Page 1

Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud

7-10-2015

c/o the coordinator starnaudcoordinator@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au

Cc:

Elliott Stafford and Associated lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

Re: 20151007 -Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud
cc ES&a LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council-transcript-reasons-etc

Sir/Madam,
in my 28-9-2015 correspondence I stated:
QUOTE
despite my previous request the Court has failed/refused to provide me with transcripts and/or
reasons of judgments of any alleged orders of 20 August 2015 & 17 September 2015.
END QUOTE

Instead all I received is the following document:

It doesnt show any orders and reason of judgment as to the OBJECTION TO

JURISDICTION and neither does it provide any transcript to set out what eventuated before the
court. Neither as to what evidence, if any was presented to the court as to the alleged offence.
Not that the court could consider this as it would first have to have dismissed the OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION and this clearly doesnt seem to have eventuated. As such the alleged
fines and penalties imposed are not legally enforceable. But quite frankly it seems to me that
neither the court nor the members of the legal profession could give a darn about this as if they
had it never would have resulted to this kind of nonsense. And as I indicated in my previous
provided written material this is why people often as I understand it end up committing suicide.
p1
7-10-2015 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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 2
While ordinary a party can obtain a transcript against paying a fee, in this case however where
due to ill health (and I am still in ill health) I could in any event not attend then the court has an
obligation to provide a transcript. Clearly without the 20 August 2015 transcript being provided
to me the 17 September 2015 hearing could not proceed, this as I had no way of knowing from
the court itself what really eventuated and while I acknowledged that I received a 2 September
2015 correspondence from Buloke Shire Council it did not in specific details set out the precise
terms of any orders issued on 20 August 2015, and it would be a guessing game if the court that
day did or didnt dismiss the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
Perhaps the coordinator of the court might be just a first grade primary school kid who lacks
the understanding and competence to appropriately deal with matters but that should be of no
excuse for the court not to have provided itself to me appropriate information.
I again repeat my request that I am provided with appropriate transcripts of both 20 August 2015
and 17 September 2015 albeit it might that they do not exist as it might just have been so to say a
pub backroom deal between the court and the lawyers. Still it cannot deny me my constitutional
and other legal. Rights as I referred to in past writings.
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.
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

Because of my past writings it cannot be argued that the Magistrate (if it was not so to say a pub
backroom deal) could have in error omitted to follow proper legal procedures because of how I
set out issues. As such I view this was a deliberate malicious conduct to pervert the course of
justice!
QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give
good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the
conspiracy.
END QUOTE

As the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was not dealt with neither did I receive any formal
orders, reasons of judgment and neither any transcript of any hearings I request/urge you to
immediately withdraw this alleged 17-9-2015 statement of fines and penalties imposed?
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!)

p2
7-10-2015 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 admin@inspector-rikati.com by
making a reservation. See also Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati