20230911-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council Mayor CR Castaldo and Ors-TRESPASS, Etc

Page 1
1
2
3 Banyule City Council Councillors (Australia, Victoria date) 11-9-2023
4 Mayor Cr Peter Casteldo & Ors
5 peter.castaldo@banyule.vic.gov.au
6
7 Cc: Cr Alison Champion alison.champion@banyule.vic.gov.au
8 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos fiona.mitsdinikos@banyule.vic.gov.au
9 Cr Elizabeth Nealy elizabeth.nealy@banyule.vic.gov.au
10 Cr Mark Di Pasquate mark.dipasquale@banyule.vic.gov.au
11 Cr Alida McKern alida.mckern@banyule.vic.gov.au
12 Cr Peter Dimarelos peter.demarelos@banyule.vic.gov.au
13 Cr Rick Garotti rick.garotti@banyule.vic.gov.au
14 Cr Tom Melican tom.melican@banyule.vic.gov.au
15
16 Re: 20230911-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council Mayor Cr Castaldo and Ors-
17 TRESPASS, etc
18
19 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
20
21 COMPLAINT
22 Sir & Ors,
23
24
11-9-2023 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
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1
2 This is a signage that is at the front of my property and also on both sides of the inside of the
3 gates, so that when the gates are open the signage’s are shown. Also, the gates are locked with a
4 chin and padlock to prevent anyone to enter the property with my permission in that regard also.
5
6 I noticed on 11 September 2023 a sticker affixed to the windscreen of Ford AU 1XK6MV which
7 is parked in front of our property. The vehicle was previously registered as RIKATI, however as
8 I purchased another vehicle and swapped the number plate to the other vehicle I had a new
9 number plate obtained for the Ford AU.
10
11
12
13 It must be very clear that the motor vehicle is at the front of our property and lawfully parked. To
14 claim that the motor vehicle is abandoned is therefore utter and sheer nonsense. While I at times
15 used the vehicle if doing a brief run to a store not having to bother to open the gates to get my
16 other Ford out, it is however none of Banyule City Council business what I do with a registered
17 motor vehicle that is lawfully parked. I can only assume that Angelo O’Brien seems to hold the
18 view that he is above the rule of law. Well, I have news for you. Banyule City Council has no
19 lawful authority as to deface the motor vehicle that is lawfully parked and certainly not to cause
20 the driver to have his views obscured by a sticker. It means that in my view Angelo O’Brien
21 unlawfully vandalized/tampered with the motor vehicle and Banyule City Council now must
22 accept legal accountability for this. After all, if I were to do the same to a vehicle belonging to
23 Banyule City Council then it would not hesitate to report this to the Victoria Police, and well it
24 now must report Angelo O’Brien to the Victoria Police to have unlawfully tampered with a
25 motor vehicle that was lawfully parked in front of our property.
26 I do not own Banyule City Council any explanation about the vehicle, albeit I regularly open the
27 vehicle because of certain private issues. I do not need to move the vehicle each time I am
28 attending to the vehicle, as again it is lawfully parked. However, on 3 September 2023 when
29 contemplating to drive the vehicle to one of my sons, he was disappointed that due to a flat
30 battery I had to inform him he just has to wait. After all, in recent weeks had the insurance policy
31 amended to include him as a driver and also last week listed the vehicle with RACV in case of
32 any breakdowns. Because of my wife’s ill health she is a priority and not the Ford AU, and he
33 accepts this.
34
Page 3
1 What this means is that if Banyule City Council desires to take me on to litigate be warned that
2 no matter what nonsense Banyule City Council may to pursue I am a constitutionalist and a
3 (retired) Professional Advocate.
4
5 Let me give you an example:
6 In 2001 I was a INDEPENDENT candidate for the federal seat of Jagajaga and in my
7 publications made clear that the “compulsory” part of voting was unconstitutional as well as that
8 State Land taxes were unconstitutional. Well, the Australian Electoral Commission wanted to
9 teach me a lesson and charged me with FAILING TO VOTE in the 2001 Federal election. Upon
10 this I filed and served upon all 9 Attorney-Generals a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
11 MATTER in which I also claimed that there is no such thing as “Australian Citizenship” as a
12 “nationality”. On 4 December 2002 the Court ordered this NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
13 MATTER to be heard and determined by the High Court of Australia! The legal problem is that
14 the High Court of Australia cannot hear and determine this NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
15 MATTER because of implied bias, this as the judges would have to declare their own legal status
16 to be able to hear and determine the matter , that in violation of their previous decision in Sue v
17 Hill there is actually no such constitutional provision of a “nationality” named “Australian
18 Citizenship” because technically all Australians are ‘Subjects of the British Crown”!
19 No need for me to set it all out in this COMPLAINT because I published relevant documents at
20 my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati. Meaning, that the High Court of Australia in
21 Sue v Hill essentially disqualified each and every Member of the Bar (of a Court) as they are
22 required to have “Australian citizenship” as a “nationality”. Likewise, it disqualified each and
23 every judicial officer. Moreover, it disqualified any Australian to be enrolled as an elector. And
24 to be a candidate one must be an enrolled elector! What we then have is that persons who
25 obtained a law degree are for this lawyers but they cannot be legal practitioners for failing to
26 have a nationality of “Subject of the British Crown”.
27
28 I often hear the nonsense that people are claiming (Such as with the proposed Voice referendum)
29 that they are not giving away their sovereignty to be “Subject” when in reality all natural born
30 Australians and those who naturalised are as the Framers of the Constitution “equal” as well as
31 “sovereigns”, and to protect Aboriginals from discrimination they embedded in Ss51(xxvi) to
32 exclude Aboriginals (which included Torres Strait Islanders) from the race provisions. However,
33 the con-job 1967 referendum purported to provide citizenship to Aboriginals this even so they
34 had this since federation. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that Ss51(xxvi) could
35 not be used against the “general community”. This Ss51(xxvi) was designed to prevent “alien”
36 “inferior” “coloured” “races” to overwhelm Australia! At that time various Colonies had race
37 legislation and the Framers of the Constitution merely held it was better to have national laws.
38 Albeit, as I understand it, somehow no such general laws eventuated before 1967. When then it
39 was proposed to remove the reference to Aboriginals so they too could be discriminated against
40 equally as those “alien” “inferior” “coloured” “races”, it was during the 1950’s rejected, however
41 politicians as they are, pursued it nevertheless in 1967 by deceiving the electors what it actually
42 would amount to. As such Aboriginals were recognised in Ss51(xxvi) prior to the con-job 1967
43 referendum but no more one the referendum succeeded.
44 The Voice proposal according to its designer Thomas Mayo is to install communism into the
45 constitution. You do not need to take my word for it, as there are ample of videos where he is
46 recorded to have stated this. I understand that Thomas Mayo’s ancestors move to Torres Strait
47 Island’s in late 1800! Moment, the Dutch were already living in what is now named Australia
48 (then New Holland) in 1656 and claimed New Holland for the Dutch Government in 1658! To
49 my understanding the Dutch never granted Aboriginals any “land rights” and as such any alleged
50 land rights were extinguished. (See my blog for considerable set out).

Page 4
1 While Aboriginals have been moving into what is now known as Australia, from different
2 countries over about 4,000 years (not 65,000 as claimed) before then there were other races like
3 the Nigritoes. As such, Aboriginals never were part of First Nations.
4
5 I understand that Premier Daniel Andrews prior to the purported 2022 State election provided
6 powers to certain Aboriginal organisations that they could dictate certain municipal/shire
7 councils about matters. In WA farmers had to pay an Aboriginal about $160 an hour if they
8 wanted to do themselves some work, just to see if this in any way would be acceptable to
9 Aboriginals, like putting a fence post into the ground, this even so the States have absolutely no
10 constitutional powers to legislate as to any race, other than what is provided for in Section 25 of
11 the constitution.
12
13 Regarding my previous COMPLAINTS of 12 June 2023, and those before it, to which I
14 received to my knowledge no response, objecting to Banyule City Council to use ratepayer’s
15 monies for a scam project Voice, I hereby request you to provide me with all and any cost
16 Banyule City Council has incurred and further contemplates to incur regarding this Voice scam!
17
18 The following is a mere part of the statement but may indicate some issues. While the British
19 Crown is “hereditary” I do not accept that we now may have likewise ruling by those who claim
20 such rights based (rightly or wrongly) upon their alleged ancestry, even if they are not of such
21 ancestry. Merely because they may have some colour of skin to fool others about their ancestry.
22 Canada has Aboriginals, and without any definition what constitutes to be regarded an
23 Aboriginal, they could also dictate non-Aboriginal citizens. What an utter and sheer nonsense!
24
25 https://www.australiannationalreview.com/global-issues/dark-emu-exposed-and-the-assault-on-
26 australian-history/
27 Dark Emu Exposed – And the Assault on Australian History
28 August 10, 2023
29 QUOTE
30 To my mind, it appears that you wish to insert a new ‘advisory of an elite’, as a new
31 Chapter, into our Constitution.
32 This ‘elite advisory’ will be called the ‘Voice’ and it will consist of members who must
33 have a certain ancestry or DNA, that of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, as a pre-
34 requisite for membership. It will thus be ‘hereditary’ and it may easily become
35 an ‘aristocracy’ given that only 3 percent of Australians will qualify for its membership. It
36 will also be discriminatory in that 97% of Australia’s citizens will be denied membership,
37 through no fault of their own, due to factors over which they have no control or influence
38 such as their choice of DNA.
39 And so here is my dilemma with your Voice proposal.
40 Until now I was led to believe that, no matter what my ancestry or ethnic background, I
41 had full and equal rights under the law compared to all the other citizens of Australia. We
42 were all of equal citizenship, from the Prime Minister right down to the recently
43 naturalised Sudanese refugee.
44 I was led to believe that my solid European ancestry – with my mother’s heritage going
45 back to an English convict arrival in 1823, and my father’s back to his post war
46 immigration from Germany – would secure for me the exact same Australian citizenry
47 rights as someone like yourself, who claimed to be Australian, but with Torres Strait
48 Islander heritage.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 This document ought to be sufficient for the Governor-General to exercise his
52 prerogative powers to withdraw all commissions of Ministers and by this restore law
Page 5
1 and order to protect Australians from further tyranny and other harm as much as
2 possible.
3 You can download the document from:
4 https://www.scribd.com/document/663131192/20230805-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
5 B-to-His-Excellency-General-the-Honourable-David-Hurley-AC-DSC
6
7 Too many politicians and their collaborators are pushing their foreign masters like the
8 W.E.F., WHO, U.N. etc, are demanding and we as citizens can use a VELVET
9 REVOLUTION to reclaim our constitutional, legal, human, natural and common law
10 rights.
11 You can download the document from:
12 https://www.scribd.com/document/664137880/20230810-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
13 Attorney-General-Mark-Dreyfus-Is-a-Velvet-Revolution-Needed
14
15 Not uncommon after I downloaded a video from the internet it no longer is available and for this
16 I list below various links to what I understand is the same video.
17
18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8RHkBU0Cuo
19 I Won't Go Down That Road Again - YouTube
20 8 Dec 2017 ... Think you really own your property? Think again. Malcolm Roberts New 31K views ·
21 4:57 · Go to channel · Broken Soul.
22
23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EABsnpNrXw
24 The Next Conversation with Cindy Trimm - YouTube
25 16 Dec 2022 ... Think you really own your property? Think again. Malcolm Roberts New 32K views ·
26 29:39 · Go to channel · That's Confirmation | Take Action.
27
28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIkvMHiGnng
29 July 26, 2023 - YouTube
30 26 July 2023 ... Think you really own your property? Think again. Malcolm Roberts New 708 views ·
31 0:21 · Go to channel · 2023 VBS. Old Town Creek Baptist•43 ...
32
33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afRBV_06xwc
34 Lil Wayne - DontGetIt - YouTube
35 20 Feb 2019 ... Think you really own your property? Think again. Malcolm Roberts New 36K views ·
36 5:22 · Go to channel · Lil Wayne - How To Love (Official ...
37
38 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gZVBzvKwe8
39 July 30, 2023 - YouTube
40 30 July 2023 ... Think you really own your property? Think again. Malcolm Roberts New 31K views.
41
42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCiTtVaARb0
43 Brač 2023 - YouTube
44 31 July 2023 ... Think you really own your property? Think again. Malcolm Roberts New 36K views ·
45 19:10 · Go to channel · Sagittarius August 2023 - Closing ...
46
47 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7-usitI4o4
48 Recommend Beach & Marin Activity - YouTube
49 31 July 2023 ... Think you really own your property? Think again. Malcolm Roberts New 32K views.
50
51 We already had previously that Banyule City Council was part of the elaborate COVID scam to
52 which the State of Victoria had no legislative, executive and/or administrative powers as all
53 mandates were unconstitutional
54
55 I understand from an article Page 07 Herald Sun August 11, 2023 that some councils incurred
56 cost of $18,000 and beyond, allegedly because the Federal Government requested this, regardless
57 that in my view the Commonwealth has absolutely no such powers!
Page 6
1
2 I above did show this sign!
3
4
5 Well how did Angelo O’Brien enter my property of 107 Graham Road when he could only have
6 entered by climbing over a fence without my knowledge and/or consent to make photos?
7 That means he was trespassing!
8 It means that Banyule City Council now having been made aware that Angelo O’Brien
9 trespassed upon my property is legally required to report this to the Victorian Police.
10 Don’t give me the crap that council workers can enter whenever, as not even the police can do
11 so! Ample of High Court of Australia decisions are on record and some are referred to in the
12 signage displayed both outside and inside the property. This is a very serious matter because he
13 invaded my wife and my privacy and right to enjoy our property as we desire.
14 It is none of the business of Banyule City Council how we may desire the usage of our property.
15 We do not own any animals and as such cannot cause in that manner any problems to others. We
16 have fencing (other then what was unlawfully destroyed by a former police officer, in regard of
17 which I have material ready to finish the works).
18
19 On 2 October 2019 my wife having incurred huge cost for special testing was informed by her
20 specialist that she didn’t need to worry about her heart. On 10 October 2019 I drive the car and
21 trailer out of the driveway to do slashing of my country property when it appeared to me that my
22 wife was unwell. She assured me she was OK and not to worry as she would be all right for the
23 few days I would be away, however I reversed the car and trailer, unhooked the trailer and for
24 the first and only time in the decades of marriage I insisted to take her to a hospital. At the
25 hospital the doctor gave me the understanding my wife’s lungs were filled with fluid, she had
26 heart failure and other comorbidities and would have likely died within hours had I not presented
27 her to hospital my wife went into ICU and spend 10 days in hospital. As result my renovations of
28 my country property came to a halt and items to be moved there neither went, as I need to ensure
29 to be with her 24/7.
30 On Eastern Sunday 2022 my wife called out to me, and when I entered the bathroom there was
31 blood all over the floor and floor pouring from her lower leg. I put a towel around her leg and
32 that is when she collapsed into my arms. She seemed to have died. However, I kept patiently
33 talking to her and finally she responded, as I suspected her brains still to be working. I nursed her
34 back to health. No ambulance could be called because we were not jabbed with the “gene
35 therapy” DEPOPULATION bioweapon. The hospital already refused service for my wife for not
36 being jabbed, and not wearing a mask. That is what happens when you got madmen pretending
37 there is a covid virus, when it was nothing more but a flu and/or common cold and then people
Page 7
1 became victims due to the “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION bioweapon jab. The SARS-CoV-2
2 alleged virus never was proven to exist using the Koch postulate to have been isolated and
3 purified. Yes, I am aware that the Peter Doherty Institute appeared to have claimed that in
4 January 2020 they had obtained samples, but in the end it turned out they never had when FIO
5 Act documents exposed it all.
6 Remember, Premier Daniel Andrews daily ritual claiming how many persons had died from
7 covid, during 2020? Yet, The Australian Bureau of Statistic (ABS) reported less people died
8 during 2020 then in 2021, 2022, etc. It simply was tyranny and municipal/shire councils eagerly
9 participated in this.
10
11 The Framers of the constitution made clear that “Local Government” was “State Government”
12 and “Central Government” was “Federal Government”. They made clear that municipal/shire
13 councils albeit at times referred to as “local government” were no more but corporations. As
14 such no government at all.
15 I am aware that there are many if not most fools who claim that the State government legislated
16 to recognise them as “local government”. Well, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
17 Act 1900 (UK) had the following embedded in it!
18
19 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
20 QUOTE
21 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
22 sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
23 parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present
24 are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the
25 power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
26 sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
27 power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
28 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
29 one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
30 with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
31 which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
32 of the constitution.
33 END QUOTE
34
35 The States were created within S106 of the constitution “subject to this constitution” and as such
36 the States cannot create a level of government beyond what the constitution provided for.
37 The (Colonial) Victorian Constitution Act 1855 by federation was amended and became the
38 (State) Victorian Constitution Act 1855 and any powers within Section 51 of the constitution
39 were “concurrent” legislative powers but only until the Commonwealth commenced to legislate.
40 For extensive set out see my blog!
41
42 A major problem eventuated when the High Court of Australia in 1904 prohibited the use of the
43 Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates to be used in litigation despite that they
44 were well aware:
45
46 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
47 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
48 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
49 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
50 END QUOTE
51 .
52 As result numerous High Court of Australia judgments were wrongly decided.
53 In Commonwealth v Sydney Council the Commonwealth opposed to be charged “council rates”
54 the High Court of Australia determined that “council rates” were delegated exercise of State land
55 taxation and prohibited against the Commonwealth.
Page 8
1 One has to wonder how a corporation can exercise any State taxation powers!
2 Taxation that is received must be paid into Consolidated Revenue Funds, and Parliament then
3 has to pass Appropriation Bills as to permit the usage of those monies. After all, taxpayers are
4 entitled to know if their monies are spent appropriately. Municipal/Shire councils if they are
5 collecting on behalf of the State “land taxation” then it must be deposited into the State
6 Consolidated Revenue Funds. The problem was/is however that on 11 November 1910 the
7 Commonwealth commenced to apply Commonwealth land taxation, and by this wiped out the
8 State land taxation powers, and so also the delegated State land taxation powers of the
9 municipal/shire councils.
10
11 QUOTE 8-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE
12 Premier Kristina Keneally 8-3-2011
13 <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>
14 .
15 Cc: * Mr Ted Baillieu Premier ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au
16 * Tony Newbury Chief Commissioner of State Revenue C/o peter.geffroy@osr.nsw.gov.au
17 * Mr Robert Pincevic <roblp@bigpond.com> PO Box 15 Luddenham NSW 2745
18 .
19 Re: State Land tax - etc
20 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
21 .
22 Kristina,
23 your office for having provided me with a 13 September 2010 response (in regard of my
24 31 August 2010 correspondence to you regarding the unconstitutional State land taxes:
25 QUOTE
26 CMU10-16940
27 13 September 2010
28 Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
29 schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
30
31 Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
32 I write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax.
33 As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the Hon
34 Eric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention.
35 You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration.
36 Yours sincerely
37 David Swain
38 for Director General
39 END QUOTE
40 .
41 I received on 8-3-2011 a response dated 2-3-2011 from Barry Collier MP Parliamentary
42 Secretary Assisting the Treasurer on behalf of the Treasurer he responded.
43 Section 107 he refers to is very clear that for example “Income Tax” albeit was a Colonial and
44 later State legislative power the moment the Commonwealth legislated upon “Income Tax” then
45 the power became an exclusive Commonwealth power and the States had to retire from this.
46 Once it became an exclusive power then the constitution doesn’t permit it to return to become a
47 “concurrent” power, as I have set out in past correspondence. The legislative powers on the
48 particular field is forever an exclusive power of the Commonwealth!
49 In regard of the State Land Taxes the same applies. Once the Commonwealth commenced to
50 legislate as to “Land taxes” then it became by this an exclusive legislative power and as such the
51 State no longer had concurrent legislative powers on Land taxes matters.
52 The States were created out of the former colonies and as s.106 of the (federal) constitution
53 makes clear “subject to this constitution” and this clearly provides in s51 for concurrent
54 legislative powers to become exclusive Commonwealth legislative powers. It is not relevant if
55 the Commonwealth, as like with the 1952 abolition land taxes were to abolish “income tax”
56 because it would still remain an exclusive Commonwealth legislative power. As for s5 of the
Page 9
1 Constitution Act 1992 (NSW) it cannot override any Commonwealth exclusive powers and as it
2 clearly is subject to the Commonwealth constitution it therefore cannot be perceived it somehow
3 gives legislative powers no longer permissible by the Commonwealth Constitution to be
4 exercisable by a state.
5
6 .
7 Critical might be the claim:
8 QUOTE
9 Land taxes were imposed by the States prior to federation. They were introduced at the federal level in 1910.
10 In 1952, the Commonwealth Government abolished land tax. This did not have the effect of preventing the
11 States from imposing land tax, but rather returned taxation powers back to them. Accordingly, the NSW
12 Government introduced the land Management Act in 1956.

Page 10
1 END QUOTE
2 Obviously, contrary to what was claimed by Barry Collier MP the Commonwealth Government
3 has no constitutional powers to abolish any legislation as it being the Executive it can refuse to
4 enforce legislative provisions but cannot abolish an act of Parliament. As such it is the
5 Commonwealth Parliament that can only abolish legislation.
6 What may be noted is the wording “but rather returned taxation powers back to them” as
7 such this is a concession that in fact since 1910 land taxes were an exclusive Commonwealth
8 legislative power. The question then is how does one “return” a legislative power to any State,
9 not just NSW, where the Constitution never provided for this? Clearly Barry Collier MP didn’t
10 clarifyy within what constitutional powers, if any, a reversal of legislative power could eventuate
11 and quite frankly the Framers of the Constitution made clear that once a legislative power was a
12 Commonwealth legislative power then this was the end of the States dealing with the subject.
13 .
14 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
15 Australasian Convention)
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
18 position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that
19 law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the
20 Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no
21 power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary
22 revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even
23 when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it
24 has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I
25 should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be
26 settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and
27 that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
28 END QUOTE
29 .
30 HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
32 The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
33 the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
34 END QUOTE
35 .
37 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
38 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
39 An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
40 Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
41 END QUOTE
42 .
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
46 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
47 END QUOTE
48 And
50 QUOTE
51 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
52 Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
53 Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
54 Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
55 sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
56 END QUOTE
57 .
Page 11
1 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

2 But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the
3 imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the
4 whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
5 END QUOTE
6 And
8 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
9 On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it may
10 determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average
11 opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout
12 the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states
13 for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.
14 END QUOTE
15
17 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
18 2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties shall be uniform
19 throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods exported from one
20 state to another;
21 END QUOTE
22
24 QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-
25 Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty
26 shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.
27 END QUOTE
28 .
30 QUOTE
31 Mr. BARTON.-I am saying now that I do not think there is any necessity for clause 95 in its present form.
32 What I am saying however, is that it should be made certain that in the same way as you provide that the
33 Tariff or any taxation imposed shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, so it should be
34 provided with reference to trade and commerce that it shall be uniform and equal, so that the
35 Commonwealth shall not give preference to any state or part of a state. Inasmuch as we provide that
36 all taxation, whether it be customs or excise duties, or direct taxation, must be uniform, and inasmuch
37 as we follow the United States Constitution in that particular-in the very same way I argue that we should
38 protect the trade and commerce sub-section by not doing anything which will limit its effect. That is the real
39 logical position.
40 END QUOTE
41 .
42 Hansard 3-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
43 Australasian Convention)
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the
46 Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page 1856] a
47 considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided
48 that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect
49 taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that an
50 income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the Drafting
51 Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax of any
52 kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property, wherever it is
53 found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very careful, we shall get
54 into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to be imposed
55 might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not absolutely uniform.
56 END QUOTE
57 .
58 It should be clear that a “UNIFORM” law under the Commonwealth cannot somehow revert
59 back to a non-uniform law merely because of the States desiring to pursue their own kind of land
60 taxation. As such, on this basis also the State land taxes are floored (and so also any Territorial
61 land taxes).
Page 12
1 .
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. ISAACS.-The court would not consider whether it was an oversight or not. They would take the
5 law and ask whether it complied with the Constitution. If it did not, they would say that it was invalid.
6 They would not go into the question of what was in the minds of the Members of Parliament when the law
7 was passed. That would be a political question which it would be impossible for the court to determine.
8 END QUOTE
9 .
10 As I previously indicated the Commonwealth could have allowed the States to collect under its
11 authority land taxes but it still would have to be uniform through the Commonwealth and as such
12 all States and Territories (quasi States) would be bound to have the same land taxes application
13 and not different rates. This then would clearly be a waste of exercise as why allow different
14 States/Territories to collect taxes when one federal office can do the same?
15 The issue then is of the Commonwealth somehow could enact legislation to retrospective provide
16 for legislation for the States/Territories to have collected land taxes on its behalf. Again, the first
17 hurdle is that retrospective legislation would be invalid where so to say it makes the conduct of a
18 honest man to be a criminal conduct. Further, where the States raised different levels of land
19 taxes then it cannot be uniform. One couldn’t accept that a person of one State having paid less
20 then in another State now suddenly was to pay more by some kind of retrospective legislation
21 and neither that some who paid more now were going to receive a refund of any land taxes paid
22 above that of other States. After all commercial entities are based upon overhead cost, including
23 land taxes, etc, and as such a business enterprise might be determined where the lowest taxation
24 is available. Changing the system after the contracts are already in operation would make a
25 mockery of the reliability of State provisions.
26 I have indicated for years that what is needed is an OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN which
27 would advise the government, the parliament, the people and the Courts as to constitutional
28 meanings and application as a constitutional council. This is what is missing in Australia and as
29 result we have sport stars and singers and whatever elected to the parliament and basically no
30 one understands let alone comprehend the meaning and application of the constitutions.
31 .
32 It is obviously of concern to me that it took a massive 6 month period (from 31 August 2010 till
33 2 March 2011) to present this kind of response that doesn’t appear to me to indicate to be any
34 well researched response.
35 .
36 Obviously I will pass on the 2-3-2011 response and my reply to those concerned with the issue.
37 .
38 EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!
39 .
40
41
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
.
42 Our name is our motto!

43 .
44
45 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
46 END QUOTE 8-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE
47
48 I have no issue with paying a fixed fire levy as I accept this to be appropriate; however I do not
49 accept that some Residential variable is applicable.
50 As for residential improved charges they too I view have no legal validity.
51
52 QUOTE
Page 13
1
2 END QUOTE
3
4 In the past I wrote that I objected to the unconstitutional/unlawful alleged “council rates” and I
5 recall requested it to be refunded. The Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
6 unconstitutional tax is refundable.
7
8 We now have that municipal/shire councils have taken upon them a lot more than ordinary was
9 for those corporations to do prior to federation. The State outsmarting the municipal/shire
10 councils by getting the municipal/shire councils to ongoing increase charges to pay for road
11 works, etc, that ordinary should be paid from the Consolidated Revenue funds.
12
13 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
14 Convention)
15 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
16 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd clause, is
17 intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine. That simply applies to
18 quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
19 END QUOTE
20
21 While the High Court of Australia in Palmer v WA handed down a decision and out of context
22 quoting the Framers of the Constitution, reality is that it concealed from the judgments this part.
23 What this means is that all “man-kind” infectious diseases for which quarantine is required in
24 some manner or another then the States have no legislative, executive and/or administrative
25 powers to issue mandates, vaccines, etc.
26 Meaning, that all State mandates regarding the covid scam were unconstitutional! Also, that all
27 and any vaccination regarding measles, polio and other infectious diseases are all within the
28 exclusive legislative, executive and/or administrative powers of the Commonwealth.
29
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
33 legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
34 END QUOTE
35
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
39 nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.

Page 14
1 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

2 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
3 remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
4 all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
5 END QUOTE
6
8 QUOTE
9 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
10 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
11 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
12 the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 When the Commonwealth commenced to legislate for the Quarantine Act 1908 then this was the
16 end of State legislative powers. Just that because the High Court of Australia in 1904 banned the
17 usage of the Hansard records no one seemed to be the wiser as to what was really applicable. The
18 judges who previously had been part of the Framers of the Constitution by preventing the usage
19 of the Hansard records were by this able to change the meaning and application of the
20 constitution. However, after more than 70 years the High Court of Australia then permitted the
21 usage of the Hansard (never ever had any rights to deny it in the first place) and now heaps of
22 past judgments were really all in violation of the constitution, but who cares, well as a
23 constitutionalist I do.
24
25 So here we have councils to provide health centres, etc, and letting kids being jabbed when
26 legally no longer entitled to do so in regard of any “man-kind” infectious disease. After all, the
27 2015 Biosecurity Act (Cth) places it beyond doubt in the hands of the Commonwealth.
28
29 We also have councils meddling in environment issues. Yes the more power or tyranny it can
30 exercise then who cares about it being unconstitutional. So, property owners monies are misused
31 for this also.
32 I recall way back in the 1990’s how bulldozers (in the country) would push all the cartons to the
33 general rubbish and then burned it. So, this recycling of paper/carton was a sheer waste of time
34 and monies. Municipal/shire councils should simply stick to the corporate matters and leave
35 governing up to the real “Local Government” being the “State Government”.
36
37 There is no such thing as a “Victorian Constitution Act 1975” because this was not approved
38 by the State electors. Therefore, any State legislation that doesn’t fit the reduced (State)
39 Victorian Constitution Act 1855 is ULTRA VIRES.
40
41 I grew up ignoring any so called climate change concern just that whatever we had was used and
42 reused. I am a handy man and well know how to repurpose items. As long as I can prove, if
43 needed, to have lawfully purchased items, it is no ones business what I have on my property
44 and/or what I use it for. Meaning, Angelo O’Brien trespassing cannot be excused.
45
46 As my wife suffers from heart failure the risk was there that Angelo O’Brien trespassing could
47 have had fatal consequences for my 90 year old wife to find a stranger in our yard.
48
49 When my wife was in hospital and unable to contact me she authorised the Victorian Police to
50 enter the property and if needed to smash themselves into the house. The police already had been
51 trying to get in for over an hours when I happen to hear some noises and found the police at the
52 door. The first thing the police did was to make known my wife had authorised them to enter the
Page 15
1 property, etc. I subsequently wrote to the Chief Commissioner of Police to thank the officers for
2 their conduct, as after all they had not been trespassing because my wife had specifically
3 authorised them to enter. The police then was well aware of the items I had on the property and
4 did not have an issue with it. After all property that has been lawfully obtained cannot be an
5 issue of concern. There are people who enjoy watching a game, others fishing or other
6 entertainment and I am a hobbyist and like doing handyman work. That is my right as after all
7 my property is FEE SIIMPLE and no municipal/shire council has any powers to interfere with
8 this. Indeed the High Court of Australia is on record that a council cannot interfere withy how a
9 property owner deals with his property.
10
11 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/
12 Fee Simple. - Constitution Watch
13 12 July 2022 ... What is an Estate in Fee Simple? Commonwealth v New South
14 Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1. (9 August 1923) .
15
16 There is an excellent article at https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/ which also refers to
17 Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; 919230 33 CLR 1 (9August 1923)
18 QUOTE
19 Fee Simple.
20 Posted onMay 10, 2022AuthorEditor
21 What is an Estate in Fee Simple?
22
23
24 Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1
25 (9 August 1923)
26 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
27 KNOX C.J., ISAACS, HIGGINS, GAVAN DUFFY AND STARKE JJ.
28 THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PLAINTIFF
29 AGAINST
30 THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS
31 1920-1923: SYDNEY, Dec. 1-3, 1920; Mar. 21-29, 1922; Aug. 9, 1923 33 CLR 1
32 Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:-
33 (1920) 33 CLR 1 at 42
34
35
36 ISAACS J. In Challis's Real Property, 3rd ed., p. 218,
37 it is stated with perfect accuracy:—
38 “In the language of the English law, the word fee signifies an estate of inheritance as distinguished
39 from a less estate; not, as in the language of the feudists, a subject of tenure as distinguished from
40 an allodium.”
41 “Allodium being wholly unknown to English law, the latter distinction would in fact have no
42 meaning.” “A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in respect to the
43 rights which it confers, of all estates known to the law.”
44 “It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful right to
45 exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which can enter into the
46 imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste; and, for all practical purposes of
47 ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a chattel,
48 in nothing except the physical indestructibility of its subject.”
49 “Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute right, both of
50 alienation inter vivos and of devise by will.” 2
51 Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:-
52 (1920) 33 CLR 1 at 45
Page 16
1 ISAACS J.
2 With respect to the expression “fee simple”, the view enunciated in the joint opinion that “fee
3 simple” indicates the quantum of estate, and not feudal tenure, is confirmed by the observation of
4 Viscount Haldane for the Privy Council in the White Cap Case (Amodu Tijani v. Secretary,
5 Southern Nigeria[50]), where the learned Lord refers to—
6 “an estate in fee” as “the most comprehensive estate in land which the law recognizes.”
7 On the same page Lord Haldane also speaks of a case where “the title of the Sovereign is a pure
8 legal estate, to which beneficial rights may or may not be attached.”
9 The same learned Lord in Matamajaw Salmon Club v. Duchaine[51] says that in England “there
10 has always been permitted great latitude in splitting up the title to the fee simple.” The same learned
11 Lord, again for the Privy Council, had already in Smith v. Vermillion Hills Municipality[52]
12 recognized the principle when he spoke of certain land—
13 “the fee of which is in the Crown.”
14 It is obviously right, therefore, to say that under sec. 85 (I.) the Commonwealth holds the land for
15 an estate of fee simple in possession, that having no reference to any tenure under the State. The
16 title transferred by sec. 85 is taken from the State, as I have already said, adversely to State law and
17 by a law superior, and by that superior law is vested in the Commonwealth; and, as that superior
18 law is the sole source of title, it follows that nothing henceforth can depend on State registration
19 laws or State laws of any kind.
20 But as the land—not being in Commonwealth “territory” properly so called, that is, outside a
21 State—remains in the State boundaries, it was necessary to provide that the governmental powers
22 of the Commonwealth—exclusive in themselves—should, for the purpose for which the land was
23 transferred, be entirely free from State jurisdiction. To this end sec. 52 (I.) was shaped in the form
24 in which it exists. It enacts that the Commonwealth Parliament shall have exclusive power to
25 legislate for—
26 “the seat of government of the Commonwealth, and all places acquired by the Commonwealth for
27 public purposes.”
28 Even in America, it may be necessary to repeat, where no such explicit law exists, it is held that the
29 Congress may validly legislate for the protection of its public lands, even within a State.
30 As Brown J. said for the Court, in Camfield v. United States[53], “a different rule would place the
31 public domain of the United States completely at the mercy of State legislation.” This was a
32 decision in 1897, and the later Commonwealth Constitution has provided specifically, and in larger
33 terms, for the Federal power. The grant of exclusive power carries an inevitable inference with it. It
34 shows that the proprietorship and the sovereignty were intended to go together in this respect.
35
36 4 pages, use toolbar at top to open.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 The example that the Commonwealth can legislate to any land it hold as FEE SIMPLE. I
40 actually over the years also wrote about this extensively.
41
42 While the State Government purports that it can now claim State land tax for escalation of
43 property value, it is my view that this lacks constitutional validity. Likewise, the State cannot
44 apply interest rates, as it has no State banking! It also means that the municipal/shire councils
45 cannot claim interest regarding any alleged over due payments for whatever.
46 Neither can municipal/shire councils garnish property and sell it to recoup alleged overdue
47 payments because separation of powers denied any one taking the law into their own hands.
48 Legislation may be validly enforced, even if it is not constitutionally valid, as long as no one
49 objects against the legislation, but the moment a citizen objects then the legislation is and
50 remains to be ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio unless and until if ever at all a court of competent
51 jurisdiction declares it to be INTRA VIRES.
52
53 For decades that I assisted/represented parties in litigation (including representing
54 barristers/solicitors) I defeated numerous opponents. I am not at liberty to refer to names of
Page 17
1 parties where legislation prohibit this, however Mr Francis James Colosimo authorised me to
2 refer to the litigation when I represented him. He had been placed under Orders of
3 Administration and while represented by a barrister. Francis then requested me to take over the 2
4 cases to appeal the Orders of Administration as well as the CONTEMPT OF COURT case. I did
5 both successfully. The Counsel for the council relied for example on inadmissible evidence, etc.
6 Now with Angelo O’Brien purportedly obtaining evidence by trespassing is inadmissible.
7 Now Banyule City Council can either seek to make a financial settlement for his conduct to
8 trespass and vandalise the motor vehicle or may face costly litigation. Criminal charges may
9 eventuate also!
10 Banyule City Council blatant disregard in the past to appropriately respond to my objection
11 against the unconstitutional “State land taxation” as a purported “council rates” also is an issue to
12 address.
13
14 I am well aware that the State Government is pursuing all kinds of unconstitutional conduct to
15 serve the World Economic Forum (W.E.F.) masters to implement a New World Order but as
16 a constitutionalist I do not accept this.
17
18 As much as I made clear there is no constitutionally valid “Victorian Constitution Act 1975”
19 then neither can legislation purported to be within this alleged constitution have any validity.
20
21 When a council as Banyule City Council is to act for and on behalf of land owners it cannot then
22 shove down their throats to respect, etc, indigenous Elders past and present, etc, as by this
23 Banyule City Council is offending FEE SIMPLE property owners that somehow their FEE
24 SIMPLE rights van be taken of them by a council! When the Letters Patent were issued and
25 published in the Gazette the Governor has the right to permit the State to sell off land on behalf
26 of the Crown, however, the Letter Patent do not permit the State Government to somehow
27 interfere with the FEE SIMPLE. As to deny full FEE SIMPLE entitlements. After all, the State
28 Government (the relevant Minister) is no more but an agent for the Governor, and as like when a
29 party engaged a legal practitioner, the legal practitioner can only act for and on behalf of the
30 agent and not somehow reward himself with some of the proceeds or other benefits of a sale, etc.
31
32 It should be understood that I succeeded in both cases against the Commonwealth and the 9
33 Attorney-Generals (representing myself), and the Victorian Attorney-General made known to
34 abide by the courts decision, hence Banyule City Council cannot now challenge the courts
35 decision of 19 July 2006, regarding both cases!
36
37 I suggest that other than paying the charges for rubbish and the fire charges of $125 Banyule
38 City Council provide a TRUST ACCOUNT where I am willing to pay in the balance but where
39 Banyule City Council fails to obtain court decision in its favour that the monies paid into the
40 trust account can be legitimately claimed by Banyule City Council then it refund it all and so all
41 and any past payments, being monies not relating for rubbish collection and/or State fire services
42 charges. The onus is upon Banyule City council to prove constitutional validity of its charges.
43
44 As for the vandalism to the Ford AU and the trespassing I reiterate that Banyule City Council has
45 a legal obligation to report the matter to the Victorian Police, as failing to do so may be deemed
46 to be an accessory to the crimes committed.
47
48 Some months ago, I wrote to you as to some council officer having left a card in the mail box
49 and again later wrote about it again and your silence was deafening. Likewise was my past
50 writings to Banyule City Council to ignore it.

Page 18
1 It must be clear that the NOTICE TO COMPLY has absolutely no legal validity because of what
2 has been set out above. If Banyule City Council were to pursue litigation then obviously I would
3 challenge the courts jurisdiction (consider also the above stated) and it could end up in a
4 protracted litigation!
5 In my view Banyule City Council should have a proper investigation as to how on earth Mr
6 Angelo O’Brien entered my property without lawful excuse by trespassing. Perhaps it is his way
7 of going about because of the New World Order way to turn citizens into slaves, well, this time
8 he picked upon the wrong person! While I refer to Angelo O’Brien, being the name on the
9 documentation affixed onto the motor vehicle if it was however another person who trespassed
10 then consider this part of the complaint to be against that person.
11
12 My concern is that I am there for my wife for whatever time she may still live, and no one is
13 going to interfere with this. Everything else has to be on hold. Unlike politicians, etc, who are
14 betraying their oaths, I am determined to place my wife as first priority as I promised when we
15 became married.
16
17 It would have been far better had Banyule City Council avoided this elaborate harassment and
18 instead ensured that the renewal of my wife’s Disabled Parking Permit was completed without
19 further problems.
20
21
22 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal
23 constitution!
24
25 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
26 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
27 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

28 (Our name is our motto!)
29


20230911-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council Mayor CR Castaldo and Ors-TRESPASS, Etc

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

20230911-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council Mayor CR Castaldo and Ors-TRESPASS, Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

11-9-2023 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

11-9-2023 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

42 Our name is our motto!

11-9-2023 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

11-9-2023 Page 17 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

27 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

11-9-2023 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like