Page 1

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

16-6-2015 (No 2)

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: 20150916 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council-JURISDICTION-etc

Sir/Madam,
Buloke Shire Council (through ES&a Lawyers) instituted proceedings despite my
prior warnings regarding legal issues. On 20 August 2015 the magistrates Court of Victoria at St
Arnaud failed to dispose of my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and hence failing to invoke
jurisdiction its orders to adjourn matters and to proceed hearing matters even if I didnt attend
have no legal basis.
My option was to simply disregard the 2 September 2015correspondence of Alison J May about
purportedly the matters was adjourned to 17 September 2015 and failing to attend the matter
would be heard nevertheless, but I held it was appropriate to set out matters. Indeed I gave
considerable effort to try to make both the court and Alison J May to understand matters.
In essence there are no legally valid orders because the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
was not disposed of.
For the record no communication whatsoever was received from the Court such as a reason of
judgement, orders, transcript as to provide me with details as to what actually transpired on 20
August 2015. For all I know Alison J May may be a new comer in litigation and not understand
what is legally applicable and what actually the court may or may not have stated and as such it
would be absurd for me to rely upon what Alison J May may claim without any evidence
whatsoever from the court to the actual orders that may or may not have been pronounced.
Indeed, Alison J May may not have been personally in attendance and may have perceived
something she may have been told by another lawyer or whomever and so she may have been
totally incorrect about what she conveyed.
On the basis of the 2 September 2015 correspondence of Alison J May I am entitled to rely upon
that Buloke Shire Council (through Alison J May) have indicated (implied or otherwise) that it is
not going to respond to the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and that it neither was attended
to by the court on 20 August 2015. On that basis there was an uncontested OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and the court can do nothing else but to dismiss the summon charge(s) for
want of jurisdiction, and having withdrawn the alleged 20 August 2015 orders.
It is clear that Alison J may had not challenged the authenticity of the 2 September 2015
correspondence she forwarded to me and I have reproduced in my material before the court.
It is for the court to determine if the content of the 2 September 2015 correspondence reflect
appropriately what eventuated on 20 August 2015, and if so then clearly the court never invoked
jurisdiction.
It is the court that is in particularly at fault for failing common decency and conduct to provide
me with appropriate information I was entitled upon.
p1
16-9-2015 (No 2)
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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 2
As I did provide an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and this also related to the Magistrates
Court of Victoria at St Arnaud being the wrong venue, then it would be a gross denial of justice
to ignore this and somehow persist in the matter to be heard by personal appearance at huge cost
to myself being it to attend of have a lawyer representing me) where this clearly should be
avoided. If the court were despite not having jurisdiction were to accept an application and
proceed in hearing the matter that in law doesnt exist because the OBJECTION TO
JURISDIKCTION was not disposed of, then the orders will have no legal basis whatsoever
and are null and void. However, the Magistrate could make himself/herself legally liable to have
in the circumstances acted maliciously. There are ample of Authorities against Magistrates
having been found to have acted in disregard of the rule of law.

It must be clear that if the Magistrate were to issue orders adverse to me then on appeal the Court
would have to consider if in view of my written material the Magistrate acted not just in error but
in total disregard op what was before the court and if in the circumstances the Magistrate clearly
deliberately flaunted to follow proper legal procedures and acted maliciously towards me.
Obviously the lawyer who actually attend to the court would have to disclose matters
appropriately, as it might not be Alison J May, herself, as to conceal details to pervert the course
of justice itself is a serious matter.
As I have experienced the rot of some lawyers even to that a person committed suicide I have no
intention to risk to be their victim. Nor can any court hold it against me for not willing to subject
myself to possible incompetence of a legal practitioner, where in the first place I objected to the
jurisdiction of the court, and so also the venue location, and as such there is no summon
charge(s) the court can consider or proceed with that may cause me to be obligated to appear in
one way or another.
There was this incident in 1994 when I appeared (on the Monday having travelled about 350
kilometres to the court) before Joske J when His Honour announced that the other party had sent
a telegram on Sunday night not being able to appear. Even so I had not been given the same
advice nor did His Honour disclose the telegram to me, His Honour nevertheless held that in the
circumstances the matter couldnt proceed for hearing. With my correspondence to this court I
didnt act in secrecy but ensured to provide at all times a copy of the communication to Buloke
Shire Council legal representatives ES&a Lawyers. I view they are as much entitled to know
what is before the court as I was in regard of the 20 August 2015 hearing!
I will now quote the email correspondence between myself and Alison J May since my
20150916-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud cc ES&a
LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council-Ill health to travel-etc was forwarded. (It may be
noticed that on the right top the incorrect 15-9-2015 date appears whereas at the footing and in
the heading further the correct 16-9-2015 dates appear.).
QUOTE 16-1-2015 EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE
RE: see attachment 20150916-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to
Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud cc ES&a LA-0506-Re Buloke Shire Council-Ill health to travel-etc
From
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
To

Alison May

Reply-To

admin@inspector-rikati.com

Date

Today 11:43

Alison,
as I objected to the jurisdiction of the court it would be absurd for me to engage a legal
representative (besides my views about this) for attending to a matter that cannot be heard because the court
didn't invoke jurisdiction in the first place on 20 August 2015.
p2
16-9-2015 (No 2)
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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 3
Hence, any application you may make would still fall outside the jurisdiction of the court.
Gerrit
--Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
107 Graham Road
Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia
Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI books on certain constitutional and other legal issues.
THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE
DISABLED

On 2015-09-16 09:13, Alison May wrote:

Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka,

Please be advised that in the event that you do not appear tomorrow an application will be made to proceed
with the charge in your absence.

We note the health issues raised in your correspondence and confirm that it is open to you to appear through
legal representation rather than in person in such circumstances.

Yours faithfully

Alison May| Legal Practitioner

Elliott Stafford & Associates | 316A Queens Parade, Clifton Hill
t: (03) 9486 7555 | f: (03) 9486 6444 | e: alison.may@elliottstafford.com.au

From: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. [mailto:admin@inspector-rikati.com]

Sent: Wednesday, 16 September 2015 1:09 AM
To: starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au
Cc: admin@inspector-rikati.com; Lawyers; daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au;
george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Subject: see attachment 20150916-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud cc
ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council-Ill health to travel-etc
Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

15-6-2015

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

p3
16-9-2015 (No 2)
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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Cc:

Page 4
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: 20150916 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council-Ill health to travel-etc
Sir/Madam,

see attachment 20150916-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud cc ES&a

LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council-Ill health to travel-etc
-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
107 Graham Road
Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia
Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI books on certain constitutional and other legal issues.
THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE
DISABLED
END QUOTE 16-1-2015 EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE

If the court nevertheless persist in proceeding with the Summon Charge(s), again not that I
concede jurisdiction, and issue any orders against me then that those orders are pending an
appeal. As for sure I intend to appeal, albeit no appeal is required as the orders would be null and
void. (see Authorities below) For the record it is a matter of law that one can appeal a court
decision for not having made orders which ought to have been made considering what was
before the court at the time and/or if proceedings went ahead where one of the parties concealed
relevant details. It doesnt matter in that sense what the court may or may not order on 17-9-2015
as if the court failed to invoke jurisdiction in the first place then subsequent orders cannot
overcome this failure to invoke jurisdiction and will and remain to be null and void. Those
involved in seeking to pursue invalid orders could be held legally accountable for this.
In reality I do not even need to appeal any purported 17 September 2015 orders, if they were
issued as Alison J May may pursue as she indicated, because they are without legal justification
and therefore a nullity.
Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
QUOTE
Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham,
"sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a
law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a
decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law.
The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is
invalid ab initio.
END QUOTE
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
p4
16-9-2015 (No 2)
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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 5
Where the High Court of Australia clearly indicated that Mr Gould could even disregard a court
order of the High Court of Australia where it was held to be unconstitutional then surely this
underlines that court orders are and remain to be subject to being valid in law.

Because ES&a Lawyers are litigating not in the entity of Shire of Buloke but in the name of the
council itself it means that any harm inflicted either directly and/or indirectly could also be held
against councillors personally. And as indicated in my previous submitted material councillor
Graeme Milne didnt appear to have given informed consent for ES&a Lawyers to litigate on
his behalf. As such that Council didnt consent to have the matters heard at the Heidelberg venue
also may have so to say been concocted by referring incorrectly to Collingwood.
Nothing in this correspondence should in anyway or manner be perceived that I seek to accuse
Alison J may to deliberately distort matters, as I am well aware (Having myself at times
assisted/represented legal practitioners also, as well as having been a constitutional consultant to
a law firm.) that honest errors can eventuate by misconceptions in communication, etc. and it is
for this also very essential that the court itself avoid this to occur, by ensuring appropriate court
documentation to both parties to be provided.
It is not uncommon that lawyers/judicial officers are in some kind of trance to perceive legal
issues in the manner they have always conducted them without ever having realized they were
wholly or partly wrong in how they dealt with matters. In one case a legal practitioner admitted
that he had never been aware in 48 years of legal practice of certain legal issues I alerted him to.
Anyone can make errors as we are all human but the issue is that judicial officer must not be
close minded and consider all relevant issues. If the court were to do so I have absolutely no
doubt that the presiding magistrate will come to the conclusion that the orders of 20 August
2015 must be withdrawn as they had no legal basis, and the Summon Charge(s) must be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
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!)

p5
16-9-2015 (No 2)
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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati