WITHOUT PREJUDICE 5

Mr Robert Clark MP Attorney-General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au

Cc: Ted Baillieu Premier of Victoria ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria C/o robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au .

14-2-2012

Paul Linsdell & Associates 10

Email C/o Casey.Xuereb@bstone.com.au

Bendan Facey Director, Infringement Management & Enforcement Services C/o Mr Robert Clark MP Attorney-General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria 233 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000
C/o help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au Great Body Works 202 William Street, St Albans, Vic 3021 greatbodyworks@hotmail.com Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Email: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com Re: U LAWFUL E FORCEME T OF I VALID ORDERS - etc

15

20

Sir, hereby I express my concerns about an ongoing injustice against Mr Raymond Victor Vella and I urge you to take appropriate steps to ensure that the Sheriffs Office isnt going to act upon any invalid orders of the Supreme Court of Victoria or of any other Court or tribunal. I will below give a brief explanation to matters why orders are invalid and without legal force:
.

25

30

Re Wakim; Ex parte Mc ally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999) QUOTE For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. o doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. o doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould. END QUOTE 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

35

40

45

50

I was requested to represent as a Professional Advocate (PRO BONO) Mr Raymond Victor Vella as Applicant in proceedings before VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) in April 2010 (this was well after Mr Vella already had filed his application in January 2010) in which Mr Vella applied to have his monies refunded due to various reasons. At the first hearing before Deputy President B Steele I objected to orders having been issued without Mr Vellas knowledge merely by Eurotec (defendant) lawyers having phoned VCAT to issue orders. Subsequently when orders were issued on 7 June 2010 I filed a formal complaint to the president who upheld my complaint where Deputy President B Steele had issued orders that day without any hearing but merely by Eurotecs lawyers phoning the Deputy President B Steel for her to issue such orders without knowledge to Mr Vella (so myself) and that I held this was fraternizing between VCAT and the defendants lawyers, which invalidated any orders issued. On 24 August 2010 I appeared before Member Lulham who commenced to mount an extraordinary verbal attack upon my person and even then questioned the parliament have passed certain legislation. In the
p1 14-2-2012 I SPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CO STITUTIO -DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE OTE: You may order books in the I SPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

process he refused to deal with the OBJECTIO writing and verbally.

QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533, Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven E D QUOTE QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,

TO JURISDICTIO

that was submitted both in

o sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction. E D QUOTE

10
QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910, Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination. E D QUOTE
.

15

20

QUOTE Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471. Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack. E D QUOTE
.

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

During the hearing I submitted that various unlawful conduct had been entered into by Eurotec and its lawyers and this included FRAUD. I refused to withdraw the submission containing the allegations as they were based upon evidence. Member Lulham adjourned the matter for a Reason of Judgment and orders to be handed down at a later time. On 26 August 2010 I forwarded a correspondence to the president of VCAT setting out some of my objections regarding the conduct of Member Lulham during the 24 August 2010 hearing and the failure of procedural fairness, etc, and made known I had retired on 25 August 2010 from representing parties. On 1 October 2010 Lulham issued his orders and Reason of Judgment and it was very obvious to me that he had concocted the Reason of Judgment to ensure that no matter what Eurotec would succeed in the case, contrary to the evidence, etc. For example, Member Lulham attacked my person and credibility alleging that I had stated to be on a contingency fee: and so ordered for me to be investigated as to breaches of the legal Profession Act. In my view Member Lulham fabricated this allegation and others so as to try to use me to get away with what I considered to be a fraudulent judgment without jurisdiction having ever been invoked. Accusing a member of the Judiciary of inappropriate conduct ordinary constitute CO TEMPT OF COURT and not something any person should lightly entered into unless having facts to prove this. It may be revealed that the Legal Service Commissioner via the Legal Service Board and using the law Institute engaged in a year long investigation against my person such as about the alleged contingency fee but no evidence was detected to ever sustain any charges as rather that people were paying me I was actually assisting parties financially in various ways and so the reverse was applicable then what I had been accused of. In my view it is a very serious matter if a person exercising a judicial position abuses and misused his judiciary position to deliberately make false and misleading allegations as to try to so to say deflect the attention of the concocted reason of judgment, etc. In the end as Member Lulham never did formally dispose of the OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO on 24 August 2010 then he never could have invoked jurisdiction as to invoke jurisdiction he was required to hand down a rReason of Judgment setting out why he dismissed the OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO and orders doing so. No such orders are on record by VCAT in regard of the OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO and therefore all and any orders by VCAT regarding the Great Body Works (Vella) v Eurotec had no basis in law and no legal force. On 18 November 2010 the matter returned before VCAT and the moment Member Lulham entered the hearing room I repeated my written submission for a s108 of the VCAT Act for a reconstitution of the tribunal and OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO to which Member Lulham responded that I would no longer be allowed to represent Mr Vella,. He was aware that I had exposed his concocted Reason of Judgment from my writings to VCAT! As I was appointed as Professional Advocate to represent Mr Raymond Victor Vella because of medical issues, including DYSLEXIA and Mr Vella could clearly not represent himself it was a DE AIL OR JUSTICE, DE IAL OF ATURAL JUSTICE, DE IAL OF FAIR ES OF PROCEDURE, etc, because where
p2 14-2-2012 I SPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CO STITUTIO -DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE OTE: You may order books in the I SPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

a s108 submission is made then the member has no further powers to deal with the case unless the s108 submission has been appropriately disposed off. Member Lulham simply ignored the submissions and went ahead. At the closure of the hearing he then accused Mr Vella that he had failed to file any response to the cost submitted by Eurotec, and it was then that I held up a copy of Mr Vellas submission and it was clear that Member Lulham had conducted the entire hearing as an undefended hearing even so Mr Vella had had an extensive set out before the tribunal. Because on 18 November 2010 Member Lulham failed to deal with the s108 submission as well as failed to dispose of the OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO again no jurisdiction was invoked and as such any purported orders were without legal force! Eurotec engaged Paul Linsdell and Associates who through the law Institute appeared to oppose me to assist Mr Vella in his cost Court (Supreme Court of Victoria) litigation where Eurotec now had filed an application for cost, even so the application for cost was dealt with (without invoking jurisdiction) on 18 November 2010 by member Lulham. On 24 May 2011 the Supreme Court of Victoria ordered Mr Vella to file by no later than 10 June 2011 an OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO , This Mr Vella complied with on 1 June 2011, on the same day the OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO was served upon Paul Linsdell & Associates for Eurotec. On 29 September 2011 Mr Vella appeared unrepresented assisted by his partner Alice and I understand that the Registrar simply disregarded the OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO that was on file. In the end the Registrar of the Cost Court issued orders against Mr Vella and so also relied upon the cost ordered by Lulham in regard of the 18 November 2010 hearing even so neither the Cost Court or VCAT invoked jurisdiction. It must be clear that where the Supreme Court of Victoria on 24 May 2011 specifically ordered for the OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO to be filed by no later than 10 June 2011 and this was filed on 1 June 2010 then clearly the OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO was filed within the time provided by the order albeit Mr Vella could not be bound by any time limitations as he is entitled to submit an OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO at any time, even when a judgment is handed down. As such all and any orders the Cost Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria issued were without legal force because it never invoked jurisdiction as it could only do so after having disposed formally of the OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO by Reason of Judgment and formal orders setting out why it was legally justified to do so. It must be clear that an ongoing grave injustice eventuated and was perpetrated against Mr Vella. As a CO STITUTIO ALIST and Author of book in the I SPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues I decided to write a book about this perpetrated injustice and on 5 October 2011 provided the Supreme Court of Victoria with a copy of Chapter 0001-Supreme Court of Victoria as a KA GAROO COURT & STAR CHAMBER COURT-DRAFT O LYand subsequently provided copies to others, the next day, including to the law firm Paul Linsdell & Associate. As I understand it after receiving this correspondence Mr Paul Linsdell then reported to the Victorian Police on 6 October 2011 alleging that Mr Raymond Vella had made DEATH THREATS against him in the court room during the proceedings before the Registrar on 29 September 2011 and after the court adjourned the matter. It appears to me that the Registrar during the hearing did not find any requirement to deal with Mr Vella for any alleged comments, that were allegedly claimed by Mr Paul Linsdell to be DEATH THREATS and neither did as I understand it Mr Paul Linsdell report the matter to security or the court as to any alleged DEATH THREATS made after the hearing in the court room. The Magistrates Court of Victoria cannot then overrule the Supreme Court of Victoria decision as such as to canvas the same and issue intervention orders In my view, whatever eventuated in the precinct of the Supreme Court of Victoria is within its jurisdiction. Still, Mr Paul Linsdell then apparently made an application for an intervention order, albeit never signed it, and used my 6 November 2011 correspondence to his law firm Paul Linsdell & Associate as to corroborate death threats made against him, this even so the content of that letter was no more but copied from the correspondence forwarded the previous day to the supreme Court of Victoria. As I understand it during the EX PARTE hearing on 11 October 2011 Mr Paul Linsdell then gave evidence from the witness box that I was being investigated for breaches of the Legal Profession act, as to that effect, concealing from the court that the investigation had been completed and no adverse finding had been made against me regarding the orders of 1 September 2010 by Member Lulham! As such, I view he fraudulently stated something he know or could have know was to mislead/deceive the court by omitting to reveal the investigation had been concluded and no adverse finding were against my person. While Mr Vella objected to the jurisdiction of the magistrates court in the intervention orders the Court simply ignored to deal with this at the time. It seems to be a habit for judicial officers to disregard any OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO regardless that by this they never invoke any jurisdiction and so neither can or do issue orders that have legal force. I am now
p3 14-2-2012 I SPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CO STITUTIO -DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE OTE: You may order books in the I SPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

given the understanding that the Sheriffs Office seeks to enforce the VCAT orders as well as the Cost Court 29 September 2011 orders against Mr Vella and that a person named Saneeta was dealing with this. It must be obvious that the sheriffs office would have no legal powers to enforce any purported orders issued in blatant disregard of an OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO and neither could the Magistrates Court of Victoria enforce any such orders either. I may add that on 30 November 2011 Mr Paul Linsdell lawyer then accused me before the Magistrates Court of Victoria to be in CO TEMPT OF COURT upon which the Registrar commented that if this were so then to report me to the Police. It must be obvious that no matter how terrible it might be for a law firm like Paul Linsdell & Associate to have deceived the court, etc, and for the supreme Court of Victoria to be exposed of ignoring proper procedures and blatantly disregarding an OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO no offence can be committed by me to publish Chapters exposing this. o charges have been laid against either Mr Raymond Vella or myself! It must be clear that neither the sheriffs Office or the Magistrates Court of Victoria or any other court or tribunal could invoke jurisdiction to enforce orders which were the product of fraternising and were issued without invoking jurisdiction. I understand that the Cost Court registrar issued orders on 24 May 2011 and/or thereafter seemingly in liaison with Paul Linsdell & Associates without any prior knowledge or involvement of Mr Vella, and this to me constituted also fraternising by the judiciary and a party, which invalidate any subsequent issued orders. It appears to me that Mr Paul Linsdell deliberately concocted the DEATH THREATS allegations as to try to portray me as having somehow corroborated alleged DEATH THREATS made by Mr Vella against him, this even so Alice who was present at the hearing as I understand it denies any such DEATH THREATS having been made. The fact that Paul Linsdell seeks to implicate me by my 6 October 2011 correspondence even so this was a general correspondence of which content had been previously forwarded to the Supreme Court of Victoria, the premier and others then clearly as I view it this is STALKI G by Mr Paul Linsdell upon Mr Vella and myself by his persist conduct to fabricate allegations as I view it because of wanting so to say trying to get back upon us having exposed that the orders were issued without legal force and so of no legal effect. I am concerned that this kind of sustained concocted allegations may be misconceived by others, as if there is a valid case against Mr Vella and/or myself. In my view there should be an independent judicial investigation into these matters and appropriate charges to be followed against whomever is deemed to be guilty of unlawful conduct. In the meantime no action should be undertaken by any Sheriff or Court to seek to enforce the purported orders issued without jurisdiction as it may jeopardize those seeking to do so as no court or other official can validate invalid or unconstitutional orders. It ought to be clear that where after more than a year investigation no charges were laid against me despite that Member Lulham claimed to have evidence may underline he concocted this all to try to reflect the attention away from the injustice he was measuring out against Mr Vella. It ought to be clear that the worse the plot gets the better for me as Author and Publisher as it give so to say more juice to the book, but really this is not what it should be about as it is about the gross misuse and abuse of legal powers against both Mr Vella and myself (and also by this affecting Mr Vellas partner Alice) and this should be addressed appropriately. If indeed it proves that Mr Paul Linsdell concocted allegations so to say as a way to get back upon both Mr Vella and myself for exposing the orders were issued without jurisdiction and so without legal force then I view this is a very serious issue involving an OFFICER OF THE COURT and by this having placed in question the integrity and standing of the Court and so VCAT member Mr Lulham and others in regard of VCAT. It must be clear that unless and until it can be shown that both VCAT and the supreme Court of Victoria by formal orders and reason of judgment dismissed the OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO S and any s108 reconstituting of the tribunal then any orders issued remains without legal force and cannot therefore be enacted upon by the Sheriffs Office or any court official/judicial officer to enforce them. For the above urgent action is required

50

to ensure no action is taken against Mr Vella, at least not until all matters have been appropriately investigated and dealt with according to law.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all issues and or details and neither has anything been stated in order of priority.

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p4 14-2-2012 I SPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CO STITUTIO -DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE OTE: You may order books in the I SPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati