Page 1

Associate Sarah Gall to His Honour Carmody J

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

7-6-2016

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: 20160607-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

Madam,

I hold the view that the orders of His Honour Carmody J in regard of the appeal 15-2502
are a nullity and that His Honour Carmody J acted as a private citizen and not as a judicial
officer of the Court, irrespective if using court facilities. Hence, any harm that may flow from
the purported orders upon my person can be sued for in tort, etc, where His Honour Carmody J
fails to withdraw those orders. I therefore request that any orders and/or reason of judgement
including audio recordings and transcripts that purportedly were made are provided to me.
This is essential as part of a JUDICIAL REVIEW that I am considering to pursue where His
Honour Carmody J fails not withdraw the orders/reasons of judgments that purportedly were
made.
QUOTE
I yet again stress that any appearance by me to a 30 May 2016 hearing will be under objection and is
not intended and neither must be perceived that I discontinue any objections .
END QUOTE

Such statement was time and time again provided in my written submissions in the various
ADDRESSES TO THE COURT including Supplements and other writings and as such it could
not be held that somehow I didnt maintain my objections.
While a JUDICIAL REVIEW is ordinary confide to the issue of judicial error and not as to a
judge consideration or the lack thereof any evidence, on the other hand the Court finding a
JUDICIAL error was made then may either order a rehearing or may make clear a rehearing on
the basis of what was before the court may not be justified. Hence some limited set out is
provided to some other issues.
.

At no time did His Honour Carmody J. at commencement of proceedings provide any set out
what documents were considered to be before the Court. Hence, I was entitled to hold all
documents emailed to the court were part of the case.
As I did set out in my written material that decades earlier a trail had refused to consider my
written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT and on appeal the Full Court did set
aside the orders as it held the trail judge erred as he was bound to consider the written material.
.

My written material did indicate that I didnt accept any summary hearing and if any hearing was
to eventuate it would have to be before a jury. This His Honour Carmody J didnt refer to either.
p1
7-6-2016
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
Judgers often over the decades commented to me that I was conducting a case in the first
instances for purpose of an appeal. And this is why my written submissions, albeit often ignored
by lawyers and at times judges, are so valuable.

I understood that His Honour Carmody J (And while referring to His Honour Carmody J this
must not be perceived I acknowledge he acted as a judicial officer) made known on 17 May 2016
at the County Court of Victoria at Ballarat that he had read my material. Yet, I am not aware he
did in fact make appropriate rulings as ordinary required by law. While His Honour indicated
that he didnt accept an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION can be used where I appealed as it
is a hearing DE NOVO, the legal position that was then before the Magistrates Court of Victoria
at St Arnaud, to which the appeal was, provided that I had objected to the jurisdiction of the court
and as such this was part of the appeal process and His Honour Carmody J therefore failed to
appropriately deal with this issue, and hence never did invoke jurisdiction.
.

As His Honour on 17 May 2016 held up the files and claimed to have read it all then some of the
following issues referred to in those files were not considered by His Honour Carmody J:
* Bias
* Citizenship (Such as being required to be a judicial officer)
* ABN association (Courts part of Business Unit 19 of the Department of Justice)
* Invalidity of the Victorian purported Constitution Act 1975
Where I on 19 July 2006 successfully in the County Court of Victoria and so unchallenged these
issues, then it was not for His Honour Carmody J to blatantly disregard these issues and in the
process rob me of my rights. I had successfully appealed in both cases and entitled upon the
benefits of both appeals in particular where I had filed and served then an s78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER.
As His Honour Carmody J should have been aware from both my written and oral presentations I
maintained that the prosecutor was in fact acting within delegated powers of the State of Victoria
and as such the real prosecutor was the Attorney-General.
Hansard 24-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
(Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-If New South Wales and Victoria were private individuals, there is no doubt about your
right to stop undue interference with these waters.
Mr. GORDON.-That is a right founded on natural justice.
Mr. HIGGINS.-It is a legal right where individuals are concerned, but the difficulty is that the colony is
not an individual.
Mr. SYMON.-The only difficulty is, that as between states you cannot have the advantage of legal process
or enforcement of legal decrees. If you are left without that, what have you to appeal to?
Mr. ISAACS.-I would like to see the authority for it being a legal right.
END QUOTE

.
HANSARD 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.It is one of the great advantages of private persons being able to raise these points, and not the states or
the Commonwealth, that you keep the judicial bench free from the taint of political partisanship.
END QUOTE
.
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
p2
7-6-2016
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
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

.
The very essence of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 is to ensure that Municipal Fire
Prevention Officers can act (such as in section 42) regardless if this relates to a council or
government department managed property, and clearly during cross examination it was shown
that fire danger at the Calder Highway was left unattended as it was left to VicRoad, where the
legislation clearly gave the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer powers to have it dealt with. It
would be absurd to hold that merely because land is managed by the council and/or government
department along Calder Highway that then the fire danger doesnt exist even so directly along
the roadside and not some about 80 metres of a road side as alleged to have been on my property.

While His Honour Carmody J made an issue that I had not any photos of my property as to the
trees/bushed in 2014, His Honour seemed to overlook that the Prosecutor in fact had filed an
aerial view of the property referring to 17 November 2014 with alleged GPS locations, and as
such the Prosecutor had himself provided the required evidence when examining in chief the
witness Mr Wayne Wall that there were trees and bushes blocking a clear view from the highway
to the house.
Likewise the prosecutor filed a 3 page document which was written by Mr Wayne Wall as to on
the 3rd page showing a, B. C. D, E, F, codes of descriptions but at no time to my knowledge did
the Prosecutor elicit from any witnesses when and why any particular code was applicable.
As such where there is a code that a property only required to be cleared for 10 metres, then I
view the Prosecutor should have examined the witnesses why then my property should be
considered about the entire 100 metres length, where I had provided photos that were admitted
by Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer to show the Berriwillock signage at the
Calder Highway to be a fire danger. As I indicated that this went against the credibility of the
witness as being an expert witness then his failure for about 100 kilometres to have fire danger
removed undermined his ability to assess any property appropriately.
It seem to me extra ordinary that a Prosecutor filed an exhibit and yet fails to clarify why this
exhibit is filed and why the witness used any particular code. What the Prosecutor did by this do
is to cast doubt upon why Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Shire Prevention Officer failed to form
an opinion as to the issue of any Fire prevention Notice, as it was not relevant if branches were
somewhere on my property where during evidence he didnt make an issue about the stack of
branches between the sheds waiting as firewood. It would be absurd to hold that some branches
may fall within the Fire prevention Notice but a stack of branches between the shed are not.
Ample of people who are not English language experts would assume a branch is a branch and
more than likely expert in the English language would perceive the same. Likewise with all
combustible material. As such it is not how His Honour sought to explain away the Fire
prevention Notice but as His Honour Dawson J made clear either it was or was not in compliance
with the legal provisions of the legislation. If not then the Fire Prevention Notice and any
litigation flowing from it was a nullity. What the prosecutor proved with this exhibit is that it was
send out as a standards requirement irrespective of any proven opinion as required by s41 of
the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 and this lack of opinion must be fatal, as there was no
evidence why like other properties another code couldnt have been applicable of a mere 10
metres from the road way. Where a property such as a farm may be partly in one shire and
another part in another shire then obviously the self-constructed 3 page guideline which Mr
Wayne Wall himself violated hardly can be used where it may relate to a property partly outside
the shire. In any event where the exhibits filed by the prosecutor were not within the brief then
His Honour Carmody should have questioned this conduct as it obviously denied me to prepare
for the case as such, and was an uncalled conduct in particular where His Honour Mullaly J had
p3
7-6-2016
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
made an order that it had to be posted via Australian Post on or before 9 November 2015. As the
exhibits were in the possession of the prosecutor well before the order was issued then I view His
Honour Carmody J should in that regard also have taken an issue that this denied me to prepare
for my case. Yet, His Honour Carmody J had an issue with photos I sought to file, even so they
were part of the written material on court file already!
Later His Honour Carmody J commented that the photos of the Berriwillock signage showed
green grass and on my property it was dry, this after His Honour had denied me to file photos of
the Calder Highway which showed dry grass. The Prosecutor had not objected to the filing of the
photos because they were part of the written material in his possession and some was part of an
exhibit dated 1-1-2015 which included the same photos. It was however to me that His Honour
Carmody J was conducting the case for the Prosecutor to object to all but eventually allow the 3
of the Berriwillock signage to be filed as exhibits.
20151020-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Wayne Wall -Municipal Fire Prevention Officer & Country Fire Authority

QUOTE
Grass/weed grows and as this is a residential block far away from any bushland it is not like that of a fire risk
in the bush.
No one in his ability could really mow the grass to keep it ongoing below 100 mm every minute of the day
and every day of the year. The issue was that the grass/weed was slashed
What rather is very strange to me is that the notice refers to prunings where no one resides on the property
and so no prunings are carried out. This to me indicates that you sit in your office and nilly willy issue such
FIRE PREVENTION NOTICE without really having a clue what is or isnt applicable. As such, not only do
you appear to me to misuse and abuse your delegated powers to issue notices not legally justified, but to fail
to issue a notice or notices against Buloke Shire Council where in fact it is an offender, as I have referred to
in past correspondences.
As I also indicated in the past I authorised a neighbour, the Captain of the local fire brigade to remove
(combustible) firewood material, and I understand he removed thousands of dollars in sleepers for his own
fire place.
END QUOTE

During cross-examination not a single photo was presented by the witnesses for the prosecutor
that proved anything of any opinion having been formed as to fire danger, and mysteriously the
GPS neither was available. And for the 17 November 2014 inspection photos were provided for
the last 20 or so metres about 80 metres from the highway, and a GPS alleged aerial view of
where the photos were taken from this even so 2 phots showed the GPS was not working and
other photos showed no GPS details either.
As such the GPS aerial view was filed by the Prosecutor as an exhibit to purport photos were
taken from the marked locations, but not at all supported by any of the photos having been so.
The legislation must be deemed to apply to all and not somehow exclude councils/government
department, as a fire doesnt differentiate as to who may own a piece of land that had
unacceptable combustible material on it, where thousands of cars travel along.
Mr Wayne Wall during examination in chief by the prosecutor gave evidence all photos were of
my property at 10 Anderson Avenue Berrwillock and under cross examination maintained this
until I made clear I put it to you that you are not telling the truth And subsequently he
admitted one of the photos (of a house) were of a different property. The Second witness Mr
Groves in evidence in chief by the prosecutor made known he supported the evidence of Mr
Wayne Wall, only then to admit that the photo of a house was not of my property.
.
Also, it was not for His Honour Carmody J to ignore the orders of His Honour Mullaly J which
on request of the Prosecutor (even so having been deceived in the process) to allow for the
brief to be served by posting it on or before 9 November 2015 via Australian Post. The orders
were clear as to the time and date and His Honour Carmody had in my view no legal authority to
undermine another judicial officer of the county court of Victoria, and in particular not so where
p4
7-6-2016
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
the Prosecutor didnt provide one of iota submission/evidence why the Prosecutor had failed to
comply with the very Orders it had requested to provide time till 9 November 2015.And as the
purported brief included material that didnt belong to my property and was referring to a
hearing date in an unlisted Magistrates Court of Victoria on 18 March 2013 where the alleged
offence eventuated on 17 November 2014, then clearly no brief as requested by me on 27
October 2015 nor as was ordered by His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 was ever served.

In my view His Honour Carmody J was bias in that regard also and disregarding numerous
breaches/failures by the Prosecutor, including misleading the court at times.
.
My written submissions that were provided to the court did set put extensively Authorities as to
what is required/applicable when an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is made. It certainly
doesnt include a judge disregarding follow proper legal procedures, as any judge doing so from
that moment no longer acts as a judicial officer but as a private citizens.
QUOTE Scuderi v Morris [2001] VSCA 190 (29 October 2001
In order to resolve this appeal and to determine the relevant principles, we have had to look at a
considerable number of additional reported decisions as well as a variety of text books, many of which
we have had to find for ourselves with the invaluable assistance of the researchers engaged by the Court.
END QUOTE
.
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 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,
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.
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. .
END QUOTE
QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,
Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
END QUOTE

p5
7-6-2016
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
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.
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
QUOTE In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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.

p6
7-6-2016
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
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.
(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
QUOTE.
FAMILY LAW RULES 20042003 No. 375 - RULE 3.05
Objection to jurisdiction
(1) If, in a Form 3A, a respondent objects to the jurisdiction of the court, the respondent will not be taken to
have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by also seeking an order that the application be dismissed on
another ground.
(2) The objection to the jurisdiction must be determined before any other orders sought in the Form 3A.
END QUOTE
Director General, Department of Commerce v Cianfrano and Anor [2008] NSWADTAP 56 (24 July 2008) NEW
SOUTH WALES ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL
QUOTE
3 The Tribunal decided, contrary to the Departments submission, that it did have jurisdiction to determine the
adequacy of search question: Director-General, Department of Commerce and anor (No 2) [2006] NSW
ADT 195. The matter was listed for further directions. The Tribunals orders were as follows:
1. First Respondents objection to jurisdiction dismissed.
2. Tribunal to reconvene to make further directions as appropriate.
END QUOTE
.
Trapman v Sydney Water Corporation & Ors [2009] FMCA 942 (16 September 2009)
QUOTE
1. Accordingly, I find that the Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matters contained in Particulars (a)(ii),
(v), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi) and (xii) of Exhibit 1.
1. It follows that I find that the Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matters contained in
Particulars (a) (i),(iii), (iv) and (vi) of Exhibit 1.
1. I make orders accordingly.
END QUOTE
.
p7
7-6-2016
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 8
Watson v Director-General, Department of Services, Technology and Administration [2010] NSWADT 44 (12
February 2010)
QUOTE
He also stated that, if the Tribunal agreed this view, he would seek an order that the Respondent pay the
Applicants costs occasioned by the objection to jurisdiction on an indemnity basis.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
The orders to be made
64 For the foregoing reasons, each of the applications constituting these proceedings is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
65 In consequence, the Tribunals orders made on 6 January 2010 are discharged.
66 In addition, the directions hearing set down for 15 February 2010 is vacated.
END QUOTE

Since 1982 I have conducted a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE
ALWAYS PREVAIL regarding people contemplating suicide and even murder (yes as I
understood it judges were also the target) and prior to any metal detectors and other court
scrutiny existing at court entrances I then recommended to the then Premier of Victoria Mr Jeff
Kennett to install such devices, which subsequently eventuated.
Therefore a 2 year probation may also interfere with my assistance to others, as I have visited a
prison in the past to communicate with a prisoner, and this probation could be used to deny me
access to a prisoner who may need my assistance.
Even so on 17 May 2016 I had explained having hearing aid problems, somehow His honour on
30 May 2016 seemed to totally ignore this. Albeit at one stage commenting I had not listened to
what the witness had stated. This when I was bending over writing down what the witness had
stated and by this the sound were not properly picked up by my hearing aids. My written material
did set out that the hearing aids ordinary allow for about a 3 metre hearing range. And as such
His Honour Carmody J at times telling me he had not finished talking didnt seem to realise that I
go on the sound I hear which may be different than what is actually spoken and as such if it
appears to me that someone finished talking then I may respond even if the person turns out to be
still speaking but beyond my hearing level. In particular where I had written to the court about
the hearing problems and very extensive indeed it is beyond me why His Honour Carmody J on
30 May 2016 somehow totally seemed to ignore this issue.
.
Prior to the hearing on 30 May 2016 in the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne I requested
court staff to show me where a power point was so I could use my laptop. I was advised that
(court 8.4) doesnt have power points. As such I was in that regard denied a FAIR and PROPER
trial as while I read out briefly 2 authorities that was all as my laptop was found to have limited
battery powers, this even so it was on charge prior to attending to the court. Hence I was unable
to pursue the matters as I had intended due to being unable to use my laptop properly.
In my view it is absurd that a court has no power point facilities to use a laptop in a court room!
.
In my view one cannot charge a person standing at the bar table, nor can one serve documents
along the bar table (Upheld in 1994 when then I successfully opposed service along the bar table)
and neither can one sign any undertaking at the Bar table. This is because the sanction of the Bar
table must be respected by all parties and so also by the court itself. If the court disregard the
sanctity of the Bar table then how can it expect others to show respect to the sanctity of the Bar
table.
.
p8
7-6-2016
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 9
His Honour Carmody J insisted I apologise to Alison J May for my comment stated in my
20160110-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall & ORS- Re APPEAL-15-2502 -Re legislative enforcement powers-etc which
at the time was made without knowing who was the lawyer who had attended to the St Arnaud J
hearings. As such His Honour Carmody referring to the 27 year old lawyer and referring to
Alison J May therefore implicated her to have been the person who had as I view it concealed
from the court the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION (As was referred to by the Prosecutors
lawyers in their 2 September 2015correspondence to me) and other relevant issues and who had
without any brief, witnesses and any evidence obtained the 17 September 2015 orders.
As I do use the issue of sleep or sleeping (And I do not include about authorities and
sleepers in that regard) I will below give examples of what I wrote at times:

Usage of a metaphor:
Re: 20160118-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh to His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-

QUOTE
Lets use an example. I put in an Affidavit: "Jim stated he doesn't like to go to the Sunday market when it rains".
You respond; "I agree with the content of this paragraph. Now I have lawyers who go to the court file and then
change it to
"Jim stated he doesn't like to go to the Sunday market when it rains". You may think this is not really a major
issue but what if the wife in a case in her affidavit stated "My husband was never violent during our
marriage." You as the opponent in a response affidavit state; "I agree with the content of that paragraph" and
then the wife's lawyers go to the court file and now change it to
"My husband was never violent during our marriage.". So now agreeing to being never violent you now appear
to be agreeing you were violent. This is the scam operating in courts. I know because I was cross examining a
witness when the opposing counsel was claiming that I was misleading the witness by wrongly reading from his
client affidavit. The trail judge warned me this could constitute contempt of court if I did it again. I read again
exactly the same passage of the affidavit and well the trail judge got stuck in me that I was abusing my rights and
entitlements art the bar table. I requested the trail judge for me to inspect his copy and he permitted me to do so. I
then pointed out how up to 8 alterations a page were on the version of the Affidavit on court file which were
initially by her legal representatives but not by the deponent and none appeared on the copy that had been served.
the trail judge comment: "Well now you know the alterations." The truth is that when an alteration is made it has
to be re-sworn as it no longer is a valid sworn Affidavit and this clearly never eventuated. I also had that at times
no alterations were shown just that the Affidavit on court file had a total different version then that which was
served. To me it is more that the courts are run by amateurs. for example Joske J had pronounced orders
containing the wording "each weekend". After that I received 4 other versions with in the end it became "every
alternative weekend" I queried this with the court and was given the understanding that the registrar and others
would at times alter the orders written down by the judge to what is better in English. to me altering the wording
from "each weekend" to "each alternative weekend" made no sense as it had nothing to do with English gramma
but more with so to say the opposing lawyer perhaps sleeping with the Registrar. Not ,long thereafter I reported a
break in at my residence to the police and it turn out the only items missing were the files of the court case as my
entire case holding the files was empty. the police wondering why on earth anyone would break in to steal
court related documents. However, the case contained copies as the original files were kept in the booth of my
car, just in case someone was to break in and steal the evidence !
END QUOTE

Again
QUOTE
After that I received 4 other versions with in the end it became "every alternative weekend" I queried this
with the court and was given the understanding that the registrar and others would at times alter the orders
written down by the judge to what is better in English. to me altering the wording from "each weekend" to
"each alternative weekend" made no sense as it had nothing to do with English gramma but more with so to
say the opposing lawyer perhaps sleeping with the Registrar.
END QUOTE
20160222-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL-15-2502ADDRESS TO THE COURT-Supplement 3
(Reference AP 2502 Buloke Shire Council for State of Victoria (s114 of the constitution) v Schorel-Hlavka)
QUOTE
p9
7-6-2016
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 10
I have over the decades at the bar table exposed how often court staff (allegedly in error) had placed critical
documents in the correspondence file instead of the court file and so when I checked with a trail judge if His
Honour/Her Honour had all relevant documents then often it was discovered that certain documents such as
filed Affidavits were not on court file.
So to say a legal practitioner merely has to be friends or sleep with court staff and then the court file with be
tampered with that so to say accidentally documents goes missing from court the court file. Even if the
trail judge himself/herself may be unaware of what is going on it still cannot be excused because the trail
judge should not tolerate this kind of conduct. Judges should be given a check list they have to follow at
commencement of a trail as to what documents should be before the court and if not why not. Too often I had
to provide the judge with a (spare) sealed copies because various documents were missing from court file and
couldnt be locate, even after a short adjournment. No wonder unrepresented parties at time lose a case
regardless of the overwhelming evidence in their favour because unbeknown to them Affidavits are removed
from the court file so the trail judge will not be aware of the content of the Affidavit. And now it seems you
indicate to me as I understand from your writings that you are involved in keeping my written submissions
(ADDRESS TO THE COURT) from the court file. And also my objections against the purported Notice of
Appearance, etc. But I am not aware you are doing this with the material allegedly filed by Buloke Shire
Council (so it lawyers)!
END QUOTE

Again
20160222-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL-15-2502ADDRESS TO THE COURT-Supplement 3
(Reference AP 2502 Buloke Shire Council for State of Victoria (s114 of the constitution) v Schorel-Hlavka)
QUOTE
So to say a legal practitioner merely has to be friends or sleep with court staff and then the court file
with be tampered with that so to say accidentally documents goes missing from court the court file.
END QUOTE

.
20160220-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Melinda Hampshire Registrar-Re APPEAL-15-2502--Re COMPLAINT
QUOTE
So to say a legal practitioner merely has to be friends or sleep with court staff and then the court file
with be tampered with that so to say accidentally documents goes missing from court the court file. Even
if the trail judge himself/herself may be unaware of what is going on it still cannot be excused because the
trail judge should not tolerate this kind of conduct.
I have always acknowledged that as Dutch is my native language and I had no formal education in the
English language I have my so to say (self-professed) crummy English
END QUOTE
20160110-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall & ORS- Re APPEAL-15-2502 -Re legislative enforcement powers-etc

QUOTE
The same with how the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud operated, it seems to me all a lawyer
needs to do is to so to say sleep with the Judicial Registrar and well orders will be issued regardless of there
not being any evidence to justify the orders.
What we need to do is what I view to stamp out this kind of corruptive conduct. Not to expect a party as
his/her own cost to fight for justice and risk some idiot of a judge to railroad a valid case to protect the
wrongdoers.
END QUOTE

Again:
20160110-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall & ORS- Re APPEAL-15-2502 -Re legislative enforcement powers-etc

QUOTE
The same with how the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud operated, it seems to me all a lawyer
needs to do is to so to say sleep with the Judicial Registrar and well orders will be issued regardless of
there not being any evidence to justify the orders.
END QUOTE

I made sure that when I wrote this I used the terminology it seems to me so as to prevent anyone
to claim that I was actually excusing any lawyer of doing so.
It was however no different to His Honour Carmody J that I did no more but express how it
appeared to me, as His Honour Carmody J took it that I had accused Alison J May of sleeping
p10
7-6-2016
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 11
with the Judicial Registrar, this even so it was a Magistrate who issued the orders without a shred
of evidence, and I had not referred to the identity of anyone, as I simply didnt know. All I did
was to express how it appeared to me, and it seems this is no longer permitted to express an
opinion how one seem to see something that is in violation to legal procedures/process.!

As for the issue of trespassing, I view His Honour failed to deal with the numerous authorities I
had provided to the Court including High Court of Australia rulings.
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/operation
QUOTE
Decisions of the High Court are binding on all other courts throughout Australia.

END QUOTE

The written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT refers to signage at the property
that included
QUOTE
HALLIDAY v NEVILL [1984] HCA 80; (1984) 155 CLR 1 (6 December 1984)
GEORGE v ROCKETT [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104 (20 June 1990)
PLENTY v DILLON [1991] HCA 5; (1991) 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004
NSW v IBBETT [2006] HCA 57; (2006) 231 ALR 485; (2006) 81 ALJR 427
KURU v STATE OF NSW [2008] HCA 26 (12 June 2008)
END QUOTE

It would be a trave sty of justice if anyone merely employed by a council, regardless if they
might be paedophiles or whatever, could willy nilly enter a property because of the Local
Government Act Section 224(7) under the pretext of some application of a law.
As I challenged the validity of the Local Government act as being unconstitutional and His
Honour Carmody J didnt make a ruling upon this then in that regard also I view His Honour
Carmody J cannot enforce a law or purported law that is underman constitutional challenge.
What His Honour Carmody J appeared to me to ignore is the FEE SIMPLE rights. While
parliament can legislate as it pleases it doesnt mean the judiciary has to uphold all legislation.
Indeed it must reject any legislation that is beyond legislative powers and/or may be deemed
contrary to the interest of the general community, etc.
It would be absurd that any council worker could somehow enter a property and for all I knew
being a pervert to spy through windows under the guise of enforcement of laws when the Police
cannot do so but are limited as ruled by the High Court of Australia in so many previous cases.
Council workers could peeve through windows where residents are away of their homes as to
perhaps plan robberies, etc. There should be an understanding that actual fire protective conduct
is different than just looking around if there might be a fire danger.
The legislation provides that buildings and content is excluded from any fire Prevention Notice
and clearly the term all combustible material failed to provide for this.
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."

As the Fire Prevention Notice was clearly in conflict with Section 41 of the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958 then His Honour Carmody J had no legal position to ignore this when I
submitted that the lawyers for Buloke Shire Council had no legal position to be in court (as I
successfully did in January 2009 in the Colosimo case when I represented Mr Frank Colosimo)
when then the barrister and instructed solicitors were ordered to leave the proceedings).

p11
7-6-2016
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 12
Where the Fire Prevention Notice was in blatant violation of the provisions of the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958 then no amount of evidence can somehow circumvent the lack of
jurisdiction.
http://www.bartleby.com/344/112.html
QUOTE
A mans house is his castle.
In the Third Institute, Coke says, For a mans house is his castle (et domus sua cuique
tutissimum refugium); and in Semaynes case, 5 Rep. 91, The house of every one is to him as his
castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose. Chatham
made a splendid use of this comparison in a speech on the Excise Bill: The poorest man may, in his
cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may
blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter; but the king of England cannot enter! All
his force dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. When an Irish attorney said of his
clients house, The rain may enter it: the king cannot,What! said the judge (Lord Norbury),
not the reigning king?
Grattan said of Burke, He became at last such an enthusiastic admirer of kingly power that he
could not have slept comfortably upon his pillow if he had not thought that the king had a right to
carry it off from under his head.
Magna Charta is such a fellow that he will have no sovereign.
Objecting to the words, sovereign power, which the lords, in an amendment to the Petition of
Eight, desired to leave with the crown for the protection of the people. At a conference between the
Lords and Commons on the Petition of Right, May 8, 1628, Coke said, We have a maxim in the
House of Commons, and written on the walls of our house, that old ways are the safest and surest
ways.
When the judges were asked if they ought not to stay proceedings until his Majesty had consulted
them in a case where he believed his prerogative or interests concerned, and required them to attend
him for their advice, all the judges except Coke answered in the affirmative: he proudly replied,
When the case happens, I shall do that which shall be fit for a judge to do.

Corporations have no souls.

In the case of Suttons Hospital, 10 Rep. 39, Coke said, They [corporations] cannot commit
trespass, nor be outlawed, nor excommunicate; for they have no souls. Lord Thurlow once asked, in
his characteristically rough way, You never expected justice from a company, did you? They have
neither a soul to lose, nor a body to kick.
END QUOTE

As I pointed out regarding the purported Infringement Act 2006 which I also challenged upon
constitutional grounds but His Honour Carmody J neither provided any ruling upon, that in view
of the Imperial Act Interpretation Act 1980 Victoria that provides for no fine before conviction
then an Infringement Notice is not a Debt and as such only a court could determine any debt.
.
As I had set out in my written material in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT extensively that I
challenged the validity of the Infringement Court also.
.
His Honour Carmody J neither enlightened the parties if His Honour was invoking federal
jurisdiction in view of my objections upon constitutional grounds.
Neither did His Honour Carmody J take into consideration what I claimed was unconstitutional
delegated of land taxation called rates, and neither did so about garbage charges where no such
service is used and I didnt approve/agree to the charges. Numerous other legal issues raised by
me we so to say in my view swept under the carpet by His Honour Carmody J.
.
p12
7-6-2016
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 13
His Honour on various occasions referred to me being a CONSTITUTIONALIST and as such
ought to have been well aware that I pursue constitutional issues.

There ought to be no doubt that my 1-1-2015 correspondence that was filed as an exhibit was
prepared in anticipation of a court litigation sometime down the track, hence the inclusion of
photos showing fire dangers at Calder Highway. This as I knew that all I needed to do was the
witness to acknowledge the correspondence and then I could zero in as to the photos. A tactic
that in 1985 a judge referred to as being the conduct of a TRAP DOOR SPIDER, using a
PANDOORA BOX albeit making clear (when opposing barrister then objected) that I was
entitled to employ this tactic as long as I remained within the rules of cross-examination.
.
http://windowsontheworld.net/2014/07/windows-on-the-world-when-court-orders-are-void/
QUOTE

When Court orders are Void

Posted on 30th July 201416th September 2015

p13
7-6-2016
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 14
When there are administrative errors in court orders as is increasingly the case, these rulings can be used.
Check out our articles on Administrative courts also.
THE VOID COURT ORDER
The interesting and important nature of a void order of a Court is not fully understood and appreciated in
England and this article is written to assist the understanding of a void order and to assist legal professionals
in any concerns they may have in submitting to a Court that its order is void, if indeed it is void.
In Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 764 at 769 Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings that: A
plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all.
A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions
[1921] it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the
Court.
In Fry v. Moore (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 395 Lindley, L.J. said of void and irregular proceedings that it may be
difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If a procedure is irregular it can be waived by
the defendant but if it is null it cannot be waived and all that is done afterwards is void; in general, one can
easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls.
A void order results from a fundamental defect in proceedings (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased)
[1963] 1 Ch 502 and Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978] 3 WLR 1) or from a without jurisdiction/ultra
vires act of a public body or judicial office holder (Lord Denning in Pearlman v Governors of Harrow School
[1978] 3 WLR 736).
A fundamental defect includes a failure to serve process where service of process is required (Lord Greene
in Craig v Kanssen Craig v Kanssen [1943] 1 KB 256); or where service of proceedings never came to the
notice of the defendant at all (e.g. he was abroad and was unaware of the service of proceedings); or where
there is a fundamental defect in the issuing of proceedings so that in effect the proceedings have never
started; or where proceedings appear to be duly issued but fail to comply with a statutory requirement
(Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard
1963]). Failure to comply with a statutory requirement includes rules made pursuant to a statute (Smurthwaite
v Hannay [1894] A.C. 494).
A without jurisdiction/ultra vires act is any act which a Court did not have power to do (Lord Denning in
Firman v Ellis [1978]).
In Peacock v Bell and Kendal [1667] 85 E.R. 81, pp.87:88 it was held that nothing shall be intended to be out
of the jurisdiction of a Superior Court, but that which specially appears to be so; and nothing shall be
intended to be within the jurisdiction of an Inferior Court but that which is so expressly stated.
It is important to note therefore that in the case of orders of Courts with unlimited jurisdiction, an order can
never be void unless the unlimited jurisdiction is limited in situations where it is expressly shown to be so.
In the case of orders of the Courts of unlimited jurisdiction where the jurisdiction is not expressly shown to
be limited, the orders are either irregular or regular. If irregular, it can be set aside by the Court that made it
upon application to that Court and a person affected by the irregular order has a right ex debito justitiae to
have it set aside. If it is regular, it can only be set aside by an appellate Court upon appeal if there is one to
which an appeal lies (Lord Diplock in Isaacs v Robertson (1984) 43 W.I.R. PC at 128-130). However, where
the Courts unlimited jurisdiction is shown to be limited (for example: a restriction on the Courts power by
an Act of Parliament or Civil or Criminal Procedure Rule) (Peacock v Bell and Kendal [1667]; Halsburys
Laws of England) then the doctrine of nullity will apply.
Similarly, if the higher Courts order is founded on a lower Courts void act or invalid claim then the higher
Courts decision will also be void (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] 3 All ER).
The main differences between a void and voidable order or claim is that:
(i) a void order or claim has no legal effect ab initio (from the beginning/outset) and therefore does not need
to be appealed, although for convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have it set aside (Lord Denning in
MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] and Firman v Ellis [1978]) whereas a voidable order or claim has
legal effect unless and until it is set aside. Therefore, while a void order or claim does not have to be obeyed
and can be ignored and its nullity can be relied on as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London
Borough Council v. Winder [1985]
A.C. 461), a voidable order or claim has to be obeyed and cannot be ignored unless and until it is set aside;
and
(ii) a void order can be set aside by the Court which made the order because the Court has inherent
jurisdiction to set aside its own void order (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943]) whereas a voidable
order can only be set aside by appeal to an appellate Court.
A person affected by both a void or voidable order has the right ex debito justitiae to have the order set
aside (which means that the Court does not have discretion to refuse to set aside the order or to go into the
merits of the case) (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943]).
p14
7-6-2016
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 15
The procedure for setting aside a void order is by application to the Court which made the void order,
although it can also be set aside by appeal although an appeal is not necessary (Lord Greene in Craig v
Kanssen [1943]) or it can quashed or declared invalid by Judicial Review (where available) and where
damages may also be claimed.
Although an appeal is not necessary to set aside a void order, if permission to appeal is requested and if out of
time the Court should grant permission because time does not run because the order is void and the person
affected by it has the right to have it set aside (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943].
A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. Even a
decision of the higher Courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is
founded on an invalid claim or void act, because something cannot be founded on nothing (Lord Denning in
MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).
A void order is void even if it results in a failure of natural justice or injustice to an innocent third party (Lord
Denning in Wiseman v Wiseman [1953] 1 All ER 601).
It is never too late to raise the issue of nullity and a person can ignore the void order or claim and raise it as a
defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461; Smurthwaite v
Hannay [1894] A.C. 494; Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963]; Lord Denning in MacFoy v United
Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).
In R v. Clarke and McDaid [2008] UKHL8 the House of Lords confirmed that there is no valid trial if the
bill/Indictment has not been signed by an appropriate officer of the Court because Parliament intended that
the Indictment be signed by a proper officer of the Court.
In Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21 the House of Lords confirmed that a void act is void from the
outset and no Court not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give legal
effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem, because doing so would mean reforming the
law which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is
to interpret and apply the law not reform or create it.
It is important to note that if a claim is invalid the plaintiff can start all over again unless he is prevented from
doing so due to limitation as in the case of Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] or estoppel for example; where
the Claimant applied to the Court for permission to correct/amend the claim and permission was refused; or
the plaintiff or his solicitor had been negligent in ignoring a material fact when filing the invalid claim so that
the plaintiff is estopped by the principle that he should not be allowed a second bite at the cherry; and in the
case of a criminal trial if there has been a fundamental technical defect the Court can order a new trial (venire
de novo may you cause to come anew).
Chronology of some case laws relating to void orders:
1888:
In Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings that:
(i) a plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all.
1889:
In Fry v. Moore (1889) Lindley, L.J. said that:
(i) it might be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If an order is irregular it can be
waived by the defendant but if it is null then it renders all that is done afterwards void. In general one can
easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls.
1921:
Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921]:
(i) if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court.
1943:
In Craig v Kanssen [1943] Lord Greene confirmed that:
(i) an order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the person affected by it is
entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside;
(ii) so far as procedure is concerned the Court in its inherent jurisdiction can set aside its own order and an
appeal from the order is not necessary; and
(iii) if permission to appeal is requested and if out of time the Court should grant permission because time
does not run because the point is that the order is invalid and the person affected by it has the right to have it
set aside.
1953:
In Wiseman v Wiseman [1953] 1 All ER 601 Lord Denning confirmed that:
(i) The issue of natural justice does not arise in a void order because it is void whether it causes a failure of
natural justice or not;
(ii) a claimant or defendant should not be allowed to abuse the process of Court by failing to comply with a
statutory procedure and yet keep the benefit of it and for that reason also a void act is void even if it affects
the rights of an innocent third party.
1961:
p15
7-6-2016
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 16
In MacFoy v United Africa Co Ltd. [1961] Lord Denning confirmed that:
(i) a void order is automatically void without more ado;
(ii) a void order does not have to be set aside by a Court to render it void although for convenience it may
sometimes be necessary to have the Court set the void order aside;
(iii) a void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the void order/invalid claim are also void.
1963:
In Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] Upjohn LJ confirmed that:
(i) a fundamental defect in proceedings will make the whole proceedings a nullity;
(ii) a nullity cannot be waived;
(iii) it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and
(iv) a person affected by a void order has the right ex debito justitiae to have it set aside.
1978:
In Firman v Ellis [1978] Lord Denning confirmed that:
(i) a void act is void ab initio
1979:
Lord Denning, in his book The Discipline of Law Butterworths 1979 page 77, states:
(i) although a void order has no legal effect from the outset it may sometimes be necessary to have it set aside
because as Lord Radcliffe once said: It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead.
1985:
Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461:
(i) a person may ignore a void claim and rely on it as a defence when necessary.
2003:
In Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] the House of Lords confirmed that:
(i) a void act is void from the outset; and
(ii) no Court not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a
void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem because doing so would mean reforming the laws which
no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret
and apply the law not reform it.
Conclusion based on the case laws referred to above:
(i) an application to have a void order set aside can be made to the Court which made the void order;
(ii) the setting aside must be done under the Courts inherent power to set aside its own void order;
(iii) the Court does not have discretion to refuse the application because the person affected by the void order
has a right to have it set aside;
(iv) an appeal is not necessary because the order is already void;
(v) if permission to appeal is sought and if sought out of time permission should be given because as the
order is void time does not run; it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and the person affected by the
void order has a right to have it set aside;
vi) a void order can be quashed or declared unlawful by Judicial Review where available and where damages
may also be claimed;
(vii) the whole proceedings is void if it was based on a void act;
(viii) a void order does not have to be obeyed because it has no legal effect from the beginning;
(ix) as it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity a person can ignore the void order and rely on nullity as
a defence when necessary;
(x) a void order is void even if the nullity is unjust or injustice occurs to an innocent third party;
(xi) an order of a Court of unlimited jurisdiction is only void if it can be expressly be shown that the
unlimited jurisdiction is limited in that situation, or the order is founded on an invalid claim or void act;
(xii) no Court (not even the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give effect to a void act and the duty of the
Court is only to interpret and apply the law not to reform or create it as such power rests only with
Parliament.
END QUOTE

Again, a JUDICIAL REVIEW is as to if the judge appropriately invoked jurisdiction and not
necessary if the judge may have made a decision on based of evidence that another judge may
have differently decided. However, for purpose of if a decision is handed down that the trial
judge didnt appropriately invoke jurisdiction then the Court may consider other issues, as some
outlined above, as to determine if a rehearing should be ordered or it is the end of the matter
altogether. However regardless if there is or isnt an appeal and/or judicial review it will not deny
me to sue His Honour Carmody J as a private citizen if in litigation it can be established that His
Honour Carmody J never did invoke jurisdiction, and the purported orders/reason of judgment
p16
7-6-2016
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 17
damaged my reputation and/or caused other harm upon me. Likewise where it can be shown
lawyers involved and/or their witnesses contributed to the harm directly and/or indirectly then
this may be make them liable for charges of conspiracy, etc.
.
QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give
good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the
conspiracy.
END QUOTE

As the High Court of Australia stated:

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE

The High Court of Australia made it perfectly clear thart one can disregard court orders but it
would obviously be better to have a court judgment that the orders are not valid, as if one ignore
court orders and it turns out they are valid then it can be deemed CONTEMPT OF COURT.
However, it appears that when lawyers ignore valid court orders, rules and regulations and other
legal provisions to make a mockery of the legal processes and legal accountability then His
Honour Carmody J has what I view DOUBLE STANDARD.
.
Again, no valid brief was ever served by the Prosecutor, despite being ordered so by His
Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 and neither was any valid Notice of Appearance
filed, nor was any application made by the Prosecutor for leave to file/serve out of time!
Hence, the court either has held that the Prosecutor can so to say roam free and the courts
integrity is not relevant to maintain a standard of compliance of its court orders, rules,
regulations and other legal provisions or His Honour Carmody J acted without
jurisdiction and in totally in disregard to judicial processes and the orders were void.
Lets be clear about it that the confidence of the general community will be eroded when a
judicial officer without proper legal justification makes orders. Most unrepresented person may
never be aware of the gross injustices inflicted upon them because as I view was shown by His
Honour Carmody J he didnt even bother to hold the prosecutor legally accountable for their
legal wrongdoings, and in his judgment seemed to accept the evidence of the Prosecutors
witnesses despite that they admitted that some of the evidence was not related to my property
despite of their earlier evidence it was.
The longer His Honour Carmody J takes to withdraw the orders, etc, the more risk he takes that
he can be sued as a private citizen where harm is further inflicted upon me by anyone who may
rely upon the decision of His Honour Carmody J.
Judicial officers should understand and accept that they are only acting as judicial officers and
protected from being sued as long as they are conducting themselves within the relevant legal
provisions. The moment they step outside that and no longer are nor can be deemed to act as a
judicial officer then they are acting without the protection of their judicial officers and liable as a
private citizen for any harm they may inflict upon another person.
.
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of everyone
p17
7-6-2016
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 18
to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
END QUOTE

No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:

LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335
QUOTE
But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned,
no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good
faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the
wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper
motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism,
and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a
cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of
ordinary man
END QUOTE

.
The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVENING NEWS (1880) N.S.W.
LR 211 AT 239.:
QUOTE
The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice of
sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day,
would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be
rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
END QUOTE

.
As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368

Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31

.
LEWIS v. JUDGE OGDEN [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682 Contempt of Court (Vict.)
QUOTE
11. However, mere discourtesy falls well short of insulting conduct, let alone wilfully insulting conduct
which is the hallmark of contempt
END QUOTE

On a personal view I do hold His Honour Carmody J was one of the most friendly judges I ever
came across but that cannot explain away His Honour Carmody J failure to follow proper legal
procedures, etc, neither the harm inflicted upon my reputation where I never have been on
probation and now in this ridiculous incident, where the real fire danger is along the highways
and where volunteer fire fighters and others are having their lives at peril of fire danger because a
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer fails to ensure that fire dangers are reasonably eliminated
despite having s42 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 to enable to clear fire danger areas.
While Mr Wayne Wall under cross-examination stated he had asked someone to clear my
property he never seemed to have done so regarding the huge fire danger along Calder Highway,
which I view shows the lack of responsibility to avoid such fire dangers along the highways.
In the end as much as His Honour Carmody J insisted I apologise to Alison J May, this even so I
didnt mention her identity at all, neither knew she went to court, then I view His Honour
Carmody J should make a public apology for having harmed me in various ways.
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!)

p18
7-6-2016
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