20231104-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Lawyers Molly Metcalf, Becklegal-Supplement 2

Page 1
1
2
3 Molly Metcalf Lawyer, becklegal (Australia, Victoria date) 4-11-2023
4
5 Cc: Cr Alison Champion alison.champion@banyule.vic.gov.au
6 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos fiona.mitsdinikos@banyule.vic.gov.au
7 Cr Elizabeth Nealy elizabeth.nealy@banyule.vic.gov.au
8 Cr Mark Di Pasquate mark.dipasquale@banyule.vic.gov.au
9 Cr Alida McKern alida.mckern@banyule.vic.gov.au
10 Cr Peter Dimarelos peter.demarelos@banyule.vic.gov.au
11 Cr Rick Garotti rick.garotti@banyule.vic.gov.au
12 Cr Tom Melican tom.melican@banyule.vic.gov.au
13 Mayor Cr Peter Casteldo peter.castaldo@banyule.vic.gov.au
14 Mr RomanWojtkowski enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
15 Banyule City Council enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
16
17 Re: 20231104-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Molly Metcalf lawyer, becklegal-Supplement 2
18
19 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
20 COMPLAINT-Supplement 2
21
22 Madam,
23 Long before most people in the world were born the High Court of Australia handed
24 down a decision in 1923, yes 1923, as such I had absolutely no influence as to the judgment then
25 handed down.
26
27 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/ttps://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/
28 Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1 (9 August 1923)
29 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
30 KNOX C.J., ISAACS, HIGGINS, GAVAN DUFFY AND STARKE JJ.
31 THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PLAINTIFF against
32 THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS
33 1920-1923: SYDNEY, Dec. 1-3, 1920; Mar. 21-29, 1922; Aug. 9, 1923 33 CLR 1
34 Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:- (1920) 33 CLR 1 at 42
35 QUOTE
36 “It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful
37 right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which
38 can enter into the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste; and,
39 for all practical purposes of ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a
40 chattel, in nothing except the physical indestructibility of its subject.”
41 “Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute
42 right, both of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will.”
43 END QUOTE
44 And
45 QUOTE
46 ISAACS J. In Challis's Real Property, 3rd ed., p. 218,
4-11-2023 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 it is stated with perfect accuracy:—

2 “In the language of the English law, the word fee signifies an estate of inheritance as
3 distinguished from a less estate; not, as in the language of the feudists, a subject of tenure
4 as distinguished from an allodium.”
5 “Allodium being wholly unknown to English law, the latter distinction would in fact have
6 no meaning.” “A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in
7 respect to the rights which it confers, of all estates known to the law.”
8 END QUOTE
9
10 QUOTE 20231016-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council Mayor Cr Castaldo and Ors -
11 TRESPASS, etc-Supplement 11
12 Banyule City Council (Australia, Victoria date) 16-10-2023
13 enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
14
15 Cc: Cr Alison Champion alison.champion@banyule.vic.gov.au
16 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos fiona.mitsdinikos@banyule.vic.gov.au
17 Cr Elizabeth Nealy elizabeth.nealy@banyule.vic.gov.au
18 Cr Mark Di Pasquate mark.dipasquale@banyule.vic.gov.au
19 Cr Alida McKern alida.mckern@banyule.vic.gov.au
20 Cr Peter Dimarelos peter.demarelos@banyule.vic.gov.au
21 Cr Rick Garotti rick.garotti@banyule.vic.gov.au
22 Cr Tom Melican tom.melican@banyule.vic.gov.au
23 Mayor Cr Peter Casteldo peter.castaldo@banyule.vic.gov.au
24 Mr RomanWojtkowski enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
25
26 Re: 20231016-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council Mayor Cr Castaldo and Ors-
27 TRESPASS, etc-Supplement 11
28
29 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
30 COMPLAINT
31 Sir & Ors,
32 Further to my already provided COMPLAINT and supplements, I add the following.
33 While property owners have the ordinary rights to be protected from unlawful intrusion, at times
34 the court may consider that in the relevant circumstances a person may have been deemed to be
35 excused where there were emergency circumstances, such as say a fire on a property and a
36 “citizen” (anyone without a warrant) entering a property to seek to rescue one of more persons,
37 etc.
38
39
40
41 Therefore the first issue is:
Page 3
1
2 Q: Did the person provide any documentation to you or your wife or left it in the mail box that a
3 warrant was issued and/or that there was an emergency?
4
5 A: At no time were we in any manner provided with any information that a warrant had been
6 issued and/or there had been an emergency.
7
8
9
10 From this it must be clear about the legal principle that even without a NOTICE a locked gate
11 itself is sufficient regarding a residential property.
12
13 The following albeit from USA legislation also indicated that trespassing also can relate to a
14 vehicle:
15
16
17
18 Again:
19
20
21

Page 4
1 As the person already twice trespassed upon the land (6 & 7 September 2023) despite it being
2 blocked off by tress and gates and with NOTICES (SIGNS) and then following this trespassing
3 further upon the motor vehicle 1XK6MV
4
5
6
7
8
9
Page 5
2
3 Again:
4
6
Page 6
1
2
3 The following indicates to what may or may not be deemed to be part of a residence (such as
4 where the residence has a barn, etc in a non-residential area)
5
6

Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Q: Did trespass occur on 6 September 2023?
10
11 A: A sign prohibiting entry was in clear display near the gate bell prohibiting unauthorised entry
12 and therefore where the person nevertheless entered the property on 6 September 2023 at about
13 11.38.07AM without having requested and/or obtained any permission to do so this was
14 trespassing.
15

Page 8
1
2 The motor vehicle 1XK6MV lawfully parked in front of 107 Graham Road, Viewbank.
3 No one could possible see anything behind the trees when walking along the footpath and
4 certainly neither behind the House, etc. There are no paths along either side of the property for
5 someone to freely walk along. Ordinary, when a person walks past a residential property then if
6 the property prevent any clear view on what is on the property then to take images
7 (photo’s/Videos) would constitute trespassing.
8
9 Q: Was there trespassing 6 September 2023 at about 11.38.07AM by taking images/photos
10 and/or video?
11
12 A: According to the 8 September 2023 at about 11.38.07AM correspondence a photo was taken
13 at and it was actually inside the property, meaning the person must have trespassed to gain
14 access.
15
16 Q: Was there any emergency at the time of 6 September 2023 at about 11.38.07AM?
17
18 A: No known emergency existed at the time of 6 September 2023 at about 11.38.07AM
19
20 Q: Did trespass occur on 7 September 2023?
21
22 A: A sign prohibiting entry was in clear display near the gate bell prohibiting unauthorised entry
23 and therefore where the person nevertheless entered the property at about 7 Sept 2023
24 10.40.16AM, 7 Sept 2023 10.41.11AM, 7 Sept 2023 10.41.48AM, 7 Sept 2023 10.42.02AM, 7
25 Sept 2023 10.42.51AM, 7 Sept 2023 10.43.32AM without having requested and/or obtained any
26 permission to do so this was trespassing.
27
28 Q: Was there trespassing at about 7 Sept 2023 10.40.16AM, 7 Sept 2023 10.41.11AM, 7 Sept
29 2023 10.41.48AM, 7 Sept 2023 10.42.02AM, 7 Sept 2023 10.42.51AM, 7 Sept 2023
30 10.43.32AM by taking images/photos and/or video?
31
32 A: According to the 8 September 2023 at about 7 Sept 2023 10.40.16AM, 7 Sept 2023
34 Sept 2023 10.43.32AM correspondence a photo was taken at and it was actually inside the
35 property, meaning the person must have trespassed to gain access.
36
37 Q: Was there any emergency at the time of 7 Sept 2023 10.40.16AM, 7 Sept 2023 10.41.11AM,
38 7 Sept 2023 10.41.48AM, 7 Sept 2023 10.42.02AM, 7 Sept 2023 10.42.51AM, 7 Sept 2023
39 10.43.32AM?
40
Page 9
1 A: No known emergency existed at the time of 7 Sept 2023 10.40.16AM, 7 Sept 2023
3 Sept 2023 10.43.32AM.
4
5
6
7 Q: Did Angelo O’Brien obtain permission to vandalise the Ford AU registered to Olga Hlavka-
8 Schorel and lawfully parked in front of your property at m107 Graham Road, Viewbank?
9
10 A: At no time was Angelo O’Brien request permission and neither was any permission given for
11 Angelo O’Brien to vandalize the For AU with putting a sticker on the motor vehicle.
12
13 Q: Did you request Banyule City Council remove the sticker and to restore the vehicle as it was
14 prior to the vandalism?
15
16 A: I did via COMPLAINT send via email but no response was received.
17
18
19 In my 14-9-2023 correspondence emailed to all councillors I stated the following also:
20 QUOTE
21 I demand that all images (including any copies) of my property made while
22 trespassing are destroyed, etc, including any that were provided to others, other than to
23 myself.
24

Page 10
1 Also, that by no later than Friday 15 September 2023 Banyule City Council at its cost
2 and responsibility has the sticker and any glue, etc, removed from the windscreen of
3 the Ford AU and avoid any damage to the vehicle as I hold Banyule City Council
4 legally accountable for any damages, etc, resulting from the affixing of the sticker.
5 It is my intention to use the Ford AU this weekend and cannot do so while the sticker
6 obscures part of the window. As such, Banyule City Council prevents me already to use
7 the Ford AU in an unlawful manner, this already I have been prevented using it due to the
8 sticker.
9
10 My concern is also that a battery charger that I had been using to charge a battery (not of
11 the Ford AU) now has (the battery charger) gone missing while the empty box is still
12 nearby. The battery charges was near the curtain where the trespass eventuated also! I am
13 now left with a partly charged battery unable to complete the charging!
14
15 My wife can wonder why on earth Banyule City Council has been targeting her when she
16 originally moved into 107 Graham Road about 50 years ago? So, she has not bothered
17 Banyule City Council with all kinds of complaints, regardless that at times she has been
18 unable to sleep because neighbours holding loud parties, as I explained to my wife when
19 you reside in a neighbourhood then regretfully you have to put up with that as long as it is
20 not regularly. People enjoy their kind of life and may not be aware, let alone intent to be
21 nasty, with problems regarding loud music, etc, where they may neither be aware that she
22 is a person suffering heart failure and other comorbidities, and so we just have to let it go.
23 However, Banyule City Council, as I set out below seems to pursue to ignore her health
24 issues, even so made well aware of it, as I wrote about the Disabled Parking Permit
25 renewal issue, and simply harass her about the Ford AU being abandoned. Because the
26 Ford AU is registered under my wife’s name, and has been for more than a decade, it
27 cannot be claimed that Angelo O’Brien couldn’t have known this.
28 So, harassing a 90 year elderly woman about her motor vehicle that actually is
29 lawfully parked in front of our residence and putting a sticker on the windscreen it is
30 deemed abandoned, may also invite others to vandalise the vehicle. I now had to
31 remove the wheelchair from the vehicle just in case vandalism could result it being stolen.
32 Well if Banyule City Council councillors are proud upon how they manage the city to
33 harass a 90 year old heart failure elderly woman seemingly to just get back upon her
34 husband then I view the lot of councillors should resign immediately.
35
36 The theft of my creative garden designs by a Banyule City Council staff member also is
37 utterly deplorable. I am well aware that the New World Order dictated by
38 W.E.F./U.N./WHO is all about “You own nothing and be happy” but councillors should
39 be aware they could destroy in the process also their own and their family members
40 constitutional, legal, human, natural and/or common law rights.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 Q: Has any known harm eventuated to you, your wife, etc?
44
45 A: The trespassing on 6 September 2023 appears to have resulted in a water leak which was not
46 detected by me until much later, when I discovered the ground to be water logged. I then
47 discovered the water meter to be under water.
48 On 7 September 2023 it appears the trespassing resulted in a car battery charger having gone
49 missing. , also recently I discovered that the disability ride on scooter has a broken side mirror.
50 The disability ride on scooter being stored under a canvas near where it appears to me the
51 trespasser forced his/her way onto the property by gaining access from a neighbouring property.

Page 11
1 Due to the trespassing Olga my in November 2023 91 year old wife who suffers from heart
2 failure, and other comorbidities now lacks the security to attend to her plants in the high fenced
3 backyard now lost her safety, peace and tranquillity due to the trespasser having been there also,
4 as images were taken there also.
5
6 The Framers of the Constitution [Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)]
7 made clear that ‘both sides” were to be heard.
8
9 Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
10 QUOTE
11 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a
12 decision on the point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by
13 which the parties accused must be heard.
14 Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
15 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page
16 689] anything the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some
17 form by which a person accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being
18 deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand
19 any one objecting to this proposal.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 As the States were created within Section 106 “subject to this constitution” then I have the
23 position that any ex-parte warrant or other judicial decision is without the force of law unless the
24 person against whom the warrant is targeted had been first provided with an opportunity to
25 oppose the issue of a warrant.
26 As I proved in 1988 withy then a warrant having been issues in 1988 in violation of the Supreme
27 Court of Victoria court orders already existing at the time, the warrant was declared by the court
28 to be invalid. Afterwards, I discovered that the warrant had been issued by a woman who already
29 had not been a JP for some 10 years, and was cared for in a nursing home suffering from a
30 mental disease, and the police would nevertheless have her signing warrants for which she no
31 longer was qualified and neither understood what it was about.
32 This is why ex parte warrants are a grave danger to the rights of citizens.
33
34 When I refer to my constitutional rights then this case is automatically a federal matter.
35 END QUOTE 20231016-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council Mayor Cr Castaldo and
36 Ors-TRESPASS, etc-Supplement 11
37
38 In your 25 October 2023 you stated as 12
39 QUOTE
40 11.6 timber sleepers; and
41 END QUOTE
42
43 This requires me to explain something.
44
45 I in 1985 when appearing at the Bar table using the word “assault” His Honour then lectured me that this had
46 no meaning what so ever unless it was provided with precise details. His Honour explained that if someone
47 claimed I was drunk then how could I defend myself where no details were provided. His Honour explained
48 further, that if the person was to state having seen me smelling to alcohol and unstable on my feet, then at
49 least I could for example state that I had been hit by a motor vehicle, as a pedestrian, and attended to a
50 hospital where my would were cleaned with alcohol and I decided to walk home and was unstable on my feet
51 due to the after effect of the injuries, etc. His Honour made clear he was not seeking to imply I was an
52 alcohol drinker, as he was well aware I wasn’t but merely used it as an explanation.
53 It was a lesson I never forgot, and often used this against opposing lawyers when they used generic wording
54 without any supportive details.
Page 12
1
2 The word “sleepers” can be used in a variety of manner, such as those who are living in a
3 country waiting for some instructions to undermine the government of the country they are living
4 in, etc. You may claim that this relates to “timber sleepers” and as such gives ample of additional
5 details. I disagree with this. Let me give you an example:
6 I about 37 years ago, etc, used to have a hobby making ear rings, and designed red, yellow and black earrings
7 for Aboriginals. The mother of one of my daughters used to sell them on a market and also other earrings I
8 designed albeit I was not interested in monies and so whatever she received was hers to keep. One day she
9 claimed someone had robbed all her earrings and asked me to provide more for her. In reality she didn’t have
10 to ask because I was ongoing making them and the Aboriginal designs she I understood was selling like
11 hotcakes, still I continued to design more and that included shark teeth’s earrings and necklaces, etc, and well
12 I continue to give her ample. Again, I was not interested in monies and so it was hers to keep. One day I
13 walked in a beat shop where I used to purchase my parts and well noticed the mother to be at the counter
14 having loads of black and red beats but she wanted the yellow disk. The staff then noticing me indicated to
15 the mother that I had previously purchased all the stock they had and there was no further supply possible.
16 The mother then asked if I was willing to give her the yellow disk and I declined. I also stopped making
17 earrings. One person who was with the mother weeks later explained to me that the mother had simply
18 fabricated that earrings had been stolen it was just she became greedy. Some of the earrings I designed also
19 included “timber sleepers” as actually I had a woman once asking if I could design something to fit the
20 colour scheme of her clothing and well I ended up making miniature “timber sleepers” and she was ecstatic
21 about the end result. And mind you I never sold what I created as I was simply proud upon women wearing
22 my creations. Actually a niece of one of my daughters invited me to her wedding and I then presented her
23 with earrings, necklace, bracelet, all from sequences. The moment she saw them she took of her necklace,
24 etc, she was wearing and put those I had created on. An uncle got furious making known what he had given
25 was real gold. Her response was that I obviously must have dedicated numerous hours to create it all and that
26 was to her very important.
27
28 Obviously, there are railway sleepers and sleepers that look like railway sleepers, but never were
29 used as such, and do not have the holes for clamping the rails onto it. I actually provided to your
30 client a photo with the Ford AU being legally park in front of the property and you can see that
31 along the footpath there are timber retaining walls often incorrectly referred to as sleepers but are
32 in fact thick redwood planks, etc.
33 Meaning that this is just another issue that make no sense to me.
34
35 If I were to claim you are holding gold in your possession do you really have to go and explain if
36 you indeed have gold and list perhaps gold rings, etc, as to try to disprove some unsupported
37 allegation? Surely as a lawyer you ought to know better that this is the kind of rot a professional
38 lawyer should never delve into as gutter tactics.
39
40 Obviously, this brings me to the next issue, and that is that you have not provided me with the
41 names of the persons you referred to as “Officers” who you indicated entered my property, in
42 violation of signs prohibiting entry without permission. I require you not only to provide the
43 identities of each person but also the precise description how they entered my property and also a
44 precise description of the way the moved about at the property. It is also require as I indicated I
45 have various signs inside my property which prohibit entry. Also I require to have the
46 information as to any GPS details that recorded each and every image/video or whatever taken at
47 each particular location.
48 In previous litigation with another council GPS was filed as an exhibit to prove the location of
49 each image taken only during cross examination I proved the GPS was deceptive as even the
50 judge himself commented that the images did not correspond with the GPS claimed to prove the
51 locations.
52 Also, I require to have information as to each and every write and verbal communication by any
53 Banyule City Council staff/councillor as well as your law-firm regarding the property 107
54 Graham Road, Viewbank, and the Ford AU, 1XK6MV. Forget about client-solicitor

Page 13
1 confidentiality because it doesn’t apply where it relates to being an associate after the facts of
2 any criminal offence.
3 Most lawyers are not aware that when they sign up with a telecommunication company they
4 actually sign away client-lawyer confidentiality. There was one company, where I checked their
5 details and checked the legislation they referred to and discovered it was non-existing legislation.
6 When I contacted this telecommunication provider about this I had the response that they had to
7 update their website. Moment, people (including lawyers) were signing up being bound by non-
8 existing legislative provisions that purportedly allowed the telecommunication company to
9 disclose details to authorities, etc, such as companies they were dealing with. So much for client-
10 lawyer confidentiality!
11
12 Obviously, I am well entitled to this information as to have what communication was also
13 existing between those I mentioned above and the Fire Rescue Victoria and others to which you
14 referred to in your 25 October 2023 correspondence. Did the Fire Rescue Victoria originally
15 contact Banyule City Council or was it rather that Banyule City council contacted Fire Rescue
16 Victoria, etc?
17
18 Considering your 25 October 2023 about “Council Officers and Fire Rescue Victoria” this even
19 so Fire Rescue Victoria to my knowledge did not contact me whatsoever, then it is critical if this
20 was a further indication that Banyule City Council was conspiring in a political persecution
21 against me. And also the same involving any current/past Member of Parliament such as Andrew
22 Carbines, and others.
23
24 Obviously I also require the details regarding each person involved about the aerial images, who
25 made them, who made any amendments, and for what purpose and who authorised this, etc.
26
27 It should be clear that if allegedly what was on an image in 2018 is also on an image on 2023
28 then this hardly could be considered a fire danger as no fire took place. If there was a real fire
29 danger then why on earth did the Fire Rescue Victoria not act in 2018? Is it because it is merely
30 some fake claim to make a case to the extreme as a political persecution? I however have
31 thousands of photographs, some used in the past, in litigation, involving others, where it shows
32 that high grass/weed is often 1 metre or more along the road in fire season and so violates the
33 very Fire Rescue Victoria Act 1958 that you appear to refer to. And while you are at it, don’t
34 forget that you require to set out precisely each issue and alleged relevant legislative provision.
35 After all, how on earth was any alleged fire danger established without any trespassing? You
36 cannot apply Section 32 unless you beforehand have any evidence, like as I do make
37 photographs in a lawful manner without trespassing! You cannot trespass merely to so to say go
38 on a fishing expedition to try to get evidence afterwards. It appears to me that Banyule City
39 Council so to say went on a fishing expedition unlawfully entering properties and then try to use
40 Section 32, etc, to seek to justify its unlawful conduct. Did your client merely assume to be
41 authorised by Fire Rescue Victoria, to afterwards claim it to try pretend it acted lawfully? Be
42 careful as if you made a false/misleading statement you could face legal accountability for
43 having done so!
44
45 https://www.wnd.com/2023/11/trump-prosecutor-accused-creating-full-blown-constitutional-
46 collapse/#insticator-commenting
47 Trump prosecutor accused of creating 'full-blown constitutional collapse'
48 Fani Willis charged with using 'coercive power of the state' to attack Republicans
49 QUOTE
50 Willis has claimed, in charges against multiple people who were involved in various parts
51 of Trump's disputes over the 2020 results, which evidence now confirms was the result of
52 outside and improper influences, that they conspired to overthrow the election.

Page 14
1 She's using the state's organized crime law to threaten the defendants with a months-long
2 trial that could send most of them into bankruptcy if they don't plead guilty, and several
3 have already.
4 But in all the cases that already have been resolved through plea agreements, Willis has
5 failed to obtain a single plea to the conspiracy agenda that she insists was present, with
6 defendants mostly pleading to misdemeanors.
7 END QUOTE
8 And
9 QUOTE
10 "There is zero allegation or evidence that Mr. Clark directed any purposeful activity into
11 the state of Georgia. The inquiry ought to end there. But it gets worse: there are zero
12 specific allegations or evidence that Mr. Clark agreed with any resident defendant to do
13 anything. An arm-waving general and conclusory allegation that all defendants conspired
14 to unlawfully overturn the 2020 election is not sufficient to meet the threshold due process
15 requirements for establishing personal jurisdiction."
16 END QUOTE
17 And
18 QUOTE
19 For those who already have reached plea deals, they charge, "There was no actual
20 evidence any of them did anything wrong. But each of them faced the risk of lengthy
21 prison terms and financial ruin if they had stood fast in proclaiming their innocence. This is
22 because the state said it would take four months to try its entire conspiracy theory with 180
23 witnesses. Against this hellish prospect, the state has offered to at least four defendants, in
24 exchange for a guilty plea, zero jail time, first-offender status, and fines worth less than
25 two days of their attorneys’ time."
26 And the filing notes Willis' demands that defendants author "apology" letters, like those
27 "confessions" "extracted from hapless prisoners by infamous Prosecutor General Andrei
28 Vyshinsky in the 1930s Moscow Show Trials, or those extracted by the Red Guards during
29 the 1960s and 1970s struggle sessions of the tyrannical Cultural Revolution in the People’s
30 Republic of China."
31 WND previously reported on an analysis of Willis' case that revealed a massive hole
32 developing.
33 So far, among the four defendants who have reached plea agreements, none has ended up
34 with a guilty verdict to the core claim, the RICO organized crime count.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 Perhaps this is the modus operandi Banyule City Council pursued to achieve against me?
38 Expecting me to cave in as likely most citizens may do? Why did you refer to the Fire Rescue
39 Victoria. As once a Registrar explained to me most people will rather pay the fine even so they
40 know they are innocent because it likely would cost them more to take time of work and risk
41 losing the case not knowing relevant legal issues, etc.
42
43 It ought to be very clear that if there had been a fire Banyule City Council would likely have
44 reported that to the Fire Rescue Victoria. However, as the BBQ is new and never been use, never
45 even had a gas bottle attached to it than having fires at the soft shoulder of roads where real fires
46 eventuate then clearly Banyule City Council is in my view not legitimately pursuing matters but
47 rather pursuing a political persecution.
48
49 I from onset offered for Banyule City Council to purchase the property by making an offer my
50 wife and I could accept but none was forthcoming, and this may underline this is and never was
51 about the property condition as after all why include the Ford AU to have it vandalised to cause
52 considerable upset to my wife, where the option to deal with it in a lawful manner was there but
53 not responded upon?
Page 15
1
2 While my wife attended to her cardiologist in a walking manner, now however my wife ended up
3 needing to use a wheelchair, because it appears her nervous system has suffered considerably. As
4 I indicated the vandalising of the Ford AU, her pride and glory, caused a considerable shock to
5 her and in my view this affected her severely due to the stress caused by the vandalism by
6 Banyule City Council. Obviously, those who trespassed upon the property likely had superiors
7 who authorised them to trespass and their identities also must be revealed, and upon basis did
8 they authorise any trespassing.
9 Also, any documentation with any neighbour’s that Banyule City Council claimed authorised
10 them to enter their property for the purpose to trespass upon my property!
11
12 In another matter with a different council the opponent lawyers ordered to provide relevant
13 details then seemed to rely upon using a case from years earlier that never related to the matter I
14 was involved in but simply they changed the name to pretend to be so. Well, that was utter
15 foolish because I immediately noticed this.
16
18 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
19 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
20 important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 In my view those involved in the political persecution should be made to pay the litigation
24 themselves as property owners should not be forced to pay this litigation regarding criminal
25 conduct, and well I am entitled to pursue constitutional matters and from onset made clear that it
26 involves constitutional issues.
27 Any court, if dealing with the matter, would obviously question why did Banyule City Council
28 not first contact my wife and I about alleged matters of concern? Why vandalise the Ford AU
29 without bothering to contact the lawful owner when the vehicle was lawfully parked? Why
30 risking trespassing when Banyule City Council was well aware, of its ongoing communication
31 with me, that my 90-year-old wife suffers from heart failure and other comorbidities and as such
32 any conduct by its staff should have been to avoid undue harm? As for the validity of legislation
33 that relies upon a court upholding it when it is challenged, and this I am doing all along!
34
35 In case you may like to try to make an issue that somehow because of my comments regarding
36 Voice, etc, I am a racist, I set out above that I designed earrings, etc, for Aboriginals and hardly
37 would have done so if I had something against Aboriginals. My issue is what is constitutionally
38 appropriate and as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that all native born and naturalised
39 Australians were equal then well that is what I am on about.
40 It is the same with Muslims, that often people draw incorrect conclusions. Our constitution has
41 embedded in it “religious liberty: and regardless of atheist or following a particular religion the
42 right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH cannot be denied as long as it is not involve criminal
43 intentions.
44
45 https://kingabdullah.jo/en/speeches/cairo-summit-peace
46 QUOTE
47 Our religion came with a message of peace. The Pact of Omar, issued at the gates of Jerusalem
48 almost 15 centuries ago, more than a thousand years before the Geneva Conventions, ordered
49 Muslim soldiers not to kill a child, a woman or an old person, not to destroy a tree, not to
50 harm a priest, not to destroy a church.
51 Those are the rules of engagement that Muslims must accept and abide by, as should all those who
52 believe in our common humanity. All civilian lives matter!
53 END QUOTE
54

Page 16
1 Your client might do better to concern itself about any TREASON/TERRORISM that may have
2 been inflicted upon residents either with their knowledge and/or cooperation!
3
4 https://www.scribd.com/document/681454436/20231101-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-R-Kershaw-Chief-
5 Commissioner-of-AFP-Suppl-109A-The-Elaborate-COVID-Scamming-Part-1
6 And
7 https://www.scribd.com/document/681535050/20231102-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-R-Kershaw-Chief-
8 Commissioner-of-AFP-Suppl-109B-The-Elaborate-COVID-Scamming-Part-2
9
10 How much, if any property holder’s monies were used in regard of this?
11
12 Getting back to the Fire Rescue Victoria issue
13 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/ttps://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/
14 Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1 (9 August 1923)
15 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
16 KNOX C.J., ISAACS, HIGGINS, GAVAN DUFFY AND STARKE JJ.
17 THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PLAINTIFF against
18 THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS
19 1920-1923: SYDNEY, Dec. 1-3, 1920; Mar. 21-29, 1922; Aug. 9, 1923 33 CLR 1
20 Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:- (1920) 33 CLR 1 at 42
21 QUOTE
22 “It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful
23 right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which
24 can enter into the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste; and,
25 for all practical purposes of ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a
26 chattel, in nothing except the physical indestructibility of its subject.”
27 “Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute
28 right, both of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will.”
29 END QUOTE
30
31 Apart of if the legislation itself is valid, the mere usage of the word “rescue”
32
33 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rescue
34 RESCUE | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary
35 Meaning of rescue in English ... to help someone or something out of a dangerous, harmful, or unpleasant
36 situation: The lifeboat rescued the sailors from the ...
37
38 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rescue
39 Rescue Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
40 The meaning of RESCUE is to free from confinement, danger, or evil : save, deliver. How to use rescue in a
41 sentence. Synonym Discussion of Rescue.
42
43 https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/rescue
44 72 Synonyms & Antonyms for RESCUE - Thesaurus.com
45 3 days ago ... synonyms for rescue · delivery · recovery · relief · salvage · deliverance · disembarrassment ·
46 disentanglement · emancipation · exploit ...
47
48 As I previously write to Banyule City Council in emergencies the courts may not take action
49 against a trespasser if the court consider that the person acted in a reasonable manner. Say there
50 is a house fire and a passer-by wanting to attempt to rescue people that might be trapped inside
51 may then force his/her way onto the property and into any building.
52
53 However, it is utter and sheer nonsense to use the Fire Rescue Victoria Act 1958 for seeking to
54 circumvent legal rights of a property holder.
55
Page 17
1 It must be clear that if Fire Rescue Victoria has any issue on 6 September 2023 it wouldn’t have
2 waited to return on 7 September 2023 and then after that deemed to be authorised to vandalise or
3 allow someone to vandalise a lawfully parked motor vehicle in front of the property.
4
5
6 (a), (b) and (c) cannot be applicable as no such items are stored and (d) limits any entrance by
7 “in case of fire” and as no fire existed, and certainly no fire brigade attended to any fire, not
8 even to nearby properties, then clearly S32 is not applicable. Perhaps you might consult the
9 Hansard why Parliament created the Fire “Rescue” legislation? To claim that somehow any
10 Banyule City Council (or other council) staff can willy nilly disregard ENTRY PROHIBITED
11 signage’s, etc, is an absurdity.
12
13 According to the 8 September 2023 Banyule City Council correspondence on 6 September 2023
14 at about 11.38.07AM and at about 7 Sept 2023 10.40.16AM, 7 Sept 2023 10.41.11AM, 7 Sept
15 2023 10.41.48AM, 7 Sept 2023 10.42.02AM, 7 Sept 2023 10.42.51AM, 7 Sept 2023
16 10.43.32AM correspondence a photo was taken at and it was actually inside the property,
17 meaning the person must have trespassed to gain access.
18 The 7 Sept 2023 10.40.16AM image was taken after Banyule City Council staff had already
19 traversed most of the property to the rear and as such likely the time frame may have
20 commenced from about 10.37.00 am or thereabouts. Because the trespass continued upon the
21 motor vehicle 1XK6MV at about 10.55am on 7 September 2023 the entire duration can be
22 considered to have been that day about 18 minutes at the minimum.
23 Obviously, if there was any Fire Rescue Victoria involvement on 6 September 2023 at about
24 11:38:07 AM then I do not think they would have left in the morning just to come back the next
25 day. As such, this underlines the claim of Fire Rescue Victoria involvement more than likely is a
26 crap argument. Likewise, the vandalism of the Ford AU on 7 September also constitute
27 trespassing and Fire Rescue Victoria would unlikely have authorised such trespassing.
28 In my view Banyule City Council realising that it was caught out trespassing then consulted
29 becklegal as to how to try to twist the truth to seek to justify its trespassing. You as an
30 OFFICER OF THE COURT has a legal obligation not to twist and alter the true facts. While
31 this might your modus operandi and/or that of becklegal and may have gotten away with it in
32 other litigation I for one now seek an independent inquiry into becklegal how often it used
33 Section 32 of the Fire Rescue Act 1958 to seek to circumvent property owner’s legal rights.
34
35 SILENCE = COMPLICITY
Page 18
1
2 Also a reason I forward copies to Banyule City Council councillors and staff is that where they
3 are well aware or should be aware that the issue about Section 32 of the Fire Rescue Act 1958
4 might have been no more a legal trickery by becklegal and no Fire Rescue Victoria involvement
5 eventuated prior to the first trespass on 6 September 2023 and they nevertheless remain “silent”
6 about this then they can be deemed to be accomplishes after the fact to not reveal the truth.
7
8 https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous/bolster-power-of-culture-police-says-victorian-aboriginal-heritage-
9 council/news-story/f6628a351e2f7259575f087310ccdb1f?amp&nk=923fdaed28cd985771e164c81667404d-1698186757
10 ‘Bolster power of culture police’, says Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council
11 QUOTE
12 “We just will not support those sorts of powers because the only people who have those sorts
13 of powers are police,’’ Mr Walsh said.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 This implies clearly that while certain powers have been provided to the police it is utter and
17 sheer nonsense that council workers somehow can have more powers, this even so Mr Walsh
18 limited it to police!
19
20 I understand that both the Commonwealth of Australia as well as the State of Victoria are
21 registered with the District of Columbia and this means that USA law also can apply to the
22 Commonwealth of Australia complimentary to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
23 Act 1900 (UK) legal provisions.
24
25 https://www.westernjournal.com/video-okeefe-threatened-arrest-getting-hidden-camera-footage-
26 maui/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=WJBreaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=western-journal
27 Video: O'Keefe Threatened with Arrest While Getting Hidden-Camera Footage of Maui
28 QUOTE
29 This clause stipulates, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
30 privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
31 person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
32 its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
33 END QUOTE
34
35 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
36 Convention)
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
42 Australasian Convention)
43 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
44 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
45 Constitution,
46 END QUOTE
47
48 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
49 QUOTE
50 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by
51 the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in
52 effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies,
53 and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been
54 the work of Australians.
55 END QUOTE
Page 19
1
2 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
3 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
4 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
5 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
6 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
7 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection
8 and secure to him.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 “The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But
12 how is … legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some
13 persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.
14 See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen
15 himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay. … If
16 such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a
17 system.” —Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
18
19 As such the law cannot give exclusive property rights to a stranger!
20
21 It is often misunderstood that the State can take certain property rights when selling land for and
22 on behalf of the Monarch, but this is a fallacy that has no legal basis. The Letter Patent does no
23 more but to allow the State to act for the Monarch as an agent to transfer any estate min the name
24 of the Monarch to another and keep the monies for the State, however the State is no more but
25 the agent and cannot take from the ESTATE IN FEE SIMPLE anything to give to itself, as
26 much as a person acting within power of attorney cannot use the grant of the power to enrich
27 himself with giving himself certain rights over the estate.
28
29 Declaratory relief in revenue matters
30 Jennifer Batrouney QC
31 November 5, 2014
32 QUOTE
33 Allsop J noted the comments of Mahoney J (as his Honour then was) in P&C Cantarella v Egg
34 Marketing Board:108
35 The duty of the executive branch of government is to ascertain the law and obey it. If there is
36 any difficulty in ascertaining what the law is, as applicable to the particular case, it is open to
37 the executive to approach the court, or afford the citizen the opportunity of approaching the
38 court, to clarify the matter. Where the matter is before the court it is the duty of the executive
39 to assist the court to arrive at the proper and just result. (Emphasis added).
40 END QUOTE
41
42 http://www.heineraffair.info/site_pages/heiner_affair_quotes.html
43 “…The criminal law only carries a moral and constitutional basis of authority and respect
44 in a democracy if it is applied equally by government against all citizens who transgress it.
45 That is government by the rule of law. If, however, the law becomes an instrument of
46 sectional application by government for government, such conduct is unfair and oppressive
47 and sets government in conflict with democracy itself and the rule of law. That is tyranny.”
48 Kevin Lindeberg NSW Parliament Theatrette 9 October 2007
49
51 “…I believe one person’s stand can make a difference if he endures and if we all stand
52 together in common cause, we can move mountains for the better. I hold firm to the
53 principle of equality before the law for all. To me, it is a non-negotiable value of this
Page 20
1 nation because it underpins our freedom. I will hold firm to that principle irrespective of
2 time in the political election cycles or person involved.”
3 Kevin Lindeberg NSW Parliament Theatrette 9 October 2007
4
6 "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subject to
7 the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws,
8 existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.
9 Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the
10 whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
11 lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself;
12 it invites anarchy."
13 Mr Justice Louis D Brandeis, Dissenting in Olmstead v United States, 277 U.S. 438, 475
14 (1928).
15
17 “…A mockery would be made of the criminal law if accused persons could rely on, for
18 example, erroneous legal advice, or their own often self-serving understanding of the law
19 as an excuse for breaking it…”
20 Callinan and Hayden JJ Ostrowski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30 (16 June 2004)
21
23 “…if one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That
24 means first chaos, then tyranny. Legal process is an essential part of the democratic
25 process.”
26 Justice Felix Frankfurter, United States Supreme Court
27
29 “…We believe that it is the democratic right of every Australian to expect that the criminal
30 law shall be applied consistently, predictably and equally by law-enforcement authorities
31 throughout the Commonwealth of Australia in materially similar circumstances. We
32 believe that any action by Executive Government which may have breached the law ought
33 not be immune from criminal prosecution where and when the evidence satisfies the
34 relevant provision…. To do otherwise, we suggest would undermine the rule of law and
35 confidence in government. It would tend to place Executive Government above the law.”
36 The August 2007 Judges’ Statement of Concern about the unresolved Heiner affair
37
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 arbitrary
44 act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 The following may also underline that the State of Victoria (so its agents) being are registered
48 with the district of Columbia and so subject to its laws cannot then be a legitimate sovereign
49 State to exercise legislative executive functions not being part powers of a corporative entity.
50
51 The following underlines that being native born or naturalized provides all with the same rights.
52

Page 21
1 United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179 (1956)

2 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/350/179/case.html
3 QUOTE
4 There is another reason for reading the section narrowly. When we deal with citizenship,
5 we tread on sensitive ground. The citizenship of a naturalized person has the same dignity
6 and status as the citizenship of those of us born here, save only for eligibility to the
7 Presidency. He is a member of a community included within the protection of all the
8 guarantees of the Constitution. Those safeguards would be imperiled if, prior to the
9 institution of the proceedings, the citizen could be compelled to be a witness against
10 himself and furnish out of his own mouth the evidence used to denaturalize him. I would
11 require the Government to proceed with meticulous regard for the basic notions of Due
12 Process which protect every vital right of the American citizen.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 The following regarding the Ford AU having been vandalised by Banyule City Council, even so
16 the motor vehicle was lawfully parked.
17
18 The right to Park or Travel is part of the Liberty of which the Natural Person, citizen
19 cannot be deprived without “due process of law” under the Fifth Amendment of the United
20 States Constitution. Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125:
21
22 State Police Power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, welfare, etc.,
23 Michigan v. Duke 266 US, 476 Led. At 449: which driving and speeding are not. California v.
24 Farley Ced. Rpt. 89, 20 CA3d 1032 (1971):
25
26 The State is prohibited from violating substantive rights. Owens v. City, 445 US 662
27 (1980); and it can not do by one power (eg. Police power) that which is, for example,
28 prohibited expressly to any other such power (eg. Taxation / Eminent Domain) as a matter
29 of law. US and UT v. Daniels, 22 p 159, nor indirectly that which is prohibited to it
30 directly. Fairbanks v. US 181, US 283, 294, 300:
31
32 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or
33 legislation, which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125:
34
35 The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime.
36 Miller v. Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:
37
38 For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no sanction or
39 penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right. Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:
40
41 If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and
42 subject matter, the case must be dismissed. Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT
43 42. “The Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.
44
45 “Lack of Federal Jurisdiction can not be waived or overcome by agreement of parties”.
46 Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F supra 341, 342 (1969): and “Want of Jurisdiction may not be
47 cured by consent of parties.” Industrial Addition Association v. C.I.R., 323 US 310, 313.
48
49 Re Banyule City Council funding one political side of a Voice referendum and when I made a
50 complaint about this to Banyule City Council it seems to have retaliated with political
51 persecution, as it tried/did in the past.
52
Page 22
1 http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
2 QUOTE
3 State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections
4 There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal
5 use of public funds. This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot
6 measure campaigns. Following is a list of what we’ll cover in this section.
7  Stanson v. Mott
8  Endorsements and Informational Materials
9  Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines
10
11 Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns
12 The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the
13 expenditure of public funds in election campaigns.
14 In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and
15 Recreation, challenging the director’s expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a
16 bond act appearing on a statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the
17 director had acted unlawfully, concluding that “in the absence of clear and explicit legislative
18 authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a partisan position in an
19 election campaign.”
20 Stanson v. Mott
21 The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic
22 electoral process is that the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow
23 an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our
24 country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority would
25 use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....”
26 The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson “...The selective use of public funds in election
27 campaigns, of course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic
28 electoral process.”
29 Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a
30 government agency may endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not
31 expend funds to promote its passage.
32 Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise,
33 but may not promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.
34 Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency
35 participation in ballot measure elections.
36 1. “The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to
37 disseminate information relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the
38 public with a fair presentation of relevant information.”
39 2. “The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable
40 public agencies from disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such
41 disclosure is full and impartial and does not amount to improper campaign activity.”
42 3. “To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal
43 treatment to both sides of the issue.”
44
45 Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may
46 trigger fines from the Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign
47 contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a $10,000 fine to the Commission in connection
48 with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several ballot measures. The
49 Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a
50 neutral and fair presentation of the facts.
51 Let's Review
Page 23
1 TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.

2  Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.
3 Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few
4 telephone calls before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent
5 Governor’s campaign fundraising dinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have
6 dealings with the state government on a variety of issues, may she charge these calls to the state?
7 Yes or No.
8  Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal political
9 purposes rather than for a public purpose.
10 Let's Review
11 Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to
12 answer questions about the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is
13 permissible to expend funds for this purpose.
14 a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.
15 b. The materials do not make false statements.
16 c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts
17 of the measure.
18
19  Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and
20 unfavorable impacts of the measure.
21 Remember These Points
22  Expenditures must be for a public purpose
23  Expenditures must be authorized
24  Public funds may not be expended for personal use
25  Information must be fairly presented
26  Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions
27 END QUOTE
28
29 One of the issues I raised in the past that I held that Banyule City councillors had no legitimate
30 right to hand to third parties monies it collected under the claim of “council rates” (State land
31 taxation) where not only such State land taxation was unconstitutional but also the monies spend
32 such as some private football club renovaqting a kitchen, etc, was mi9suse of public funding.
33 Nevertheless I understand councillors each spend about $20,000 or more on their pet project.
34 Obviously I was so to say a thorn in their eyes for daring to expose this rot. Hence another
35 reason for political persecution.
36
37 http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
38 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872)
39 QUOTE
40 Page 83 U. S. 693
41 "The legislature cannot create a public debt, or levy a tax, or authorize a municipal
42 corporation to do so, in order to raise funds for a mere private purpose. It cannot,
43 in the form of a tax, take the money of the citizen and give it to an individual, the
44 public interest or welfare being in no way connected with the transaction. The objects
45 for which the money is raised by taxation must be public, and such as subserve the
46 common interest and wellbeing of the community required to contribute. . . . To
47 justify the court in arresting the proceedings and declaring the tax void, the absence
48 of all possible public interest in the purposes for which the funds are raised must be
49 clear and palpable; so clear and palpable as to be perceptible by every mind AT THE
50 FIRST BLUSH."
51 All these expositions of the law of the state were made by its highest court before the
52 county orders now in suit were issued. They certainly did assert that building a railroad,
Page 24
1 whether built by the state or by a corporation created by the state for the purpose, was a
2 matter of public concern, and that because it was a public use, the right of eminent
3 domain might be exerted or delegated for it, and taxation might be authorized for its aid.
4 It was the declared law of the state, therefore, when the bonds now in suit were issued,
5 that the uses of railroads, though built by private corporations, were public uses, such as
6 warranted the exercise of the public right of eminent domain in their aid, and also the
7 power of taxation.
8 We are not, then, concluded by a decision, made in 1870, that such public uses are
9 not of a nature to justify the imposition of taxes. We are at liberty to inquire what
10 are public uses, and what restrictions, if any, are imposed upon the state's taxing
11 power.
12 It is not claimed that the Constitution of Wisconsin contains any express denial of power
13 in the legislature to authorize municipal corporations to aid in the construction of
14 railroads, or to impose taxes for that purpose. The entire legislative power of the state is
15 confessedly vested in the General Assembly. An implied inhibition only is asserted.
16 Page 83 U. S. 694
17 It is insisted that, as the state cannot itself impose taxes for any other than a public
18 use, so the legislature cannot empower a municipal division of the state to levy and
19 collect taxes for any other than such a use,
20 END QUOTE
21
22 Chu v Henham [1999] VSC 139 (4 May 1999)
23 QUOTE
24 In the course of his judgment Hedigan, J stated -
25 "The right of citizens to resist unlawful search and arrest is as old as their inclination
26 to do so. The role of the courts in balancing the exercise of police powers conferred
27 by the State and the rights of citizens to be free from unlawful search and seizure
28 may be traced through centuries of cases."
29 END QUOTE
30
31 The following underlines that in my view Banyule City council acted “colour of office” to
32 misuse S32, etc, as to seek to justify trespassing, etc.
33
34 County Criminal Court: CRIMINAL LAW – DUI -That the appellant was found asleep behind
35 the wheel on a “desolate” roadway is not persuasive in showing that the appellant’s actions did
36 not constitute a breach of the peace.-appellant was the only person in the car the only reasonable
37 inference is that the appellant drove drunk. The ‘color of office’ doctrine only applies to
38 prevent law enforcement officials from using the power of their office to observe unlawful
39 activity or gain access to evidence not available to a private citizen. Affirmed. Johnson v.
40 State, Case 074042CFAES (Fla. 6th Cir.App.Ct. February 7, 2008).
41
42 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)
43 "... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms
44 and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a
45 law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts,as well as other departments, are
46 bound by that instrument." "In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the
47 Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but
48 those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law
49 (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID". Since the 14th
50 Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any
51 law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States
52 nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ... or equal
Page 25
1 protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.

2
3 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
4 Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private
5 individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not
6 follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not
7 voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a
8 state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes
9 into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his
10 official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his
11 individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to
12 the supreme authority of the United States."
13
14 The following ought to be very much considered that where becklegal fabricated a version of
15 event and seek to use this to have me act in a manner that may not be applicable if the fabricated
16 version was not included then I view this conduct of coercion may be a violation of law, etc.
17
18 S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall.
19 54), "The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record either
20 by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust of the power of
21 government when levelled against them know that the only protection the citizen has is in the
22 requirement for a fair trial."
23
24 The following legal principle in my view also applies to an OFFICER OF THE COURT:
25
26 Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) McNally v. U.S.,
27 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307 Fraud in its
28 elementary common law sense of deceit... includes the deliberate concealment of material
29 information in a setting of fiduciary obligation.
30 A public official is a fiduciary toward the public,... and if he deliberately conceals material
31 information from them he is guilty of fraud.
32
33 The following also can be considered regarding the allegation to provide about 3 months’ time to
34 deal with alleged fire danger underlines there can reasonably held to have been no fire
35 emergency to exist! Neither that there was an any alleged urgent need to trespass when even
36 about 2 months later somehow the Fire Rescue Victoria is still missing in action!
37
38 Stock v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 289 In Interest of M.V., 288
39 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) "Where a court's power to act is
40 controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts
41 exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the structures of the statute."
42 "The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent
43 contract." see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court
44 has stated clearly, “...every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by
45 nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.”
46
47 CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70 "Corpus delecti consists of a showing of "1)
48 the occurrence of the specific kind of injury and 2) someone's criminal act as the cause of
49 the injury."
50
51 Johnson v. State, 653 N.E.2d 478, 479 (Ind. 1995). “State must produce corroborating
Page 26
1 evidence of “corpus delecti,” showing that injury or harm constituting

2
3 I am well aware that many lawyers interpret the constitution as to current contemporary
4 perceptions even so the constitution must be interpreted to the intentions of the Framers of the
5 constitution and the Act Interpretation Act 1889 (UK) being a British legislation!
6
7 Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237,243. (1895) "We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the
8 light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted."
9
10 City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 “To take away all remedy for the enforcement of a
11 right is to take away the right itself. But that is not within the power of the State
12
13 Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 303 (1885). Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748, (1970)
14 "Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly
15 intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness."
16
17 Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516 (1962), "Presuming waiver from a silent record is
18 impermissible. The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which
19 show,
20 that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer.
21 Anything less is not waiver."
22
23 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). "No state legislator or executive or judicial
24 officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." The
25 constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only
26 our agents." "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of
27 existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the
28 state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of
29 which an excise cannot be imposed."
30
31 Redfield v Fisher, 292 P 813, at 819 [1930] "...an officer may be held liable in damages to
32 any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his
33 office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his
34 'individual' , not his official capacity..."
35
36 U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity
37 (See, Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502;
38 and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to
39 uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of
40 law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of
41 the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for
42 learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial
43 or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America.
44 See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. "When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must
45 be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal
46 officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the
47 shield of immunity."
48
49 Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v.
50 Barr,
51 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).
Page 27
1 "It is the duty of all officials whether legislative, judicial, executive, administrative, or
2 ministerial to so perform every official act as not to violate constitutional provisions."
3
4 HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States
5 Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states: "The "individual" may stand upon "his
6 Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own
7 way. "His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to
8 divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to
9 incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond
10 the protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the
11 Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be
12 taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." "He
13 owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
14
15 HALE V. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel is binding on all the courts of the
16 United States of America until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t. No other Supreme Court
17 case has ever overturned Hale v. Henkel None of the various issues of Hale v. Henkel has ever
18 been overruled since 1906, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by the Federal and State
19 Appellate Court systems over 1,600 times! In nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has
20 an impact on precedent authority of the cited case. Compared with other previously decided
21 Supreme Court cases, no other case has surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has
22 been cited by the courts. "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that
23 they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
24
25 The federal government is not the sovereign for ones who are not United States citizens.
26 The government is the sovereign to corporations or persons it creates. One who is in a
27 position of being the servant cannot question the demands of the master. The government
28 possesses what is called "sovereign immunity" in relation to those it creates. Clearfield
29 Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943).
30
31 The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant
32 when it was adopted, it means now. -- South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448
33 (1905).
34
35 http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/immunity/immunity4a.htm
36 QUOTE
37 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of
38 any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
39 or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
40 immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
41 action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
42 The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show that the defendant judge acted
43 unconstitutionally or outside of his/her jurisdiction. If the judge engaged in an egregious
44 discrimination against males in a divorce court, minorities in state criminal cases, members
45 of an unpopular religious group in confrontation with government authorities and treated
46 suspiciously in court or members of a "fringe" political group, these situations can give rise
47 to a claim of denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 Even if a Banyule City Council staff member was claimed to be a “law enforcement officer” (not
51 that I seek to imply such person was/is a law enforcement officer – after all needing to be
Page 28
1 authorised by Fire Rescue Victoria in itself must indicate a proper authorisation was/is required,
2 not merely assumed.) it is clear as I did set out in my 20231016 correspondence (see quotation
3 below) that without a warrant its powers would be no greater than that of an ordinary citizen.
4
5 That as long as lawyers are for hire, justice is for sale. Borgen v. State, 672 S.W.2d 456
6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
7
8 Perhaps the following may assist you also:
9
10 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/category/trespass/
11 QUOTE
12 Trespass Victoria.
13 Posted onFebruary 11, 2023AuthorEditor
14 SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1966 – SECT 9 Wilful destruction, damage etc. of
15 property (1) Any person who— (d) wilfully trespasses in any public place other
16 than a Scheduled public place and neglects or refuses to leave that place after being warned
17 to do so by the owner occupier or Read More …
18 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/trespass/
19
20 New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57 12 December 2006
22 New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57 involved particularly objectionable behaviour
23 by two police officers who decided to go in “hot pursuit” of Warren Ibbett (who had
24 previously served time for drug-related offences.) The officers saw Warren driving but had
25 no other reason to suppose he was in possession of drugs. Nevertheless they pursued him at
26 high Read More … https://constitutionwatch.com.au/new-south-wales-v-ibbett-2006-hca-
27 57-12-december-2006/
28
29 NSW Police guilty of Trespass.
31 During the COVID-19 pandemic on the 24 August 2021 police attended a NSW property
32 based information received at Lismore Police Station which suggested that the owner
33 might be seeking to have pamphlets printed in relation to organising a public gathering or
34 protest on 31 August 2021. Police were concerned that if a public gathering or protest Read
35 More … https://constitutionwatch.com.au/nsw-police-guilty-of-trespass/
36
37 Trespass.
38 Posted onAugust 19, 2022AuthorEditor
39 What is the Offence of Trespassing in Victoria? Section 9(1)(e) of the Summary Offences
40 Act 1966 (Vic) makes it a crime for a person to enter a private place without the owner or
41 occupier’s consent or for a legitimate purpose. Going into a scheduled public place without
42 permission is also an offence. Such public areas Read More …
43 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/trespass-2/
44
45 Does Australia have a Castle Doctrine?
46 Posted onDecember 5, 2021AuthorEditor
47 A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal
48 doctrine that designates a person’s abode or any legally occupied place (for example, a
49 vehicle or home) as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting
50 one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up Read More …
51 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/does-australia-have-a-castle-doctrine/
52

Page 29
1 Privacy & Trespass.

2 Posted onMay 4, 2021AuthorEditor
3 Existing common law causes of action There are a number of existing causes of action at
4 common law which can, in some cases, be used to protect privacy or have the effect of
5 protecting personal privacy. These causes of action protect against physical intrusions
6 upon, and surveillance of, a person and against unauthorised disclosure of private Read
7 More … https://constitutionwatch.com.au/privacy-trespass/
8
9 Can police enter and leave your property as they please?
10 Posted onDecember 24, 2020AuthorEditor
11 Imagine being woken up in the middle of the night by two people yelling at each other
12 from inside your property. A NSW woman awoke at 2am to find her son and a stranger
13 yelling in her garage. Her son told the man to leave, and when Mrs Ibbett arrived in the
14 garage, she did Read More … https://constitutionwatch.com.au/can-police-enter-and-
15 leave-your-property-as-they-please/
16
17 Report on the Trespass Act.
18 Posted onNovember 11, 2020AuthorEditor
19 It is necessary to give some consideration at the outset to the common law concept of
20 trespass to land. At common law, trespass to land “is committed by directly and
21 intentionally … entering or remaining upon or causing some object to come into contact
22 with land in the possession of another, without the consent of Read More …
23 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/report-on-the-trespass-act/
24
25 Halsbury’s Laws on Trespass.
26 Posted onSeptember 5, 2020AuthorEditor
27 If you appreciate our work, please click here to make a donation
28 END QUOTE
29
30 Again:
31
32 Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
33 QUOTE
34 As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot
35 pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on
36 behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his
37 client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that
38 he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he
39 directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the
40 cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not
41 knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is,
42 without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those
43 that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant
44 documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific
45 instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
46 END QUOTE
47 .
48 Instead of trying to justify this political persecution, I view you would do better to ensure your
49 client(s) provide all the information I requested and entitled upon without any undue delays, as I
50 previously requested for an investigation and they had nearly 2 months so far for this. Also, if
51 your client(s) is/are seeking to use property owner’s monies for this utter rubbish they in my

Page 30
1 view could also be charged with FRAUD, this as I view any expenses to cover up a criminal
2 offence cannot be claimed as a cost against property owners.
3 Likewise, in my view you (so becklegal) may risk to be charged with FRAUD if you were to
4 claim cost for seeking to cover up unlawful conduct.
5
6 In my view it would be appropriate that you for your client(s) simply admit that there was
7 trespassing on 6 and 7 September and so also when aerial images were made specifically relating
8 to my property and seek to make an offer to settle most matters. I am aware that not all issues
9 can be settled due to the complexity of matters but at least showing some good intentions by you
10 for any of your clients involved may assist if the matter were to be litigated as to some show of
11 remorse, etc. After all uncalled dragging this out hardly would impress any court if it was to deal
12 with a TORT case! An unreserved apology to us would be a start.
13 Councillors have to understand their position is to serve the community within the rule of law,
14 and not despite of it.
15
16
17
18 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
19
20 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
21 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
22 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

23 (Our name is our motto!)


20231104-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Lawyers Molly Metcalf, Becklegal-Supplement 2

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

20231104-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Lawyers Molly Metcalf, Becklegal-Supplement 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

1 it is stated with perfect accuracy:—

4-11-2023 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-11-2023 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-11-2023 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-11-2023 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-11-2023 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-11-2023 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-11-2023 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-11-2023 Page 15 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-11-2023 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179 (1956)

1 TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.

1 protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.

1 evidence of “corpus delecti,” showing that injury or harm constituting

4-11-2023 Page 28 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Privacy & Trespass.

4-11-2023 Page 29 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

22 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

4-11-2023 Page 30 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like