You are on page 1of 9

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Senior Member Ms Preuss vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au 3-2-2010


5 Cc; * Mr & Mrs Colosimo, 72 Shuter Avenue, Greendale, Vic 3341 francesco.c@live.com.au
* Mr Lindsay M Vowels Phd FAPS MAPA aeiou@netspace.net.au
* Maddocks (for Moorabool Shire Council) (Ref MYM:KJM:5285015
Email Annie.Bird@maddocks.com.au
* Deputy Registrar Ashe Whitaker VCAT – Guardian List) vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au
10 * Mr Brendan Hoysted brendan.hoysted@justice.vic.gov.au
* Mr. Peter Sier, Peter.sier@statetrustees.com.au
* Moorabool Shire Council Councillors info@moorabool.vic.gov.au
Cr Michael Tudball mtudball@moorabool.vic.gov.au
Cr Allan Comrie Cr Pat Griffin Cr Pat Toohey (mayor) Cr Tom Sullivan
15 Cr Russell Hendry Cr Philip Flack and/or any other councillor
.
Ref; G54449/00 (including V2/2007 & P194/2007 and other related proceedings) Mr Francis James Colosimo Re
Ms Preuss – Re cooperation - etc.
.
20 . Ms Preuss – Re cooperation - etc
Madam,
While i might be wasting my time to seek your cooperation, considering the mentality
you have so far displayed (lets be honest about it) nevertheless I seek your cooperation for so far
you are willing to put your input into it, in regard of the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
25 MATTERS, which is being drafted. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware that a
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS must relate to constitutional issues and not
mere legal arguments not related to constitutional issues. Hence rest assure that no matter how
remote some of part 3 may appear to be to you regarding constitutional issues I have so far
considered each and everyone to be related to constitutional issues, albeit my further set out in
30 the final NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS will explain that in more details.
However, I do view that where you declared to have the carriage of the proceedings in the
administration issue (albeit this is not necessarily conceded by Mr Francis James Colosimo to be
legally applicable) and no longer as such Mr Brendan Hoysted, Duty Officer of the Office of the
Public Advocate then obviously it would be helpful if you could cooperate as to indicate if there
35 are any of the part 3 stated issues you have no issue with and/or if you may desire to add some
other issues to it so they can be all incorporated into the one document?
.
Prior to your declaration on 27 January 2010 that you had taken over the case I had already
forwarded you earlier that day with the 27 January correspondence listing you as a party as a
40 “Tribunal member” expecting that you would more then likely raise this kind of nonsense
having gone about matters so far in the way you did.
.
It is my view that for example the statement of the expert witness Dr Vowels should immediately
have been excluded by you as being admissible as evidence where you were made aware that Mr
45 Brendan Hoysted, Duty Officer of the Office of the Public Advocate had obtained the statement
of the expert witness by deceptive details/information having been provided to Dr Vowels, in
that Mr Francis James Colosimo was in contempt of orders even so Mr Francis James Colsoimo

p1 3-2-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
actually never was formally charged with contempt by Her Honour Harbison J during any of the
6 CONTEMPT hearings. In my view this so to say tainted evidence (as it purports to be) never
should have been obtained as such in the first place because as far as I understood it to be from
the transcripts Her Honour Harbison J requested the office of the Public Advocate to investigate
5 the mental competence of Mr Francis James Colosimo to stand trial for CONTEMPT, and I view
any competent lawyer would then first have checked out what were the precise charges Her
Honour Harbison J had framed against Mr Francis James Colosimo so that he then could address
his investigation upon this. Had he done so, as I view is pertinent to any investigation, he would
or should have been aware that Her Honour Harbison J never actually had bothered to formally
10 charge Mr Francis James Colosimo (at least not according to the 6 transcripts) and have returned
to Her Honour Harbison J indicating that unless he knew the precise charge he could not act to
investigate the mental competence of Mr Francis James Colosimo to be assessed as it was
essential that the precise charge was known.
.
15 I recall an incident where I was requested to give evidence as to the sentencing of a person who
was held to have been in CONTEMPT. I advised His Honour that while I couldn’t go beyond His
Honour finding of guilt nevertheless from personal knowledge I was aware that the
circumstances were totally different then those summed up by His Honour in his reason of
judgment and I held that any form of punishment should be appropriate to the circumstances. His
20 Honour then invited me to set out as to what I deemed to be the appropriate terms of orders to be
implemented and I did then set out my views and why I held them as such. Upon this His Honour
made known he accepted my recommendations and implemented them as formal orders. While
His Honour had intended to inflict a prison term upon the person he nevertheless accepted my
views that a suspended prison sentence was more appropriate. For the record the person never
25 offended again!
.
The issue is that even as an expert witness there is an obligation not to go along with a
miscarriage of justice and as I proved to do I did explain matters then to His Honour and His
Honour accepted this without showing to be offended. At times a court can only rely upon the
30 evidence before it and draw from this conclusions where as an expert witness may have a better
knowledge of the case but if only called in after the conviction has already occurred can only
then address the issue of most appropriate punishment while clarifying his/her position for this.
.
In my view Dr Vowels has a obligation to avoid her statement obtained previously to be used to
35 protract litigation where she was made aware that the statement was obtained by false/misleading
information/details. In my view this goes directly back to the constitution as the Framers of the
constitution stated very much;
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
40 the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and
secure to him.
45 END QUOTE
.
.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
the National Australasian Convention)
50 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

p2 3-2-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
5 What the “by the implied guarantees of its Constitution” are I intend as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST to set out in the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.
.
I view that your conduct has been appalling and an utter disgrace and unbecoming to that of a
lawyer, adjudicator and an OFFICER OF THE COURT but nevertheless while this
10 VEXATIOUS litigation continues there is no alternative but at the very least seek your
cooperation to at least try to get some consensus as to what is to be pursued as constitutional
issues.
.
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
15 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;
20 END QUOTE
.
In my view, your overall conduct has been as to place in suspicion the “administration of
justice” and I urge you to at least from now on to try to avoid matters to continue as such.
.
25 As Mr Francis James Colosimo from onset made clear, and so years before I became involved in
the case, that he challenged the constitutional position of Moorabool Shire Council and if
therefore the High Court of Australia were to accept that it couldn’t declare Moorabool shire
council position to be constitutionally valid and the so called ‘Local government Act” remains
ULTRA VIRES, then what on earth are the proceedings in regard of administration about which
30 specifically limit the scope to:
.
QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees

The Tribunal's Order dated 29 October 2008, clause 6 states:

35 "The administrator is to restrict intervention to areas necessary to achieve


resolution of issues related to disputes with the Moorabool Shire Council
concerning overdue rates; and to matters relating to planning permits and
associated issues which are before VCAT".
END QUOTE
40 .
Remember?
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
45 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no
special court, but the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs
seeks to do is to prevent the question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.

[start page 2004]

p3 3-2-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be
invalid.
END QUOTE
.
5 As such Mr Francis James Colosimo all along challenged the validity of the legislation and this is
and remains to be ULTRA VIRES unless and until if ever at all the High Court of Australia
declares it to be INTRA VIRES.
.
As you claimed to have the carriage of the application then the onus is upon you to prove
10 JURISDICTION.
.
.
QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it
15 must be proven.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,


Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
20 END QUOTE

QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,


No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
25
QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.
END QUOTE
.
30 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.
END QUOTE
35 .
Act Interpretation Act 1901; (Cth)

15A Construction of Acts to be subject to Constitution


QUOTE
Every Act shall be read and construed subject to the Constitution, and so as not to exceed
40 the legislative power of the Commonwealth, to the intent that where any enactment thereof
would, but for this section, have been construed as being in excess of that power, it shall
nevertheless be a valid enactment to the extent to which it is not in excess of that power.
END QUOTE
.
45 The High Court of Australia held that where a party pleads the non-application of a State Act
because of Commonwealth legislation then the State Court is exercising Federal jurisdiction.
(However only if the State Court can invoke jurisdiction, which VCAT cannot and neither is a
court!) Troy v Wrigglesworth (1919) 26 C.L.R. 305; 25 (1926) 38 C.L.R. 441; 33 A.L.R. 66.
.
p4 3-2-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
There is no such thing of a Defendant/Respondent having to prove JURISDICTION!
.
QUOTE limited DRAFT notice of constitutional matters
FORM 69
5
NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTION MATTER O 73 r 1 High Court Rules

UNDER SECTION 78B of the JUDICIARY ACT 1903


VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL No. of 2010
10
FRANCIS JAMES COLOSIMO Defendant/Respondent
(represented by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka)
and

15 Mr Brendan Hoysted, Duty Officer, Office of the Public Advocate Plaintiff


and
Mr Preuss VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Tribunal member
20
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER

1. The Defendant FRANCIS JAMES COLOSIMO gives notice that the proceedings
involves a matter arising under the constitution or involving its interpretation within the
25 meaning of section 78B of the judiciary Act 1903.

2. That the Defendant objected to the jurisdiction of VICTORIAN CIVIL AND


ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL to hear the matters arising of the proceedings
instituted by the applicant in regard of matters relating to the litigation instituted on 22
30 January 2007 by Moorabool Shire Council, which proceedings resulted to the Guardian
and Administration litigation the Defendant is subjected to.
The following is not stated and must not be perceived to be stating issues in order of importance
neither to be held to limit the scope of issues pursued by the Respondent/Defendant Mr Francis
James Colosimo.
35 QUOTE limited DRAFT notice of constitutional matters
3. a. The said VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
(VCAT) from onset had declines to consider an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
made from onset by me and has persisted in a line of litigation that denies my
constitutional rights, NATURAL JUSTICE, the RULE OF LAW, etc. Such as at each
40 hearing VCAT refused to appropriately deal with the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and is not a court that can invoke federal jurisdiction.
b.And/or, that where there was no jurisdiction for VCAT to in the first place hear and
determine legal issues in conflict then for all purposes and intent VCAT operated as what
is known as a KANGAROO COURT, in that its proceedings were not deemed to be that
45 of authorised procedures and any of its purported orders are without legal force.
c. And/or, that the provisions of the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 are ULTRA VIRES
as it was a purported amendment State constitution failing to comply with the legal
requirements as embedded in the federal constitution such as that a State constitution as
like the federal constitution can only be amended by approval of a proposed amendment
50 by the electors of the State by way of s.123 referendum.
d. And/or, the principle constitution being The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) doesn’t recognise municipal and shire councils as a level of government
and as such any by-laws or regulations by any inadvertently named “local
p5 3-2-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
government” is ULTRA VIRES because a non-government cannot enact laws binding
upon the general public.
e. And/or, all litigation before VCAT was in defiance of the Infringement Act 2006 and as
such a nullity irrespective if ordinary VCAT may have jurisdiction because the issue is
5 not if ordinary VCAT has jurisdiction to hear and determine matters but if in this case it
did have so and if in this case VCAT adhered to the legal principles embedded by the
Framers of the Constitution in the (federal) constitution.
f. And/or, the States created out of the former colonies by way of s.106 of The
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) are therefore bound to
10 conduct matters according to the legal principles embedded in the constitution and this
includes the separation of powers between the executives, the judiciary and the
legislators, which the State of Victoria doesn’t provide for whatsoever.
g. And/or, albeit unconstitutionally, that VCAT is not an ordinary tribunal that acts as an
organ for the State government but is in fact conducting matters as if it is replacing the
15 judiciary system albeit with a gross denial of rights ordinary permissible in a court of
law. Sharing the same corporate identity as the Justice Department and as such not
being a public entity but a corporate entity as a private company, such as the State
Trustees limited, and by the 1956 Boilermakers case (High Court of Australia decision)
not being a body that can adjudicate.
20 h. And/or, the orders of VCAT are not as to the “peace, order and good government”
but rather are by an unconstitutional body to specific enhance the benefits of the State
(by this its organs) itself and the orders themselves of 29-10-2008 exposes this.
i. And/or, that Her Honour Harbison J who requested (as for the purpose of establishing
the mental competence of the Defendant/respondent to stand trail for CONTEMPT) for
25 the Office of the Public Advocate to investigate matters as to my competence to stand
trail for CONTEMPT was not a suitable person in view that Her Honour Harbison J as
a sitting judge of the County Court of Victoria, having to be an impartial member of the
judiciary could not at the same time be a member of VCAT which is a organ of the
State government due to the conflict of duties responsibilities, liabilities and
30 impartiality, where a judge of the County Court of Victoria is to be and remain
impartial.
j. And/or, Her Honour Harbison J despite holding 6 CONTEMPT hearings at no time had
formally charged me with CONTEMPT, and in the end on 16 March 2009 accepted the
submission of Mr Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka who was assisting me in the
35 litigation as a CONSTITUTIONALIST that the CONTEMPT proceedings should be
PERMANENTLY STAYED.
k. And/or, that where VCAT in the first place never had jurisdiction to commence any
hearings then the purported CONTEMPT proceedings neither can be deemed to be
with jurisdiction.
40 l. And/or, where Her Honour Harbison J failed to invoke jurisdiction and neither formally
charged the Defendant/Respondent formal with contempt then her Honour Harbison J
neither then had any legal position to request the Office of the Public Advocate to
inquire if the Defendant/Respondent was mentally competent to stand trial.
m. And/or, the request to assess the Defendant/Respondent if he is mentally competent to
45 stand trial is for different purposes than what ultimately eventuated and that is VCAT to
make limited administrative orders for purpose of suiting the organs of the State
government only, as this failed to address the original request of Her Honour Harbison J
also as to the mental competence of the defendant/Respondent to stand trial.
n. And/or, that my objection against Moorabool Shire Council to litigate against me in the
50 first place not being recognise as a kind of level of government within The

p6 3-2-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as such had no legal position
to institute proceedings for this also.
o. And/or, that Ms Preuss a senior member of VCAT failed to adhere, as other VCAT
members did previously, to required legal procedures that are applicable to litigation
5 and by this grossly denied the Defendant of his constitutional rights by this also.
p. And/or, that members of VCAT are required to be legal practitioners and legal
practitioners can only be admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of Victoria provided
they have an oath of alliance as an “Australian citizen” purportedly being a nationality
even so no such nationality exist and as such are not validly admitted to the bar and
10 neither therefore are validly appointed.
q. And/or, that Mr Brendan Hoysted, Duty Officer of the Office of the Public Advocate
instead of being to assist a Defendant has set out to become so to say effectively the
enemy in litigation.
r. And/or, that VCAT has failed to deal with various breaches of its orders by the State
15 Trustees Limited and as such showed to be bias and allowed ongoing harm upon me,
whereas when it viewed I was in breach of orders, albeit never formally charging me, it
pursued a term of imprisonment for me.
s. And/or, VCAT fails to apply proper procedures that where it is not a court and cannot
either invoke federal jurisdiction then where it is faced with an OBJECTION TO
20 JURISDICTION it should, which it failed to do, hold the prosector (then Moorabool
Shire Council) responsible to obtain such orders of the Supreme Court of Victoria
and/or the High Court of Australia, which ever is the appropriate venue for this, as to a
finding that VCAT can invoke jurisdiction.
t. And/or, that Ms Preuss conduct on 22 October 2009 having ruled that there is no
25 supportive material to sustain the application for Administration, that is under review,
abused and misused her powers, for so far there existed any, to nevertheless persist in
holding a trail and seeking to place the onus upon the Defendant to provide evidence
against himself as to try to justify the continuation of Administration orders. And/or,
that VCAT albeit being a tribunal and not a court cannot disregard the rule of
30 NATURAL JUSTICE and issue orders of enforcement even so the enforcement
related to non-existing charges. VCAT while providing within s.62 of the VCAATA
providing for any person to represent the Respondent/Defendant during hearings then
the judicial officer unduly interferes with this as to coerce or seek to coerce the
Respondent/Defendant to forgo certain legal rights.
35 u. And/or, the right of a Respondent/Defendant to choose his own representative cannot be
unduly interfered with by a court/tribunal and neither be unduly regulated by
Parliament. For example a Defendant/Respondent cannot be denied to be represented
by a constitutionalist in constitutional issues and forced to be represented by a lawyer
who may lack the training and experiences regarding constitutional matters.
40 v. And/or, Ms Preuss on 27 January 2010 making known that the Applicant Mr Brendan
Hoysted, Duty Officer of the Office of the Public Advocate no longer has the carriage
of the application but it is now VCAT by this has or must be seen to have create the
hearing to be that of the outlawed STAR CHAMBER COURT.
w. And/or, the right of a Defendant/Respondent to know who is his opponent in litigation
45 cannot be denied and not as ms Preuss did to circumvent legal procedures by taking
over the application and avoid the right to the Defendant/Respondent to know what
purported “evidence” is used against him.
x. And/or, Ms Preuss demanding that the Defendant/Respondent provide a list of evidence
and witnesses by 14 December 2009 without the Defendant/Respondent being aware
50 what evidence/witnesses are called upon by the Office of the public Advocate and/or

p7 3-2-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
VCAT leave the respondent/Defendant in an untenable position to respond unbeknown
what evidence/witnesses may appear at a trial.
y. And/or, while in matters of CONTEMPT OF COURT upon commencement of
proceedings the CONTEMPT then is pursued by the Court of which the alleged
5 contempt eventuated against its orders, and the applicant so to say is a mere spectator
from there on, with an application for administration orders the judicial officer failure
to remain impartial but claiming to take over the case, well claiming this by hindsight,
cannot be constitutionally appropriate.
z. And/or, as Ms Preuss on 27 January 2010 made it an issue that an “Attorney” had to be
10 a “legal practitioner” this even so the Victorian Instruments does not require this, then
the issue of qualification of lawyers (and so judicial officers) themselves is in question
where none have the nationality of “Australian citizenship” as required by law as no
such nationality exist.
aa. And/or is it appropriate for VCAT to deny a respondent to appoint a ENDURING
15 POWER OF ATTORNEY and by this frustrate this person in getting his affairs
organised and then seek to use this as an excuse to justify litigation against this person?
bb. And/or, Ms Preuss cannot circumvent the benefits of the orders of Her Honour
Harbision J of 16 March 2009 of a PERMANENT STAY of proceedings, which
included the issue of FEE SIMPLE and other legal arguments, and by this deny the
20 Defendant/Respondent the benefits of his case on foot.
cc. And/or, that while a government is given the powers to ensure ordinary registration
such as transfer of titles it doesn’t have any legislative powers to interfere with the
principles of FEE SIMPLE as granted by the Crown. No level of government can
interfere with the prerogative powers of the Crown.
25 dd. And/or, Ms Preuss had a legal obligation to exclude any material from expert witnesses
she was made aware of had been obtained fraudulently or otherwise by
misrepresentation such as that the Defendant/Respondent was in contempt and failed to
comply with the RULE OF LAW, etc, where this not only defied the true Facts of the
matters but also was in conflict to the benefits of the PERMANENT STAY orders of
30 16 March 2009 of Her Honour Harbison J.
ee. And/or, that an expert witness who has been notified that this expert witness may have
provided an expert witness statement that was obtained deceptive by false and/or
misleading information/details should have an inherent obligation to withdraw such
expert witness statement unless the expert witness has undertaken reasonable inquiries
35 to establish the true facts of matters relevant to the expert witness statement and
concluded the expert witness statement to remain valid in total.
ff. And/or, that where an expert witness has been notified of an expert witness statement
having been obtained by deceptive conduct and the expert witness fails to undertake
reasonable action and by this cause directly and/or indirectly undue harm against the
40 person that was subject to the expert witness statement then such expert witness can be
held legally liable for having participated in perverting the course of justice.
gg. And/or, that Ms Preuss on 27 January 2010 made known that the trial was justified on
basis of the statement (Dr Vowels) and by this clearly Dr Vowels failure to withdraw
the statement for having been obtained by deception is directly the cause and/or
45 contribute to the protraction of the VEXATIOUS hearings against Mr Francis James
Colosimo.
hh. And/or where the Office of the public Advocate has obtained expert witness statements
upon false and/or misleading statements then the relevant lawyer of the office of the
public Advocate has a duty to notify the court/tribunal of this and obligated to withdraw
50 any statements or other documents based upon false/misleading information/details.

p8 3-2-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
ii. And/or, that Ms Preuss failed to diligently and appropriately dispose of the review
application and unduly protracted the litigation and by this did so in conflict with the
legislated reassessment provisions making an utter mockery of the legal processes in
that regard also.
5 jj. And/or, Ms Preuss, failing to ensure that the applicant the Office of the Public
Advocate first filed and served its material upon which it sought to rely by this denied
the Defendant/Respondent his constitutional rights as the Framers of the Constitution
embedded in the Constitution.
kk. And/or that Moorabool Shire Council and/or VCAT cannot apply legislatives
10 provisions enacted after Mr Francis James Colosimo already had performed certain acts
retrospectively as to make unlawful what was performed lawfully as the Framers of the
Constitution embedded the legal principle in the constitution that retrospective
legislation was not acceptable let alone then where there was no retrospective
legislation nevertheless Moorabool Shire Council and/or VCAT seek to apply it
15 retrospectively.
ll. That the Framers of the Constitution embedded the legal principle in the constitution
that once the Commonwealth of Australia legislated on a subject then the states no
longer could do so in regard of s.51 provisions. Environment, conservation and water
issues were specifically left with the States however the Commonwealth has since the
20 1992 Tasmania Dam case commenced to legislate as such and therefore if the high
Court of Australia maintains the validity of this commonwealth legislation then the
States legislation since then are ULTRA VIRES. Hence, any legislation by the
State of Victoria is without legal force, including the 70-8056a150[1]-Environment
Protection Act 1970.
25 END QUOTE limited DRAFT notice of constitutional matters
.
Do keep in mind that the above part 3 may not be setting out all and every issue and may be
extended before the final NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS has been completed
and also that various of the above issues were successfully litigated by me on 19 July 2006 and
30 upheld by the court. Besides yourself, I have no issue of Moorabool Shire Council and/or their
solicitors Maddocks Lawyers were to make to me suggestions in this regard as I view it is better
to have as much input in matters so the final NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
may be comprehensive to the issues at hand.
See also previous correspondences, and again Mr Francis James Colosimo made clear he relied
35 upon the content of my correspondences!
.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant matters!
.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®


40 .

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

p9 3-2-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com