You are on page 1of 8

Page 1

Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J.


judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au

16-11-2015

Re: 20151116-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Mr Garry McIntosh


to His Honour Mullaly J County Court of Victoria-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Supplement 1
Sir,

I on Saturday 14 November 2015 wrote to you about matters regarding Buloke Shire
Council legal representatives, this supplement is to indicate that today no mail delivery
eventuated on behalf of Buloke Shire Council regarding the brief.
I have decades of experiences at the Bar table and know too well the gross deception lawyers are
getting into and the Courts failing to address these issues by this so to say condoning the
undermining of the integrity of the courts.
To give you an example:
In 2001 I challenged the validity of the then federal election. On appeal to the High Court of Australia the
government solicitors out of timer without any application to file and serve out of time filed an appearance.
Their Affidavit (as I later discovered) however was never received by me. Subsequently the Government
solicitors filed further documents as ordered by the Deputy registrar albeit the government solicitors claimed
that by 5 pm they discovered their facsimile wasnt working so they then requested a process server to deliver
the documents instead. The Process Server claimed that he served the documents about 5.15 pm.
The government solicitors filed an Affidavit to the effect of the problems with the fax machine and the
Process Server as to his service. What however was not realised was that where the Government solicitors
requested the process server at about 5 pm to collect the document and serve them then the process server had
to get to the building, go up to the 17th floor, collect the documents, go back to the street level and then in
peak hour traffic travel about 20 kilometres to my residence and all this in about 15 minutes? Clearly the
process server fabricated the delivery. THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT DELIVERED THAT DAY BUT
MANY WEEKS LATER, AND WHILE IT WAS DRY ON AND IN THE DAYS PRIOR TO RECEIVING
THE ENVELOPPE IT SHOWED THE ENVELLOPPE AND ITS CONTENT HAD BEEN WET N THE
PAST. As such the process server had I view dumped the letter and pretended to have delivered it. Hence, the
weeks delays where likely a person found the envelope and then posted it.

Those who follow my writings also know that Australian Post as an example admitted that its
staff dumping mail on the street instead of delivering it in the mailbox is not permitted. Still it
did occur.
I refer to the following authority as to indicate that ordinary one should be able to rely upon
Australian Post to deliver on time:
Denning L.J. in Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 Q.B. 327.
QUOTE
When a contract is made by post it is clear law throughout the common law countries that the acceptance
is complete as soon as the letter of acceptance is put into the post box, and that is the place where the
contract is made. But there is no clear rule about contracts made by telephone or by Telex.
Communications by these means are virtually instantaneous and stand on a different footing.
The problem can only be solved by going in stages. Let me first consider a case where two people make a
contract by word in the presence of one another. Suppose, for instance, that I shout an offer to a man
across a river or a courtyard but I do not hear his reply because it is drowned by an aircraft flying
overhead. There is no contract at that moment. If he wishes to make a contract he must wait till the
aircraft is gone and then shout back his acceptance so that I can hear what he says. Not until I have his
answer am I bound. I do not agree with the observation of Hill J., in Newcomb v. De Roos.
p1
16-11-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 2
Now take a case where two people make a contract by telephone. Suppose, for instance, that I make an
offer to a man by telephone and, in the middle of his reply. The line goes dead so that I do not hear his
words of acceptance. There is no contract at that moment. The other man may not know the precise
moment when the line failed. But he will know that the telephone conversation was abruptly broken off,
because people usually say something to signify the end of the conversation. If he wishes to make a
contract, he must therefore get through again so as to make sure that I heard. Suppose next that the line
does not go dead, but it is nevertheless so indistinct that I do not catch what he says and I ask him to
repeat it. He then repeats it and I hear his acceptance. The contract is made, not on the first time when I
do not hear, but only the second time when I do hear. If he does not repeat it, there is no contract. The
contract is only complete when I have his answer accepting the offer.
Lastly take the Telex. Suppose a clerk in a London office taps out on the teleprinter an offer which is
immediately recorded on the teleprinter in a Manchester office, and a clerk at that end taps out an
acceptance. If the line goes dead in the middle of the sentence of acceptance, the teleprinter motor will
stop. There is then obviously no contract. The clerk at Manchester must get through again and send his
complete sentence. But it may happen that the line does not go dead, yet the message does not get through
to London. Thus the clerk at Manchester may tap out his message of acceptance and it will not be recorded
in London because the ink at the London end fails or something of that kind. In that case the Manchester
clerk will not know of the failure but the London clerk will know of it and will immediately send back a
message not receiving. Then, when the fault is rectified, the Manchester clerk will repeat his message.
Only then is there a contract. If he does not repeat it, there is no contract. It is not until message is
received that the contract is made.
In all the instances I have taken so far, the man who sends the message of acceptance knows that it has
not been received or he has reason to know it. So he must repeat it. But suppose that he does not know that
his message did not get home. He thinks it has. This may happen if the listener on the telephone does not
catch the words of acceptance, but nevertheless does not trouble to ask for them to be repeated: or if the
ink on the teleprinter fails at the receiving end, but the clerk does not ask for the message to be repeated:
so that the man who sends an acceptance reasonably believes that his message has been received. The
offeror in such circumstances is clearly bound, because he will be estopped from saying that he did not
receive the message of acceptance. It is his own fault that he did not get it. But if there should be a case
where the offeror without any fault on his part does not receive the message of acceptance-yet the sender
of it reasonably believes it has got home when it has not-then I think there is no contract.
My conclusion is that the rule about instantaneous communications between the parties is different from
the rule about the post. The contract is only completed when the acceptance is received by the offeror: and
the contract is made at the place where the acceptance is received.
END QUOTE

Reality is however, as I proved in regard of Australian Post, that it dumps mail onto the ground,
also facilitating identity theft.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE

Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a
decision on the point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by
which the parties accused must be heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start
page 689] anything the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall
be some form by which a person accused will have an opportunity of stating his case
before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in criminal law now? I
cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE

Hence I do not accept Huis Honour Mullaly J claim that the (exparte) criminal case can be
determined without evidence.
Yet, we have the Infringement Act 1006 (I hold is unconstitutional as it violates the 20-1-21901
Letters Patent impartial administration of justice and the legal principle embedded in the
constitution that both parties must be heard before a judicial decision can be pronounced) which
relies upon Australian Post-delivery this even so none may ever have eventuated.
p2
16-11-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 3
.Hence, it is critical that the courts ensure that any lawyer claiming to have delivered
documentation as ordered by the court can prove to have done so and not merely is perverting the
course of justice by fabricating a version that is untrue. Most unrepresented litigants would be
unable to prove the issues and lawyers knows that and misuse their positions as an OFFICER
OF THE COURT to deceive the courts. That is why it is so important that so to say His Honour
Mullaly J shows to have some balls and makes clear he is not going to be a party to perverting
the course of justice and the legal representatives better prove they posted the brief by no later
than 9 November 2015 or otherwise be dealt with for contempt of court. In any event be dealt
with for deceiving His Honour on 30 October 2015 regarding the request for the brief when
made.
I have also requested the Chief Officer of the CFA to have Mr Wayne Wall the Municipal Fire
Officer removed within section 45 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 for failing in his
duties and obligations. There proceedings are directly a result of invalid Fire Prevention Notices
and I am quite frankly sick and tired having litigation going on and on because the courts seems
to sanction this nonsense rather than from onset make clear that any invalid notice cannot enable
the court to invoke jurisdiction!
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."

The reasoning of Fullagar J in Clayton v. Heffron (supra) in relation to the provisions of s 5B of


the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) is material in this context:
"A manner and form are prescribed by section 5B, and that manner and form must be observed if a valid law
is to be produced. Any prescription of manner and form may be repealed or amended, but, while it stands, the
process prescribed by it must be followed. That was decided Trethowan's case and I think that the whole of
what is prescribed by section 5B relates to manner and form. It does not seem to me to be possible to say that
some of the requirements of the section are matters of manner and form while others are not. The section
describes one entire process - a series of steps, one following on another - and only the completion of the
entire process can produce a valid law." (Supra at 262)

Buloke Shire Council legal representatives are well aware, and were so before litigating, that I
objected to the jurisdiction of any court to hear and determine matters for various reasons.
And I have set out so to say in Chapter and Verse that the Fire prevention Notices refer to all
combustible materials whereas the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 excludes buildings and its
content. In fact all combustible materials as refer to in the Fire Prevention Notice would
require land owners to remove every tree and every timber fencing! Common sense alone would
indicate this is an absurdity!
.

People who have no particular experiences in regard of litigation will pay the Infringement
Notice not trusting the integrity of the courts, and that is why I am so to say the sacrificing lamb
to stand my ground.
Unlike what I understood His Honour Mullaly J to state that the law applied to everyone else but
me I am in fact pursuing the law applied to all (for so far constitutionally valid that is) and it is
well overdue that lawyers are also held legally accountable.
.

We have had that the Supreme Court of Victoria in certain cases held that the police made
fraudulent claims, yet when such a police officer in another case is giving evidence then his/her
fraudulent conduct is not mentioned and the courts will hold this to be an honourable witness.
Well it is time we have that everyone before the courts is equal and that if lawyers and police
officers are found to have deceived the courts then it is placed on their records and each time
they are involved in litigation the adverse findings are made known as much as it does with other
persons before the court.
p3
16-11-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 4

In the following very successful appeals (Regarding FAILING TO VOTE) I stated the following:
ADDRESS TO THE COURT
County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE
Defendant then is faced with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions being for
warned as to what the Defendant intends to do in most issues and as such may seek to
counteract those arguments. It is not the counter argument itself that the Defendant is worried
about, but the deceptive conduct employed in the past by the lawyers acting for the Australian
Electoral Commission in their litigation to the extend as to deliberately replace words in what
is claimed to be an Authority being quoted as to pretend to the Court that a judge made a
certain ruling even so the ruling is a fraudulent version to deceive the Court. Such as Mr Peter
Hanks QC did before the Federal Court of Australia and later again made a deceptive
statement to the High Court of Australia.
For example, checking the transcript of the hearing, it is noted that Mr Peter Hanks QC in his
argument in point 22 and 22.1 of the OUTLINE stated the following;
QUOTE
22
In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred
to the general rule that not less than so many days refers to clear days unless the
context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention.
END QUOTE
His quotation is again false and misleading!
Mr Peter Hanks QC quoted of the judgment the following;
QUOTE
unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention
END QUOTE
This ought to be;
QUOTE
unless the context or the subject matter reveals a contrary intention
END QUOTE
Clearly, that is a gross deception. In legal terms there can be a significant difference in a case
for the Court to deal with a statutory intention versus subject matter.
Mr Peter Hanks QC stated to the Court (7 November 2001);
The researches of counsel have been unable to find provisions using simular language (not
less that or at least a number of days) where the language is as clear and specific as
found in ss156(1) and 157.
Thousands upon thousands of Internet references can be found upon a search shall not be
less than or shall not be less that. As such this statement by Mr. Peter Hanks QC for the
Australian Electoral Commission was a fraudulent statement. Likewise other statement were
found by the defendant to be deceptive and/or misleading.
We also have the fact that Counsel Mr peter Hanks QC argued the authority of the
ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD
(1950) 81 CLR 161
p4
16-11-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 5
What counsel did however was to make a false and misleading presentation of what the case
really was on about.
As the authority stated:

The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which
was too short by one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position.
Mr Peter Hank QC didnt argue that the authority wasnt relevant, to the contrary he argued its
relevance only by misrepresenting how it applied and what the authority really was on about.
As such, it had nothing to do with within as Mr Peter Hanks QC argued as clearly the usage
within was in a different context and not at all as Mr Hanks sought to imply and did imply.
It ought to be considered a serious matter that a barrister employs these kind of tactics, indeed
deceptive tactics, but it seems the Australian Electoral Commissioner does not seem to worry
about the means as long as it achieves his end results.
Because I expect the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to come up with any
nonsense and unable to verify the correctness of any claims they may make about any
AUTHORITY they may refer to I am left no alternative but to present my own research.
Lawyers are OFFICERS OF THE COURT but I experienced that when it comes to the
Australian Electoral Commissioner being the instructing party then it seems to me from
experiences their oath of alliance is worthless and they cannot be trusted, as set out also
further in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT.
It is my view, that had Mr Peter Hanks QC not concealed matters and not presented
fraudulent Authorities and how they applied then the Federal Court of Australia would not
have ruled that it had no legal jurisdiction, and would in fact have granted the orders I sought.
And in the end this case would never have eventuated before this Court as then matters could
have been addressed appropriately before any federal election had been held!
END QUOTE
While the Framers of the Constitution embedded the legal principle in the constitution:
.
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

we find however that even His Honour Mallaby J appears to detract from this as I understood it
to condone criminal convictions without evidence. That I view is a very serious issue, and one of
the reasons as I understand it why people commit suicide, because they just have lost an y trust in
our court system that I view is so corrupt that an honest person has next to no hope in the world
to be exonerated, unless you have so to say mountains of monies available.
His Honour Mallaly J now has the opportunity to denounce any favouritism to members of the
legal profession and not willing to accept them to pervert the course of justice, and will so to say
throw the book at them when it is reported they perverted the course of justice and/or failed to
comply with the terms of court orders. Let his Honour Mullaly J prove the integrity of the court
is above everyone, including lawyers!
p5
16-11-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 6
Before you so to say go of the deep end that I criticise the courts, I will quote some authorities
and then a statement I published today also to indicate that I am but for proper law enforcement,
where the conduct is legally permissible.
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 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) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368
(b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
(c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
(d) SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31
.

https://theconversation.com/national-security-bill-opens-the-door-to-expanded-control-ordersand-secret-evidence-49361
QUOTE (Posted 10.30am 16-11-2015 by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.)
The real security threat lies with our government that acted as terrorist to invade Iraq and now seek to use this
to control law abiding citizens. No amount of security legislation will stop people to avenge their dead and
the injustice they suffered. We may not like their responses but our Government is the real culprit of it all.
And our courts by backing it up are part of it all.
If the High Court of Australia had accepted my s75 application of the constitution we may never have
invaded Iraq and ISIS/ISIL may never have existed! Because the High Court of Australia never formally
ruled on my appeal of against the Registrars refusal to accept my amended section 75 of the constitution
application of 18 March 200l3 it in legal terms remains outstanding! As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view we
all are bound by the constitution and politicians and judges should also accept this and not act despite of it!
p6
16-11-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 7
If the High Court of Australia had accepted my application to be heard and determined upon its merits I have
no doubt Australian troops would not have participated in the unconstitutional armed murderous invasion,
and then the USA and UK may not have proceeded either. The court had jurisdiction when I submitted my
application to it but it simply in violation of s75 of the constitution refused to accept it for filing as I view to
protect John Howard and others for being held legally accountable. One has to wonder if "Paris" is a mere
fore runner to be executed in Australia on a far bigger scale?
The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/289733557/20151116-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-ISSUE-Hasthe-High-Court-of-Australia-Blood-on-Its-Hands-the-Constitution

ISSUE: Has the High Court of Australia blood on its hands? & the constitution
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am obviously aware of and considering the legal principles embedded in the
constitution. On 22 July 2002 I wrote to the then General Peter Cosgrove that for any invasion he would need
a DECLARATION OF WAR naming the country concerned from the Governor-General published in the
Gazette. I on 18 February 2003 sought to file an s75 application to prevent the Australian armed forces
invading Iraq without a DECLARATION OF WAR, which was refused by the Deputy Registrar and the High
Court of Australia on appeal refused to accept it for filing. The Registrar then to alter the make-up, and made
notes how to do so. I on 18 March 2003 sought to refile it as per directions of the Deputy Registrar but it was
refused to be accepted for filing. On Appeal the High Court of Australia citing the 18 February 2003
application, and not the 18 March 2003 application (Still outstanding), (again) refused to accept it for filing.
That day the armed murderous invasion commenced to bomb Iraq back into the Stone Age. HANSARD 10-31898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention) Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).- QUOTE Then, again, there is the prerogative right to
declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her
Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen would
declare war or peace without the advice of a responsible Minister. END QUOTE HANSARD 6-3-1891
Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial
interests. We have no desire to interfere with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace! END
QUOTE
While we have Royal Commissions about unions, and bush fires, we had no Royal Commission about the
murderous unconstitutional invasion into Iraq. We were told that the world would be a safer place without
President Saddam Hussein. Well we had yet another murderous attack in Paris, with many deaths, and one
has to ask is the world really a safer place? Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott refused my request
for a Royal Commission and yet we need it to establish if the armed murderous invasion was constitutionally
permissible and the High Court of Australia unconstitutionally denied my s75 of the constitution application
to be accepted for filing. Combined with the aluminium tubes and other false/fabricated issues I view John
Howard had a case to answer but I view the High Court of Australia bowed to its political master and so to
say sold us, We, the People out! In my view had John Howard not been able to join the USA regime
change for oil, etc, then the USA may not have gone ahead with the invasion. The vacuum left by the
removal of President Saddam Hussein has since been filled by ISIS/ISIL and we all suffer the consequences
of The world being a safer place that we are subjected as innocent citizens to a range of so called draconic
anti-terrorism legislation which in real terms is only to curtain the rights and freedoms of innocent
Australians. In my view the terrorist are those in the government and aided and abetted by the courts. As I
proved on 19 July 2006 in the Country Court of Victoria no valid federal election was held in 2001, and as
such we had no valid Federal Government. And, for the record the Commonwealth didnt challenge my
evidence filed in court! They had the opportunity but as weasels/gutless wonders left without challenging me!
As such, it conceded my evidence was beyond reproach. Why then are we not holding John Howard and his
co-conspirators legally accountable for treason, mass-murder, crimes against humanity, etc? Lets be clear
about it I filed my evidence in court (Including that which I obtained under FOI!), and as such not merely
made claims, and it was open to all Attorney-Generals to challenge within s78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS what I had filed. They didnt but conceded! Too many people died directly
or indirectly because of the Iraq invasion!
We must have a Royal Commission and without further delay! Are we waiting for a Paris massacrer to
occur in Australia before we finally will have matters investigated? Just then too late for Australian victims!
In my view the HCA has blood on its hands, and a case to answer!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all relevant issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
p7
16-11-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 8
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE (Posted 10.30am 16-11-2015 by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.)

In my view if every lawyer/judge had the credibility I have then a lot less litigation would be
going on and a lot less people would resort to suicide. Hence my battle is to pursue honesty and
decent standards within the legal processes and well His Honour Mullaly J will show by his
conduct or the lack thereof as to so to say which side of the fence His Honour is standing or can
be perceived to be standing.
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!)

p8
16-11-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati