Page 1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Associate Sarah Gleisner
judgegaynor.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au

16-12-2015

5
Cc: VGSO C/o Daniel McCredden, Principal Solicitor matthew.carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au
Re: 20151216- in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704

10

15

Madam,
Despite my 16-10-2012 correspondence I am not aware of having received the full
reasons of judgement and orders of her Honour Gaynor J in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP12-1704 and request hereby that you provide FREE OF CHARGE a copy of the court recording
as well as the written transcript. I refer to the contentment of my 16 October 2012
correspondence that ought to be sufficient to show I am entitled to the full set of orders and
reasons of judgment, and failing this so far the written transcript as well as the audio recording of
the proceedings of the appeal hearing of 26 September 2012.
As I recall it (considering my written submission in my ADDRESS TO THE COURT,
OBJECTING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT,

20

25

30

35

40

I QUOTE below the 26 September 2012 correspondence to indicate I addressed this issue some 3
years and 2 months ago but to no avail so far.
While it might not be ordinary for a party to file an appeal and then IOBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTIONOF THE COURT to hear and determine the Appeal, nevertheless it is a valid
legal process, as the court then has to consider if the orders appealed against were in fact issued
within the lower courts jurisdiction or not. And if there was before the lower court an
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and this lower court failed to formally dismiss the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the Appeal Court dealing with an OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION then can formally substitute the lower court orders with a finding that there was
no jurisdiction and set aside the orders it had issued. It then can rule that in view that the orders
of the lower court upheld the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the appeal (in regard of the
failure of the lower court to uphold the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION) is upheld and no
further appeal is warranted to be considered.
I may also outline that upon federation Her Majesty withdrew the letters Patent for the colonial
Governor for the State of Victoria and replaced it with the in the 2-1-1901 published in the
Victorian Gazette letters patent to create the permanent office of the Governor for the state of
Victoria for an impartial administration of justice. This means that the court is to operate and
be perceived by a FAIR MINDED PERSON to be impartial.
It also means that when I submitted the written OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION (Of which the
prosecutor was provided with a copy prior to the proceedings.) then not Her Honour but the
Prosecutor had to present evidence before the Court in a jurisdictional hearing to prove
that Her Honour could invoke jurisdiction. It is my view this legal process was never properly
followed by Her Honour. It appeared to me that her Honour was so to say conducting the
Page

20151216-in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) au

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: new email address admin@inspector-rikati.com

Page 2
hearing blending inappropriately the jurisdictional hearing with the appeal hearing which is
legally inappropriately as well as for Her Honour inappropriately arguing legal issues instead of
letting this for the Prosecutor to do so as was legally required. Ample of Authorities exist that a
jurisdictional hearing must be heard separately from the trail/appeal, and formal orders and a
reason of judgment provided why the court does or doesnt dismiss the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION before, if at all, embarking upon any other litigation in the same matter.
As I understand orders and then revised orders were issued b ut without any sealed orders
regarding the jurisdictional issues, then the purported sealed orders are NULL AND VOID
because on the courts records the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was never disposed of.

10

25

In particular where a party presents written submissions, as I did in the ADDRESS TO THE
COURT, then the court must not blatantly disregard this but appropriately deal with the issues
raised as a party is legally entitled upon. The court cannot disregard the written submission
merely because it may happen to be more convenient for the court to do so, as once the written
submissions are placed before the court then the court is bound to consider it appropriately and
reflect in a reason of judgment the courts views considering also any evidence the Prosecutor
may have submitted to the court in opposition to the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. It is
not for the court to deal with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as Her Honour did, as if
Her Honour was herself a party to the proceedings, as again this violated to be an impartial
administration of justice within which limited concepts judges are appointed. This I view Her
Honour Gaynor J never did. It is not relevant if Her Honour personal views were that there was
nothing in the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and that the constitution doesnt apply to
her Honour, as what was required is that Her Honour made any rulings upon the evidence
presented by both parties and adjudicate upon this evidence and not upon her own personal
views, whatever they might be.

30

HALSBURYS LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460):

Consent to summary
jurisdiction. The consent to be tried summarily must be clear and unequivocal and a failure to
carry out the procedure for obtaining the consent will deprive the Court of Jurisdiction to
determine the matters summarily.

15

20

35

40

The above quotation underlines that the original Magistrates Court of Victoria had no jurisdiction
where I objected then to its jurisdiction, as I didnt consent to the matters to be heard summary.
Yet, Her Honour Gaynor J never appeared to have considered this, this even so it went to the
core of the jurisdictional issue that where I didnt consent then there Her Honour Gaynor J
couldnt hear the matter De Novo, as if the prosecution appealed against was valid in law, as it
was ULTRA VIRES!
A man who exercises his rights harms no one a Legal Maxim.
If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the
case must be dismissed. Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42. The Accuser Bears the
Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

45

50

Lack of Federal Jurisdiction can not be waived or overcome by agreement of parties. Griffin v.
Matthews, 310 F supra 341, 342 (1969): and Want of Jurisdictionmay not be cured by consent
of parties. Industrial Addition Association v. C.I.R., 323 US 310, 313.
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin)
(24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF
APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ
168
QUOTE
Page

20151216-in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) au

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: new email address admin@inspector-rikati.com

1.

Page 3
As it happens and as it seems to me, much of what was submitted by Mr Howell and Mr Sales with regard
to this aspect of the first ground of challenge in the present case echoed what Laws LJ had to say in his
judgment in Tower Hamlets from paragraph 31 onwards and, for that reason and because Laws LJs
judgment is clearly very much in point, it is both appropriate and helpful to quote extensively from it, as
follows:

15

31. The approach in Strasbourg to cases where a first instance decision-maker does
not of itself satisfy Article 6(1), but it is claimed that the defect is as it were cured by a
right of appeal to or review by an independent court, is to ascertain whether in the
circumstances the court possesses what has been called full jurisdiction. The genesis
of this expression is I think to be found in Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium (1983) 5
EHRR 533. That was a case in which doctors suspended from practice by a disciplinary
tribunal complained of violations of Article 6(1). It is convenient to refer to the relevant
passage as it is quoted by Lord Hoffman in Alconbury, where it is followed by reasoning
to which with respect I would attach considerable importance in the context of the present
case:

20

86. In Albert and Le Compte v Belgium (1983) 5 EHRR 533

the court said, at paragraph 29, that although disciplinary jurisdiction
could be conferred upon professional bodies which did not meet the
requirements of Article 6(1) (e.g. because they were not established by
law or did not sit in public):

10

None the less, in such circumstances the Convention

calls at least for one of the two following systems:
either the jurisdictional organs themselves comply
with the requirements of Article 6(1), or they do not
so comply but are subject to subsequent control by a
judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does
provide the guarantees of Article 6(1).

25

87. The reference to full jurisdiction has been frequently cited in

subsequent cases and sometimes relied upon in argument as if it were
authority for saying that a policy decision affecting civil rights by an
administrator who does not comply with Article 6(1) has to be
reviewable on its merits by an independent and impartial tribunal. It
was certainly so relied upon by counsel for the respondents in these
appeals. But subsequent European authority shows that full
jurisdiction does not mean full decision-making power. It means full
jurisdiction to deal with the case as the nature of the decision requires.

30

35
END QUOTE

40

45

If judges were to adjudicate upon their personal views, no matter how incorrect they might be,
then we have in that sense abolished the impartial administration of justice and basically all a
government has to do is to appoint its so to say stooges to rule as it desires.
The mere fact that after 3years and 2months I still have not been provided with orders and
judgments regarding the jurisdiction issues I raised then I view this if anything indicates a
scandalous conduct by the court itself. Any purported orders as such and so any amended orders
must be withdrawn as they were issued without jurisdiction.
Law Encyclopedia: Coram

50

[Latin, Before; in the presence of.]

The term coram is used in phrases that refer to the appearance of a person
before another individual or a group. Coram non judice, "in the presence of
Page 3 20151216-in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) au
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: new email address admin@inspector-rikati.com

Page 4

a person not a judge," is a phrase that describes a proceeding brought

before a court that lacks the jurisdiction to hear such a matter. Any
judgment rendered by the court in such a case is void.
5

10

15

20

Therefore her Honour Gaynor J having failed to dispose formally of the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION (Not that I concede it should have been dismissed.) by orders and reasons of
judgment by this never presided over the appeal matter as a judge of a competent court of law
but a purported court generally referred to as a STAR CHAMBERS COURT/KANGAROO
COURT, regardless that the purported hearing was in a building housing the County Court of
Victoria, this as the building itself is not relevant to the validity of the court but rather the
proceedings themselves determine the validity of a hearing being proper lawful proceedings or
not in a court of law. After all if buildings were destroyed as part of a fire raving through a buildup area nothing prevents then to hold a court sitting in the field, as it is the proceedings
themselves that determines if they are valid as a court of law and not necessarily the location
where it is held.
QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed
and must be decided.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,

25

Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.

END QUOTE
QUOTE Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.
Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts
in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities.

30

END QUOTE
QUOTE Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27
Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its
proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. .

35

END QUOTE
QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,
Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
END QUOTE

40
QUOTE HALSBURYS LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460):
Consent to summary jurisdiction The consent to be tried summarily must be clear and unequivocal and a
failure to carry out the procedures for obtaining the consent will deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine
the matters summarily.

45

END QUOTE
QUOTE Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.
END QUOTE

50

QUOTE In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

Page

20151216-in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) au

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: new email address admin@inspector-rikati.com

Page 5
Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear
is void, ab initio.
END QUOTE

QUOTE (Jagens v. Lavine, 415 S.Ct.768).

Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

10

There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.

END QUOTE
QUOTE Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.
Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.

15

END QUOTE
QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.
END QUOTE

20

QUOTE Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks
jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.
END QUOTE

25

QUOTE Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.

Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is
deprived of juris.
END QUOTE

30

QUOTE Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity
and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.
END QUOTE

35

QUOTE Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.

The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction."
END QUOTE
QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,

40

45

No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.

END QUOTE
QUOTE Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.
Page

20151216-in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) au

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: new email address admin@inspector-rikati.com

10

15

Page 6
When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the
municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in
administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.
Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and
confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct
collateral attack.
END QUOTE
Hansard 2-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns [1999] FamCA 64
(2) The Court always has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for the purpose of and up
to the point of deciding whether it has jurisdiction to make the orders sought in the
proceedings.

20

(3) In carrying out that limited exercise of jurisdiction, the Court is required to determine any
essential facts upon which the existence of its jurisdiction to make the orders sought ultimately
depends (the jurisdictional facts). That determination is a function which is incidental to the
exercise of the jurisdiction referred to in (2) above.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns [1999] FamCA 64
(6) Once a respondent challenges the Courts jurisdiction to make the orders sought, the Court,
before considering the adjudicational facts, must find the existence of the jurisdictional facts, on
the balance of probabilities.
END QUOTE

25

30

35

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"

40

END QUOTE

45

50

55

For this also I request that Her Honour disqualifies herself from any further involvement
in any legal proceedings that may involve my person.
.

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

(Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE

Essentially it appeared to me that Her Honour was taking sides doing the job for the Prosecutor
and this I view is a very serious incursion into the denial of NATURAL JURSTICE and DUE
PROCESS OF LAW to which I was entitled and hence the purported orders issued by Her
Honour at the time were without jurisdiction and so NULL AND VOID.
QUOTE 120926- COMPALINT ETC--in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704
Page

20151216-in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) au

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: new email address admin@inspector-rikati.com

Page 7
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Associate of Her Honour Gaynor J

250 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000
(03) 8636 6510 crim.reg@countycourt.vic.gov.au

26-9-2012

5
Cc:

Victorian Government Solicitors Office

C/o Daniel McCredden, Principal Solicitor
matthew.carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au

10

Re: 120926- COMPALINT ETC--in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704

Sir/Madam
15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

RE:

COMPLAINT - ETC

As you are aware I appeared today before her honour Gaynor and I can assure you I was less
than impressed with the conduct of Her Honour.
I did file a substantial s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and as you may
recall Her honour commenced to state that she had no jurisdiction to entertain such a s78B
(something I am aware most judges tend to argue) but in the end seemed to accept being able to
do so. Considering that as I understand it her honour is already for about 10 years a County Court
of Victoria judge one would have assumed that Her Honour surely would have known better. As
I stated in my written material it is not for me to disprove jurisdiction but for the prosecutor to
prove jurisdiction. Generally it appeared to me that Her Honour was taking over the task of the
Prosecutor lawyers.
.
Also, I did make a written submission as to NO CASE TO ANSWER even before the matter
was heard, well aware that ordinary one does so at the close of the Prosecutors case but nothing
prevents to make such submission before the case commences as then the TRIAL JUDGE should
be aware that anything the Defendant presents in cross-examination is so to say of limit as
evidence. To do otherwise could undermine a Defendant in cross-examining a witness, unable to
present certain details to which the witness is to be examined.
The matter of JOHN RAYMOND BURRELL v NICK JACENKO (1998) NSWLEC 310 (4
December 1998) is an example where a NO CASE TO ANSWER was submitted despite certain
material used during cross-examination.
Her Honour demanding from me the case name. etc, in my view was totally unreasonable in that
her honour never attended to my written submission to have the case adjourned, to which the
Prosecutor had agreed to and as such I view Her Honour first so to say port of call should have
been if the matter should be adjourned.
.
Also, as I made an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, both in my written material as well as
orally, then Her Honour could not invoke jurisdiction unless , if at all, Her Honour dismissed the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION with a reason of judgment why Her Honour were to do so.
In fact my written material did address this legal procedure.
As Her honour indicated that she would read the material over the lunchbreak then I view I was
entitled to have from Her Honour a proper set out as to why Her Honour held that there was no
constitutional issue, by setting out in a reason of judgment what I had presented versus what the
Prosecutor, if anything, had presented and not for Her Honour to conduct the case as if, so it
appeared to me, she was representing the Prosecutor.
.
Even so her honour stated briefly (very briefly) that there was no constitutional issue Her Honour
did not specifically dismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION which not only relied upon
Page

20151216-in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) au

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: new email address admin@inspector-rikati.com

10

Page 8
the constitutional issues. Hence where there was no formal orders and reason of judgment to
dismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then Her Honour never did invoke jurisdiction!
Ample of Authorities are on record that a court cannot hear both the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and the issue in dispute at the same time, but must be heard in separate
hearings. While hearings can be subsequent to each other they nevertheless must be conducted
separately, even if this means that some evidence must be heard twice.
For this I view Her Honour never concluded the issue of OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
and for this the evidence of the parties technically must be perceived to be that of the continuing
hearing of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and not otherwise. In that regard Her
Honour was in no position to conclude a guilty finding as the trial itself cannot mysteriously
commence where the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION had not been formally disposed off.

My 24-9-23012 written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT specifically stated:

15

20

QUOTE
I seek therefore that this court addresses the relevant issues I have placed before this court, including
appropriate consideration of the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS as to which courts
ought to be hearing and determine these and other issues as well as providing me with a TRIAL BY JURY,
where the court to find there is jurisdiction, not that this is conceded.
END QUOTE
Neil v. Nott (1994) 68 ALR
QUOTE
Where the High Court of Australia ruled that: A frequent consequence of self representation is that
the court must assume the burden of endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are

25

obfuscated by their own advocacy.

END QUOTE

30

35

40

45

In this case Her Honour seemed in my view too often doing the talking and so to say arguing
whereas Her Honour should have left it to the Prosecutor to submit his evidence and arguments
and I then was to present mine and then upon this the Court as an impartial umpire is to
adjudicate.
However, as I indicated the Court and the Prosecution share the same ABN business number and
so implied bias existed from onset.
.
QUOTE R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236
However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be such as to lead the parties reasonably to think
that the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and then prohibition may issue. Of course, the
court which is asked to grant prohibition will not lightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected of
bias in this sense; it must be "firmly established" that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered in the
minds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and
Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553-4, in the passage cited in R v
Watson; Ex Parte Armstrong (132 CLR at 262).
The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a question, but
whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect has occurred (see per Lord Denning
MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgement cited with
approval by this court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss
Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well convey
the impression of "protesting to much...
END QUOTE

50
Basically, when the proceedings commenced and Her Honour announced that Her Honour had
no jurisdiction to deal with the s78B I immediately sensed that I would end up with a conviction
no matter what, as Her Honour didnt appear to be prepared for the case, despite my ADDRESS
TO THE COURT and its Supplement.
Page

20151216-in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) au

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: new email address admin@inspector-rikati.com

Page 9

.
5

10

15

20

25

30

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

.
As I understand it Her Honour can actually now not proceed with issuing final orders of a
conviction in view of the above as any judicial officer has this power until sealed orders are
issued.
.
In my view there are other issues relevant as grounds of appeal but I view the above stated ought
to be an indication that so to say something terrible was wrong in how Her Honour conducted the
proceedings and this despite that my address to the court relied upon the s78B which at page 37
QUOTE

35

40

Further, it may be noted that Her Honour Wakeling defied the right for me and indeed for the general
community to know why Her Honour held she had jurisdiction and the Local Government Act was
valid as I understand that there are certain legal procedures to be followed when dealing with an
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and this includes that the Court must hand down a Reason of
judgment setting out what each party presented and why the court as an impartial adjudicator decided
to accept the evidence of one party above that of the other party!
END QUOTE

Again:
QUOTE

45

50

55

I understand that there are certain legal procedures to be followed when dealing with an
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and this includes that the Court must hand down a Reason of
judgment setting out what each party presented and why the court as an impartial adjudicator decided
to accept the evidence of one party above that of the other party!
END QUOTE

In my view Her Honour was totally unreasonable to somehow expect me to refer to every
Authority where in fact I had already presented details in writing.
In my view, Her Honour not only should vacate any orders she verbally made and find that Her
Honour failed to follow proper legal procedures and as such never did invoke jurisdiction and the
oral statement of a conviction cannot stand.
.

Page

20151216-in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) au

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: new email address admin@inspector-rikati.com

Page 10
I request that also I be provided at cost of the Court with a transcript of the proceedings as I am
so to say the innocent party where clearly I had already placed before the court and so in writing
what the proper conduct is to deal with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.

10

15

20

25

30

Further, as my written material included that Her honour is an OFFICER OF THE COURT and
that the evidence before the Court was that Banyule city council had acted unlawfully in
interfering with my election campaigns, then I view both Her Honour Gaynor as well as counsel
for the Prosecutor Mr Matthew Carrazzo have a legal obligation to report this to the relevant
authorities. There are ample of authorities where for example a person in the witness box makes
an admission that the person has not paid taxes (as I read a recent case regarding a person selling
cars) the trial judge then directed that the transcript was to be provided to the ATO for its
investigation. In my view Her Honour likewise ought to have ordered that the transcript of the
proceedings was to be provided to the VEC (Victorian Electoral Commission) or other
appropriate authority as to investigate what appeared to be criminal conduct by Banyule City
Council and in fact I had quoted in my material the relevant legislative provisions for this. (page
41 onwards of the s78B).
I look forwards to a positive response to this correspondence and that I can be assured Her
honour does place her duties to the court and her duties as an OFFICER OF THE COURT
above any possible embarrassment, as after all I was entitled to a FAIR and PROPER trial
which I view I was denied.
In my view no FAIR MINDED PERSON can accept that a judge convicts a person in the
circumstances prevailing but somehow doesnt bother to take appropriate action as to the
criminal conduct of Banyule City Council to interfere with the democratic processes of elections.
Indeed, I view Mr Matthew Carrazzo (also an OFFICER OF THE COURT) himself has the
duty and obligation to have reported matters to the relevant authorities in view that on two
occasions he didnt challenge my evidence and his own witnesses borne out that such events was
known to them.
.
Again, I look forwards to a positive response.
The above is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant details/issues.

35

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B

END QUOTE 120926- COMPALINT ETC--in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704

I look forwards to your, without undue delay, response to provide the above requested.
40

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

(
Awaiting your response,

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

45

Page

10

20151216-in Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis CCV No AP-12-1704

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) au

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: new email address admin@inspector-rikati.com