Page 1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5

VCAT Member Smithers J Email: vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au

Cc: Counsel for LSC, Mr Gilbert gilbert@vicbar.com.au

29-5-2013

Re: 130529- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011

10

Sir,

as you may recall I appeared as a Professional Advocate for and on behalf of Mr Harold James Johnson in the matter of the (Victorian) Legal Service Board versus Harold James Johnson. At the time I submitted that VCAT had no jurisdiction to deal with officers of the court, as 15 any lawyer admitted to the bar of a court is. . QUOTE 5. Attorneys and counselors are not officers of the United States; they are officers of the court, admitted as such by its order upon evidence of their possessing sufficient legal learning and fair private character. END QUOTE I not refer you to the matter of Ex parte Garland - 71 U.S. 333 (1866) (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/333/case.html) which statesTheir admission 25 and their exclusion are the exercise of judicial power. In my view, Mr Gilbertt ought to have presented this case before you, irrespective that this was adverse to what his client desired. . 30 Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate) QUOTE As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his 35 client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, 40 without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court. END QUOTE
45
Re: 130529-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011

20

INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS 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

Page 2

In my view, VCAT lacked from onset jurisdiction, as the Parliament lacked any legislative powers to interfere, with the powers of the Courts to determine who shall or shall not be officers of the court. Indeed, the decision by the High Court of Australia in the Kable case 5 underlines the independence of the Courts. It is therefore my view that the VCAT decision to ban Mr Harold James Johnson (as I understand it for 2 1/2 years to practice law) was without legal justification and without legal force, this as the Parliament lacked any legislative powers to remove from the Courts its legal authority as to 10 determine who shall or shall not be a officer of the court. As I submitted at the time Mr Harold James Johnson being a lawyer admitted to the High Court of Australia to practice at its bar, then could not be prevented doing so by VCAT. As I submitted at the time VCAT was not a Chapter III court (of the constitution) and therefore 15 didnt posses the judicial powers required to deal with the matter. If VCAT were presumed to gain powers merely because the Parliament legislated then next the parliament may legislate that the decision can be made by toddlers attending kindergarten and we would so to say get the same absurd result. swee also Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)
20

In my view, no appeal was required against the purported VCAT orders because they were invalid in law from onset.

In my view, Mr Gilbert (for the Victorian Legal Service Commissioner) ought to have the case returned to VCAT to have its former orders set aside for having been issued without legal 25 jurisdiction. . Where the legal Service Commissioner and so Mr Gilbert for it pursued integrity before VCAT then I expect they will show the same to have the VCAT orders set aside ex parte, without bothering Mr Harold James Johnson about this, other then that I view cost in favour of Mr 30 Harold James Johnson should be made, as I submitted at the time. VCAT and any court can even if it has no jurisdiction order cost against a party that conduct frivolous/vexatious litigation as I submitted at the time was conducted by the Legal Service Board against Mr Harold James Johnson. I may also added that in (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/353/232/case.html) in Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners - 353 U.S. 232 (1957) a board can recommend but cannot make a decision. In my view VCAT and for this any other body not being a Chapter III court of the constitution cannot make a final decision to deny a lawyer admitted as a legal practitioner to practice as an officer of the court to be denied doing so, as ultimately only a court can do so. I do 40 not accept that the State parliament can dictate to the High Court of Australia (a federal court) who shall or shall not be permitted to practice as an officer of the court.
35

45

The above is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant details/issues. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(

Our name is our motto!)

Re: 130529-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011

INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS 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