Page 1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 5 Smithers J VCAT Member Email: vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au
Cc: Counsel for LSC, Mr Gilbert gilbert@vicbar.com.au
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011

25-1-2013

Sir, 10 as a mark of my respect I used to refer to you as “Your Honour” however, do not hold I should continue to do so in the circumstances.

I use this opportunity to make you aware that I will not attend to the hearing on 30 January 2013, and a main issue being that I am advised by the Legal Service Commissioner that it is reviewing 15 past (more than a year) investigation into my person. In my view, in the circumstance it is appropriate for me to withdraw from the litigation, as to avoid Mr Harold James Johnson being jeopardized in his representation, this also as I could be wasting a lot of time preparing for the representation only then to find the Legal Service Commissioner to oppose me to represent Mr Harold James Johnson with a possible conflict of interest and then Mr Harold James Johnson so 20 to say will be hanged out to dry. I will however have the courtesy to explain my decision, which perhaps may result in some justice for Mr Harold James Johnson.
.

I know of no constitutional basis in which an opponent party can dictate or otherwise oppose a 25 party to be represented, by whomever it holds is most competent, yet VCAT allows for this.
.

30

35

40

45

As I understand it, the Magna Carta enshrines that one cannot take the wagon of a person (needed to do his trade) but by a decision by his peers. Mr Harold James Johnson may not use a wagon but his substitute for the wagon is his profession as a legal practitioner, and as such the Magna Carta guarantees him the right of a trail by judge and jury. But really, I do not think you will bother about the semantics of what is constitutionally appropriate, because if you had been concerned then the matter would so to say have been thrown out of the window long ago, as I quoted various Authorities that a person has the right to criticise the judiciary and in fact it is essential for this to be allowed to be done to keep the judiciary in line with what is constitutionally required. I was then appalled that Gardner J in the hearing before the practice court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, as I understood it, made known that if VCAT had no jurisdiction then Mr Harold James Johnson always had the right to appeal. Excuse me, that is not how it should be constitutionally conducted. The Framers of the Constitution made it clear that a person was entitled to a judicial determination after both parties were heard and clearly if VCAT had no jurisdiction then it is irrelevant what decision may be handed down despite of the lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, to hold that one can have a process known as a KANGAROO COURT and/or STAR CHAMBER COURT in my view is absurd to cause any person to be subjected to, as to later then at huge cost having to fight it in a superior court of Records, as the Supreme Court of Victoria is, to try to pursue justice, where already one of its judges denied this. Indeed, where one purportedly can only appeal upon “errors of law” then from onset, I view, the legal system is
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Page 2 floored because one is therefore denied a hearing DE NOVO, even so if the same matter had been heard before the Magistrates Court of Victoria then an appeal DE NOVO would be permitted. Hence VCAT that is supposed to be an alternative resolution centre somehow by gross deception upon the Victorian public and in breach of our constitutional rights has been elevated to some kind of STAR CHAMBER COURT, as I exposed in the Francis James Colosimo case very clearly. There, Mr Francis James Colosimo was from onset, having made an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, informed by VCAT Deputy President Gibson that VCAT was not going to deal with his OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and it was bound to adhere to government policy. As such it was operating, as I view it, as a KANGAROO COURT and a STAR CHAMBER COURT. Mr Francis James Colosimo, having for some time being represented by a barrister, then was placed under administration, and Her Honour Harbison of the County Court of Victoria sitting as a Deputy President of VCAT then warned Mr Francis James Colosimo that he could be sentenced to imprisonment for the CONTEMPT OF COURT, to which she held already 5 hearings. It was then that Mr Francis James Colosimo was able to contact my wife, and request my assistance. VCAT member Ms Preusse during one hearing made clear to Mr Francis James Colosimo that it was his own fault he had the problems as he was the one convicted of CONTEMPT OF COUR, as the lawyer of the Public Advocate Office pursued. So, I took over the case and on the first hearing before Her Honour Harbison J (being the 6th contempt hearing before Her Honour) I submitted there was no contempt. Mr Francis James Colosimo all along had acted within the confines of the law, and the other party pursued a vexatious contempt application they now sought to withdraw, this I opposed, on that a party filing a contempt application cannot withdraw it. I submitted that the matter should be permanently stayed. Her Honour Harbison in her reason of judgment agreed with my submissions. Her Honour also ordered I be provided with the copies of all 6 transcripts. Upon receiving them I discovered that at no time was Mr Francis James Colosimo formally charged by Her Honour Harbison with contempt. Here we have a County Court judge having made an oath of office to serve in the seat of justice and yet twilight as a member of VCAT, and disregard entirely the due process of law that a person must first be formally charged before one can commence a trial. Indeed, it was at the hand of the orders of Her Honour Harbison that Mr Francis James Colosimo, for him to be assessed, ended up being placed under administration! Ms Preusse sought me to be dealt with for CONTEMPT OF COURT, getting the Victorian Government Solicitors also involved, but failed in this miserably. At the second last hearing Mr Preusse had to adjourn the case suddenly because Mr Francis James Colosimo had an suspected heart attack. She left me all alone in the hearing room without bothering to call an ambulance, and so I had to leave Mr Francis James Colosimo to obtain assistance from staff at the counter, and eventually an ambulance took Mr Francis James Colosimo to hospital. The next hearing the orders for administration were set aside. It became clear the lawyer for the Office of the Public Advocate had misled the expert medical witnesses, in that Mr Francis James Colosimo had been convicted for contempt of court but he (Mr Francis James Colosimo) refused to accept he was so. Again, he was never formally charged, let alone convicted, but clearly after more than 3 years of litigation, 2 suspected heart attacks, I had been able to get rid of all orders against him. At no time did I then accept any monies and neither had any arrangement in place to be paid, as I did so as an honour to represent this man. As I indicated at the last hearing, it was an honour for me to represent Mr Harold James Johnson, because my family crest is that of the Guardian Angel slaying the dragon (see my letterhead), and to stand up for those that are subjected to grave injustice. It is also my kind of payback to the crooks calling themselves judges and judicial officers and lawyers but are doing anything but pursuing justice.

50 Soon, after arriving in Australia, in 1971, I became extremely concerned about the injustice I became aware off being measured to the public. Hence, I refused, as a silent protest, to naturalize until 1994. Then, I became political active to stand for elections promoting the constitution.
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

Page 3

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

What the case of Mr Harold James Johnson is about is not at all strange to me as to how the Family Court of Australia operates, as I have been a combats man against so to say crooks of judges and lawyers in that court also. Obviously judges don’t like it when they get a person challenging them, and proving them to be wrong. As Kay J once made clear, he didn’t like me to sit in the public gallery, because I would later use what he stated in the case before him on another case. Still, he could not stop me from sitting in the public gallery, and then later expose the double standards he was using. The same with other judges. Then, I wrote once to an opponent lawyer: “Even a first year law student would know better than His Honour Fogarty.”. Well the next hearing we appeared before Fogarty and despite that I twice reminded him to the fact that he had not charged me he nevertheless held me guilty of contempt, and in total with cost ordered me to pay $2,500.00. I appealed, and the Full Court heard the case on 20 January 1994, but didn’t hand down its judgment until 19 December 1994, and upheld the appeal, that His Honour Fogarty had failed to charge me, read me my legal rights, and allow me to place my case before the court. As such, Fogarty J indeed proved my statement that even a first year law student would know better than Fogarty, as they learn you must always first charge a person before commencing a trial and handing down a verdict. But, obviously this was not the end of the matter, because I was time and time again getting judges disqualified for bias, etc. In October 1994 I was in Brisbane attending in regard of a case in the Family Court of Australia, when I explained to Mr Abbott that staff of the Family Court of Australia had alerted me that judges had been overheard to agree that I would be imprisoned as a way to teach me a lesson, in regard of alleged contempt by my daughters mother. Mr Abbott didn’t believe that judges would sink that low. On 5 December 1994 I appeared before Hase J, who then ordered I be put on trail. On 8 December 1994 I appeared before Dawson J of the High Court of Australia to seek to prevent the hearing to proceed on the basis the Family Court of Australia had no jurisdiction. Dawson J held the Family Court of Australia could exercise jurisdiction because of the Cross Vesting Act. This despite that no Cross Vesting application existed, and I had specifically place my daughter under Supreme Court of Victoria wardship, and so couldn’t be taken out of this jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the case proceeded on 19 and 20 and 22 December 1994, but Hase J issued orders (on 20 December 1994) that I had to be imprisoned for 3 weeks. There was however a problem with this, because not only was there no reason of judgment to explain why such imprisonment was justified, but more over the case was still being heard, and didn’t conclude until 22 December 1994. As such, Hase J had predetermined what orders he would issue, and signed them, and actually had them posted on 20 December 1994, as I later discovered, and the hearing therefore was a scam! As the Court official had warned me about more than 2 months earlier, I had been set up to go into prison no matter what. I learned in prison that when a prisoner is alleged to have committed suicide it really might be that the guards gave a helping hand in this involuntarily suicide. From the moment I ended up in a cell, I was quickly talking with other prisoners and discovered how many had been conned by the police and/or their lawyers. Having various law books with me I invited other prisoners to read certain authorities and immediately gained the nickname “Professor”. When then I was transferred to Pentridge, I had immediately a protection ring of prisoners who would ask me about what case to look at. Also, with the prison rules. One elderly man was denied any contact with family members because of alleged drug use. I obtained the prison rules from the “Senior” prison guard, and discovered it was all wrong because the doctors had administered it to the man while he was in the prison hospital, and so when this man discovered that he was wrongfully denied contact and this was than reported to the prison Governor, this his family was entitled to visit him. The prison guards didn’t appreciate what I was doing, that was for sure. One morning a prisoner warned me that he had overheard prison officers to discuss they were going to give me a visit that night. He explained this usually means that then next morning I would be leaving feet
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Page 4 first, in a coffin. Being warned about this, I was able to get an appointment with the doctor and he checked me out for bruises, etc. None were found. This was to ensure a record existed about my physical condition as then was. After all prisoners were locked in, I stood next to the door, and soon a group of prison warders came, and I informed them I had been to the doctor. By this alerting them I was aware of their plans. I was then commanded to leave the cell and strip. Prison guards went into the cell and commenced to rip apart my law books (law reports) claiming they were looking for drugs. Yet, containers with food were not touched. What they were not aware off was that I had hidden around the cell pencils that had my name printed on them, soap in package and even plastic utilities. None were found by the prison guards, because they were never searching the cell, merely ripping apart my books. I had the pencils hidden, so as if they would claim they were searching for drugs, their excuse, then if I can hide pencils I could have hidden straws with drugs in them. The next morning I was ordered to attend to the Full Court, and on my way a prison guard made clear that when I came back I would find out what they had in stored for me. The Full Court (including Fogarty J) then made clear I still had to serve another week, this even so I submitted that with remission of time I had already served the 3 weeks. The lawyer of my daughter submitted that it didn’t oppose me to be freed. The mother’s lawyer likewise, but Nicholson CJ made clear I had to go back, and that I was wrong in law about having already served the sentence that was imposed upon me. I was transported to the cells under the Magistrates Court of Victoria, and advised the sergeant there that he would do better to call the Governor of Pentridge (who I had previously already briefed about the matter), to have me released, as he knew I had already filed previously a complaint against him. The sergeant came back about 15minutes later, and made known he was ordered by the governor to release me immediately. The next morning, I went to a court room where the Full Court later would hear a case, and where my daughters lawyer was in that case. I advised him of the immediately release (as he had requested me to notify him once I was released) and so I proved to be right after all. A Federal Police officer then attended to me, asking me to accompany him outside the court room (no court was in session), and then in the hallway advised me that the Chief Justice had instructed to have me removed and returned to a prison cell. I explained he would commit a false arrest and explained to him the matters, and subsequently went back into the court room, where now Nicholson CJ was presiding over an appeal. I sat directly opposite him, letting him know by this that he had been utterly and totally wrong. Months later the Family Law Act was amended to prevent remission of sentence, creating an unconstitutional interference with the prison system. But that is another issue. It proved however that Nicholson CJ having been found in the wrong, but obviously not revealing this, then had the act amended. Years later, 1999 the State Parliament passed a bill (which became a retrospective legislation) that all invalid federal court orders for the 10 previous years were all deemed to be Victorian Supreme Court orders, as such the Family Court of Australia held that even by this legislation my imprisonment was validated. There was however a problem, and that is, that as the original orders were made under the Family Law Act, in 1988, which I then contested to its validity, then as this was 11 years prior to the legislation then these orders and any subsequent orders were and remained invalid. I had clearly been wrongly imprisoned, and not even the retrospective legislation validated or could validate this. and it is a constitutional nonsense to pretend this to validate invalid federal court orders. As is the purported retrospective publication of an non-existing proclamation by the Federal Parliament as was purported in 2012, as the Federal Parliament cannot exercise prerogative powers of the monarch as only the Governor-General can exercise this. Moreover, as I all along complied with the Supreme Court of Victoria court orders and the Family Court of Australia had acted contrary to this, then we now had two sets of court orders, one the real Supreme Court of Victoria orders to which I acted all along in compliance with, and another set that were purported to be as Supreme Court of Victoria court orders and having me imprisoned. It is a constitution nonsense for invalid Federal court orders to be deemed to have
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

Page 5 the same effect as State Court orders, but is what you get when you got lawyers/judges and parliamentarians going about to seek to cover up their errors, and lack of understanding what is constitutionally applicable and valid
.

5 As I did expose how lawyers would attend to the Family Court of Australia registry, and then started to amend their clients already sealed affidavit, this, so the trail judge had a different version before him than the opposing party, may underline lawyers were not too happy about this exposure. To give an example: The wife states in paragraph 3 “My husband was never violent during the marriage.” The 10 husband then respond: “I agree with the content of paragraph 3.” Then the wife’s lawyer after that crosses through the word “never” and it now becomes “My husband was never violent during the marriage.” Technically now the husband is perceived by the trail judge to have admitted to be violent. On 20 December 1994, I submitted to Hase J then to come down from the bench, and take the witness box, as “His Honour is giving evidence from the bench.”. Hase J as I 15 proved later was making a statement from the bench as to evidence only for me to prove him wrong subsequently. He did refuse to take to witness box! And again, he issued his orders for 21 days imprisonment on 20 December 1994 and they were postmarked that day, after he did no more but to adjourn for further hearing on 22 December 1994. Before Hase J, I exposed up to 8 alterations per page of a Affidavit of the opposing party, and 20 none and I repeat none of the alterations had been initialled. Hase J comment was something like; “Well they obviously served you with the wrong version, but now you know it all, so there is nothing to it.”. The issue was, that if a wrong version was served then there was no service and so the affidavit couldn’t be used. If the Affidavit was altered by whomever after it had been sworn then it no longer was a valid affidavit unless it was resworn. As such, Hase J relied upon 25 purported Affidavit material that was invalid in law. It may be revealed that a few months earlier I had appeared before Hase J in Dandenong and subsequently had filed an affidavit questioning the mental competence of Hase J in the manner he was dealing with the case, then in such extra ordinary manner. This affidavit was before Hase J on 20 December 1994, and I understand that Hase J subsequently retired allegedly suffering from some mental disorder! 30 While Hase J could be excused for having acted as he did if he was suffering from a mental disorder, no such excuse can exist for the Full Court judges (including Fogarty and Nicholson CJ) then to abuse their powers, and to persist with orders which clearly were issued on 20 December 1994 in violation of ordinary legal processes, and indicated a pre-determined set of orders which then invalidate those and any subsequent orders. 35 . Regretfully, this is not limited to the Family Court of Australia, albeit this certainly give me an understanding what Mr Harold James Johnson is about, as it also is a practice or so to say a modus operandi involving VCAT, and even the Supreme Court of Victoria, as well as the High Court of Australia. 40 In the Great Body Works versus Eurotec I was assisting Great Body Works as a Professional Advocate, and immediately detected that the lawyers of Eurotec merely had to call VCAT and have orders issued, without any formal legal procedures. This I call FRATERNIZING. On 7 June 2010 Deputy President B Steel issued orders, but without any formal application being 45 provided for this. I discovered that Eurotec lawyers merely phone VCAT and had the orders issued. when the case came before VCAT Member Lulham he was immediately from onset attacking my person, and how! His judgment was to me a scandalous piece of document that should have him banned for life to ever practice law, but I know too well that the Legal Service Commissioner isn’t interested in pursuing the crooks as such. the Legal Service Commissioner, 50 despite a year of investigations, could not substantiate the allegations by VCAT member Lulham against me, and recently I was provided with the audio recording and it proves precisely he concocted his allegations against me. Worse is that a Queensland registered lawyer Mark
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

5

Page 6 Flemming, practicing in Victoria, conspired with him as he too pursued the same allegations against me. In the end the Legal Service Commissioner pursued that I would sign some statement not to use the term “constitutionalist”, “consultant”, “interpreter”, as was referred to on my letterheads also.
.

10

The word “constitutionalist” is a legally recognised term as already used by the High Court of Australia since 1908 in its decision of Sydney Council v Commonwealth. The term “constitutional lawyer” is an oxymoron, like one would refer to a “firebug firefighter” or a “murderer humanist”. A “constitutionalist” is pursuing the true meaning and application of the constitution, and any law purported within the confines of the constitution therefore falls within his ambit.

An interpreter, such as my wife, who for more than 55 years hold a university degree in Russian 15 language, clearly can interpret say from English to Russian, and visa versa.
.

A consultant can be anyone who is consulted about a certain subject. In general I do not appear on the front of litigation. In fact when one consider the Pauline 20 Hanson imprisonment sorry state of affairs, it was not until I published my book on 30 September 2003 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP where, in Chapter 74, I outlined why Pauline Hanson was wrongly convicted, that subsequently, about 5 weeks later, the Queensland Criminal Court of Appeal overturned her convictions, precisely upon the grounds I had stated in my earlier published book. It may be stated that I had provided both Pauline 25 Hanson and her sister Judy Smith with a copy of my book as soon as I had published my book! I have learned over the decades how rotten our judicial system is. How people totally innocent of any wrongdoing can be vilified and convicted. Hence the need of a VELVET REVOLUTION to clear this away, and get a real constitutional government (no corporation) and judges who are 30 truly acting in accordance to their oath of office. With Mr Harold James Johnson, as I understand it, the Legal Service Commissioner didn’t set out to prove that Mr Harold James Johnson made libellous statements, and as such is unfit to be a legal practitioner. Not at all. As I understand it, its cased was not to prove Mr Harold James 35 Johnson was wrong in his allegations, but rather how dare he to use what I refer to as FREEDOM OF SPEECH to expose the rot in the judiciary and/or lawyers, and he should be outcast for this irrespective if he is right in his allegations.
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335

40 QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance. END QUOTE

45 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
.

50

55

The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

5

Page 7 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
.

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

15

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

So, the Legal Service Commissioner with for example Paul Linsdell, Mark Fleming, Lulham is not concerned about their abuse and misuse of powers and position to undermine the legal processes of a court/tribunal and/or perverting the course of justice. Perhaps because the community is aware that lawyers cannot be trusted, so why then hold them accountable? But for 20 Mr Harold James Johnson to dare to expose this rot, as he sees it, that is far more serious then to undermine the legal processes of a court and, the Legal Service Commissioner rather than being a model litigant now in fact in its own way is undermining the integrity of VCAT by having made known to pursue a review of their past disastrous misconceived investigation into my conduct, so as to undermine my ability to represent Mr Harold James Johnson on 30 January 25 2013. In my view this constituted CONTEMPT OF COURT if not CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT by the Legal Service Commissioner, as it is a clear intimidation to prevent me to represent Mr Harold James Johnson, as where my conduct is in question because of the review then it may use this on 30 January 2013 as to oppose me to represent Mr Harold James Johnson 30 Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
QUOTE 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

35

40

I can only conclude that the litigation in Legal Service Commissioner versus Harold James Johnson is tainted beyond repair (can’t be rectified), and that this litigation should be permanently stayed at the very least. I have been vilified and persecuted time and time again by judicial officers who somehow seem to have so to say a pleasure to do so, rather than to adhere to their oath of office. That is their mentality, I would hold a very sick mentality, and they do not seem to grasp their children, grandchildren, other descendants, etc, one day may suffer because of this.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power? Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry. END QUOTE
.

45

50

55 We all in one way or another, by birth, migration or otherwise are sentries of the constitution the moment we rely upon any law. Any judiciary officer who holds the view that the constitution is not applicable is a fool at the very least.
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

Page 8

5

Without the constitution no judiciary could exist within the terms of the constitution. Hence, every judicial officer pursuing to exercise any judicial function can only do so if it is within and in compliance of the constitution.
.

During the first hearing I represented Mr Harold James Johnson I pursued the matter to be adjourned, and I view it should have been, if anything so a judicial officer would have taken the time to check what really this case was about. Regretfully, (as I found with Dawson J in the High Court of Australia, seeking to justify unconstitutional conduct of the Family Court of Australia 10 on the basis of the Cross Vesting Act, this even so neither party had referred to this before the Family Court of Australia and then some 5 years later in Wakim HCA 27 of 1999 then Dawson and fellow judges hold the Cross Vesting Act was all along unconstitutional) I found no such understanding. My submissions for adjournment and disqualification (s118) were dismissed and failing to be able to obtain further instructions the case proceeded EX PARTE, disregarding the 15 objection to jurisdiction. Regretfully I come often across judges, who have a similar conduct that they just think that because they have some law degree then somehow they are always right no matter how much they are in the wrong! It is however the harm they inflict upon innocent parties in the process that concerns me. 20 As the Framers of the Constitution made clear (considering that the moment a party raises the federal constitution then it becomes a federal case, to which VCAT has no jurisdiction as it is not invested with federal jurisdiction not being a Chapter III (of the constitution) court:
Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

25 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution: END QUOTE
.

30

35

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on terms that are just to both. END QUOTE
.

40

We find however that the State Parliament has corrupted the system of separation of powers 45 between the executives, the government, and the judiciary, and by this now basically the government dictates as a how the courts are to conduct themselves. Actually, having now allowed a private corporation under the government trademark Civic Compliance Victoria to issue court orders, using court computers, and to fine people and issue warrants without any real judge being involved, there is no proper judicial system in place. I will not dwell on this further 50 as the CCV issue is too large to detail all this. This also underlines why a VELVET REVOLUTION is the only alternative to clean up this corrupt conduct, because it is unlikely any judge is willing to stand up for the oath he/she made. Indeed, as I referred to at the previous hearing a Supreme Court of Victoria judge made clear, that he speaks out just before he retires, that the Courts are now “Business Unit 19” by the government, and that the Government has 55 access to the courts compute. It is the PERCEPTION that first of all undermines the judiciary, where a government has access to court computers. But worse is that now a private company actually issues even warrants, and
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

Page 9 other court orders, use the Police emblem and Sheriff emblem (to issue correspondence as if they are the police and/or the sheriff office) all to terrorise people in paying up. As a matter of fact it was reported that by error Civic Compliance Victoria did to against more than 2,000 NSW motorist. Now, how on earth could any judicial officer accept this kind of elaborate rot to be 5 permitted to continue, I may well ask. As a Registrar made clear to me, some 96% of people rather pay then to fight, because they know it cost them more to fight and generally they will loose anyhow irrespective if they are in their rights. Now, this is the STAR CHAMBER COURT mentality that now is part of the modus operandi of our legal system An innocent professional driver can lose points, and so his ability to earn an income, his ability 10 to pay off his truck payments, and in the end his entire life is disintegrating, and often marriage goes bust, and then later it is found that the speed detection camera was incorrectly set, or that it was unstable, etc, to me this is terrorism! If anything I could criticise Mr Gilbert, counsel for the Legal Service Commissioner, about then I view it is that he was willing to represent the Legal Service Commissioner as he did in seeking 15 sanction against Mr Harold James Johnson rather than to indicate to his client that as an OFFICER OF THE COURT himself he cannot stand by let alone participate to deny a fellow OFFICER OF THE COURT to be persecuted for exercising his FREEDOM OF SPEECH and so his client should come up with the goods to prove Mr Harold James Johnson was wrong in his allegations or he will not participate in the matter. 20 Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate) QUOTE As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court. END QUOTE

25

30

I have at times stepped out of assisting in cases where I discovered that the party I was assisting had been or pursued dishonest conduct. That is where I draw the line, as to me JUSTICE is 35 something we should never sell, or diminish to anyone. The role of a prosecutor is to present to a court all relevant evidence, even those that may be fatal to his/her case, so to allow the Court to judicially determine JUSTICE. The role of the court is to adjudicate upon all available evidence and to hand down a judicial decision, that first of all provide JUSTICE. It is not relevant to the judge if this include a 40 conviction or not as that is a by product. His/her sole obligation is to adjudicate without bias. I have at times come across judges who claim that they must uphold the law, meaning the legislation. This is just underlining how mistaken they are in their judicial role. The judiciary is not at all bound to enforce the law as enacted by Parliament, because if the legislation is for example unconstitutional then it is worthless. 45 As the Framers of the Constitution stated:
. HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are offences committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and the only cases to which Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the criminal law of the state was in conflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in any other cases there would be no necessity to change the venue, and select a jury of citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in modern or in ancient times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by an Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal offences, and I do not at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of the
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

50

55

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

5

10

Page 10 honorable member a state of affairs in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive. It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by this Constitution. END QUOTE

15

Therefore, having a government employee sitting as a member of VCAT without impartiality as a judiciary has in my view rob Mr Harold James Johnson of his constitutional rights to be placed before his peers, a jury

I have been vilified, imprisoned, etc, but it never stopped me to pursue as a constitutionalist the true meaning and application of the constitution. There are ample of fools who somehow think that to make Australia a republic then somehow it all will go away. Well I got bad tiding for them. It got nothing to do with being a republic or not it has to do with if we allow this rot to 20 continue or not under whatever form of government there might be?
.

Before quoting my 18 January 2013 correspondence to Mr Harold James Johnson I do like to address also the issue of cost, albeit very briefly.
.

25 VCAT was supposed to be serving as an alternative resolution centre, to avoid the huge legal cost associated with ordinary litigation. How on earth could then any Member of VCAT issue orders for cost going against this very principle? I am aware that the vCAT act allows in special cases orders for cost but to my experiences this is grossly abused. For sure VCAT in the Great Body Works versus Eurotec ordered cost and how and in the end 30 Eurotec spending an estimated $50,000.00 on lawyers ended up with about $2,000.00, yet had they considered appropriately my original correspondence before the litigation ended up with VCAT members issuing orders merely when Eurotec lawyers asked for this by phone, then they could have resolved the issue without any further hearings. In the Colosimo case, another disaster, years of litigation by a council that Mr Colosimo had no 35 permit to build a shed, etc, which they commenced about a week after they issued a certificate the shed was lawfully build, mind you. Yet, more than 20 lawyers were involved in the case before I took over, and it was remarcable that none of the 20 lawyers (including the judicial officers), not even the Office of the Public Advocate understood that the entire case had been vexatious, let alone the manner VCAT conducted it at huge cost to taxpayers, and for what? In 40 the end I was able to get rid of all orders against Mr Colosimo. Now, how can anyone justify this kind of elaborate litigation nonsense? I see the case of Mr Harold James Johnson to be one of them. Because, as set out above, I have the inside knowledge how the rot goes on in the Family Court of Australia I can understand why 45 Mr Harold James Johnson may have made certain statements, as he is alleged to have done. If there was an issue with it then anyone who may have held this constituted libel then could have pursued Mr Harold James Johnson for this. Then, and only then, if a conviction had been recorded the Legal Service Commissioner may have deemed that this was evidence to build a case upon, but to hold that without any attempt by the Legal Service Commissioner to prove Mr 50 Harold James Johnson was wrong in his alleged statements then VCAT should punish Mr Harold James Johnson with sanctions, as well as to cost, to me only a so to say lunatic would consider to do. As I previously submitted to you, I couldn’t go behind your findings, as I also stated to His 55 Honour Robertson when His Honour had found Mr Abbott guilty. I did however then outline to
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

Page 11 his Honour what I deemed was the appropriate manner to deal with Mr Abbott, well aware that to my personal knowledge His Honour had erred in his findings. His Honour Robertson then actually made the orders on 30 September 2003, as I recommended. Yes it was the day I published my book earlier, and actually His Honour Robertson commented, as I recall it; The 5 pen is mightier then the sword.
.

As I understand it Mr Harold James Johnson didn’t recognise the validity in certain litigation, and I view that was his right. When I did so in the Family Court of Australia) I ended up in imprisonment, but afterward proved to be right. Many others, such as Michael Alderton commit 10 suicide (in 1995). Yet others are seeking revenge, in whatever is available to them. The courts and tribunals are by this ousting themselves from public confidence. People see no more they can obtain justice in the courts/tribunals and consider acts such as burning down buildings as a way to oust their frustration and seeking their own kind of JUSTICE. Judicial officers rather then to stop this ongoing rot and refusing to participate in this often then target me for blaming me for 15 whatever. I express no view as to if I do or do not agree with what ever statements is alleged Mr Harold James Johnson made, as to me it is totally irrelevant, unless there had been a properly constituted court adjudicated by a properly invested judge who made an impartial adverse finding on basis of all relevant evidence. To my understanding this never eventuated, and as such the entire litigation 20 against Mr Harold James Johnson is utterly deplorable. I have the nickname (by lawyers) as to be “a Policeman against lawyers”. I am rather more a policeman against lawyers who are crooks. No lawyer who act appropriately will have to be concerned about my doings.

25

In my view/submission cost ought to be ordered against the Legal Service Commissioner for wasting the time of VCAT and so also the harm it caused upon Mr Harold James Johnson. In my view in the public interest orders of cost against the Legal Service Commissioner would be appropriate, as it might serve as a deterrent for the Legal Service Commissioner to ever again 30 pursue such a vexatious litigation. It must be stated that there were none, and neither are there, any financial arrangements between Mr Harold James Johnson and myself, as to that so to say I may be paid any monies in the case currently before you. As a true SENTRY of the constitution I would prefer we have this VCAT system totally 35 abolished, as it is a gross abuse of power and acts in conflict of our constitutional provisions. (Typing errors are as was originally in the correspondence): QUOTE 18-1-2013 correspondence to Mr Harold James Johnson

40 Mr Harold James Johnson (James) Email: 45 James,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 18-1-2013

Re: 130118 Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to james Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011

Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

5

10

15

20

25

Page 12 as I stated to Smithers of VCAT I had the honour to represent you and did so free of charge. As a matter of fact, for more than 30 years I did so for numerous parties, nevertheless, VCAT member Lulham with assistance of Queensland lawyer Mark Flemming commenced a scaving attack upon my person in the Great Body Works versus Eurotec litigastion, such as making allegations that I had stated during the hearing to be on a contingency fee (Even so, even if I had been it would not have been unlawful as I was entitled to charge for my services if I desired to do so), even so the audio rec ording of VCAt itself shows no such statement having been made. What really was happening was that many months earlier I exposed that there was some backdoor dealings going on between those lawyers and VCAT judiciary, including Deputy President B. Steel on 7 June 2010 issuing orders merely on Mark Flemmings lawfirm making a phonecall to VCAT, and the President of VCAT actually later notified me to have upheld my complaint against Deputy President B. Steele. As such, it can be beyond doubt that I had a genuine complaint. Nevertheless, as I discovered there were at least 8 phonecalls between the lawyers of Eurotec and VCAT, and I claimed that this constituted FRATERNIZING, so its subsequent orders were all invalid. So, VCAT went so to say into overdrive to try to scandalise my person. Again as I was entitled to charge for my services (The fact I never did so was to my credit!) and therefore nothing could come from this unless of course, as I view, this was deliberately done to so to say throw off any stranger who reading the reason of judgment would be unaware of the true facts, and so may rely upon it to ac cept the orders that were issued were justified by the reason of judgment.I was given the understanding by others that some members of the judiciary, including VCAT, are on a so to say kickback retainer, so that they have beforehand already decided the terms of the orders and the hearing serves for no other purpose but to try to find some material the judicial member then can twist as to purport to have a justified reason to issue the pre-planned orders.
.

I discovered for example that in the Supreme Court of Victoria Mr Vella was ordered to file an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION by no later than 10 June 2011, and failing this the case would proceed undefended. Mr Vella filed and served his OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION on 1 June 2011, as such well within time and then when the hearing was held (I did not attend to 30 that hearing) the Court made clear it wasn’t going to deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. As such it never actually invoked jurisdiction! Judicial officers in the Magistrates Court of Victoria, the County Court of Victoria, and opther tribunals also likewise in my view abused their judicial powers in such like manner, and no 35 wonder that a group like the uiinfamous BLACKSHIRTS then pursue to hang every judge (judicial officer). For over 30 years I conducted a special lifeline service MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!). 40 For example, last year a woman made known to me that she was going to burn a property down (she owned), as she was utterly frustrated how the judges of the Family Court of Australia were railroading her case, and clearly handing down pre-determined orders. I spend the entire night talking to her, and the next morning came home at about 6 am, had a shower and breakfast and within half an hour was out again to court. Mind you all this without charging anyone for this. At 45 times my petrol consumption alone for a week would be about $200.00 for attending to people who were desperate, etc. all cost carried by my wife and myself, without financial compensation. So, the last thing I need is some so to say imbecile of a judicial officer to place my person in question! I decided to close down the special lifeline service, after more than 30 years, as the cost was too much to continue to be carried. 50 Anyhow the Legal Service Commissioner, albeit I challenged his legal right to do any investigation) nevertheless rather than to deal with lawyers who were abusing their positions such as Mark Flemming and Member Lulham, as I understand it, spend about 1 year
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

Page 13 investigating me. To me, he is a complete moron who doesn’t even seem to know that the term “CONSTITUTIONALIST” is a legal term already referred to by the High Court of Australia in its judgment way back in 1908 the term “constitutional lawyer” is an oximoron because you cannot interpret the true meaning and application of the constitution as a lawyer, because lawyers 5 simply so to say are brainwashed during law studies and subsequent practice and therefore fail to properly understand and comprehend what really the true meaning and application of the constitution is about.
.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian

10 Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE
.

15 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE
.

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

To argue that the constitution therefore can only be interpreted by a lawyer would be utter and sheer nonsense! It was specifically designed for unletered people to be able to understand, and the so to say fancy footwork of judges trying to make out some constitutional meaning (such as the infamous WorkChoices) is utterly deplorable. The same is where for decades I have assisted as a paralegal (See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralegal as well as 2004 publication A comparative study of paralegalism in Australia, the United States of America and England and Wales by Jill Irene Cowley, Southern Cross University) it seems the Legal Service Commissioner and Government lawyers are not aware of what this stands for, and how this applies. As such, they are going into an elaborate expensive investigation not even having a clue of the legal basics that may apply. Not only did I represent parties or lawyers of a party FREE OF CHARGE until my retirement on 25 August 2010, but actually I was even spending my own monies to assist them in other ways. What we had was that Member Lulham was claiming he wanted to stop the hearing at about 11 am because of my alleged statement to be on a contingency fee (mind you the audio recording proves no such statment ever was made) but that for the reason of cost he didn’t do so. Then ordering cost anyhow. Now, when you have a judicial officer as well as the lawyer (Mark Flemming) of the opponent party making allegations which clearly were concocted then to me this was a conspiracy! It would be impossible for two people claiming the same as to an event that never eventuated unless they had some deal going on begtween them. To me this was an abuse of judicial powers by Member Lulham and by the lawyer, to also pervert the course of justice. While the Legal Service Commissioner may argue that he has no jurisdiction to investigate, fancy a Queensland lawyer practicing in Victoria and get away with it, in my view, he had the common law right to make a complaint to the Queensland Legal Service Commissioner (or the equivalent of this) against Mark Flemming, where I also provided during the hearing that he had witnessed the affirming of an affidavit he knew or ought to have known contained false/misleading statements, and of which the attachment never as such existed at the time he witnessed the affirmation of the affidavit. Now to me this undermines the proper legal processes courts ordinary rely upon. As for Lulham it cannot be stated he merely made some statement that was in error because his reason of judgment was riddled with what I would describe as utter and sheer nonsense. Even if the Legal Service Commissioner cannot deal with him as to his judicial function neverhteless the Legal Service Commissioner has the common law right to pursue him by making a complaint against Lulham, this so his conduct is investigated by the appropriate judicial body for this. Also, as Lulham is a lawyer then the Legal Service Commissioner could investigate his conduct. After all, if he can do this against you then why not the same against
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

5

10

15

20

25

30

Page 14 another lawyer? Well there we have that I filed a 21 November 2011 complaint with the Legal Service Commissioner regarding a lawyer named Paul Linsdell. Well more than a year later the Legal Service Commissioner had never even bothered to commence to investigate! His excuse was that it was filed in a different file (that was when he investigated me), but to me his housekeeping or the lack thereof is no excuse. I filed a complaint and was entitled to have this appropriately attended too and the fact that it was not for over a year may underline his bias. When then I received a letter in December 2012 that he had located the complaint while doing a review of tthe investigation against me it became clear that had this review never been done my complaint would have been so to say burried unattended to, forever. He then had the gal to demand for me to respond within 3 weeks if the complaint still was standing or he would deem it no longer being pursued. Well that is his way to assume matters but to me I filed a complaint and hold that he is obligated to explain why he failed to attend to the matter in the first place and why he still didn’t bopther to investigate. Why indeed was this complaint filed away in the wrong file without first having been attended too, I may ask? Was it to try to get Paul Linsdell of the hook? Why is it that he could investigateme even so Lulham himself stipulated for the registrar to pursue matters, but the registrar never did and so, on what legal authority could he then commence an investigation against me while not investigating Paul Linsdell to which he clearly does have legal authority to investigate. Is it his obsession to investigate me because I represented you on 4 occaisions, including in the practice court of the Supreme Court of Victoria? Is this his way so as to have a “technical” ground to oppose me to represent you again, as he knew that with the Vella case I stood aside because of the then invesatigation to avoid a conflict of interest? Therefore, is the Legal Service Commissioner actually doing no more but to pervert the course of justice, by indirectly seeking to obstruct you to be represented by the person you dedsire to do so? After all, as I made clear to Smithers, there were no financial arrangments between you and myself for me to be paid to represent you and as such there clearly could have been no reason to review the failed investigation for this. Again, I would have been well entitled to charge disbursements, etc, but we never even discussed this, as it never was part of how I assisted a party in litigation. As such to me the Legal Service Commissioner is a moron, who rather goes after people who expose the truth and the misuse of our court and other legal priocesses then to go after those who undermine our democratic rights to have fair and proper hearings.

Currently, I am having printed out parts of a game I designed, upon my first book (a 35 crime/comedy novel) INSPECTOR-RIKATI and the Secret of the Empire that was written in 2001. I am in the process of writing several books, besides the about a dozen already published about certain constitutional and other legal issues, but this one I will expose some of the judiciary and also people like the Legal Service Commissioner, and build a game upon this. This so it will be eternally embedded in the game how a Legal Service Commissioner is in my view 40 incompetent to appropriately deal with an complained when filed, etc. This week I visited one of my sons, and his daughter, my granddaughter, who turned 6 last year for the first time had contact with me, and her brother, my grandson, now 11, I last saw when he was not even 1 year old. Yet they live about half an hour drive away. As I now decided to 45 concentrate upon my own life, and not that of others, I finally have time to actually spend time with my children and grandchildren. Because I was flat out trying to save other peoples lives, I basically had no family life on my own. Here I was unabled to do my own mowing on a country property and so a co,ntractor was willing to do it for a quoted $1,000.00. Well I decided enough is enough and purchased a ride-on mower and did it myself, in less than 2 hours. So, about 50 $500.00 an hour for mowing grass? My wife was telling me that she used to get tradesman in, and she would give them meals, etc, and they would still charge her big time for the time they were there even so they were having a meal, etc. So, if others can charge for their time then I view I better also start doing so. As such,
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

5

10

15

20

25

Page 15 from now on if a person likes to talk to me about the weather, their late grandmother, or whatever, they can do so prepaying $500 an hour plus any GST and disbursements for me to listen to them. Undoubtly most people if not all will not be interested in this, and so not bother me about their personal problems. I have been villified by judicial officers who didn’t have a clue of the important work I was doing behind the scene, even at times protecting their lives, and now I had enough of it. I am going to enjoy my family life. As I stated above, I had this woman wanting to burn down a property, and then a judge trying to make out I was a villian, albeit he didn’t know about her wanting to burn down the house, where in fact I was the innocent person. So, when I made this clear during evidence that the other party actually was in defiance of what was legally permissible, and also that the judge had all along during numerous previous hearing wrongly assumed the other party was part owner of the property, then the judge obviously never revealed this in his reason of judgment. So, here I was called as a witness for one party and the trial judge then discovering he had it all along legally wrong rather so to say covers it up! To me this is judicial misconduct! Regretfully to say, I view that the only way to deal with those kind of people, and so also the government, that is a de facto government of a registered corporation, then a constitutional valid government is to follow the footsteps of the Czech’s and that is a VELVET REVOLUTION! THE SYSTEM, IF YOU CAN CALL IT, IS TOO FAR ADVANCED TO TRY TO RECTIFY IT THROUGH ORDINARY LEGAL PROCESSES AND AS I EXPIERENCED MYSELF THAT EVEN THE 7 JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA WENT TO VIST THE FIRST DEFENDANT, SEEMINGLY (TO ME) TO GET THEIR INSTRUCTIONS AS TO HOW TO DEAL WITH THE CASE AGAINST HIM (THE FIRST DEFENDANT). FOR ME, WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE THIS KIND OF FRATERNIZING IN OUR LEGAL PROCESSES, IS BEYOND REPAIR!
.

30

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE

The mere fact that the Legal Service Commissioner made known in his December 2012 correspondence that there is a “review” of the past investigation may underline, at least does to 35 me, his obsession against me, rather then to have addressed the complaint I made more than 1 year earlier against lawyer Paul Linsdell. I do not know what Smithers orders were, since I last represented you in October 2012, before him, but I found it appaling that Gardner as a Supreme Court of Victoria judge could take the 40 position that you could always appeal if Smithers acted without jurisdiction. To me the legal processes should be that a Supreme Court of Victoria judge can never tolerate a litigation to proceed where it may be without jurisdiction! No STAR CHAMBER COURT kind of litigation should ever be permitted!
.

45 The mere fact that then a serving judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria, just before his retirement, disclosed that the Courts are known as “Business Unit 19” within Government departments, may underline the separation of powers no longer is adhered to. Worse also that as this retiring judge made known was that the government had access to the courts computers. As I pointed out to Smithers it is what the public can perceive from this is that a party 50 (Government) can place on the screen of the judicial officer what he has to decide! This brings us back to:
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Australasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).(Official Record of the Debates of the National

Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

Page 16 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE

From now on I prefer to do it my own way, instead of wasting time in the courts/tribunals such 5 as exposing in my books the truth. The Legal Service Commissioner in its submissions to Smithers made clear, as I understood it to be, that it didn’t seek to prove that your allegations about the judiciary and/or other lawyers was untrue. My submissions then was that it was anyones right to criticise the judiciary, and I 10 actually quoted various Authorities. In my view you are thereforebeing pursecuted for doing no more but exercising your personal rights and entitlements of FREEDOM OF SPEECH. As I understood it from the submissions made for the Legal Service Commissioner it was not about your conduct as a lawyer, but that of a conduct where you were a lawyer, irrespective of not then acting as a lawyer for a client. Yet, again when it comes to Paul Linsdell, and Mark Flemming 15 and Lulham as lawyers, then in my view, somehow the Legal Service Commissioner shows a blatant disregard to their conduct. So to say, any excuse to keep them of the hook will do. I view, it would not be in your interest for me to attend to represent you at a hearing and then the Legal Service Commissioner will oppose me on the basis of some purported review, and then 20 you may not have a properly informed representation, etc. Proper representation involves, at least to me, countless hours of research to have the relevant Authorities at hand, and I am not willing to waste my time as such where a “review” may be used to oppose me to represent you! 25
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on terms that are just to both. END QUOTE

Considering how the legal system now operates, I view, we no longer have this constitutional right being applied, because so to say, judges are not interested to maintain our democratic 30 rights, being it for promotional interest or otherwise. The above is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant details/issues. Awaiting your response, 35 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
( ) END QUOTE 18-1-2013 correspondence to Mr Harold James Johnson

Our name is our motto!

In 1988, my than 2 year old daughter was formally arrested by the police, even the Minister 40 announcing on television that he would put tracker dogs on to find her. When I attended to the Nunawading Police station she was formally arrested. I then took the matter to the Supreme Court of Victoria, and the Court ruled that the arrest warrant was invalid, and issued contrary to existing orders of the Supreme Court of Victoria, and my daughter had to be returned to me. It was afterwards that I discovered that the Victorian Police would attend to a nursing home where 45 a 90 year old woman suffering (so her son informed me) Alzheimer’s, and for many years was no longer a Justice of the peace, but nevertheless the police were pestering her to sign warrants. This was the kind of conduct employed! Nothing was ever done against this elaborate swindle and fraudulent warrant abuse by the police involved. When a 2 year old child can be unlawfully arrested, and even a Minister joins in as if she is the greatest criminal in history, then surely there 50 is something wrong with how our legal system is operating or purports to operate. Despite that the High Court of Australia in the 1908 council rates case determined that municipal council rates were a form of taxation delegated by the state and could therefore not apply to the
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

5

10

15

20

Page 17 commonwealth as the States were prohibited by the constitution to tax the Commonwealth without its consent, nevertheless since the Commonwealth took over land taxes on 11 November 1910 and this by creating the Land Tax Office (Now known as the ATO) the States no longer then could apply State land taxes, but the councils/shires nevertheless disregarded this and continued to charge rates. When the Commonwealth commenced to charge land taxes then constitutionally it had to be “uniform” throughout the Commonwealth, as it did. In 1952 it abolished land taxes but constitutionally the legislative powers no longer exist with the States. Still in 1956 the State of N.S.W. commenced to apply State land taxes and other states followed, this even so there were not “uniform” throughout the Commonwealth and not under commonwealth legislative authority. And this still goes on. I have been exposing this estimated 35 billion dollars a year fraud perpetrated against Australians, and obviously, considering also that I have pursued for John Howard and others involved for unconstitutionally invading Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter bombed back into the Stone Age, it is of little surprise that then a committee member of the Liberal Party made known to me that a special group of people had been set up (some time ago) (including judges and lawyers) to combat me. So, I never know if a judge, lawyer or a Legal Service Commissioner is doing the dirty work and hence a VCAT member, like Lulham, making serious allegations against me, none of them proven, but having placed this in a judgment then vilifies me nevertheless and is has I view it shielded by the Legal Service Commissioner for this rot.
.

I am, for example, also exposing that the Victorian Government refuses to use the desalination plant for water usage, claiming there is no need for it, while large parts of Victoria are without drinking water as the water that is supplied to them is shown by the water supplier as: 25 QUOTE “Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparations without further treatment” END QUOTE So now we have it that to large parts of Victoria no suitable drinkwater is supplied, and so not 30 even for use to wash a baby, yet, I as a property owner still am slugged more a year on water rates, without using a single drop of suitable drinking water, then I have to pay on car registration. Now, here we have a barrister like Mr Gilbert so to say going after Mr Harold James Johnson for the Legal Service Commissioner, as this is the most important issue in life, rather then that his services are provided to Victorians robbed of ordinary drinking water, where we are 35 more concerned that 3rd world countries have drinkwater access, but not about fellow Victorians.
.

Here we have Mr Gilbert representing the Legal Service Commissioner against Mr Harold James Johnson, so to say, as if Mr Harold James Johnson is the worst deviant in Australian history needing to be banned for some time to be a legal practitioner, but I am not aware that he is 40 engaged to go after lawyer John Howard, and his fellow politicians, who bombed Iraq back into the Stone Age, and so unconstitutionally, in the process maiming and killing many innocent people including babies in their cots. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, that if there was an actual attack by a foreign nation upon the shores of Australia then that would be taken as a declaration of war for the government to immediately respond, but where no such attack takes 45 place then only the Governor-General by proclamation can declare WAR or Peace on behalf of the Crown exercising prerogative powers. As no proclamation was published by the GovernorGeneral and no attack existed upon Australia, than the conduct of John Howard and his fellow politicians to invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (without any direct attack upon Australia and without a declaration of war published by the Governor-General) were unconstitutional conduct which 50 within s24AA of the Crimes act requires a judicial decisions. Yet, where is there any lawyer willing to pursue this?
Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Page 18 For sure, so to say frying Mr Harold James Johnson is obviously the best they can achieve and as it appears to me they might be incompetent to pursue real issues as I am doing. Judges and lawyers alike are then seeking to vilify me for not being a lawyer, but if this is the reflection of their intelligence then I view they are very poorly endowed with it. So, to me VCAT is becoming a sheer waste of time, because unless there is a judicial officer who can master the intelligence to understand what the true meaning and application of the constitution is there is no way Mr Harold James Johnson could ever obtain a fair and proper trial. And I highlight this as to indicate that somehow there seem to be a lack of proper setting of priorities. If what Mr Harold James Johnson was the worst in history of Australia then we hardly would need the huge volumes of law, we are now burdened with. Reality is that we seem to have a Legal Service Commissioner who is going after Mr Harold James Johnson as it appears to me as some kind of vendetta, while refusing to hold lawyers accountable who actually are perverting the course of justice. You may also elect to vilify me but rest assure this will just be another addition for others to pursue the VELVET REVOLUTION to pursue a true constitutional government and a true impartial judiciary, where our Magna Carta right as not so to say trampled upon. On the other hand you may hold that after all the entire litigation against Mr Harold James Johnson was an abuse against the legal processes and exercise the constitutional power of nullification. The question of if you poses this sentry kind of honour, I view, will be shown by the terms of your orders. The issue if not if you perceive you provide JUSTICE but if this is what a FAIR MINDED PERSON may perceive was provided. Judicial officers generally will claim they provide a fair and proper hearing and I recalled Smithers J, way back in 1985, claiming this and citing various Authorities including the High Court of Australia to dismiss my submission to disqualify himself only then to face a renewed submission to disqualify himself on the basis of bias not having disqualified himself and he then citing again Authorities disqualified himself now stating that to a FAIR MINDED PERSON it may be perceived that he was bias, even so he himself held not to have been. In my view, Mr Harold James Johnson was entitled to a FAIR AND PROPER TRAIL this he was denied from onset and he was so to say subjected to some witch-hunt. In my view, the Legal Service Commissioner failing to prove that Mr Harold James Johnson was wrong in his alleged statements by this proved that the issue was not the truth and nothing but the truth of allegations, rather that even if Mr Harold James Johnson was to be proven to tell the truth he nevertheless should be sanctioned for daring to use his right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH! If you go along with what I consider sheer and utter nonsense then little wonder why so many people turn away from pursuing JUSTICE through the courts/tribunals because as with the Vella and Colosimo cases (and I understand numerous others) it becomes a glorified expensive legal battle, where (rightly or wrongly) the perception is that certain members of VCAT are receiving a financial kickback, and so will do anything to vilify one party, knowing to be safe hiding behind a judicial role, rather than to hand down a reason of judgment that in a very honest manner set out a balanced consideration of all relevant issues to justify the orders issued. To me, the display of armed security guards, and they are able to identify me before I even said a word, may underline these are not ordinary proceedings as one could expect in a court of law! This kind of (armed) intimidation I do not accept as part of a proper operating justice system! Hence, I understand the problems Mr Harold James Johnson has about the same! The above ought to be sufficient to explain why I will not attend on 30 January 2013.

The above is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant details/issues. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
50 (

Our name is our motto!)

Re: 130125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VCAT Member Smithers Re -VCAT - LSC v HJJ J1342011 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful