Page 1

Associate Sarah Gall to His Honour Carmody J

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

14-6-2016

Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria, feedback@countycourt.vic.gov.au

Buloke Shire Council buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au, attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated
lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
County Court of Victoria crim.reg@countycourt.vic.gov.au

Re: 20160614-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Associate Sarah Gall to His Honour Carmody J CCV-Re APPEAL-15-2502-Re void orders of
His Honour Carmody, etc-Supplement 3

Madam,

While I stated that I view His Honour Carmody J didnt act maliciously, if however His
Honour Carmody J failed to withdraw the 30may 2016 orders then I view this would be
maliciously, in view that I have set out ample of details in my submissions regarding the void
orders to indicate to His Honour Carmody J that the orders were without jurisdiction, etc.
His Honour Carmody J held that Mens Rea was not applicable, whereas I view it was applicable
as this was a criminal matter.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens+rea
QUOTE

Mens Rea
As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal
intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.
A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical
element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the
mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.
The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about
the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless
it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular
common-law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, whereas
Larceny required a felonious state of mind.
Today most crimes, including common-law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a
word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. A typical statute, for example, may require
that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly.
Sometimes a statute creates criminal liability for the commission or omission of a particular act
without designating a mens rea. These are called Strict Liability statutes. If such a statute is
construed to purposely omit criminal intent, a person who commits the crime may be guilty even
though he or she had no knowledge that his or her act was criminal and had no thought of
committing a crime. All that is required under such statutes is that the act itself is voluntary, since
involuntary acts are not criminal.
Occasionally mens rea is used synonymously with the words general intent, although general intent
is more commonly used to describe criminal liability when a defendant does not intend to bring
p1
14-6-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 2
about a particular result. Specific Intent, another term related to mens rea, describes a particular
state of mind above and beyond what is generally required.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights
reserved.
END QUOTE

When one considers Section 39 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 then it states:
QUOTE

(c)a person shall not knowingly put or place any blow lamp or gas torch or any match or any
phosphorus or any substance containing phosphorus or any explosive or any
combustible substance or matter in such a position that
(i) it may be directly or indirectly ignited exploded or set on fire by the
action of the sun's rays or by friction or by any other natural cause; or
(ii) a fire is likely to be caused
whether or not any fire or explosion is actually caused thereby; and
END QUOTE

As such it appears to me that the Act itself does imply Mens Rea is part of the legislation.
Fancy the Buloke Shire Council to blatantly disregard fire danger along the Calder Highway and
as result a huge fire eventuates that may result in the deaths of many innocent victims and then
somehow Mens Rea may not be considered to be applicable!
In my view, if a person was newly appointed as a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer and then
such kind of devastation eventuates no court reasonably could hold the newly appointed MFPO
to be responsible, however if such MFPO was in charge for years and was notified about it and
deliberately/blatantly disregarded his duties then it can be held that Mens Rea does apply, this
as the person reasonably should have known his obligations and duties.
As I understood it from the evidence Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire prevention Officer gave
during cross-examination was that he was trained in South Australia but seemed to have no
proper training in the state of Victoria, something like his last training was in 2001, as I
understood it prior to moving to Victoria.
And when one considers the Fire Master Plan referring to derelict/vacant buildings to fall within
the fire prevention Notice, this even so Section 41 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958
specifically excludes building and their content, then one has to ask what on earth is going on?
Let us have a look as to who is involved in this Fire Management Plan:
Buloke Shire Council Municipal Fire Management Plan 2012
QUOTE

1.8 Committee Membership

The Committee with the primary responsibility for developing the Municipal Fire Management
Plan is the Buloke Shire Municipal Fire Management Planning Committee, a subcommittee of
the Municipal Emergency Management Planning Committee. The MFMPC is made up of core
Committee members and associate members determined by the Buloke Shire MFMPC. The
current MFMPC comprises of representatives from the following key agencies and organisations:
Buloke Shire Council
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer (MFPO)
Municipal Emergency Response Officer (MERO)
Emergency Management Coordinator (EMC)
Municipal Recovery Manager (MRM)
Executive Officer
p2
14-6-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 3
Councillor Community Representative
Vic Police - Municipal Emergency Response Coordinator (MERC)
Country Fire Authority (CFA)
Operations Officer District 18
Manager Community Safety - Loddon Mallee Region
Group Delegate Buloke West Group
Group Delegate - Charlton Group
Group Delegate -Tyrrell Group
State Fire Management Planning Committee Fire Management Planning Coordinator
Loddon Mallee Region (IFMPC)
Department of Sustainability & Environment (DSE)- Manager - Fire Management
Other organisations as required from time to time
Associate members of MFMPC comprises of representatives from the following key agencies
and organisations:
Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water Regional Officer
V- Line Regional Officer
PowerCor Regional Officer
Parks Victoria Ranger in Charge
Vic Roads Road Maintenance Team leader
CFA Vegetation Management Officer
The Committee acknowledged the needs of individuals, community based organisations,
business and industry while developing this Plan. Emphasis is being strongly focused on
attempting to meet the needs of all groups within the community. As the integrated fire
management planning approach becomes more entrenched in the process, the Committee may
seek wider input from individuals, community based organisations, business and industry.
END QUOTE
Version No. 151 Country Fire Authority Act 1958
No. 6228 of 1958 Version incorporating amendments as at 23 September 2015
QUOTE

41Fire prevention notices

(1) In the country area of Victoria, the fire prevention officer of a municipal council
may serve a fire prevention notice on the owner or occupier of land in the
municipal district of that council (other than a public authority) in respect of
anything
(a) on that land, other than a building or in a building;
(b) on the adjacent half width of any private street that abuts that land
(other than a prescribed thing or class of things) that by its nature, composition,
condition or location constitutes or may constitute a danger to life or property from
the threat of fire.
END QUOTE

One has to ask where did Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer his information
from regarding old cars, tyres, etc?
Because exhibit 1 filed by the Prosecutor included the following:
QUOTE

Anything on the land because of its nature, composition, condition or location constitutes
a danger to life or property (section 41 CFA Act)
Vegetation, growth etc falls within the above category
Anything else on the land (eg. Tyres, timber, old cars) could be a danger to life or
property
Whether the condition or anything on the land could be a threat to life or property from
fire if a fire broke out and before CFA could attend
p3
14-6-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 4

Assess land against the relevant Standard in the Municipal Fire Management Plan (see
MFMP Appendix 6.1.3)
END QUOTE

END QUOTE

p4
14-6-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 5
Surely considering those involved in planning and signed off by Buloke Shire Council one would
expect that every details of what can or cannot be stated in a Fire Prevention Notice would have
been thoroughly discussed?
.
A proper reading of various documents indicates that this Buloke Shire Council Municipal Fire
Management Plan 2012 (as purportedly applicable in 2014) actually refers to derelict/vacant
building to be removed, eve n so this clearly is not part of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
Neither as I exposed public land to fall under the responsibility of private land owners, despite
that the Fire prevention Notice claims to apply to the naturestrip. Likewise noxious weed is
not part of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958. It would be absurd to hold that some
management committee can override the Country Fire Authority Act 1958. And as such as I
pointed out so often:
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)

When the Fire Prevention Notices started to roll in way back in 2009 I then realised that this was
some form of dictatorship nothing to do with real fire prevention conduct. By 2013 I became
aware that Buloke Shire Council was going to litigate against me no matter what as like most if
not all councils they place themselves above the rule of law using taxpayers monies to litigate
while they ordinary are shielded against any damages claim, hence I decided to commence to
take photos along Calder Highway and to notify Buloke Shire Council so it couldnt afterwards
claim it never knew about it. Then again, I never should have been needed to point out this fire
danger as after all why employ a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer if he is incompetent to
perform his job appropriately. It would be absurd to hold that somehow this Municipal Fire
Prevention Officer didnt notice the fire damages for some 100 kilometres or more along Calder
Highway years in and year out.
As I submitted/pointed out to His Honour Carmody J on 30 May 2016 this kind of fire danger
goes against the credibility of the witness as some Municipal Fire Prevention Officer expertise.
Regretfully His Honour Carmody J failed in the reason of judgment to point this out. Well, if
people end up losing their lives due to fires along Calder Highway in Buloke Shire then one may
ask if His Honour Carmody J directly/indirectly contributed to this by remaining silent about the
ongoing fire dangers.
In my view His Honour Carmody J had an obligation to set out in the reason of judgment all the
pros and cons of the case, including the evidence of acknowledged by Mr Wayne Wall Municipal
Fire Prevention Officer fire danger along Calder Highway.
.
As a child of 14 in the Netherlands I gained interest in the Dutch grondwet (constitution) and
collected numerous Dutch law reports. When in 1971 migrating to Australia I had to leave it all
behind but my passion for the constitution (now the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK)) remained.
p5
14-6-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 6
Countless law reports I read from cover to cover as a hobby. This so as to learn to think how
appeal judges generally looked at cases on appeal before them.

As such, I was all along aware that were Buloke Shire Council were to litigate against me all I
needed was to find some defect in their Fire Prevention Notice to comprehensively defeat them,
well that is if I could get some decent judge who understood the proper application of law.
It didnt mean I was not concerned as to fire dangers, to the contrary I alerted at time the fire
brigade as to fires along Calder Highway that had been caused by motor vehicles driving into the
soft should of the Calder Highway where unsuspected motorist didnt realise their hot exhaust
pipe under their motor vehicle could set on fire the grass, etc.
At those times I would generally drive in the evening, when it was dark and on a Friday night
travelling to Berriwillock near Nullawil notices a fire and alerted the local fire brigade about the
fire in the soft shoulder including trees. The CFA staff then making known that had I not alerted
them the entire town could have burned down. On the Sunday evening I then travelling to
Melbourne I noticed the fire in the same area and the same tree having flared up again and so
contacted the CFA about it again.
Yet, it seems to me that Mr Wayne Wall Municipal fire prevention officer is lacking the
competence to understand/comprehend what really is required about fire dangers. He is not even
as I view it competent enough to provide the required information AND NO MORE THAN
THAT in a Fire Prevention Notice.
And regretfully His Honour Carmody J faced with my challenge that the fire prevention Notice
was invalid never seemed to realise that it was so.
His Honour Mullaly J on 30 October 2015 stating that the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St
Arnaud doesnt need evidence to issue orders. Well, excuse me judges who cannot understand
what a reason of judgment is about should not adjudicate on legal issues.
When we have magistrates and judges so ignorance to the rule of law than little wonder ordinary
citizens feel the judiciary is corrupt, etc.
Thousands upon thousands of citizens have been as I understand it fined and convicted upon
basis of Fire prevention Notices which I understand are all defective, but just that
magistrates/judges do not seem to be capable/competent to understand they have a duty to ensure
that the charge is valid in law and the charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Considering that His Honour Carmody J found me guilty then this means that I was guilty of
having noxious weed on my property, this even so to my knowledge no noxious weed existed on
my property nor was there any evidence before the court that noxious weed was located on my
property as alleged in the charge based upon the fire prevention Notice. Neither was there any
evidence that the nature strip was not slashed, this even so by the guilty finding it could be
deemed that I was in violation of this also. The fact that Buloke Shire Council slashes the
naturestrip and so it for this also never should have been included in the fire prevention Notice
is another thing.
QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780
As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes the
appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made in the
lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the
respondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the
absence of reason for the magistrates decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded
for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal process, there is the
basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to
controvert the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they lost. If they are given no reason they
may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case
not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
p6
14-6-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 7
Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not mere ordinary
trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of responsibility which administrations of
the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail.
[Baker v Baker (1906) 95 LT 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and again in Cobb v Cobb (1900)
p145] it was stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is the duty
of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his decision, but to give the reasons
for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required, but the
reasons which lead the magistrate to make his order must be explicitly stated.
END QUOTE

Here we have a purported appeal DE NOVO and yet a total failure of any reason of judgment
setting out the pros and cons.
.
Once a QC stated to the Full Court in 19994 that I knew more than any judge or any lawyer
appearing before the court ever had known about the rule of law and as such His Honour didnt
have to follow ordinary legal procedures because I was well aware of them.
The Full Court rejected this submission outright and upheld the appeal making clear that His
Honour failed to follow proper legal procedures and the orders were set aside.
Likewise I view that where it comes to a JUDICIAL REVIEW the Court would have to
consider if His Honour Carmody J did follow all required steps to invoke jurisdiction and failing
this on that alone the court has to set aside the orders.
.
Where the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was also based upon the invalidity of the Fire
Prevention Notice and so the challenged LEGAL STANDING of the Prosecutor, then I view in
the end the orders of His Honour Carmody J so to say are doomed for the garbage bin.
Likewise the same applies to the numerous failures such as not filing and serving a Notice of
Appearance as legally required. I view the court cannot tolerate legal practitioners to flaunt the
rule of law and even when alerted to it disregard proper requirements, if so desired, to seek
leave to file/serve. The same with the non-compliance with the orders of His Honour Mullaly J
as to serve on or before 9 November 2015 the brief. The same with concealing from any brief
relevant details and then so to say pounce upon me with them at the trial preventing me any prior
preparations. And the list goes on.
Where I submitted (and so also did prior to the hearing) than there was NO CASE TO
ANSWER, then I view His Honour Carmody J ought to have upheld this also as clearly there
was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I had violated any valid Fire
Prevention Notice.
I have made it clear that I will include the matters of litigation in my forthcoming book, as I was
well aware that more than likely I would expose how the legal system is so defective that it
would be an alarm to my readers.
In my view His Honour Carmody J ought to have invited Counsel for Buloke Shire Council (the
Prosecutor) to submit to the court why the Fire Prevention Notice was not deemed invalid where
it failed to give specifics as to the work required rather than some unlawful vague and aloof
statement, in particular also ab out the noxious weed and the naturestrip.
In my view His Honour Carmody J never should have sought to defend Alison J May for being a
mere 27 year old lawyer, because she was being paid to do a job and well if age is an excuse
then she shouldnt in my view be acting as an instructing lawyer/legal practitioner.
As a property owner in the shire of Buloke I am (as His Honour Carmody J himself referred to)
also ending up paying for the cost of those lawyers. In my view the litigation was so badly
handled that His Honour Carmody J ought to have ordered that all legal cost be carried by ES&a
Associates and that further exemplary damages be awarded to me. After all, besides what the
p7
14-6-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 8
lawyers did wrong, one cannot ignore that Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer
was giving false/misleading evidence that there was Long dead grass over the whole
property. When in fact the photos filed as exhibits by the Prosecutor shows the 100 metre
driveway to be cut and so also around the clothes line, etc. As such lacking any evidence from
the first about 300 square meters of the front of the property showing such Long dead grass
over the whole property. then the court should I view have rebuked Mr Wayne Wall
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer for giving false./misleading evidence.
I understand that in the case of MORIATY v LONDON, CHATMAM & DOVER RY Queens
Bench 1870 L.R. 5 Q.B. 314;39 L.T.Q.B. 109;22 L.T. 163;34 J.P. 692;18 W.R. 625 in which the
plaintiff sued a railway company for personal injuries sustained and this plaintiff has gone about
suborning false evidence and it was held by the Court that even so the plaintiff would have had a
genuine and justify to case to sue normally, by the plaintiff conduct to suborn false evidence
this was seen by the Court that this conduct amounted to an admission that he had no case.
This kind of false/misleading evidence should have been fatal to the Prosecutor also.
The Prosecutor had the gall to seek cost for overnight accommodation for Mr Wayne Wall was
of $241 and for Mr Groves (even so not listed as a witness in the purported brief) also $241. Yet
as I understand it nearby motels charge about $100.00 a night. As such, it seems Buloke Shire
Council expecting I had to pay the cost went out to find some costly overnight stay considering
the hourly charges of $44.985 (double time $89.97) for Mr Wayne Wall then even at ordinary
charges of $44.985 this means $ 1,799.40 a week. And this for a person who leaves fire danger
along Calder Highway and cannot even manage to ensure that only relevant photos are included
in a brief and cannot manage to ensure that any Fire Prevention Notice complies with legal
requirements such as the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
Worse also is that because His Honour Carmody J failed to use the opportunity to expose this
now more than likely Mr Wayne Wall Municipal fire Prevention Officer will continue to issue
Fire Prevention Notices as if it is so to say all aboard. In my view all and any past court orders
against land holders should be withdrawn where the Fire Prevention Notices were invalid. The
fact that landholders were not aware of the Fire Prevention Notices being invalid is no excuse to
have them suffering court orders adverse to them. In the end MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS
PREVAIL, in that where it is obvious that numerous court orders were obtained upon the b as
is of the defective/invalid Fire Prevention Notices used all over the State of Victoria then each
and every one by hindsight must be withdrawn and monies refunded to the affected landholders
and also compensation provided to them for any financial loss they suffered due to the
defective/invalid Fire Prevention Notices.
His Honour Carmody J was so to say doing the bidding for the prosecutor to argue against my
claim that the Prosecutor had no legal standing, about the defective/invalid Fire Prevention
Notice, the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, etc. Yet, somehow His Honour Carmody J
never did seem to realise that as much as His Honour sought to present the cons against my
submissions then His Honour Carmody J equally should have raised the pros, including why
should the naturestrip be included, when it was not within the terms of s41 of the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958? The same with the noxious weed issue.
.
Were His Honour Carmody J not to withdraw his 30 October 2016 orders then I view His
Honour Carmody J then would or can be perceived to act maliciously. In my view the
appropriate orders were to have dismissed the summons for want of jurisdiction and to provide
exemplary damages in my favour.

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
14-6-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, ERnmail:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati