20230920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council Mayor CR Castaldo and Ors-TRESPASS, Etc-Supplement 4

Page 1
1
2
3 Banyule City Council (Australia, Victoria date) 20-9-2023
4 enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
5
6 Cc: Cr Alison Champion alison.champion@banyule.vic.gov.au
7 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos fiona.mitsdinikos@banyule.vic.gov.au
8 Cr Elizabeth Nealy elizabeth.nealy@banyule.vic.gov.au
9 Cr Mark Di Pasquate mark.dipasquale@banyule.vic.gov.au
10 Cr Alida McKern alida.mckern@banyule.vic.gov.au
11 Cr Peter Dimarelos peter.demarelos@banyule.vic.gov.au
12 Cr Rick Garotti rick.garotti@banyule.vic.gov.au
13 Cr Tom Melican tom.melican@banyule.vic.gov.au
14 Mayor Cr Peter Casteldo peter.castaldo@banyule.vic.gov.au
15 Mr RomanWojtkowski enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
16
17 Re: 20230920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council Mayor Cr Castaldo and Ors-
18 TRESPASS, etc-Supplement 4
19
20 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
21
22 COMPLAINT
23 Sir & Ors,
24 Recently, a person was explaining to me about an elderly long retired expert who was
25 assisting in a project. The story was that the business had a problem but calling in 3 experts, each
26 after the other, after each working many hours but unable to fix the problem the business decided
27 to call upon this retired person. This elderly person then attended to the problem and within 10
28 minutes fixed it and then billed for $10,000. The business argued that he hardly could charge
29 $10,000 for a mere 10 minutes of work. His response was that the business had already engaged
30 3 professionals who couldn’t fix the problem and it was clear they lacked the knowledge he had.
31 He was charging for his knowledge and he held that it was worth $10,000.
32
33 This example may be advice to Banyule City Council that where it had staff going about
34 ignoring the rule of law, etc, then well it now has burdened me to explain matters and so far in
35 the interim Banyule City Council is to pay me $10,000 for my knowledge and further cost may
36 be claimed where it continues its problem making conduct.
37
38 I used to manage factories and always held that if an employee made an error that I was
39 accountable as I ought to have explained to the employee that any particular stupidity should not
40 be engaged in, etc.
41
42 Banyule City Council appears to me to have lacked appropriate training for Banyule City
43 Council staff to know and understand relevant legal procedures required to be followed.
20-9-2023 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
3 This means that as the High Court of Australia made very clear the police may enter a property
4 to travel by the shortest distance to the front door, any different travelling would be trespassing,
5 and if there is a notice at the front gate that ENTRY IS PROHIBITED then the police cannot
6 enter at all, without a warrant.
7 Meaning that on 6 September 2023 Banyule City Council staff despite the various warnings
8 nevertheless entered the property without any permission to do so and made one or more photos
9 stealing my artistic garden display image(s).
10
11 When there is any sign making known there is a prohibition to enter then that applies to each and
12 every part of the ESTATE IN FEE SIMPLE, and even if someone merely rents a property than
13 also the entry without permission is prohibited, where a sign is display for this.
14
15 Let us have a look from a distance is anyone can see the backyard of the property from the
16 footpath.
17
18
19
20 If the height of the motor vehicle is about 1.6metres + then surely the trees are a lot higher.
21 Meaning, that no way any Banyule City Council staff possibly could have seen what was
22 artistically done in the backyard to return on 7 September 2023 to steal images of my artistic
23 work.

Page 3
1
2
3 Now let us consider the gates.
4
5
6
7 The gates have various padlock, a chain and a slide to lock and as such not particularly gates that
8 could blow open by the wind! And see the signs on the gates? See next images:
Page 4
1
2
3 Why did I place the signs on the inside of the gate, well I all along expected that one day a
4 trespasser may claim the gates were open, even if it wasn’t, and so couldn’t see the prohibition
5 sign and as such was not aware that entry was prohibited without being given permission. The
6 gates clearly when open show on each side the same warning sign, besides what was near the gas
7 meter! The little door in the middle of one gate is so when leaving I can put the padlock on the
8 gate lever also.
9
10
11
12 Even if the Banyule City Council staff member was to have had a genuine reason to enter but
13 faced with the signs was left to contact me via the displayed email address.
14
Page 5
1
2 As I spend more than 4 decades at bar tables, including cross examining medical and other
3 professionals I am well aware how someone seeks to try to get around with making up all kinds
4 of excuses and so I ensured that when it came to trespassing no trespasser could make claims that
5 the person had not become aware of a sign.
6 A person may claim to have been blind, and well as I indicate Angelo O’Brien clearly filling in a
7 sticker hardly could be considered to be blind or even having bad eye signs. After all the sigs I
8 displayed are easy to read!
9
10
11
12 If Banyule City Council was to have employed a competent lawyer who could read that is than
13 the lawyer could have explained that any unauthorised entry was prohibited then the whole
14 sordid affair may have been avoided of trespassing.
15
16 As I previously wrote about municipal/shire councils are not a level of government regardless if
17 States may pretend to be so!
18
19 “A pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a
20 law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it”.
21 Chief Justice Latham 1942
22
23 Where the High Court of Australia made clear that the police cannot enter where there is a sign
24 prohibiting (by the property owner/renter) unauthorised entry then that is the end of it.
25
26 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) had the legal principle that there
27 is the legislature, executive and the Inter-State Commission and each and everyone of these parts
28 can be checked upon judicial issue by the High Court of Australia.
29 Most lawyers/judges refer to 3 bodies but above clearly shows 4 as the Inter-State Commission is
30 created by the Constitution.
31
32 The States have 3 bodies being the legislators, executives and the judicature as they do not have
33 the Inter-State Commission, albeit are subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
34 Act 1900 (UK).
35
36 Municipal/shire councils have no such structure as they are “corporations” which cannot make
37 laws/by-laws as they can only operate as a corporation. And, State governments are bound by the
38 legal principle “subject to this constitution” and as such cannot violate the structure on the
39 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). Fancy, that people creating their own
40 corporations and then start (purportedly) legislating to outlaw whatever, say municipal/shire
41 councils!
42

Page 6
1 There is however a divided 3th structure of government embedded in the constitution, and that is
2 the British system. However, while the British Parliament can technically amend the provisions
3 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) it cannot do so as to clause 9
4 the “constitution” but can regarding the first 8 Chapters. This never eventuated.
5
6 The Brits however can legislate ordinary and then its legislation for so far not conflicting with
7 the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) it
8 can be applied “complimentary” to the constitution.
9 When the British joined the EU and so its constitution the Brits then accepted that its ordinary
10 legislation, but not constitutional such as of Australia, Canada, etc, would to some degree apply
11 to the British legislative provisions. By this could complimentary apply to the Commonwealth of
12 Australia.
13 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such
14 considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English
15 Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark
16 (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment
17 IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168
18 It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
19 Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is
20 complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
21 Act 1900 (UK) is.
22
23 The High Court of Australia often if not always has overlooked this legal issue as when you have
24 one of the judges in an appeal case declaring not to know the constitution (and so refused to hand
25 down his decision causing a 3-3 split and the appeal then dismissed) then obviously this is a
26 matter of concern.
27
28 Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 38 (14 August 1997)
29 KIRBY J. : “ One highly influential international statement on the understand of universal and
30 fundamental rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document is not a
31 treaty to which Australia is a party. Indeed it is not a treaty at all. It is not part of Australia’s
32 domestic law, still less of its Constitution. ”
33
34 Well the ECHR actually is complimentary to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia
35 Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and this may underline that we seem to lack properly trained judges
36 in constitutional matters.
37
38 Then consider the following ill-conceived statement:
39
40 Chief Justice French in his speech “The Common Law and the Protection of Human Rights”
41 to the Anglo Australiasian Lawyers Society on 4th September 2009, said:-
42 “ We do so against the backdrop of the supremacy of Parliament"
43
44 Prior to federation, the colonial parliaments were supreme and could amend any Colonial
45 constitution as it desired, however due to federation the following became applicable:
46
47 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
48 QUOTE
49 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
50 END QUOTE
51
Page 7
1 Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

2 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
3 The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for
4 the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
5 whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
6 constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
7 several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the
8 royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be
9 practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
10 full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
11 that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
12 assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
13 again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority
14 conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
15 such authority.
16 END QUOTE
17
19 QUOTE
20 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
21 parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark
22 on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer
23 supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They
24 have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That
25 must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament
26 under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of
27 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
29 being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary
30 sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring
31 into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and
32 executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
33 END QUOTE
34
35 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
36 Australasian Convention)
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
39 Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
40 of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
41 Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
42 own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
43 that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
47 Convention)
48 QUOTE
49 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
50 will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
51 the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
52 be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one
53 which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
54 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
55 parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
56 END QUOTE
57

Page 8
1 What this all means is that a “Parliament” is sovereign” within its own sphere, meaning no one
2 can intrude into the Parliament. If for example the police were to chase a person and this person
3 were to seek protection within a Parliament than the police would need permission from the
4 Speaker/President to be allowed to arrest the person, etc. Actually, the same is with the Courts as
5 well as a government building where the government holds its business activities.
6
7 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
8 Convention)
9 QUOTE
10 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
14 Australasian Convention)
15 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
16 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
17 Constitution,
18 END QUOTE
19
21 QUOTE
22 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by
23 the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in
24 effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies,
25 and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been
26 the work of Australians.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
30 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
32 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
33 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
34 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection
35 and secure to him.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 The citizens, that are the electors, are the “sovereigns” who can only approve a referendum to
39 amend a State and/or Federal constitution. A Parliament has no such powers, neither so any
40 government, or even the courts (judicature).
41
42 Hence the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 never was approved by a State referendum
43 and as such NULL AND VOID or if you like ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio!
44
46 QUOTE
47 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
48 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
49 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
50 [start page 2004]
51 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
52 END QUOTE
53
55 QUOTE

Page 9
1 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start
2 page 2092] Higgins) may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision
3 the practice of the High Court, when declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a
4 declaration applied only to the part which trespassed beyond the limits of the Constitution.
5 If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the interpretation of the whole
6 of the Constitution.
7 END QUOTE
8 .
9 I understand that Cr Tom Melican was and perhaps still is a bank manager. Would he really
10 accept that if I were to walk into the bank and dictate whatever that somehow then I can overrule
11 the banks governance, etc? I do not think so. Likewise, when it comes to constitutional matters
12 the nonsense such as the Voice is a con-job referendum to rob Aboriginals of their rights in
13 addition of the 1967 Ss51(xxvi) con-job referendum. Banyule City Council should have kept
14 itself out of the political arena about constitutional issues it hasn’t got a clue what it is precisely
15 about.
16 As such, forget about the utter and sheer nonsense that municipal/shire councils are some level
17 of government as they lack the structure for this and there is more to it but save to state a
18 competent constitutionalist would be well aware that the so called council by-laws are nothing,
19 and have no legal basis!
20
21 Now let us go back to the vandalising of my wife’s Ford AU. As I indicated this was after two
22 separate trespassing upon our ESTATE IN FEE SIMPLE and as such must be considered that
23 the vandalising of the Ford AU was part of the second trespassing on 7 September 2023!
24
25 On the one hand the notice requires the vehicle to be removed and technically prevents this
26 because of the sticker obscuring the sight of the driver through the windscreen.
27 I was unable to locate any information on the sticker how to remove it and that is another issue.
28 After all, errors are at times made and so Banyule City Council should have provided any
29 information as to how to remove such sticker if in error fitted. To expect a 90 year old very ill
30 woman (the registered owner) to remove a sticker is absurd, and may underline the kind of
31 mentality of those with Banyule City Council! This is why perhaps Banyule City Council staff
32 refused my demands to remove the sticker well aware of the problems to do so. More over, if the
33 vehicle was needed in an emergency then the sticker obscuring some of the driver’s sight may
34 very well result to accident and it be in any event unlawful to drive with a partly obscured
35 windscreen.
36 In my view a Banyule City Council staff member if intending to act lawfully, which obviously
37 by the prior trespassing cannot be deemed to have been the intention, would have first contacted
38 the registered owner or any representative to inquire about the vehicle to be standing there, etc.
39 This, I view, would be a competent staff member conduct. However, again considering the prior
40 trespassing, the vandalising of the vehicle appears to me to have been with malice as an
41 extension of the criminal conduct to trespass. And despite my writing for over a week
42 councillors couldn’t bother even so it may place my wife’s life at risk. In an emergency ever
43 second can count and Ambulances are notoriously late that people die before the Ambulance
44 arrived.
45 Once the Ford AU wouldn’t start, and luckily we usually allocate 1 hour in addition to any
46 travelling time to travel to her specialist, we were able to get the car going. Hence, we decided
47 that having 2 cars was a better option, despite the additional cost, as the risk to my wife is to
48 great not having a transport available on an instant, and this proved to be when I had in 2019
49 race to the hospital and the doctors gave me the understanding that my wife was close to death.
50
51 So now we have criminal conduct by Banyule City Council to trespass and to vandalise the Ford
52 AU seemingly for no more but to try to get me for daring to expose the rot by governments, etc.
Page 10
1 After all, if it was to target my wife then what on earth possessed Banyule City Council staff to
2 do so?
3
4 It is clear that the first trespass was on 6 September 2023, and so why was there no one in charge
5 by Banyule City Council to make clear to Angelo O’Brien he couldn’t go out committing crimes
6 and neither vandalise a motor vehicle?
7 In any event, proper management by Banyule City Council ought to have resulted that
8 immediately corrective action, for so far possible, be pursued. The removal by me of the sticker,
9 as I demanded by no later than Friday 15 September 2023, should not even have been needed
10 had immediately action been taken to remove the sticker. The fact that despite my demand this
11 was not eventuating can in my view underline that this malicious criminal conduct to vandalise a
12 motor vehicle was deliberate and Banyule City Council was showing not an ounce of remorse.
13 It may underline the hypocritical conduct and mentality that it purports to enforce the rule of law
14 while in fact doing the precise opposite.
15
16
17
18
19 When I for my own car needed to have a spare key made the standard price is $250.00 even so it
20 was about 10 minutes work.
21 There can be no doubt about it that to remove the sticker that vandalised my wife’s car was
22 needed to be done to make it roadworthy to be able to drive. And the time that I had to use to
23 clean the windscreen was about 45 minutes at the very least meaning this is 4.5 x $250 is $1,125
24 charge against Banyule City Council for failing to remove the sticker and its glue, etc, when it
25 had to be done.
26 After all, Banyule City Council demanded (rightly or wrongly) the vehicle being moved and so
27 the council had the obligation to remove the sticker and any residue so the vehicle could be
28 legally moved. It cannot cause me to unlawfully operate a motor vehicle, can they?
Page 11
2
3
4 The vehicle was moved about 1 metre and so it cannot be argued it was not moved. Not that I
5 imply Banyule City Council had a right to make the demand!
6
7 As the images of the property of ESATATE IN FEE SIMPLE were obtained by criminal
8 activities they are inadmissible and neither can be used for any litigation or other legal action
9 against me.
10
11 The legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur action” denies any remedy to a litigant
12 (including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands.
13 If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with “Dirty Hands”
14 best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!
15
16 Learn a lesson, that when two elderly citizens try to mind their own business and seek to live
17 within their means then respect them for doing so, and forget trying to pursue the terrorism of
18 New World Order! This time you picked upon the wrong persons! And the lack of show of
19 remorse may underline how sickening it all is. My constitutional, legal, human, natural and/or
20 common law rights are not depending upon the competence of whatever lawyer Banyule City
21 Council may rely upon! As the AEC and the 9 Attorney-Generals discovered it was irrelevant
22 they believed that they can compel “compulsory” voting, as I proved them to be wrong.
23
24
25
26 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
27
28 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
29 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
30 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

31 (Our name is our motto!)

20230920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council Mayor CR Castaldo and Ors-TRESPASS, Etc-Supplement 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

20230920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council Mayor CR Castaldo and Ors-TRESPASS, Etc-Supplement 4

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

20230920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council Mayor CR Castaldo and Ors-TRESPASS, Etc-Supplement 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

20-9-2023 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20-9-2023 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

20-9-2023 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20-9-2023 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

30 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like