Page 1

Coroner Sara Hinchey J 14-4-2017

Coroners Court of Victoria
5 65 Kavanagh Street, Southbank, VIC 3006
Phone: 1300 309 519 Calling from overseas: (+61 3) 8688 0700
Fax: 1300 546 989
General enquires (including submissions of all Forms): courtadmin@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au
Coronial Admissions and Enquires Office: cae@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au
10
Ref: 20170413-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supllement 2

Madam,
Further to my 13 February 2017 submission and Supplement 1 and Supplement 2 of 13-
15 4-2017 I hold it appropriate to provide this Supplement 3+COMPLAINT.
At times people do ask me why I included certain material in writings which may not be (to them
that is) relevant to the issue at hand but I spend decades at the court room bar table and so well
aware that suddenly something may come up unexpectedly and if you are not prepared for it then
20 this can undermine what you submitted. Even I prepare cases years before they actually
commence to exist.

When I posted my original submission on 13 February 2017 I did so on the internet with the
comment
25 QUOTE
Will the coroner burry certain details to protect the governments incompetence, I wonder?
The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/339180230/20170213-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-Re-
30 SUBMISSION-to-Coroner-Sara-Hinchey-J

END QUOTE

This is because I understand that the Government has access to the courts system and so to say if
35 the coroner makes a decision it can access that judgment and then altered before it is handed
down.
In 13-4-2017 Supplement 2 I did make clear:
QUOTE
40 Because the States were created within s106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) subject to this constitution and so all embedded legal principles also, the States
are confined within the scope of separation of powers.
END QUOTE

45 Anyone who bothered to read the 2-1-1901 Letters Patent granting Victoria the Office of the
Governor would be aware that this specifically requires the Governor to provide for an
impartial administration of justice.

Page 1 14-4-2017 COMPLAINT 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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 2
Yes, I am well aware people gout and kill one or more persons and while I deplore this I make it
clear that I UNDERSTAND that they at times do so. This because the legal system is far too
often operating corruptly or appears to me to do so.
This means when the police are chasing someone then the target of the police chase might not
5 trust the police nor the courts that may deal with matters. Dont blame the person chased but
rather the police and the courts that they may appear to act corruptly to certain people.
One case was where a man served reportedly 18 months already for a rape when his new lawyers
discovered the Public Prosecutor had concealed from the court evidence proving the person to be
innocent. Yet, the prosecutor was never to my knowledge charged let alone held legally
10 accountable.
And you wonder why so many people have lost faith in the legal system?

QUOTE 121009-Various submissions -Supplement 2-by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. -VCAT - LSC v HJJ
J1342011

15 (VCAT) Supplement 2
Your Honour,
I have been for long as a CONSTITUTIONALIST an outspoken critic as to the
diversion indeed hijacking of our judicial system and the business relationship between the
Department of Justice, the courts and even the Prostitution Control Commission.
20 .
Fancy that the Justice Department litigate against the Prostitution Control Commission before
any court of or tribunal where all three are part of the same Australian Business Number (ABN)
entity!
.
25 Judges and indeed any lawyer admitted to the bar as a legal practitioner should hang their heads
in shame if they cooperate in this kind of hijacking of our legal system in particular with VCAT.
It is in my submission a dishonourable conduct no decent Australian would want to participate
in.
30 But, let not just me say this. Let see what a retiring judge has to say about this, albeit having
been kept silent until he is about to retire.
.

From The Age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html

35 QUOTE

The corporatising of our courts

Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria

March 24, 2005

In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous erosion of the
40 court's independence.

For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but exciting and
rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for much of that time I have had to
bite my tongue.

Page 2 14-4-2017 COMPLAINT 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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 3
I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on the bench, and
especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change emerge in the perception of this
court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I want to speak briefly of that now because I have
been unable to say much about it until now and when my resignation becomes effective, I fear that nobody
5 will listen.

As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system, particularly
the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what they can and
cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians, but while I have
been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's independence.

10 One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the decision on
remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the very purpose of freeing both
Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the decision-making process over judicial salaries and
so ensuring the independence of which I am speaking.

Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive officer
15 be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be ultimately
answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.

That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming
absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a
movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.

20 This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established as a court of
plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals, this court is the third
arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and the executive. Its role, inter alia, is to control
and to limit those other arms according to law and to that end to stand between those other arms and the
citizen. Hence the emphasis on the court's independence, especially from the executive.

25 Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe - as
"Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which indiscriminately includes
all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.

This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are prescribed
by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the department at its
30 discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in this court, apparently in
disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of court.

And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the
department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily avail
themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But access is
35 possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is the major
litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.

Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision directly, otherwise
than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more insidious. What is evolving is a
perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary within the Department of Justice, a perception
40 which is inconsistent with this court's fundamental role and underlying independence.

Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court structure and
its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by some in authority as no different
from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is simply not
the case; yet the distinction between a court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over the years, and it
45 must be restored if the proper constitutional position is not 2to be subverted.

The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen to be,
impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed once and for all, and
ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including any other arm of government.
Page 3 14-4-2017 COMPLAINT 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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 4
Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration tribunal. In contrast to a court, a tribunal, properly
so called, exercises administrative functions but not judicial power, and many things flow from that. Such a
tribunal may be an arm of the executive; its members may be appointed for fixed terms, with the possibility
of renewal at the discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see that their remuneration is
5 fixed independently of the executive.

You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred. While the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists mainly of members
appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the executive - and hence my alarm when,
in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was given some judicial power to exercise, for the latter is
10 altogether inconsistent with such a form of tenure.

There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is exercising judicial
power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional acting appointment to this court for
a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to institutionalise such temporary appointments at the
discretion of the executive. Judges of a court properly so called must have security of tenure or, in a relatively
15 small community like this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts have been remarkably free
from any taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be, and be seen to be, impartial and
so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to conflict or the appearance of bias.

In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals pass
like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness but in
20 one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is demanded
of the appointee.

John D. Phillips is retiring as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. This is part of his farewell address to
the court.

END QUOTE
25
Constitutionally there is a division between the Judiciary and the legislators and executives. No
Attorney-General has the constitutional powers to interfere with the judiciary but nevertheless
the former Attorney-General Robert Hulls and the Police Minister at the time signed a charge
with TENIX SOLUTIONS MIE Pty Ltd that it now can actually access court computers and use
30 them to issue Magistrate Court of Victoria court orders as well as warrants, all without any open
court hearing. As such the corruption into the judicial system is rife, because the government
bodies allow a private corporation to not just access court files but to even issue (albeit
unconstitutionally) court orders and warrants.
.
35 How does the accused Mr Harold James Johnson know if the LSC (Legal Services
Commissioner) actually script the reason and judgment and the orders for VCAT (such as
Smithers J) where they as is now revealed clearly access to the computers used both by the
Courts and VCAT?
.
40 Was this also why His Honour Gardiner simply disregarded the serious b reach of legal
procedures for VCAT to disregard proper legal procedures as it may be that on his computer
screen he may simply have been shown DISMISS the s108 review objection at all cost!.
It is not for Mr Harold James Johnson to prove this eventuated as the evidence is existing that a
45 sitting judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria has exposed the fraud that is going on that the
Department of Justice has access to the courts computers, and as such the integrity of the court as
well as that of VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) can be breached.
.
His Honour refers to being the third arm of Government, rather than the 3rd arm of the
50 sovereign State. No judiciary can be part of the Government because this infringes upon the
independence of the judiciary.
.
Page 4 14-4-2017 COMPLAINT 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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 5
In my submission VCAT has lost any credibility because it clearly is part of a Government
Department. Indeed, in 2011 the High Court of Australia had it listed as a State court but this
was removed after I formally objected to the High Court of Australia!
5 When the British Parliament were dealing with creating a High Court the legislators very much
were dealing with the issue that this then newly to be formed court had to be and be seen
INDEPENDENT and other than for its financial resources could not be under any Government
control.
.
10 We now have that I appeared before His Honour Gardiner J being also VCAT President and I
have no clue if during the hearing the instructing solicitor of the LSC (Legal Services
Commissioner) may have been texting onto the computer screen of His Honour to dismiss the
s108 review. Neither would I have been able to ascertain of the same was happening with His
Honour Smithers as a member of VCAT being a Senior member simply getting his instructions
15 via text messages (SMS) on his computer screen.
It is not relevant if this actually may have eventuated as what is relevant is that the credibility of
the judiciary has been placed in question and therefore no one in his/her right mind can rely upon
FAIR and PROPER hearings and on DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
.
20 How would Mr Harold James Johnson know if the LSC is not checking what progressively is on
the computer of any judicial officer so it can then amend its litigation to overcome any possible
issues that a judicial officer may raise on his computer hard drive?
.
By the revelation of His Honour John D. Phillips it is clear to me that in an effect I was wasting
25 my tiome to even address His Honour Smithers and His Honour Gardiner J because both may
likely have gotten their instructions to at all cost railroad the case about the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and for this disregarded DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
No orders/judgment of any court/tribunal can stand in light of this confirmation, as I all along
suspected and while much may be argued about Mr Harold James Johnson comments about the
30 judiciary and lawyers involved, it appears to me that if there is any opportunity, regardless if this
is taken up, for any Government department to access court files, as I already exposed about the
purported Infringement Court being accessed by a private company purporting to issue
Magistrates Court of Victoria computers to issue court orders/warrants, then rather than to
portray Mr Harold James Johnson as some villain he is the hero to put himself in line as a target
35 by those who may be crooks in the legal profession.
END QUOTE 121009-Various submissions -Supplement 2-by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. -VCAT - LSC v
HJJ J1342011

What has got this to do with the coroners court you may ask? Well let me explain!
40
QUOTE 13-4-2017 EMAIL TO THE CORONERS COURT WITH ATTACHMENT 20170413-G. H. Schorel-
Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supplement 2
see attachment 20170413-G. H. Schorel-
Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner
45 Sara Hinchey J-Supplement 2
From Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
To courtadmin@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au, cae@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au
Cc Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Reply-To Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Date Thu 12:18

Page 5 14-4-2017 COMPLAINT 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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 6
20170413-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-
Supplement 2.pdf

Coroner Sara Hinchey J 13-4-2017

Coroners Court of Victoria

5 65 Kavanagh Street, Southbank, VIC 3006

Phone: 1300 309 519 Calling from overseas: (+61 3) 8688 0700
Fax: 1300 546 989

General enquires (including submissions of all Forms): courtadmin@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au

Coronial Admissions and Enquires Office: cae@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au

10
Ref: 20170413-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supllement 2

Madam,
see attachment 20170413-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-
Supplement 2

15 --
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
107 Graham Road
Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia
20
Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI books on certain constitutional and other legal issues.

THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE DISABLED
END QUOTE 13-4-2017 EMAIL TO THE CORONERS COURT WITH ATTACHMENT 20170413-G. H.
25 Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supplement 2
It must be clear from this that the mail was forwarded to: courtadmin@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au,
cae@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au

30 The reply I received:

QUOTE
Re: see attachment 20170413-G. H.
Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to
Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supplement 2
From Agents.DOJ@justice.vic.gov.au
To Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Date Thu 12:19
Priority Normal

35
Thank you for your email.

Your email has been logged and we will attend to your request as soon as
possible.
40 Your patience is greatly appreciated.

Page 6 14-4-2017 COMPLAINT 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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 7
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
The content of this e-mail and any attachments may be private and confidential,
intended only for use of the individual or entity named. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message you must not read, forward, print, copy, disclose, use or
5 store in any way the information this e-mail or any attachment contains.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete
or destroy all copies of this e-mail and any attachments.
Our organisation respects the privacy of individuals. For a copy of our privacy policy
please go to our website or contact us.
10 END QUOTE
If I am not in error then the email address showing Agents.DOJ@justice.vic.gov.au where doj
stands for the Department of Justice. On this basis it appears that the government is so to say
vetting submissions that are submitted to the coroner and so can interfere with any submissions
15 and even conceal them from the coroner. As such my concern about the coroners inquiry
possibly trying to get the government of the hook seems to be a real possibility. After all you can
have the Coroners Department where the coroner is no more but so to say a stooge for the
government to get it of the hook of any wrong doing, but when one refers to Coroners Court
then this is in the publics understanding it operates as a court and not as a Government
20 Department.
What we now appear, at least to me, to have is that as His Honour Phillips explained the courts
are part of the Department of Justice (I view unconstitutionally considering the States are
created within s106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) subject to
25 this constitution and hence must comply with the legal principles embedded in the constitution
such as separation of powers, meaning no ABN sharing with the Department of Justice, no
access by the government into court computers, etc. As I pointed out in other issues the
Government allowing a private corporation to use letterheads of the Victorian Police, the
Sherriffs Office and even the Courts as to pretend they are court orders(such as eventuate with
30 the purported Infringement Court) underlines I view how the courts have corrupted themselves.
Now lets us be clear about it the inquiry into Bourke Street carnage must be above any suspicion
that it is not tainted by the government in anyway interfering with any submissions. The
government should be well clear of what goes on in the coroners court and certainly should have
absolutely no access to any submissions that are submitted to the coroners court unless the
35 coroner herself authorise the submissions to become public and/or the person/organisation/
department itself provide alternative access.
.
Lets have another look at the responding email address Agents.DOJ@justice.vic.gov.au!
This appears to be indicating that the Government outsourced matters to a third party, albeit
40 unknown who they are, as it refers to agents for the Department of Justice. As such I view it is
highly inappropriate and indeed unconstitutional to have some strange, better to say some
unknown stranger(s) accessing my submission and possibly interfering with it before it is, if at
all, passed on to the coroner.
45 I invite you to point out where in the email I addressed the email to the Department of Justice
and/or its agents? How can any accused subject to a coroners inquest be assured of a fair
and proper hearing when the coroner allows other unknown persons to access submissions
and perhaps conceal them from the coroner?
As I indicated Premier Daniel Andrews I view cannot be trusted as a credible witness
50 considering how he grossly misled the electorate (as set out previously) and so why on earth
would anyone want to trust any of his Departments to not unduly interfere with submissions?
Also, there might be persons who may desire to make CONFIDENTIAL submissions, being it
as a whistle-blower or otherwise. Now the government has the ability to get in their hands the
55 identity and the precise details stated by such person in any CONFIDENTIAL submission.
.
Page 7 14-4-2017 COMPLAINT 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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
 Page 8
I can only conclude that the coroners court is made a farce to suit the Government of the Day
and a dangerous totally unacceptable interference with the courts processes.
I submit that in my view you ought to disqualify yourself from the inquest and any other
inquest subjected to similar conduct complained about and the Coroners Court must be
5 drastically revised in its operations to ensure that those who make submissions
(CONFIDENTIALLY or otherwise) will not have outsiders and in particularly the government
of the Day accessing and/or interfering with it.
Obviously one has to ask how many previous inquest have been tainted by the governments
inappropriate access to submissions? How often did the Governments agents conceal
10 submissions to the coroner I wonder!
The issue is not that I didnt stipulate my submission or any of its supplements as being IN
CONFIDENCE that is irrelevant to the issue at hand, as what is relevant is that agents of the
Department of Justice automatically seems to be provided with the submissions and so prevent
the coroner in her duties to even decide if a submission is made IN CONFIDENCE if then this
15 submission is or is not to be accepted as such. Hence, it is in my view the Government which
dictates what the coroner can or cannot do. I view this is a very serious matter and at the very
least I you cannot be trusted upon exercising your judicial role according to your oath of office
when allowing some unnamed agent of the Department of Justice (If it is not that the
Department of Justice is acting as agents for the Coroners Court, as that would also be a
20 violation of separation of powers) to access submissions without the consent of those making the
submissions and may be in violation of their IN CONFIDCENCE submission.
This is why I can UNDERSTAND why people lose faith in the justice system and well then act
upon the spur of the moment as they do, no matter how deplorable. I trust you will disqualify
yourself as a coroner and pursue that this kind of unconstitutional/unlawful interference is
25 stopped! If you want to be some puppet for the Government then I view you can always apply for
a job in the public service but when you have made an oath of office I view there can be no
excuse not to honour it.

In case this Supplement 2 +COMPLAINT is kept from you I will publish it also on the internet
30 as well as notify the media, to ensure it is not concealed from the public.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

35 (Our name is our motto!)

Page 8 14-4-2017 COMPLAINT 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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com