20240925-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Jacinta Allan Premier & Ors-SUPPLEMENT 1

Page 1
1
2
3 Jacinta Allan Premier & Ors 25-9-2024
4 [email protected]
5
6 Cc: Fines Victoria (via Jacinta Allen)
7 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
8 SUPPLEMENT 1
9 Madam,
10 it appears to me we are governed by complete idiots both Ministers and their officials,
11 and it ought to be understood that once a person challenge the constitutional validity of certain
12 legislative provisions or all of it then what is objected against become ULTRA VIRUS Ab
13 Initio.
14
15 As I have ample of times set out that the Commonwealth charged me for FAILING TO VOTE
16 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka and I (representing myself) having filed also a NOTICE OF
17 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER served upon all 9 Attorney-Generals also comprehensively
18 defeated the lot without any of them challenging me and so neither as to the 3-part 409 pages
19 written submissions named “ADDRESS TO THE COURT”.
20 It should be understood that as I objected to the validity of any “compulsory” voting provisions
21 and this too was unchallenged by the Commonwealth as well as by the 9 Attorney-Generals and
22 then Victorian Attorney-General stated to accept the courts decision then clearly neither the
23 Commonwealth and/or any state/Territory can compel any Australian to vote in a political
24 election. Neither the Commonwealth and/or the 9 Attorney-Generals appealed the 19 July 2006
25 court decision to uphold both appeals! I clearly unchallenged succeeded then as legislation is
26 enacted in general against all electors then it never can be claimed to only apply to myself and
27 not to others. It means that at no time could the Commonwealth and/or the States/Territories
28 compel anyone to vote and neither fine any person not having voted. As a matter of fact, the
29 Framers of the Constitution specifically refused to compel anyone to vote.
30
31 Hansard 24-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
32 Australasian Convention)
33 QUOTE
34 Sir GEORGE TURNER: It would never do to allow in this Federal Parliament that
35 those representatives who are elected upon the most liberal franchise possible should be
36 outvoted by those who would be elected by a very limited franchise indeed. As this may
37 fairly be regarded as the National House, representing the people of the various States as a
38 nation, we ought to have uniformity in the franchise. We must leave it to the Federal
39 Parliament to say what the franchise should be. At the same time, as some colonies have
40 given the right of voting to those who have not that right in other colonies, it would be
41 unfair and inequitable to take from any who have the right, and therefore whatever
42 uniformity is determined upon we shall have to allow the innovation that no person, man
43 or woman, who has the right to vote shall be deprived of exercising that right, even so far
44 as the elections to the Federal Parliament are concerned. I would go the length of saying
25-9-2024 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 that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if they desire to exercise their
2 franchise, should have the opportunity of doing so.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/55.html
6 The Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55 (12 December 2013)
7 QUOTE
8 8. Although the Commonwealth and the Territory both submitted that s 51(xxi) gives the
9 federal Parliament power to make a law providing for same sex marriage, their
10 submissions do not determine that question. Parties cannot determine the proper
11 construction of the Constitution by agreement or concession.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 Hence, ATO v Melton was wrongly decided, violating the legal principles embedded in the
15 constitution!
16 First of all, it is clear that the Framers of the Constitution limited the existence of a person to be a
17 “we shall have to allow the innovation that no person, man or woman”, and as such
18 constitutionally for all purpose and intent there is no such other creature as a person being other
19 then “man or woman” to have, any legal claims. However, regardless if people
20 understand/comprehend this or not were have within our constitution embedded the legal
21 principle of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and this means if some person desires to claim to be
22 anything else than a “man or woman” albeit this exercise of FREEDOM OF SPEECH cannot
23 be dictated upon others. Any legislation in that regard would be ULTRA VIRES Ab initio!
24 There can be no exercise of FREEDOM OF SPEECH if this is to deny any other person his/her
25 rights of FREEDOM OF SPEECH or any other constitutional rights. No person can have a
26 higher position to claim FREEDOM OF SPEECH above that of another. This also applies to
27 any person in government and their officials. It means that any mis/disinformation legislation
28 that violates this legal principle would be ULTRA VIRES Ab initio. As I all along made clear
29 the High Court of Australia lacked any jurisdiction to so to say become a legislator and so in
30 violation to the legal principles embedded in the constitution!
31
32 Thu, 31 Oct 2002
33 QUOTE
34 Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
35 Thank you for your letter.
36 There is no bias, any more than there would be for a woman judge sitting in a case
37 involving women or a male judge in a rape case.
38 Your views on the Constitution appear to have overlooked s 51(xxxvii) of the
39 Constitution. If that power were not enough, and none of the other heads of power
40 sufficed, it is true that an amendment of the Constitution might be required.
41 Alternatively, there are cooperative schemes for parallel legislation. Ours is a
42 cooperative federation, as the Constitution itself envisaged.
43 Sincerely, Michael Kirby
44 END QUOTE
45 .
46 Neither Subsections 51(xxxvii) or (xxxviii) can be used for this as I have previously already
47 extensively canvassed and so the HCA decision that other sexes somehow can be used in legal
48 context defies the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
49 The following as well as numerous other statements by the Framers of the Constitution makes it
50 very clear that a wife is a female such as “young maid of seventeen”
51
52 Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Page 3
1 QUOTE
2 Mr. REID: Some years ago the ingenuity of these two Houses in passing Money Bills
3 was so enormous, and their activity so indomitable, that tens of thousands of money Bills
4 went rattling through them both to recognise the valuable services of a number of doubtful
5 individuals, rendered in the dim past if rendered at all; and in that way the nation was
6 saddled with a pension system of $150,000,000 a year. No wonder their finances ran out. If
7 we could think that the system would soon die with the veterans there might be perhaps
8 room for forgetfulness, but there was, I believe, an ingenious provision that if an old
9 veteran happened to contract a matrimonial alliance with a young maid of seventeen
10 the pension lasted during her life as well. So long as money is plentiful,
11 END QUOTE
12
13 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (page 151)
14 QUOTE
15 Mr. RUTLEDGE: I think that in a matter of this kind we should proceed as far as possible
16 by familiar analogy, and, though perhaps the suggestion of the analogy may, in the minds
17 of some hon. members, be thought entirely inappropriate to an assemblage of this kind-
18 though the suggestion or the expression of the analogy may in some quarters create a
19 smile-yet it appears to me that in order to have a perfect system of federal government, we
20 ought, as far as possible, to preserve an analogy to that form of Government which prevails
21 in a model family. Now, in the case of a model family we know that the husband
22 represents the entire household.
23 An HON. MEMBER: In providing for the expenditure!
24 An HON. MEMBER: There is no federation there!
25 Mr. RUTLEDGE: The husband is supposed, in the natural order of things, to be the
26 representative of the entire household but, though he is a representative of the entire
27 household, we know that the wife also plays a very important part in the government of
28 that household. The wife comes very near to all those smaller constituent elements of the
29 family circle, which may, perhaps, by analogy be likened to the great family of states
30 which will exist in connection with this great federal constitution.
31 Colonel SMITH: She is the home ruler!
32 Mr. RUTLEDGE: It is the wife that knows all about the particular interests which affect
33 all the members of the family group: they come to her with their particular ideas, and they
34 look to her for the expression of their ideas and for the enforcement of their particular
35 claims.
36 Mr. MUNRO: Not for finding the income!
37 Mr. RUTLEDGE: With regard to that interjection, I say that he is a wise man who,
38 being the head of a household, puts all his financial projects into the crucible of the
39 sagacious mind of his wife, far more enlightened, far more discriminating than his own.
40 Colonel SMITH: With the power of veto!
41 Mr. RUTLEDGE: I say yes, with the power of veto. In this community many a man
42 owes a great deal to the advice of his wife and the veto which she has put upon his
43 proposals. We know that those strong headed men who think that all wisdom is embodied
44 in themselves, who do not take their wives into their confidence, who do not consult their
45 wives as to some particular speculation on which they desire to embark, are the men who
46 very frequently come to grief. But the men who do take, their wives into their confidence
47 in this way, and who do permit them to have a considerable voice in the management of
48 family affairs, even to putting a veto upon their own impulsive tendencies in regard to
49 financial proposals, are the men who go on very safe lines. No analogy is perfect; every
50 analogy will break down when you come to some particular modes of applying it; but I do
51 regard a great family of states, governed by a house of representatives and a senate, as

Page 4
1 bearing a very considerable analogy to the constitution of a family; and I say the same rule
2 which prevails in the one ought to prevail in the other.
3 Sir THOMAS McILWRAITH: The wife initiates most of the money bills there!
4 Mr. RUTLEDGE: The wives do initiate a great many of the money bills, and I appeal to
5 the experience of a great many hon. gentlemen to know whether they have not been
6 saved very frequently from financial mistakes by consulting their wives in regard to
7 important steps which they proposed to take in the very serious affairs. of life.
8 END QUOTE
9 (Writers note; See also 9 March 1891 Page 151 & 152)
10
11 I couldn’t care less if a person was to identify himself/herself as some donkey as after all it may
12 just reflect the mentality of that person but it is another thing to demand someone else to call this
13 person a donkey/ass as that would interfere with the civil liberty of that other person regardless if
14 that other person may actually consider the person to be a donkey/ass.
15
16 HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
18 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
19 Mr. SYMON: That is incident to the marriage law!
20 The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It comes from the marriage law, and ought to flow as a
21 corollary. It is a corollary as far as marriage is concerned.
22 [start page 1085]
23 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: It would not necessarily follow the law of husband and wife!
24 END QUOTE
25
26 HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
27 QUOTE
28 The Hon. J.H. GORDON (South Australia)[3.59]: I think we are quarrelling about terms
29 and not about substance. I believe that the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, agrees with
30 almost everyone of us that as regards parental rights and the custody and, guardianship of
31 children so far as divorce is concerned, power should be given to the commonwealth; but
32 this clause goes much further and includes the whole region of, parental rights and the
33 custody and guardianship of children.
34 The Hon. E. BARTON: Put in the words "and in relation thereto" before "parental rights
35 "!
36 The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That will cover the whole ground. All our acts relating to the
37 custody and guardianship of children have relation to parental rights.
38 Mr. SYMON: Suppose a child is deserted?
39 The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That suspends the parental custody; but the parental liability
40 remains. I think that the amendment suggested by the hon. and learned member, Mr.
41 Barton, covers the whole ground.
42 The Hon. E. BARTON: I move:
43 That the figures "24" be omitted with a view to the insertion of the words "and in relation
44 thereto."
45 This will confine the operation of the subclause to the rights and obligations arising
46 out of divorce suits. The other matters to which attention has been directed will be
47 considered by the Drafting Committee.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 Again:
51 This will confine the operation of the subclause to the rights and obligations arising
52 out of divorce suits.
53
Page 5
1 It is clear that custody and guardianship issues cannot be entertained by the Family Court of
2 Australia other than in a divorce suit. Neither parliament and/or the High court of Australia can
3 expand the legislative powers beyond what the constitution granted within certain limits.
4 Well, the purported 21986 reference to the Commonwealth within S51(xxxvii) was invalid as the
5 states needed to hold a State referendum, to be authorised to do so as it violated the separation of
6 powers legal principle to do so without the electors approval to remove the original jurisdiction
7 by the State Parliament of that of the State Supreme Court.
8
10 QUOTE
11 Whatever privilege we give to our citizens, the administration of the law should be equal to
12 all, whatever their colour. The case I refer to is one of the Chinese cases-I forget the
13 name of it.
14 Mr. ISAACS.-The case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 Well, we now have the nonsense of a claimed “indigenous” Ambassador, this even so the
18 constitution has no legal principle embedded in its as to any “indigenous” person, but do have
19 “native” persons. Hence the MABO decision as I extensively published in the past was outside
20 the courts jurisdiction! Likewise, so any purported legislation by any state regarding Aboriginals
21 (which includes Torres Strait Islanders) other then within Section 25 of the constitution is and
22 remains unconstitutional. All and any land rights by the Commonwealth and the States/
23 Territories have no constitutional basis either!
24
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the
28 Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not
29 going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us.
30 END QUOTE
31
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
35 saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
36 they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
40 QUOTE
41 In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual
42 injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not
43 illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.”
44 END QUOTE
45
47 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
48 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
49 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
50 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
51 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
52 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
53 END QUOTE
54
Page 6
1 While Members of Parliament ordinary are shielded from being held legally accountable for
2 what they may state in the chambers, this as to allow them to freely discuss matters in any debate
3 it is another matter when Members of Parliament are pursuing to undermine the true meaning
4 and application of legal principles embedded in the constitution.
5
6 For example, the issue of a referendum for a Republic voted upon in the Federal Parliament I
7 view constituted TREASON by each and every Member of parliament voting for this as it was
8 made very clear:
9
11 QUOTE
12 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
13 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
14 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
15 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
16 established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
17 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
18 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
19 are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
20 is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
21 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
22 be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
23 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 Therefore, the Commonwealth of Australia is not and never was a “country” and the High Court
27 of Australia purported claim in Sue v Hill that is was an “independent country” in my view
28 constituted TREASON!
29
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
33 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
34 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
35 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
36 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
37 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
38 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
39 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
40 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
41 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
42 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
43 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
44 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
45 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
46 END QUOTE
47
48 QUOTE 20221114-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC-COMPLAINT Part 1
49 QUOTE
51 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
52 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
53 shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I

Page 7
1 believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
2 invest with federal jurisdiction.
3 END QUOTE
4 END QUOTE 20221114-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC-COMPLAINT Part 1
5
6 THEREFORE THE High Court of Australia is not above the constitution and cannot in any
7 shape or form alter the true meaning of the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of
8 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) even so it purported to do so numerous times such as in
9 Sue v Hill, MABO, Sykes v Cleary, Palmer v WA, etc.
10
12 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
13 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
14 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
15 END QUOTE
16
18 QUOTE
19 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I should like to ask a question with regard to clause 75, as
20 to whether it is intended to leave the right of appeal from a state or the Federal High Court
21 itself direct to the Privy Council, as it stands in the Bill, or whether the matter can be
22 subsequently opened by the Parliament?
23 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am afraid that if I were to answer questions as to
24 what is intended to be done, I should expose the Drafting Committee to a flood of
25 interrogations. I can only say that what we intend to do is to carry out the decisions of the
26 committee. Of course there are one or two cases in which the [start page 2439]
27 decisions which have been arrived at require a certain amount of interpretation in the
28 light of the debates, and in those cases we shall take what was said, as well as what
29 was put in the Bill, for the purpose of ascertaining what the movers of provisions
30 desire. In the case of the proposal my honorable friend carried, and which was put as a
31 proviso to clause 74, it is evident that the words as they appear are only in the nature
32 of instructions to the committee, and they will have to be interpreted in the light of
33 statements made by my honorable friend in answer to inquiries by me. That is the course
34 that will be pursued. When an amendment, as carried, is intended only as a suggestion to
35 the committee, it will be interpreted in that way.
36 END QUOTE
37
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. BARTON: At first I thought it would be necessary to have some provision of this
41 sort, but now I think it is unnecessary. In the clause it is prescribed that [start page 1183]
42 an elector "shall have only one vote"; as to the Senate and as to the House of
43 Representatives I intend to move, on the recommittal of the clause, that the matter shall be
44 turned into a direct prohibition; that is, that "no elector shall vote more than once." A
45 breach will be a Statutory misdemeanor, and the offender can be punished, this being an
46 Imperial Statute, in the same way as he would be for a breach of any other Imperial Statute
47 applying to the colonies, such as the merchant shipping laws. Lest there should be any
48 doubt in connection with the giving of a vote, when there is a distinct law against it, there
49 is a passage in Russell on "Crimes," which the legal members of the Convention will be
50 satisfied with. It is in the fifth edition, page 192:
51 Where an offence is not so at common law, but made an offence by Act of Parliament, an
52 indictment will lie where there is a substantive prohibitory clause in such Statute, though
53 there be afterward a particular provision and a particular remedy given. Thus, an
54 unqualified person may be indicted for acting as an attorney contrary to the 6 and 7 Vict.,
Page 8
1 c. 73, a. 2, although sec. 35 and sec. 36 enact that in case any person shall so act he shall be
2 incapable of recovering his fees, and such offence shall be deemed a contempt of court,
3 and punishable accordingly.
4 That is to say, although the Statute provides a distinct means of punishment, yet if by the
5 disregard of the prohibition a misdemeanor is committed, a court can convict the offender
6 of that misdemeanor and may fine or imprison him. The passage continues:
7 And it is stated as an established principle that when a new offence is created by an Act of
8 Parliament and a penalty is annexed to it by a separate and substantive clause, it is not
9 necessary for the prosecutor to sue for the penalty, but he may proceed on the prior clause
10 on the ground of its being a misdemeanor; and wherever a Statute forbids the doing of a
11 thing, the doing of it wilfully, although without any corrupt motive, is indictable.
12 Wherever the Statute, as I intend to ask the House to make it in this case, says that no
13 elector shall vote more than once, there is a distinct prohibition, and voting more than once
14 wilfully will be a crime and misdemeanor, and the courts will be able to punish by fine or
15 imprisonment. They will have the distinct power. There is in all of these colonies an
16 electoral law, and power to alter it, until Parliament otherwise provides, and if there are not
17 distinct provisions for punishment for such offences, it is still in the power of the State law
18 to subject the offenders to such punishment as it prescribes. But even if that were not done,
19 the case is distinctly met by the Statutory prohibition, which will be imposed by the form
20 in which we propose to put it, and, I think, my hon. friend will agree that his new clause
21 will not be necessary.
22 Mr. ISAACS: I suppose you propose to put in words to make it a misdemeanor.
23 Mr. BARTON: If necessary; but where the statute expressly forbids it is a misdemeanor
24 without further words.
25 Dr. QUICK: Without any corrupt motive is it indictable?
26 Mr. BARTON: Although there may be no corruption in the doing of the act, if it is done
27 intentionally it is indictable.
28 Mr. HIGGINS: What words do you propose to put in?
29 Mr. BARTON: I propose to alter the words "each elector shall have only one vote" to "no
30 elector shall vote more than once," and that being a distinct statutory prohibition will meet
31 the case.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 Therefore, where I objected to the constitutional validity of “compulsory” voting and succeeded
35 in both cases unchallenged by the Commonwealth DPP and any of the 9 Attorney-General then
36 for all purposes and intent they conceded I was correct in my submissions. It is then absurd that
37 despite this the commonwealth, the states/Territories are still fining persons for FAILING TO
38 VOTE. This is not a mere coincidence or a small oversight because all 9 Attorney-Generals were
39 provided before the hearing copies the documentation that was before the court. It means that
40 Res Judicata applies.
41
42 My son Mark during 2023 made known to me that the Victorian Electoral Commission had
43 written to him about FAILING TO VOTE and I responded to the VEC in regard of this by
44
45 Public servants like to exercise powers and fine citizens for FAILING TO VOTE no matter
46 it is unconstitutional. This document sets out numerous issues to stand up for your
47 constitutional rights.
48 You can download the document from:
49 https://www.scribd.com/document/657537014/20230707-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
50 Mr-W-Gately-VEC-COMPLAINT-Re-Mark-Craig-Schorel-Infringement-4120508
51 QUOTE

Page 9
1 Mr Warwick Gately (VEC) (Australia, Victoria time) 7-7-2023

2 [email protected]
3
4 Re 20230707-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr W Gately (VEC) -COMPLAINT-Re
5 Mark Craig Schorel- Infringement 4120508
6
7 Sir,
8 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION & NO CASE TO ANSWER, etc.
9
10 My son Mark Craig Schorel received a purported infringement notice no 4120508 which I
11 understand related to an allegation of FAILING TO VOTE in the 2022 Victorian State
12 election. As I am a constitutionalist and a Professional Advocate and have considerable
13 knowledge and experiences in this matter I therefore accepted to assist my son in these
14 matters.
15 Below I extensively (and yet only limited considering the overall relevant details) set out that
16 the State of Victoria, and so every State/Territory is bound by RES JUDICATE and cannot
17 re-litigate matters because they all had the opportunity to challenge my written submissions
18 but decided not to do so and as such bound each State/Territory to the result of my success
19 full 1 July 2006 appeals. As such all and any purported “compulsory” voting is in violation
20 of the litigation that was successful by me. It means that all purported fines court judgments
21 were without warrant of law and all monies should be refunded as they were fraudulently
22 obtained from electors by TERRORISM/EXTORTION!
23
24 The OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION is the first issue to be dealt with and were this to
25 fail, not that I seek to indicate it will, then the NO CASE TO ANSWER is to be attended to.
26
27 Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 395 F 2d 906, 910
28 “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.”
29 END QUOTE
30 And
31 QUOTE
32 It therefore seems to me that we do not have a political election to elect representatives but
33 rather members of a political crime gang parading as a political party and this is why they
34 may be eager to pursue citizens for FAILING TO VOTE, as after all it brings in cash and
35 might be seen to validate their criminal conduct.
36
37 The purported Infringement Notice 4120508 states:
38 QUOTE
39 This is an infringement notice with a fine of $92.
40 You are receiving this notice because you did not reply to the Apparent failure to vote
41 notice we sent to you in April 2023 for the above election.
42 Therefore, we consider that you have committed the offence of Failure to vote under
43 section 166 of the Electoral Act 2002 (Vic). This notice is issued under the Infringement
44 Act 2006 (Vic).
45 END QUOTE
46
47 Do note “we consider that you have committed the offence of Failure to vote”!
48 This implies that no longer there is a separation of powers between the legislators, the
49 executive and the judicature as now some public servant has taken over the court function.
50
51 Albeit in view of my complaint:
52
Page 10
1 We are often told we must follow the rule of law only to find that governments and its
2 officials are ignoring the rule of law. No valid 26 November 2022 Victorian election
3 can be held where neither electors and/or candidates are validly complying with
4 holding a Australian Citizenship as a nationality.
6 https://www.scribd.com/document/608318249/20221118-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
7 B-to-Victorian-Electoral-Commissioner-Mr-Warwick-Gately-COMPLAINT
8
9 Which clearly was made prior to the purported Victorian election was held on 26 November
10 2022 then no valid election could have been deemed to have been held.
11
12 While the Parliament can legislate as to any nonsense, in the end it must be clear that this kind
13 of TERRORISM holds no water because the Parliament cannot give judicial powers of the
14 judiciary to some public servant or perhaps merely some computer.
15
16 Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773 Alexander v.
17 Bothsworth, 1915. “Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or
18 authorized. Free consent is an indispensable element in making valid contracts.”
19
20 The question also arises if the address shown on the purported Infringement Notice is the
21 actual address for Mark or merely was one that the VEC happens to record without Mark’s
22 knowledge and/or consent?
23 If for example the address is not Mark’s address then it is further an utter and sheer nonsense
24 to make a claim against him.
25
26 Again:
27
28 TAYLOR v. TAYLOR [1979] HCA 38; (1979) 143 CLR 1 (22 August 1979)
29 Similarly in Commissioner of Police v. Tanos (1958) 98 CLR 383, at p 395, Dixon C.J. and
30 Webb J. said that
31 QUOTE
32 it is a deep-rooted principle of the law that before anyone can be punished or prejudiced in
33 his person or property by any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding he must be afforded
34 an adequate opportunity of being heard.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 Further
38
39 Dixon CJ in Gurnett v The Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2][126] where his
40 Honour said:
41 QUOTE
42 "in the legal dichotomy between questions of fact and questions of law we place under
43 the latter head a question whether there is sufficient evidence to submit to a jury in
44 support of a cause of action. That is because it is a question for the court to decide
45 and not for a tribunal of fact."
46 END QUOTE
47
48 Johnson v. Miller (1938 A.L.R 104 at 112 per Dixon J.
49 QUOTE
50 The defendant is not only entitled to be appraised of the legal nature of the offence. But
51 also with the particular act, matter or thing alleged as the foundation of the charge.
52 END QUOTE
53
Page 11
1 Denning L.J. in Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 Q.B. 327.
2 QUOTE
3 When a contract is made by post it is clear law throughout the common law countries
4 that the acceptance is complete as soon as the letter of acceptance is put into the post
5 box, and that is the place where the contract is made.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516 (1962), "Presuming waiver from a silent record
9 is impermissible. The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence
10 which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and
11 understandingly rejected the offer. Anything less is not waiver."
12
13 Meaning that whomever was the public servant or computer that issued the purported
14 Infringement Notice may have not been aware if there was any mail posted but not received
15 by the VEC! It is not uncommon that postal services deliver mail at times decades later and as
16 such the VEC cannot merely assume that a person has not mailed any response but must
17 undertake relevant investigations, that is if it seeks to pursue any legal action!
18
19 Obviously, the issue also is that the purported Infringement Notice refers to
20 QUOTE
21 Therefore, we consider that you have committed the offence of Failure to vote under
22 section 166 of the Electoral Act 2002 (Vic). This notice is issued under the Infringement
23 Act 2006 (Vic).
24 END QUOTE
25
26 Now let this be very clear I challenged the validity of the “Australian citizenship” legislation
27 as purportedly being a “nationality” and the Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls at the time
28 was well aware of my NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER that therefore the
29 legislation was ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio unless and until if ever at all a court of competent
30 jurisdiction declared the challenged legislation to be INTRA VIRES. No Court as such heard
31 and determined the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER and again the issues also
32 were before the Court on 19 July 2006 and then the Commonwealth and the 9 Attorney-
33 Generals did not challenge me and instead the Victorian Attorney-General made clear to abide
34 by the courts decision.
35
36 City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 “To take away all remedy for the enforcement of
37 a right is to take away the right itself. But that is not within the power of the State.”
38
39 Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 303 (1885). Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748,
40 (1970) "Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be
41 knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness."
42
43 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). "No state legislator or executive or
44 judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to
45 support it." The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and
46 federal officials only our agents." "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed
47 for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its
48 existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own
49 property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."
50
51 Redfield v Fisher, 292 P 813, at 819 [1930] "...an officer may be held liable in damages
52 to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with
Page 12
1 his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in
2 his 'individual' , not his official capacity..."
3
4 It should be understood that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
5 was not enacted just to suit me as after all it was enacted decades before I even existed. And
6 when I then successfully object to certain purported legal provisions than this is not merely
7 applicable for me but also for all and any other citizen within the same jurisdiction, in this
8 case being the Commonwealth of Australia
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Despite my 7-7-2023 extensive 119 pages set out somehow the VEC hasn’t understood
12 that the “compulsory” part of voting violates a person’s “political liberty” and
13 “religious liberty” enshrined in the constitution! The Infringement Court has no
14 jurisdiction!
16 https://www.scribd.com/document/662623617/20230803-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-
17 W-B-to-Mr-W-Gately-VEC-COMPLAINT-Re-Mark-Craig-Schorel-Infringement-
18 4120508
19
20 Contrary to the VEC claim my son Mark doesn’t have to apply to a court against
21 unconstitutional legislation being enforced, as it is for the VEC to seek to litigate in a
22 court of competent jurisdiction & must not selectively do so against one citizen but
23 not another.
26 B-to-Mr-W-Gately-VEC-COMPLAINT-Re-Mark-Craig-Schorel-Infringement-4120508
27
28 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
29 27 (17 June 1999)
30 QUOTE
31 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue
32 estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the
33 orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he
34 will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying
35 on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
36 END QUOTE
37 .
38 DPP v Field [2001] VSC 472 (29 November 2001)
39 QUOTE
40 24. Section 35 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provides that in the interpretation
41 of the provision of an Act consideration may be given to any matter or document that is
42 relevant, including reports of proceedings in any House of the Parliament. The section
43 further provides that a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying an
44 Act is to be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object. Those
45 provisions are well known.
46 QUOTE
47
48 There ought to be no doubt that politicians and their collaborators generally will ignore the
49 writings of others where it doesn’t suit their purposes, but this doesn’t mean they cannot be held
50 legally accountable for what I view constitute a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and
51 undermine the administration of justice, etc.
52
Page 13
1 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-

2 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
3 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
4 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
5 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
6 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
7 END QUOTE
8
9 It therefore comes to the issue can it be proven that there was a conspiracy in that regard,
10 considering that the then Attorney-General of the State of Victoria Rob Hulls had stated to
11 accept the courts decision (19-7-2006)?
12
13 Well, let us see what the VEC did!
14
15
16
17 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
18 QUOTE
19 Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power?
20
21 Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to
22 enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 There can be absolutely no doubt that I already did challenge the validity of any purported
26 Victorian constitution, the State of Victoria may rely upon and so any purported legislation it
27 pursues in regard of those purported constitutions, then the onus was upon the State of Victoria
28 to prove the validity of those purported constitutions as well as of and each legislation it claims
29 to rely upon. I do not need to disprove any purported constitution or any purported legislation, as
30 merely having objected to them in itself is causing those purported legal provisions to be
31 ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio!
32 And as I pointed out in my past writings to the VEC that if the purported legislation cannot be
33 enforced against me then neither can it be against anyone else!
34
35 Then there are other issues. I am given the understanding that when a company has company
36 cars it then must give details to the Government as to who was driving the vehicle it has
37 registered and is deemed to have infringed road rules.
38
39 As I made clear that the purported constitutional are ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio then so are all
40 any purported legislation, rules, etc.
Page 14
2
3
4 Now we have the number of points and remember the threat to suspend the drivers licence?
5 This in itself would be a violation of a person’s rights to have an “impartial administration of
6 justice to deal with matters!
7 I was given the understanding that if a motor vehicle was registered to a corporation then an
8 infringement Notice could be to the tune of $5,000 or even $10,000 unless the corporation
9 provided the identity of the driver.
10
11 At least we seem the government to haunt the law breakers so that the drivers will not get away
12 with committing any offence, well unless you happen to be Daniel Andrews and his wife
13 Catherin as then the law is an ass and not relevant. After all if he had been charged for the
14 various crimes I view he committed he would likely have been ended up without a seat in the
15 Parliament and never ended up being a (purported) Premier.
16
17 QUOTE 20240922-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Jacinta Allan Premier & Ors
18 While the Victorian purportedly is eager to pursue me, regardless I extensively wrote to the State
19 government that it lacked any legislative powers and as such the very laws relied upon are
20 ULTRA VIRES, nevertheless as usual the State and its collaborators will seek to pursue
21 enforcement nevertheless.
22
Page 15
1
2 We have ended with far too many crooks/lairs in the Parliaments and when one considers
3 (former) Premier Daniel Andrews of Victoria I view he is a clear example of this. It should be
4 understood that albeit Catherine allegedly was driving, in my view it was rather Daniel Andrews,
5 and I suspect that Catherine using her maiden name may have been to thwart any media attention
6 as well as possible legal consequences for Daniel Andrews, as if Daniel Andrews was driving
7 then his rights of being a Member of Parliament may have been lost.
8 Reportedly driving on the wrong side of the road also may indicate that this stop, to give way,
9 unlikely happened.
10
11 With the bicycle incident it appears to me that (not stated in any order of importance):
12
13 • His wife Catherine failed to give way to through traffic, being the cyclist.
14 • Catherine may have made a false statement to the police
15 • Daniel may have made a false statement to the police
16 • Catherine and Daniel may have conspired to make false statements to the police.
17 • Catherine and/or Daniel interfered unlawfully with the scene of an accident by removing
18 the motor vehicle involved as well as their children who may have been witnesses and/or
19 victims also due to the alleged trauma upon them.
20 • Catherine and/or Daniel removed an unroadworthy motor vehicle from the scene of the
21 accident
22 • Catherine and/or Daniel returned an unroadworthy motor vehicle to the scene of the
23 accident
24 • Catherine failed to exchange relevant details with the cyclist, after the accident.
25 • Catherine failed to rendered first aid or other assistance to the injured cyclist.
26 • Catherine and Daniel perverted the course of justice by making false/misleading
27 statements (Consider that any statement to the police can be the start of legal
28 proceedings)
29 • Catherine and Daniel obstructed the Administration of Justice to make false/misleading
30 statements. (Consider that any statement to the police can be the start of legal
31 proceedings)
32 • Catherine may have removed herself from the scene of the accident as to perhaps
33 consume something that may assist to prevent being tested if under the influence of
34 alcohol or other substance impairing her ability to competently drive a motor vehicle.
35 (that is unless Daniel was the actual driver and Catherine really pretended to be the driver
36 to cover for Daniel?)
37 • Failing to leave the children at the scene of the accident so that they could have medical
38 attention by the paramedics in view that they themselves claimed about the children’s
39 distress.
40 • Possibly leaving the children unsupervised while Catherine and Daniel returned to the
41 scene of the accident.
42 • possible ‘hit and run’ for leaving the scene of an accident without exchanging relevant
43 details.
44 • Did Catherine give a false name, that is if her driving license is that of being Andrews?
45
46 And obviously the role of the Victorian Police is questionable not even bother to do any testing
47 for alcohol/drug that may have impaired Catherine driving ability. Neither having charged her
48 for dangerous driving, etc.
49

Page 16
1 And let not ignore the involvement of the police and reportedly failing to conduct any procedure
2 ordinary applicable where a person is physically hurt. Neither that somehow by about 6PM that
3 day the investigation had been concluded.
4 One may have to check if Daniel Andrews after that did give or provide for certain favours to
5 certain police officers as some reward I view conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and
6 undermine the Administration of Justice?
7 END QUOTE 20240922-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Jacinta Allan Premier & Ors
8
10 Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission 16-11-2022
11 Address: GPO Box 24234, Melbourne VIC 3001
12 Telephone: 1300 735 135
13 Email: [email protected]
14
15 COMPLAINT
16
17 20221116-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC – COMPLAINT-Part 3
18
19 THE ELEBORATE FRAUD PURPETRATED BASED ON A HOAX
20
21 Sir/Madam,
22 in this COMPLAINT ( which will be in several parts) I will address various matters
23 albeit not stated in any order of importance, while some must be considered also as to my past
24 complaints provided to IBAC.
25
26 There is an issue about honesty of Premier Daniel Andrews and I understand he made a sworn
27 statement to the police regarding a 2013 accident with a (teenager) cyclist. It appears that there
28 are far too many conflicts in the statement of Premier Daniel Andrews (Then leader of the
29 Opposition) and his wife Catherine Andrews, the alleged driver.
30
31
32 “I saw a man & the woman looking do0wn at me. I remember that they were standing next
33 to me & looking down..” “with horrific looks on their daces. They did not bend down to
34 assist me.”
35
36 Considering that Catherine Andrews claimed to have “rushed” to the cyclist while her husband
37 went to the corner then the fact that the cyclist claims they were both standing there not being
38 down to him seems to question what was claimed in the statement.
39
40 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11400339/Dan-Andrews-role-Blairgowrie-
41 bicycle-crash-Ryan-Meuleman-Mornington-Peninsula-revealed.html
42 Dan Andrews role in Blairgowrie bicycle crash with Ryan Meuleman ...
43 2 days ago ... Read Daniel Andrews and his wife Catherine's dramatic witness ...
44 The police report ruled out any charges against the driver or the cyclist ...
45
Page 17
1
2
3 We also have a statement albeit not related for so far I am aware of regarding the 2013 accident
4 nevertheless it is his statement (repeated below) that is relevant!
5
6 Again: “I act appropriately at all times and in all things. That is the oath I swore and I take
7 it very seriously.”
8
9
10 https://www.9news.com.au/national/victorian-premier-daniel-andrews-questions-2013-car-crash-
11 teenager/4d66aacc-8880-4d11-bdea-8ba43e052d45
12 Daniel Andrews questioned over 2013 car crash involving teen
13 QUOTE
14 He claimed to the Herald Sun he was unable to speak to the officers because there had
15 been "tubes removed from (his) throat".
16 "They did not come back at any time thereafter to get a statement from me," he said.
17 Victoria Police did not lay any charges in relation to the incident.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 I understand that the child cyclist involved is Ryan Meuleman then 15 years of age.
21
22 It appears to me that Catharine Andrews (the alleged driver) failed to give right away to a
23 pushbike cyclist who was travelling along the same Melbourne Road, when she was turning right
24 into Ridley Street. In my view a motorist turning from a road must give way to all other
25 travellers who are travelling along the same road but travelling straight ahead. As such, where
26 the push bike driver was colliding with the motor vehicle then this means that Catherin Andrews
27 blocked his right of way. Daniel Andrews allegedly the front passenger in the vehicle driven by
28 his wife Catharine Andrews in his alleged statement to the police stated: “The incident occurred
29 adjacent to the corner of Melbourne Rd and Ridley St Blairgowrie.” And “We had turned right
30 from a stationary position into Ridley St. Moments after we turned a cyclist collided heavily with
31 the side of our vehicle.” And “The cyclist was travelling at speed and hit our car our car at a
32 perfect right angle very heavily. I want to make it clear – the cyclist hit our vehicle.
33
34 What appears to me to have been the incident and likely a reconstruction will indicate this, is that
35 the pushbike driver was about to cross Ridley St when Catharine Andrews appeared in front of
36 him and the cyclist then hit the front side of the bumper and the impact was such that the cyclist
37 hit the windscreen heavily. Meaning that Catherin Andrews at no time attempted to give way but
38 had had a speed that the cyclist ended up on the windscreen and not just on the bonnet. It may
39 also indicate that in my view Catherin Andrews by her own version having stated “I turned from
40 Melbourne Road after coming to a complete stoop. I recall this because I waited to allow a

Page 18
1 Sorrento-bound learner driver to pass. Just after I we had turned into Ridley St our car was
2 heavily struck on the front driver’s side by a cyclist who it seems was attempting to cross Ridley
3 Street at speed from the bike path that runs parallel to Melbourne Road.”
4 In my view “Just after I we had turned into Ridley St” is incorrect this as the turn is not
5 completed until one had cleared any part of Melbourne Road, which clearly she had not as she
6 was blocking the cyclist in Melbourne Road part.
7 Catharine also stated: “At no time was he visible from the road.” and “At no point was he visible
8 to me or any passenger in our vehicle until he collided with us.”
9 Hence, I view this was amounting to a false statement to the police.
10 How on earth can she state “At no point was he visible to me or any passenger in our vehicle
11 until he collided with us.” When her statement must be as to what she saw as facts and not what
12 any passenger may or may not have seen.
13
14 In my view, Catherine having noticed that a motor vehicle driving along Ridley Street was a
15 learner driver may indicate that she was concentrating upon that motor vehicle and coming from
16 a stop position then accelerated with such a speed that caused a considerable heavily impact. A
17 reconstruction may indicate that the force of the collusion with the windscreen must have been
18 that Catherine failed to take proper care and attention and never bothered to check for any other
19 road users travelling along Ridley Road (other than the learner driver) as to give way.
20 Catherin comment also is puzzling “I immediately stopped the car and raced to provide the
21 cyclist with assistance. My husband immediately called 000 for an ambulance. He made the call
22 from the corner of Melbourne Road and Ridley Street ensuring no vehicle entered the
23 intersection potentially causing further injury.” To me this is a bit of window dressing because
24 the accident was at the corner of Melbourne Road and Ridley Street and so why mention this
25 unless this was for a certain specific purpose to claim being there when there was no need for
26 doing so. Why use the wording “raced” when the cyclist was on the driver’s side of the vehicle.
27 How does one get out of the driver’s side to have “raced” to the cyclist who was there?
28 “As a result of the collision the front windscreen smashed and glass was thrown through my car.
29 I received abrasions to the inside of my upper legs from the glass.” Well did this alleged abrasion
30 end up in any police/paramedics report?
31 I understand that the cyclist claimed that a man and a woman looked at him but didn’t render any
32 assistance as such.
33
34 I understand a woman claimed that she attended and allegedly the car had driven off. Yet
35 Catharine claimed in her statement: A number of local residents joined us in providing assistance
36 to the cyclist. I do not know the names of these people. I waited with the cyclist until paramedics
37 had taken him for hospital treatment.”
38 What is astounding to me is that she (Mrs Catherine Andrews) refers to a cyclist but not about it
39 being a child cyclist. Surely, if she had appropriately attended to the injured cyclist she would
40 have likely been aware it was a child not an adult.

Page 19
1 What seems to have been if one was to consider the claims of a woman who attended is that
2 Catherine or Daniel had driven off in the now unroadworthy motor vehicle (considering the
3 windscreen damages) and returned minutes later finding that already someone was attending to
4 the injured cyclist and so pretended to have been there all along that Daniel went to the corner
5 for other traffic, where if she had been attending to the cyclist she would or should have known it
6 was a child cyclist. This in my view indicates she never may have bothered to attend to the
7 injured cyclist and hence didn’t know it was a child. Indeed, if the statement to the police
8 allegedly was made about 8 months later and she still refers to “It was a very nasty collision and
9 I sincerely hope that the cyclist involved makes a full and complete recovery.” Underlines she
10 likely never knew it involved a child cyclist.
11 Considering the damage to the motor vehicle I view that likely a reconstruction would indicate
12 that she hit the cyclist with a considerable impact causing the child cyclist to be thrown onto the
13 bonnet and smash the windscreen. The trajectory, in my view (not being a specialist in this field)
14 nevertheless indicates that the force was caused by the vehicle rather than the child cyclist.
15 Had the impact been caused by the child cyclist with a vehicle just moving from a stop position
16 turning then more than likely the trajectory would have been that the child cyclist “at speed”
17 would likely have ended up over the bonnet to the other side of the motor vehicle.
18 As such, as it appears to me Catherine having allowed to the learner driver to pass never
19 bothered to check for other road users along Melbourne Road and speeded up to make the turn
20 that her speed was such to cause such a heavily impact.
21
22 Daniel Andrews alleged police report stated “We had turned right from a stationary position into
23 Ridley St. Moment after we turned a cyclist collided heavily with the side of our vehicle.” As the
24 vehicle was in my view still turning as it was still in Melbourne Road then using the wording
25 “We had” is deceptive and misleading, As I view it should be “We were” (in the process of
26 turning.
27
28 Also the following statement: “My wife stopped the car immediately and provided assistance and
29 comfort to the cyclist. I immediately proceeded a few metres away to the corner of Melbourne
30 Rd calling 000 and protecting against any car driving directly into the accident scene.”
31 The part of this statement “I immediately proceeded a few metres away to the corner of
32 Melbourne Rd” doesn’t make sense to me as he “proceeded a few meters away to the corner”
33 even so he was actually already at the corner! And “My wife stopped the car immediately and
34 provided assistance and comfort to the cyclist.” But somehow there is at no time any mention
35 about the cyclist being a child! Again, if Catherine did actual provide assistance then surely she
36 would have become aware she was dealing with a child cyclist and I view would have bothered
37 to ask his name. Perhaps also asked him if she needed to call his parents.
38
39 I understood from a woman claiming to have been there that she was the first to attend to the
40 child cyclist and so it makes no sense that Catherine and Daniel both claimed that Catherin
41 rendered assistance. And again if about 8 months later they still didn’t know it involved a child
42 cyclist then I would ordinary conclude they made false and misleading statement.
43
44 If either of them but perhaps (assuming) Daniel drive the damaged motor vehicle away while
45 being unroadworthy due to the smashed windscreen, then in itself would involve a conspiracy
46 because Daniel should have known one is not permitted to leave the scene of an accident. Were
47 it involves 2 people (Daniel and Catherine) then may constitute a conspiracy. If they did drive of
48 and shortly thereafter returned then this was again a usage of an unroadworthy motor vehicle.
49
50 Daniel also stated “Police, Ambulance Paramedics and others from surrounding houses and
51 passer’-by were soon on the scene.”. I am not aware if the Police followed proper investigations
Page 20
1 protocol or because Daniel Andrews was then the leader of the Opposition they simply decided
2 to shove it so to say under the carpet. Did the police not mention to Catherine she had hit a child
3 cyclist? Or was it that the police attended afterwards when the child already was transported
4 away by the ambulance?
5 Did Christine make a claim against any insurance company and so what was her claim? Or was it
6 that the vehicle was on the name of Daniel Andrews (from Parliament) and so he had to make a
7 claim and/or statement to what eventuated. What kind of claim/statement was made and what, if
8 any, compensation was claimed for the child cyclist damaged pushbike?
9 In the end Daniel refers to “This was a deeply traumatic event for all involved. I can only say
10 I’m thankful that the young cyclist was not mere seriously injured.” Followed with this strange
11 comment “I wish him good health and a complete recovery from his injuries.” As the latter part
12 hardly is about “FACTS” regarding the accident itself. And referring to “young cyclist” could
13 also refer to a young cyclist already an adult and not necessarily refers to a child cyclist.
14 One may also ask about what real concern did Catherine and/or Daniel show as to did they visit
15 the child at the Children Hospital and offered to compensate for the replacement of the pushbike
16 Extraordinary is that as I understand it from reports that the Victorian Police attended to Ryan
17 the child cyclist but then the injured child was unable to talk and the Victorian Police allegedly
18 thereafter never bothered to continue their investigation to what the child had to say about the
19 indicant. It is also astounding that the police involved recommended no further action to be taken
20 when in my view even a first year constable would have been aware this was a very serious issue
21 that required a proper investigation.
22 Why indeed as is reportedly claimed no recovery vehicle was involved so the vehicle was
23 subjected to forensic investigation as to seek to reconstruct how the accident eventuated.
24 There is also a claim that there were obstruction, and the drawing appears to indicate this
25 however, roads often has parked cars, etc, along footpaths, etc, and motorist simply has to look
26 out for other road users.
27
28 The police report does refer to “Cyclist was treated at the scene by MAS and taken by air to
29 Royal Childrens.” as such the police were clearly aware they were dealing with a child cyclist.
30 Also the report states: “Cyclist collided with the front driver’s side of the vehicle, causing the
31 cyclist to be ejected onto the windscreen, causing it to smash.” This to me very narrowed
32 description itself ought to indicate that it appears rather that Christine hit the cyclist and the force
33 of the impacts caused the child cyclist to hit the windscreen to smash it.
34 The police report also seems to claim “Nil witnesses, police unable to speak with cyclist,
35 however damage to vehicle consistent with drivers story, call the father of cyclist. NFPA to be
36 taken with either party.”
37
38 Here you got as child cyclist severely injured and the police unable to speak to this child cyclist
39 and well decide no further police action to be taken as well just accept the driver’s version. If
40 there were “Nil witnesses” then was Daniel Andrews not a witness, where he was a passenger
41 when his wife was driving?
42
43 I wonder is this really the accident investigation protocol that when it involves a politician’s
44 family member then well the one sided version is deemed sufficient rather than a full
45 investigation including any drug and/or alcohol testing?
46
47 64288099-11400339-The_police_report_ruled_out_any_charges_against_the_driver_or_th-a-
48 5_1667862090409
49

Page 21
1
2
3 64288105-11400339-Catherine_Adams_stresses_she_was_the_driver_at_the_time_of_the_i-a-
4 3_1667862090328
5

Page 22
1
2
3 64288123-39-Daniel_Andrews_gave_police_a_formal_statement_about_the_crash_a_-a-
4 4_1667862090330
5
Page 23
1
2
3 I recall going for my truck licence when I stopped in the middle of the road to make a right hand
4 turn and a vehicle came from opposite direction with his left indicator blinking as if he was to
5 turn left. At that time right turning vehicles had right of way over left turning vehicles. I however
6 held the driver from opposite direction was not intending to turn left but rather to drive to the
7 curb past the intersection as his face was not at all looking sidewards for any other road users on
8 the footpath, etc, to turn left. I was right. Afterwards the driving instructor commented that he
9 thought I would fail the test because it appeared to him I had right of way, and didn’t realise that
10 the driver from opposite direction was not intending to turn at all. And this is what is essential
11 that when you are a road user you need to consider all road users and try even to observe their
12 conduct or the lack of certain conduct, as I did.
13
Page 24
1 In my view the claim regarding “raced” seems to be very absurd unless the motor vehicle had
2 been driving further from the scene of the accident than where the accident eventuated, as to
3 cause some distance to justify “raced” as to be used. If she had been stationary at the inter
4 section to make a right turn then surely her speed would have been likely very low that an
5 immediate stop could have eventuated. Where then she needed to travel from the vehicle to the
6 corner by having “raced” then this seems to indicate the vehicle was of a speed that she couldn’t
7 there and then stop but needed some distance to do so. Which to me indicates that more than
8 likely the passing of a learner driver was a fabrication as to try to pretend having come to a
9 stationary stop whereas more than likely the vehicle didn’t stop at all but simply reduced speed
10 to make the right hand turn and not looking for any other road users as to give way where
11 required.
12
13 I understand that there are post on the Internet which indicates that Mr Daniel Andrews left the
14 scene of the accident and shortly thereafter returned. If the police did its job it would have
15 recorded where the motor vehicle was standing when they arrived and likely made photos of the
16 scene also.
17
18 If Catherine was driving and “raced” to the cyclist then what happened to the glass that she
19 claimed caused some injury to her? Did she just jump out of the car and “raced” to the cyclist
20 ignoring any injuries to herself, just to be able to stand there looking at the cyclist?
21
22 Again, would a parent not first check the wellbeing of her passenger children and try to get clear
23 from any glass in view she was allegedly the driver, and had her husband immediately going to
24 the scene of the accident?
25 Also, where allegedly Daniel Andrews had to go to the corner to prevent further injuries to the
26 cyclist does this also indicate that the vehicle was well away from the cyclist. After all if
27 Catherine allegedly had been stopped and then turned then her speed would have been as such
28 that she could have come there and there at the scene of the accident to a full stop and not a
29 distance away that she had to allegedly “raced” back to the cyclist.
30
31 Whenever I cross-examined witnesses my aim was to expose the witness lacking honesty in
32 certain matters, as when one place the credibility of the witness in question than this can affect
33 any other evidence from this witness regardless if then the witness is actually telling the truth.
34
35 “ In closing argument, attorneys are required to refrain from expressing personal opinion as to the credibility of a
36 witness. However an attorney is allowed to argue reasonable inferences from the evidence including the
37 credibility of witnesses so long as the argument is based on the evidence. Trial court’s judgment and
38 sentence affirmed.” Stunzig v. State, No. CRC07-00057APANO (Fla. 6th Cir.App.Ct. April 3, 2009).
39
40 I understand that in the case of MORIATY v LONDON, CHATMAM & DOVER RY Queen’s
41 Bench 1870 L.R. 5 Q.B. 314;39 L.T.Q.B. 109;22 L.T. 163;34 J.P. 692;18 W.R. 625 in which the
42 plaintiff sued a railway company for personal injuries sustained and this plaintiff has gone about
43 suborning false evidence and it was held by the Court that even so the plaintiff would have had a
44 genuine and justify to case to sue normally, by the plaintiff conduct to suborn false evidence
45 this was seen by the Court that this conduct amounted to an admission that he had no case.
46
47 In this regard if indeed the police were to do a re-enactment (for so far possible) and conclude
48 that the version given by either or both statement of the Andrews cannot be correct than this may
49 weight against them.
50
51 It is in my view a very serious matter to make an oath that a statement is true and correct and
52 then to be exposed it is not.
Page 25
1 As Mr Daniel Andrews stated:

2
3 “I act appropriately at all times and in all things. That is the oath I swore and I
4 take it very seriously.”
5
6 Then this so to say self-serving statement may haunt him if proven to have made a
7 false/misleading statement.
8
9 For example, I understand that as Premier he has pursued that vaccines are “safe and effective”
10 and claimed there was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” (and other such kind of statements)
11 and if this was untrue, as I view they were, then this could be used to question his credibility also
12 even so it may not directly relate to the accident.
13
14 This part 3 will be followed by “20221117-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC –
15 COMPLAINT-Part 4” which further will deal with legal issues also.
16
17 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
18
19 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
20
21 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
22 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

23 (Our name is our motto!)
24
26
27 Here we had Daniel Andrews making known he swore an oath and intend to uphold this while in
28 reality as a Member of parliament having made an oath concealed the truth and I view
29 undermined the administration of justice and perverted the course of justice.
30
31 Anyhow, we do have the legal principle:
32
33 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
35 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
36 for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
37 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and
38 secure to him.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 Well, it seems that politicians are above this!
42
43 And what we now seem to have is that corporations will simply nominate a person having been
44 the driver, regardless if this person was not the driver and pay the fine as then the real driver
45 avoids any points against his/her drivers licence or might very well be unlicensed and an
46 innocent person coerced or otherwise ends up with points against his/her licence. I understand
47 that the going rate is about $100 for a person taking the point(s) while the corporation instead of
48 $5,000 or even $10,000 pays merely the about $250 or so the fine was about. It seems what is
49 good for the Goose is good for the Gander. If politicians and their officials can be above the rule
50 of law then why not everyone else?
51
Page 26
1 Actually, we now had a person standing for election who in my view was not qualified to do so
2 but then why would the VEC bother about that as generally to them little people may be more a
3 target while those committing elaborate crimes are to be ignored.
4
5 As I understand it Mark already disputed a fine and incurred a $30 charge for a photo to disprove
6 the allegation even so it didn’t even go to court. And to even get an extract of his 6 points he
7 needs to pay more than $10 to about $20. And as I once discovered I had twice the point of the
8 same incident recorded against me, as such we have a corrupt system in place and this besides
9 the purported Infringement Court lacking any judicial powers as it violates the legal principles
10 embedded in the constitution.
11
12
13
14 On 16/5/2023 Mark allegedly failed to produce a valid ticket. Well, I understand from mark he
15 had gone on to the station and then became ill and left the station and later re-entered. Now,
16 Mark obviously didn’t design the system but the government did so and well if they had kept to
17 the old system you can purchase a ticket and show it that is one thing. These days you need to
18 purchase some card and then (I got 3) the government simply cancel the cars (I got 3 cancelled)
19 and my monies are still kept by the government. Meaning they robbed me from my monies. Oh,
20 yes you can go to a station to get a refund or to a ticket seller, well I tried both and they told me
21 that I need to go to the city to get a refund. Meaning, I have to spend more money than 1 ticker
22 refund would be worth! What kind of system is that when I have no desire to travel in my own
23 time to try to get my monies back after having at least twice being refused? If I need to use
24 public transport then well first of all they need to provide a cash facility to pay and it must be a
25 ticket that I can use for what I may desire to do to travel, as I decide after the original trip.
26 Failing that I have no need to waste more monies on their scams.
27 As such, if you were to pay with a mobile then you will not get a ticket as far as I understand it.
28 Meaning you can be fined not because you didn’t pay but because you cannot produce a ticket,
29 which is not given out anyhow.
30

Page 27
1 Again, the point system is useless as people who are limited in monies and need every cent they
2 can get may end up having points against their license for the sake of $100 or more while the real
3 offender get away with it. Essentially the rich will get off with paying a poor bloke $100! OK not
4 as bad, at least in my view, as the criminal conduct of Daniel Andrews and his wife Catharine as
5 that surely should underline that the Victorian Police is not a Law Enforcement Agency but more
6 likely very corrupt. After all, let us not forget the Victorian police conduct to enforce the
7 unconstitutional MANDATES even with shooting rubber bullets at parents holding small
8 children, after all exercising your constitutional rights of “political liberty” is far worse than that
9 what the Andrews got involved in.
10
11 As I previous stated in
13 Madam,
14 I request you to explain to underlines like the purported Fines Victoria (provide them
15 with a copy of this correspondence) that it lacks any legal status to issue some “obligation
16 number 2420909397” this also as to my knowledge no credible court of law ever issued an
17 order against me to justify such “obligation” and hence I view that the demands are no
18 more but an “EXTORTION” by whomever make such demands to me and so the State
19 (purported) Government with each such demand and/or further sought enforcement will
20 be liable to pay me $1 million for each occasion. Obviously, my decades of writings have
21 been ignored and so robbing me of my constitutional rights I view is a very serious matter
22 and to what I deemed to be a reasonable financial compensation should be applied.
24 And
26 Again, so much more to state, albeit it can be downloaded from my blog
27 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati but it should be clear that without valid
28 legislation no Court can invoke jurisdiction!
30
31 Anything that was in violation of the constitution has absolutely no legal basis.
32
33 No one can claim that the VEC and the State Government didn’t know as they could have known
34 had they considered my writing.
35
36 And as to Mark spitting, well if this was a real issue then go after HOLDEN who coerced Mark
37 to have 2 Pfizer jabs and I understand he now had less than 2 years to live. He is repeatedly in
38 hospital and yes spewing up and if that is an issue it is the result of the unconstitutional
39 MANDATES and bet you that if you pursue Mark for having been in ill health then you will
40 have further legal accountability as being the originator of the MANDATES, etc. How dare you
41 to pursue a dying man who is constantly spewing where you could have prevented it if you had
42 the balls to stand up for the rights of Victorians instead of placing your political future interest
43 before doing your job?
44 And then Mark was called back for the spitting and subsequently asked if he was smoking and
45 then got fined for that also. Are you just utterly stupid or just try to conduct yourself being a
46 complete idiot?
47
48 Now you cannot unilaterally disqualify Mark from having a driver’s licence because again it
49 would violate his constitutional rights. He then could sue you personally and others and avoid by
50 this taxpayers having to pay the bill. Moreover, you wouldn’t have the protection of any office,
51 because where you act in violation of the constitution you are legally accountable as a private
52 person!
Page 28
1
2 I am not going to go over all other issues because it is your job claiming to be premier to ensure
3 that any laws you so your officials rely upon are constitutional valid and as I wrote previously so
4 often you may find there are no constitutional valid laws.
5
6 The following legal principle also applies in the Commonwealth of Australia!
7
8 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
9 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
10 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
11 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
12 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
13 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
14 authority of the United States”.
15
16 The following applies to any Commonwealth or State constitution!
18 QUOTE
19 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people
20 and the states on terms that are just to both.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 Meaning, the State parliament without a State referendum cannot alter the State constitution and
24 each and every purported constitution must be accepted by the electors, including any
25 amendments. Well, why not list the numerous State referendums held to amend any
26 constitutional valid created State constitution and its amendments? I understand the purported
27 Victorian Constitution Act 1975 had about 120 amendments and that means there had to be
28 about 120 successful State referendums for this, and that is if this purported constitution in the
29 first place was approved by a State referendum!
30
31 The same is with the utter and sheer nonsense that “municipal corporations” somehow as “local
32 government” clearly in violation to the constitutional system embedded in the constitution!
33
34 I do not fear to face any litigation as I proved my ability to stand up for my constitutional rights
35 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka however, for any government entity to litigate against me it is faced to
36 having to prove that there is constitutional valid State constitution and constitutional valid
37 legislation, etc. And let us not ignore what the AEC v Schorel-Hlavka was about as that is also a
38 handicap you are bound by.
39
40 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html
41 Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)
42 QUOTE
43 A temporary restraining order was made by the Circuit Court, which only restrained the railway company
44 from publishing the rates as provided for in the act of April 18, 1907, and from reducing its tariffs to the
45 figures set forth in that act, the court refusing for the present to interfere by injunction with regard to the
46 orders of the commission and the act of April 4, 1907, as the railroads had already put them in operation; but
47 it restrained Edward T. Young, Attorney General, from taking any steps against the railroads to enforce the
48 remedies or penalties specified in the act of April 18, 1907.
49 Copies of the bill and the restraining order were served, among others, upon the defendant Mr. Edward T.
50 Young, Attorney General, who appeared specially and only for the purpose of moving to dismiss the bill as to
51 him, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over him as Attorney General; and he averred that the
52 State of Minnesota had not consented, and did not consent, to the commencement of this suit against him as
53 Attorney General of the State, which suit was, in truth and effect, a suit against the said State of Minnesota
54 contrary to the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Page 29
1 The Attorney General also filed a demurrer to the bill on the same ground stated in the motion to dismiss. The
2 motion was denied and the demurrer overruled.
3 Thereupon, on the 23d of September, 1907, the court, after a hearing of all parties and taking proofs in regard
4 to the issues involved, ordered a temporary injunction to issue against the railway company restraining it,
5 pending the final hearing of the cause, from putting into effect the tariffs, rates, or charges set forth in the act
6 approved April 18, 1907. The court also enjoined the defendant Young, as Attorney General of the State of
7 Minnesota, pending the final hearing of the cause, from taking or instituting any action or proceeding to
8 enforce the penalties and remedies specified in the act above mentioned, or to compel obedience to that act,
9 or compliance therewith, or any part thereof.
10 Page 209 U. S. 133
11 END QUOTE
12
13 I understand that subsequently the Attorney-General Young for having violated the courts
14 order was ordered to be imprisoned.
15
16 "It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling
17 into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from
18 falling into error."
19 Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nurnberg Trials.
20
21 Contrary to the VEC claim my son Mark doesn’t have to apply to a court against
22 unconstitutional legislation being enforced, as it is for the VEC to seek to litigate in a
23 court of competent jurisdiction & must not selectively do so against one citizen but
24 not another.
27 B-to-Mr-W-Gately-VEC-COMPLAINT-Re-Mark-Craig-Schorel-Infringement-4120508
28
29 Likewise, where I have already challenged the validity of any State purported constitution and by
30 this any purported legislation then the entire purported Infringement Court system is and remains
31 to be ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio.
32
33 “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the
34 laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it,
35 anarchy and tyranny commence.”
36 —John Adams (1787
37
38 The State of Victoria having interfered with my FEE SIMPLE Titles is unacceptable and
39 unconstitutional and requires to be corrected without delay. And it should not be ignored that any
40 rights I have likewise may apply to every Victorian/Australian equally.
41
42 It should be understood that considering the above stated (including past writings) the courts can
43 only exercise jurisdiction provided they operate as a “impartial administration of justice”, and
44 this is not at all eventuating.
45 For example, those who are deemed to be “LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY” and/or LAW
46 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER” must act therefore “IMPARTIAL” and this clearly is not
47 eventuating.
48
49 For example, the Victorian Police rather than to observe the constitutional rights of Australians
50 to exercise their “political liberty” and “religious liberty” instead went as far as to grab a young
51 woman by the throat, sparing a elderly women with something while she was defenceless lying
52 on the road, pushed over by a police officer, police covering up the criminal conduct of Daniel

Page 30
1 Andrews and his wife Catherine, IBAC failing to investigate my complaint regarding Daniel
2 Andrews and Catherine.
3
5 QUOTE
6 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
7 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
8 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
9 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
10 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
11 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
12 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
13 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
14 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
15 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
16 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
17 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
18 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
19 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
20 END QUOTE
21
23 QUOTE
25 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
26 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
27 shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
28 believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
29 invest with federal jurisdiction.
30 END QUOTE
32
33 Therefore the High Court of Australia is not above the constitution and cannot in any shape or
34 form alter the true meaning of the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia
35 Constitution Act 1900 (UK) even so it purported to do so numerous times such as in Sue v Hill,
36 MABO, Sykes v Cleary, Palmer v WA, etc.
37
39 When I lodged my COMPLAINT on 8 April 2020 against the police involvement regarding the
40 mandates I was advised to lodge my complaint with IBAC, this I did. But as one usually can
41 expect IBAC didn’t take in my view appropriate action. Matters have escalated considerably and
42 many people have died, this while I view had IBAC acted appropriately then most harm,
43 including deaths, might have been avoided.
44
45 Let us see if the Victorian Ombudsman really is going to do her job as I have set out in the document
46 regarding COVID-19 restrictions.
47 This document can be downloaded from:
48 https://www.scribd.com/document/455424459/20200408-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Deborah-
49 Glass-Victorian-Ombudsman
50
51 This 49 page document surely has taken me a lot of time in research and compilation. Then again,
52 if anyone were to take me to Court then I wouldn’t hesitate to use it against any aggressor of my
53 constitutional rights.
55 https://www.scribd.com/document/455508857/20200408-Mr-g-h-Schorel-hlavka-o-w-b-to-Pm-Mr-
56 Scott-Morrison-re-Constitutional-Quarantine-Powers
Page 31
1
2 This is a document of some 97 pages and surely going to take time not just to read it but also to digest
3 it, but I view the various subject matters makes it worth to learn about what you never may have
4 known but should have.
6 https://www.scribd.com/document/456216898/20200413-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Victoria-s-
7 Human-Rights-Commissioner-Kristen-Hilton
8
9 And I also provided my writings to:
10
11 20200827-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Snr Sgt Kim French -Re INVOLVEMENT POLICE
12 UNION
13
14 I did provide also further writings.
15
16 It must therefore be very clear that I did alert the many, including Premier Daniel Andrews at
17 numerous times but he too couldn’t bother to properly consider matters. Well, now that the
18 covid scam is slowly being exposed (see also below in further parts of this COMPLAINT) then
19 forget the issue of “amnesty” as now people want to be applied for the evil doers, as I gave
20 everyone ample of opportunities to appropriately address matters and their failure/ignorance to
21 do so and in the process allow many victims to suffer and many also die then legal accountability
22 is required.
24
25
27 The requirement to be a legal practitioner.
28 CARL THEODORUS MÖLLER v THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR LEGAL PRACTITIONERS
29 No. 4480 of 1999
30 QUOTE
31
32 From this I understand that even if you are holding a “Australian Citizenship” as a “nationality”
33 then despite having graduated as a lawyer you still cannot become a member of the bar (of the
34 Supreme Court) and then not practice law as a solicitor and/or barrister if you do not swear
35 allegiance to the monarch. As such, neither can become a judge of a Court. The same with a
36 person wanting to be a candidate in a state/federal election one need to hold “Australian
37 Citizenship” as a “nationality”. Hence, if a person doesn’t have “Australian Citizenship” as a
38 “nationality” the person cannot be lawfully registered as a candidate let alone become a Member
39 of Parliament in any Australian Parliament. However a Governor-General is not required to have
40 any “Australian Citizenship” as a “nationality” this is beca,use the Constitution was created
41 based upon the Governor-General being a “subject of the British Crown” and representing the
42 British Monarch.
43
44 We had that allegedly more than 100 persons, mainly allegedly police officers, had not been
45 properly sworn in while nevertheless assaulting and in other criminal manner acting against
46 unarmed political protestors, even firing bullets in the back of unarmed protesters holding
47 children at the Shrine of Remembrance, who did no more than exercising their political rights.
48
50 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
51 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and
52 the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined
53 in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of
54 the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
55 END QUOTE
56
Page 32
1 Often it is claimed that Australia has no Bill of Rights, however this is because people generally
2 do not understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of the Commonwealth of
3 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), even if they are claiming to be “constitutional lawyers”
4 which itself is an oxymoron as would be a firebug fire fighter.
5
7 QUOTE
8 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
9 people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
10 for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
11 history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
12 Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
13 charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 Reality is that to my understanding not a single person claiming to be a police officer actually is
17 lawfully a police officer. If therefore there are no legal practitioners, police officers and/or
18 judges then all and any conviction is and remain without the warrant of law.
20
21 Over the decades my late wife never has seen me rude or derogative towards her. I always made
22 clear that it is the character of a person that is important. My wife had her “cooking’ and not long
23 before she passed away I happened to ask her to teach me how she uses spices to taste as she was
24 very good at it and had always a dozen of spices in use when she was preparing a meal. She was
25 very proud on her cooking and I never criticized her even if a spice was a bit much. After all I
26 knew from having been a single parent long ago that I too at time didn’t get it right. I adored my
27 wife for who she was and that ultimately was most important and this nonsense about having
28 certain standards of men and women in the workforce, etc, is to me nonsense as it never should
29 be about the sex is of a person but rather who is more competent for any position that needs to be
30 filled.
31
32 Here we have Penny Wong as being the Minister for External Affairs and it seems she seems to
33 be incompetent in her job, not because I say so but after all why have an Ambassador for
34 Aboriginals interfering with her job. And come to it the same with Anthony Albanese who is not
35 to my knowledge the Minister for Foreign Affairs and neither Head of state and yet goes around
36 like Travelling Pete to glorify himself and undermining the position of Penny Wong.
37 This Travelling Pete also seems to interfere with other ministerial port folios and even
38 unconstitutional as did Scott Morrison in his time, perhaps this is what Anthony Albanese was
39 making clear prior to the 2022 purported federal election that he didn’t want to change anything
40 but to be prime Minister? After all, where is his authority to give away monies to Ukraine when
41 Parliament was not even sitting as the writs had not been returned. As a matter of fact without a
42 Appropriation Act to permit this, if this in the first place was constitutionally permissible, he had
43 no legal justification to give away any monies.
44 This wasting of taxpayer’s monies also has been going on at State levels.
45 In my view Daniel Andrews never was entitled to be a candidate in the political election because
46 of his conduct and yes so also many others were not entitled to be candidates, but then who cares
47 if they violate the rule of law, if there is any. As Daniel Andrews gave me the understanding he
48 couldn’t care less about human rights as after all he was more concerned about ‘saving lives”
49 well I can only perceive he was meaning to save lives from the human race to have them slowly
50 dying. After all, if he really had been concerned about saving lives he surely could have done
51 without the unconstitutional MANDATES.
52

Page 33
1 Now his conduct and his collaborators has ended up that one of my sons is expected to die due to
2 the Pfizer jabs and well reportedly Daniel Andrews is retired and collecting about $300,000 a
3 year for the rest of his life. Well, not if I can help it as in my view this absurd kind of payment
4 appears to be unconstitutional!
5
6 Let us really get back to the basics of what the constitution actually stands for and well other
7 then the grifters in Parliament and their collaborators taxpayers likely will be a lot better off.
8
9 It should be clear that we do not have an “impartial administration of justice” as the entire
10 purported Infringement Court is a clear example of this.
11
12
13
14
15
16 It must be clear that the purported “Infringement Courts” are unconstitutional this as they deny
17 both parties to be heard before any judgement is handed down. There is a lot more to it but as the
18 Framers of the Constitution made very clear:
19
21 QUOTE
22 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a
23 decision on the point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by
24 which the parties accused must be heard.
25 Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
26 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start
27 page 689] anything the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall
28 be some form by which a person accused will have an opportunity of stating his case

Page 34
1 before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in criminal law now? I
2 cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 Meaning that the purported charges against my son Mark may generally have no legal basis!
6
7 It doesn’t matter if the Victorian Parliament purportedly legislated that VicRoads somehow can
8 deny Mark to have his drivers licence such as for FAILING TO VOTE because Mark has his
9 constitutional rights and I (Granted by Mark Enduring Power of Attorney) am well entitled to
10 oppose this nonsense on his behalf.
11 It means that where the disqualification is because of unilateral conduct by VicRoads and not
12 specifically by an Administration of Justice, meaning a competent court of jurisdiction, then the
13 disqualification has no constitutional validity. And as a Court cannot invoke jurisdiction to
14 enforce unconstitutional laws then there you go.
15
16 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
17 Australasian Convention),
18 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
19 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the
20 administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be
21 beyond the possibility of suspicion;
22 END QUOTE
23
24 SAs I indicated in past writings that the Commonwealth has the exclusive legislative powers as
25 to ‘weight and measures’ and as such any speed detection camera or other kind of camera will be
26 without constitutional validity if not approved by the commonwealth of Australia for its settings,
27 etc.
28 Who can ignore how time and time again police officers who were held to have violated certain
29 road rules then were able to get off proving that something was wrong, whereas ordinary
30 motorist had no such ability!
31 Who can ignore the report that some years ago some 2000 NSW motorist were wrongly issued
32 with Infringement Notices because the agency had mistakenly accessed the NSW registry instead
33 of the Victorian registry?
34
35 Considering the way the Victorian Police dealt with the Daniel Andrews and his wife Catherine
36 it seems to me it no longer can be deemed to be a “Law Enforcement Agency” this as it must be
37 beyond reproach and cannot be part of the “impartial Administration of Justice” when it fails to
38 be and remain “impartial” in its conduct towards any alleged offender. The same relates to
39 alleged “Law Enforcement Agency” being some municipal corporation. They cannot place
40 themselves above the rule of law (if there is any that is) while prosecuting others for what they
41 do themselves far worse.
42
43 The legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur action” denies any remedy to a litigant
44 (including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands.
45 If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with “Dirty Hands”
46 best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!
47 Yet, I experienced that a council itself fails to uphold the alleged rule of law and then use this to
48 prosecute someone who is the victim as if the person is the offender.
49
50 It should be very clear that where I have all along challenged the constitutional validity of the
51 purported Infringement Court then all purported convictions have no legal basis. That means to
52 apply to every person in Victoria!
Page 35
1
2 We therefore have reached the pinnacle of challenge to the legal system and if there is in fact any
3 valid government anywhere in the Commonwealth of Australia as pretending there is a valid
4 government has no legal basis, it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
5
6 Neither can the State of Victoria slug businesses, etc, with some land taxation tax to somehow
7 get rid of the debt incurred in regard of the “covid scam”, as after all the State lacks any land
8 taxation powers in the first place and any municipal corporation pursuing me for the purported
9 state land taxation called “council rates” would have a major job ahead to prove the court can
10 invoke jurisdiction regarding unconstitutional exercise of powers, etc.
11
12 Obviously, the Government would do better to avoid not just Mark but so also anyone else to be
13 disqualified from driving regarding alleged unpaid fines as would it fail to take immediate action
14 to prevent it then in my view those who are “responsible” should be slugged at least $1 million
15 for each incident. This then will drive home reality that we have a constitution and Ministers and
16 their Officials are not above it but must conduct themselves in accordance to the legal principles
17 embedded in the constitution and failing that are to be held personally legally accountable.
18
19 All vaccinations/jabbing should be suspended pending proper scientific investigations and no
20 doctor should permit any jabbing unless certifying that for a particular person it is justified, etc,
21 after a proper evaluation has been done to the particular patient.
22 All and any pharmaceutical company funding must be prohibited as to ensure that patients are
23 not ending up becoming victims because the medical profession seeks to obtain by backdoor
24 manner monies, etc.
25
26 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
27
28 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
29 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
30 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

31 (Our name is our motto!)


20240925-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Jacinta Allan Premier & Ors-SUPPLEMENT 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20240925-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Jacinta Allan Premier & Ors-SUPPLEMENT 1

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

20240925-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Jacinta Allan Premier & Ors-SUPPLEMENT 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

25-9-2024 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-9-2024 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-9-2024 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-9-2024 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Mr Warwick Gately (VEC) (Australia, Victoria time) 7-7-2023

1 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-

25-9-2024 Page 15 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-9-2024 Page 17 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-9-2024 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-9-2024 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-9-2024 Page 21 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 As Mr Daniel Andrews stated:

22 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

25-9-2024 Page 26 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-9-2024 Page 29 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-9-2024 Page 32 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-9-2024 Page 33 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

30 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

25-9-2024 Page 35 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like