100211 g54449 00 john brumby premier complaint etc

8/14/2019 100211 G54449 00 John Brumby Premier COMPLAINT Etc

1/28


2/28

p2 11-2-2010INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax

0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail [email protected] See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Again, VCAT all along had publish the identity of Mr Francis James Colosimo and as such Icould not publish his identity more then VCAT already had done for about 2 years prior to that Ibegan to publish details about the identity of Mr Francis James Colosimo.

On 22 October 2009 Mr Wells counsel for the State Trustees limited then was waiving around5copies of posters I had printed and published claiming to Senior VCAT member Ms Preuss that Iwas acting in CONTEMPT of VCAT provisions. Upon this I explained to Ms Preuss that I was

lawfully publishing details and entitled to do so. Ms Preuss upon this responded (see transcript)I am not going to get involved in this..10Ms Preuss being well aware form the material I submitted that I registered the book title;.INSPECTOR-RIKATI on VCAT as a STAR CHAMBER & KANGAROO COURT-No1A Book on DVD about the injustice upon Mr Francis James Colosimo

ISBN 978-0-9803712-7-715

As author of those books I have canvassed to great length how VCAT continually disregard the

rule of law and indicated that Mr Francis James Colosimo may personally sue her for actingwithout jurisdiction. Hence, it seems to me that Ms Preuss now may seek to stop publicationsthat exposes what I view to be her illegal activities.20

As per Stephen Lees correspondence to contact Monika Pekevska I did so albeit making surethat the correspondence were forwarded via Stephen lees email [email protected] as to avoid any later argument that he might be unaware of thecorrespondences.25

On 27 January 2010 Ms Preuss during a purported directions Hearing then argued that mycorrespondence were not relevant as they were not that of Mr Francis James Colosimo. I thenpointed out that Mr Francis James Colosimo had recently written correspondence to her in hisown handwriting that he relied upon my correspondences and as such they were relevant. Ms30Preuss then commented that she had not read the correspondence I had forwarded upon which Ipointed out that VCAT had acknowledged to me having received the correspondence.What we therefore had that as I view it Ms Preuss tried to play some kind of cat and mouse gamepretending first my writings were not relevant and when she was caught out with this thenpretending she had not read the correspondence and obviously I made clear I had been notified35VCAT had received it. More over my 19 January 2010 correspondence pointed out to Ms Preussthat she had absolutely no evidence to proceed with any hearing and Ms Preuss upon this then

called an urgent hearing in the afternoon of 25 January 2010 (26 January 2010 being a publicholiday) for a 27 January 2010 urgent Directions hearing.

40If Ms Preuss had no knowledge of the content of my 19 January 2010 correspondence, pointingout that legally she had no evidence before her, then she would hardly have called the 27 january2010 directions hearing for Mr Francis James Colosimo to file incriminating evidence againsthimself. (STAR CHAMBER COURT kind of litigation)

45I pointed out to Ms Preuss that as she had failed since 27 January 2009 to deal with theOBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then she actually never did invoke jurisdiction and any


3/28




orders she purportedly had issues were without legal force! (KANGAROO COURT kind oflitigation)

Thompson v Tolmie 27 U.S. 157 (1829) Page 27 U.S. 157, 169QUOTE5

When a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question that occurs in thecause; and whether its decisions be correct or not, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded

as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments andorders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no

bar to a recovery sought in opposition to them even prior to a reversal.'10END QUOTEAndQUOTE

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 may15be rejected upon direct collateral attack.

END QUOTE

VCAT previously had since early 2007 published material about Mr Francis James Colosimowhich I view are slanderous upon the person and so character of Mr Francis James Colosimo and20from onset Mr Francis James Colosimo OBJECTED to the JUSTRISDICTION orf VCAT butongoing VCAT failed to deal with this appropriately and never did invoke jurisdiction.(KANGAROO COURT kind of litigation)

In December 2009, Mr Francis James Colosimo contacted me requesting me to assist him in25view that I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST as the matters before VCAT pertained constitutionalissues. I accepted doing so, by then the litigation has gone on for about 2 years already.

On 16 March 2009 I assisted Mr Francis James Colosimo before Her Honour Harbison J judge ofthe County Court of Victoria but also member of VCAT in regard of the 6

thCONTEMPT30

hearing against Mr Francis James Colosimo. I pointed out to Her Honour Harbison J that thelawyers had used her like a fool (in transcript) as Mr Francis James Colosimo had all along actedwithin legal provisions but they had fabricated a version of events and concealed relevant details.I then read out the 7 and 17 January 2007 notice of Moorabool Shire Council whichacknowledged that Mr Francis James Colosimo constructed lawfully an outbuilding (shed).35I submitted that the CONTEMPT proceedings were ill conceived, etc. In the end Her HonourHarbison J made known she accepted my submissions and ordered a PERMENTN STAY of the

proceedings, as well ordered I be provided with all transcripts of the contempt hearings.

40When I received the transcripts the first thing I obviously was looking for was the preciseCONTEMPT charge Her Honour Harbison J had stated against Mr Francis James Colosimo onlyto discover that Her Honour Harbison J actually never had formally charged Mr Francis JamesColosimo! Neither had Her Honour Harbison J attended to the NOTICE OFCONSTITUTIONAL MATTER that was on file, etc. As such a total disregard to follow proper45legal procedures. And again VCAT still had not invoked any jurisdiction. (KANGAROOCOURT kind of litigation)


4/28




On 12 June 2008 Her Honour Harbison J then requested the Office of the Public Advocate toinvestigate if Mr Francis James Colosimo had wilfully been in contempt with the 30 May 2007EX PARTE orders of Member Phillip that required for example to remove a second dwelling,this even so no second dwelling was ever erected and so neither existed and neither were any5charged made against Mr Francis James Colosimo of erecting a second dwelling. It just wasfabricated by Member Phillip martin during the EX PARTE hearing to be a second dwelling

even so the shed previously had been registered by Footscray TAFE college as a shed.

Transcript 29-5-2008 Her Honour Harbison J10QUOTE

HER HONOUR : All right. Mr Colosimo, I will allow Mr Higgins to present the case foryou, but I want to make sure that you understand that its your case, because you arethe person who has been charged with contempt. You are the person who may go

to goal if youre found guilty of contempt15END QUOTE.

Again, Her Honour Harbison J had never formally charged mr Francis james colosimo duringany of the 6 purported CONTEMPT hearings.

20It may be noticed that the 16 March 2009 transcript in the CONTEMPT proceedings before HerHonour Harbison J when I was assisting Mr Francis James Colosimo, sets out the following;(Do note the error in my surname spelling, (SHOREL-HLAVKIA should be; Schorel-Hlavka)QUOTE Transcript 16 March 2009-03-30 QUOTE

MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : first of all, Im not a lawyer. Ive no legal training. Im a25constitutionalist. That means I deal with matters on constitutional matters mainly.HER HONOUR : All right. Do you have some you dont have any legal training?MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : Absolutely not.

END QUOTE

30QUOTE G54449/00 hearing 27-1-2009 CHRONOLOGY & PRESENTATIONQUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees

The contempt proceeding was again heard by Her Honour on 6 November 2008. Followingsubmissions, and allowing that the administration order was only made eight (8) days earlier,Her Honour adjourned the matter for a full hearing on 16 March 2009. The Court is35satisfied that the charge is proven. The parties are to consult as to the further conduct ofthe hearing by 2 March 2009.As the contempt proceedings are of a criminal nature, State Trustees cannot provide

instructions on behalf of Mr Colosimo.END QUOTE40END QUOTE G54449/00 hearing 27-1-2009 CHRONOLOGY & PRESENTATION

AgainQUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees

The Court is satisfied that the charge is proven.45END QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees


5/28




Now consider what subsequently Her Honour Harbison J stated on 16 March 2009;

Transcript 16 March 2009 page 24 at 18

QUOTEMR SHOREL-HLAVKIA: And half-way at the bottom part of it, it states what I stated5

was, After Harbison J already found contempt to have been proven and therefore thematter is now one between VCAT and Mr Francis James Colosimo as to determine

what if any term of imprisonment should be measured out. So thats what HerHonour indicated earlier. So this is a matter regarding sentencing itself.

HER HONOUR: No, no, thats not quite right. I havent found Mr Colosimo guilty of10contempt because one of the elements that I need to be satisfied about as towhether or not hes committed a contempt, is whether his actions were willful .And thats the reason the matter went to the Guardianship Tribunal , because Ididnt know whether he was intentionally disobeying the order or because he

was doing so because he had a medical condition. So thats the matter that the15guardianship application was to explore.

END QUOTE

Again, do carefully consider what Her Honour Harbison J was on about (albeit do not forget thatin view of the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER already before Her Honour20Harbison J she had no power (jurisdiction) in any event to pursue an assessment as to the mentalcompetence of Mr Francis James Colosimo:

It should be noted that as I recall it the State Trustees Limited had submitted to you that MrFrancis James Colosimo was found GUILTY of contempt and I disputed this!25

QUOTE 6-2-2010 correspondenceIn my view you would do better to vacate the 16 and 17 February 2010 hearing dates inregard of Mr Francis James Colosimo and have the Victorian Government solicitors Office toappoint someone with enough intelligence who can understand that ultimately we all must30operate within the RULE OF LAW, and so this person may become engaged to seek to resolvethe problems and finally abort the purported administration orders, as well as to ensure justcompensation for Mr Francis James Colosimo for the emotional, mental and financial harmcaused to both himself as well as to his family.END QUOTE 6-2-2010 correspondence35

Despite this Ms Preuss seemingly holding various hearings, I am not aware Ms Preuss even onceraised the very issue that Her Honour Harbison J was about:

I need to be satisfied about as to whether or not hes committed a contempt, is40whether his actions were willful .

And thats the reason the matter went to the Guardianship Tribunal ,


6/28




because I didnt know whether he was intentionally disobeying the order or because

he was doing so because he had a medical condition.

So thats the matter that the guardianship application was to explore.

5I have raised this issue in past but somehow Ms Preuss was more concerned about everything

else, such as if Mr Francis James Colosimo can or cannot appoint a Enduring Power of Attorney,and when Ms Preuss was provided with statements he is competent for this Ms Preuss still afterone year maintain a prohibition for him to appoint an Enduring Power of Attorney, but to myknowledge never ever bothered in more then one year of ongoing litigation to address the issue10of wilful contempt!

Likewise Member Graves in his 29 October 2008 reasons/orders referred to this, albeit he madeclear that a reassessment was to be held before 30 June 2009. As this never eventuated then the20 August 2009 orders technically expired for this and the review no longer can review an order15that no longer is on foot. While Ms Preuss as I view it tried to con Mr Francis James Colosimo as

to choose between a review and an reassessment so that somehow she could try to claimjurisdiction the truth is that her as I view it extra ordinary illegal activities has caused ongoingmental, emotional and financial harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo and the transcript willshow that this was also stated to Ms Preuss.20

While formal complaints were lodged to the president of VCAT as well as to the presidentReview nothing came from this and this seems to me to underline that what I view as illegalactivities is a modus operandi so grinded into VCAT that it may be a norm to those acting asjudicial officers in VCAT.25

I have below again reproduced a copy of the correspondence of the Registrar of VCAT and

it must be clear that publication by me is lawfully executed.

QUOTE Publication by VCAT Principal Registrar30VICTORIAN CIVIL ANDADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

GUARDIANSHIP LIST

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION35PENALTIES FOR DISCLOSURE OF

INFORMATION

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) isProviding the attached documents to you on a confidential basis.40

Section 34, 35 and 36 of the Victorian Civil and AdministrativeTribunal Act 1998 provide that you must not, directly orindirectly, disclose this information to any person to whom theinformation has not been released or make copies of documents45containing the information. You may be liable for a penalty ofup to $6,000.00 if you do so.


7/28




(The VCAT ACT may be reviewed at www.vcat.vic.gov.au)

You may disclose information if you have the written consent ofthe person to whom it relates or in other circumstances, such as5in reporting to police a suspected offence, or assisting policeinvestigating a suspected offence.

Otherwise,, if you wish to disclose the information to anotherperson you must contact VCAT and seek permission to do so.10

Principal Registrar

VCAT15

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55 King Street, Melbourne Vic 3000 Vic. Toll Free 1800 133 055 Telephone 03 9628 9911

GPO Box 5408CC Melbourne Vic 3001 Internet ww.vcat.vic.gov.au Facsimile 03 9628 993220END QUOTE Publication by VCAT Principal RegistrarEND QUOTE 100208-G54449-00-VGSO-Monika Pekevska-Re NOTICE OFCONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS-etc.doc

Again:25QUOTE

You may disclose information if you have the written consent ofthe person to whom it relates or in other circumstances

END QUOTE

30As the transcripts were provided and refer also to my presentation before Her Honour

Harbison J I am well entitled to reveal the details in that regard. Further, as Mr Francis

James colosimo requested me to publish matters on his behalf then again the publication ispermitted. Further the term or in other circumstances is not limited to police

investigations and I view likewise can be applied to exposing inappropriate conduct by35VCAT members, etc.

The following documents were forwarded to Stepehen Lees office:100206-G54449-00-VGSO-Monika Pekevska

84 Pages40

100206-G54449-00-Ms Preuss-Re Prohibition to publish-etc5 pages

100207-G54449-00-Ms Preuss-Re Wilful contempt-etc452 Pages

100207-G54449-00-VGSO-Monika Pekevska-Re PUBLISHING-etc

30 Pages50


8/28




100208-G54449-00-VGSO-Monika Pekevska-Re NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL

MATTERS-etc

22 pages

100209-G54449-00-VGSO-Monika Pekevska-Re Newspaper 14-8-2007 publication-etc549 Pages

100209-G54449-00-VGSO-Stephen Lee AVGS-etc.doc

6 pages

10The application to Guardianship List by Mr Brandan Hoysted, Duty Officer, Office of the PublicAdvocate reveals the following, under the heading Issues to be determined;

QUOTE 16-7-2008 Application by Office of the Public AdvocateMr Colosimo is the15respondent in ContemptProceedings. That matter

was adjourned pendinginvestigation by OPA+, if appropriate, applic-20ation to the Guardianshiplist if VCAT for an orderof administration.Dr Stobart says MrColosimo suffers from a25mental disorder + that heis not capable of managinghis own affairs in

particular the contemptproceedings.30

END QUOTE 16-7-2008 Application by Office of the Public Advocate

The issue is that it was not at all about if Mr Francis James Colosimo could manage thecontempt proceedings but if he was mentally competent to stand trial.

Ample of people are not able to manage contempt proceedings and may enlist the35assistances of a lawyer but they can still be mentally competent to stand trial for contempt!

The application in my view does not at all reflect what was requested by Her Honour

Harbison J to be assessed and that is the mental competence of Mr Francis James Colosimo

to stand trial.In my view it is a very serious matter if the Duty officer of the office of the Public Advocate40cannot distinguish the difference between assessing a person for mental competence to

stand trial or between assessing the mental competence of a person to administer his own

financial affairs!

Lets now check the terms of the order of administration!45

QUOTE 29-10-2008 orderORDER


9/28




VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL GUARDIANSHIP LIST

Proceeding in relation to Francis Colosimo under

Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 Section 43 administration order.5

The Tribunal is satisfied that the pproposed person has a disability: is unable by reason of thatdisability to make reasonable judgment about their estate: and needs an administrator.QUOTE 29-10-2008 orderAnd10QUOTE 29-10-2008 order3. This administration order be reassessed no later than 30 June 2009.END QUOTE 29-10-2008 orderAndQUOTE 29-10-2008 order156. The administrator is to restrict intervention to areas necessary to achieve resolution of issuesrelated to disputes with the Moorabool Shire Council concerning overdue rates: and to mattersrelating to planning permits and associated issues which are before VCAT.

END QUOTE 29-10-2008 order

20Not only does this order not at all address the competence of Mr Francis James Colosimo as tomental competence to stand trial for contempt, but it goes of so to say into the deep end aboutoverdue rates not at all an issue before Her Honour Harbison J as a purported CONTEMPT issue.

More over, it refers to and to matters relating to planning permits and associated issues25which are before VCAT and as Moorabool Shire Council by its NOTICE dated 7 and 17January 2007 acknowledged that Mr Francis James colosimo was in compliance with relevantlegislative provisions for building the OUTBUILDING (SHED) then the purpose of theorders was clearly not at all for which Her Honour Harbison J requested the office of the PublicAdvocate to investigate!30

QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees Limited

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

"The administrator is to restrict intervention to areas necessary to achieve35resolution 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 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees Limited

40QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees Limited

The Councilhas their order and will continue to ensure that it is enforced, this meaning that theshed will ultimately be dismantled and removed from the property.

END QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees Limited

45It seems that now it is a shed after all?


10/28




QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees

The council have the provision, under the Local Government Act 1989, to engage theservices of a contractor to demolish the building and restore the land to its original state.The council would pay the contractor and then charge that cost directly to Mr Colosimo.5Further discussions with the council will be dependent on the outcome of the rehearing,

for the need for an administration order.

The great concern in this matter is that Mr Colosimo, because of his personal beliefs, wellintentioned as they are, may receive a custodial sentence, with a possibility that he mayalso lose his family home.10-

Mr Peter Sier will attend the rehearingon behalf of State Trustees.


15

What we have is that while there is no legal dispute about the OUTBUILDING (shed) asMoorabool Shire Council by way of 7 and 17 January 2007 dated NOTICE acknowledged thiswas build within legal provisions, somehow Mr Peter Sier for State Trustees Limitednevertheless indicates to have this lawfully build shed demolished at cost of Mr Francis JamesColosimo, and so in direct breach to the terms of the 29 October 2008 administration orders, as20these orders do not at all authorise the removal of a lawfully build shed!

Also consider the sheer arrogance by Mr Peter Sier in the following quotation of his 21-1-2009correspondence stating Neither of these gentlemen hold a current practicing legal certificate.

As this clearly is not relevant within s.62 of the VCAATA! And, he himself is not to my25knowledge a legal practitioner and obviously has problems to understand the true meaning andapplication or terms of orders!

QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees LimitedWe have met with Mr Colosimo at his home on two occassions and had a number of30telephone conversations. At our second meeting with him, we also involved his wife, Mary,in the conversation. Mr Colosimo contends that he has never been given due process, thathe has never been properly listen to. He has been refused legal aid, on the grounds that hehas a high equity in his property. He does not have the financial resources to engage a

private solicitor. Mr Erroll Higgins has represented Mr Colosimo, it would appear in a35somewhat ad-hoc manner. Mr Colosimo will be represented at the rehearing by Mr GerritSchorel-Hlavka. Neither of these gentlemen hold a current practicing legal certificate.


It is obvious that instead of having court litigation it is conducted by a tribunal there is nothing40but errors made ongoing and below some more to underline the total absurdity as to havesomething like VCAT dealing with legal issues where obviously, in my view, it is totallyincompetent to do so.


11/28




Preston Ice and Cool Stores Pty Ltd. v. Hawkings (1955) V.L.R. 89; (1955) Austin Digest 337.QUOTE

It was held that where there is a review/appeal the party having sought suchreview/appeal is not bound by the grounds used in the original hearing but may refer toother grounds even so, such grounds had not been upon which the original order was5based.

END QUOTE

While Ms Preuss may have preferred to rely upon the 21 January 2009 statement of Mr PeterSier of State Trustees Limited nevertheless as a judicial officer she had an obligation to consider10the material I had placed before her for Mr Francis James Colosimo and clearly her failure to doso is no excuse.

But it gets even worse! What did eventuate as to the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONALMATTER?15

20

Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335QUOTE

The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the

inalienable right of everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.25END QUOTE

No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO(1936) A.C. 332, at 33530

QUOTEBut whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration ofjustice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises theordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seatof justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to err35therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to

those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right ofcriticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, theyare immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutinyand respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary man40

END QUOTE

The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVENINGNEWS (1880) N.S.W. LR 211 AT 239.:45QUOTE


12/28




The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot bedisputed. Our practice of sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functionsas we do, always in the broad light of day, would be shown of some of its value if the publicopinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be rigidly suppressed. We claim noimmunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.5

END QUOTE

As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;(a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368(b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-5910(c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537(d) SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31

QUOTE 6-2-2010 CORRESPONDENCEWITHOUT PREJUDICE15

Victorian Government Solicitors Office 6-2-2010C/o Monika Pekevska [email protected]

.Cc; * Mr & Mrs Colosimo, 72 Shuter Avenue, Greendale, Vic 3341 [email protected]

* Maddocks (for Moorabool Shire Council) (Ref MYM:KJM:528501520Email [email protected]

*Senior Member Ms Preuss [email protected]* Deputy Registrar Ashe Whitaker VCAT Guardian List) [email protected]

* Mr Brendan Hoysted [email protected]* Mr. Peter Sier, [email protected]

* Moorabool Shire Council Councillors [email protected] Michael Tudball [email protected]

Cr Allan Comrie Cr Pat Griffin Cr Pat Toohey (mayor) Cr Tom SullivanCr Russell Hendry Cr Philip Flack and/or any other councillor

.30

Monika Pekevska,Thank you for your 5 February 2010 correspondence but I am a little

puzzled as to what you refer to as being confidential details. The question is if the legislation isapplicable in the circumstances as I explain also to some extend below. I will take the positionthat you obviously are not at all aware of what the circumstances are and do not intend to35obstruct the course of justice and neither to seek to interfere with the rights of Mr Francis JamesColosimo in that regard but I do seek you to understand that I made known to Ms Preuss on 27January 2010 that a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS will be filed and belowsome details will be set out in that regard also as to enable you to understand you might do betterto not make the matters worse against Mr Francis James Colosimo and perhaps do give Ms40Preuss some sound legal advise that she is bound by the RULE OF LAW regardless if shedoesnt like it. Still, whatever may be argued about this nevertheless Member Philips Martinhimself in the 30-5-2007 reasons referred to;QUOTE

As indicated above, the Respondent did not make its position any easier by failing to45provide the Tribunal with any real arguments against the enforcement orders, apart fromthe jurisdictional challenge which the Deputy President Gibson indicated in her 14 March2007 orders should be pursued at the Victorian Supreme Court rather than at the Tribunal.

END QUOTE

As set out below, there is no such thing as a Respondent to prove jurisdiction as the onus is50upon the prosecutor and unless and until, if ever at all the is a formal order and reason of

judgment to dismiss the objection to jurisdiction no jurisdiction ever was invoked and no


13/28




order made has any legal validity. Do keep in mind that Her Honour Harbison J held 6

purported CONTEMPT proceedings against Mr Francis James Colosimo and as set out

below claimed she could imprison Mr Francis James Colosimo even so as I detected from

the 6 transcripts Her Honour Harbison J actually never had formally charged Mr Francis

James Colosimo, and it out of these VEXATIOUS CONTEMPT proceedings that the5administration orders eventuated! And identification of a party to the proceedings

eventuate the moment VCAT itself published details for listing even on the Internet as I

understood it to eventuate on various occasions, even before I published any!

QUOTE Internet 6-2-2010 publicationshttp://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256DBB0022825D/HomePage?ReadForm&1=Home~&2=~&3=10~click on;

Daily Law List

You then go to:15http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256DBB0022825D/page/Daily+Law+List?OpenDocument&1=20-Daily+Law+List~&2=~&3=~click on;Guardianship law list

20The following list the identities of persons involved in guardianship cases that were held on 5February 2010!http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256DBB0022825D/page/Daily+Law+List-Guardianship+Law+List?OpenDocument&1=20-Daily+Law+List~&2=10-Guardianship+Law+List~&3=~25

Guardianship Law List Print this page

Please note: The law list for the next working day is published each day between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m.

subject to late changes.

FRIDAY, 5 FEBRUARY 2010

Hearing Room G.5, Ground Floor, 55 King Street, MelbourneMember Kefford

09:30 AM Elizabeth Gacsi G59097/00

10:30 AM Mavis Irene James G50099/06

11:30 AM Mahmud Gulad G59063/00

02:00 PM Roma George G58986/00

02:45 PM William Barry Howe G39349/04

Hearing Room G.7, Ground Floor, 55 King Street, Melbourne

Senior Member Scott

09:30 AM Harold (Harry) Francis G30544/05

10:30 AM Jack Williams G59037/00

11:15 AM Miriam Lewis G59041/00

12:00 PM Darren Grant Coulton G14917/07


14/28




02:00 PM Eden Stockman G58975/00

03:30 PM Joan Bullock G51007/01

Law Courts, Nicholson Street, BairnsdaleMember Lightfoot

02:00 PM Allan David Baines G34312/05

02:15 PM Winifred Mary Bowyer G59035/00

03:15 PM James Ireland G55054/01

Moorabbin Court, 1140 Nepean Highway, Highett

Member Holloway

09:30 AM Sophia Skouteri G56712/01

11:30 AM Phyllis Agnes Le Grand G58525/00

12:15 PM Helen Zacharia G33247/07

02:00 PM Wilma Marks G56128/01

02:45 PM Yun Kuong G48036/02

03:30 PM Kylie-Anne Caroline Hyder G30560/08

http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256DBB0022825D/page/Daily+Law+List-Guardianship+Law+List?OpenDocument&1=20-Daily+Law+List~&2=10-Guardianship+Law+List~&3=~click on:5Decisions

And you go to:VCAT decisions are available for download from the Australasian Legal Information Institute

website (AustLii) at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/10

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

You are here: AustLII >> Databases >> Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Help]

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Database last updated: 6 February 201015Most recent decision: 27 January 2010

Number of decisions: 26302

Decisions beginning with ...

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Decisions for the years ...20

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decisions beginning with C ...

Then at:25


15/28




http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=boolean&query=colosimo&meta=%2Fau&mask_path=au%2Fcases%2Fvic%2FVCAT

You can download details such as those listed cases:5

o Show All Sections

By Title

1. Colosimo v Moorabool SC [2007] VCAT 948 (30 May 2007) [100%](From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 30 May 2007; 33 KB)

2. Colosimo Ors v Director of Liquor Licensing (Occupational and Business Regulation)10[2008] VCAT 1616 (24 June 2008) [88%](From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 24 June 2008; 17 KB)

3. Moorabool SC v Colosimo [2007] VCAT 1367 (1 August 2007) [45%](From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 1 August 2007; 17 KB)

4. Morgan v Clark Bros Painters Renderers (Domestic Building) [2007] VCAT 1908 (315

October 2007) [2%](From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 3 October 2007; 12 KB)

5. Walter Or v Manningham CC [1999] VCAT 987 (31 May 1999) [1%](From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 31 May 1999; 61 KB)

6. The King David School v Stonnington CC [2009] VCAT 558 (27 March 2009) [1%]20(From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 27 March 2009; 89 KB)

7. Frobose v Victorian College of the Arts [2000] VCAT 1282 (30 June 2000) [1%](From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; 30 June 2000; 78 KB)

END QUOTE Internet 6-2-2010 publications

.25QUOTE Colosimo v Moorabool SC [2007] VCAT 948 (30 May 2007). Dochttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2007/948.html?query=title(COLOSIMO )

Colosimo v Moorabool SC [2007] VCAT 948 (30 May 2007)

Last Updated: 8 June 200730VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

END QUOTE 6-2-2010 CORRESPONDENCE

35QUOTE 6-2-2010 CORRESPONDENCE

Seems to me that VCAT itself published considerable amount of material about Mr

Francis James Colosimo well before I ever became involved in the case and worse isthat it all purports that Mr Francis James Colosimo acted in breach of law where he

never did so! Now, if you content that this kind of slander against his person and so40his character should be left unanswered then obviously you do not seem to understandwhat legal rights a person has. It should be clear that my first appearance before VCAT inthe co0losimo case was on 27 January 2009 after Mr Francis James Colosimo contacted me

in December 2008 that he had this long running case, and then I was able to down load


16/28




from VCAT website the details, and not just his identity but a lot more. As the abovequoted material downloaded from VCAT website indicates. Now fancy you going to courtand claiming it is alright for VCAT to disregard the RULE OF LAW and terrorist this MrFrancis James Colosimo with VEXATIOUS LITIGATION without jurisdiction but noone should be entitled to publish the truth!5.Look at all the names of cases I downloaded from VCAT website about cases involved

in Guardianship List, and for that also on the president review w ebsite there are

identities available and for so far I am aware of you cannot prevent the publication ofdetails that are already readily otherwise available such as on the VCAT website! I10urge you to get real and apply common sense and to rather advice VCAT to stop their kindof terrorism upon Mr Francis James Colosimo with their long running VEXXATIOUSLITIGATION without jurisdiction!.Her Honour Harbison J on 16-3-2009 accepted my submission to stay the15CONTEMPT proceedings, as I submitted to Her Honour Harbison J there was no

jurisdiction, there was no valid order, there was no second dwelling, no one in the

world could comply with the terms of the order, Mr Francis James Colosimo had not

committed any offence and the lawyers had used her as a fool!Clearly, Mr Francis James Colosimo from onset objected to the jurisdiction of VCAT since20at least January 2007 and as long before I became involved in the case and as yet this wasnever formally attended to and hence VCAT never in the first place invoked legaljurisdiction and hence no VCAT legislation can be then enforced against Mr Francis JamesColosimo, on whos request I commenced to publish matters, because he desires the publicto know about the grave injustice done to him and the VEXATION litigation that is25maintained by Ms Preuss in conflict of Mr Francis James Colosimo CIVIL and otherconstitutional rights.

END QUOTE 6-2-2010 CORRESPONDENCE

QUOTE 6-2-2010 CORRESPONDENCE30QUOTE vcaata1998428

107 Dealing with questions of law

(1) A question of law arising in a proceeding must be decided by a judicial member ora member who is a legal practitioner.

(2) If the Tribunal is constituted in a proceeding by more than one judicial member or35legal practitioner (or both), a question of law arising in the proceeding must bedecided by the presiding member.

(3) If a question of law arises in a proceeding where the Tribunal is constituted by amember or members who are not judicial members or legal practitioners

(a) the question must be decided by another member who is a judicial member or40legal practitioner; and

(b) for that purpose only, the Tribunal in the proceeding is to be reconstituted toinclude that other member.

(4) In this section, question of law includes a question of mixed law and fact.END QUOTE vcaata199842845.


17/28




As VCAT is not a court within Chapter III of The Commonwealth of Australia ConstitutionAct 1900 (UK) (see also the 1956 Boilermakers case) but is an organ of the State governmentand not being a court that can invoke federal jurisdiction and hence cannot either deal withmatters concerning the (federal) constitution, then it is a violation of Mr Francis James ColosimoCIVIL RIGHTS to have him without legal justification subjected to purported VCAT5administration orders without legal justification!.

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 bought10

within the terms of the statute, and only if this be proven by proper evidence can the

court proceed to decide upon treatment"(See CROSS v. DE VALLE, 68 U.S. 5 (1863) and other cases in Folder 11 of the CD)

END QUOTE

.15

QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it

must be proven.

END QUOTE

20QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,

Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven

END QUOTE

QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,25

No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.END QUOTE

QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,

Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.30END QUOTE

.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, and35afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.

END QUOTE

.Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942QUOTE40

Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says ChiefJustice Latham, "sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess ofpower is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled todisregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, butsuch a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not45valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it isinvalid ab initio.

END QUOTE

.QUOTE R. Watson; Ex Parte Armstrong: Full Court of the HIGH COURT: (1976) 1 FLR50

11, 297; 9 ALR 551;(1976) FLC 90-059


18/28




exercisesjudicial power and must dischargehis duties judicially.

END QUOTE

.The High Court of Australia held that where a party pleads the non-application of a State Actbecause of Commonwealth legislation then the State Court is exercising Federal jurisdiction.5(However only if the State Court can invoke jurisdiction, which VCAT cannot and neither is acourt!) Troy v Wrigglesworth (1919) 26 C.L.R. 305; 25 (1926) 38 C.L.R. 441; 33 A.L.R. 66.

.QUOTE In the marriage of Smith v Saywell (1980) Fam LR 6 245 at 258

Where a case pending in a federal court other than the HIGH COURT or in a court of a state10or territory involves a matter arising under the Constitution involving its interpretation, it isthe duty of the court not to proceed in the cause unless and until the court is satisfied thatnotice of the cause, specifying the nature of the matter has been given to the AttorneyGeneral of the commonwealth and (a) if the cause is pending in a court of a state - to theAttorney General of that state; or (b) if the cause is pending in a Federal court and was15initiated in a state - to the Attorney General of that state, and for a reasonable time elapsedsince the giving of the notice for consideration by that Attorney General or by thoseAttorney General, of the question of intervention in the proceedings or the removal of the

cause to the HIGH COURT.END QUOTE20.The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVILRIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates ofthe National Australasian Convention)25QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individualcitizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection andsecure to him.

END QUOTE30.HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates ofthe National Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its35Constitution,

END QUOTEEND QUOTE 6-2-2010 CORRESPONDENCE

40At no time did VCAT invoke jurisdiction and conducted numerous VEXATIOUS hearingscausing ongoing emotional, mental and financial harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo.

Without seeking to indicate that Mr Graves had jurisdiction to deal with matters concerning MrFrancis James Colosimo, as this remains disputed, the point is that his 29 October 2008 orders45stipulated an reassessment before 30 June 2009, this did not eventuate and as such in any eventthose orders seized to be applicable by failure of a reassessment.


19/28




A review of a decision, but not ignoring the fact you never invoked jurisdiction either by failingto deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, etc, you had a legal obligation, yes a legalobligation, to competently conduct matters within a reasonable time span. The courts have attimes dismissed charges where it held that the prosecution of charges were not executed within areasonable time and the time delay itself is an injustice upon the accused. Hence any judicial5officer has to diligently deal with litigation with the least amount of delay.

A FAIR MINDED PERSON therefore may conclude that the Guardianship List hearings neverat all were held for the very purpose that Her Honour Harbison J requested matters to be10investigated as to if Mr Francis James Colosimo was mentally competent to stand trial forCONTEMPT.

While Graves in his orders indicate for State Trustees limited to deal with planning issues, andnot at all the demolition of a lawfully build shed, as Moorabool Shire Council itself by way of 715and 17 January 2007 notice acknowledged the shed was build within legal provisions,nevertheless the 21 January 2009 correspondence of State Trustees Limited indicated that Mr

Peter Sier of State Trustees Limited was making arrangements with Moorabool Shire Council todemolish and remove the shed as cost of Mr Francis James Colosimo. Clearly, this was outsidethe terms of the orders of Graves. As such even if it was deemed, not that we concede this, there20was jurisdiction for the 29 October 2008 orders of Graves then State Trustees Limited clearlyintended to act in defiance of these orders.

Despite of my comprehensive writings and my requests to withdraw the content of the 5February 2010 correspondence Stephen Lee Acting Victorian government solicitor failed to do25so and when then my 77 year old wife read his 5 February 2010 correspondence she started tohave very much difficulties because of what was stated in this correspondence.

In my view Stephen Lee acted without due and proper regard to first investigate matters andwithout due and proper regard to withdraw the content of the 5-2-2010 correspondence when itshould have been obvious to him that so to say VCAT had led him up to a garden path and not30disclosed the true legal position that was applicable.

I view it scandalous enough that VCAT has continue the VEXATIOUS litigation against MrFrancis James Colosimo for so long but if it now proposes to take me on then so to say they havesomething coming to them because I will continue to publish matters as permitted within my35constitutional and other rights.

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVILRIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of40the National Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individualcitizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection andsecure to him.45

END QUOTE


20/28




.HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates ofthe National Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its5Constitution,

END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE10Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have

provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining theprovisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the

people.

END QUOTE15


QUOTEMr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains

unwritten,20END QUOTE


QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious25liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days canreasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also

a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peopleswhom it will embrace and unite.

END QUOTE30

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are aboutto commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about35to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can

conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the

world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia tovote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. Thisnew charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.40

END QUOTE


QUOTEMr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed45as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, forno citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that


21/28




those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the

Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the

Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making

a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or

infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not5altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which

it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court youare creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such atribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the10states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:15I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having

important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.END QUOTE

.20Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one

step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of thelegislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the25Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials

shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any

private person would be.

END QUOTE

30Because the states were created within s.106 of the federal constitution subject to thisconstitution it means that all legal principles embedded in the federal constitution also appliesto the States.

QUOTE Re: Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458 James LJ35A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whoma decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or

wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something.END QUOTE

40QUOTE

Privy Council in Att Gen of Gambia v N'Jie (1961) AC 617But the definition of James LJ is not to be regarded as exhaustive. Lord M R pointed out inEx Parte Official Receiver, re Reed Bowen and Co. (1887) 19 QBD 174 at p178. Thewords person aggrieved are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restrictive45interpretation. They do not include, of course, a mere busy body who is interfering in things


22/28




that do not concern him; but they do include a person who has a grievance because an orderwas made which prejudiciallyaffects his interests.

END QUOTE

QUOTE5In R v Hall (Warwick & Asizes, 1-4-1845. Maule J.) (1845)

Be it so; yet you had no right to take the law into your own hands, I will tell you what youought to have done, and if you did know, I will tell you that the law conclusively presumesthat you did.

END QUOTE10

In my view Stephen lee should have appropriately checked the files if there were any statementon file (so also transcript) that would indicate that I was lawfully publishing details thatidentified Mr Francis James Colosimo. Keeping in mind that it is not the publication of detailsbut the cause to identify him that is in issue in the legislation, and this clearly was all along done15by VCATs own website publications about 2 years prior to that I commenced to publish details.

then clearly there can be no breach of legislative provisions either even if, not that this isconceded, VCAT had invoked jurisdiction and so the provisions of the VCAATA applied.Where VCAT never invoked jurisdiction then it is irrelevant if then I did or didnt publishbecause without jurisdiction the VCAT provisions as to publication cannot be maintained either.20

While ordinary Stephen lee as Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor was entitled to pursuethe proper application of legislative provisions and to forward the 5 February 2010correspondence, even if having misconceived the legal position, however, once he was madeaware by the content of my correspondences that he had it completely wrong that the25publications were lawful then I view he had a legal obligation to immediately withdraw the

content of his 5 February 2010 correspondence and not persist with it, as it now also causedconsiderable harm upon my wife when she read the correspondence on 9 February 2010 and bythen Stephen lee had disregarded as I understand he still has by the time of writing this complaintto withdrew his correspondence and the threats contained therein.30

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 orchoose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his35client. 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 ofhis client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of thosethings. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. Hemust not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He40must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He mustproduce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that hisclient 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 tothe court.45

END QUOTE


23/28




Stephen Lee as an OFFICER OF THE COURT should have been well aware that he uses aspecial position and should neither recklessly engage in threats and litigation at cost of taxpayerswhile he should or could have been aware that I lawfully published details that identified MrFrancis James Colosimo after VCAT already had done so for some 2 years on the Internet!

.5It should be obvious that Section 37(1) is seeking to avoid disclosure of identity of Mr FrancisJames Colosimo and as VCAT itself already had ongoing disclosed this since early 2007 then

any publication by me never could have disclosed his identity more then already have been doneby VCAT.

10QUOTE 9-2-2010 correspondence to the office of Stephen Lee

WITHOUT PREJUDICEVictorian Government Solicitors Office 9-2-2010C/o Monika Pekevska [email protected]; * Mr & Mrs Colosimo, 72 Shuter Avenue, Greendale, Vic 3341 [email protected]

* MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER [email protected] Editor. A Jefferson

*Maddocks

(forMoorabool Shire Council

) (Ref MYM:KJM:5285015Email [email protected]*Senior Member Ms Preuss [email protected]* Deputy Registrar Ashe Whitaker VCAT Guardian List) [email protected]* Mr Brendan Hoysted [email protected]

* Mr. Peter Sier, [email protected]* Moorabool Shire Council Councillors [email protected]

Cr Michael Tudball [email protected] Allan Comrie Cr Pat Griffin Cr Pat Toohey (mayor) Cr Tom Sullivan

Cr Russell Hendry Cr Philip Flack and/or any other councillor.

Monika Pekevska,Further to my previous correspondence let me remind you about the following:30

In this document I will set out albeit in a limited manner the need to publish details in particularwhere I view already way back on 14 August 2007 MELTON MOORABOOL LEADERpublished an article about Mr Francis James Colosimo I view is slanderous and failed to presenta balanced account of the real issues. I will below quote one particular article I am aware of that I35view also place in question the conduct of Moorabool Shire Council having pursued litigationand presenting matters deceptively for the article despite that it knew or ought to have knownthat by its 7 and 17 January 2007 notice (prior to any litigation being on foot) it hadacknowledged that Mr Francis James Colosimo actually lawfully was building his shed!

40 In particular in a small community like MOORABOOL any adverse publication such as this byMELTON MOORABOOL LEADER of 14 August 2007 about Mr Francis James Colosimo inmy view has a dramatically mental, emotional and financial harm upon Mr Francis JamesColosimo and his family. I am not aware that MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER ever sincepublished a retraction and/or correction to clarify its error in presenting an account that clearly45did not at all reflect the true legal circumstances.

In my view it is the inherited right of a person aggrieved by deceptive statements to set out hiscase as he deems appropriate and where I assist/represent Mr Francis James Colosimo and been

requested to publish matters then I am well entitled to do so as well as seek that MELTON50


24/28




MOORABOOL LEADER retracts its article and/or in the alternative publish a correctedversion that reflects the true legal circumstances as was all along applicable and publish also aformal apology to Mr Francis James Colosimo and his family for having causes either directly orindirectly for so long harm upon him and his family.

5QUOTE 090126-G54449-00-CHRONOLOGY & PRESENTATION14-8-2007 Melton Moorabool publish article as to the 30-5-2007 ruling of VCAT member

Philip Martin against unrepresented Respondent Mr. Francis James Colosimoand by this reveals the statement of Moorabool chief executive RobertDobrzynski; VCAT has made the ruling the council would expect it to have10made. As such it could be perceived that Moorabool Shire Council apparentlyexpected no matter the legalities that VCAT would, so to say. tow its line.

END QUOTE 090126-G54449-00-CHRONOLOGY & PRESENTATION

VCAT was therefore made aware by me not only about the publication regarding Mr Francis15James Colosimo but also as it appears to me to indicate that VCAT did what was expected to bedone for Moorabool Shire Council regardless how unlawful and unconstitutional it might be, as

after all Moorabool Shire Council should or would have been aware from its own files that MrFrancis James Colosimo was lawfully building his shed!

20While concealing the truth from MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER may be perhapsindicating the dishonesty with Moorabool Shire Council and manipulation of the truth and I viewthe lack of proper journalistic investigation for the article, on the other hand to do so and concealfrom adjudicators the true legal circumstances as to fraudulently obtain orders and causeVEXATIOUS LITIGATION on a grand scale against Mr Francis James Colosimo I view should25not be overlooked as it is and has been ongoing to pervert the course of JUSTICE and causeundue emotional, mental and financial harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo.

.Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF30AUSTRALIA.QUOTE

In my opinion, the words 'false evidence' in s79A(1) do not mean evidence which iswillfully false. The sub-section should be read according to its terms. To say that 'falseevidence should be read as 'willful false evidence' is to introduce a provision not35expressed by the provision; cf s6H of the Royal Commission Act 1902 which speaks of awitness 'who knowingly gives false testimony'. This interpretation is reinforced by

reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and suppression ofevidence which would comprehend cases of willful false evidence. At common law, ajudgement will be set aside if it has been obtained by fraud. In the exercise of this40jurisdiction, it has been held that an applicant must show something more than perjury, ie.new facts (Baker v. Wadsworth [1898] 67 LJQB 301; Everett V. Ribbands [1946] 175 LT143). This tends to suggest that the words 'false evidence' should be given their literalmeaning

END QUOTE45AndQUOTE


25/28




In my opinion, the jurisdiction extends not only to the setting aside of judgements whichhave been obtained without service or notice to a party (Craig v. Kanssen [1943] KB256 at 262 - 263) but to the setting aside of a default or ex-parte judgement obtainedwhen the absence of the party is due to no fault on his part. I can find no indication in theFamily Law Act of an intention to displace this inherent jurisdiction.5

END QUOTE

QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what istrue.10

END QUOTE

QUOTE 26-1-2009 CHRIONOLOGY & PRESENTATIONHaving gone over Unrepresented Respondent Mr Francis James Colosimos case thereare various issues of concern I be raising with the Tribunal.15.Some but not all of the issues, albeit not all and neither stated in any order of importance,and while constitutional issues have been left out of this list it doesnt mean they are not inissue as the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is maintained, hence any appearance isUNDER PROTEST;20

.1. By the 7 or 17 January 2007 dated cancellation of the notice of 6 December 2006 within

Section 116 of the Building Act 1993 this in effect created an ESTOPPEL as by then itwas to be held that Council had accepted the shed to be lawfully there, upon havingreviewed the matters. Hence, the subsequently instituted proceedings are without legal25basis. (See extensive set out below also!)

2. The Infringement Act 2006only provides for enforcement of a Penalty InfringementNotice to be pursued through a Magistrates Court. VCAT has no authority, as set outbelow!30

3. Coral Lynnette Young (Manager Moorabool Shire Council and Maddocks lawyersconcealed from the Court/Tribunal that in fact on 7 or 17 January 2007 the council hadwithin Section 116 of the Building Act 1993 reconsidered matters and acceptedUnrepresented Respondent Mr Francis James Colosimos submission cancelling the 635December 2006 notice. In my view this is a very serious matter to pervert the course ofjustice as such. Cancelation could not have been done unless the building, etc, werewithin Building Act and Building regulations provisions, as set out below extensively!

4. The purported 22 January 2007 filed application again failed to be valid as the legal40requirement is that the person who signs it is witnessed by an adult. This part was leftblank. Hence it lacks legal validity. As such from onset no valid application was filed tojustify the commencement of any legal proceedings.

5. Coral Lynnette Young in her Affidavit claims that she instructed on 22 January 2007 for45Maddocks to file her application however the bill from Maddocks reveals that she did soon 9 January 2007 and had no contact with Maddocks since 17 January 2007 and as suchfor her to deceive the Court/Tribunal about this what otherwise might be deemed to beimportant alerted me to then be more careful as to her material.


26/28




6. A Court/Tribunal cannot assume JURISDICTION but must decide by way ofJUDICIAL DECISION its jurisdiction or the lack thereof. In view that VCAT has noinvested federal jurisdiction it cannot hear and determine any jurisdictional matters in thatregard. As the Prosecutor has the obligation to prove jurisdiction and also overcome each5and every element of Unrepresented Respondent Mr Francis James Colosimosobjections then it was for the prosecutor to seek a ruling from the High Court of Australiain regard of all and any constitutional matters Unrepresented Respondent Mr FrancisJames Colosimo raised. While each party is entitled to pursue a writ for mandamus,prohibition, etc, Unrepresented Respondent Mr Francis James Colosimo was not10obligated to do so and it has no affects upon his objection to jurisdiction not having doneso.

END QUOTE 26-1-2009 CHRONOLOGY & PRESENTATION

MELTON MOORABOOL [email protected] Station Street, Sunbury, 3429Tel; 9744 9333Editor Andrew Jefferson

20Circulation 37,565Readership 59,000Frequency Weekly

.The following newspaper article in MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER of 14 August 200725incorrectly/wrongly alleges that the building was illegal as the outbuilding (SHED) was held byMoorabool Shire Council to be within legal provisions. The order of VCAT member P. martinreferred to a second dwelling and as I submitted to Her Honour Harbsion J on 16 March 2009not a person in the world could comply with terms of orders referring to a non existing seconddwelling.30

What we have however is that Moorabool Shire Councilss Mr Dobrzynski didnt hesitate todisclose Mr Francis James Colosimo identity and so did MOORABOOL SHIRE COUNCILand MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER as well as VCAT and somehow for me to publish35the truth as a book publisher, and on request of Mr Francis James Colosimo seems to beunlawful? Come on!

QUOTE 14-8-2007 MELTON MOORABOOL LEADERBuilding illegal40Jane BlakeleyA GREENDALE man has been ordered to pull down a partially built room on his propertyafter the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled the dwelling had been illegallybuilt.Frances James Colosimo was ordered to demolish the building at his Shuter Ave property45before the end of this month.


27/28




The matter appeared before the states planning tribunal after Mr Colosimo erected thebuilding on his property without seeking building or planning approval from MooroboolCouncil. A previous residence already existed ion the land.The tribunal heard the council became aware of the illegal construction last year and triedto carry out an inspection of the building, but mr colosimo blocked council officers from5attending.And alternative inspection took place in September last year from an adjoining property.The council lodged an enforcement application on 22 january 22 to stop Mr Colosimoswork, saying the land was being used in contradiction to the Moorabool Planning Scheme.The tribunal heard Mr Colosimo did respond to the councils notice with two letters on10February 16 and 18 that said the council had no statutory ability or jurisdiction to takeenforcement action against him.It would appear the respondent regards the rights which he holds in regard as arising fromeither god or otherwise from the respondent;s various property rights which he believesflow from his registered ownership title to the subject land. VCAT member Phillip martin15said in his summary. Mr martin said evidence presented to the tribunal suggested the part-completed dwelling was intended for occupation.Moorabool chief executive Robert Dobrzynski said the council was pleased with the

outcome.VCAT has made the ruling the council would expect it to have made. Mr Dobrzynski20said.Although the council made requests to the owner to submit retrospective building andplanning applications on numerous occasions, these request were ignored.

END QUOTE 14-8-2007 MELTON MOORABOOL LEADER

25In my view this article could constitute deformation of Mr Francis James Colosimo as itpresents to portray Mr Francis James Colosimo as being a person who has acted in defiance oflegal provisions where as his representatives in proceedings a I have made it very clear that there

is absolutely no reliable evidence to prove Mr Francis James Colosimo actually was in breach ofMoorabool Shire Council planning provisions. The article doesnt appear to me to have provided30any proper set out of all relevant issues!

It should be understood that on 16 march 2009 I assisted Mr Francis James Colosimo in theCONTEMPT proceedings before Her Honour Harbison J and prior to the hearing provided thefollowing to Her Honour Harbison in the 090308-V2-2007-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-35TRIBUNAL-G54449-00-Part 1 and her honour harbison at the end of the proceedings did asper my submission PERMANENTLY STAY the proceedings.QUOTE 9-2-2010 correspondence to the office of Stephen Lee

As for any argument that Stephen Lee may not have had time to peruse the extensive material40provided by me to him that to me is no excuse. He took it upon himself to provide me with hisdemand and then should have expected a response. He provided the very limited time limit andso by this placed the onus upon himself to having to deal with my elaborate set outs to show hehad it all wrong.There is no excuse for him to have ignored this because after all had he been more reasonable he45could have instead of his demands written an invitation for me to show cause why mypublications should not be removed in view of Section 37(1) and as such he would have t aken amore gentle approach and avoided making as I view it an utter fool of himself.


28/28


As a solicitor he should at least understand the basics of litigation and that is that before writing athreatening letter to institute proceedings if material is not withdrawn he could have instead havea more friendly kind of correspondence leaving space that in case he was misconceiving mattershe would avoid making an utter fool of himself. HE THEN COULD HAVE ALSOCHECKED THE FILES AND BEEN AWARE THAT WHAT VCAT DEMANDED WAS5NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES!

QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of LordsIn an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed byactual injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is10not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.

END QUOTE

In my view in the overall of the material it appears to me that VCAT conspired with theVictorian Government Solicitors Office to try to prevent me to lawfully disclose details as to set15out the correct versions of events and to expose the rot within VCAT and to me that is a veryserious issue. The issue being also that despite my extensive writings in response to the 5February demand Stephen Lee ignored/refused to withdraw his demand for me to remove allpublications even so he knew or should have been aware that in all circumstances prevailing hehad no legal position to maintain this demand, where in the first place the demand was ill20conceived. Victorian Government Solicitors Office should not operate funded by taxpayers as toabuse and misuse its legal position as in this case cause also considerable harm upon my 77 yearold wife where clearly Stephen Lee could have avoided this had he withdrawn the demandcontained in his 5 February 2010 correspondence as I view any FAIR MINDED PERSONwould have done. Hence a formal COMPLAINT against Stephen Lee is in my view justified25and should be upheld and appropriate action be taken to deal with matters.

Nothing in this or any other correspondence is intended and neither must be perceived that

Mr Francis James Colosimo conceded that VCAT had and/or invoked jurisdiction

30This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant matters!

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka35

100211 g54449 00 john brumby premier complaint etc

Documents