Page 1

1
2
3 Duncan Stewart, Director 22-10-2024
4 Fines Victoria, Ground Floor, 277 William Street,
5 Melbourne Victoria 3000
6 C/o Email [email protected]
7
8 Cc: Jacinta Allan [email protected]
9 Attorney-General Cth [email protected]
10 Pauline Hanson PHON [email protected]
11
12 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
13 Re -purported fines, etc.
14 20241022-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Duncan Stewart, Director, Fines Victoria-Supplement 4
15 Sir,
16 despite my past extensive writings, I received yet another demand, meaning another $25 million
17 against you for invading my constitutional and other rights. In view that Jacinta Allan received
18 copies of my writings then she should have immediately notified each and every purported
19 government entity to stop making any demands upon me and await for the State of Victoria to
20 first sort out disputed legal issues that needs to be addressed.
21 As I explained the AEC in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka precisely did the same to ignore the
22 constitutional/legal issues and well it lost both cases.
23 Let me try to get you attention to reality.
24 The legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur action” denies any remedy to a litigant
25 (including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands.
26 If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with “Dirty
27 Hands” best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!
28 I did notify the (purported) State Government over many years what I held was
29 unconstitutional/unlawful and it blatantly disregarded to even communicate with me to try to sort
30 out the issues at hand.
31 It simply went on to purportedly have the Parliament legislating the purported ‘Infringement
32 Act 2006’ and ‘Fines Reform Act 2014’ regardless of being without legal justification.
33 As a Registrar of then then Perin Court gave me the understanding that about 95% people would
34 pay up regardless if they knew they had not committed any offence, this to me amounts to
35 extortion, because to lose a day’s of pay, and likely losing the case anyhow. Because the Court
36 cannot permit “ex turpi causa non oritur action”, it should throw out of the window any such
37 abuse of powers.
38 Banyule City Council in 2008 fined me for exceeding 3 hours parking even so to their own
39 records I had been parked for 2 hours and 29 minutes. Now get this, they rejected my appeal and
40 informed me that no further appeal was possible. I then made clear a magistrate would throw out
41 the case as 2h 29 minutes is less than 3 hours. Then I was informed my appeal was upheld.
42 Moment: Who is Banyule City Council to determine my appeal or that of anyone else? Where
43 they are constitutionally no more but a “municipal corporation” which the High Court of
44 Australia in 1904 made clear cannot legislate.
22-10-2024 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 What about all the other motorist that were wrongly having an Infringement Notice
2 against them?
3 As there can be only an “IMPARTIAL administration of justice” this cannot include some
4 municipal corporation being judge, jury and executor!
5 I proved in the past in court that a police officer having issued an Infringement Notice, then
6 altered the copy for the purported Infringement Court without making this known to me!
7 State Governments, regardless of political associations, will pursue any unconstitutional
8 /unlawful extortion to get more monies in the kitty, so they can spend more.
9 You now allegedly increased an alleged Infringement Notice fine for me merely standing up for
10 my constitutional and other legal rights and this not because of any order of any “IMPARTIAL
11 administration of justice” but merely because of the purported ‘Infringement Act 2006’ and
12 ‘Fines Reform Act 2014’. This clearly violates the very meaning of “IMPARTIAL
13 administration of justice” as the word “IMPARTIAL” means the court cannot be one way or
14 another dictated how it must decide a case.
15 HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are
18 offences committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and
19 the only cases to which Mr. Higgins’ amendment would apply are those in which the
20 criminal law of the state was in conflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in
21 any other cases there would be no necessity to change the venue, and select a jury of
22 citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in modern or in ancient
23 times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by an
24 Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal
25 offences, and I do not at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of
26 the honorable member a state of affairs in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict
27 a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive. It might be that a law passed by
28 the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular state, and so
29 calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every
30 citizen to exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to
31 convict persons of offences against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a
32 very striking opportunity of manifesting its condemnation of a law, and a method
33 which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was originally unjust. I think it is a
34 measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which should be
35 preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and
36 prevent the citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow
37 citizens conferred upon it by this Constitution.
38 END QUOTE
39 Clearly “nullification” is embedded as a legal principle in the constitution.
40 This is why a person may found to be exceeding the speed limit and yet then when dragged
41 before a court may find the court nullify the charges on basis that it holds that on the basis of the
42 evidence the person had a justified excuse to exceed a speed limit, such as say a person
43 transporting an injured person to a hospital where time is of the essence to save the injured
44 person’s life.
45 A person may have entered private property and smashed a window but the Court holds that the
46 charges are a disregard to common sense where the person smashed the window to get access to
47 a house on fire and this smashing of the window was to try to rescue anyone caught in the
48 burning house.
49 While you may argue that if such a kind of situation is applicable than I should for example
50 explain this to you, not on your life, as you are not an “IMPARTIAL administration of justice”
51 and merely some public official who has no business to judge others. Neither have you or anyone
52 but a “IMPARTIAL administration of justice” any legal position to determine my innocence or
22-10-2024 Page 2 © 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 3

1 guilt. Meaning, that it is utter and sheer nonsense for you to apply certain additional charges
2 merely because the State Parliament purportedly legislated for this in violation of my
3 constitutional and other rights. You are undermining by this the very meaning of JUSTICE
4 because you pursue to apply a punishment against those who desire to defend their rights. For
5 sure, you may claim that you rely upon the purported ‘Infringement Act 2006’ and ‘Fines
6 Reform Act 2014’, but that is no excuse whatsoever. As they made clear in the Nuremberg
7 Trials “Following orders is no excuse”! If you since 2006 and 2014 were not capable to
8 understand the conflicts of those purported legislative provisions versus what is constitutionally
9 and otherwise permissible, then well it appears to me you are grossly incompetent and perhaps
10 do better to get a boat and try to find underwater air clouds. Happy searching.
11 You cannot excuse yourself to seek at all means to enforce unconstitutional and unlawful
12 decisions merely because you cannot bother to check constitutional and other legal issues that
13 are relevant.
14 First thing is that an Infringement Notice never can be to issue a “fine” because it would be
15 beyond the powers of anyone to issue a “fine” other than for an “IMPARTIAL administration of
16 justice” to do so and only without interference of any Government/Parliament.
17 Constitutionally no speed camera, traffic light, etc, can be used unless certified by the
18 commonwealth which holds “exclusive” legislative powers as to “weights and measures”, and
19 yet this is time and time again ignored. And somehow it appears to me you couldn’t care less and
20 just willing to enforce albeit unconstitutionally/unlawful any purported Infringement Notice and
21 blatantly disregard the harm that may be inflicted upon an innocent person!
22 There was this case where a woman working for the Victorian Department of Justice had
23 travelled on a high way in Queensland and had the record to have paid the toll nevertheless was
24 confronted with an Infringement Notice of not having paid the toll. They even provided a photo
25 of the vehicle and the numberplate. She however had the evidence she had paid and it was found
26 that when she was on that highway another vehicle identical to hers with an identical
27 numberplate from another state had been on the same road but not paid the toll. It was only
28 because she was employed with the Victorian Department of Justice it was investigated and
29 established that indeed she had paid the toll road charge. However, I understand once the
30 Victorian toll road company accessed in error the NSW records and then issued about 2,000
31 Infringement Notices against NSW drivers instead of Victorian Drivers. It is this kind of
32 extortion that I understand often eventuates where I view people like you are simply enforcing
33 purported legislative provisions regardless of any harm to innocent persons.
34
35 Both myself and my (now Late) wife were terrorized by Banyule City Council staff, and it
36 contributed to her ending up in a wheelchair. But, he, Banyule City Council is supposed to be a
37 “Law Enforcement Agency” and so can place itself above the rule of law! Is this what you are
38 proud upon that the very “Law Enforcement Agency” that is supposed to uphold the law actually
39 are the culprits to violate the rights of citizens?
40
41 Let say you were to pursue matters before a court that is an “IMPARTIAL administration of
42 justice” and the Court is informed that you took it upon yourself to dictate fines to apply to me
43 with a disregard to the court’s sole judicial powers? The court would have to throw out any case
44 against me as you have unduly interfered with the court’s judicial powers. You simply have no
45 judicial powers to apply any form of punishment.
46
47 Take the issue of Mr Francis James Colosimo who purportedly was placed under Orders of
48 Administration, while represented by counsel. Well, he got rid of his lawyers and requested me
49 to take over. The Orders of Administration were based upon 2 medical experts having given
50 evidence that Mr Colosimo couldn’t deal with his own affairs (hence the Order for
51 Administration) because he didn’t accept to be convicted for CONTEMPT OF COURT. Well, I
22-10-2024 Page 3 © 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 4

1 appeared before Harbison J and her Honour made it very clear she had not at all convicted Mr
2 Colosimo of CONTEMPT OF COURT. Actually, when I checked the transcripts of the previous
3 5 hearings I discovered Mr Colosimo was actually never formally charge with CONTEMPT OF
4 COURT. However, from onset so I understand from Mr Colosimo that Gibson J had made clear
5 that VCAT is bound by the Governments policies. Moment, where is this part of any
6 “IMPARTIAL administration of justice”? Yes, I did succeed in the appeal for Mr Colosimo!
7
8 It ought to be clear that our judicial system is not at all that of a “IMPARTIAL administration
9 of justice” but rather far too often to what appears to me to be a corrupt system.
10
11 Because most hardworking citizens do not have the time to do the extensive research, I have
12 been doing they then are duped and denied their constitutional, legal and other rights. This needs
13 to stop!
14
15 Obviously, the question also is who are you really employed with?
16
17 We have a purported legal system to elect Members of Parliament, but then when they are
18 elected they seem to be rather involved in corporate entities. The Commonwealth is a registered
19 ‘corporation” with the District of Columbia under the direct legislative powers of the American
20 congress and that violates S44 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
21 and by this by Section 45 are AUTOMATICALLY disqualified to hold a seat in the Parliament.
22 The same applies to the State of Victoria which is a registered corporation. Meaning, that those
23 who are actually enforcing corporate purported powers are without legal basis as the High Court
24 of Australia in Municipal of Sydney v Commonwealth 1904 made clear corporations cannot
25 legislate.
26
27 As I wrote to the (purported) State Government, time and time again, and yet it has officials
28 pestering me with their unconstitutional/unlawful claims then this to me is constituting a
29 conspiracy and this must be held to justify me to claim $50 million compensation regarding each
30 occasion this is done.
31 Because judges, politicians, officials, etc, are not protected it means it is not the taxpayers who
32 will face the cost of compensations but rather each person is acting in “individual” position. As
33 such, may all become bankrupt for this. Well, that is when you blatantly disregard duties and
34 obligations and inflict harm upon innocent citizens.
35
36 While Jacinta Allen refers to Labor Government, reality is that there is no such thing as a Labor
37 or Coalition government, this because Ministers are selected by the Governor and not elected by
38 the electors. A Government is bound to represent the interest of all citizens regardless of their
39 political affiliation!
40
41 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
42 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
43 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

44 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

45 (Our name is our motto!)

22-10-2024 Page 4 © 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