Chapter 000X Page 1

ccampbelljam@heraldsun.com.au

James Campbell,
Regarding your article in the Sunday Herald sun 23 may 2010 page 91 under the heading “Lower
shield for pint-size criminals” I will provide the following comments:
.
I am not a lawyer but a constitutionalist, advocate, counselor, and also author of books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues and as such over
the decades have been assisting many parties in the courts.
My view is that the prosecutor is not there to have someone convicted at all cost but to present
before the courts its case disclosing all relevant details, including those against his case, as to ensure
that the Court can provide JUSTICE!
.
Justice is where a court (or Tribunal) hands down a decision upon the case before it after
appropriate consideration of all relevant facts, irrespective if this includes a conviction or not.
.
The courts function is not to convict an accused at all as a conviction can only be the end result
where JUSTICE demands this.
.
The courts must exercise its judgment fairly and appropriately and as such may apply
NULLIFICATION even so it may have that an accused committed an offence but holds that it is
against the interest of the general community to convict.
.
For example, if you go to your neighbor’s house and willfully without reasonable excuse smash
their window you may end up scoring a conviction but if you do so because you see smoke coming
from the property and act in good conscious to seek to rescue your neighbour, irrespective if the
smoke was of an actual fire or merely happen to be a long forgotten dish in the over, then you
actions were for the public good to seek to rescue your neighbour and hence not intended as a
malicious conduct.
.
The Framers of the Constitution (which within s.106 created the States out of the colonies) made
clear that NULLIFICATION was a legally embedded principle in the constitution. Yet, you find
the courts generally seek to prohibit juries to consider this!
.
Anyhow, ultimately the courts must always consider the good of the general public. After all law
enforcement is not for the sake of one person but society demands certain rules to be applied and as
such law enforcement must always be for the good of the general public.
.
I have grave concerns about disclosure of details of people who have been held in breach of law
where such breaches were of a conduct that really are not that relevant to the general public as such
to demand identity disclosure.
.
For example, if a person demonstrating against certain government action is charged with offences
but they are really not of any serious crime but say more like a sit in protest then the courts should
not publicize the identities. As such neither about mere parking fines, etc.
However where a conviction relates to a serious criminal offence then I view it should be publicized
and the age of the offender should not make any difference because it serves the general community
to be aware of the identity of the offender.

Chapter 000X Page 1

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 INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 Chapter 000X Page 2

.
If a child is involved in a serious crime like murder or armed hold up then I view the right of the
public to know the identity of that person , once convicted, should be paramount to secure the safety
of the general community.
.
We find however that there is an idioticy in publication.
Earlier this year the Victorian government solicitors Office warned me to remove publications
about a case before VCAT as it was held to be unlawful, etc. I not only refused to withdraw the
content but in fact kept publishing more and more as time went by.

On 29 March 2010 it came to a climax where the VCAT Senior member Ms Preuss then made clear
to me it was in breach of s.37 of the VCAT act and I made clear that I did no such thing and was
lawfully publishing details.
Ms Preuss then made clear that she had three lawyers on stand by to take over the case from me in
which I was representing Mr Francis James Colosimo and I made clear non of them would have the
knowledge and capacity to represent Mr Colosimo as I did and that the entire hearings were an
abuse of legal processes, etc. As I made clear VCAT had itself for years published details about Mr
Colosimo and indeed slanderous allegations and I was entitled to put it to the general public that Mr
Colosimo was innocent of any legal wrongdoing and yet was subjected to at least 16 hearing,
including 6 CONTEMPT hearings even so he had never even been formally charged and that the
shire council itself had acknowledged that the “shed” (yes that was the issue) was lawfully erected.
I submitted she should disqualify herself within s.1908 of the vcaata1998428 act and Ms Preuss
ruled that she could no longer make any decisions unless and until the reconstitution of the tribunal
was dealt with but adjourned matters until after lunch.
After lunch some matters were still being dealt with and suddenly Ms Preuss announced that she
would set aside the Administration orders over Mr Colosimo and the case was at an end.
.
Yes, while she had earlier announced she had no further legal powers to issue orders she suddenly
nevertheless upheld the review.
.
What we had however was that while Mr Colosimo (long before I became involved in the case)
repeatedly had opposed VCAT jurisdiction and claimed his constitutional rights but more then 20
lawyers involved (including the Office of the Public Advocate and Victorian Legal Aid urging Mr
Colosimo to purge his CONTEMPT (Mind you again Mr Colosimo was never formally charged by
her Honour Harbison J during any of the 6 CONTEMPT hearings) but since I was requested to take
over the case as his advocate where previous a barrister and law professor at University had
admitted on Mr Colosimo’s behalf that he was in breach of order, I not only got rid of the
CONTEMPT case but also of the Administration orders. And for the record I did serve as an
advocate for Mr Colosimo FREE OF CHARGE because I pursue JUSTICE.
.
What we see however is that a man who lawfully erected a “shed” is subjected to not only 16
hearings at great cost to the community but vilified by the VCAT judgments and has basically his
life tormented by this all making him unable to work while on the other hand VCAT tried to use
VGSO to prevent me to publish the TRUTH!
.
What is clear is that for the public record VCAT still maintains its incorrect adverse findings against
a innocent man on Internet available where as a under aged offender who could have been
convicted of serious crimes including murder can be shielded from having his identity published.
.

Chapter 000X Page 2

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 INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 Chapter 000X Page 3

In my view, the laws about publication is clearly not for the public interest because as shown with
Mr Colosimo it was sought to be used maliciously against Mr Colosimo but because as a publisher I
know my rights VCAT couldn’t prevent me to publish.
.
In another case that was at the time (2003) before the Family Court of Australia a father was
imprisoned for “kidnapping” his son. I then published a book and included in this the telephone
recording where the son had been recorded to call his father that he had escaped through the
bathroom window while his mother stood guard at the door of the toilet and he was hiding in bushes
and wanted his father to collect him. As such, hardly a kidnapping. The mother’s lawyers happen to
summons me to be a witness and I filed a copy of my book with the recording as evidence and the
father was released from prison. Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 does not apply to me as a
publisher of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series about constitutional and other legal
issues!
.
As such I can publish details you may not be able to publish in your article.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I happen to be more aware of my rights then most Australians may
be and this is why I can succeed in cases where lawyers before me failed. Again, I do it FREE OF
CHARGE as, so to say, I just get a kick out of it to obtain JUSTICE!
.
We have this so to say corrupt legal system where people are issued with fines and then the courts
endorse this no matter how deceptive the prosecutor might be and this even so the constitution
guarantees all of us that we cannot be convicted but by due consideration of our side of the story, as
such some kind of automatic infringement court decision is unconstitutional. But that is another
long story I will not now go into.
.
The publication system we now seem to have is that no matter how innocent a person can be of
minor traffic infringements it will be all published, and bad luck if later you are found to be
innocent, and as such can have a very bad reputation in the process even so having done no legal
wrong (consider someone incurring numerous traffic infringement while driving the vehicle of a
dead person where the infringements are recorded against the dead person and as such stain his
name even in death) while a killer or armed hold-up conviction is not published because of the
person might have been just under the age of 18 when committing the offences no matter how
gruesome it was.
.
If sentences are applied for the good of the community and to be a warning to other offenders then
how can this be a deterrent to other under aged offenders when it is all done in secrecy”
.
Convictions are for one purpose only and that is to serve the general community as to hold those
accountable which breach the rules of society and who need to be punished as to learn the legal
consequences of offending and also as to be a deterrent to others to do the same.
The secrecy of identities of young offenders in my view cannot be justified where it relates to
serious crimes. The secrecy of convictions in regard of minor issues should in general be withheld
from publication unless a judge specifically order it to be published as to ensure it is known. As a
repeat offender otherwise may go about unrecognized, etc.
.
When I was convicted in 2005 of FAILING TO VOTE in federal elections I appealed successfully
as constitutionally no one can be compelled to vote! But you find that this was not published by the
court at all and was it not that I published the court decision no one would know better off it and
indeed we have here a denial of publication as to seek to prevent other electors to legitimately

Chapter 000X Page 3

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 INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 Chapter 000X Page 4

refuse to vote! As such what we have is selective publication against the interest of the general
community. Now we still have hundreds of thousands of people getting convicted for FAILING
TO VOTE because they are unaware that constitutionally they have a right to refuse to vote as that
is embedded in the constitution!
.
Gerrit
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
.
23-5-2010

Chapter 000X Page 4

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 INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com