20211107-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria-COMPLAINT-Suppl-02-NOTIFICATION

1
Mr Daniel Andrews Premier 7-11-2021

daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au AND OPEN LETTER
5
Cc; Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au, attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Re: 20211107-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria-

COMPLAINT-suppl-02 NOTIFICATION
10 Sir,
I make known that I object to the validity of any legislative, executive, administrative,
judicial, police, etc, power by the State of Victoria in regard of any “man-kind” (infectious)
disease! What this means is that all and any of this is ULTRA VIRUS Ab Initio unless and until
if aver at all a court of competent jurisdiction declares any and/or all of it to be INTRA VIRUS.
15
Our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) provided for a constitutional
federal/State (including Territories) governance system within which at each level constitutions
can only be amended by approval of the relevant electors.
I have on 6 August 2021 commenced to file a COMPLAINT with the Australian Federal Police
20 which now has with its numerous supplements expanded to about 1090 pages so far.
Scott Morrison requested the Australian Federal Police to investigate regarding

COVID issues, and well, let the AFP do its job and do a proper investigation as I now
have requested in this COMPLAINT.
25
This document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/518990686/20210806-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Reece-
Kershaw-Chief-Commissioner-of-the-Australian-Federal-Police-COMPLAINT-2
30 As such, this is an OFFICIAL COMPLAINT lodges with the Australian Federal Police.
Recently, 2 of the supplements were:
In my view “man-kind” infectious diseases are Federal legislative issues and so any
35 Victorian legislation on foot or proposed will be ULTRA VIRUS, where there is no
State legislative powers for it. We do NOT need to earn our FREEDOM, as it is
embedded as a legal principle in our constitution!
https://www.scribd.com/document/535873736/20211029-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-R-Kershaw-
40 Chief-Commissioner-of-the-Australian-Federal-Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-26-State-of-Federal
Our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) in itself is a Magna

Charta and has rights embedded in it. Now we need lawyers, judges and politicians to
understand and comprehend what the true meaning and application of the
45 constitution is, so they stop the unconstitutional jabbing demands!
p1 7-11-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
2
https://www.scribd.com/document/536493539/20211102-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-R-Kershaw-
Chief-Commissioner-of-the-Australian-Federal-Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-27-Legal-Principles
50 There can therefore be no question that you, the Victorian Attorney General and others who were
provided with copies of the initial 6 August 2021 COMPLAINT and its numerous supplements
were listed in the headings and were provided each time with a copy of the documentation when
it was emailed to the Australian federal Police. Indeed, your automatic reply confirms that they
were received.
55
I do not manage your office, as that is within your powers and as such if for whatever reason you
were allegedly not informed about my writings then that is your own self-inflicted problem.
I will as much as possible seek to avoid to refer to the issues canvassed in my COMPLAINT to
60 the Australian Federal Police as to try to keep this corresponded to a minimum.
Our constitution was created that the Commonwealth has “exclusive powers” in regard to
numerous subject matters provided for in the constitution and the States were provided with
residue powers. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that when the
Commonwealth commenced on 1 January 1901 there still had to be held federal political
65 elections, then a Parliament was to be established and time needed to create relevant legislative
provisions and for this Section 51 (even so it did not specifically states so in the constitution)
held that “until” the Commonwealth would commence legislation upon a certain matter the
States could exercise “concurrent” legislative powers, however as from the date of federation
could no longer amend their colonial legislation as otherwise those colonial legislative provisions
70 would be as the legislation enacted since federation to be effectively nullified the moment the
Commonwealth commenced to legislate upon a certain matter those legislative issues referred to.
Even where the State within the realm of State legislative powers were legislating but the
Commonwealth held that due to its original legislative powers it had to legislate and in that
regard intrude in ordinary State legislative powers then Section 109 would provide for the
75 Commonwealth legislation to succeed. The States cannot be permitted to undermine the
Commonwealths ability to govern in its own rights within the legislative powers provided for in
the constitution. I will now provide an example that while I raised that in the past (see my
publications at https:///www.scribd.com/inspectorrikat it essentially has been ignored by the
various jurisdictions.
80
The Commonwealth within its legislative powers of “(xxiii) invalid and old-age pensions;” decided
that payments such as pensions and other welfare payments were to be indexed as per CPI
(Consumers Price Index). This obviously was well within the Commonwealth legislative powers!
However, the States by this were bound to ensure that it would not raise any charges, etc, in
85 regard of those on Commonwealth pensions/welfare payments to any higher increase in any
rates/charges then the CPI. However the States (so Territories) blatantly ignored this! In my view
this means that all and any overcharge, with interest, etc, should be refunded.
Recently a Spanish appeal court ruled that all and any fines, etc, regarding unconstitutional
90 mandates had to be refunded, etc. the same should be applied in the Commonwealth of Australia
and I understand that the Framers of the Constitution actually held this to be required.
We cannot have that a Government that is to be like a “model citizen” somehow benefits from
unconstitutional/unlawful conduct.
95 There can be no question that the Commonwealth has limited legislative powers as to health
issues and so the States rightfully ventured out to legislate for issues such as “Public Health and
Wellbeing” in regard of health matters not within the legislative (and so
executive/administrative) powers of the Commonwealth.
3
I understand that in a recent litigation involving Mr Brad Hazzard NSW Minister for Health that
100 Counsel appearing for him admitted to the Court that the State had no legal powers to compel
anyone to be vaccinated regarding the COVID019 issue.
As I have set out in my COMPLAINT with the Australian Federal Police any “man-kind”
(infectious) disease for which QUARANTINE might be required then this falls within the
“exclusive” legislative powers of the Commonwealth.
105
I understand there are/were proceedings before Justice Melinda Richards regarding provisions of the
Victoria's Charter of Human Rights.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/judge-wants-jab-mandate-case-refined/ar-
110 AAQkUJe?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
Judge wants jab mandate case refined
QUOTE
A Victorian judge has ruled against interim relief for a group challenging Victoria's
COVID-19 vaccination mandate for essential workers and suggested they refine their case.
115 END QUOTE
In my view, the “Victoria's Charter of Human Rights ” would be totally irrelevant to any legal
issues if in the first place, as I have made clear, the State of Victoria has no legislative, executive,
administrative, judicial, police powers, etc, to (directly/indirectly) compel/force anyone to be
120 jabbed (so called vaccinated) regarding a “man-kind” (infectious) disease. When I refer to no
judicial power this means no State judicial powers. If the matter were to be litigated upon
Commonwealth legislative provisions and the constitution itself then the State courts can
exercise “federal” jurisdiction. The provisions of the “Victoria's Charter of Human Rights”
Obviously cannot override federal legislative provisions. Then neither can the Victorian Chief
125 Health Officer over ride federal legal provisions such as the governing Biosecurity Act 2015
(Cth). As such, the litigation in my view is failing to address the real critical legal issues.
If the Victorian chief health Officer has no federal administrative powers then it is immaterial
what the “Victoria's Charter of Human Rights” stands for as the Victorian Chief Health Officer’s
mandates then are unconstitutional and as such without legal force!
130
There was this reported incident where Mr Brad Hazzard NSW Minister for Health had allegedly
corralled some 30,000 students into a stadium to be jabbed, without their parents being present.
As Counsel for Mr Hazzard reportedly acknowledged to the court that NSW had no legal powers
to compel anyone to be jabbed against COVID-19 then I view this conduct by Mr Brad Hazzard
135 must be not just condemned but also pursued with legal accountability. The same in the State of
Victoria where the Victorian Government is pursuing a “LOCKOUT” of unvaccinated people,
this is a system I understand has been reportedly demanded by Pfizer for any country to do in
secret agreements with those countries. Other horrific conditions reportedly were included.
Obviously, our constitution within which within Section 106 the States are created “subject to
140 this constitution” then We, the People, as electors vote for our representatives in the respective
Parliaments and it is from those elected representatives that a government is formed to govern
within the provisions of the relevant constitutions. In this case Victoria is within the legislative
powers provided by the 1855 Victorian (State) Constitution Act as amended by the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). In my COMPLAINT with the
145 Australian Federal Police I have set out why the purported 1975 Victorian constitution is not a
constitution at all and as such I refer to this COMPLAINT. It means that our elected
representative who are commissioned to be Ministers can only conduct matters within the
confines of the relevant constitution(s) and any legislation enacted within those constitution(s).
As such, no government can enter into any agreement/contract with some foreign entity to give it
150 powers to override our constitutional and other legal rights.

4
Where a person is not vaccinated then the Government cannot enter into some agreement with
some foreign entity that then this person shall be denied his/her ordinary legal rights unless and
until this person accepts to be injected with a POISONOUS substance that can and at times does
cause severe health issues and even death.
155 Mr Brad Hazzard and NSW Chief Health Officer Dr Chan both have (recorded in videos) stated
they are applying the NEW WORLD ORDER. This NEW WORLD ORDER is to dispose of
our current constitutional system and to replace it with a kind of communist system promoted by
the UN (United nations) the WHO (World Health Organization), the Bill and Melinda Gate
foundation, the WEF (World Economic Forum), the communist regime CCP and others.
160 None of which have any legal standing within our constitutional system of governance.
This means that any politician, public servant, judge, police officer, etc who are in any shape or
form seeking to pursue a mandate of “LOCKOUT” would be acting in violation of our
constitutional and other legal rights.
I understand that in legal proceedings (again in NSW) a trial judge indicated that while the State
165 is not forcing citizens to be vaccinated it could however restrict citizens their freedoms.
Obviously, this is sheer and utter nonsense, where the restriction of freedoms are for the purpose
to coerce or otherwise force a citizen to be vaccinated. Where the State/Territories have no
constitutional powers to legislate to force any citizen to be vaccinated against a “man-kind”
(infectious) disease then neither can it use backdoor ways to seek to achieve the same end result.
170 The same actually also applies to the Commonwealth. The Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) haqs
provide certain legal provisions and only within those provided governance powers can the
Commonwealth pursue matters.
PM Scott Morrison however having been involved in a secret agreement/contract with whatever
pharmaceutical company now has placed himself in a position that no matter what
175 constitutionally/legally might be appropriate he simply has to ignore it, albeit that in itself
doesn’t make it legally applicable and justified, as otherwise he risk the pharmaceutical company
to hold him legally accountable. As such, he created this unconstitutional “NATIONAL
CABINET” and is misusing and abusing Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue funds to fund
his desire to have people one way or another all jabbed. Obviously the motive is unconstitutional
180 and so any funding for this and in my view Scott Morrison by this violated Section 44 of the
constitution and legally no longer is a Member of Parliament. But, as Scott Morrison didn’t just
act on his own but colluded with lawyers and others in the Government then all of them by the
provisions of s44 no longer are Members of Parliament. All of them I view have become
TRAITORS and TERRORIST and should be held legally accountable for this. Likewise, any
185 State/Territory politicians, public servant, judge, police, etc, who participated in this conduct also
must be held legally accountable. And the State politicians due to being “subject to this
constitution” are therefore also subject to S44 disqualification neither are any longer holding a
seat in the Parliament. Anyone who conduct himself in a public office but act in violation of the
constitution is not acting within the functions of the public office but acting as a “private person”
190 and can be held legally accountable for this. As I did set out in my COMPLAINT with the
Australian Federal Police a judge who acts in violation of the constitution is acting not as a judge
but as a “private person” and the purported judgment has no legal force.
It must be understood from the above that where the State/Territory/Federal Government is
aiding and abetting to pursue private companies to use/misuse their powers to force employees to
195 be jabbed (by coercion or otherwise) and/or customers to be denied services based upon being
unvaccinated then they too are acting in violation of citizens constitutional and other legal rights
and can be held legally liable for this.
My position is that the QR code the State mandates is unconstitutional.

200 There can be no question about it that the QR code mandate commenced in June and well then
you have “contract tracers” going about checking contacts and well many of them being “double
vaccinated” can be “SUPER SPREADERS” of Delta and then the huge increase in “cases”.
5
As such, this underlines that the compulsory face mask, social distancing, lockdowns, curfews,
QR code, etc, all are not diminishing “cases” but rather are in fact accelerating the increase of
205 “cases’. With many of the police officers being “DOUBLE VACCINATED” going around the
streets and then physically attacking citizens they too can be “SUPER SPREADERS” and so
participate, even if unwillingly, to spread any infection.
210
Here we have an indication where “cases” generally are. Why then have the QR code and
lockdowns, facemask, social distancing, curfews, etc, when there is virtually nothing to justify
this even on the above details provided by the ABC.
215

6
My COMPLAINT lodged with the Australian Federal Police has included numerous
reports/videos of expert scientist/medical doctors how the “DOUBLE VACCINATED” at
220 times/often end up being “SUPER SPREADERS”, for this no need to repeat the same.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/commissioner-rules-clearview-ai-breached-
australians-privacy/ar-AAQfEdx?ocid=msedgdhp
Commissioner Rules Clearview AI Breached Australians’ Privacy
225 QUOTE
Remember that facial recognition startup found being used by law enforcement agencies around the world
last year? Well today, Australia’s Privacy Commissioner has ruled they breached the country's privacy laws.
It was ruled Clearview AI breached Australians’ privacy by scraping their biometric information from the
web and disclosing it through a facial recognition tool.
230 The ruling by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) was coming – they kicked off
the inquiry back in July last year, alongside their UK counterparts. And on Wednesday, the commissioner
declared Clearview AI breached the Australian Privacy Act on multiple fronts, by:
 collecting Australians’ sensitive information without consent
 collecting personal information by unfair means
235  not taking reasonable steps to notify individuals of the collection of personal information
 not taking reasonable steps to ensure that personal information it disclosed was accurate, having
regard to the purpose of disclosure
 not taking reasonable steps to implement practices, procedures and systems to ensure compliance with
the Australian Privacy Principles.
240 The controversial tech startup shocked the world when it was revealed it had scraped images on the internet
for faces, entered them into its facial recognition database and provided them to law enforcement officials
worldwide to search.
Clearview AI’s facial recognition tool includes a database of more than three billion images taken from social
media platforms and other publicly available websites.
245 As a result of its actions, Australia’s privacy watchdog issued Clearview AI with determination orders. These
orders require that Clearview AI cease collecting facial images and biometric templates from individuals in
Australia, and to destroy existing images and templates collected from Australia.

7
According to the OAIC, its determination highlights the lack of transparency around Clearview AI’s
collection practices, the monetisation of individuals’ data for a purpose entirely outside reasonable
250 expectations and the risk of adversity to people whose images are included in their database.
Privacy Commissioner Angelene Falk said the covert collection of this kind of sensitive information is
“unreasonably intrusive and unfair”.
“It carries significant risk of harm to individuals, including vulnerable groups such as children and victims of
crime, whose images can be searched on Clearview AI’s database,” she said.
255 “By its nature, this biometric identity information cannot be reissued or cancelled and may also be replicated
and used for identity theft. Individuals featured in the database may also be at risk of misidentification.”
She said the practices undertaken by Clearview AI fall well short of Australians’ expectations for the
protection of their personal information. She also said the privacy impacts of Clearview AI’s biometric
system were not necessary, legitimate and proportionate, nor did they have regard to any public interest
260 benefits.
It’s not over, however, the OAIC is currently finalising an investigation into the Australian Federal Police’s
trial use of the technology. In April last year, the AFP admitted to using Clearview AI, despite not having an
appropriate legislative framework in place, to help counter child exploitation.
END QUOTE
265
This surveillance, for what I view a communist system, must be stopped!
Reportedly Mr Daniel Andrews made some 30 trips to communist China, and considering that he
even entered into some Belt & Road agreement (which I understand rightfully was now cancelled
270 by the Federal Government) as the States/Territories have no legal powers to engage in “(xxix)
external affairs;” and the fact that he is pursuing what appears to me the communist system of
controlling peoples movement, keeping records, etc, then this too may amount to his conduct
being in violation of s44 of the constitution. Likewise so that of the Victorian Attorney-General
who as first law officer of the State of Victoria in my view should have acted against any
275 unconstitutional/unlawful conduct, and by failing to do so is in my view aiding and abetting in
criminal offences.
I understand that there are voices which are indicating that new laws should be put in place to
deal with the unconstitutional conduct of the many, however, one doesn’t need new laws where
280 an offence is committed, as it wouldn’t be an offence if it was not in violation of the rule of law.
What rather is needed is that the respective Attorney-General takes appropriate steps against any
offender and not for party politics, etc, turns a blind eye.
No doubt politicians desire to throw up the restrains our constitution provides for and for this
pursue a republic, just that the Framers of the constitution made clear:
285
Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
. I quite admit that the United States system suits them; and if we are simply going to form a republic,
and to establish an institution in which the executive will not be in Parliament, and will not be
290 responsible, the state of affairs will be totally different. But I am contemplating that this Convention has in
view the formation of true responsible government.
END QUOTE
.
295 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of
the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute
majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed
amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
300 elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions
in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the
8
constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE
305
Hansard 6-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GILLIES: We are not all agreed on the question of the establishment of a republic!
310 Dr. COCKBURN: There is no question of that. We want to establish such a commonwealth as will exist
with the least strained relations with the mother country. Nothing gives rise to such vexation as a veto upon
questions of domestic legislation.
END QUOTE
315 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
320 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
325 not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
330 one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE
335
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
340 Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
345 the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.
350 Hence, the Commonwealth of Australia and the States/Territories cannot in any way within the
context of the constitution become a republic!
This obviously would be a problem to many politicians seeking to push for ultimate doctorial
powers because they are now restricted within the provisions of the constitution.
355
https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=61502
QUOTE H. L. D’EMDEN v F. PEDDER – High Court of Australia

9
The Commonwealth and the States are, with respect to the matters which under the Constitution are within
the ambit of their respective legislative or executive authority, sovereign States, subject only to the
360 restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or
implied. Where, therefore, the Constitution makes a grant of legislative or executive power to the
Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is entitled to exercise that power in absolute freedom, and without any
interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.
END QUOTE
365
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
370 the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
375 END QUOTE
Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

QUOTE
In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual
380 injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is
of the essence of the conspiracy.”
END QUOTE
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

385 QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE
390
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
395 Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
400 END QUOTE
As I indicated above about the CPI issue, that by this the Commonwealth has the “incidental
power” to override State laws where it would otherwise undermine the intentions of the
Commonwealth to provide as much as possible a reasonable financial income//assistance to
405 pensions & welfare recipients.
It also must be clear that the “LOCKOUT” is not a legal conduct to separate people by avoiding
any form of infections (apart that the States/Territories in the first place has no such legal
powers) as again those claiming to be “DOUBLE VACCINATED” are creating variants and are
410 the ones who become often “SUPER SPREADERS”.

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
10
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
415 the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
420
As such, the QR code and the “contract tracing” proved not just to be an abuse of powers but also
to achieve the opposite to what was claimed to be achieved.
https://www.aier.org/article/vaccine-authoritarianism-explained/
425 Vaccine Authoritarianism Explained
QUOTE
Disclosure: I am vaccinated against Covid-19. So allow me to inoculate myself from any charges that I am an
‘anti-vaxxer.’ I am not. Yet, I join millions of people worldwide who are unsettled by vaccine mandates like
those issued from the Biden Administration and from states like California. First, we should ask whether the
430 mandates make sense from a public health perspective. Then, if not, we want to try to make sense of why
authorities would double down on measures with such weak public health justification.
Mandates Make No Apparent Sense
Before we get into the political economy of that which slinks from the coital bed of government and pharma, we
need briefly to get into the reasons why the current “public health” case for mandates and passports makes no
435 sense.
1. Schoolchildren currently have negligible risks from Covid-19. Subjecting kids to risks such
as myocarditis, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34092429/ pericarditis,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34564344/ and thrombosis, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-
issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15 however small, is not based on
440 any rational assessment of the current data https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Deaths-by-Sex-Ages-0-18-
years/xa4b-4pzv on Covid disease risks to children. https://adc.bmj.com/content/106/5/429 So the main
argument for mandatory child vaccination is that it protects adults. Not only do Covid vaccines have
diminished effectiveness through time, but they also do precious little against transmissibility after only two
months, especially against the variants currently raging worldwide. Breakthrough cases are legion,
445 and waning vaccine effectiveness https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.13.21264966v1 is
well-documented. (Disclosure 2: Despite being vaccinated, I contracted Covid and passed it to my
vaccinated partner and unvaccinated children.) Of course, no one has studied the long-term effects of
mass mRNA vaccination on either adults or children, and even the clinical trials on children are dubious.
https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/ten-red-flags-in-the-fdas-risk-benefit So it’s strange to hear the usual
450 boosters (no pun) of a more expansive regulatory state want to move full-throttle in forcing experimental
therapies on kids.
2. Vaccine mandates introduce unnecessary risks to the scores of millions of Americans who are Covid
recovered. Study https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-
article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab884/6381561#.YWGhCytQ_Hc.twitter
455 after study https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.19.21255739v1 (after study
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260426v1 ) demonstrates that people who have
recovered from Covid-19 have robust, durable immunity, which is as good or better than vaccine immunity.
There is no reason people with natural immunity should be compelled to undergo any therapy whose long-
term effects are unknown. Never mind that the magnitude of the known risks is still being studied. (One
460 Covid recovered law professor sued his university https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccine-mandate-natural-
immunity-lawsuit-covid-19-coronavirus-11628281507 for just such a mandate.)
3. Vaccine mandates are questionable even for those who have not yet contracted Covid-19. Why? It’s
pretty simple: adults ought to weigh the known and unknown risks of any medical decision for themselves
and seek proven early treatment https://globalcovidsummit.org/news/doctor-cites-early-treatment-success-
465 with-6000-covid-patients if they contract the virus. As I pointed out above, the case for vaccine-based
community protection https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v4 is weak and
growing weaker by the day. It’s frankly bizarre that we are living in such a time that authorities fancy it’s
okay to force anyone to undergo therapies that are still considered experimental. Such is not to argue that
riskier experimental therapies shouldn’t be an option for people in a pandemic; it is simply to argue against
470 compulsion.

11
END QUOTE
https://www.aier.org/article/resisting-tyranny-depends-on-the-courage-to-not-conform/
Resisting Tyranny Depends on the Courage to Not Conform
475 QUOTE
What would have happened that terrible day in 1942 if more policemen recognized the
humanity of the “other” and had the courage to not conform? Today, what would happen if
more businesses, like In-N-Out Burger, refuse to obey government edicts? In October,
Stephen Davis, a Florida fire battalion chief, “was fired for refusing to discipline
480 department employees listed as unvaccinated.” What would happen if more managers had
the courage of Chief Davis? Without obedience, tyranny fails.
END QUOTE
A major issue most businesses appear to ignore is that ultimately the global elite desire to reduce
485 the world population to about 50 million people. That means to kill off about 149 people of every
150 no living. And in the process desire to take from all citizens their property ownership and so
they are reduced to slaves, and can rent only their former possessions if they comply with the
mandates of the elite. Then those who are pursuing/protesting about climate change also ignore
that even the communist regime has enough powers of destruction to destroy the world many
490 times over. As such, the ultimate end result of destruction of the world is what they are really
assisting to eventuate and not so to save “planet earth”.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/explosive-report-scientific-treason-u-s-traitors-driven-greed-betting-
success-china/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=the-gateway-
495 pundit&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=daily
EXPLOSIVE REPORT ON SCIENTIFIC TREASON: U.S. Traitors, Driven by Greed, are
Betting on the Success of China
QUOTE
Genetically-altered mouse models, a biotechnology pioneered by The Jackson Laboratory
500 and now widespread in China’s military research centers, was a technique critical to the
creation of COVID-19.
Pre-adaptation for human infection can be achieved in the laboratory by repeatedly

exposing bat coronaviruses to genetically-engineered mice that express the human
angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptor (ACE2), a process known as serial passage.
505 According to Tao Wang, General Manager of Jiangsu Jicui Yaokang Biotechnology
Co., Ltd. in Nanjing, U.S. scientists Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina
and Stanley Perlman of the University of Iowa donated their ACE2 genetically-
engineered mice to China.
END QUOTE
510
Now we get it the Greens and others who are all somehow supporting this unconstitutional range
of mandates are betraying the very basics as to join those who are torturing animals in many
ways.
And now with the “Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management Bill
515 2021)” for which the States of Victoria (and any other State/Territory) lacks any legislative
powers let alone governance, etc, they are somehow going to support this kind of Bill violating
their very oath of office. As such, they cannot be trusted either, as they flip-flop to what seems at
the time in their own selfish interest regardless of the real consequences.
12
520 20210810-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the

Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-04
QUOTE 20210810-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian
Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-04
https://www.rt.com/news/531451-andrews-covid-wastewater-victoria-fakepoos-
525 lockdown/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Email - Google
Search
#FakePoos: Aussies fume after Victoria’s premier concedes ‘Covid in wastewater’ used
to justify statewide lockdown never existed
530 8 Aug, 2021 11:53

QUOTE
Australians are airing their grievances with Victoria Premier Dan Andrews after he
admitted he cited non-existent coronavirus-tainted sewage in his decision to lock down the
state.
535 Andrews announced a seven-day statewide shut down on August 5 in response to the
“wastewater detection” of Covid-19 in Wangaratta, a rural city about 236km (147 miles)
from Melbourne. The discovery creates the “potential that regional Victorians have been
exposed to Covid-19,” Andrews explained. The decision to widen restrictions to include
the whole state was designed to “keep regional Victoria safe,” the premier added.
540 The order means that, apart from emergencies and grocery shopping, Victoria’s citizens are
required to remain at home. Public gatherings are prohibited, with people only able to meet
one person in their social circle. Educational institutions will also revert to online teaching.
But the reasoning behind the draconian statewide decree was soon rubbished by local
officials. Andrews initially claimed the sewage test had “pinged” positive, then went
545 negative before turning positive again. According to local media reports, his
explanation didn’t hold water. Less than 24 hours later, Wangaratta mayor Dean
Rees challenged the premier’s chain of events. There had been several successive tests
returning negative results following one positive detection on July 30, regional health
officials confirmed.
550 Australians soon began to vent on social media about Andrews’ debunked coronavirus
sewage. By Friday afternoon, “#FakePoos” was trending, with countless tweets calling out
the premier for locking up the entire state on specious grounds.
I shit you not 💩#FakePoospic.twitter.com/M91Kdq2cZS

— TormentedMeatSack (@SoulinaMeatSack) August 6, 2021
555 You're in trouble now, #DictatorDanYour justification of #lockdown6 for regional Victoria
is built on a foundation of #FakePooshttps://t.co/5PW5OaEPi9
— PoliBard (@PoliBard) August 6, 2021
#FakePoos in there somewhere 🌹 https://t.co/U50VAH0mVb
— Scott G 🇦🇺 (@BuggaThe) August 6, 2021
560 So the state government smears Wangaratta as a Covid hotspot, gets it wrong, then refuses
to apologise. That’s rotten form. https://t.co/s0dk6TICU7
— Matthew Guy MP (@MatthewGuyMP) August 6, 2021
The uproar eventually forced Andrews to admit his reasoning stank.

13
“We apologize. We try to get the best information out as quickly as we can. Nothing is
565 perfect and no one has ever pretended that it is,” he said on Saturday. However, the
premier stressed that the non-existent Covid wastewater in Wangaratta was “not the
only reason why people are locked down across the state.”
.@DanielAndrewsMP on the Wangaratta wastewater issue: "We apologise" and "nothing's
perfect". @bordermail
570 — David Johnston (@david_johnston5) August 7, 2021
END QUOTE
It is obvious that Premier Daniel Andrews using telecommunications to broadcast lockdowns,

etc, did so using false/misleading claims for this. It is not relevant if the Premier somehow
may afterwards seek to argue other reasons, as what is clear is that the LOCKDOWN was
575 conveyed to Victorians to be based upon “non-existent coronavirus-tainted sewage”. Being
loose with the truth is not something very strange to Mr Daniel Andrews:
QUOTE 21-9-2014 correspondence

http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=AS
580 SEMBLY&speech=23716&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=7&da
te2=May&date3=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'water'+
%29
QUOTE
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave) - It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking

585 Water Bill. This bill forms part of the government's strategic approach to water
management, with specific attention being paid to water quality and risk management as
matters of public health. It is worth noting that this is a debate about public health and
about making sure that each community across our state has access to the highest quality
water. It is also worth noting that this bill has been introduced by the Minister for Health as
590 a matter of public health.
The bill has four specific objectives. Before going on to those I welcome the support
shown by the Liberal and National parties for this bill. Every endeavour has been made to
try to provide as much information as possible.
END QUOTE
595
Well my property in Berriwillock, Mallee still has no “safe drinking water” and GWMW I s
using Australian Post to extort monies from me to pay for a wat5er connection to a vacant
land, this even so it has admitted it cannot charge for connection to a vacant land. Moreover it
provides only “untreated water” which is not as per legal requirement through purple
600 coloured water pipes. Neither has GWMW provided any warning signs as required by law,
that the water is “untreated water”. As such, about 18 years after Mr Daniel Andrews made
this statement in the parliament he still failed to ensure that Berriwillock and other areas in the
Mallee have access to “safe drinking water”
Next time any AFP member with his/her children sits down having breakfast this members
605 may just keep in mind that the grain was grown with “untreated water” and may have left
poisonous residues in the grain.
I understand that many persons in the Mallee ended up with mental health and other problems
which I understand may be related to the drinking of “untreated water”.
Let Us be reasonable in consideration, When a schoolbus full of young children pulls over in
610 the Mallee then not uncommon the children may go to a water tap and may drink some water
and wash their hands, etc, totally unaware that they are consuming “untreated water”. By the
time they fall ill or even may have died unlikely would anyone associate their illness/death
14
with having been drinking or using “untreated water”. To my understanding no investigation
regarding the health problems relating to the drinking of “untreated water” was ever
615 conducted.
Because the grain products, such as cereals, are sold all over the Commonwealth of Australia
and likely beyond, it is not a simply Victorian issue but relevant to all Australians and others.
620 (Note: the www.schorel-hlavka.com website is no longer applicable)

As I previously did set out, that there to my understanding never was any isolation of the
alleged SARS-CoV-2 “virus” and therefore for the Premier to claim that the sewerage
justified to shut down whatever I view is sheer and utter nonsense.
625 END QUOTE 20210810-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian
Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-04
It should be very clear that despite the Safe Drinkwater Act of 2004 about 18 years later there
still is no safe drinking water in Berriwillock and many other places. And the water that is
supplied is simply untreated water loaded with pesticide, etc, and that is what people, including
630 children may have for breakfast when eating their cereals that were grown with this poisonous
water. And the State legislation that untreated water must be supplied in purple coloured water
pipes and fittings, well reality is that in Berriwillock this too is ignored. Next time a family
member becomes ill having been for a trip in the Mallee you might do better to check if it was
the result of the untreated water that might have been used from a water tap.
635 And for the Greenies, the animals likewise are denied “safe drinking water”!
Yet for those about 18 years I never had a single Member of Parliament to complaint about this!
And my writings to Mr Daniel Andrews also never resulted in any proper follow up to address
the issues.
640 When then a person claims to care about every human life, then to me this is the kind of mantra
that most lying politicians are using rather then to genuinely prove to care.
With the “Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management Bill 2021)” are
we now to accept that somehow he this time cares about health and wellbeing while in reality
645 lacking the legislative and governing powers for this? Will any fool really fall for this crap? As I
understand it the “Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management Bill
2021)” was to enable Mr Daniel Andrews to discriminate against any person for his/her political
beliefs. Besides it being unconstitutional how on earth can this be relevant to health and
wellbeing? Likewise, the Bill is to provide Mr Daniel Andrews with powers to control people
15
650 that no matter they may have natural immunity be forced to be jabbed and this then destroys their
natural immunity, all for somehow being for their wellbeing and health?
As I indicated above the Victorian Parliament lacks the legislative powers to pass any Bill that is
designed to undermine the constitutional legislative powers of the commonwealth, and as such
any Member of Parliament who despite of this were to vote for the Bill in my view is aiding and
655 abetting to TREASON and TERRORISM. Whatever Westminster and other provisions exist
that Members of a Parliament have certain protection when in a chamber this must not and never
can be to protect them from undermining the very constitution that provides them that protection.
When they act in violation of the constitution their Westminster and other protections are no
more and they are acting as “private citizens” and liable to the legal consequences equally if a
660 stranger were to enter the Parliament and act in violation to the constitution.
The name of the Bill is very clear and revealing; “Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment
(Pandemic Management Bill 2021)”, as such, it specifically relates to a “pandemic” which
again is outside the legislative powers of any State/Territory. Moreover even the existing Health
and Wellbeing Act cannot be utilized regarding any “pandemic” and hence for this also all
665 mandates/directives and any fines, etc, were unconstitutional. Likewise any judgement handed
down in enforcement are without legal force. As I did set out in my COMPLAINT with the
Australian Federal Police there can be no “NATIONAL SECURITY” secrecy applicable where
the Federal Government engages in a contract with foreign companies at cost of Australian tax
payers and certainly not when it deals with the rights and liberties of Australians. No such
670 constitutional powers exist, not even within the provisions of “external affairs”.
Remember what I quoted above Mr Daniel Andrews stated? “We try to get the best information
out as quickly as we can. Nothing is perfect and no one has ever pretended that it is”. Well,
when people protested because by the best information available to them they are entitled to
675 protest as it is their political liberty enshrined in the constitution then however Mr Daniel
Andrews send his NAZI SS Stormtroopers (Known as PORT) to even used guns on unarmed
protestors and have them shot in their backs.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
680 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
685 END QUOTE
This underlines his conduct. And reportedly now (unconstitutionally) wanting to rob citizens of
their electoral rights if their political views, etc, do not align with him. Again he thumbs his nose
on our constitutional rights and the question is will Victorian Members of Parliament go along
690 with this?
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
695 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
700 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)

20211107-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria-COMPLAINT-Suppl-02-NOTIFICATION

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

20211107-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria-COMPLAINT-Suppl-02-NOTIFICATION

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Mr Daniel Andrews Premier 7-11-2021

Re: 20211107-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria-

Scott Morrison requested the Australian Federal Police to investigate regarding

Recently, 2 of the supplements were:

Our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) in itself is a Magna

p1 7-11-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p3 7-11-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

My position is that the QR code the State mandates is unconstitutional.

p5 7-11-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

 collecting personal information by unfair means

p6 7-11-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

315 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

320 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

p8 7-11-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p10 7-11-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Pre-adaptation for human infection can be achieved in the laboratory by repeatedly

520 20210810-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the

530 8 Aug, 2021 11:53

I shit you not 💩#FakePoospic.twitter.com/M91Kdq2cZS

p12 7-11-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

It is obvious that Premier Daniel Andrews using telecommunications to broadcast lockdowns,

QUOTE 21-9-2014 correspondence

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave) - It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking

620 (Note: the www.schorel-hlavka.com website is no longer applicable)

700 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like