20240523-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Barrister Jerry Prus - Bevan-Rhys

Page 1
1
2
3 Barrister Mr Jerry Prus 23-5-2024
4 Suite 2, 164 Burgundy Street
5 PO Box 486, Heidelberg Vic 3084
6 Tel: 9458 3711, Fax: 9455 1318
7 Re Nick Patterson case
8 Sir,
9 I understand you represent Mr Nick Patterson and perhaps the following may assist your
10 client. It is my understanding that Mr Nick Patterson isn’t just about defeating the Victorian
11 Police but to pursue that the rights of Victorians (Australians) are respected.
12
13 The issue at hand was the Victorian Government using MANDATES as to effectively rob
14 Victorians and others of their constitutional, legal, human, natural and common law rights.
15
16 The Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act 1900 (UK) (within which in Section 106
17 the States were created “subject to this constitution”) has in it embedded legal principles such
18 as:
19
20 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
21 Australasian Convention)
22 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
23 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
24 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
25 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
26 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
27 embrace and unite.
28 END QUOTE
29 And
30 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
33 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
34 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
35 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
36 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
37 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
38 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 The (federal) constitution provided for certain listed powers for the Commonwealth, and others
42 for the States. As upon federation on 1 January 1901 no Federal Parliament existed the Framers
43 of the Constitution made clear that the newly created States would be able to exercise
44 “concurrent” legislative powers regarding any and all legislative powers of the Commonwealth
23-5-2024 Page 1 © Mr 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, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 as listed in Section 51 of the constitution until the Commonwealth commenced to legislate upon
2 a certain subject matter, as then the States had to retire from this.
3
4 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
5 QUOTE
6 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
7 Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
8 END QUOTE
9
11 QUOTE
12 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the
13 states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
14 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
15 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws
16 will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of
17 making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
18 END QUOTE
19
21 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
22 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
23 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
24 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the
25 meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 This is very relevant as to the MANDATES of the State of Victoria because:
29
31 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
32 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
33 clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
34 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 You will find that the High Court of Australia concealed this from its Palmer v WA judgment!
38
39 The Commonwealth enacted the Quarantine Act 1908 and from that moment the States lost their
40 “concurrent” legislative powers as to all and any “man-kind” infectious diseases. However, at
41 the time the High Court of Australia in The Municipal of Sydney v Commonwealth 1904 had
42 ruled that Hansard transcripts of the Constitutional Conventions were not permitted to be use in
43 the court, this even so the Framers of the Constitution had stated;
44
46 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
47 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the
48 observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of
49 misconception.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 It may be noted that the High Court of Australia in the Income Tax case did actually hand down
53 a judgment that once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to Income Tax then the
54 states no longer could do so. And in the Albert Langer case the High Court of Australia seemed
Page 3
1 to find some “rights” even so as shown above the Framers of the Constitution already had
2 embedded the legal principle of “political liberty” and “religious liberty”
3 Because the High Court of Australia for about 7 decades denied the Hansard transcripts to be
4 used numerous decisions went haywire. When the High Court of Australia after about 7 decades
5 then itself permitted the Hansard transcripts to be used it hardly could alter the true meaning and
6 application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
7
9 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
10 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
11 understand.
12 END QUOTE
13 .
15 QUOTE
16 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee
17 will not fail to exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not
18 understand, and that they will put in words which can be understood by persons commonly
19 acquainted with the English language.
20 END QUOTE
21
23 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
24 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Considering the “man-kind” exclusive Commonwealth legislative powers since the Quarantine
28 Act 1908 (Cth) was enacted which was later replaced with the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) then
29 constitutionally the States/Territories had no longer (since 1908) any “concurrent” legislative
30 powers regarding “man-kind” infectious diseases. This means that the States since 1908 no
31 longer could legislate as to MANDATES regarding “infectious disease! Hence, the States lacked
32 legislative, executive and administrative powers to issue/enforce any MANDATES regarding
33 any “man-kind” infectious disease. Actually, this also applies to measles, polio, etc.
34 It is my understanding that Mr Nick Patterson doesn’t just want to case to end as after all he
35 opposed the withdrawal of the case, but seek to secure also the police never again terrorize
36 Victorians in how it did. On 8 April 2020 I filed a complaint with the Victorian Ombudsman,
37 and on 13 April 2020 with the Victorian Human Rights Commission that the State no longer
38 had legislative, executive and administrative powers regarding “mankind” infectious diseases,
39 and subsequently also to the than Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andrews, then PM Scott
40 Morrison, and IBAC, but while the latter claimed on 19 April 2020 it was not of “public
41 interest” , the issue is that they all were alerted by me that the States lacked any legislative,
42 executive and administrative powers.
43
44 This year I was made aware that my son Mark (41) has been given a time line of 2 months to 2
45 years to live. As it appears the 2 Pfizer jabs may have caused him to end up with turbo cancer, he
46 was forced by Holden to take to keep employment, only shortly thereafter Holden decided to
47 reduce staff and my son then lost his job anyhow.
48
49 On 19 July 2006 I (representing myself) comprehensively defeated the Australian Electoral
50 Commission in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka on constitutional ground, with all 9 Attorney Generals
51 having also been served with the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER! None of
52 them and neither the Commonwealth challenged any of my mainly constitutional based
53 decisions.
Page 4
1 It seems to me that your client Mr Nick Patterson may likely wish to consider my writings
2 above so that he may desire to pursue the fact that not just the police conduct was unlawful but
3 the entire State MANDATE regime was unconstitutional, and were by me made well aware of
4 this but persisted to pursue their abuse of power, at cost of the health and wellbeing of numerous
5 Victorians and the death of many.
6
7 Just to give you something else to think about. In November 2023 the High Court of Australia
8 ruled that “indefinite detention” was unlawful and people had to be released. I wrote in response
9 to this to the federal Attorney General:
10
11 It appears to me that the High Court of Australia is a threat to Australia’s national
12 security, in addition to those claiming to be Ministers and their collaborators.
13 You can download the document from:
14 https://www.scribd.com/document/685212627/20231118-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
15 Attorney-General-Mark-Dreyfus-National-Security-Issues-Supplement-1
16 QUOTE
17 In my view the Commonwealth of Australia likewise is entitled to deny entry/evict a person who is
18 TRESPASSING and refuse to leave then to incarcerate until the person complies to leave As set out below
19 each person failing to leave is not indefinitely incarcerated as the person so to say had/has “the key to his
20 prison cell” by simply leaving as lawfully required!
21 What I view is scandalous is that the High Court of Australia may take months to hand-down a reason of
22 judgment and by this deny the general community to be aware why it handed down orders which may be ill
23 conceived in any case. It also denies the Parliament to have proper knowledge as to what the court used to
24 hand down its orders and how within constitutional provisions it may legislate to address certain issues, this
25 in particular where the court now appears to have overruled it past decision. I as a constitutionalist am
26 concerned that the decision may have been ill conceived and may be a failure to remain within judicial
27 powers and may have trespassed upon the powers of the Parliament to legislate. It is not upon the court, as it
28 did in past judgments violating the separation of powers and I have set out below some issues. It may even
29 result for the court having scored an own goal, as it now no longer either can incarcerate a person indefinitely
30 on the basis that the prisoner has the key to his own cell door, and can leave if complying to a court order. In
31 my view it is well over due that court are limited and subject to legislative provisions that when a court holds
32 a person in contempt of court it then too cannot order the person to remain incarcerated unless the person
33 complies with a court order as one cannot have DOUBLE STANDARDS.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 Recently the High Court of Australia changed its November 2023 ruling to also accept that
37 anyone provided with an opportunity to leave but refuse to do so can be held in detention until
38 leaving.
39 As a self-educated constitutionalist, I am currently taking on 2 councils of the unconstitutional
40 “State land taxation purportedly “delegated’ “council rates” and details are published on my
41 blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati. I do not charge for anyone desiring to download
42 documents.
43 I welcome the fact that Mr Nick Patterson pursue his constitutional/legal rights. Let us not
44 ignore the Victorian Police firing rubber bullets at parents holding small children at the Shrine of
45 Remembrance. Let try to avoid this ever happens again!
46
47 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
48
49 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
50 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
51 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

52 (Our name is our motto!)

20240523-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Barrister Jerry Prus - Bevan-Rhys

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20240523-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Barrister Jerry Prus - Bevan-Rhys

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20240523-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Barrister Jerry Prus - Bevan-Rhys

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

23-5-2024 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

51 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like