20151022-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Martin Pakula Attorney-General Re COMPLAINT & Various Other Issues

1
Mr Martin Pakula, Attorney-General

5
22-10-2015
martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au

Cc:
Mr Wayne Wall, Municipal Fire Prevention Officer buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Country fire Authority (CFA Customer Support Team) cfa-customer-support@cfa.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
10
Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au

Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Ref; 20151022-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Martin Pakula Attorney-General
Re COMPLAINT & various other issues
15
Sir,
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
As you are aware of the copies of documentation I recently provided to you being
20151020-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Wayne Wall -Municipal Fire Prevention
Officer & Country Fire Authority & 20151020-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref
LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council cc LSC-COM-2015-0873-MCV-F12748095-APPEAL15-2502-etc I have serious concerns as to how the Magistrates Court of Victoria operates.
I yesterday received an audio recording of what purported to have eventuated on 17 September
2015 before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud.
I must make it clear that due to hearing problems with even setting my laptop volume on
maximum I can only barely grasp as to what eventuated in the as I view it KANGAROO
COURT/STAR CHAMBER COURT. I perceived that a female lawyer was stating she appears
also in this matter (as such she was there for more than one case) and that she had to deal with
about 200 or so pages and she appears to refer to constitution, objection court coordinator
and she hands over something in hand writing and upon this the Judicial Registrar issue his
orders.
I refer to Judicial Registrar as the documentation that accompanied the CD refers to
Magistrate/Judicial Registrar Mr Mithen.
What appears to me is that there was no evidence whatsoever before the Judicial Registrar
as to base his orders upon. He merely went along to issue orders without any evidence.
Bowers v Smith (1953) 1 ALL ER 320 (Re Clarke Hall) and (Morrison on Children, 7 Ed, P3)
QUOTE
"... the first business of the court is to try to issue whether or not the case is bought within the terms of the
statute, and only if this be proven by proper evidence can the court proceed to decide upon treatment"
END QUOTE
SCHOREL v. SCHOREL (1982) C 66117 of 1982 Unreported Transcript 11-3-82 and 12-3-82 before Emery SJ.
(In regard of the former husbands statements from the bar table earlier during the proceedings about matters on the
lists)
QUOTE Page 115: (Emery SJ examine-in-chief Mr Schorel in the witness box)
You made or gave me some information while you were standing at the bar table just a little while
ago about the two lists of furniture that your wife produced this morning, exhibits A and B. What
you said from the bar table is true, is that right?- - - That is correct, your Honour.
Yes. Well, that makes it all evidence that you have given instead of just a statement.
END QUOTE
p1
22-10-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
It is therefore clear that anything that a person states from the bar table is not evidence. When a
person stands at the bar table the person can make submissions but cannot give evidence. If the
person at the bar table make submissions and then enter the witness box subsequently and
confirm that what was stated at the bar table was true and correct then this becomes evidence.
The female lawyer on 17 September 2015 appears to make statements from the bar table but at
no time appears to enter the witness box to be sworn in to give evidence and as such there was no
evidence by the female lawyer. Neither was there anyone else called into the witness box, that I
can gather in the about 3 minutes of recording. As such, the Judicial Registrar never had any
evidence placed before the Court as to justify making the orders as he did.
It is a well-known legal principle, at least to me, that where a court conducts a hearing ex parte
then the judicial officer must not take any evidence for granted by the party that is present but
must make reasonable questions to the witness as to establish the validity of evidence that is
given. In this matter however there clearly was no evidence whatsoever.
Despite that the female lawyer seemed to refer to constitution, objection and court
coordinator the Deputy Registrar seemed to totally disregard this.
As
I
understand
it
the
Victorian
Parliament
for
example
Assembly_Daily_Extract_Wednesday_14_September_2011_from_Book_13 refers to time
of receipt of the electronic communication where the parliament was having its attention drawn
to the fact that documents are filed in court by way of electronic systems.
As is shown the only contact email address is:

QUOTE
END QUOTE
p2
22-10-2015
10
15
20
25
3
In the circumstances it is my position that where documentation was provided to the court
coordinator then the onus was upon the court coordinator to respond and to provide either an
alternative email address that the court coordinator held was more appropriate or simply ensure
that the relevant documentation are passed on to the court registrar, this as the documents were
clearly addressed to the court.
It is not the duty nor can be expected for a party to organise the internal conduct that is there is
any, of the magistrates Court of Victoria. As at no time the court registrar responded then the
party submitting the material is entitled to accept that the material was placed on court file.
I may add that for example judges of the Family court of Australia do consider material that is in
the correspondence file, where for example a party sent a telegram not being able to attend, the
trail judge then adjourn the matters based upon the telegram received the previous Sunday
evening by the court.
Where the female lawyer did refer (at least to what I was able to gather) that there was an
objection and constitution then it is not for the Judicial Registrar to disregard this.
.
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 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, 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
.
30
35
40
45
50
Hence, the female lawyer was bound to alert the court that in my writings I had objected to the
jurisdiction of the court, and it is not for the Judicial Registrar then to disregard this part of the
female lawyers submissions but was bound to deal with this objection and to inquire as to what
was the precise nature of the objection. This he never did.
As such the Judicial Registrar took from the submissions made by the female lawyer whatever he
desired (cherry picking) and without any evidence issued orders.
No evidence was called for not presented as to justify the FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE and
in my view the terms of the FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE being in violation with the legal
provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 therefore was without legal bases. As the
Summons issued was based upon the Infringement Notice which relied upon the FIRE
PREVENTION NOTICE then clearly there never was any jurisdiction for the court in that regard
also to entertain any legal proceedings. Nor did the Court on 20 August 2015 dispose of the
objection to jurisdiction which I had at the time conveyed well before at hearing also to the
court coordinator for the court to deal with.
I received yet again a FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE, this while I received yesterday an email
from my neighbour that there is no need to bring my ride on mower along (as I contemplate to
travel to the property on 4 November 2015) because he did it just before he had his operation
(about 10 days ago) and there is no growth. As such before the 13 October 2015 FIRE
PREVENTION NOTICE was issued the neighbour already (prior to his operation) had slashed
the weed/grass with his ride on mower. Despite this the FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE
indicates that the grass needs to be cut.
As I indicated in my previous writings there is no prunings yet the FIRE PREVENTION
NOTICE refers to the removal of prunings.
The FIRE PREVENTYTUION NOTICE for example refers to the remove all combustible
material from the land whereas the Country fire Authority Act1958 also states (a)
on that
p3
22-10-2015
land, other than a building or in a building;
4
As such the FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE is in
violation to the legislative provisions.

5
Country Fire Authority Act 1958

QUOTE
41Fire prevention notices
(1) In the country area of Victoria, the fire prevention officer of a municipal council may serve a fire
prevention notice on the owner or occupier of land in the municipal district of that council (other
than a public authority) in respect of anything
10
(a) on that land, other than a building or in a building;

(b) on the adjacent half width of any private street that abuts that land
(other than a prescribed thing or class of things) that by its nature, composition, condition or
location constitutes or may constitute a danger to life or property from the threat of fire.
(2) A fire prevention notice may be served only if the fire prevention officer forms the opinion
15
(a) that it is necessary, or may become necessary, to do so to protect life or property from
the threat of fire; and
(b) that there is no procedure under any other Act or regulations made under any Act that is more
appropriate in the circumstances to address that threat.
(3) A fire prevention notice
20
(a) must be in the prescribed form;

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

END QUOTE
30
35
40
45
As I did set out in my previous correspondences, referred to abov e, Buloke Shire Council clearly
has grass/weed growing in excess of 1metres along highways where there is a real fire danger of
motor vehicles igniting the growth by passing or by pulling over into the soft should of the
highway and as such where Buloke Shire Council must be so to say a model litigant acting
within s114 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) for the State of
Victoria then its example must be permitted to be followed.
Hence, the legislation must be applied even handed to both the council itself as to any
landholder.
QUOTE
(a)
that it is necessary, or may become necessary, to do so to protect life or property from the
threat of fire; and
END QUOTE
Because landholders may all have different perceptions as to what may or may not be a fire
danger then landholders are entitled to consider what Buloke Shire Council itself demonstrates
to be permissible. If Buloke Shire Council acts itself in violation of the legislation and Wayne
Wall the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer permits this year after year, then the onus of this lies
with him!
QUOTE 20151020-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Wayne Wall -Municipal Fire Prevention Officer & Country Fire Authority
50
As you are aware in 2013 you issued a FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE and upon my arrival in
Berriwillock I (as provided to you previously as images) recorded the following:
QUOTE 20150101-Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire Council care of J Groves
p4
22-10-2015
5
When I was travelling along the Calder Highway near the Nullawil sign (see photo below) this is the height
of the weed/grass along it. It nearly touched the lower part of the sign!
Photo (below) taken on 2 October 2013 just outside Berriwillock along the Calder Highway.
The weed/grass is level to the side mirror of my motor vehicle, that high!
Clearly over a metre high weed/grass!
10
Photo (below) taken on 2 October 2013 just outside Berriwillock, along the Calder Highway.
15
Berriwillock property (below), at arrival on 2 October 2013. Weed a lot lower then along the highway!
Weed/grass is a mere about 200 mm high, a lot lower then it is at the Calder Highway!
p5
22-10-2015
6
Weed/Grass along Calder Highway in Shire of Buloke (Photo below)
5
Weed/Grass along Calder Highway in Shire of Buloke (Photo below)
10
15
20
How my property was left after slashing the weed/grass. (Photo below)
END QUOTE 20150101-Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire Council care of J Groves
As such, it is clear that the real danger to life and property is where across the road, down the
road Buloke Shire Council has the weed growing in excess of 1metre high along the Calder
Highway a major highway, where motor vehicles in fact can and do cause so called grass fires,
by pulling over into the soft shoulders not realising that their under the vehicle muffler and
further system is very hot and at times result in fires.
For this in the same correspondence I then also provided the following:
QUOTE 20150101-Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire Council care of J Groves
The 4 pictures below are of Banyule City Council, how it seems to comply with the Fire Authority Act 1958!
25
p6
22-10-2015
7
Look at the photo below how high the weed/grass is!
10
Look at the photo below how the slashed weed/grass is left as a fire danger!
What this shows is grass/weed in excess of 1 metre high and the lower picture shows that what was
slashed/cut is simply left to dry out and rot, as another fire danger.
END QUOTE 20150101-Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire Council care of J Groves
15
20
I am not aware that Buloke Shire Council actually undertook any appropriate action to deal with
these issues. As I indicated Banyule City Council also has high grass growing about and leaves
anything slash lying around as a fire danger. Neither did Buloke Shire Council accept to place
signs such as I designed (in consultation with relevant authorities) along the highway. Yet, very
much can prevent soft shoulder fires and possibly safe lives and property!!
Despite this Buloke Shire Council in 2014 issued a FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE which is
currently on appeal before the County Court of Victoria, as the proceedings were held ex parte
against my objection.
END QUOTE 20151020-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Wayne Wall -Municipal Fire Prevention Officer & Country Fire Authority
25
Despite the extreme fire conditions existing in 2013 Wayne Wall the Municipal Fire Prevention
Officer to my knowledge didnt issue any FIRE PREVENTUION NOTICE against Buloke Shire
Council and as such ordinary landholders are entitled to accept that therefore the kind of growth
and other conditions permitted for Buloke Shire Council are therefore the standards within the
meaning of the Act:
30

QUOTE
(a)
that it is necessary, or may become necessary, to do so to protect life or property from the
threat of fire; and
p7
22-10-2015
8
END QUOTE
10
15
This in particular where a residential block is far less likely to be subjected to sparks that may
come from travelling motor vehicles along the highway and certainly not having motorist
travelling along the highway pulling over for a stop . As such, I view the issue of a FIRE
PREVENTION NOTICE as persistently done by Wayne Wall against a landholder in conflict to
what he does regarding Buloke Shire Council is not incompliance with the requirements of the
Country Fire authority act 1958.
The act clearly also limits any FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE to protect from threat of fire
which cannot be deemed to exist where the notice refers to prunings that do not exist.
What we therefore have is that Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention Officer is using the
legislation as for ulterior purposes and it appears to me the legal representatives of Buloke Shire
Council go along with this to have this nevertheless enforced and as appears from the court
recording the Judicial Registrar couldnt give a darn about any oath of office and make orders
without any shred of evidence being provided to the court that could possible establish what
breaches there allegedly were in regard of the FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE upon which the
entire litigation seemed to rest.
.
20
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998)
Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing the statutory provision in
that case: "substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible.
Either there was compliance or there was not."
25
The reasoning of Fullagar J in Clayton v. Heffron (supra) in relation to the provisions of s 5B of the Constitution
Act 1902 (NSW) is material in this context:
"A manner and form are prescribed by section 5B, and that manner and form must be observed if a valid law
is to be produced. Any prescription of manner and form may be repealed or amended, but, while it stands, the
process prescribed by it must be followed. That was decided Trethowan's case and I think that the whole
of what is prescribed by section 5B relates to manner and form. It does not seem to me to be possible to say
that some of the requirements of the section are matters of manner and form while others are not. The section
describes one entire process - a series of steps, one following on another - and only the completion of the
entire process can produce a valid law." (Supra at 262)
30
35
40
45
50
55
What this authority underlines is that any NOTICE must be in compliance with legislative
requirements to be valid and this I view none of the FIRE PREVENTION NOTICES over the
years ever were. Yet the court as I understand it in regard of other landholders never so to say
happily issue orders against landholders with a total disregard to the failure of compliance of the
FIRE PREVENTION NOTICES with the legislative requirements.
We therefore have a KANGAROO COURT/STAR CHAMBER COURT system and not a
properly functioning Magistrates Court of Victoria within Chapter III of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). Because I referred to constitutional issues, as the female
lawyer appeared to refer to, then the matter became a federal jurisdictional matter!
As I understand it the Magistrates Court of Victoria requires to gain a certain rate of
convictions/orders against a party to justify to be granted funding for its operations as like for
example the County Court of Victoria does, where the Court are Business Unit 19 with the
Department of Justice. And with its ABN number, as I successfully appealed on 19 July 2006 the
courts fails to comply to be as required by the 2 January 1901 Gazetted Letters Patent to be
impartial administration of justice.
One has to ask how on earth can all this nonsense go on and on?
With MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL having been a special lifeline service since 1982
I am too well aware how many are driven to contemplate suicide because of the unjustified court
orders against them. While my absenteeism from the court is the result being in ill health and
still attending to my doctor for it, nevertheless it has shown a great opportunity to expose the
KANGAROO COURT/STAR CHAMBER COURT kind of system that is employed but
regretfully most people who fall victim of this kind of system lack the ability to expose it.
p8
22-10-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
As I understood it from the limited amount of statement I could hear the female lawyer did refer
to my writings have been forwarded to the court coordinator and as she also referred to an
objection and constitution then I view that was sufficient for the Judicial Registrar not to
proceed with the matter unless the objection was dealt with.
The female lawyer also seemed to refer that Heidelberg/Collingwood was not the correct venue,
but as Heidelberg is temporary having it services conducted in Melbourne, Ringwood or
Broadmeadows then it remained to be the correct venue in that regard.
How on earth can Wayne Wall have been appointed Municipal Fire Prevention Officer where in
my view he lacks the competence required to perform this function appropriately? And in the
process I view he endanger the lives of CFA fire fighters, which are ordinary men and women
trying to care and look after the wellbeing and safety of fellow citizens. How on earth could
anyone have commissioner Judicial Registrar Mithen if he doesnt appear to have a clue as to
basic requirements of legal proceedings? It doesnt serve the purpose of the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958 to have wrongful orders issued by the Magistrates Court of
Victoria/Infringement Court merely to serves some unethical fundraising way for a council!
As I understand it there are at least 7 people a day committing suicide and many relates to
inappropriate court orders. We have all this legislation as to people getting possibly killed in road
accidents yet we have more than 8 times of that number of people committing suicide and yet the
very origin of many suicides relates back to the courts failing to provide FIAR and PROPER
hearings. This has to stop! Having a judicial Registrar who doesnt seem to understand that when
an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is made then he cannot proceed unless he dismissed
upon legal grounds with reasons for doing so to invoke jurisdiction surely underlines in my view
how totally incompetent this Judicial Registrar is. And this person is ongoing adjudicating? And
I view the female lawyer should have objected to the Judicial Registrar and insisted that he
would follow proper legal procedures, as after all isnt that why she is an OFFICER OF THE
COURT?
In my view the Attorney-General should immediately take over the case from Buloke Shire
Council and take appropriate action to stop this rot, not just against myself but also against
others. To investigate how this Judicial Registrar possibly could be conducting court hearings in
this manner without bothering to have any evidence presented to prove the prosecutors case.
And, the limited seconds, (about 20 seconds) the Judicial Registrar seemed to take to read the
handwritten paper of charges and that appears to be all he did hardly can justify his kind of
orders, without any evidence and without establishing if in fact the FIRE PREVENTION
NOTICE was legally valid in the first place and how this notice was allegedly violated.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
40
So that any citizen of any portion of the Commonwealth would have the guarantee of liberty and safety in
regard to the processes of law, and also would have a guarantee of the equal administration of the law as it
exists. I think Mr. Isaacs will bear me out, that in the United States it has been decided that the title to equal
treatment under the law does not mean that you cannot make a law which differentiates one class of the
community from another; but, as has been decided, it means that in the administration of the laws you
have made, all the citizens shall be treated equally. And that should be so. Whatever privilege we give to
our citizens, the administration of the law should be equal to all, whatever their colour. The case I refer to
is one of the Chinese cases-I forget the name of it.
45
END QUOTE
.
50
55
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

(Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
p9
22-10-2015
10
In my view there is clearly a violation to the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within which within s106 the States were created
subject to this constitution.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
As I successfully opposed the jurisdiction on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria
exercising federal jurisdiction that the courts were not impartial such as because of the ABN
registration shared with the Department of Justice then for this also the litigation against me has
no legal validity, as the then Attorney-General Rob Hull for the State of Victoria stated that the
State of Victoria would abide by the courts decision.
What neither must be overlooked is the sheer ignorance by Buloke Shire Council to litigate to
use land owners monies for this in a totally unjustified manner. And while their legal
representatives may so to say have scored court orders, reality is they are a null and void because
the court never invoked jurisdiction.
As I indicated in my previous writings allowing a council to have its own municipal Fire
Prevention officer who then fails to hold the council accountable for its numerous breaches of the
Country fire authority Act 1958 is to defeat the purpose of the legislation. And with any penalties
to be paid to the council it means that even if Infringement Notices are issued against the council
then it simply has to pay itself. This clearly show the bias and the nonsense of such situation.
Is the Attorney-General going to give his condolence against bereaved families where they loss
family members where he could have avoided this altogether if he had acted now against this rot?
As for any lawyer counting pages as to make a claim for a charge in court, wouldnt it be better
to have lawyers appropriately trained in what are the proper processes of a court and how if there
is a known OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the lawyer insist this is first dealt with
appropriately as failing to do so means that no matter the number of pages this lawyer seeks to
get orders for cost for in the end the orders will be useless. In my view the onus rested with the
OFFICER OF THE COURT (the lawyer) to insist the court would deal appropriately with the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION first, and that should have been done already on 20 August
2015, which then neither was done. Also the conduct or the lack thereof of the court coordinator
has to be appropriately investigated. I wonder if we have anyone at all who is appropriately
trained to ensure we have an impartial administration of justice?
It is my view that people like Wayne Wall, the Judicial Registrar and the female lawyer are
having so to say blood on their hands when people end up committing suicide by this kind of
combined conduct and/or fire fighters and others are killed because the real culprits like Buloke
shire Council disregarding public safety and allow terrible fire dangers to exist, such as indicated
by the above images.
In my view an impartial investigation is required such as to matters how any council issues
FIRE PREVENTION NOTICES against landholders, their own self compliance with legal
provisions, its Municipal Fire Prevention Officer and his/her training, the courts conduct,
etc. After all peoples lives depend upon it!
I look forwards to your positive reply!
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
50
(
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
p10
22-10-2015

20151022-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Martin Pakula Attorney-General Re COMPLAINT & Various Other Issues

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

20151022-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Martin Pakula Attorney-General Re COMPLAINT & Various Other Issues

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1

Mr Martin Pakula, Attorney-General

martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au

As is shown the only contact email address is:

land, other than a building or in a building;

violation to the legislative provisions.

Country Fire Authority Act 1958

(a) on that land, other than a building or in a building;

(a) must be in the prescribed form;

(d) must contain any prescribed information.

END QUOTE 20150101-Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire Council care of J Groves

END QUOTE 20150101-Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire Council care of J Groves

Country Fire Authority Act 1958

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

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

Potrebbero piacerti anche