• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
 p1 14-2-2012
ISPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the COSTITUTIO-DVDA 1
st
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 alsoHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comBlog atHttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE 
Mr Robert Clark 
MP Attorney-General 14-2-2012
 
robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au
 5
Cc:
Ted Baillieu
Premier of Victoriated.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria
C/orobert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au
 
.
Paul Linsdell & Associates
Email C/oCasey.Xuereb@bstone.com.au 
Bendan Facey
 Director, Infringement Management & Enforcement ServicesC/o M
r Robert Clark 
MP Attorney-Generalrobert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au 
10
Chief Magistrate
, Magistrates Court of Victoria233 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000
 
C/o
 
help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au 
Great Body Works 
202 William Street, St Albans, Vic 3021greatbodyworks@hotmail.com 
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
 
,
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
®
 
15
Email:mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com
 
Re: ULAWFUL EFORCEMET OF IVALID ORDERS - etc
Sir,hereby I express my concerns about an ongoing injustice against
Mr Raymond Victor Vella
and I
20
urge you to take appropriate steps to ensure that the Sheriff’s Office isn’t going to act upon any invalidorders 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:
 
.
Re Wakim; Ex parte Mcally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi
[1999] HCA 27
25
(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".
30
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
35
"... the first business of the court is to try to issue whether or not the case is bought within the terms of thestatute, and only if this be proven by proper evidence can the court proceed to decide upon treatment 
"END QUOTE
 
I was requested to represent as a Professional Advocate (PRO BONO) Mr Raymond Victor Vella asApplicant in proceedings before VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) in April 2010 (this
40
was well after Mr Vella already had filed his application in January 2010) in which Mr Vella applied tohave 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 Vella’s 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
45
upheld my complaint where Deputy President B Steele had issued orders that day without any hearing butmerely by Eurotec’s lawyers phoning the Deputy President B Steel for her to issue such orders withoutknowledge to Mr Vella (so myself) and that I held this was fraternizing between VCAT and thedefendants lawyers, which invalidated any orders issued.On 24 August 2010 I appeared before Member Lulham who commenced to mount an extraordinary verbal
50
attack upon my person and even then questioned the parliament have passed certain legislation. In the
 
 
 p2 14-2-2012
ISPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the COSTITUTIO-DVDA 1
st
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 alsoHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comBlog atHttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 
 process he refused to deal with the
OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO
that was submitted both inwriting and verbally.
 
QUOTE
 Hagens v. Lavine
 
, 415 U.S. 533,
Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
 
ED QUOTE
 
5
QUOTE
 Standard v. Olsen
, 74 S. Ct. 768,
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
 
.
QUOTE
Thompson v. Tolmie
, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.
15
Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity andconfer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon directcollateral attack 
.
ED QUOTE
 
.
20
During the hearing I submitted that various unlawful conduct had been entered into by Eurotec and itslawyers and this included FRAUD. I refused to withdraw the submission containing the allegations asthey were based upon evidence. Member Lulham adjourned the matter for a Reason of Judgment andorders 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
25
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 thathe had concocted the Reason of Judgment to ensure that no matter what Eurotec would succeed in thecase, contrary to the evidence, etc.
30
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. Inmy view Member Lulham fabricated this allegation and others so as to try to use me to get away withwhat I considered to be a fraudulent judgment without jurisdiction having ever been invoked. Accusing amember of the Judiciary of inappropriate conduct ordinary constitute
COTEMPT OF COURT
and not
35
something any person should lightly entered into unless having facts to prove this. It may be revealed thatthe 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 wasdetected to ever sustain any charges as rather that people were paying me I was actually assisting partiesfinancially in various ways and so the reverse was applicable then what I had been accused of.
40
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 theattention of the concocted reason of judgment, etc.In the end as Member Lulham never did formally dispose of the
OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO
on24 August 2010 then he never could have invoked jurisdiction as to invoke jurisdiction he was required to
45
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 TOJURISDICTIO 
and therefore all and any orders by VCAT regarding the Great Body Works (Vella) vEurotec had no basis in law and no legal force. On 18 November 2010 the matter returned before VCATand the moment Member Lulham entered the hearing room I repeated my written submission for a
s108
50
of the VCAT
Act for a reconstitution of the tribunal and
OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO
to whichMember Lulham responded that I would no longer be allowed to represent Mr Vella,. He was aware that Ihad exposed his concocted Reason of Judgment from my writings to VCAT! As I was appointed asProfessional Advocate to represent Mr Raymond Victor Vella because of medical issues, includingDYSLEXIA and Mr Vella could clearly not represent himself it was a
DEAIL OR JUSTICE
,
55
DEIAL OF ATURAL JUSTICE
,
DEIAL OF FAIRES OF PROCEDURE
, etc, because where
 
 
 p3 14-2-2012
ISPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the COSTITUTIO-DVDA 1
st
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 alsoHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comBlog atHttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 
a s108 submission is made then the member has no further powers to deal with the case unless the s108submission has been appropriately disposed off. Member Lulham simply ignored the submissions andwent ahead. At the closure of the hearing he then accused Mr Vella that he had failed to file any responseto the cost submitted by Eurotec, and it was then that I held up a copy of Mr Vella’s submission and itwas clear that Member Lulham had conducted the entire hearing as an undefended hearing even so Mr 
5
Vella had had an extensive set out before the tribunal. Because on 18 November 2010 Member Lulhamfailed to deal with the s108 submission as well as failed to dispose of the
OBJECTIO TOJURISDICTIO
again no jurisdiction was invoked and as such any purported orders were without legalforce! Eurotec engaged Paul Linsdell and Associates who through the law Institute appeared to oppose meto assist Mr Vella in his cost Court (Supreme Court of Victoria) litigation where Eurotec now had filed an
10
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 tofile by no later than 10 June 2011 an
OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO
, This Mr Vella complied withon 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 
15
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 alsorelied upon the cost ordered by Lulham in regard of the 18 November 2010 hearing even so neither theCost Court or VCAT invoked jurisdiction. It must be clear that where the Supreme Court of Victoria on24 May 2011 specifically ordered for the
OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO
to be filed by no later than
20
10 June 2011 and this was filed on 1 June 2010 then clearly the
OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO
wasfiled within the time provided by the order albeit Mr Vella could not be bound by any time limitations ashe is entitled to submit an
OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO
at any time, even when a judgment ishanded down. As such all and any orders the Cost Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria issued werewithout legal force because it never invoked jurisdiction as it could only do so after having disposed
25
formally of the
OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO
by Reason of Judgment and formal orders settingout 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 certainconstitutional and other legal issues I decided to write a book about this perpetrated injustice and on 5
30
October 2011 provided the Supreme Court of Victoria with a copy of “
Chapter0001-Supreme Court of Victoria as a KAGAROO COURT & STAR CHAMBER COURT-DRAFT OLY
”andsubsequently 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 VictorianPolice on 6 October 2011 alleging that Mr Raymond Vella had made “
DEATH THREATS
” against him
35
in the court room during the proceedings before the Registrar on 29 September 2011 and after the courtadjourned the matter. It appears to me that the Registrar during the hearing did not find any requirementto 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
40
Magistrates Court of Victoria cannot then overrule the Supreme Court of Victoria decision as such as tocanvas the same and issue intervention orders In my view, whatever eventuated in the precinct of theSupreme Court of Victoria is within its jurisdiction. Still, Mr Paul Linsdell then apparently made anapplication for an intervention order, albeit never signed it, and used my 6 November 2011correspondence to his law firm Paul Linsdell & Associate as to corroborate death threats made against
45
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 11October 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 
50
2010 by Member Lulham! As such, I view he fraudulently stated something he know or could have knowwas to mislead/deceive the court by omitting to reveal the investigation had been concluded and noadverse finding were against my person. While Mr Vella objected to the jurisdiction of the magistratescourt in the intervention orders the Court simply ignored to deal with this at the time. It seems to be ahabit for judicial officers to disregard any
OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO
regardless that by this
55
they never invoke any jurisdiction and so neither can or do issue orders that have legal force. I am now
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...