Page 1

Associate Sarah Gall to His Honour Carmody J

judgecarmody.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Cc:

22-6-2016

Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria, feedback@countycourt.vic.gov.au

Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au, attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated
lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
County Court of Victoria crim.reg@countycourt.vic.gov.au

Re: 20160622-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Sarah Gall to His Honour Carmody J CCV-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re void orders of
His Honour Carmody, etc-Supplement 4

Madam,

As you may be aware of I have written to the Chief Justice Mr Peter Kidd about the
issues at hand in 20160621-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ CCV-Re
APPEAL-15-2502-Re COMPLAINT in view that you were provided with a copy of this
document.
Lets be clear about it that as I understood it from the evidence of Mr Wayne Wall during my
cross-examination of him, that the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 section 41 doesnt permit
him to issue any Fire Prevention Notice against properties held under management of council or
public authority.
Lets look at the terms of the Fire Prevention Notice issued against me year after year and so to
thousands of others:
QUOTE (bolding and red colour added)
Cut all grass, noxious weeds and undergrowth on the whole of the block and naturestrip to the height of not
more than 100mm;
Cut and remove all vegetation from the fence line to the same height by brush cutter or similar means;
Remove all combustible material from land including branches and prunings.
END QUOTE
Version No. 151 Country Fire Authority Act 1958
No. 6228 of 1958 Version incorporating amendments as at 23 September 2015
QUOTE
41Fire prevention notices
(1) In the country area of Victoria, the fire prevention officer of a municipal council may serve a fire
prevention notice on the owner or occupier of land in the municipal district of that council (other
than a public authority) in respect of anything
(a) on that land, other than a building or in a building;
(b) on the adjacent half width of any private street that abuts that land
(other than a prescribed thing or class of things) that by its nature, composition, condition or
location constitutes or may constitute a danger to life or property from the threat of fire.
END QUOTE
QUOTE 131203-Schorel-Hlavka to Premier D. Mapthine & Buloke Shire Council -COMPLAINT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Premier D. Napthine
3-12-2013
p1
22-6-2016
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, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 2
denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc: Country Fire Authority
8 Lakeside Drive Burwood East 3215 cfa@cfa.vic.gov.au
Buloke Shire CouncilC/o Wayne Wall C/o buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Re: Fire danger etc
END QUOTE 131203-Schorel-Hlavka to Premier D. Mapthine & Buloke Shire Council -COMPLAINT

And
QUOTE 131203-Schorel-Hlavka to Premier D. Mapthine & Buloke Shire Council -COMPLAINT
What however is to be considered is upon what legal basis can Shire of Buloke demand I attend to the nature
strip (regardless it was cut) as Anderson avenue Berriwillock in fact is ordinary listed as the BirshipBerriwillock Highway, a major highway between 2 towns.
If the Shire can demand that I provide compulsory services as conscription for maintaining its roads, then
what else may follow from this?
Under what delegated power, if any, of the State Government can any council apply forced labour upon a
property owner regarding works to be carried out at his/her own expense on a major arterial highway? As the
nature strip is a part of the highway and not limited to the boundaries of a private property, then can I be
expected to slash/mowe the weed/grass along the about 30 odd kilometres on both side of the highway
between Birship and Berriwillock, even so the weed/grass is actually more likely to be the result of growing
from seeds blown over from farming property and not at all from my residential housing block property.
Further, this appears to be a generically created fire notice and not at all as result of a proper inspection, this
as the photos below shows I had slashed/mowed the week.
END QUOTE 131203-Schorel-Hlavka to Premier D. Mapthine & Buloke Shire Council -COMPLAINT

Again:
QUOTE 131203-Schorel-Hlavka to Premier D. Mapthine & Buloke Shire Council -COMPLAINT
What however is to be considered is upon what legal basis can Shire of Buloke demand I attend to the nature
strip (regardless it was cut) as Anderson avenue Berriwillock in fact is ordinary listed as the BirshipBerriwillock Highway, a major highway between 2 towns.
END QUOTE 131203-Schorel-Hlavka to Premier D. Mapthine & Buloke Shire Council -COMPLAINT

Therefore it must be clear that the Fire Prevention Notice requiring the land holder to clear up in
some manner what belong to a public authority then the Fire Prevention Notice is for this also
defective/invalid and as such all and any litigation based upon such a Fire Prevention Notice
must fail.
.

Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998)
Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing the statutory provision in
that case: "substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible.
Either there was compliance or there was not."

Regretfully it appears that many councils were successful to get orders against landholders for
failing to mow their nature strip this because no judge appeared to have the
decency/ability/competence to check each and every word in a Fire Prevention Notice if they
were within the rule of law. The mere fact that this has been going on for years in my view
shows the sheer incompetence of the judiciary to properly deal with matters before the courts.
As shown by my correspondence the various Premiers, Attorney-Generals, and lawyers all
couldnt give a darn about this and with an incompetent judiciary it means that we have innocent
people becoming the victims of this sheer incompetence.
His Honour Carmody J as I understood it on 17 may 2016 made known he couldnt so to say
rectify all problems. Well, I provided His Honour Carmody J the perfect opportunity to stop this
rot but His Honour Carmody J simply seemed to me not to grasp what it was about.
Perhaps this was deemed to be a mere minor matter totally different than some serious murder
trial that His Honour Carmody J was assigned to it not expecting to so to say blow out to the
extend it turned out to be, but that cannot and never should be any excuse.
It should be understood that I publish my writings on the internet and as such people will be
well aware of what they may deem is wrong with the legal system governing this case.
p2
22-6-2016
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, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 3
Where a court order was obtained regularly it would be a very serious issue to seek a judge to
alter the orders for alternative reasons, however where court orders are issued in defiance of
regular procedures and so issued without the court invoking jurisdiction then they are no orders
at all.
QUOTE 20160621-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ CCV-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re
COMPLAINT

The tort of false imprisonment has a long history and reflects the fundamental interest of the
common law in protecting individual liberty and freedom of movement (Ruddock v Taylor
(2005) 222 CLR 612 per Kirby J at [137]). For example, in one case, Fullagar J. stated:
The mere interference with the plaintiffs person and liberty constituted prima facie a
grave infringement of the most elementary and important of all common law rights.:
Trobridge v Hardy 1955 94 CLR 147 at 152.8 per Fullagar J.
In my view a 2 year probation is an interference to my liberty where it has been notified to
prisons, etc, and may also interfere with my ordinary movements.
Despite of the above stated I didnt hold that His Honour Carmody J acted maliciously rather his
demeanor was friendly but just that as numerous other judges didnt seem to realise His Honour
Carmody J going so often so wrong. I contribute this to how lawyers are trained both in legal
studies and when doing their articles and then further in practice. However having stated this
were His Honour Carmody J not withdraw the orders of 30 May 2016 then I view this would be a
malicious conduct as His Honour Carmody J ought to be well aware that His Honour Carmody
failing to invoke jurisdiction from onset then His Honour Carmody J effectively was not hearing
matters as a judge of the Country Court of Victoria but as a mere private person without any
judicial authority.
QUOTE ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.
A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides
that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and
rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment
for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing
arguments, presentation, or rational.
END QUOTE
QUOTE 20160621-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ CCV-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re
COMPLAINT
.

Hansard 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 the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution 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

It should be clear that thousands upon thousands of Infringement Notices and so Infringement
court orders/warrants issued on the basis of such defective Fire Prevention Notices all are invalid
in law.
His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 stated as I understood it that he didnt want to waste
court time. Well, boy, that is precisely what the judges are doing time and time again by
enforcing unconstitutional/invalid Infringement Notices.
Where is the ability of a victim to challenge the charge against the nature strip contained in a Fire
Prevention Notice where the purported Infringement Court as I understand it is a computer
operated by a private company TENIX SOLUTIONS? This is why His Honour Carmody J was
given a grandiose opportunity by me to finally stop this rot by merely having made the correct
p3
22-6-2016
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, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 4
decision that the Fire prevention Notice was invalid in law and by this pointing out the various
defects. That would have there and then stopped numerous court cases in its track because His
Honour Carmody J ruling then would have alerted other judicial officers that they must not take
Fire Prevention Notices as some unquestionable gospel but must be checked upon its legal
validity. His Honour Carmody J didnt even bother to refer to the fact that the Premier had
refused my FOI Act request of 9 December 2015 and its supplement 1, whereas this went to the
issue of the Fire Prevention Notices for the court hearing, as such prevented me to prepare my
case as I deemed appropriate and required. Clearly His Honour Carmody J in my view by this
became part of the problem, rather than to be and remain to be seen as an impartial/independent
judicial officer who would rule upon the rule of law.
The irony is that judicial officers generally oppose people to represent a party unless they are
legal practitioners and yet as I exposed the legal practitioners involved all are seriously
failing to act competently in litigation. I see no constitutional justification for any judicial officer
to deny any person to represent a party merely on the basis the person may not be a legal
practitioner, and I view the Parliament has no legislative powers to dictate the courts who it
should or should not allow to represent a party. As I demonstrated before His Honour Carmody J
I so to say left the legal practitioners for dead in how I presented the case.
For sure where a judicial officer holds that a person representing a party might not be acting in
the best interest of that party then I can understand that then the judicial officer on that basis
could exclude this person from representing a party but that must apply likewise to any member
of the legal profession. As such, in correct terms I view His Honour Carmody would have been
justify to refuse Counsel for Buloke Shire Council to represent Buloke Shire Council in view of
the litany of breaches/error in regard of court orders/rules/regulations and other legal provisions
as His Honour Carmody J ought to have held that I as the appellant have a right to be protected
against this sheer and utter nonsense of abuse of the legal processes by the lawyers involved.

I make you are of my request for the transcript/audio recordings, orders and reasons of
judgments so far not having been provided and hereby request the same again. I view this
to be an unacceptable delay and undermines my ability to in time appeal/seek a judicial
review, etc, for so far I were to pursue this.
Not uncommon people write to me why I bother to write to lawyers/government
department/government when I know they generally disregard my writings. What however is
important as shown above with my 131203-Schorel-Hlavka to Premier D. Mapthine &
Buloke Shire Council -COMPLAINT that I can then use it even years later to expose the rot
and the failure/blatant disregard by others and so there can be no excuse for them having done so.
After all, exposing how the Infringement Court system has systematically prevented innocent
people to defend themselves against a fraudulent Fire Prevention Notice and the government
all along were alerted by me to this and the Courts failed to address this appropriately and so
called competent members of the legal profession failed to attend to this also, instead seek the
enforcement of this rot, then considering also the numerous persons involved in a Fire
Management Plan of every council it is not just an utter disgrace but an total absurdity this has
gone on for so long.
QUOTE 20160621-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ CCV-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re
COMPLAINT

In my view a more appropriate manner would have been for His Honour Carmody J to have on
17 May 2016 given a judgment that might have been as follows:
Commencing Hypothetical judgement.

p4
22-6-2016
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, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 5
Before me is a submission of OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as well as that Buloke Shire Council has
NO LEGAL STANDING.
The matter before me is an appeal against orders of the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud of 17
September 2016 which at that time the Court proceeded to issue orders as I understand it without any
evidence filed by the Prosecutor. The Appellant/Objector at the time had provided a written submission in an
ADDRESS TO THE COURT objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court. I understand that prior to the 17
September 2015 hearing the Prosecutor through its lawyers in a 2 September 2015 correspondence to the
Appellant acknowledged that the appellant had objected to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of
Victoria at St Arnaud.
There appear to be no orders on record that the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud disposed of this
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and as such it appears it never invoked jurisdiction in that regard.
On that basis alone the 17 September 2015 orders in my view must be deemed a nullity as they were issued
without the Court having invoked jurisdiction.
The Applicant/Objector also has submitted that Buloke Shire Council has no legal standing. Obviously this
placed me in an extreme difficult position that I couldnt hear the prosecutor to deal with the OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION issue now before the Court if the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud had before
it the challenge of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as well as what the Appellant/Objector submitted
that the Fire Prevention Noticed was defectively issued as this is the basis of the entire case upon which the
Prosecutor relies upon. The Appellant/Objector relies also upon the following Authority:
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998)
Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing the statutory provision in
that case: "substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible.
Either there was compliance or there was not."
It is clear from the legislation (Country Fire Authority Act 1958 s41) that buildings and their content are not
included. The Fire prevention Notice which was issued refers to all combustible material and fails to show
the exclusion of buildings and its content and while the Appellant/Objector obviously appears to have a
considerable knowledge of legal matters being a constitutionalist and a retired Professional Advocate
nevertheless the court must uphold the rule of law regardless of how much a person may be competent in
legal matters, this as most citizens may not understand the difference and it would be unrealistic to endorse a
Fire Prevention Notice that violated the legal requirements of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958merely
against the Appellant/Objector and not against others.
The court must apply its consideration as to if the Fire Prevention Notice is valid in law and in my view it
fails to be so.
On this basis alone I view that even if the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud on 17 September 2015
had heard and determined the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, besides numerous other legal issues raised
by the Applicant/Objector the court should have found that indeed it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine
the charge itself based upon the Fire Prevention Notice.
The Appellant/Objector is entitled to Appeal against orders including orders that were not issued but should
on the basis of the material have been issued. As the Magistrates Court of Victoria on 17 September 2015
failed to issue orders regarding the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION of the Appellant/Objector then the
appeal process provides this Court with jurisdiction to issue orders which ought to have been issued and to
set aside the orders that were issued without jurisdiction.
As this issue alone is sufficient to uphold the appeal against the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
on 17 September 2015 I find that the orders appropriate to be made by this Court is that for the reasons set
out above I set aside the orders of the magistrates Court of Victoria of 17 September 2015 and substitute it
with the following order;
1. That the Respondent/Objector OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is upheld and the court dismisses the
Summons for want of jurisdiction.
2. The Respondent/Objector to file within 28 days (of the date of this 17 May 2016 orders) any submission
he desires to make as to any exemplary damages he pursues.
The above is one dealing with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and it follows from this that as the
Appellant/Objector submitted that the Prosecutor has NO LEGAL STANDING.
In my view the Appellant/Objector provided a considerable set out why the Fire Prevention Notice was
defective/invalid and yet nevertheless the prosecutor insisted to litigate. Members of the legal profession are
not cheap when it comes to litigating and obviously as a judicial officer I am concerned as to the sheer waste
of court time to have the Prosecutor filing a frivolous and vexatious case against the Appellant/Objector and
persist with it no matter what.
p5
22-6-2016
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, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 6
The sheer volume of writing by the Appellant/Objector makes it clear that he did also provide copies to each
councillor of Buloke Shire Council, Mr Wayne Wall the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer, the CFA, the
Premier at the time of the State of Victoria and also the Attorney-General at the time of the State of Victoria.
This as the appellant/Objector submitted that the Prosecutor Buloke Shire Council is acting under delegated
powers of the State of Victoria and as such the Attorney-General as first law officer of the State is responsible
for the conduct of Buloke Shire Council and its lawyers also.
In my view the Appellant/Objector is correct in this and I therefore hold that it would be appropriate to issue
further orders which provide for the Appellant/Objector to file within 28 days a written submission as to
exemplary damages and listing those people against whom he seeks this in their personal capacity.
It is my view that councillors who fail to keep appropriate control on litigation but this cannot be held to be
without blame.
In my view rate payers should not be responsible to pay for litigation that a competent lawyer would never
have engaged in. it would not be appropriate that the Appellant/Objector as a rate payer being successful in
his OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION nevertheless would have to contribute towards the cost of this
unreasonable and highly inappropriate litigation against him. For this any exemplary damages against Buloke
Shire Council must be against councillors themselves and other persons within Buloke Shire Council but not
to be against ratepayers.
This may give a good warning to councillors that they cannot hide behind ratepayers and pursue malicious
litigation but that they can themselves be held legally liable.
I understand that the Appellant/Objector in fact did write to each councillor about this but it appears they
ignored it and as such deserve the legal consequences of this.
The Appellant/Objector as part of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION also challenged numerous legal
provisions to which I find no need to deal with because where the Fire Prevention Notice was defective/
invalid then the Appellant/Objector has already achieved what he set out to do. Had I found the Fire
Prevention Notice to be valid in law then I would have had to consider other issues raised in his written
submission to this court but I find no need to do so considering what I have already stated.
The matter I have been dealing with is to hear and determine the matter De Novo in that at the time the matter
was before the magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud on 17 September 2015 there was clearly on record
and so acknowledged by the prosecutor 2 September 2015 correspondence an OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and therefore it is appropriate for me to consider the legal position of the parties at the time
before the Court, which means the Appellant/Objector OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION being the first
issue to be considered.
I am aware that the Appellant/Prosecutor also challenge the jurisdiction of this court but that would only to be
fully addressed if the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION that was before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at
St Arnaud on 17 September 2015 would have been dismissed by me. Where this Court holds that the
Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud on 17 September 2015 didnt invoke jurisdiction then the Appeal
must succeed against the 17 September 2015 orders and the failure to issue orders regarding the OB
JECTION TO JURISDICTION and on that basis this Court has no jurisdiction otherwise. Hence, there was
no need for me to consider the range of issues the Appellant/Objector had submitted to object to this court as
the matter itself that is the hearing of the summons charge based upon the Fire Prevention Notice as I have
already indicated this is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Without going into details I am concerned as to the list of breaches/failure the Appellant/Objector has shown
to have been engaged in by the Prosecutor. While a party at times may make an error and this so to say
should not be a hanging offence where it reasonably can be corrected it is another matter where a party had
obtained orders from this court the other party blatantly violates the orders and make absolutely no attempt to
appropriately address these issues. The appellant/Objector was entitled to the benefits of the orders of His
Honour Mullaly J of 30 October 2015 and clearly the Prosecutor robbed him of this right. This court cannot
condone this. To do otherwise might give a fair minded person the impression as the Appellant/Objector
submitted that members of the legal profession can willy-nilly flaunt court orders, the rules and regulations
and other legal provisions. I will not tolerate such display of elaborate disregard to proper compliance by
members of the legal profession and view that exemplary damages not only is justified but must be used to
deter other members of the legal profession to flaunt court legal provisions upon their wimps.
There can be no doubt that the Appellant/Objector had to spend a huge amount of time preparing material for
this case even so the prosecutor should have withdrawn the case if at all instituted in the first place. It is in my
view totally unreasonable to expect members of the legal profession no matter what they do wrong to claim
for their cost against the party they represent while not accepting that the victim of their malicious litigation
is not compensated.
In my view there appears to have been no reasonable attempt by the lawyers acting for the Prosecutor to seek
to resolve matters other than malicious litigation. I am concerned that a law firm representing council then
writes to the Appellant/Objector to deal with Mr Wayne Wall who is not registered as a legal practitioner to
resolve legal issues. Surely Buloke Shire Council engaging ES&a Associates as a law firm to deal with legal
p6
22-6-2016
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, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 7
matters could have expected it would do so and not rely upon a person not qualified as a lawyer to act on
behalf of this law firm. In my view this is a violation of legal provisions and I recommend should be
appropriately investigated by the Legal Service Commission.
There can be absolutely no doubt that the appellant/Objector due to his experiences in legal matters was able
to grasp the wrongdoings of the Prosecutor and their lawyers but it should be of concern that most accused
person may lack this experiences/skill and then may suffer court orders adverse to them as well as wasting
precious court time for litigation that never should have been instituted where they rely upon the kind of Fire
Prevention Notice now before this court, and for this I view that any exemplary damages sought by the
Appellant/Objector must be of a significant amount to ensure that such kind of litigation is deterred to be
followed in the future.
1. That the Respondent/Objector submission against the Prosecutor of NO LEGAL STANDING is upheld.
2. The Respondent/Objector to file within 28 days (of the date of this 17 May 2016 orders) any submission
he desires to make as to any exemplary damages he pursues.
For so far the appeal of the Appellant/Objector against the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud by the
Appellant/Objector for the reason set out above I hold that this is to be upheld considering the above stated.

1.
2.
3.

That the Respondent/Objector Appeal & Objection to jurisdiction is upheld.

The Respondent/Objector to file within 28 days (of the date of this 17 May 2016 orders) any submission
he desires to make as to any exemplary damages he pursues.
All orders providing for exemplary damages be consolidated and the 28 days from the date of 17 May
2016 is to be substituted to the date that the Appellant/Objector is formally notified about these orders,
with the 28 days commencing from that date.

End Hypothetical judgement.

END QUOTE 20160621-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ CCV-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re
COMPLAINT

I didnt include in the above hypothetical judgment about the naturestrip and noxious weed
albeit His Honour Carmody J could have realised this had His Honour Carmody J checked the
Fire Prevention Notice against the provisions of the legislation. Judicial officers should always
keep in mind that for them an issue such as a Fire Prevention Notice may be unimportant
considering major criminal trials but for the accused it can have a devastating effect upon his
standing in the community if any orders were made adverse to this person. As like for example,
if one allow a child to get away with stealing a minor item then slowly this may result in the
child stealing more valued items and then end up as a career criminal. Likewise if the Courts
ignore what it may deem minor infractions by the legal profession as to court procedures, etc,
then slowly as this case proved it ballooned out to gigantic. A judicial officer presiding over such
utter nonsense then may likely be seen as some utterly incompetent fool unable to ensure for a
FAIR and PROPER hearing. In my view if anything has been proven is that the judiciary so to
say has fallen asleep behind the wheel and unable to recognise the numerous problems within its
system and blatantly disregarded warning signs because after all the judicial officers know
better! Really? What is needed is a person like myself to clean up the legal system so that judicial
officers become aware they have a responsibility under their oath of office to ensure they provide
justice! Despite that His Honour Peter Kidd CJ was provided with copies of my writings it
proved that His Honour Peter Kidd CJ neither was capable to understand that this was not
something I sought interference with a judge right to adjudicate, but to avoid/prevent with the
misuse and abuse of judicial powers! Judicial officers who do not understand/comprehend proper
judicial processes in my view shouldnt adjudicate until appropriately trained for the job!
I am on a mission of justice and my trademark MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (it
is a registered trademark!) surely underlines this. His Honour Peter Kidd CJ as the Chief Justice
in my view has the duty and obligation to prevent any order issued without jurisdiction to be to
remain on foot. And well so has His Honour Carmody J. as a matter of urgency!
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!)

p7
22-6-2016
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, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati