Page 1

Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J.

judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au

23-11-2015

Re: 20151123-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh

to His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Supplement 4
Sir,

As I indicated previously I represented Mr Colosimo before Her Honour Harbison J. and now
will quote part of the transcript.
Transcript 16 March 2009 page 53 line 12 (HER HONOUR HARBISON J)
QUOTE
HER HONOUR: THANK YOU.
Now, this is an application by the Moorabool shire Council, who is the applicant in contempt proceedings to
withdraw those proceedings on the basis that there be no further order as to cost of the proceedings.
The application was made under s.74 (1) of the VCAT Act.
Normally an application to withdraw a proceeding is a routine matter. There are some aspects of this
case which are not routine, and the principal aspect of the case which is not routine is that this is a
contempt proceeding. Once contempt proceedings are issued, then the proceedings are not the property
of the applicant, they are the property of the tribunal, as was correctly pointed out on behalf of Mr
Colosimo.
So it is not simply a matter of the proceedings finishing when an applicant decides to withdraw, it is a
matter of the tribunal itself having the responsibility to decide whether or not the course of conduct
which has been engaged in by the respondent is in truth contempt of the tribunal.
END QUOTE

Again
QUOTE
Once contempt proceedings are issued, then the proceedings are not the property of the applicant, they
are the property of the tribunal, as was correctly pointed out on behalf of Mr Colosimo.
So it is not simply a matter of the proceedings finishing when an applicant decides to withdraw, it is a
matter of the tribunal itself having the responsibility to decide whether or not the course of conduct
which has been engaged in by the respondent is in truth contempt of the tribunal.
END QUOTE

In my view the same applies to an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, that once it has been
made it becomes the property of the Court, and cannot be withdrawn. This is also very obvious
as to avoid someone to file for CONTEMPT OF COURT proceedings and/or OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION as a weapon against an opposing party and then seek to perhaps extract
the other party to make a settlement normally not likely to eventuate. As such, the court is bound
to deal with the matter.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all
issues/details.
Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
p1
23-11-2015
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: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati