8 (After 1-1-2007; ISBN 978-0-9580569-7-740

.the way to go about litigation is to take lawyers on upon their own field..As DIXON CJ of the High Court of Australia made clear that if lawyers didnt keep abreastwhat is legally applicable then even an ALIEN FROM OUTER SPACE could do better.45Well Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is not some alien from outer space but entered theCommonwealth of Australia as an alien from The Netherlands and despite his crummy Englishproved to be able to defeat the crown comprehensively on all constitutional and other legalmatters.The relevance to this is that Mr Francis James Colosimo turned out to rely upon many of the50constitutional issues that successfully had been canvassed by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka in his


17/24




material and again it was all published in his book on 6-7-2006. As such, there is a DIRECT andCOLLATERAL ESTOPPEL and Moorabool Shire Council as an organ/entity of thegovernment cannot circumvent this. When all authority-Generals way back in 2002 wereprovided with an opportunity to challenge the Section 78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONALMATTERS but by 19 July 2006 none had done so then so to say it would be a little bit rich to5try to argue that where they couldnt care less then to challenge matters that somehow after afinding by the Court in favour of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka upon all matters (none excluded)they now might seek to challenge it through one of their organs because Mr Francis JamesColosimo is seen as an easy prey then the formidable CONSTITUTIONALIST being Mr G.H. Schorel-Hlavka.10.

CONSESNSUS OF THE MIND & COST

It is very clear that Mr Francis James Colosimo relies also upon his FEE SIMPLE rights andnothing so far has shown that Moorabool Shire Council is acknowledging this. As such,nothing will be achieved as to these proceedings unless some CONSENSUS OF THE MIND15can be established where Mr Francis James Colosimo can go on with his life assisting theneedy, etc, without undue interference by Moorabool Shire Council..

It may be argued that VCAT-COURT may not have any particular judicial powers to issuecertain orders and this cannot be ignored however there are always avenues to deal with this.20For example Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka as an attorney was dealing with a case where themagistrates Court limit was $40.000 where as he desired to settle all matters to the value of$300,000 and so offered to withdraw the case upon a MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDERS/AGREEMENT as an agreement between the parties that the opponent would be paid $10,000and cost and the rest would remain with the persons Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka appeared for. As25was explained to the Court by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka that technically the Court could makesuch an orders as the court did not make an order as to the $300,000 but merely that the matterwas withdrawn and the other party would be paid $10,000 and cost (about $2,500) on basis ofthe consent between the parties. As such, albeit the Court made the orders within its limits it was

based upon a settlement far beyond its limits but it was not relevant as such.30Likewise, there is nothing to prevent the parties to come to a CONSESNSUS OF THE MINDSas to settle in whatever terms and have this as the basis of any final decision.Obviously, as both Moorabool Shire Council as well as Maddocks Lawyers have so farshowed a total and blatant disregard to seek to come to a CONSENSUS OF THE MINDS toseek to settle the dispute a part 2 of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL will be35provided, that is so far about 600 pages but deals extensively with FEE SIMPLE and othermatters the very issues Mr Francis James Colosimo pursued from onset..Because there are various court decisions on record about FREE SIMPLE and in particularregarding how Queensland had legislated in that regard and now other State Courts are using it as40

a authority it is then essential that this kind of so to say spell is broken..Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is but the only person in the Commonwealth of Australia who hasbeen able to expose the total FRAUD in what is going on and the part 2 of the ADRESS TOTHE COURT-TRIBUNAL will be addressing matters. Because he is a45CONSTITUTIONALIST he obviously commences to address the CONSTITUTIONAL issuesbecause this is after all where all legislative powers derives from..Because Moorabool Shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers so far refused to act appropriatelyto seek to resolve matters by a CONSENSUS OF THE MINDS it has left no alternative but to50file the part 2 of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL albeit the part 2 document is


18/24




still being worked upon and as such must not and neither is intended to present a total picture ofall issues in dispute. Obviously, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka as such is well entitled to pursuefinancial compensation from the opponent party where the work is caused upon him by thefoolhardiness of both Moorabool Shire Council and Maddocks Lawyers to seek to achieve aCONSENSUS OF THE MIND.5As was indicated from onset there were serious problems with how Moorabool Shire Councilwith their solicitors Maddocks Lawyers commenced to litigate and one would have thought thatordinary lawyers would be quickly of the mark to advise their client they have a hopeless caseand better settle as quick as possible before cost are mounting up. Neither Moorabool ShireCouncil and Maddocks Lawyers could expect that somehow they can continue their deceptive10kind of litigation and avoid cost! Neither that Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is basically teachingthem the real rules of law and they get some free education. They are also wll aware that MrFrancis James Colosimo has no financial position to incur huge cost for Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to assist him and neither should he where after all he is wronged against and Moooraboolshire Council and Maddocks Lawyers despite getting, so to say, an eye opener from the start of15the involvement of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka nevertheless elected to so to say stick it out andperhaps that somehow it would go away and they still succeed over Mr Francis JamesColosimo and have him imprisoned and for whatever it was possible to have his property sold to

pay cost, etc..20Whenever one deals with the issue of cost then one has to consider the conduct of both parties inthe dispute. On the one hand we have Mr Francis James Colosimo who throughout thesematters conducted himself honourable and was at all times honest and frank about his intentionsand to pursue matters in a lawful manner. On the other side we have Moorabool Shire Councilthat basically TERRORISED Mr Francis James Colosimo and trespassed upon his property to25collect evidence disregarding the proper lawful course to pursue a warrant, perhaps because ofbeing aware that no magistrate in his right mind would grant a warrant for this, so they engagepolice to seek to intimidate Mr Francis James Colosimo but to no avail and so the onslaught oflitigation commences with all kinds of notices, etc and then when the litigation is before VCAT

there is no let up to deceive VCAT by concealing relevant details and not satisfied with this even30go as far as to pervert the course of JUSTICE to even cause a wrongful conviction ofCONTEMPT and leaving Mr Francis James Colosimo staring to a term of imprisonment andhave his property sold to pay the ordered cost and all Mr Francis James Colosimo has left isMr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka ofMAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL who is, so to say, to tryto save skin, reputation, etc, and this that he will not charge Mr Francis James Colosimo but35will provide a charge against his opponents for his services. The issue therefore is if theassistance of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka justifies any consideration for cost to compensate himfor his time and effort over all those months in the cases before VCAT-COURT..It should be apparent that where VCAT already accepted the submission on 27 January 2009 by40

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka that neither Moorabool Shire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyershad any LEGAL STANDING already was a turning point in the litigation.Further, that because of the relentless presentation of details by the writings of Mr G. H.Schorel-Hlavka that Moorabool Shire Council instructed its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers toseek Leave to withdraw this proceeding. As such, the turn about in the cases are because of the45assistance Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka has provided. Therefore the issue is now for MooraboolShire Council and Maddocks Lawyers to come to their senses and accept that they just have to,so to say, cough up the monies to compensate Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka for his time and effort,etc, as after all they created the utter mess in the first place..50


19/24




Just for Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavkas to attend to the 27 January 2009 hearing there was an about$25.00 parking fee alone and surely lawyers who desire to litigate must expect that if they stuff itup, plainly stated, they have to compensate for cost, as much as they demanded in theirpresentation against Mr Francis James Colosimo and obtained for this the 2

ndAugust 2007

orders from Member Philip Martin. Now, there was nothing in their cost provisions to VCAT5that they were not going to charge because they stuffed up big time. Maddocks Lawyers simplyheld it was their right to seek cost regardless how immature or otherwise defective their conductwas. At least Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka can be called as an expert witness to show why hispresentation as a CONSTITUTIONALIST is correct, and considering that he comprehensivelydefeated the Crown on 19 July 2006 he is well entitled to present his statements as he has a court10finding in his favour. It also serves as a warning to councils in general that they better do notdisregard the FEE SIMPLE rights of rate payers as so to say it might just bite them in their bum.They may just discover that it may work adversely then what they hoped to achieve.Also, Moorabool Shire Council seems to have used the Administration orders as to enforcewhat it claimed to be an about $10,000 outstanding rates and interest. Now, this also makes the15matter more difficult because it seems Moorabool Shire Council is seeking to use VCAT as away to enforce its own charges and VCAT seemingly allowed this where as in truth we are backupon constitutional issues and so Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka that he has been corresponding with

the Federal government that in fact the State of Victoria has no legislative powers to allow forinterest charges to be applied because it only had legislative powers as to State Banks, and the20State Bank of Victoria is no more. And recent announcement by the Federal Government that itis taking over all State credit matters may underline that the Federal government has realised thatMr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka as CONSTITUTIONALIST indeed exposed a grave wrongdoing.As such VCAT was in no position to allow administration orders to be used and abused forpaying alleged interest charges Moorabool Shire Council claimed.25But there is more to it. Mr Francis James Colosimo clearly stated in his material that localcouncils are unconstitutional and as such used this as a ground to refuse to pay rates. Again, thisis an issue that was canvassed in great details by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka in his books and wasbefore the court on 19 July 2006 and none of the Attorney-Generals disputed the submission that

municipal councils are not local councils within the federal context and that they are not a30constitutionally valid level of government. As such they cannot enact any so called by-lawseither..Part 2 of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL will deal with these and more mattersand it may be clear that Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks Lawyers may35never have anticipated in their wildest dreams that Mr Francis James Colosimo was, evenperhaps unbeknown upon himself, much upon the successes Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka had inthe courts against the Crown. The Framers of the Constitution made it very much known thatlawyers would try to use the Constitution as their playing field as to try to manipulate thewording as may suit them. That is why a CONSTITUTIONALIST is so different as a40

CONSTITUTIONALIST is only concerned to the organics of the Constitution regardless of hisor her personal views. While lawyers may look down upon others that they are all mightybecause they have some law degree the truth is that a law degree does not give intelligence andmany with their law degrees ended up being convicted as criminals. ACONSTITUTIONALIST is not bound by financial greed as to be acting for a client to try to45win a case, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST must at all times present matters irrespective of whoseeks the presentation about constitutional powers and limitations. Actually lawyers may be inthe worst position to try to be a CONSTITUTIONALIST because they have been generally, soto say, brainwashed during law courses and further training and by this are unable to be openminded and actually read what is written.50.


20/24




Here we had the Office of Public Advocate attending to assist Mr Francis James Colosimoand he and Legal Aid Commission neither could comprehend either what was constitutionallyapplicable. As such all the lawyers involved in the case underline that being a lawyer is the worstkind of position one may be in when trying to understand and comprehend what theconstitutional powers and limitations are about. This was underlined by the comprehensive5defeat of the Crown by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka..What would be better is if Moorabool Shire Council and its lawyers (who claimed on 27January 2009 before Ms Preuss, albeit without success, to have a personal standing in theseproceeding apart of representing Moorabool Shire Council) were to seek a CONSENSUS OF10THE MIND to try to settle matters rather then so to say dig a deeper grave for themselves. If justthey had pursued this even before the 27 January 2009 hearing eventuated they could have savethemselves having so to say being kicked out of the hearing and avoided the ever escalatingcases.Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka is bound to fight for the rights ofMr Francis James Colosimo to the15best of his ability and to present constitutional issues as an expert witness to the best of his abilityalso as to avoid Mr Francis James Colosimo to be denied JUSTICE and be shielded fromfurther harm.

. The issue of leave to withdraw this proceeding20VCAT-COURT had no powers to consent to provide any leave to withdraw this proceedingsand would only further place in question its own integrity if it were to purport to grant such aleave..As set out above extensively there are numerous issues that need to be resolved and the fact that25Maddocks Lawyers for Moorabool Shire Council pursues no cost while having already snaredcost against the innocent Mr Francis James C olosimo would indeed stretch it too far and wouldbeyond doubt the sanity of anyone who were to contemplate to grant such a leave, in thecircumstances prevailing currently. After all they cannot obtain the benefits of administration

orders to enforce rates and interest and then seek to depart without justifying the right for this. It30is nothing less then a FRAUDULENT conduct and VCAT-COURT could not participate in suchfraudulent charade. Neither Moorabool Shire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers havebothered to provide an apology to Mr Francis James Colosimo about the harm inflicted uponhim and that may just underline their mentality!.35

JUDICIAL INQUIRY

There should be a judicial inquiry into the whole affairs as to establish what, if any, criminalconduct was perpetrated and by whom, etc. Also as to the conduct of VCAT members and anyjudges and as to their conduct, etc, as referred to in this document and other documentation.40

.As the issue of standing of credibility of VCAT was raised and indeed was the issue to pursue aterm of imprisonment of Mr Francis James Colosimo then let this be a guidance to award thesame with kindness to those who turned out to do it themselves and by their conduct or otherwiseplaced in question the standing of integrity of VCAT. What is good for the Goose is good for the45Gander!.

SETTLING MATTERS.As has been ongoing made clear by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka there is a willingness to settle50and this may also then show to any court at a later time that Moorabool Shire Council and/or


21/24




Maddocks Lawyers finally did show some remorse and sought to at least stop the onslaught ofharm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo. This might be very relevant where an adverse findingis made against the conduct of Moorabool Shire Council and/or Maddocks Lawyers.It must however be understood that no settlement terms can prevent any investigation to be heldinto the alleged unlawful conduct as it is too important for the general community to5appropriately deal with such matters before the court and where appropriate inflict such apunishment as a deterrent to others contemplating likewise conduct against innocent persons..

withdraw this proceeding.10The term withdraw this proceeding in the 24 February 2009 correspondence from MaddocksLawyers to the Registrar (VCAT) could mean that Moorabool Shire Council instructed itssolicitors Maddocks Lawyers to seek leave to withdraw this proceeding in that they didntdesire the sentence upon Mr Francis James Colosimo to proceed in light of what was exposedby Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka in his correspondence. However, this turns out not to be so15because of the further statement on the basis there be no order of cost appears rather to meanthat Moorabool Shire Council seeks to withdraw from the proceedings and leave Mr FrancisJames Colosimo still subject to whatever cost and conviction and term of imprisonment is

ordered against him and they still therefore seek the benefit of orders of cost for their fraudulentconduct but desires to shield themselves against any order of cost to be issued against them.20.Neither VCAT or any court could grant such a leave that is non-sensible in its request asproceedings cannot be withdrawn by a party who has no LEGAL STANDING (as found by MsPreuss on 27 January 2009 on submission of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka) and in any event thestage of the proceedings is where Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors Maddocks25Lawyers completed their part to score the conviction against Mr Francis James Colosimo andit is now basically a criminal matter between VCAT-COURT and Mr Francis James Colosimowhat the sentence is going to be and how it will be executed. After all he needs to be taught alesson not to place in question the standing of integrity of VCAT! Well, that was what they

sought and did accomplish to score the conviction of CONTEMPT.30.Where then now Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka has extensively canvassed issues and basicallyplaced beyond a shred of doubt that the orders were all obtained without jurisdiction andMoorabool Shire Co uncil and Maddocks Lawyers both had no LEGAL STANDING thenunless and until matters have all been resolved, such as past orders for cost, etc, they will remain35to be relevant to the proceedings but will have no LEGAL STANDING unless and until anyorder is made against them or contemplated against them..The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does tofederal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-40

tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the

principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything intowhich it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."

And45The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutesthe law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be

in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.

This is succinctly stated as follows:The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in50reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates fromthe time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An


22/24




unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a

statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no

rig

Documents

090308 v2 2007 Address to the Court Tribunal g54449 00 Part 1