Page 1

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

15-9-2015

c/o the coordinator starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au

Cc:

Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Re: 20150915 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council-Court to reserve judgement

Sir/Madam,
No doubt the magistrate having to deal with matters will require time to consider my
writings and to hand down appropriate decisions detailing why each issue I refer to is or is not
considered to support the submissions I made.
Where on 16and 17 November 2005 it took 2 days to detail my OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION but the court dismissed it only on appeal the dismissal to be set aside, whereas
now having to present details in writing then obviously this takes a considerable amount of
writings for the court to digest.
The issue of bias is obviously so to say first cab of the rank as if the magistrate was bias or
implied bias then the Magistrate couldnt be dealing with the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and other items either. In my view the Magistrate on 20 August 2015 having
issued orders (so alleged by Alison J may ES&a Lawyers) in her 2 September 2015
correspondence) that the court had ordered the hearing of the Summons charges to be adjourned
till 17 September 2015 and to be heard even in my absenteeism clearly also be held to indicate
bias/implied bias as it disregard the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and the Magistrate
clearly failed to have jurisdiction to make such orders. The same with allegedly ordering the 8.30
am time instead of the 10.00am time where the magistrate reasonably should have been aware of
the distance to travel, etc. And other issues I raised in my writings, such as ignoring the fact of
my age (so the relevant legislation), objection to the venue, the ill health, etc.
In my view documents that are used to institute legal proceedings such as a summons ought to
include that the deponent record details on it if the party against whom the documents are
directed have been made aware of the intention to litigate. If the deponent initiating proceedings
was advised the other party objected in some form or manner against the litigation and if so to
provide concise details of such objection, etc. This, so that when a Court has any documentation
initiating proceedings immediately might be alerted to if the jurisdiction of the court is
challenged. If the initiating party deliberately conceals details then if afterwards the court
discovers this to be so then any orders obtained can be set aside/ withdrawn on the basis they
were obtained by fraud.
There can be absolutely no doubt that the Parliament has corrupted the independence of the
judicial system to legislate in the Infringement Act that mere service by post must be deemed to
constitute service. After all, not uncommon contractors engaged by Australian Post were found
to steal bags of mail and so people may never have received any documentation, and yet then
somehow the Infringement Court nevertheless could proceed. I do not accept this is due
process which is not only applicable in the USA but is enshrined as a legal principle in our
constitution.
p1
15-9-2015
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

Page 2
Some decades ago I appeared before Joske J and I presented an Affidavit of service upon the
opponent party with a signature from the opponent that the envelope had been received. His
Honour didnt accept this as service because His Honour held that the other party may have
signed for having received the envelope but it was not known if the envelope contained the
documentation that was filed in court or might have been empty.
Hence, it cannot be held that merely because an enforcement agency claims to have mailed an
envelope that it then was received by the person to whom it was directed, and within time.
One of the issues that was before the County Court of Victoria in 2006 in my successful appeals was that
documentation that allegedly was served upon me and to which the government solicitors had filed an
Affidavit of a process server to have deposited the envelop in my mailbox the envelope turned up about 3
months after it was allegedly placed in my mailbox. As I then did set out to the Court the Process server had
alleged to have delivered the envelope at a certain time (about 5.20 pm) whereas the lawyer filed an
Affidavit that at 5pm he discovered there was a fax problem and so called up for personal service and the
documents were sent in an envelope by courier. As I outlined, for the lawyer to have called the courier, the
courier having to go into the high rising building, to collect the envelope, then to go down and then in peak
hour time travel more than 20 kilometres and all this in 20 minutes would be sheer impossible. As such the
courier had somewhere dumped the documents and it took about 3 months for it finally to arrive at my
address by someone having found it and then posted it to me.

It is therefore essential that no court let itself to be intimidated as to service being deemed
when an article is claimed to be posted/sent and received but must be proven. If therefore the
Magistrates Court of Victoria accepts the provisions of the Infringement Court Act it really is not
impartial at all because it divert from ordinary evidence required to be prove service, etc.
Where the Parliament dictates the court absurd conditions as to enable enforcement agencies to
violate ordinary court processes then there is a bias/implied bias by the court if it goes along with
this. Again subcontractors working for Australian Post have reportedly at times destroyed bags of
mail and as such it would be absurd for the court to accept conditions as stated in the
Infringement Act 2006. Where nevertheless this has been done then there is an implied bias that
the court is not willing to apply ordinary legal procedures, such as that might be required by the
Magistrates court Act. One cannot have that the Court applies different standards (DOUBLE
STANDARDS) depending if the prosecutor is an enforcement agency or not.
Hence, the court itself should stipulate certain conditions in any document used to initiate legal
proceedings, such as a Summons, including that an Affidavit of Service is required to be filed in
support of the document initiating proceedings.
As was reported more than 2,000 NSW vehicle owners had been issued with Infringement
Notices, only to discover afterwards that Tenix Solutions (operating under the trademark Civic
compliance Victoria) had in error accessed the wrong database and all those NSW drivers had
been wrongly issued with an Infringement Notice. As such, the Infringement Registrar could
have issued enforcement orders./warrants in the manner the system is setup and then magistrates
could have enforced them also irrespective it related to innocent vehicle owners. This defies
Due process and undermines the credibility of the Magistrates Court of Victoria to which the
Infringement Court appears to be part thereof. Therefore as long as magistrates continue this
bias conduct to deal with matters that are in clear violation of our constitutional rights then such
a Magistrate is bias/implied bias. Hence, the Magistrate who was dealing with the matter on 20
August 2015 requires to set out in details, including relevant Authorities, as to why the
Magistrate in all the circumstances deemed he is or isnt bias/implied bias. Such set out is
required in a reason of judgment. The same is required regarding the issue of if a person object to
the location of a venue and/or in totality of the jurisdiction of the court.
It may very well that the magistrate may use the opportunity of the reasons to outline that indeed
certain documents initiating proceedings are required to be amended so to avoid bias/implied
bias by the court.
I will give an example how when a judge fails to provide a reason of judgment the transcript is
important.
p2
15-9-2015
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

Page 3
A couple separated in 1983 and there were orders for the 2 children of access. The mother indicated to the
father she would like the father to collect the children 2 weeks earlier for the school holiday access as she
planned to go on a trip with a male friend. The father agreed to collect the children instead of weekend access
for 2 weeks earlier as provided for in the court orders that besides the access periods listed the parties could
mutually agree to other access periods. The day arrived for the father to collect the children on the Friday
afternoon to commence the changed holiday access period and he then announced that he was moving in with
a lady friend and gave the mother the new residential address. On the following Monday evening Australian
Federal Police arrived with a warrant to arrest the 2 toddlers and a court orders that all access was suspended.
No reason were given at all. I was provided with the transcript and from this it was clear that the mother with
her lawyers had claimed during ex-parte proceedings that the father had collected the children for weekend
access and failed to return the children. Even so the father was residing also in Melbourne no attempt had
been made to contact him to attend to the court to give his version of event. After sometime the father finally
was able to have a hearing and access was reinstated, as it was found the mother had claimed the husband had
weekend access only and had moved to an unknown address, but in fact with her lawyers had deliberately
misled the court as it turn out that during the hearing the mother provided the court with the fathers
handwritten details of the new address, and she herself had requested to change the access to school holiday
access. Months later Smithers J who had issued the orders then was the judge to deal with the case when I
objected to His Honour due to bias as His Honour had been recorded in the transcript to state that the
husbands conduct was detrimental to the children for long term harm, etc. by withholding them from their
mother. As such His Honour had made a finding merely upon the say so of the mother without bothering to
check the terms of the orders. It was made clear that a FAIR MINDED PERSON would perceive His Honour
had made a finding against the father despite he was innocent of any wrongdoing. Smithers J accepted that
for a FAIR MINDED PERSON it may appear he made such a finding.

What is shown is that without a reason of judgment the transcript is the only venue to pursue to
discover what went on in court.
With the 20 August 2015 orders no reason of judgment was provided not a transcript and any
FAIR MINDED OPERSON may assume that the magistrate made a ruling against me.
While I am aware that Magistrates as like judges are generally under considerable pressure as to
get cases going because of the backlog, this however can never be an excuse to deny a party of a
FAIR AND PROPER hearing.
Magistrates are so to say handing out intervention orders like candy, and not realising that by this
they may set in motion the dead sentence of a person. Since 1982 under the mother MAY
JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL I have been conducting a special lifeline service to assist
also people contemplating suicide and even murder. I looked in the eyes of Michael Alderton and
understood that his lawyer convinced him change his intended plea to guilty. He was sentenced
to prison, and hanged himself. His real crime wanting to be a father for his children. He did so
because he had lost everything, and lost the trust in the legal system. Because the courts hold
themselves under pressure of doing cases they tend to take the short cut not bothering to listen to
the evidence properly and accept any gossip sufficient to issue orders and failing to question in
ex party proceedings the prosecutor as to what is being claimed the circumstances are. This is so
to say common knowledge that it is easy to deceive the court. To obtain intervention orders. The
innocent party being aggrieved and finding no resolve, as generally no proper reasons are issued
and the party that deceived the court usually never is held accountable that at times the aggrieved
party seeks then a solution where the courts fails to provide FAIR AND PROPER hearing and
regretfully this at times may not just be to take his/her own life but that also of others. When a
person is subjected to Infringement Court orders and caused by this to lose his job, his ability to
pay for the mortgage of the truck and to feed the family then suicide is often the only option they
consider available, as the judiciary cannot be trusted. We are often reminded about the death in
traffic accidents but not about the about 7 persons a day committing suicides.
In my view it is a display of gross incompetence by the judiciary to let it come this far. It must
stop rushing through cases and must give sufficient time to each case. Only when the courts
pursue this can we achieve less violence and retribution.

p3
15-9-2015
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

Page 4
Moreover, when courts are issuing intervention orders like candy the authorities will be unable to
cope with the avalanche of intervention orders and then the result being that those intervention
orders that are really required may fall between the cracks and the entire system fails with this.
A major problem is that judicial officers (including magistrates) prefer to listen to members of
the legal profession rather than to the unrepresented person who may struggle to get out the truth
but at least is explaining the truth versus the lawyer deceiving the court.
There can be absolutely no excuse for a judicial officer not providing sufficient time for each
case to be considered appropriately. If the courts hold that there is insufficient time then well
they may have to select cases that are deemed priority and may make clear to the government
that unless it provide sufficient funding it will find that many criminal cases will have to be
adjourned indefinitely.
What appears to me now is that the courts are like puppets on a string for the so to say political
masters and in the process ignore to provide due process. Again my experiences is that on 20
August 2015 the court blatantly disregarded to follow proper legal procedures and couldnt
bother to ensure that I was provided with a reason of judgment and/or transcript so I be advised
as to what actually eventuated.
We do not need judicial officers who may make decisions pending the quota of convictions that
they may need to have, we need judicial officers who are proud of serving the general public and
willing to serve the public to every extent and will refuse to short cut litigation merely so the
government can score quicker convictions, etc.
I was entitled upon proper orders on 20 August 2015 being it that in view of Alison J May
indicating that she is not going to address all issues, then the Court had no alternative but to
dismiss the Summons charges for want of jurisdiction. If the Court was deceived on 20 August
2015 then it should act against those who deceived the court. Only by holding those legally
accountable can we have a trust worthy impartial administration of justice.
If the court on 17 September 2015 does any kind of hearing then I am entitled to both the
transcript and reason of judgment as to why orders are misuses as they are.
If the Court due to the volume of material submitted needs time then it must reserve its judgment
to enable it to consider all material and then provide an appropriate reason of judgment.
Violence often, far too often is resulting because those aggrieved lost confidence in the legal
system, and see no alternative but to take the law into their own hands. I deplore anyone doing so
but can understand it is the judiciary that really so to say has blood on its hands.
Let this court throw of the restraining jacked of the government and commence to operate again
as a true impartial administration of justice, as required by the Letters Patent of 2-1-1901
published in the Gazette. It is not only my right but also that of anyone appearing before the
courts and it is well overdue that finally the judicial officers realize this and provide for
those rights. Lets make it clear Buloke Shire Council was warned in advance and still pursued
to litigate in the manner they did and therefore have no position to complain. For what I have
written so far I again submit that this court should reserve its judgment so it can attend to all
relevant issues and demonstrate that it is back being an impartial administration of justice and
will not be bullied by any government by withholding proper funding to have sufficient judicial
officers, and will so to say engage in a VELVET REVOLUTION that ensures only case that
have been appropriately dealt with are from now on the benchmark of the judiciary.
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!)

p4
15-9-2015
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