Page 1

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

28-9-2015

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

Re: 20150928 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council-

WARNING-etc

Sir/Madam,
despite my previous request the Court has failed/refused to provide me with
transcripts and/or reasons of judgments of any alleged orders of 20 August 2015 & 17 September
2015. I will quote the 23-9-2015 correspondence below also.
I have now decided to publish a book about matters and quote below the draft of the first
Chapter.
It should be a WARNING that any conduct to enforce any orders against me could be deemed
malicious and CONTEMPT OF COURT (of the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria
successful appeals) as well as a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, etc.
I am not aware that the court invoked jurisdiction in a formal manner with reasons of judgment
as to having done so and hence no jurisdiction was invoked and any orders allegedly issued are
null and void and have no legal force, nor any subsequent orders that the court may issue.
QUOTE

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

23-9-2015

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

Re: 20150923 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council-reasons-etc

Sir/Madam,
despite my past various request I have not been provided with any transcript and/or
reasons of judgment as to establish what eventuated before the court, in particular my
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION if this was or wasnt disposed of.
Held that a State Court exercising federal jurisdiction when it erroneously applies Commonwealth Act to subject matter
before the Court. Commonwealth v Cole, (1923) 32 C.L.R. 602 and Commonwealth v Dalton, (1924) 33 C.L.R.. 452; 30
A.L.R. 85

As such regardless if the court held that my constitutional issues may not apply, nevertheless it
exercises federal jurisdiction and is bound to follow federal process of a Court within Chapter II
of the constitution, and provides relevant details.
As I referred to in previous writings to the court:
QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780
If they are given no reason they may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice,
bias, or caprice. In such a case not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
END QUOTE

As I also indicated I view it a malicious conduct if the court were to issue orders without having
first appropriately dealt with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, this as it never can have
invoked jurisdiction if it failed to formally invoke jurisdiction.
p1
28-9-2015 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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 2
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!)

(
END QUOTE

QUOTE INSPECTOR-RIKATI on corruption in the Government and the courts

Chapter 0001 - THE DENIAL OF IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

* Gerrit it seems we are back writing a book again?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI I didnt contemplate doing so but in the circumstances I held
we better do so.
* Corruption of then Government and the Court surely is a mighty claim.
**#** Well, when one is subjected to irregular legal proceedings then this issue obviously has
to be considered, and if there is evidence to support it then those involved should be held
legally accountable.
* And you have the view you have got that kind of evidence?
**#** If not directly then implied.
* I look forwards to you explaining it to me.
**#** When an opponent takes matters to court to litigate then one can immediately with
OBJECTION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, object to the jurisdiction of
the court.
* Dont courts have always jurisdiction?
**#** Not at all, only if you consent to it and even then there can be a question about
jurisdiction:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/9.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="otherwise%20fell%20outside%20its
%20jurisdiction%20"
Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)
QUOTE CCH 92-217 page 78485 (1991)
The Court could not make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties
consent to it..
END QUOTE
.

The moment you as a respondent makes an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the

applicant/prosecutor has the onus to prove that the legislation and other relevant issues relied
upon is in fact valid, etc, and the court then has to consider this all and determine if the
applicant/prosecutor proved jurisdiction. The respondent has no obligation to disprove
jurisdiction but may in his/her aid submit matters and then the applicant/prosecutor has to
overcome those issues also.
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 bought within the terms of the
statute, and only if this be proven by proper evidence can the court proceed to decide upon treatment"
END QUOTE
p2
28-9-2015 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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 3

So even before Buloke Shire Council commenced legal proceedings against me I

OBJECTED to the jurisdiction of any court to hear and determine matters. And when they
instituted litigation I repeated the same.
* Well did they make the Court aware of the legal problems?
.

**#** For so far as I understand it they didnt. But still as I did write to the coordinator he
should have passed my material as submission to the court. No surprise to me even so the
Forster case dictates:
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 or choose his
clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. 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 of his client to say what he wants: or his
tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the
cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal
the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must
produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client 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 to the court.
END QUOTE
.

Again
QUOTE
He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him.
END QUOTE
.

* Are you saying they didnt?

.

**#** I am saying I understand they (Buloke shire council legal representatives) didnt. The
court as I understand it never invoked jurisdiction.
* Why if I may ask?
**#** Well, in my view this court is so corrupt.
* Which court are you talking about?
**#** If you hadnt interrupted me I would have come to it.
* My apology.
**#** As I stated in my view this court is so corrupt that it should be closed down. The
Magistrate should be banned for life to ever adjudicate at all. The members of the legal
profession involved should be banned from ever practicing laws again.
* Is it that bad?
**#** Over the decades I conducted a special lifeline service under the motto MAY
JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL and I understood many were desperate to end their lives
because they simply held the courts are corrupt.
* That bad?

p3
28-9-2015 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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 4
**#** When the courts issue orders that rob a person of his/her rights then pending what the
orders relate to it can have a huge impact upon the person. Some even contemplated murdersuicide.

* Is that why you are making a stand against injustice?

**#** I stand up for my rights and anticipate others will follow my lead in that regard. I
challenged the jurisdiction of the court and unless and until, if ever at all, the court disposed of
this OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION all and any orders it issues are null and void and
have no legal force.
* What if they use the Sheriffs Office to enforce any orders?
**#** Then Buloke Shire Council, its legal representatives, the magistrate and the coordinator
all might be held accountable for perverting the course of justice, conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice and other criminal offences.
You see, when a person lodges an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the court is
bound to adjudicate upon this and hand down a judicial decision (reasons of judgment) to set
out why it came to a certain conclusion as to the orders it issues. And this the court failed to
do on 20 August 2015. In fact all I got was from the opponent lawyers a 2 September 20-15
correspondence that the matter was adjourned and if I didnt appear the matter would
nevertheless go ahead. Clearly, this implies the court had dealt with the matter as a
contested hearing rather than that it had no jurisdiction at all to issue such orders and as
such those orders are without legal basis.
* Is it not a contested hearing when you oppose jurisdiction?
**#** You cannot argue the case in dispute itself when there is an OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION. All the court then has before it is the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
and if it cannot overcome this OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the issue in dispute
can never be litigated.
* Did you attend to the 20 August 2015 hearing?
**#** No, I was severely ill.
* Did you provide a medical certificate for this?
**#** since when are lawyers presenting a medical certificate when they become ill and the
client is left at the court seeking an adjournment?
* But you are not a lawyer, am I right?
**#** In the Legal Service Commissioner v Harold James Johnson, Smithers J held that
where a person represent himself in legal proceedings and is a legal practitioner then he is
acting as a legal practitioner in his own private capacity. As a Professional Advocate (now
retired) I have the same protection and immunity as a solicitor representing a party before the
Supreme Court of Victoria, and as such where I indicated to the coordinator of the court, as to
provide to the court, that I was in ill health then that in itself was sufficient. For sure I made
sure to obtain as medical certificate just as a backup, but was my own choice. No need to
present this to the court. In fact regardless if I attended or not the case couldnt never have
been heard that day as the court would only deal with matters where a party pleaded guilty.
* So didnt then the court act correctly to adjourn?
p4
28-9-2015 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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 5
**#** Not at all, because when there is an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION all the court
could have done was to adjourn the matter of OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION if it held
it was required to do so due to the lack of time to deal with the matter then.

* I get it.. You are saying the court had no matter before it other than the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and its choice was to hear and determine this then or to adjourn this for a
later hearing, and neither eventuated, am I right?
**#** Correct. And as it failed to do either but went ahead as if there was no OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION then it never invoked jurisdiction. Meaning any orders it may have
issued otherwise are null and void without legal force.
* What if they issued orders for cost for the adjournment from 20 August 2015?
**#** that in itself would be a gross injustice, this as the court itself makes clear that a person
who pleads not guilty then the court would have to set another date for the hearing. Imagine
this to be used as a form of punishment to terrorize persons to pleading guilty or face higher
opponents legal cost for an adjournment!
* What about the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION?
**#** The same. You cannot implied or otherwise punish a person for OBJECTING TO
THE JURISDICTION of any court.
* How will the court know it is not merely a stalling tactic by an opposing party to object to
the jurisdiction of the court?
**#** Well, that is for the court to assess in each litigation, but safe to say that when I
appeared before the magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg on 16 and 17 November 2006
the magistrate then dismissed the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION but this order was set
aside on appeal. The then Attorney-General Robert Hulls of the State of Victoria had made
clear it would abide by the Courts decision and as such I am entitled to the benefits of those
orders of 19 July 2006 of the County Court of Victoria, as then I submitted also that the
failure of the courts to be impartial, as they are registered as a business with an ABN number
of the Department of Justice then there is no independent court. And because it was then an
s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS constitutional issues then it is beyond
the powers of the Magistrates Court of Victoria, regardless of which venue it is held, to
undermine the benefits of those appeal decisions. In fact I hold the view that it would
constitute CONTEMPT OF COURT by anyone, including a Magistrate, Buloke Shire
Council and its legal representatives.
* Was there another hearing?
**#** Not as to the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and so while the Magistrates
Court of Victoria at St Arnaud pretended to hear and determine the matter on 17 September
2015, in my absenteeism, in reality it never invoked jurisdiction and so any orders it issued
were and remain to be null and void.
* How do you know the court didnt then hear and determine the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION, considering you were not there?
**#** If the Court had heard and determined the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then it
never advised me that it would do so on 17 September 2015. As such, it cannot act in a
devious manner to hear something without having provided me with a reasonable opportunity
to be advised of this. Neither did it provide me with a transcript and or reason of judgment on
p5
28-9-2015 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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 6
what legal basis it did say dismiss my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, and as such it
never did, hence it never invoked jurisdiction. I may add that I had provided ample of written
material to the court via the coordinator over the weeks. And if one does provide written
material and the opponent party uses this to claim cost then the opponent lawyers imply by
this that they read and considered the content of the written material. As such, if they then
didnt disclose relevant details to the court then they could be deemed to have perverted the
course of justice.

* What do you view the court can resolve matters?

**#** In my view it should set aside/withdraw any orders it may have issued as it never had
invoked jurisdiction. Further, as Buloke Shire Council legal representative indicated in their 2
September 2015 correspondence not to address matters I canvassed in my writings then the
Court could only dismiss the Summon charge(s) for want of jurisdiction. And that should be
the end of the matter.
* And if it fails to do so?
**#** Then I for one will pursue the matter further. I do not have to do anything, because the
High Court of Australia in Wakim HCA27 of 1999 made clear that in that case Mr Gould
could ignore the orders which were in violation of the constitution. Just imagine that somehow
the Sheriff was to arrest me, then boy they could face a huge compensation cost. If on the
other hand the Sheriff were to sell my property then they could face a huge damage bill also
besides deregistration, etc. I stand my grounds and will not be bullied, and I made sure that I
followed proper legal requirements and this book will in the following chapters set out the
various issues. For example the court venue at St Arnaud was objected to by me and it is not
for Buloke Shire Council to decide my rights. In law it had to be either Heidelberg venue or
Swan Hill, and as Heidelberg is a mere 4 kilometres from my residence and Swan Hill about
350 kilometres then obviously Heidelberg venue was the appropriate venue. As I did set out
in my material a man successfully appealed where a court caused him to go through the
basement to get a lift because there was no direct wheelchair access. The appeal court held
this was a denial of proper access to the court. Likewise with St Arnaud venue, it is 244
kilometres from my residence and well outside my ordinary access.
* What about if they had provided video access from Heidelberg to the St Arnaud venue??
**#** I cross examined a witness via video while the case was in Melbourne and the witness
was in Brisbane. I held then as I commented to the trail judge that the witness was looking
away from the camera whenever I asked a question (to answer yes or no) as if she was
seeking someone to tell her what to answer. As such it is a difficulty I view one rather can do
without. It is always important to have direct eye to eye contact as well as to be able to
observe the witness in full as to see if the witness is moving about and uncomfortable
answering certain question. As such the demeanor of the witness is very important. As such as
with the person who had no direct access with a wheelchair but by a basement lift, I view the
same obstacle can be deemed to exist when having to cross examine via video. Also, when
you are in court you can immediately witness the opponent lawyer how this persons demeanor
is. The same when material is tabled then as I proved in the Colosimo case I was able to
immediately expose that the opponent counsel (a barrister) was relying upon Authorities that
in fact were contrary to her own clients case and in support of Mr Colosimo. That is why
being present in the court room is very important. I could use numerous other examples, but
will leave this for later chapters.
* May I ask did the coordinator/court ever respond to any of your writings?
p6
28-9-2015 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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 7

**#** Actually, it never did. It so to say used Buloke Shire Council to allege in its 2
September 2015 correspondence what the court had ordered on 20 August 2015. As if the
court does no more but play a puppet-on-a-string to suit Buloke Shire Council. In law
however it is the court and only the court that is to make known what orders are issued and
with a reason of judgment setting out why those orders were deemed in consideration of what
was before the court appropriate.
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
39 Federal jurisdiction of State Courts in other matters
QUOTE
(1) The jurisdiction of the High Court, so far as it is not exclusive of the jurisdiction of any Court of a
State by virtue of section 38, shall be exclusive of the jurisdiction of the several Courts of the States,
except as provided in this section.
(2) The several Courts of the States shall within the limits of their several jurisdictions, whether such
limits are as to locality, subject-matter, or otherwise, be invested with federal jurisdiction, in all
matters in which the High Court has original jurisdiction or in which original jurisdiction can be
conferred upon it, except as provided in section 38, and subject to the following conditions and
restrictions:
(a) A decision of a Court of a State, whether in original or in appellate jurisdiction, shall not be
subject to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, whether by special leave or otherwise.
Special leave to appeal from decisions of State Courts though State law prohibits appeal
(c) The High Court may grant special leave to appeal to the High Court from any decision of any
Court or Judge of a State notwithstanding that the law of the State may prohibit any appeal from
such Court or Judge.
Exercise of federal jurisdiction by State Courts of summary jurisdiction
(d) The federal jurisdiction of a Court of summary jurisdiction of a State shall not be judicially
exercised except by a Stipendiary or Police or Special Magistrate, or some Magistrate of
the State who is specially authorized by the Governor-General to exercise such
jurisdiction, or an arbitrator on whom the jurisdiction, or part of the jurisdiction, of that
Court is conferred by a prescribed law of the State, within the limits of the jurisdiction so
conferred.
END QUOTE
QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780
As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes the
appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made in the
lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the
respondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the
absence of reason for the magistrates decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded
for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal process, there is the
basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to
controvert the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they lost. If they are given no reason they
may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case
not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not mere
ordinary trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of responsibility which
administrations of the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching consequences of the orders that
they make thereafter entail. [Baker v Baker (1906) 95 LT 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and
again in Cobb v Cobb (1900) p145] it was stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an
appeal to other courts, it is the duty of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of
his decision, but to give the reasons for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his reasons... Elaborate
judgements are not required, but the reasons which lead the magistrate to make his order must be explicitly
stated.
END QUOTE

* Are you going to appeal any orders?

p7
28-9-2015 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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 8

**#** the problem is that where the Court has not provided any jurisdiction to itself to hear
and determine any Summons charge(s) then there are no valid orders. Nor can one seek a
rehearing of a matter that was not heard and determined within jurisdiction. It also should be
understood that a subsequent order never can validate an earlier invalid order. As such it the
orders of 20 August 2015 failed to be within the powers of the Magistrate then any subsequently
orders cannot rectify this. There simply are no (valid) orders, and any conduct by anyone to seek
to enforce those invalid orders against me could be committing crimes. And they so to say may
kiss goodbye to their careers for malicious conduct. This rot must be stopped and this time so to
say they picked on the wrong person. Too often people end up committing suicide-murder
because they cannot live with what was done to them in a gross denial of justice. As much as I
had to follow the rules, so must the other party, and in particular the court. Their refusal/failure to
do so is no excuse.
* I look forward to work with you further on this book.
END QUOTE INSPECTOR-RIKATI on corruption in the Government and the courts

If you and/or anyone else dispute my version and hold that the Court on 20 August 2015 did deal
with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and dismissed it and as such invoked jurisdiction,
not that I concede it may have done so, then it should from onset have provided the relevant
transcript/reason of judgment/orders. The Courts failure to do so in itself means I am entitled to
hold it never did invoke jurisdiction.
I would recommend that anyone seeking to enforce any purported orders against me consult a
competent lawyer who understands what is legally appropriate as to pursue matters that may/will
cause harm to me may leave such person(s) liable to criminal charges.
Let me make it very clear, I have never been one to cave into legal bullying/terrorism, and my
very successful 19 July 2006 appeals in the County Court of Victoria underlines this, which then
related also to the magistrate dismissing my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION (Such as that
the usage of the Department of Justice ABN number means that the Magistrates Court of
Victoria failed to be impartial.) which on appeal were set aside.
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!)

p8
28-9-2015 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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati