Page 1

1
2
3 Victorian Legal Service Board 18-4-2021
4 Rai Small RSmall@lsbc.vic.gov.au
5
6 Cc: Serena Teffaha serene.teffaha@advocateme.com.au
7
8 Victorian Legal Service Commission
9 admin@lsbc.vic.gov.au
10
11 Jacob Uljans jacob.uljans@hallandwilcox.com.au
12
13 20210418-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Legal Service Board & Ors
14 Sir,
15 Fromm onset I desire to make clear that I am NOT engage or otherwise contracted to act for
16 and on behalf of lawyer Serene Teffaha and/or any of her legal businesses.
17
18 My concern as a citizen is that the Victorian Legal Service Board and Ors appears to me to have
19 acted with malice towards what I consider to be an outstanding lawyer, well respected amongst
20 the general community, as I understand from numerous postings about her on the Internet. As
21 such, she appears to be a credit to the legal profession indeed a stark contrast to Nicolo Gobbo
22 who somehow was going on violating her oath as well as at least as it appeared to me to
23 undermine the Administration of Justice and perverting the course of justice in various manner.
24 I noticed that in your 14 April 2021 “OFFICIAL – Sensitive” correspondence to Ms Serene
25 Teffaha you stated under point 3.
26
27 QUOTE 14 April 2021 “OFFICIAL – Sensitive” correspondence
28 3. The 19 March letter:
29 (a) require you to provide certain information pursuant to section 95(1) of the Uniform
30 Law, within 5 days: and
31 (b) invite you, pursuant to section 83(c) of the Uniform Law to respond in writing within 7
32 days, as to why the proposed action above should not be taken.
33 END QUOTE 14 April 2021 “OFFICIAL – Sensitive” correspondence
34
35 Version No. 015
36 Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014
37 No. 17 of 2014
38 Version incorporating amendments as at 17 September 2019
39 QUOTE
40 83Local regulatory authority to give notice before acting under this Division

10-4-2021 Page 1 © Mr 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, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 2

1 If the designated local regulatory authority considers that a certificate should be varied,
2 suspended or cancelled on a ground specified in section 82, it must give the holder notice in
3 writing—
4 (a) stating that it proposes to take that action and
5 the ground or grounds for the proposed action; and
6 (b) if it proposes to vary or suspend the certificate,
7 stating the proposed variation or period of
8 suspension, as the case requires; and
9 (c) inviting the holder to respond in writing to the
10 designated local regulatory authority within a
11 specified period (not being less than 7 days nor
12 more than 28 days after the notice is given) as to
13 why the proposed action should not be taken.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 As such, your reference to “within 7 days” clearly, at least in my view, violates the very legal
17 provisions you seek to rely upon. In my view “not being less than 7 days” is to be calculated
18 from the conclusion of the day the notice was provided. As the notice was given sometime
19 during the day of 19 March then it could not be counted as a full day and hence cannot be used to
20 include in the “not being less than 7 days”. Where the notice was given on 19 March 2021, then I
21 view the time period is as follows:
22
23 19 March 2021 – Day of Notice
24 20 March 2021 - 1st day
25 21 March 2021 - 2nd day
26 22 March 2021 - 3rd day
27 23 March 2021 - 4th day
28 24 March 2021 - 5th day
29 25 March 2021 - 6th day
30 26 March 2021 - 7th day
31 27 March 2021 - 8th day - First day to respond
32 28 March 2021 - 9th day
33 29 March 2021 - 10th day
34 30 March 2021 - 11th day
35 31 March 2021 - 12th day
36 1 April 2021 - 13th day
37 2 April 2021 - 14th day
38 3 April 2021 - 15th day
39 4 April 2021 - 16th day
40 5 April 2021 - 17th day
41 6 April 2021 - 18th day
42 7 April 2021 - 19th day
43 8 April 2021 - 20th day
44 9 April 2021 - 21st day
45 10 April 2021 - 22nd day
46 11 April 2021 - 23rd day
47 12 April 2021 - 24th day
48 13 April 2021 - 25th day
49 14 April 2021 - 26th day
50 15 April 2021 - 27th day
51 16 April 2021 - 28th day Last day to respond

10-4-2021 Page 2 © Mr 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, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 3

1
2 As such, the Victorian Legal Service Board in my view has no legal position on 14 April 2021 to
3 make any decision when the time to respond was still applicable. Hence I view the Legal Service
4 Commission on 15 April 2021 was neither in any legal position to cancel the practicing
5 certificate of Legal Practitioner Serene Teffaha.
6
7 You stated also in your correspondence:
8
9 QUOTE 14 April 2021 “OFFICIAL – Sensitive” correspondence
10
11 On 26 March 2021, my Office by email reminded you of the requirement to supply
12 documents and reminded you that a failure to do so was a ground for making an adverse
13 decision pursuant to section 95(2) of the Uniform Law.
14 END QUOTE 14 April 2021 “OFFICIAL – Sensitive” correspondence
15
16 QUOTE 14 April 2021 “OFFICIAL – Sensitive” correspondence
17 At your request, the time limits in the 19 March letter were extended to 31 March 2021 in
18 respect to section 95 requirements AND 9 April 2021 in respect to any response you were
19 invited to make to the preliminary view I had expressed.
20 END QUOTE 14 April 2021 “OFFICIAL – Sensitive” correspondence
21
22 In my view where the original notice was defective and so invalid (WITHOUT LEGAL FORCE)
23 then the subsequent by legal practitioner Serene Teffaha cannot make it valid. In my view legal
24 practitioner serene Teffaha was entitled to rely upon the Victorian legal Service Board to have
25 complied with the legal requirements as provided for in the Uniform law. The failure by the
26 Victorian legal Service Board therefore is terminal to its notice regardless any other request by
27 legal practitioner Serene Teffaha. In my view the Victorian legal Service board ought to have
28 withdrawn the unlawful notice and may have issued a fresh notice albeit in compliance with the
29 Uniform law. This I understand the Victorian legal Service Board failed to do.
30 In my view, the appointment of a manager Jacob Uljans of Hall&Wilcox lawyers therefore has
31 no legal validity either.
32
33 I urge the Victorian Legal Service Board and other relevant persons to also consider the
34 following:
35 In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred to the
36 general rule that “not less than” so many days refers to clear days – “unless the context or the
37 subject matter reveals a contrary intention”.
38
39 Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445 The true version of the
40 judgement under 5;
41 That where an instrument prescribes that a period of time may elapse between one event
42 and another, the words “at least”, not less than” and “not later than”, unless the context or
43 the subject matter reveals contrary intention, should be regarded as indicating that a clear
44 or full period of time must expire between the two events.”
45
46 Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998)
47 Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing the
48 statutory provision in that case: "substantial compliance with the relevant
49 statutory requirement was not possible. Either there was compliance or there
50 was not."
51
52 Again;
10-4-2021 Page 3 © Mr 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, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 4

1 "substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible.
2 Either there was compliance or there was not."
3
4 Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445 The true version of the
5 judgement under 5;
6 QUOTE
7 That where an instrument prescribes that a period of time may elapse between one event
8 and another, the words “at least”, not less than” and “not later than”, unless the
9 context or the subject matter reveals contrary intention, should be regarded as
10 indicating that a clear or full period of time must expire between the two events.”
11 There is some authority for saying that the use, in a statute prescribing a time limit, of such
12 expressions as "at least" and "not less than" indicate an intention that the specified number of
13 "clear days" must elapse between two acts or events (see R. v. Justices of Shropshire (1838)
14 8 Ad & E 173 (112 ER 803); Young v. Higgon (1840) 6 M & W 49 (151 ER 317); Chambers
15 v. Smith (1843) 12 M & W 2 (152 ER 1085); In re Railway Sleepers Supply Co. (1885) 29
16 Ch D 204 and Ex parte McCance; Re Hobbs (1926) 27 SR (NSW) 35; 44 WN 43).
17 But it is clear, I think, that significance is attached to such expressions as "at least" or "not
18 less than" only in cases where the immediate purpose of the prescription of a time is to
19 define a period on the expiration of which an act may be done, and not in cases where the
20 immediate purpose is to define a period within which an act must be done. In the former
21 class of case the prescribed number of days must elapse between two acts or events. In
22 the latter class of case the act must (unless a contrary intention appears) be done before the
23 expiration of the last of the prescribed number of days (see, e.g. Radcliffe v. Bartholomew
24 (1892) 1 QB 161 and Armstrong v. Great Southern Gold Mining Co. (1911) 12 CLR 382).
25 END QUOTE
26
27
28 Fullagar J in Associated Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v Balford (1950) 81 CLR 161,
29 QUOTE
30 11. I should think that the document served in this case was an "instrument"
31 within the meaning of s. 46, and the argument was that, because the time
32 allowed by the notice expired on a Sunday (16th), s. 36 (2) extended the time
33 until midnight on the 17th. The notice having been served on the 3rd, the time
34 which s. 55 required to be allowed expired at midnight on the 17th. The
35 company, it was said, was entitled to have until that time to show cause. It
36 did have until that time. Therefore, it was said, the notice was a good and
37 valid notice. (at p186)
38
39 12. I would agree that the combined effect of the notice and of s. 36 (2) of
40 the Acts Interpretation Act is that the company may "show cause" at any time
41 up to midnight on 17th May. The last day of the period prescribed or allowed
42 by the instrument for the doing of the thing falls on a Sunday. The "thing,"
43 therefore, may be done on the following day, which is a Monday. In my opinion,
44 however, it does not follow that the notice was a good and valid notice.
45 Section 36 (2) of the Acts Interpretation Act does not say that the notice
46 shall be construed as if the period specified in it expired on Monday the
47 17th, instead of Sunday the 16th. And s. 55 of the Life Insurance Act does say
48 that the notice shall "specify" a period not less than fourteen days from
49 service of the notice. The notice actually served did not "specify" such a
50 period: it "specified" a period which was too short by one day, and the Acts
51 Interpretation Act does not affect this position. The two statutory
52 provisions, read together, mean simply this: the notice must specify a period
10-4-2021 Page 4 © Mr 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, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 5

1 not less than fourteen days from service of the notice within which the thing
2 must be done, and, if the last day of the period so specified falls on a
3 Sunday, the thing may be done on the following Monday. The notice simply did
4 not specify such a period, and it is, therefore, bad. (at p187)
5
6 13. In my opinion, the appeal should be allowed, and there should be judgment
7 in the action for the plaintiff in the form of a declaration that the notice
8 is invalid and void, and an injunction to restrain the respondent from
9 instituting an investigation into the affairs of the company. (at p187)
10 END QUOTE
11 And
12 QUOTE
13 There is some authority
14 for saying that the use, in a statute prescribing a time limit, of such
15 expressions as "at least" and "not less than" indicate an intention that the
16 specified number of "clear days" must elapse between two acts or events (see
17 R. v. Justices of Shropshire (1838) 8 Ad & E 173 (112 ER 803); Young v. Higgon
18 (1840) 6 M & W 49 (151 ER 317); Chambers v. Smith (1843) 12 M & W 2 (152
19 ER
20 1085); In re Railway Sleepers Supply Co. (1885) 29 Ch D 204 and Ex parte
21 McCance; Re Hobbs (1926) 27 SR (NSW) 35; 44 WN 43). But it is clear, I
22 think,
23 that significance is attached to such expressions as "at least" or "not less
24 than" only in cases where the immediate purpose of the prescription of a
25 time
26 is to define a period on the expiration of which an act may be done, and not
27 in cases where the immediate purpose is to define a period within which an
28 act
29 must be done. In the former class of case the prescribed number of days must
30 elapse between two acts or events. In the latter class of case the act must
31 (unless a contrary intention appears) be done before the expiration of the
32 last of the prescribed number of days (see, e.g. Radcliffe v. Bartholomew
33 (1892) 1 QB 161 and Armstrong v. Great Southern Gold Mining Co. (1911) 12
34 CLR
35 382). In the latter case Griffith C.J. said: - "When you talk of doing a thing
36 within a period of a certain number of days, it is quite clear that the end of
37 the last day is the furthest limit. It is impossible to say that a thing
38 required to be done within seven days is done within seven days if done on
39 the
40 eighth day, and it is impossible to make any alteration of the limit by adding
41 the word 'clear'" (1911) 12 CLR, at p 388. In the case of s. 55 of the Life
42 Insurance Act it is plain that the immediate purpose of the prescription of a
43 period is to fix a time within which cause must be shown. It follows that the
44 last day on which cause may be shown is the fourteenth day after the date of
45 the notice. (at p183)
46 END QUOTE
47
48 It obviously will be for legal practitioner Serene Teffaha to decide if she pursues some form of
49 compensation for the way the Victorian Legal Service Board and the Victorian Legal Service
50 Commission interfered unlawfully with her legal rights to practice, etc.
51

10-4-2021 Page 5 © Mr 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, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 6

1 As I assume that this is a political agenda that was used against legal practitioner Serene Teffaha
2 I will add some comments, albeit will not set it all out in details, however rest assure I have
3 written ample of articles on this subject matter.
4 The various government are pursuing a “National Cabinet” for which I understand there is no
5 constitutional provision for this, as there is no “National Government” to hold this so called
6 “National Cabinet” in check.
7
8 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-13/morrison-government-national-cabinets-fix-covid-
9 vaccine-rollout/100067204
10 National cabinet to return to 'war footing' in effort to fix problem-plagued COVID vaccine
11 rollout
12 QUOTE
13 Federal Labor leader Anthony Albanese said the government was trying to shift its own
14 failure onto others.
15 "Today we have Scott Morrison saying he's placing Australia on war footing," he said.
16 END QUOTE
17
18 Reportedly, more than 3 million persons have died from COVID-19 and yet the alleged SARS-
19 Cov2 virus has NOT been “ISOLATED”. Prime Minister Scott Morrison is on record to have
20 stated it is an “invisible enemy”. And now, he has declared that this “National Cabinet” is on
21 “war footing”. Excuse me on a “war footing” against whom? Australians and so he deployed the
22 ADF (Australian Defence force) to forcefully “jab” any person with some |liquid”!
23 Our constitution does not provide any such legal powers.
24 And, As Serene Teffaha pointed out very correctly there are legal requirements such as the
25 Biosecurity Act 2015(Cth) that strictly controls matters.
26
27 John Skerritt head of the TGA made known he doesn’t know the originality of what is in a
28 vaccine and he is following “government policy”. As such, he follows “political science” not
29 “medical science” to determine if vaccinations or what purports to be vaccinations are to be
30 approved.
31
32 I understand that the 3 advisers to the TGA only one actually has medical qualifications, and that
33 is regarding the liver, but none about vaccination issues.
34
35 The TGA on its website claims that any approval will require the participation of Australians in
36 clinical trials. None were held and the ‘clinical trials” for which there was approval has been
37 misused and abused by politicians to jab every Australian and well the hell with the
38 consequences and deaths that may follow.
39
40 https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/thalidomide-covid-vaccine/
41 Is the 1950s ‘Thalidomide Tragedy’ Indicative of COVID-19 Vaccine Risks? | Snopes.com
42 QUOTE
43 The Thalidomide Tragedy
44 Thalidomide was originally marketed as a sedative and first introduced in Germany in the 1950s.
45 Because the over-the-counter medicine was advertised as a safe drug for all users, including
46 pregnant women and children, it was eventually used in at least 46 countries by 1960. The cure-all
47 was marketed under a number of names including Distaval, Asmaval, Forte, Tensival, Valgis, and
48 Valgraine, and was used to treat an equally vast number of symptoms, from nausea in pregnant
49 women to anxiety, colds, flu, and pneumonia. Its widespread use was largely contributed to early
50 clinical studies involving rats — not humans — that found it was impossible to overdose on
51 thalidomide. But it’s long-term use wasn’t studied until it was too late.

10-4-2021 Page 6 © Mr 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, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 7

1 By the early 1960s, it became apparent that thalidomide resulted in severe birth defects in
2 thousands of children around the world, according to research published in the
3 journal Toxicological Sciences. The Thalidomide Society, a United Kingdom-based support group
4 for victims, estimates that more than 24,000 children around the world were affected with an
5 estimated 10,000 children having been born with phocomelia, a rare congenital disorder that
6 causes very short limbs, as well as congenital heart disease, and malformations of the inner and
7 outer ear. It is thought that another 123,000 women experienced still-born births or had
8 miscarriages.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Well this doomsday scenario now is what we are heading for with the so called vaccine scams, at
12 least as many medical doctors and other scientist are warning about.
13
14 N.S.W. recently halted the jabbing because it made known nom “informed” consent was
15 obtained. I had just prior to that published an article that there was and could be no informed
16 consent by anyone.
17
18 We had the Victorian Police in my view going about like NAZI SS storm troopers even attacking
19 a person on the streets for not wearing a mask, this even so the y had medical conditions not to
20 wear a mask.
21
22 Worse is that as Sky News Peta Credlin pointed out Premier Daniel Andrews of Victoria
23 admitted that the only communication he had was when the Chief Health Officer (also referred to
24 as Chief Medical Officer)issued a directive, such as mask. As such, the Chief Health Officer
25 actually unlawfully was exercising “executive powers” instead of the limited “administrative
26 powers”. And, notably in violation of the legal provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth),
27 which I understand prohibits such exercise by the State Chief Health Officer.
28 The Chief health officer issues the mask mandate only to alter it a few days later just to show
29 that his original decision was not an “informed” decision. As a matter of fact it is reported that
30 many mask are contaminated with “asbestos”, fibreglass, etc. I have extensive written about
31 these issues also.
32
33 https://web.archive.org/web/20181208084929/https:/www.aimintegrativemedicine.com/aim-
34 integrative-medicine-blog/why-kennedy-sued-the-government-over-vaccine-safety-won
35 Why Kennedy Sued the Government Over Vaccine Safety & Won — AIM Integrative Medicine
36 (archive.org)
37
38 https://www.aimintegrativemedicine.com/aim-integrative-medicine-blog/why-kennedy-sued-the-
39 government-over-vaccine-safety-won
40 Why Kennedy Sued the Government Over Vaccine Safety & Won
41 V A C C I N E S A F E T Y , P AR E N T I N G
42 QUOTE
43 In recent news, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
44 sued the United States government and won in an issue regarding vaccine safety.
45 According to a legal document entitled, "Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines," Health
46 and Human Services (HHS) has openly admitted to not having filed any vaccine safety
47 reports in over 30 years.
48
49 In May 2017, ICAN Founder, Del Bigtree, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.. as well as other parties
50 concerned about vaccine safety were selected by the White House to conduct a meeting
51 with the Counselor to the Secretary of HHS, the heads of the National Institute of Health,
52 NIH, the Center for Disease Control, CDC, and Food and the Drug Administration, FDA.

10-4-2021 Page 7 © Mr 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, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 8

1 Del Bigtree and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. suspected that HHS was not fulfilling its critical
2 vaccine safety obligations as required by Congress in The National Childhood Vaccine
3 Injury Act of 1986.

4 "The 1986 Act granted unprecedented, economic immunity to pharmaceutical companies

5 for injuries caused by their products and eviscerated economic incentive for them to
6 manufacture safe vaccine products or improve the safety of existing vaccine products.
7 Congress therefore charged the Secretary of HHS with the explicit responsibility to assure
8 vaccine safety.

9 Hence, since 1986, HHS has had the primary and virtually sole responsibility to make and
10 assure improvements in the licensing, manufacturing, adverse reaction reporting,
11 research, safety and efficacy testing of vaccines in order to reduce the risk of adverse
12 vaccine reactions. In order to assure HHS meets its vaccine safety obligations, Congress
13 required as part of the 1986 Act that the Secretary of HHS submit a biennial reports to
14 Congress detailing the improvements in vaccine safety made by HHS in the preceding two
15 years."

16 In an effort to gain access to these safety reports, ICAN filed a Freedom of Information
17 Act request In August of 2017 to the HHS only to be blocked from receiving information
18 for over eight months. Do to this delay, ICAN and Kennedy were forced to bring a lawsuit
19 against HHS to provide copies of these reports to Congress or to admit that they never
20 actually filed these reports.

21 "The result of the lawsuit is that HHS had to finally and shockingly admit that it never, not
22 even once, submitted a single biennial report to Congress detailing the improvements in
23 vaccine safety. This speaks volumes to the seriousness by which vaccine safety is treated at
24 HHS and heightens the concern that HHS doesn’t have a clue as to the actual safety profile
25 of the now 29 doses, and growing, of vaccines given by one year of age."
26 END QUOTE
27
28 Yet we have politicians, medical doctors and others still claiming that vaccines are save, but tell
29 that to the grieving families whos love ones died and others who are disabled, etc.
30
31 Let us not ignore the contaminated polio vaccination that was nevertheless continued to be used
32 on Australian children.
33
34 There is a lot more to it all. Yes there is a disease going on which is called COVID-19 but may
35 have absolutely no relationship with SARS-Cov-2 as Astra Zeneca itself involved 2 specialist in
36 malaria to create its vaccine, considering that for example the symptoms of high altitude with
37 malaria infected persons also was already reported a year ago by an ICU doctor in New York
38 Hospital, warning against using ventilators that are not special programmed, as reportedly in
39 China 97% of patients on ventilators had died.
40
41 As such, legal practitioner Serena Teffaha is a crusader not just for her own clients but actually
42 could be seen and held for all Australians including the very members of the Victorian Legal
43 Service Board and the Victorian Legal Service Commission who their own lives may very well
44 depend upon the success of Serene Teffaha.
45
46 If anything I view the Victorian and Federal government should rather fund her to pursue to
47 expose the truth, as after all, having crimes against humanity committed isn’t going to go away
48 with any conspiracy to pervert the course of justice against her.

10-4-2021 Page 8 © Mr 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, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 9

1
2 A conspiracy as I understand it:
3 Commonwealth v. Hunt (Re Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw N1842)
4 QUOTE
5 Justice Shaw, hearing the case on appeal, altered the traditional criteria for conspiracy by
6 holding that the mere act of combining for some purpose was not illegal. Only those
7 combinations intended “to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to
8 accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful
9 means” could be prosecuted. Shaw, in effect, legalized the American labour union
10 movement by this decision.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
14 In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by
15 actual injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is
16 not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 In my view, the Victorian Legal Service Commissioner had a legal obligation to verify all
20 details, including as I did above regarding the dates, and clearly failed to do so. Then what else
21 did he ignore to appropriately consider?
22
23 QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House
24 of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration)
25 Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and
26 painstaking consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the
27 consideration was sufficient in law.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 It appears to me that the Victorian Legal Service Board and the Victorian Legal Service
31 commissioner were in cahoots with the various governments so to find some excuse to take over
32 the AdvocateMe law practice of legal practitioner Serene Teffaha so as to perhaps closedown all
33 cases Serene Teffaha was working on. Well, the eagerness to do so may just have exposed that
34 this was, at least in my view, an issue of enforcement of the rule of law, rather to the contrary to
35 it. I cannot accept that the Victorian Legal Service commissioner somehow made the same
36 identical errors that the Victorian legal Service Board made time and time again (as I have
37 exposed above). In my view it underlines that the Victorian legal service commissioner did no
38 more but so to say “rubberstamp” what ever nonsense the Victorian Legal Service Board may
39 present and that is I view a very serious issue. After all, how many other cases were done in such
40 irresponsible manner I wonder?
41 For the record no one had been given prior information about my writing in this correspondence
42 as I do this on my own accord pursuing that MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®.
43
44 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
45
46 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
47 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

48 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

49 (Our name is our motto!)

10-4-2021 Page 9 © Mr 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, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati