1

Chief Justice The Honourable Susan Mary Kiefel 16-10-2020

High Court of Australia
5 enquiries@hcourt.gov.au

20201016-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to The Honourable Kiefel Chief Justice of the High Court of

Australia-COMPLAINT supplement 3
10 Madam,
In times of EMERGENCY / DISASTER one would expect that the High Court of
Australia would be competent enough to have emergency / disaster rules of the Court in place, so
that citizens still can access the court system. It appears however to me that the High Court of
Australia under your leader, and likely before others, simply is grossly incompetent to have such
15 EMERGENCY / DISASTER Rules of the Court to be activated.
.
I recall that in 2001 challenged the validity of the “writs” (as such not the election itself) but I
was advised having to go to the Federal Court, this even so within Section75 of the constitution
this was a “legal” issue nothing to do with the election itself. After all, where the writs were
20 invalid then there could be no election. I however discovered that the Federal Court of Australia
had no form and so the Registrar directed me at the time to create my own form, which I did. I
proved that the writs were invalid. As such, so there never was a valid federal election either.
One cannot contest an election that legally never existed. As I proved on appeal also was that the
writs were issued PRIOR to the Proclamation having been published in the Gazette. As while
25 the Gazette was dated 8 October 2001, the records of the Government Printer proved they were
not issued until some on 9 October 2001 and others on 10 October 2001. Hence, the High Court
of Australia at the time so to say railroaded my legal challenge against the validity of the writ’s
which I view showed that the High Court of Australia so to say was serving its political masters
claiming to be the 3rd arm of Government instead of being the 3rd part of the Constitution. Again,
30 an election can only be held if “valid” writs are issued. Where the writs were invalid then there
never was a valid election either.
After many years of representing myself in the end on 19 July 2006 I defeated the
Commonwealth in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka and so all other Attorney-Generals with not a single
Attorney-General having challenged the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS either.
35 We now have a real disaster at our hand’s, being one where I view the gross incompetence of the
High Court of Australia once again is showing its ugly head. This where Registrar Ben Wickham
refuses to accept that due to the Victorian restrictions at hand the High Court of Australia ought
to invoke EMERGENCY / DISASTER Rules of the Court.
A friend of mine drew my attention to the following:
40 My 87 year wife (suffering of heart failure) is wondering does she like residents in nursing
homes first have to die, so a funeral parlor can give her a haircut, now prevented to her and
others like her to have at a hairdresser?

QUOTE Email 16-10-2020

p1 16-10-2020 © 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
 2

PRIVATE PROSECUTION

The right of a private individual to institute a prosecution for a breach of the Law has been said to be

“A valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of authority" – Lord Wilberforce

Courier v. Union & Post Office Workers (1978) AC435 AT 477

"a useful constitutional safeguard against capricious, corrupt or biased failure or refusal of [the] authorities to prosecute offenders
against the criminal law". - Lord Diplock

As recently as 2006, Lord Mance stated that the right is "a safeguard against wrongful refusal or failure by prosecuting authorities
to institute proceedings".

CRIMES ACT 1914 - Section 43 (Commonwealth)

43 Attempting to pervert justice

1. Any person who attempts, in any way not specially defined in this Act, to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat, the
course of justice in relation to the judicial power of the Commonwealth, shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

CRIMES ACT 1914 - Section 44 (Commonwealth)

44 Compounding offences

Any person who asks receives or obtains, or agrees to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself or
herself, or any other person, upon any agreement or understanding that he or she will compound or conceal any indictable
offence against the law of the Commonwealth or a Territory, or will abstain from, discontinue, or delay any prosecution for any
such offence, or will withhold any evidence thereof, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

R v Rogerson [1992] HCA 25; (1992) 174 CLR 268; (1992) 60 A Crim R 429 (17 June
1992)
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE QUEEN v. ROGERSON [1992] HCA 25; (1992) 174 CLR 268
F.C. 92/021
[1992] HCA 25; (1992) 60 A Crim R 429

Criminal Law

High Court of Australia

Mason C.J.(1), Brennan(2), Deane(3), Toohey(2) and McHugh(4) JJ.

BRENNAN AND TOOHEY JJ. McHugh J. has recited the relevant facts giving rise to this

p2 16-10-2020 © 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
 3
appeal. The principles which, in our opinion, apply to those facts are as follows:

3. Justice, as the law understands it, consists in the enjoyment of rights and the suffering of
liabilities by persons who are subject to the law to an extent and in a manner which accords
with the law applicable to the actual circumstances of the case. The course of justice consists
in the due exercise by a court or competent judicial authority of its jurisdiction to enforce,
adjust or declare the rights and liabilities of persons subject to the law in accordance with the
law and the actual circumstances of the case (19) Reg. v. Todd (1957) SASR, at p 328. The
course of justice is perverted (or obstructed) by impairing (or preventing the exercise
of) the capacity of a court or competent judicial authority to do justice. The ways in
which a court or competent judicial authority may be impaired in (or prevented from
exercising) its capacity to do justice are various. Those ways comprehend, in our opinion,
erosion of the integrity of the court or competent judicial authority, hindering of access to it,
deflecting applications that would be made to it, denying it knowledge of the relevant law
or of the true circumstances of the case, and impeding the free exercise of its jurisdiction
and powers including the powers of executing its decisions. An act which has a tendency to
effect any such impairment is the actus reus of an attempt to pervert the course of
justice (20) It seems that the act, though otherwise lawful, may be unlawful by reason of the
intent to pervert the course of justice: Reg. v. Kellett (1976) QB 372, at p 391. An act which
effects any such impairment is the actus reus of a perversion of the course of justice. An
agreement that an act be done which has such an effect and which is not otherwise justified in
law is the actus reus of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Each of these offences
requires a specific intent. In the case of an attempt to pervert the course of justice, and in the
case of perverting the course of justice, the intent which must accompany the relevant actus
reus is that the course of justice should be perverted in one of the ways mentioned. To define
the intent required in a case of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, the law of
conspiracy must be examined.

I would be interested in your thoughts and input as to my attached letters, of course any further additions
you feel are needed, and what else we may be able to do to assist in any way.

Your not always alone and your hard work is very much appreciated.

END QUOTE Email16-10-2020

5
As I indicated, way back in 2001 as I view it railroaded my legitimate Section 75 of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), and it appears to me that the High
Court of Australia continues to do so. In my view as an Officer of the Court you ought to charge
Registrar Ben Wickham and immediately provide the EX PARTE INTIME ORDERS sought.
10
Can you as Chief Justice show some real and appropriate judicial leadership?

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)

15 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)

p3 16-10-2020 © 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