1

The Secretary Environment and Planning Committee

5

23-10-2016

Parliament House, Spring Street

EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002
Phone: 03 8682 2869
Email: epc@parliament.vic.gov.au
SUBMISSION Supplement 5

10

Re: 20161023-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to The Secretary Environment and Planning Committee-

Sir/Madam,

15

20

25

Further to my 17-10-2016 submission and 18-10-2016 supplement 1 & 19-10-2016

Supplement 2 & 20-10-2016 Supplement 3 & 21-10-2016 Supplement 4 I desire to add the
following;
I quote below a copy of a correspondence forwarded to the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer Mr
Wayne Wall and in this I set out certain issues. It is my view that the Environment and Planning
Committee ought to be given this information so as to understand how delegated powers has
been grossly misused and abuse and there is a need to protect innocent people from this.
The mere fact that this has been going on for years should be an alarm to anyone as no matter
what a Royal Commission may recommend and Parliament may implement legislation in the end
it all comes to nought if a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer blatantly disregard it all and
introduce his own kind of creativity that undermines the legislative provisions and so the safety
and wellbeing of citizens and fire fighters and others.
QUOTE 20161023-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall MFPO

Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer

23-10-2016

Email: buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au

30
Wayne,

35

40

It is important that you understand that if you were to engage a contractor for as private
property and it turns out that the Fire Prevention Notice was in violation of legal provisions than
you may just find that the cost of the contractor will be at your own cost.
Parliament in its wisdom has provided for a certain legal process to be followed and a Fire
Prevention Notice is the basis of it upon an inspection that is if then in the opinion of the
Municipal Fire Prevention officer there is a fire danger.
In the pasty you used to include the naturestrip and one then has to ask why? After all along
my property there is no footpath and so council maintains the ground by slashing it as the grass
then serves as some kind of footpath. Therefore it was utter and sheer nonsense to include in past
years the naturestrip because it proved that you never did an actual proper inspection to form
an opinion as if you had then you would have known the naturestrip was always mowed by
Buloke Shire Council.
Obviously I do have photos proving my point!

45

p1
23-10-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

The arrow shows that the footpath finish at the end of 8 Anderson Avenue property and as such
no concrete footpath exist in front of my property. As such Buloke Shire Council maintains the
front as some dirt footpath. I have never mowed that area as it is Buloke Shire Council
responsibility. One therefore has to ask if the past years the Fire Prevention Noticed reflect your
opinion as legally required that I must maintain the naturestrip then it is obvious you never
did inspect the property for forming an opinion to justify the Fire Prevention Notice.
I can only assume that you sit in an office and just issue the Fire Prevention Notices without
bothering at all to do a proper inspection. And as such the claim by Buloke Shire Council that it
for many years issued a Fire Prevention Notice against me, and each included the naturestrip
proves that you simply blatantly disregarded your legal requirement and concocted a Fire
Prevention Notice to suit yourself. As any inspection would have shown to you that the
naturestrip always was maintained by Buloke Shire Council and as such never should have been
included and this besides the fact that legally it doesnt fall within the provision of s41 of the
Country Fire Authority Act 1958. How many other properties has this naturstrip included
when there was no footpath as such and so Buloke Shire Council maintained the dirt path (grass)
as being a footpath?
.

20

25

30

35

The notice to keep noxious up to 100mm also is an issue because what you are implying by this
is that it is alright for landholders to have noxious weed on their properties as long as during a
fire season it is maximum 100mm in height. In my view this contradicts other legal provisions
and as such the noxious weed bit should never be included in a Fire Prevention Notice.
Then again flowers are also combustible and without any definition is the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958 as to what combustible material is deemed to include/exclude this is
further a problem. It would be utter stupidity to argue that grass/weed can be a fire danger over
100mm but other plants that could be higher, in deed much higher, somehow is not.
The Country Fire Authority Act 1958 doesnt at all stipulate a maximum height of 100mm as
that is so to say your own concocted stipulation to which the legislation doesnt permit you to do
so. Counsel for Buloke Shire Council submitted from the bar table on 30 May 2016 that you
designed this exhibit but it shouldnt be taken as a legal requirement. Now, moment he filed the
exhibit about what is stated in the Fire Prevention Notice but it is not a legal matter? And yet it is
used in court to pursue the very text of it!
What an utter and sheer nonsense.
QUOTE 20161019-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to The Secretary Environment and Planning Committee-Supplement 2

We have the Exhibit 1 last page which showed:

Exhibit 1
40

QUOTE
Code A Cut all grass, noxious weeds and undergrowth on the whole of the block and naturestrip to the height of
not more than 100mm;
Cut and remove all vegetation from the fence line to the same height by brush cutter or similar means;
Remove all combustible material from land including branches and prunings.

45
p2
23-10-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Code B

Remove all combustible material from land including b ranches and prunings.

Code C

Cut and remove all vegetation from the fence line to a height of not more than 100 mm.

Code D

Create a 10 metre fire break around the perimeter of the property

Code E

10

Create a 10 Metre fire break around the perimeter of the property and a 20 metre firebreak around assets
such as sheds, dwellings etc.

Code F
Other requires description
END QUOTE
END QUOTE 20161019-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to The Secretary Environment and Planning Committee-Supplement 2

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Again, Code A included naturestrip this regardless if it is maintained by Buloke Shire Council
as a footpath and it is outside the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
Codes D& E requires a 10 metre fire break around the perimeter of the property. While you
may fancy yourself to be creative it is not something that is permissible by the Parliament as to
introduce your own creativity to terrorize landholders. What my neighbor does on his property is
none of my business as to interfere with his FEE SIMPLE rights, as much as he has no right to
interfere with my property without my consent.
Also, what Buloke Shire Council does or doesnt do as to maintain the grass area in front of my
property is not something I can interfere with. As such Codes D and E are in my view utter and
sheer nonsense and in my view underlines your lack of proper training to be a competent
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer, and so for years on end!
While you can refused to withdraw the Fire Prevention Notice and persist with your nonsense but
let it be clear that if you were to engage anyone to enter my property it would be trespassing and
you could be charged accordingly as the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958
cannot be relied upon if you fail the basic requirement to have a valid Fire Prevention Notice.
QUOTE 20160519-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Written submission ADDRESS TO
THE COURT-APPEAL-15-2502
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)
END QUOTE 20160519-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to County Court of Victoria-Re Written submission ADDRESS
TO THE COURT-APPEAL-15-2502

I did file my complaint against His Honour Carmody J for refusing to deal with legal
technicalities as after all a judge cannot enforce the law on legal technicalities while disregarding
the very basic legal technicalities. Where the Fire Prevention Notice was invalid then the Court
could not invoke jurisdiction and His Honour Carmody J was made well aware of this by my
written submission in my ADDRESS TO THE COURT but elected to ignore it all.
If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the
case must be dismissed. Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42. The Accuser
Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
p3
23-10-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

4
Lack of Federal Jurisdiction can not be waived or overcome by agreement of parties. Griffin v.
Matthews, 310 F supra 341, 342 (1969): and Want of Jurisdictionmay not be cured by consent
of parties. Industrial Addition Association v. C.I.R., 323 US 310, 313.
5

10

15

HALSBURYS LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460):

Consent to summary
jurisdiction. The consent to be tried summarily must be clear and unequivocal and a failure to
carry out the procedure for obtaining the consent will deprive the Court of Jurisdiction to
determine the matters summarily.
Bowers v Smith (1953) 1 ALL ER 320 (Re Clarke Hall) and (Morrison on Children, 7 Ed, P3)
QUOTE
"... the first business of the court is to try to issue whether or not the case is bought within the terms of the
statute, and only if this be proven by proper evidence can the court proceed to decide upon treatment"
END QUOTE

20

Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)
QUOTE CCH 92-217 page 78485 (1991)
The Court could not make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties
consent to it..
END QUOTE

25

QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed
and must be decided.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.
END QUOTE

30
QUOTE Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.
Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts
in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities.
END QUOTE

35
QUOTE Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27
Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its
proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. .
END QUOTE

40
QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,
Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
END QUOTE

45

There are ample in fact numerous other such Authorities and the fact that His Honour Carmody J
decided to proceed without invoking jurisdiction doesnt serve the general community and in fact
all His Honour Carmody J did was to sit as a private person and not as a judicial officer from that
moment. His orders are a nullity.
.

50

55

It is for this essential that when you do hold a Fire Prevention Notice is required to be issued you
do so in a manner within the ambit of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958. No one can
justifiably attack you for issuing a Fire Prevention Notice that is issued within the provisions of
the Country Fire Authority Act 1958. But the moment you disregard the narrow delegated
powers and do your own so to say artistic way as to fluff it up or whatever then you are the very
danger to the legislative provisions doing so because you then undermine the intent of the
Parliament.
.

p4
23-10-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

5
Do you really think every landowner is going to remove his motor vehicles of the land during the
fire season because it contains flammable liquid and it is combustible? Your obligations and
duties as a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer was to ensure that your Fire Prevention Notices are
clearly to understand what is required within the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act
1958 and it appears to me clear that years on end you blatantly disregarded this. You might call
yourself a Local Law Officer but in my view you better avoid deceiving/misleading citizens as to
your real competence/ability as I understand from locals that they are appalled to discover you
are not at all a lawyer and yet they perceived from your past conduct you were.
What a shoddy preparation was it with the lawyers to file an Brief that refers to a court date
more than 18 months prior to the Infringement Notice having been issued and including so called
evidence that doesnt relate to my property.
Below some issues I raised as a complaint against His Honour Carmody J
QUOTE 20160629-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Judicial Commission-COMPLAINT against His Honour Carmody J

Some of the issues but not in any of priority

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

-OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
-Fire Prevention Notice in violation to the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958
-Fire Prevention Notice contains demands exceeding delegated powers.
-Fire prevention Notice in valid in law
-Infringement Notice invalid in law based on invalid Fire prevention Notice.
-Summons invalid in law based on Invalid Infringement Notice.
-Summons invalidly issues as Infringement Noticed failed to have been withdrawn.
-Summons hearing in the wrong court venue
-Failure to serve full brief
-No evidence to prove jurisdiction.
-No evidence whatsoever to justify 20 August 2015 orders at St Arnaud venue
-No evidence to legally justify 17 September 2015 orders at St Arnaud venue
-Failing to file and serve Notice of Appearance regarding appeal
-Failing to file and serve for Leave to file and serve out of time Notice of Appearance
-Failure to provide 27 October 2015 requested brief
-Failing to comply with 30/10/2015 order to serve via Australia Post by 9/11/2015 full brief
-Failing to request leave to serve out of time full brief.
-Providing misleading Form 11 statement dated 25/11/2015 re 18/3/2013 alleged hearing
-Provide different Form 11 for 22/2/2016 hearing without full brief
-Failure by State Government to provide relevant FOI material requested 9/12/2015
-Counself for Buloke Shire council during cross examination of myself raised 2 correspondences which neither
one had been part of any purported brief and claimed those correspondences were forwarded to med. As such
Counsel essentially was giving evidence from the bar table. When I stated that I had been unaware of this 4
January 2015 correspondence Counsel then claimed that as result of my response email Buloke Shire Council
then had forwarded a subsequent correspondence. After the hearing I checked with my computer records and
discovered that at no time I have any records having respondent to the 4 January 2015 alleged Buloke Shire
Council correspondence. As such I view Counsel was misleading His Honour Carmody J by this also as to
purport/imply I had done so.
-His Honour Mullaly J failing to deal with Buloke Shire Council for breaching the 30 October 2015 order for
serving on or before 9 November via Australia Post the brief.
-His Honour Mullaly J failing to deal with Counsel appearing for Buloke Shire Council as to having mislead His
Honour that the brief was requested yesterday (29 October 2015) when in fact is was requested on
Tuesday 27 October 2015
-His Honour Mullaly J failing to deal with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and hence never invoked
jurisdiction.
-His Honour Carmody J on 17 May 2016 wrongly claiming that the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION that was
before the Magistrates Court of Victoria (in regard of the orders appealed against) cannot be part of the
hearing DE NOVO.
-His Honour Carmody J refusing to allow numerous photos (already part of record/file) to be filed this even so
this was to prove that the credibility of witness Mr Wayne Wall as an expert witness was clearly in question.
-His Honour Carmody J acting in a manner that both on 17 May 2016 as well as on 30 May 2016 appeared to
have taken over the role of Prosecutor, where His Honour Carmody J was arguing against my submissions
rather than to leave it for the Prosecutor to place his opposition before the court.
p5
23-10-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

-His Honour Carmody J arguing about the application of the word branches while disregarding from the same
Fire Prevention Notice the worded noxious weed and naturestrip as such appeared to be so to say cherry
picking, rather than to consider the entire Fire prevention Notice if it was or was not within the legal provisions
of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
-His Honour Carmody J making known that the photos I filed didnt have any picture of trees, bushes of 2014
but were of 2013 and 2015, even so the Prosecutor himself for Buloke Shire Council had during evidence in
chief of Mr Wayne Wall filed an aerial photo as an exhibit which showed that on the day of the alleged offence
the trees/bushes were shown on it also.
-His Honour Carmody J failing to consider that where Exhibit 1 filed by the prosecutor during evidence in chief
of Mr Wayne Wall being a document drafted by Mr Wayne Wall about the various codes that could be
applied and those codes were in violation of the legal provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958,
where in my filed material I had shown copies of Fire prevention Notices all showing the same unlawful
conditions as to noxious weed, naturestrip and all combustible material, and Mr Wayne Walls
evidence was that he issued about 500 Fire prevention Notices each year of which about 20 would be going to
the courts, than this is a serious matter where year after year about 20 landowners are wrongly subjected to
invalid Fire Prevention Notices and nevertheless caused by the courts to pay the unlawful fines.
-His Honour Carmody J failed to consider in the reason of judgment that both Mr Wayne Wall and Mr Groves
had perjured themselves to claim a particular photo was of my property where during cross-examination I
proved it not to be so and Mr Wayne Wall and later Mr Groves both admitted to this.
-His Honour Carmody J failing to set out in his reason of judgment that the conduct of the Prosecutor and so its
lawyers was unacceptable including to file a purported brief that included a photo that clearly was not part of
my property.
-His Honour Carmody J demanding I make an apology to Alison May because of a statement I had made in my
writings, this even so I had stated it seems to me and as such was no more but a statements as to my views
as how it appeared to me and without referring to any identity.
- His Honour Carmody J failed to Address/consider in the reason of judgment that Mr Wayne Wall evidence as to
Long dead grass over the whole property. Where the very exhibit filed by the prosecutor included the
driveway of some 100 metres long showing no long grass whatsoever, and other pictures showing no long
grass around the clothesline. And other than selective photos most of the property was not shown in in any
photos filed by the Prosecutor.
- His Honour Carmody J failed to consider in the reason of judgment that ES&a Associates as lawyers for Buloke
Shire Council had advised me to contact Mr Wayne Wall law enforcement officer as to matters regarding the
legal issues I had raised, this even so Mr Wayne Wall during my cross examination of him admitted he was not
a lawyer.
- His Honour Carmody J wrongly required me to give grounds as to my submission NO CASE TO ANSWER.
As His Honour Carmody J had the obligation as a judge to consider the charge based upon the Fire Prevention
Notice if therefore each and every part of the Fire Prevention Notice was within the confines of the Country
Fire Authority Act 1958, and where clearly the terms were in violation of the act then I view His Honour for
this also should have decided that there was indeed NO CASE TO ANSWER.
- His Honour Carmody J erred in law also when dismissing my submission on 17 May 2016 that the Prosecutor
had NO LEGAL STANDING, thi,s as where the Fire Prevention Notice was defective/invalid in law then all
proceedings flowing from it are a nullity.
- His Honour Carmody J failed to deal appropriately with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION eve n so my
written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT which His Honour Carmody J on 17 May 2016
claimed to have read (the file) nevertheless failed to formally hand down an order and reason of judgment as to
why His Honour Carmody J held he did or didnt have jurisdiction.
- His Honour Carmody J denied me my submission that I would first have Mr Groves giving evidence in chief
before I was to cross -examine Mr Wayne Wall on the evidence he had given in chief. As I stated I couldnt
reveal why I sought this kind of conduct because it would alert the prosecutor. As was shown afterwards that
Mr Groves when giving evidence in chief stating that he supported the evidence that was given by Mr Wayne
Wall, but then subsequently admitted that one photo in the purported brief was not of my property. What His
Honour Carmody J failed to do was to set out in his reason of judgment that Mr Groves clearly by stating that
he supported the evidence given by Mr Wayne Wall without knowing what Mr Wayne Wall actually had
stated in the witness box (including admitting that one phot was not of my property) then Mr Groves was
indicating to have conspired with Mr Wayne Wall to support his evidence no matter what.
- His Honour Carmody J failed to consider in the reason of judgment that it was totally unacceptable that a
purported brief included a photo not being of my property and yet the magistrates Court of Victoria at St
Arnaud may have issued its orders based upon those photos unaware it included a photo not being of my
property.
- His Honour Carmody J failed to set out in the reason of judgment that it was totally unacceptable that a
Prosecutor files exhibits or otherwise uses purported correspondences to which I as the accused was given no
advanced notification and so denied by this a FAIR and PROPER trail as it prevented me to prepare for this.
p6
23-10-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

- His Honour Carmody J wrongly held in the reason of judgment that His Honour Carmody J accepted the
evidence from Mr Wayne wall and Mr Groves because clearly they had given false evidence, which I exposed
during cross-examination such as about the photo. And it was Mr Wayne Wall who gave evidence during
cross-examination that he had provided the photos to the lawyers.
- His Honour Carmody J failed to reserve e judgment to consider all issues I had raised both in my written
submissions as well as orally.
- His Honour Carmody J erred in law to rely upon the Infringement Notice which was issued on the basis of the
defective/invalid Fire Prevention Notice where I had in my written submissions challenged the validity of the
purported Infringement Act 2006 as being unconstitutional.
- His Honour Carmody J erred in law to not consider my written submission challenging the courts impartiality,
where I had canvassed this extensively.
- His Honour Carmody J ERRED IN LAW nor to accept that Mens Rea was part of the case.
- His Honour Carmody J ERRED IN LAW not to consider that the Prosecutor had failed to overcome each and
every excuse I had proffered, such as that my vehicle was in repair and so I relied upon someone else, as the
prosecutor had the onus of criminal burden of proof whereas I had the onus of civil burden of proof. Meaning
that unless the Prosecutor could have defeated each and every element of my defence His Honour Carmody J
could not make a finding of GUILTY.
- His Honour Carmody J erred not to commence the hearing by stating which documents were on court file
before the trial judge/the Court. This as I was left unknown what documents were placed on the courts file that
had been transferred from the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud. For all I know there could have been
other documents/photos of different properties wrongly on file and I be left unaware upon which items His
Honour Carmody J was making his Honour Carmody Js decisions.
- His Honour Carmody J erred in law not to consider my submission to provide for exemplary damages.
- His Honour Carmody J failed to consider in the reason of judgment the issue I raised about the unconstitutional
rates(land taxation) where this clearly went to the very reason I couldnt have my vehicle repaired in time and
so had to rely upon another person to look after the property.
- His Honour Carmody J failed to consider in the reason of judgement that Buloke Shire Council was charging
me garbage charges which undermined my ability to have the vehicle repaired earlier, where I had raised this
as an issue where no garbage collection has taken place for years.
- His Honour Carmody J failed in the reason of judgment to set out the very purpose of the Country fire authority
act 1958 and how the evidence before the court showed/proved that Buloke Shire Council itself was or
appeared to be the worst offender by having for some 100 kilometres or more fire danger along Calder
Highway and such the Fire Prevention Notice issued against me was not dealing with the real purpose of the
Country fire Authority Act to make the shire a safe environment, in particularly not where the photos never
gave a clear picture of the alleged fire danger on my property where much was obscured by trees, bushes and
a lot of rusting steel which none of them as such could be consider in themselves being a fire danger.
- His Honour Carmody J failed to consider in the reason of judgment that the Infringement Notice relied upon
pursues a payment of a fine, itself unconstitutional as no court at the time had issued such an order, but also
make it payable to Buloke Shire Council rather than into Consolidated Revenue Funds as is constitutionally
required where a council acts under delegated powers of a State government, as to avoid any corruption of
monies concealed/withheld from consolidated Revenue Funds.
- His Honour Carmody J failed to set out that due to the constitutional issues I raised in my written submissions
ADDRESS TO THE COURT that the Court by this invoked federal jurisdiction.
- His Honour Carmody J erred to raise the issue why on earth Counsel for Buloke Shire Council filed as an
exhibit an aerial view of my property with alleged GPS markings where in fact none of the photos filed by the
Prosecutor showed any corresponding GPS markings. As a matter of fact His Honour Carmody J himself
commented during the trial that 2 photos showed the GPS was not working.
- His Honour Carmody J erred in law not consider the issue of my constitutional challenge regarding the validity
of the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975, as unless His Honour Carmody J had dismissed this it means
that my challenge was or must be perceived to have been upheld and by this any legislation enacted or
purportedly enacted within the terms of the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 cannot be deemed
valid unless it fell within the terms of the colonial constitution of Victoria but as amended by the provisions of
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
- His Honour Carmody J failed a proper set out in the reason of judgment as to show to the general community at
large that His Honour Carmody J had considered each relevant point raised and had determined upon these
issues why it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that a guilty finding was appropriate in the
circumstances.
- His Honour Carmody J that in the circumstances that no matter before him that justify any verdict of guilty
and so neither any 2 year probation.
- I was advised by court staff, when I asked for a power point for my laptop, there was no power point available
in level 8 court 4 at the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne and as such prevented me to be able to present
my case as I had desired because I discovered my laptop to be very low on battery power.
p7
23-10-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-Not even the printer in c ourt room 8.4 appeared to be working and surely gthe colurt should do some proper
housekeeping to ensure that proceedings are not undermined to prevent aspproperiate copies to be provided to
the parties where required.
- Such further issues raised in my written material.

The tort of false imprisonment has a long history and reflects the fundamental interest of the
common law in protecting individual liberty and freedom of movement (Ruddock v Taylor
(2005) 222 CLR 612 per Kirby J at [137]). For example, in one case, Fullagar J. stated:
The mere interference with the plaintiffs person and liberty constituted prima facie a
grave infringement of the most elementary and important of all common law rights.:
Trobridge v Hardy 1955 94 CLR 147 at 152.8 per Fullagar J.
In my view a 2 year probation is an interference to my liberty where it has been notified to
prisons, etc, and may also interfere with my ordinary movements.
END QUOTE 20160629-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Judicial Commission-COMPLAINT against His Honour Carmody J

What should be understood is that the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 is for a serious reason in
the format as is! People havelost their luives in fires, in particular bush fires, and parliament
specifically created a regime in the legislation to ensure that proper compliance is with this.
When a judge ignores to follow proper legal provisions then the general community is the loser.
When a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer act in violation of the legislative provisions than the
general community is the loser because then a person who may be responsible for fire danger
may get off because the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer did a shoddy job.
My obvious concern is that if this is a reflection of how you and the lawyers are dealing with
legal issues then many innocent people will have suffered unduly and for what? It certainly isnt
going to assist the general community let alone the fire danger against which the Country Fire
Authority Act 1958 is specifically designed to allow to be dealt with.
Your problem is that to withdraw the Fire Prevention Notice is or can be seen as an admission
you were wrong. Not to withdraw means the Fire Prevention Notice you issued has no legal
justification. You cannot amend an invalid Fire Prevention Noticed to purport to make it valid, as
it is in valid ab initio.
I do not fear the courts because I have been at the bar table as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and
Professional Advocate for decades and you have experienced what I do as to cross-examination.
As I indicated the purported Fire Prevention Noticed is and remains in valid and if you intent to
persist with it then likely there will be another legal battle and you might just then get a judge
who will not accept abuse of delegated powers and enforce the rule of law against you also.
You cannot exercise any powers to have a contractor entering my property where you fail to
follow proper legal procedures and requirements! If you were to engage any contractor and he
were to become injured then you may find you be personally liable because you are acting
outside the provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958, as well as faced charges for tress
passing, breaking and entry, etc.

45
p8
23-10-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

9
The Private Property signs are at various locations (such as above shown) on my property and
you better do not violate my rights!
5

10

Again, if you are really concerned about fire dangers then make sure you are acting within the
provisions of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958, and so not only to the issue of Fire
Prevention Notices but also as to public land under management of a department such as
VicRoads, Ministry of Housing as well as under management of Buloke Shire Council.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

END QUOTE 20161023-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Wayne Wall MFPO

15

20

25

It is my view that Parliament intended that a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer would actually
inspect properties and only issue a Fire Prevention Notice if in the opinion of the Municipal Fire
Prevention Officer such Fire Prevention Notice is warranted. It is my submission that the way Mr
Wayne Wall issued the Fire Prevention Notices he didnt inspect properties at all but merely sits
in his office issuing about 500 or so Fire Prevention Notices a year and then at the date of real
inspections issue Infringement notices.
It is my understanding this upset also a lot of land owners as they are at the receiving end of a
Fire Prevention Notice where they ignore them because to them it is nonsense and nothing
eventuates from it. Then it may eventuate one day that there is a real fire danger and then no
action might be taken because of the gross abuse and misuse of Fire Prevention Notices year in
and year out.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

30

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

p9
23-10-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati