You are on page 1of 5

1

Mr Wayne Wall, Municipal Fire Prevention Officer


buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cc:

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

29-10-2015

Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au


Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Ref; 20151029-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall-Re Buloke Shire Council
Re your correspondence dated 2801128 but meaning 28-10-2015-etc

Wayne,
we all make errors in writings, and I certainly admit doing so and as such no particular issue just
to advise you that your correspondence received on 29 October 2015 is dated 28 November 2015. I will
reads it as being 28 October 2015. I make this known so that for the record it shows there was an error, as
in time to come someone may afterwards argue that after 28 November 2015 there was no meeting and
hence I may have refused to provide for it. For this it is on the record that the date of your letter 28
November 2015 ought to be held as being 28 October 2015. As for the issue top meet at my property at 10
Anderson Avenue, in my view it would be best on Thursday5 November 2015 in the afternoon, as I
contemplate to travel to Berriwillock on 4 November 2015.
While writing you earlier today I was at the County Court of Victoria and I understood counsel for
Buloke Shire Council to claim that 14 days prior to your issue of the 2014 Fire Prevention Notice you had
travelled to Berriwillock and taken photos and you did likewise so 14 days prior to issuing the
Infringement Notice. At least that appears counsel was indicating that you would give evidence in that
regard. I alerted to the court that I was aware that you made photos on 27 October 2015 and I would
object them being used for 2014.
As you may be aware any misuse of photos as to pretend they were made a year earlier could constitute
perjury and could attract serious penalties.
In my view had as was alleged, you may photos prior to the issue of the Fire Prevention Notice being
issued then you would have been aware that as like in 2013 the property was slashed, and in fact was
again slashed after you issued the Fire Prevention Notice, this even so the Fire Prevention Notice didnt
show any difference from other years to indicate that the property had been slashed.
I might be wrong but it appears to me that Buloke Shire Council appointed you as a Municipal Fire
Protection Officer without ensuring you had appropriate and sufficient training to competently issue Fire
Prevention Notices as require by the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 and hence you issued Fire
Prevention Notices in good faith, even so this may not be sufficient in law.
This is particularly appearing from the repeat of the same kind of terms in the various Fire Prevention
Notices year after year. None showing any difference despite the property having been slashed, etc.
As Buloke Shire Council has informed the court that you will be called as a witness then I am entitled to
cross examine you. I have cross examined witnesses over decades, including medical doctors, to show
what they stated in their affidavit was in fact not reflecting what the evidence was before the court.
Obviously where counsel claimed you made photos 2 weeks prior to issuing the 2014 Fire Prevention
Notice then you will be able to produce motor vehicle records to show you actually did drive to my
property and others (as why would you travel just for my property to be inspected) and explain why you
didnt provide a Fire Prevention Notice, if any at all, as to the true conditions existing!
If you didnt travel to Berriwillock for this purpose at all prior to issuing the Fire Prevention Notice than I
view it would be upon the lawyers of Buloke Shire Council to immediately advise the court as well as
myself that counsel for Buloke Shire Council wrongly claimed you did so.
p1
29-10-2015
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

I am actually pleased you refer in your correspondence regarding section 41B as it shows that at least you
now appear to be concerned to comply with the legal requirements of the Country Fire Authority Act
1958. You may then also be aware that the Fire prevention Notice that was issued and I objected against is
in clear violation with the act to require all combustible material to be removed, which the legislation
doesnt provide for as it excludes building and its content. Hence I view in the circumstances the Fire
prevention Notice must be withdrawn/cancelled as it violated legislative provisions of the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958,
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

15

(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

20

(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

25

(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;

30

(d) must contain any prescribed information.


END QUOTE

35

As the Act states to remove or minimise the threat of fire then this is not about having something
that can be put on fire by whomever, but that it is an actual threat of fire. In my view this is not about
cutting grass/weed because they are not a threat of fire on its own, but rather something that so to say
spontaneously could be put on fire. For example the storage of dangerous explosive goods.
Version No. 151, Country Fire Authority Act 1958, No. 6228 of 1958, Version incorporating amendments as at,
23 September 2015, 3
Definitions
QUOTE

40

country area of Victoria means that part of Victoria which lies outside the metropolitan district, but
does not include any forest, national park or protected public land;
END QUOTE

45

50

The meaning of protected public land in my view cannot refer to open public spaces such as
highways and so its soft shoulders (grass) and abutting land under the control of Buloke Shire
Council.
Version No. 151, Country Fire Authority Act 1958, No. 6228 of 1958, Version incorporating amendments as at,
23 September 2015, 3
Definitions
QUOTE
43 Duties and powers of councils and public authorities in relation to fire

p2
29-10-2015
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

3
(1) In the country area of Victoria it is the duty of every municipal council and public authority
to take all practicable steps (including burning) to prevent the occurrence of fires on, and
minimise the danger of the spread of fires on and from
(a) any land vested in it or under its control or management; and

(b) any road under its care and management.


(2) A municipal council or public authority may
(a) acquire any equipment;
(b) do any thing;
(c) expend from its funds any amount

10

15

that is necessary or expedient for the purpose of fulfilling its duty under subsection (1).
(3) If the cost of maintenance of a road is apportioned between municipal councils or public authorities
or both the cost of fulfilling the duty imposed by subsection (1) must be apportioned in the same
manner.
END QUOTE

Whereas the Country Fire authority Act 1958 sets out (2) A fire prevention notice may be served only
if the fire prevention officer forms the opinion
(a)
that it is necessary, or may become necessary, to do
so to protect life or property from the threat of fire; and and as such specifically is related to from the
threat of fire councils however have a far greater obligation as they are to prevent the

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

occurrence of fires on, and minimise the danger of the spread of fires.
As such, while land owners are limited to threat of fire (that it is necessary, or may become necessary,
to do so to protect life or property from the threat of fire ) and not imaginary fire dangers, councils must
however have to avoid occurrence of fires as well as the spread of fires. Therefore
considering thousands of motor vehicles driving along highways such as Calder Highway within
Shire of Buloke, then the fires along the highway is far greater then on a private property,
certainly where no motor vehicles are in use on that property.
So to say I could have grass/weed growing for 2 metres or higher but none would be to prevent
the occurrence of fires on, and minimise the danger of the spread of fires (as applicable to a
council managed area), this because there is no gas and/or electricity on the property, hence there
can be no fire danger from my property. Only if a fire came from another property or council
managed property could a fire exist on my property but that is not in my view within the
provisions of S41 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958, as obviously if for argument sake my
neighbour causes a fire and it then spread on to any other properties, including mine, then it is
not a fire that resulted from my property and as such not something I can prevent.
Again as counsel indicated you made photos then I take it you would likewise have made photos of the
roadsides under control of Buloke Shire Council and issued Fire Prevention Notices against Buloke Shire
Council. After all my view is an experienced person in particular any expert witness would not accept
fire dangers along the highways.
Prior to my retirement I had this expert witness I cross examined and well during cross examination he
was ongoing admitting that certain paragraphs in his affidavit were incorrect, that his barrister stated Mr
Schorel-Hlavka is surgically tasking apart my clients affidavit. It just turned out that the witness has
signed an Affidavit that was so to say concocted by the lawyer and was misleading to the real
circumstances.
In my view no witness ought to accept to give any false and misleading evidence.
Obviously my task during cross-examination is to establish the truth! If you didnt attend to my property,
despite counsel for Buloke Shire Council having claimed you did so in 2014 prior to the issue of the Fire
Prevention Notice then it is important to admit to the truth then to get yourself into trouble when in the
end it comes out that you never did.

p3
29-10-2015
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

My concern about Buloke Shire Council legal representatives is that they do not seem to have the ability
to even seek to communicate appropriately as to the legal issues in dispute.
In fact I view counsel appearing for Buloke Shire Council was misleading His Honour Mullaly when
claiming that as I understood it Buloke Shire Councils legal representatives only had yesterday received a
request for a brief.
QUOTE
see attachment 20151027-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council cc
LSC-COM-2015-0873-Re Appeal
From
To

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
admin@inspector-rikati.com

Cc

, buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au

daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au

, attorney-

general@justice.vic.gov.au
ReplyTo
admin@inspector-rikati.com
Date
Tue 14:17

10

20151027-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council cc LSC-COM2015-0873-Re Appeal.pdf

Elliott Stafford and Associated

27-10-2015

lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Cc:

Mr Wayne Wall, Municipal Fire Prevention Officer buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au


Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au

15

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au


Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Ref; 20151027-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES&a Your ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council cc LSC-COM2015-0873-Re Appeal
Sir/Madam,

20

25

30

35

END QUOTE

You will find that Buloke Shire Council received at about 14.17 (2.17 PM) on 27-10-2015 the request and
clearly Counsel was in my view misleading the court. I consider this a very serious matter.
As I am used to lawyers making false and misleading statements I ordinary always forward a copy of an
email to myself to have records it was actually sent out.
Actually His Honour Mullaly originally refused to read my ADDRESS TO THE COURT but in the end I
indicated I would seek a judicial review as previously when a judge refused to consider the ADRESS TO
THE COURT on appeal the full court held the trail judge had to consider the content of the ADDRESS
TO THE COURT, that His Honour Mullaly then decided to adjourn so he could read my ADDRESS TO
THE COURT and it seems he had realised that the issue of the (preliminary) brief was also raised in my
written submissions.
Because His Honour Mullaly question why counsel indicated he needed a week to provide me with the
(preliminary) brief, counsel claimed the request was received only yesterday, and that clearly was I
view false and misleading. If he didnt know he should have stated so, but to claim it was yesterday
when in fact it was on 27 October 2015, and as such ample of time to provide the (preliminary) brief then
I view this is to pervert the course of justice. This in particular where the (preliminary) brief was withheld
from me for todays hearing. In my view had counsel for Buloke Shire Council made known that the
p4
29-10-2015
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

5
request was made on Tuesday then I doubt His Honour Mullaly would have accepted the denial of the
(preliminary) brief was justified considering todays hearing.
.

Obviously I will pursue matters in that regard, and while this may not be something you can do about, I
can assure you that I do so likewise with witnesses who pursue to give false/misleading evidence.
.

10

15

20

25

In my view if you didnt have appropriate training/experiences when appointed Municipal Fire Prevention
Officer and because of this may have misconceived what was required to issue Fire Prevention Notices
then it is much better to acknowledge this rather than to seek to make excuses.
When I took over management of factories, I had an overhead crane driver complaining that his fan in the
cabin wasnt working. I explained to him I would investigate. I got out all relevant material and decided to
understand his position I had to obtain myself an overhead crane license, this I did, and then discovered
that none of the persons who were operating the overhead crane were actually licensed. They all had
forklift licenses and misconceived that this was sufficient. So, once I had license, I had to train all of
them. The same with other ingrained conduct I discovered numerous problems to which no one ever
really had realised they were done wrong. As such, I can very well understand that Buloke Shire Council
may have appointed you without understanding that the legislation requiring you to have an opinion
this implied you had to be able to understand legal requirements and practice as to what an expert has to
be able to form an opinion. In my view had you that kind of status you would never have accepted for
Buloke Shire Council to have grass/weed more than a metres high in areas along the highway, as my
images that were provided to you in past correspondences showed.
While next door to my property there is a vacant land, I have however found that the tractor that slashes
the growth doesnt do so near the fence and a width of 1 metres or more often is left, and then I cleared
this while doing my own property. I doubt that you ever issued a Fire prevention Notice against the owner
of the vacant land despite the failure to clear the land appropriately. More than likely it never was deemed
a fire hazard within s41 as such, this even so you may claim it is when it comes to my property.
.

30

35

40

45

The appeal hearing may not be around until end February, nevertheless it is better for you to be aware that
you may need to have relevant material where you are a witness. This, as obviously I will be asking for
relevant details. Because as you are aware of I made myself at times pictures of the property you wouldnt
want to come up with photos that turn out not to be of the time period that might be claimed. As such
better make sure you date any photos you may rely upon, as counsel for Buloke Shire Council indicated to
the court you will use.
I once had a young employee who seemed to have nothing but problems and was basically doing
everything wrong. It was recommended that I would dismiss him. Just that from my own observations I
held he was a conscious worker. So, one day I decided to see how he was working and urged him to
follow the instruction manuals of the equipment. While initially he was objecting, he however accepted to
do so and then it exposed he was never properly trained, in fact he was wrongly trained and didnt know
better. From that day onwards he was free of the problems! And more than likely, in my view, this might
be the core problem with your appointment as a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer where the legislation
is not easy to be understood and Buloke Shire Council never realised what is really required to have an
effective Municipal Fire Prevention Officer. Hence the issue of Fire Prevention Notices in violation of
legal requirements of the Country Fire authority Act 1958 may have resulted from this. In my view if this
is what eventuated it is better Buloke Shire Council acknowledge this to its legal representatives, as I have
no doubt that whatever might be the facts will come out.
I look forwards to your positive reply!

50

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!)
Awaiting your response,

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

p5
29-10-2015
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