20231024-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Office of The Gene Technology Regulator

Page 1
1
2
3 Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (Australia, Victoria date) 24-10-2023
4 MDP54 GPO Box 9848 Canberra ACT 2601
5 Telephone: 1800 181 030
6 www.ogtr.gov.au
7 ogtr@health.gov.au
8
9 Re: 20231024-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
10
11 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
12 SUBMISSION
13 Re: GMO, etc
14 Sir/Madam,
15 let it be very clear that the W.E.F./U.N./WHO are not elected by electors and have
16 absolutely no powers to interfere with the rights of Australians. The covid scam should have
17 been a lesson that one may get away with criminal conduct for some time but eventually you will
18 be held legally accountable!
19
20 With the GMO and other issues every Australian is a “sentry” and as such obligated to conduct
21 matters appropriately as the constitution is above everything. It is only by adhering to the true
22 meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia
23 Constitution Act 1900 (UK) that we can ensure every Australian is proved with all constitutional
24 rights and entitlements.
25
26 GMO is an issue that is of great concern to many, regardless upon what basis each person may
27 have any concerns. The issue is that the Commonwealth has the obligation to ensure that no
28 misinformation/disinformation is published by it and so its minions. We have seen that the covid
29 scam resulted to untold disabilities and even numerous deaths and this ought to be a warning that
30 those who were involved in this covid scam propaganda may be held legally accountable in time
31 to come.
32 The covid scam has generally undermined the trust Australians had in the medical profession,
33 scientist also.
34
35 The commercial release of GMO banana’s in my view falls within the powers of the Section 101
36 Inter-State Commission! This means that “Office of the Gene Technology Regulator” may
37 make recommendations to the Inter-State Commission but it cannot hijack the powers of the
38 Inter-State Commission to authorise the spread of GMO products, not just Banana’s. If the
39 OGTR were to authorise the release without approval of the Inter-State commission then
40 officials could cause themselves to be subject to “misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance,
41 etc.”.
42 There is no excuse to argue that the Federal government didn’t appoint a Commissioner as that is
43 not an excuse that can override the Constitution! After all because there is no police officer on
24-10-2023 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 duty in a small township doesn’t mean one can then commit crimes! The Constitution is very
2 clear
3
4 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
5 QUOTE
6 101 Inter-State Commission
7 There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of
8 adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary
9 for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of
10 the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce,
11 and of all laws made thereunder.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 As such the legal requirement is upon the Federal Government to ensure there is a Commissioner
15 and this commissioner is provided with appropriate facilities and staff.
16 Failing such Inter-State Commissioner to be appointed then the “Office of the Gene Technology
17 Regulator” must prevent any items it approved but not sanctioned by the Inter-State
18 Commission to be issued to any State to be held pending an appropriate decision by the Inter-
19 State Commission.
20 While the Federal Government seems to rely upon the ACCC reality is that the ACCC is subject
21 to ministerial demands whereas the Inter-State Commission cannot be subjected to any political
22 interference. Hence, the ACCC may be deemed as an unconstitutional entity in violation of the
23 separation of powers by which the Inter-State Commission is an equal co-branch in the
24 constitution as is the Legislature, Executive and the Judicature. The High Court of Australia, as
25 with the legislature and the executive can only adjudicate upon errors of law, whereas when the
26 High Court of Australia sits as a Court of Disputed Returns it is not sitting as a High Court of
27 Australia but merely sitting on behalf of the political Members in the Parliament, as to make a
28 political decision.
29 It would take many thousands of pages to set it all out and obviously this submission would be to
30 extensive in documentation, but lucky you I have most of it already extensively canvassed at my
31 blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati and don’t worry to run out of reading material as I
32 can assure you more is to come. OK, ACMA is causing problems even so this is unconstitutional
33 and well I am gathering evidence to hold it legally accountable for this.
34
35 Well, we saw with the “covid scam” how this kind of reasoning resulted to hundreds of
36 thousands of Australians being harmed and thousands ending up in their graves. So spare me any
37 excuses, as the Commonwealth has been warned by me for numerous years and blatantly ignored
38 it and well time for legal accountability is there.
39
40 The “Office of the Gene Technology Regulator” may commence to argue that if each and
41 every product needs first approval of the Inter-State Commission then the logistics of transport,
42 having perishable items rotting away, etc, will be very burdensome to many, well then let the
43 politicians and their5 collaborators/minions such as officials sell their homes, etc, to compensate
44 for the losses.
45 I, many decades ago, was a quality control officer and checked the product at a machine
46 according to the drawing and the order held there and everything appeared to be in order,
47 yet I placed a REJECT card on the products. Then went to the dispatch and placed on each
48 and every pallet filled with the same product reject cards. Simply my guts feeling was
49 there was something wrong even so I knew the particular type of screw was manufactured
50 for decades for Ford motor company and I was warned that Ford motor company had a
51 truck waiting to load. I went to the Order Office and requested to be provided with the
52 customer’s original order. The clerk then explained that the original order had an error in
Page 3
1 it as the wrong screws had been ordered. I requested him to show me a deviation order, and
2 he responded he had none. I made clear everything was rejected because it was not as per
3 customer original order and he better get a deviation order as unless a deviation order was
4 produced everything was on hold. Well within half-an-hour Ford provided the deviation
5 order and subsequently I released all items! It was afterwards that the Works Manager
6 congratulated me for having been as alert as (that was more than 4 decades ago) the
7 company in a similar incident was ordered to pay about $180,000 as compensation.
8
9 The “Office of the Gene Technology Regulator” in my view has an authority as to approve or
10 disapprove certain GMO product but no more. It cannot interfere with the Inter-State
11 commission powers and as such now must ensure that any past unauthorised release of any items
12 approved by the “Office of the Gene Technology Regulator” but not by the Inter-State
13 commission immediately is so to say frozen in transport, etc, and leave it up to the Federal
14 Government to ensure there is an Inter-State Commissioner who can decide to approve or
15 disapprove items.
16
17 It is well overdue we hold Ministers and their officials legally accountable, those who are
18 ignorant to the rule of law never can be excused of doing so and in the process may cause harm
19 upon Australians which may expect proper procedures are applied.
20
21 We have become aware how the TGA on its website claimed to ensure stakeholders were
22 provided with the utmost care (to put it in my own words) when in reality it failed to do certain
23 test, etc, and claimed to rely upon the USA FDA, who also failed to perform certain required
24 test, etc, and so Australians were ending up unduly harmed.
25
26 Now, would you if you were harmed and say as result have the rest of your life being unable to
27 engage in normal daily conduct and left disabled having to rely upon others accept this as being
28 all right or would you demand that the evil doers would be held legally accountable? I would
29 assume you would pursue legally accountability. At that time as an certain expert in insulation
30 material my writings were ignored, and well innocent people paid with their lives for this. So,
31 the framers of the Constitution preferred that the Inter-State Commission would be free from
32 political interference and its experts would determine upon their expertise what was appropriate
33 for each State/Territory. Whereas the Commonwealth is bound for UNIFORM laws throughout
34 the Commonwealth, the Framers of the Constitution recognised that with trade and commerce
35 this may not always be possible and hence the experts were to make the final decisions.
36
37 There was a reason the Framers of the Constitution specifically created the Inter-State
38 Commission, this as political interference too often places Australians unduly at risk. Let us not
39 ignore the pink bats instillation costing the lives of various people.
40
41 The climate differs from say Tasmania versus the Northern Territory and so certain legal
42 provisions that may suit the Northern Territory may be totally unsuitable for Tasmania, and visa
43 versa.
44 The Inter-State Commission may very well not approve certain underground mining (gas
45 explorations, etc) where it would reduce the underground water basi8n of the States/Territories
46 and could harm farmers and growers, etc.
47 The courts in my view have no legal position in such matter because the courts may seek to rely
48 upon “evidence” that can be deceptive and even if the expert witness is making a statement it
49 merely is as this experts views matters and may be totally incorrect upon real facts.
50

Page 4
1 I, for example, in one case cross examined three family doctors and each filed an affidavit
2 that the children had “day to day’ illnesses nothing to worry about. Yet, when I cross
3 examined each of this medical doctors if the statement was based upon being at the time
4 the only family doctor and if not so then the doctor would nevertheless hold the same view,
5 each doctor made clear that their statement was based upon being the only family doctor.
6 The evidence before the court was that all 3 doctors at the same time were attending to the
7 same children and each only was aware of some issues with each child and none knew
8 about all issues. Each doctor gave evidence to what they understood were the facts but it
9 turned out none of them knew all the facts.
10
11 When my 90-year-old wife attended to a specialist he urged her to have the covid jab [“gene
12 therapy” DEPOPULATION bioweapon jab] and I then asked him if he could explain to my wife
13 as such suffers from heart failure and other comorbidities what were the dangers to her. He
14 didn’t know! No doubt my wife would have ended up death because of the dangers of this “gene
15 therapy” DEPOPULATION bioweapon jab. My wife decided then to change specialist.
16
17 The “Office of the Gene Technology Regulator” may approve a certain item but wouldn’t have
18 a clue if that item could cause various problems in certain circumstances. One only has to
19 consider the so called childhood vaccinations where numerous children end up with AUTISM or
20 even death. The medical profession haven’t got a clue that constitutionally the States/Territories
21 have no legislative, executive and/or administrative powers regarding “man-kind” infectious
22 diseases since 1908! As such, politician’s incompetence to ensure the laws are properly adhered
23 to ends up many children u8nduly harmed and no one is the wiser for it was it not for a person
24 like myself exposing it. And even than often ignored and well with the covid scam we now the
25 increase of overall deaths and the considerable reduction in life births, etc. Even if a particular
26 vaccine was approved nevertheless used in combination with another vaccine could end up
27 harming a child whereas not another child. This is why off the shelve vaccinations must be
28 prevented and a medical doctor must first do a proper examination of each child, including
29 considering any allergies, blood issues, etc, before authorising a vaccination.
30 If this was done with the “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION bioweapon jab likely many a victim
31 may never having ended up being a victim!
32
33 The “Office of the Gene Technology Regulator” obviously would have little if any knowledge
34 how a particular item it may approve ends up being used and in what combination with any other
35 GMO items, etc. Therefore the “Office of the Gene Technology Regulator” may approve
36 something on basis of the particular item but cannot be held legally accountable for the misuse or
37 inappropriate use. Hence, it lacks the knowledge and experiences to permit the item to be
38 distributed and only can advise the Inter-State Commission as to its approval limits and leave it
39 to the Inter-State Commission to make further decisions it may deem appropriate.
40
41 There obviously are other legal entanglements to be considered. For example, the “Office of the
42 Gene Technology Regulator” may not be aware of certain legal impediments relevant to the
43 release of GMO products as to interfere with an Australians constitutional, legal, human, natural
44 and common law rights. The same is about eating crickets, snails etc, forced upon the populace
45 by evil doers such as W.E.F., U.N., WHO, etc, violating the rights of Australians.
46 Many if not most scientist sold them self out for the covid scam and so one would be an utter
47 fool to go along with “safe and effective” that was claimed from onset without any scientific
48 evidence to base this upon, as a matter of fact opposite to what certain scientist warned against.
49 So, the government and its collaborators/minions simply unconstitutionally interfered with
50 Australians rights of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, “political liberty”, “religious liberty”, etc.

Page 5
1 And now populaces must accept that it are those evil doers who were and still are pushing the
2 covid scam who now place in question whatever any scientist may claim.
3
4 QUOTE 20231023-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Sally Etherington, Director-Payments Strategy and
5 Policy Unit Financial System Division Treasury
6 Sally Etherington, Director (Australia, Victoria date) 23-10-2023
7 Payments Strategy and Policy Unit Financial System Division
8 Treasury
9
10 Re: 20231023-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Sally Etherington, Director
11 -Payments Strategy and Policy Unit Financial System Division Treasury
12
13 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
14 SUBMISSION
15
16 Re: misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance, etc.
17
18 Madam,
19 the first issue for anyone (including Parliament/Government, etc, to consider is any issue
20 that is being considered within its constitutional powers?
21
22 Let me first point out a different issue to try to make things clearer.
23
24 Where is the legislative powers of the Commonwealth of Australia to legislate as to GMO and
25 enforce it upon the States/Territories?
26
27 You may find that any transport of GMO products actually fall within the constitutional powers
28 of the Section 101 Inter-State Commission! The mere fact that the Government fails to appoint a
29 commissioner itself is no excuse, this as the Section refers to “There shall be”
30
32 QUOTE
33 101 Inter-State Commission
34 There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of
35 adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary
36 for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of
37 the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce,
38 and of all laws made thereunder.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 The mistake the Commonwealth made was to pursue to give the Inter-State Commission judicial
42 powers which the High Court of Australia correctly denied, as the Framers of the Constitution
43 made clear it was a body of experts and it could make any decision and any appeal only lies with
44 a legal issue (error of law) and not as to the expertise of the Inter-State Commission.
45 So, now that you may get the understanding that ultimately the Commonwealth of Australia
46 Constitution Act 1900 (UK) determines the powers and limitations thereof then consider the
47 following:
48
50 QUOTE
51 114 States may not raise forces. Taxation of property of
52 Commonwealth or State
Page 6
1 A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the

2 Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or
3 impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the
4 Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on
5 property of any kind belonging to a State.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 This was addressed by the High Court of Australia in Sydney Council v Commonwealth 1904
9 that council rates were a form of State land taxation not applicable to the Commonwealth.
10 The critical issue is that the High Court of Australia ruled that council rates were a State land
11 taxation!
12 On 11 November 1910 the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to Commonwealth land
13 taxation and by this actually wiped out all and any State land taxation that was being used
14 against private property holders. Just that the High Court of Australia in violation of the legal
15 principles embedded in 1904 the constitution denied the usage of the Hansard in litigation. As
16 result when the Commonwealth on 11 November 1910 commenced to legislate as to
17 Commonwealth land taxation citizens simply were unaware that the council rates and other State
18 land taxation no longer were constitutionally valid.
19
20 My concern is not if someone may or may not agree with my writings, rather that
21 what I write is based upon the true meaning and application of the legal principles
22 embedded in the constitution such as “model family”, man and woman!
23 You can download the document from:
24 https://www.scribd.com/document/678730299/20231020-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
25 B-to-Jacinta-Allen-Premier-of-Victoria-Ors
26
27 The document includes also a Statement of the NSW Government claiming that somehow in
28 1953 the State gained legislative powers as to State land taxation, however this is not
29 constitutionally possible! Remember the Caesar ruling!
30
31 And if you were to check back in the records of AEC v Schorel-Hlavka on 19 July 2006 also in
32 regard of the 4 December 2002 court orders that my NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
33 MATTER was to be heard and determined by the High Court of Australia , which the High
34 Court of Australia, even so made well aware of this order, so far never did, and as such all
35 legislative provisions I challenged on constitutional grounds are and remain to be ULTRA
36 VIRES ab initio, unless and until if ever at all a competent court of jurisdiction declare it to be
37 INTRA VIRES. This NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER was also served upon all
38 9 Attorney-Generals. As I represented myself throughout the proceedings and succeeding on 19
39 July 2006 in both appeals then the issues raised as the time are Res Judicata and the various
40 States/Territories/Commonwealth bound by the courts decision! None of them challenged any of
41 my 409 pages written submission (ADDRESS TO THE COURT) by this are deemed to have
42 accepted my submissions and now is subject to Res Judicata!
43
44 All State legislation regarding Aboriginals (Voice/First Nation Assembly, etc), State
45 land taxation (including council rates), “man-kind” infectious disease childhood
46 vaccinations, etc, including to exclude politicians and officials from legal
47 accountability are unconstitutional.
48 You can download the document from:
49 https://www.scribd.com/document/679054806/20231021-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
50 B-to-Jacinta-Allen-Premier-of-Victoria-Ors-Suppplement-1
51
Page 7
1 This document also sets out about the Commonwealth not having any constitutional powers to
2 deal with social issues, etc.
3
4 Some decades ago, the Commonwealth required pensioners and welfare recipients to have a
5 bank account for payments. This in my view was within the Commonwealth legislative powers
6 as in regard of a matter of security to avoid cheques being lost, etc. However, while ordinary
7 when a person deposit monies into a bank account then that person cannot claim to get the same
8 money bills/coins back but merely the value of the monies deposited when requested for this.
9 While the money bills and coins may be the property of the Commonwealth the value belongs to
10 the bank account holder when deposited into a bank account.
11
12 When the Commonwealth deposit monies designated for the pensioner/welfare recipient into a
13 bank account then the value of the monies belong to the bank account holder. The bank cannot
14 restrict an account holder to withdraw all monies of this monies entitlement. And, if the bank
15 were to go bankrupt then the monies in the accounts cannot be used as some form of bail-in or
16 otherwise as the bank cannot convert the Commonwealths determination to make the value of
17 the monies to the benefit of the account holder. It would be absurd for the bank to overrule the
18 Commonwealth! The river cannot have more water than the streams that feeds it. Actually this
19 also applies to the High Court of Australia that its ruling in Sue v Hill was beyond its
20 constitutional judicial powers!
21
23 QUOTE
24 115 States not to coin money
25 A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and
26 silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 This means that the bank or banks cannot deny any customer the legal entitlement to have access
30 and/or receive “gold and silver coin”. The States (so the Territories) cannot demand anyone to
31 use BillPay or other such electronic form of transferring monies for payment. It also means that
32 the Commonwealth is bound by Section 115 to ensure sufficient “gold and silver coin” are
33 available for citizens.
34 It must be understood that citizens may elect to use electronic payments if they desire to do so
35 but that is their choice. The constitution simply prohibits the State for force/demand/coerce a
36 citizen to make a payment other than using “gold and silver coin”!
37
38 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
39 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
40 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
41 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
42 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
43 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
44 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 That means that if any Minister and/or his collaborators/minions were to interfere with a citizens
48 rights to have monies obtained from a bank account as the account holder is entitled upon in
49 “gold and silver coin” then this could constitute TREASON/TERRORISM and other criminal
50 conduct!
51

Page 8
1 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:

2 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
3 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
4 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
5 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
6 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
7 authority of the United States”.
8
9 This legal principle also applies in the Commonwealth of Australia!
10
11 Meaning that any Treasury official seeking to in any manner undermine any citizen his/her
12 constitutional rights to withdraw “gold and silver coin” (so the plurality of it) from any account
13 to which entitled to the value thereof then commits in my view an offense. A Member of
14 Parliament engaged in such conduct merely to serve the W.E.F./U.N./WHO will violate Section
15 44 of the constitution and by Section 45 AUTOMATICALLY be held to have vacated the seat
16 in the Parliament.
17
18 It should be a warning to any Member of Parliament and so their collaborators/minions that they
19 can be held legally accountable.
20
21 As I referred previously about AEC v Schorel-Hlavka let me explain that when I was an
22 INDEPENDENT candidate in the federal election of Jagajaga in 2001 and making known that
23 the “compulsory” part of voting was unconstitutional the Australian Electoral commission
24 simply decided to charge me for FAILING TO VOTE in the 2001 federal election. Despite that I
25 challenged this validity of legislation on constitutional grounds and also that “Australian
26 Citizenship” is not a “nationality” the AEC again charged me with FAILING TO VOTE in the
27 2004 federal election. In the end the Commonwealth and 9 Attorney-Generals lost both cases
28 upon appeal on 19 July 2006!
29
30 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/malfeasance
31 MALFEASANCE | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary
32 the fact of someone in a position of authority intentionally doing something dishonest or
33 illegal: These laws were put in place to discourage malfeasance by ...
34
35 https://www.dictionary.com/browse/malfeasance
36 Malfeasance Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
37 Malfeasance definition, the performance of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or
38 contrary to law, especially by a public official or a person in a ...
39
40 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/malfeasance
41 Malfeasance definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
42 Definition of 'malfeasance' ; the doing of a wrongful or illegal act, esp by a public official
43 ; wrongdoing or misconduct, esp. by a public official; commission ...
44
45 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/malfeasance
46 malfeasance | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
47 Malfeasance is an act that is illegal and causes physical or monetary harm to someone
48 else. Malfeasance is intentional conduct that is wrongful or unlawful, ...
49
50 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nonfeasance
51 nonfeasance | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Page 9
1 The omission to perform a required duty or the failure to act when a duty to act
2 existed. Nonfeasance can more loosely be defined as “not doing something ...
3
4 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nonfeasance.asp
5 Nonfeasance: Meaning, In Finance, Related Terms - Investopedia
6 Nonfeasance is a legal concept that refers to the willful failure to execute or perform an act
7 or duty required by one's position, office, or law whereby ...
8
9 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonfeasance
10 Nonfeasance Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
11 The meaning of NONFEASANCE is failure to act; especially : failure to do what ought to
12 be done.
13
14 https://study.com/learn/lesson/misfeasance-vs-nonfeasance-law.html
15 Misfeasance vs. Nonfeasance | Definition & Differences - Study.com
16 6 Apr 2022 ... Nonfeasance is the failure to complete an action. Nonfeasance can occur
17 through omission of a contract or negligence to take steps to accomplish ...
18
19 https://study.com/learn/lesson/nonfeasance-criteria-examples-what-is-nonfeasance.html
20 Nonfeasance | Definition, Criteria & Examples - Study.com
21 21 Apr 2022 ... Nonfeasance is the failure to act or the willful ignoring of one's
22 professional or qualified responsibilities that results in harm to another ...
23
24 https://law.adelaide.edu.au/system/files/2019-02/25-Misfeasance-and-Non-Feasance.pdf
25 Misfeasance and Non-feasance - Adelaide Law School
26 An article "Nonfeasance and Misfeasance" (1960) 76 L.Q. Rev. 342. 16. An article
27 "Liability for injuries sustained on the Highway" (1956). 221 L.T. 46, ...
28
29 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nonfeasance
30 NONFEASANCE | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary
31 11 Oct 2023 ... a failure to do something when there is a legal duty to do so, especially by a
32 person in authority: The two marshals committed nonfeasance by ...
33
34 https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/management/nonfeasance/
35 Nonfeasance - Overview, Criteria, and How It Works
36 26 June 2020 ... Nonfeasance is the intentional inaction to perform an act required of one's
37 position or office. The inaction causes harm to a person or damage ...
38
39 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfeasance
40 Misfeasance - Wikipedia
41 Misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance are types of failure to discharge public
42 obligations existing by common law, custom, or statute.
43
44 https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nonfeasance
45 Nonfeasance Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
46 Nonfeasance definition, the omission of some act that ought to have been performed. See
47 more.
48
49 The AEC (so its officials) can in my view be held liable for misfeasance, nonfeasance, and
50 malfeasance for persisting that voting is “compulsory”, etc, and the lawyers involved for
51 perverting the course of justice and obstructing the administration of justice, etc.
Page 10
1
2 With Treasury (so its officials) can in my view be held liable for misfeasance, nonfeasance, and
3 malfeasance failing to ensure that banks provides appropriate access for account holders in a
4 reasonable manner access to banking facilities and/or being able to withdraw all or any monies
5 that the Commonwealth deposited in to the bank customers account, etc.
6 Also for having allowed the Commonwealth Bank (CBA) to use and misuse account holders
7 usage of entitlement of monies for ulterior purposes, such as the so called carbon footstep issues.
8
9 Actually, the same misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance can be applied regarding
10 Members of Parliament, Ministers and their collaborators/minions regarding signing any kind of
11 document violating Australians their constitutional rights such as with the WHO (World Health
12 Organisation) that seeks to dictate Australians what it can or cannot use its monies for, etc.
13
14 The same misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance can be applied regarding ACMA for
15 interfering (via Big Tech int5ernet companies) with the rights of Australians to exercise their
16 “political liberty” and/or “religious liberty” such as to publish on the internet their statements.
17
18 What in my view the Commonwealth should do is to close down banks which obstruct
19 Australians to exercise their constitutional rights to withdraw gold and silver coins as their
20 account customers are entitled to withdraw. It is the Commonwealth obligation to ensure that
21 banks restore account holders ability to withdraw gold and silver coins as their bank holdings
22 entitled them to, alternatively provide that Australian Post perform the banking functions and
23 those banks which are failing to provide the required services (in particular considering those in
24 small towns) then are restricted to banking facilities that do not include ordinary banking serves
25 to over the counter and ATM facilities. The onus is upon the Commonwealth to ensure that
26 pensioners and welfare recipients have appropriate access to banking facilities and not bound to
27 travel (for them) long distances as cost beyond their normal means to try to get gold and silver
28 coins from some banking service. At times there is a breakdown of electricity and then stores
29 simply cannot process any payments that are electronic but can still accept cash payments. I
30 experienced this over the years where I would pay cash for items and so was able to complete a
31 purchase whereas others were unable to do so.
32
33 Another issue is that most cash receipts are printed very faint and often after a short period of
34 time no longer legible, which also undermines the issue of seeking warrantee/guarantee for a
35 defective items. In my view considering also that receipts often are to be used for taxation claim
36 purposes the Commonwealth must legislate that all and any receipts are printed in a legible
37 manner and do not faint out.
38
39 It should be understood, as set out in the documentation for which I provided the links above,
40 that the Commonwealth is prohibited to directly/indirectly collude with W.E.F./U.N./WHO as to
41 deny or otherwise interfere with the constitutional rights of Australians!
42
43 Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
44 Australasian Convention)
45 QUOTE Mr. WISE:
46 The power of the senate to deal with money bills is so clearly defined that I doubt if any
47 ingenuity could suggest the possibility of dispute arising between the two houses on that
48 question. That at once removes one of the most prolific sources of dispute between the two
49 chambers in the past. Then as to the second class of dispute arising from social differences,
50 all through this discussion, not, I admit, in this house but outside, the controversialists of
51 one party ignore, or seem to ignore, the limitations of federal government. They forget
52 that this commonwealth can only deal with those matters that are expressly remitted
Page 11
1 to its jurisdiction; and excluded from its jurisdiction are all matters that affect civil
2 rights, all matters that affect property, all matters, in a word, affecting the two great
3 objects which stir the passions and affect the interests of mankind. I fail entirely and I
4 shall be glad if some alarmist will enlarge my views on this matter-to perceive in this bill
5 any question on which there is any possibility of a conflict between the states and the
6 people, except, in one respect, and I will define that in the largest possible way. In
7 legislation affecting commercial interests, or financial interests, it is possible to imagine
8 that the states will be brought into conflict as states with the concentrated majority of the
9 populations of the two large states over a question of trade. It is possible to imagine the
10 same thing arising over a question of commerce, or over a question of finance.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
14 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
15
16 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
17 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
18 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
19 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection
20 and secure to him.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 Let it be very clear that the W.E.F./U.N./WHO are not elected by electors and have absolutely no
24 powers to interfere with the rights of Australians. The covid scam should have been a lesson that
25 one may get away with criminal conduct for some time but eventually you will be held legally
26 accountable!
27 END QUOTE 20231023-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Sally Etherington, Director-Payments Strategy
28 and Policy Unit Financial System Division Treasury
29
30 For the above stated, failing such Inter-State Commissioner to be appointed and approve certain
31 items then the “Office of the Gene Technology Regulator” must prevent any items it approved
32 but not sanctioned by the Inter-State Commission to be issued to any State/Territory to be held
33 pending an appropriate decision by the Inter-State Commission.
34
35
36
37 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
38
39 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
40 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
41 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

42 (Our name is our motto!)

20231024-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Office of The Gene Technology Regulator

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

20231024-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Office of The Gene Technology Regulator

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

24-10-2023 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

24-10-2023 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the

24-10-2023 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:

41 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like