20231202-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Lawyers Molly Metcalf, Becklegal-Supplement 6

Page 1
1
2
3 Molly Metcalf Lawyer, becklegal (Australia, Victoria date) 2-12-2023
4 mmetcalf@becklegal.com.au
5
6 Cc: Cr Alison Champion alison.champion@banyule.vic.gov.au
7 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos fiona.mitsdinikos@banyule.vic.gov.au
8 Cr Elizabeth Nealy elizabeth.nealy@banyule.vic.gov.au
9 Cr Mark Di Pasquate mark.dipasquale@banyule.vic.gov.au
10 Cr Alida McKern alida.mckern@banyule.vic.gov.au
11 Cr Peter Dimarelos peter.demarelos@banyule.vic.gov.au
12 Cr Rick Garotti rick.garotti@banyule.vic.gov.au
13 Cr Tom Melican tom.melican@banyule.vic.gov.au
14 Cr Peter Casteldo peter.castaldo@banyule.vic.gov.au
15 Mr RomanWojtkowski enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
16 Jan Richarson enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
17 Officer Janet Redgrave Team Leader Development Planning enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
18 Banyule City Council enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
19
20 Re: 20231202-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Molly Metcalf lawyer, becklegal-Supplement 6
21
22 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
23 COMPLAINT-Supplement 6
24 Madam,
25
26 I filed my COMPLAINT with the police and you all may face the legal consequences of this
27 also!
28
29 QUOTE 20231202-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victoria Police at Heidelberg - COMPLAINT-
30 Supplement 2
31 Victoria Police at Heidelberg (Australia, Victoria date) 2-12-2023
32 HEIDELBERG.UNI@police.vic.gov.au
33
34 20231202-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victoria Police at Heidelberg - COMPLAINT-Supplement 2
35
36 Sir/Madam,
37 QUOTE my 30-11-2023 COMPLAINT
38 further to my 29-11-2023 COMPLAINT I now request the Victoria Police to assist my
39 wife and I to obtain an intervention/restraining order against Banyule City Council and
40 any employee, councillor and/or anyone who may be acting for and on its behalf.
41 END QUOTE my 30-11-2023 COMPLAINT
42
43 As I indicated that the sections 134, 135 and 137 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 was
44 not applicable. The legislation refers to “Order prohibiting the use or development of land
45 under this Act and the Building Act 1993 for period of time”, and no order prohibiting, at
46 least to my knowledge exist. The order relates to when a person applies for a building permit and
47 once the permit has been completed and approved then this section no longer is applicable.
48 Meaning, that when the residence and garage were built about 50+ year ago by then then
49 builder/owner the approval means that the building project is completed.
2-12-2023 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 I have quoted the relevant part of the legislation and explained related matters in:
2
3 Far too often residents are bullied by councils and their lawyers and perhaps my
4 writings may assist others to pursue JUSTICE. Now I am pursuing legal
5 accountability against the wrongdoers.
6 https://www.scribd.com/document/688859711/20231030-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Lawyers-
7 Molly-Metcalf-Becklegal-Supplement-1
8
9 I also explained in this document that even if an order had been applicable (not conceded) then
10 the conduct of Banyule City Council staff such as on 29 November 2023 was still unlawful as
11 the legislation sets out precisely what can be done, and sets out about an application for a
12 “warrant” if an order existed, and a person was found to be “guilty”! This never occurred!
13 On 1 December 2023 at about 1 pm, to my knowledge, no Banyule City Council staff attended,
14 and no explanation to us they wouldn’t, leaving my wife in considerable stress nevertheless. It is
15 my view the Victoria Police should pursue trespassing and other charges as requested by me and
16 restraining/intervention orders. I suspect that this kind of deceptive legal claims likely might
17 have been used also against others in the past, and this should be investigated also!
18
19 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
20
21 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
22
23 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
24 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

25 (Our name is our motto!)
26 END QUOTE 20231202-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victoria Police at Heidelberg - COMPLAINT-
27 Supplement 2
28
29 I understand that Jan Richarson (Banyule City Council) is now doing some sort of investigation
30 and provided her with the following email also:
31
32 QUOTE Further reply - Re: D23/321260: see attachment 20231129-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to
33 Lawyers Molly Metcalf,
34 Further reply - Re: D23/321260: see attachment 20231129-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
35 O.W.B. to Lawyers Molly Metcalf,
36 Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
37 From:inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
38 To:Jan Richardson
39 Sat, 2 Dec at 12:42 am
40 Jan,
41 I listed you to receive a copy of:
42
43 Far too often residents are bullied by councils and their lawyers and perhaps my
44 writings may assist others to pursue JUSTICE. Now I am pursuing legal
45 accountability against the wrongdoers.
46 You can download the document from:
47 https://www.scribd.com/document/688859711/20231030-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
48 B-to-Lawyers-Molly-Metcalf-Becklegal-Supplement-1
49
50 I would suggest you question (if that is within your power) Angela O'Brien and
51 the male accomplish if they enter any building structure. If they deny doing so
52 then you could ask if they entered a gazebo, which is technically a building
Page 3
1 structure. It may not be a building structure to require a permit but nevertheless

2 is a kind of building structure.
3
4 Even if they admit from onset they did enter a building structure then ask them
5 under what legal autho9rity they did so.
6
7 Also, within what legal authority did they enter twice the property of 105
8 Graham Road (the Neighbour)?
9
10 And why purportedly trespass to gain lawful entry?
11
12 Also, why failing to disclose that section 134, 135 and 137 all relate to an
13 existing order, which was not applicable to 107 Graham Road, Viewbank?
14
15 Why did the CEO and any of the councilors not step in the question what
16 Banyule City Council and its staff as well as the lawyers were involved in?
17
18 If the purported notice regarding s134, 135 and 137 was upon advice of the
19 lawyers then you may have to consider and question their competence or
20 incompetence.
21
22 With all of this my wife's life was placed in jeopardy and she also had to cancel
23 (through me) her appointment on 1 December 2023 because of the purported
24 notice and the stress/anxiety resulting from this and no decency to advice the
25 purported inspection was not going ahead.
26
27 As I made clear to the Victorian Police had Banyule City Council staff again
28 trespassed causing harm to my wife, I would likely have exercised my legal right
29 of a citizen arrest, as Banyule City Council management obviously failed to
30 control its unruly staff.
31
32 I spend decades in court rooms at the bar table representing parties (actually also
33 lawyers) and never held the view that Banyule City Council would succeed
34 against me, in particular because I defeated lawyers in the past who claimed to
35 be expert in council issues.
36 Because someone claims there is a Tooth Fairy doesn't mean this is so, the same
37 with lawyers who claim to be expert in council issues that doesn't mean they
38 are.
39
40 For your information Section 134, 135 and 137 only can be applied when there is
41 an order in existence regarding a building permit. Once the building permit is
42 completed then the order is extinguished. You cannot some 50 years later
43 pretend that somehow sections 134, 135 and 137 still applies!
44 Obviously, the question is how often has this rot been going on regarding other
45 property owners, occupiers?
Page 4
1
2 When Angela O'Brien vandalized my wife's motor vehicle, I immediately
3 realised that this was a political persecution and legal excuses were being used to
4 pursue this.
5
6 In my view her conduct on 29 November 2023 was arrogant that somehow
7 display that she is the law, and well she needs to be educated that as a staff
8 member she must serve the property owners/residents within a lawful manner.
9 Obviously as she claimed to be a 'team leader' why did she allow this male
10 person to bash the door that it scared the living daylights out of my wife,
11 thinking there was an intruder trying to break in and she in panic woke me up
12 that an intruder was trying to break in. This resulting her heart rate to reach a
13 critical dangerous level.
14
15 The purported notice was in any case invalid failing to provide 2 clear days, etc.
16
17 Is Banyule City Council so disorganized that there is no checking as to any
18 purported legal notice validity and lawfully provided to a person against who it
19 is directed?
20
21 Is it really Banyule City Council policy that its staff can trespass upon properties
22 of innocent Neighbours time and time again?
23
24 Just to mention some issues!
25
26 Gerrit
27
28 Constitutionalist & Consultant
29
31 Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN
32 (OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
33 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
34 Ph (International) 61394577209
35 .
36 Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
37
38 The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
39 unless specifically otherwise stated.
40
41 If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now
42 need to do is to consider the content appropriately!
43
44 A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE
45 OF BEING CONCERNED TO BE LABELLED A FOOL
Page 5
1 END QUOTE Further reply - Re: D23/321260: see attachment 20231129-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to
2 Lawyers Molly Metcalf,
3
4 Let me explain also the following, Olga did made known that she heard a door bell ringing but
5 didn’t know which one. Since Banyule City Council staff trespassed on 6 and 7 September 2023
6 upon the land of 107 Graham Road, Viewbank and vandalised her motor vehicle Ford AU on 7
7 September 2023 it caused such a shock to her system, due to the stress, etc, that her health began
8 to deteriorating to such extend that she cannot walk unaided by either hold onto cabinet doors or
9 I need to hold her hands. Obviously, from time to time I need to sleep, and then when she needs
10 my assistance for this I fitted doorbell buttons at various places in the house with doorbells
11 blaring next to my pillow and other places so I will know Olga needs assistance. As Olga has no
12 need to listen to doorbells as they are there around the house to alert me that Olga needs my
13 assistance she really merely push buttons. On Wednesday 29 November 2023 she heard a
14 doorbell but not knowing which one of the doorbells in the house was activated she just left it by
15 it. After all the only doorbell outside that I used once was the one at the back window next to the
16 security door, just in case I locked myself out, as I once did in the dark. As such, where we have
17 ENTRY PROHIBITED sign and the gates locked there was absolutely no reason for Olga to
18 assume someone was ringing an outside doorbell. It was however when she heard banging on the
19 door that appeared to her some male person was trying to break in that she became panic stricken
20 and under stress to seek my aid about the matter.
21
22
23 It must be very clear that first of all Banyule City Council Staff had absolutely no legal right to
24 enter either 105 Graham Road, Viewbank property to be able to access the 107 Graham Road
25 Viewbank property, to enter a gazebo, which at that time was closed off by a curtain as the
26 security door was not closed, as there was no need for this, to walk around the house to ring the
27 bell at the back window, next to the security door! And when this ringing the bell didn’t seem to
28 provide the right response then to terrify my wife with banging on the door to try to gain entry or
29 whatever.
30 It must be clear that the banging, etc, on the door was totally uncalled for even if the entry had
31 been lawful (not that I concede it was) as when a person has no response on pressing a door bell
32 button then that should be ordinary the end of it.
33 As such, in the circumstances, my wife not knowing which doorbell was ringing and so not
34 acting upon it as they are there for me to be alerted, then to her discovering the noise at the
35 backdoor was terrifying. It nearly cost her life in the process.

Page 6
1 As I did set out in my 1 December 2023 writings to you the purported notice was invalid in
2 numerous ways, including to trespass to purportedly serve an alleged legal notice to gain lawful
3 entrance using deceptive non applicable legislative provisions.
4
5 While Angela O’Brien gave me the understanding to have climbed over the lower part of the
6 fence, this in my view she lied about. This, as the top railing of that fence would have likely
7 caved in under the weight of an adult. And the booth of the Mitsubishi was more than likely
8 climbed over being much lower.
9 Do keep in mind that in the decades of cross examining expert witnesses I was able to expose
10 matters time and time again and as such well aware that when someone gives evidence they
11 might commit perjury when making a false/misleading statement. Therefore, it is critical that the
12 truth is exposed! After all, if you as their lawyer would go along with any deceptive claims made
13 by Banyule City Council then this may have to be considered by the Legal Service
14 Commission as to possibly disbarment from being a legal practitioner. Also to suspend the
15 practice license of becklegal!
16
17 In my view the State government should replace Banyule City Council and appoint an
18 administrator and have a proper investigation held, this also considering other very serious
19 matters I raised in my writings.
20
21 I provided considerable information/details albeit aware from decades of how opponent lawyers
22 act that more than likely lawyers will charge their clients for reading material even so they
23 generally ignore doing so. Indeed, a barrister some decades ago even admitted in an appeal that
24 he had not read the written submissions that were before the court and applied for an
25 adjournment, this the Full Court refused and I succeeded in the appeal.
26
27 In my view where I in my 4 November 2023 writings set out details as to access to a property,
28 etc, you ought to have realised this was a warning that Banyule City Council staff entering the
29 property of 107 Graham Road, Viewbank via trespassing on 105 Graham Road Viewbank was in
30 all ways unlawful.
31 Even if Banyule City Council had obtained a warrant” (which they didn’t) then they still had no
32 right to trespass upon any property not listed in the warrant. Therefore in my view you had a
33 legal obligation to notify your client never again to trespass upon a property for which they had
34 no warrant to do so.
35 Perhaps you might claim that you did notify Banyule City Council to refrain from entering on
36 any property without being authorised by a warrant, as then there can be no trespassing and I
37 invite you to provide me with relevant details/information regarding this.
38 While you may claim that you have lawyer-client or client-lawyer confidentiality this
39 doesn’t apply where a lawyer or the client are involved in criminal conduct.
40 My previous writings made this already very clear.
41 Therefore, the onus is upon to prove you advised Banyule City Council (your client) not to
42 trespass upon any property. And when they did nevertheless it was your obligation to notify the
43 relevant authorities that your client trespassed upon certain properties, this as an OFFICER OF
44 THE COURT you cannot remain silent about criminal co0nduct of your client as by remaining
45 silent you become an accessory after the facts.
46
47 Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
48 QUOTE
49 As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot
50 pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on
51 behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his
Page 7
1 client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that
2 he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he
3 directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the
4 cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not
5 knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is,
6 without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those
7 that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant
8 documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific
9 instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 If you and/or any of your colleges recommended or otherwise suggested/indicated for Banyule
13 City Council to use fraudulently use the provisions of S134, 135 and 137 Planning &
14 Environment Act 1987, while I view you ought to have known that such provisions couldn’t be
15 applied then I view you may have instigated further criminal conduct as well as become an
16 accessory to any crimes committed.
17
18 I suggest you may do better to inform becklegal about matters so perhaps appropriate response
19 may be resulting as I can assure you that in particularly the harm that was inflicted upon Olga
20 (my 91-year-old wife) is not something that can be ignored.
21
22 Whenever a party I assisted/represented raised the issue of possible unlawful conduct I made
23 clear that I would drop their case if they pursued such unlawful conduct as well as being
24 obligated to notify the Court as otherwise I could be held an accessory to any unlawful conduct
25 that might be committed.
26 Remaining silent about a crime to be committed or committed I view makes the person to
27 become an accessory/accessory after the fact. There are certain exclusion where an OFFICER
28 OF THE COURT representing a client may in serious criminal matters before a court seek to
29 avoid a guilty plea, but may not provide or give false/misleading evidence.
30
31 You have still not provided any details/information when allegedly Fire Rescue Victoria as you
32 claimed issued a report, etc. Again, as Banyule City Council staff on 6 & 7 September 2023
33 trespassed and also in the process caused damages, and vandalised the Ford AU, etc, then the
34 Legal Service Commission hold that providing false/misleading claims may justify to have you
35 disbarred as a legal practitioner, etc, as well as to suspend the becklegal practicing license.
36
37 20231104-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Molly Metcalf lawyer, becklegal-Supplement 2
38 Remember at page 4:
39
40 And
Page 8
1
2
3 It must be clear that Banyule City Council switched from Section 32 of the Fire Rescue Victoria
4 legislation to the alleged Section 134, 135 and 137 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 as
5 to try to get around the misuse of Section 32 of the Fire Rescue Victoria Act.
6 Further where your 25 October 2023 correspondence referred to December 2023
7
8 QUOTE
9 C. Action required by you 15. In order to resolve the contravention of the Scheme set out
10 above, Council requires that you undertake the following actions: 14.1 immediately cease
11 using the Land as a store; 14.2 immediately cease bringing more goods, equipment onto the
12 Land; and 14.3 by 30 November 2023, remove all the equipment, good and motor vehicles
13 currently being stored on the northwest portion of Land (to the front of the dwelling),
14 including but not limited to the items specified in paragraph 11 above to the satisfaction of
15 Council. The northwest portion of Land is highlighted yellow on the below mapping.
16 END QUOTE
17
18 QUOTE
19 6. Council will inspect the Land on: 16.1. December 2023 to ensure the items are removed in
20 accordance with paragraph 14.3 above; and 16.2. 31 December 2023 to ensure the items are
21 removed in accordance with paragraph 14.4 above. 17. Further, once you cease using the
22 Land for a store you must not recommence that use until such time as a planning permit
23 is in place which permits the use of the Land as a store and you have complied with the
24 conditions of such a planning permit as required before the lawful use commences.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 As to “immediately cease using the Land as a store;” & “Further, once you cease using the
28 Land for a store you must not recommence that use until such time as a planning permit is
29 in place which permits the use of the Land as a store” this is a mere assumption that the
30 property is used as a store even so there is no evidence and cannot exist that somehow the
31 property is or has been used as a store. That is like assuming that the police yard having
32 numerous motor vehicles behind their gates somehow operates as a car dealer selling motor
33 vehicles! Why didn’t you request your client as to any possible evidence to see any person
34 entering our property at 107 Graham road Viewbank and leaving with items that may be deemed
35 to have been purchased, etc. You find that even if your client had been STALKING the property
36 24/7 besides what they already did also by proving anyone who came to the property there would
37 be no such evidence whatsoever. Now, surely would this not be an excellent way to prove me
38 wrong and produce any video showing even one person to have left having purchased an item?
39 Merely because your client makes some allegation doesn’t mean this is “evidence”! As such in
40 my view you were an utter fool at the very least to go along harassing us as to holding some
41 “store” when this never occurred. Did your client ever produce even a single advertisement that
42 showed that any alleged material of the property was for sale?
43 I do not have to prove anything as the onus is upon your client to prove their allegations
44 and not by some fishing expedition.
45
46 While I do not have to explain anything not even our children, grand-children and/or great
47 grandchildren come to our property for at least the last decade, because of Olga’s health
48 conditions. That is how Olga desires it and well prior to the 6 September 2023 trespassing, for
Page 9
1 example my son Mark and I would play pool at times and go shopping, etc. For Olga the ritual of
2 going to see doctors, specialist, hairdresser, etc as well as when she desires to go shopping is
3 enough for her. She prefers peace and tranquillity rather than hearing the screaming of kids
4 around her. That is her right.
5 In my view the first thing a real competent lawyer would ask a client: What evidence have you
6 got? A lawyer cannot or should not rely upon some fictional illusion without evidence to support
7 what might be alleged.
8 I previously used the example of the Colosimo case where 2 expert medical witnesses had stated
9 that Mr Francis James Colosimo needed to be under Orders of Administration because he
10 refused to accept that he was convicted of CONTEMPT OF COURT. At that time Mr Colosimo
11 was represented by a barrister who also was a law lecturer at the university. It was then that Mr
12 Colosimo requested me to take over and I accepted, free of charge, and Hr Honour Harbison
13 made it very clear Her Honour never convicted Mr Colosimo, and subsequently the appeal
14 against the Order for Administration was upheld because there was no evidence to justify the
15 Orders of Administration.
16 Do you really think that the police is going to arrest every person who drives a motor vehicle that
17 the person doesn’t own? So, arrest tram drivers, bus drivers, train drivers, people who rented or
18 borrowed lawfully a motor vehicle merely upon the illusion anyone of them might have stolen a
19 motor vehicle, even if none did so! If this is your competence as a lawyer not first demanding
20 reliable evidence from your client to prove what they claim is the situation then I view you better
21 start all over going to kindergarten, this as I view even a first year law student likely would be
22 aware that without evidence you cannot pursue a case, let alone be involved in your client to
23 commit criminal offences! Perhaps, you might go and sue the Tooth Fairy for selling teeth?
24 If the issue was that the property was used as a “store” then why the nonsense about Section 32
25 of the Fire Rescue Victoria legislation? Are you going to claim that the MCG is selling humans
26 because people are there watching a football game? Are you going to claim that a parking lot is
27 selling motor vehicles because of the cars legally parked there? Why not pursue every person
28 who eats meat for being an accessory-after-the-fact of killing an animal. Oh Boy, the courts
29 might just assign you to a mental institution. There is no evidence I am selling anything, not even
30 the articles I publish, but there is evidence I am lately purchasing disability and security items
31 due to the trespassing of your client and the harm inflicted by this in particularly upon Olga.
32 Your client and becklegal just picked upon the wrong person, and you may find that the
33 legal accountability can be considerably!
34
35
36 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
37
38 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
39 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

41 (Our name is our motto!)

20231202-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Lawyers Molly Metcalf, Becklegal-Supplement 6

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

20231202-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Lawyers Molly Metcalf, Becklegal-Supplement 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

24 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

1 structure. It may not be a building structure to require a permit but nevertheless

2-12-2023 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

40 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like