20231225-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police MR Shane Patton - COMPLAINT-Supplement 1

Page 1
1
2
3 Mr Shane Patton, Chief Commissioner of Police (Australia, Victoria date) 25-12-2023
4 Email via HEIDELBERG.UNI@police.vic.gov.au
5
6 Cc: Cr Tom Melican Mayor tom.melican@banyule.vic.gov.au
7 Alison Champion alison.champion@banyule.vic.gov.au
8 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos fiona.mitsdinikos@banyule.vic.gov.au
9 Cr Elizabeth Nealy elizabeth.nealy@banyule.vic.gov.au
10 Cr Mark Di Pasquate mark.dipasquale@banyule.vic.gov.au
11 Cr Alida McKern alida.mckern@banyule.vic.gov.au
12 Cr Peter Dimarelos peter.demarelos@banyule.vic.gov.au
13 Cr Rick Garotti rick.garotti@banyule.vic.gov.au
14 Cr Peter Casteldo peter.castaldo@banyule.vic.gov.au
15 Jan Richardson enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
16 Janet Redgrave Team Leader Development Planning enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
17 Mr RomanWojtkowski enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
18 Banyule City Council enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
19
20 20231225-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police Mr Shane Patton –
21 COMPLAINT-Supplement 1
22
23 Sir,
24 it appears that you did not respond to my 21 December 2023 COMPLAINT and for this I
25 will so to say up the ante.
26
27 As you ought to know that when a police officer seeks to enter a property then the property
28 owner/occupier merely has to object to this and then the police cannot enter without obtaining, if
29 this is possible, an WARRANT. It is not for the property owner/occupier to go to court to oppose
30 any entrance as merely conveying the objection to a police officer is in itself sufficient.
31
32 Let us go back to the matter of AEC v Schorel-Hlavka in which the ARC had charged me for
33 FAILING TO VOTE in the 20021 federal election. I representing myself objected to the
34 constitutional validity of the CEA1918 as to compulsory voting. Yet, even so my objection to the
35 constitutional validity was made known to be INTRA VIRES Ab initio regarding the purported
36 legislation, the AEC nevertheless again charged me with FAILING TO VOTE regarding the
37 2004 federal election. I objected that the AEC could not charge me regarding the 2004 federal
38 election because I had already made known to object to the constitutional validity of the part that
39 requires a elector to “compulsory” vote. Neither the Prosecutor or any of the 9 Attorney-
40 Generals challenged this, and any other issue I raised and I succeed in both appeals! The very
41 serious implication are set out at the end of this COMPLAINT part
42
43 Now translate this to the current issue regarding Banyule City Council. It claims to pursue the
44 enforcement of the purported Planning and Environment Act 1987 and I already objected to
45 Banyule City Council ability to rely upon this in the manner it has pursued its political
25-12-2023 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 persecution against me. Now I give notice that I object to the constitutional validity of the
2 legislation! Meaning, that because of my objection on constitutional grounds the purported
3 legislation is INTRA VIRES Ab initio unless and until if ever at all a court of competent
4 jurisdiction declares it to be INTRA VIRES. This means that Banyule City Council can no
5 longer rely upon the provisions of the purported Planning and Environment Act 1987 unless a
6 court determines this to be INTRA VIRES.
7
8 Obviously a criteria in this matter is a “competent court of jurisdiction”. Which court can be
9 deemed to be a “competent court of jurisdiction” should be asked and answered.
10
11 Ordinary, where I have already relied upon my constitutional rights of the Commonwealth of
12 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then VCAT not being a court that has federal jurisdiction
13 is not a “competent court of jurisdiction”,
14
15 One may as what about a Magistrates Court of Victoria, County Court of Victoria or even the
16 Supreme Court of Victoria being all state courts that can exercise federal jurisdiction? Well, I
17 might be a spoiler but none of them can exercise jurisdiction because of the AEC v Schorel-
18 Hlavka issue where I challenged the constitutional validity of “Australian Citizenship” as not
19 being a “nationality” and neither the Prosecutor and/or any of the 9 Attorney-Generals were able
20 to defeat me on this.
21
22 Well, you may then ask what about the Federal Court or even the High Court of Australia. Well,
23 not even they can invoke jurisdiction this because of the AEC v Schorel-Hlavka cases.
24
25 If none of those courts that have ordinary federal jurisdiction nevertheless cannot invoke
26 jurisdiction because of the AEC v Schorel-Hlavka cases, then none of those courts can somehow
27 ignore this and somehow invoke federal jurisdiction regarding Banyule City Council matters.
28 This means that the purported NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE TO ENTER for Wednesday 3
29 January 2024 has no legal validity on this basis also as I have now challenged the constitutional
30 validity of the legislation.
31
32 Former opponent, lawyers did convey to me they were horrified how I was basically throwing
33 everything including the kitchen sink into litigation, well beyond what ordinary could be
34 expected, but that is where the difference lies to lose or succeed in litigation. It is not about
35 making it comfortable for your opponent but to make it extremely difficult that in the end they
36 became aware they simply are so to say check mate.
37
38 I have previously notified Banyule City Council that the so called “council rates” (and that
39 actually applies to all “councils” around Australia as they are an unconstitutional form of State
40 land taxation) are unconstitutional and again which court can it litigate considering what I stated
41 above?
42
43 Obviously. if the Victoria Police fails or might have failed to take appropriate action then well it
44 might face also that it can be considered collaborators with the Banyule City Council political
45 persecution and well, for example the issue of the Victoria Police acting in an unconstitutional/
46 unlawful manner to enforce the unconstitutional mandates certainly will escalate litigation
47 matters even more. And, let us not ignore as to what I exposed the involvement of the Victorian
48 Police in the murder of Carl Williams, etc.
49 Here we had lawyer Molly Metcalf of becklegal in her 25 October 2023 correspondence to me
50 demanding I remove items from my private property. As if she now is the one who decide what
51 the law is. Just a reminder that a legal representative as an OFFICER OF THE COURT must
52 conduct matters honourably and cannot surpass the authority of the court to make an unbias
Page 3
1 decision. In my view the Victoria Police may fi8nd it could charge lawyer Molly Metcalf such as
2 to:
3  Unethical, failing due diligence conduct and using false/misleading allegations
4  Unprofessional conduct
5  Using unsupported allegations
6  Collaborating with criminal conduct and seeking to deceptively shield the client from
7 legal accountability/responsibility.
8  Falsely claiming about the Fire Rescue Victoria involvement
9  Falsely claiming about the Fire Rescue Victoria report
10  Inappropriately referring to the Fire Rescue Victoria as to stove, fire alarms, etc.
11  Failing to ensure that Banyule City council refrained from causing further criminal
12 conduct
13  Failing to ensure that Banyule City Council refrained from any further harm not just upon
14 me but in particular upon my ill wife.
15  Etc.
16
17 The choice by a legal practitioner/lawfirm is that it makes clear to a client that it must refrain
18 from criminal conduct and/or undue harm to another party and failing this the legal
19 practitioner/lawfirm must withdraw from the case if not wanting to be a party of the litigation by
20 collaborating or otherwise assisting in any criminal/harmful conduct.
21
22 I on Sunday 2023 purchased 5 chairs as shown below in the image albeit not from the company
23 that is shown to advertise for these chairs. I also purchased in the last few days 2 station wagons
24 full of railings, post, etc as all is to modify the property so Olga my wife can move about on her
25 own and can rest at various locations. This is besides the items I purchased previously such as
26 various special chairs for the shower, etc,
27
28
29
30
31
32 The harm Banyule City Council inflicted by the various trespassing, vandalising her car and
33 scaring the living daylights out of her by banging on the backdoor where no one should even be,
34 and Banyule City Council having been well aware that she suffers from heart failure should have
35 avoided any such harmful conduct!

Page 4
1 And any lawyer who, somehow claims to have the authority to demand I get rid of these and
2 other items in my view do better being locked up in an asylum.
3 It is shameful at the very least that the Victorian Police didn’t step in to stop this rot!
4
5 I will now quote my last 22-12-2023 writing to Banyule City Council
6
7 QUOTE 20231222-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council, Cr Mayor Tom Melican and
8 Ors-TRESPASS, etc-Supplement 19
9 Banyule City Council & Mayor Cr Melican & Ors (Australia, Victoria date) 22-12-2023
10 enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
11
12 Cc: Cr Tom Melican Mayor tom.melican@banyule.vic.gov.au
13 Alison Champion alison.champion@banyule.vic.gov.au
14 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos fiona.mitsdinikos@banyule.vic.gov.au
15 Cr Elizabeth Nealy elizabeth.nealy@banyule.vic.gov.au
16 Cr Mark Di Pasquate mark.dipasquale@banyule.vic.gov.au
17 Cr Alida McKern alida.mckern@banyule.vic.gov.au
18 Cr Peter Dimarelos peter.demarelos@banyule.vic.gov.au
19 Cr Rick Garotti rick.garotti@banyule.vic.gov.au
20 Cr Peter Casteldo peter.castaldo@banyule.vic.gov.au
21 Jan Richardson enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
22 Janet Redgrave Team Leader Development Planning enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
23 Mr RomanWojtkowski enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
24
25 Re: 20231222-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council Mayor Cr Tom Melican and Ors-
26 TRESPASS, etc-Supplement 19
27 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
28 COMPLAINT
29 Sir & Ors,
30 further to my already provided COMPLAINT and supplements, I add the following.
31
32 I yesterday lodged a complaint with Mr Shane Patten, Chief Commissioner of the Victorian
33 Police as after all he is legally responsible for the Victorian Police.
34
35 With the covid scam the Victorian Police claimed to act by the direction of then Chief Health
36 Officer Brett Sutton, albeit as I already pointed out in April 2020 the State of Victoria had no
37 legislative, executive and/or administrative powers regarding mandates, etc. It often takes years
38 before a case filters through to the courts and the issue is always to prepare for a case long before
39 it actually is before the courts.
40 I, more than a decade ago, represented a party against a council, and so very successfully, where
41 a council had actually approved a building to be built according to required building
42 requirements but they litigated as if it had not.
43 There are ample of Authorities (meaning judgments) where the courts held that a police officer
44 cannot merely enter any property when a property owner/occupier has indicated by a sign or
45 otherwise to deny access to the property. At most a police officer can then petition a court to
46 issue a WARRANT to allow the police officer to enter the property. The Court however cannot
47 issue a WARRANT unless it first has heard both sides and then upon the evidence before the
48 court makes a determination.
49
50 In the purported NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF ENTRY is claims:
51 QUOTE

Page 5
1 Pursuant to Section 137 of the Act, any person who without lawful excuse obstructs an
2 Authorised person or a member of the Police Force in taking any action, which is
3 authorised under the Act, is guilty of an offence.
4 END QUOTE
5 What this section makes clear that a person must be “Authorised” and it also differentiate
6 between an “Authorised person” and a member of the Police force. A police officer cannot
7 authorise anyone to trespass upon a property where the police officer himself/herself would
8 require a WARRANT to enter a property against the objections of the property owner/occupier.
9 The police therefore cannot Authorise any other person to do something it cannot do itself.
10 This then means that unless the “Authorised person” is actually validly “Authorised” the police
11 is totally powerless to do anything. A person cannot merely “assume” to be ‘Authorise” merely
12 as to go onto some fishing expedition to try to find some alleged evidence.
13
14 The purported NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF ENTRY claims:
15 QUOTE
16 The purpose of the inspection will be to determine any breaches of the Banyule
17 Planning Scheme. Pursuant to Section 135 of the Act, it may include:
18 a. The taking of photographs or measurements: and
19 b. The making of sketches or recordings: and
20 c. C. The taking or removal of samples.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 As I have set out in my previous writings this applies where a person had been found “guilty” by
24 a court and the Governor-in-Council” had issued an “Order”. There is a difference between the
25 usage of “Governor” and “Governor-in-Council”. A Governor exercises royal prerogative
26 whereas a “Governor-in-Council” acts upon the advice of the State executives.
27 Because of the separation of powers between the legislators, the executives and the judiciary the
28 executive (government) cannot act as if it is a judiciary and therefore cannot interfere with the
29 rights of citizens merely because it desires to do so. If the “Governor-in-Council” were to act
30 upon the advice of the State executives but in violation of the law then the “Governor-in-Council
31 purported “Order” has no legal validity and anyone who were to act upon such invalid “Order”
32 could be liable for damages, etc. Without a “guilty” judgment by a court the “Governor-in-
33 Council” cannot issue any “Order”. As the legislation requires a “guilty” judgment then you need
34 to ensure that there actually was such judgment on record and not merely skip this legal
35 requirement. Because a court cannot find someone “guilty” merely because some council may
36 desire that, but must rely upon validly obtained evidence and the opponent party having been
37 provided with a proper opportunity to oppose any order then kindly inform me when Banyule
38 City council litigated in court against me and allegedly obtained a judgment of “guilty” against
39 me and my wife.
40 It should be understood that when a person pursues to build a residence with or without a garage
41 then where a council issue a planning permit this is active until the council approves of the
42 buildings that were created. As such, the “approval” finish any planning permit application.
43 As Banyule City Council seems to refer to Planning Scheme then kindly advice me what permit
44 is currently applicable it relies upon, as neither my wife or are have any knowledge of any
45 outstanding permit in existence. Failing any active planning permit to be in existence and neither
46 any court “guilty” judgment and “Order” of the “Governor-in-Council” then like it or not but any
47 entrance upon our property is and remains unlawful. It means that Section 134, 135 and 137
48 Banyule City Council seeks to rely upon have no legal application whatsoever.
49
50 I have so far written extensively about the issues at hand, as I used to do for example in AEC v
51 Schorel-Hlavka this as part of litigation! Banyule City Council and also every councillor can be
52 personally sued for any harm inflicted upon my wife and myself. And, I can assure you I have
Page 6
1 every intent to do so. Where you as a mayor/councillor despite of my writings have this kind of
2 unlawful conduct continuing then you are deprived of any legal protection as acting in violation
3 of legal requirement means you are not protected by being a mayor/councillor.
4 This is why I view it was darn stupid for anyone to ignore my writings because ultimately the
5 legal consequences will haunt you. No excuse will be making go away the harm that was in
6 particularly inflicted upon my wife.
7
8 I used for 37 years conduct a special lifeline service regarding people contemplating suicide,
9 murder and even mass murder and the general thread was that they suffered at the hands of
10 wrong doers and simply had been unable to obtain JUSTICE. Well, I am well aware how at
11 times judges seek to railroad a party and for this would urge a party to follow every possible step
12 that may be needed.
13
14 For example, a man was served with his wife affidavit and I urged him to go to the registry
15 and make a copy of the wife’s Affidavit. He did and made known to me this was a sheer
16 waste of time as they were identical. He then filed his response. Affidavit. A few weeks
17 later I asked the man to again make a copy of the wife’s affidavit on court file. OK he held
18 I was giving him a run around but in the end he did so. And then he discovered that the
19 wife’s Affidavit had numerous unauthorised changes. Because he had obtained a copy of
20 the court file Affidavit it was clear the changes were made After he filed his Affidavit in
21 response. And he was able to prove this in court so the judge could not argue that somehow
22 the lawyers had served a wrong copy upon him. It is a legal trickery I know too well many
23 lawyers engage in that result that the trial judge has a different version unbeknown to the
24 other party, and then this party may lose a case as result.
25
26 This is the kind of careful conduct lawyers I understand ordinary totally ignore. Likewise judges
27 may use a so called CRISTAL BALL kind of judgment. Hence, it is important to avoid that also
28 as much as possible.
29
30 A judge may question a party did he/she did whatever as to seek to railroad the parties
31 opportunity to have orders in his/her favour. Hence, I pursue to notify opponents about
32 everything and well aware that the fools generally cannot bother to read and consider my
33 writings but then when it comes to a court hearing are so to say standing with their pants down,
34 because they never actually bothered to learn what the case was about. This too was with the
35 AEC v Schorel-Hlkavka.
36
37 Each and every councillor can look forwards to being sued by me as after all I provided them
38 with copies of my writings and if they ignore it well then suffer the legal consequences for this.
39
40 Do you even understand that the Banyule City Council Planning Scheme is not at all a “law”.
41 Citizens grow up and assume that whatever some council may claim is because of being laws,
42 whereas I am the kind of person who makes clear that Banyule City Council has the onus to
43 prove it to be a law in the first place and also that the part of the law is actually legally
44 applicable.
45 Without conceding that this purported NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF ENTRY is legally
46 applicable let alone enforceable, you also got the problem that there was this purported
47 NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF ENTRY for 1 December 2023 followed by one for 8
48 December 2023 and now one for 3 January 2024. A court may just ask: Where is the sanity of
49 this all! Is this going to become some ongoing modus operandi for years to come? No court can
50 accept that even if the relevant legislation was applicable then to repeat the same time and time
51 again would be an abuse of legal processes. All this besides the many trespassing issues, etc.
Page 7
1 The court may inquire what happened on each occasions and if Banyule City Council did not
2 proceed on any particular day why not and did it withdraw the purported NOTIFICATION OF
3 NOTICE OF ENTRY and if not why not? Also, can the purported NOTIFICATION OF
4 NOTICE OF ENTRY to be withdrawn without invoking that this means Banyule City Council
5 acknowledged there was no evidence to pursue.
6
7 Section 135 does clearly state: “The purpose of the inspection will be to determine any
8 breaches of the Banyule Planning Scheme” which means that Banyule City Council is no more
9 but on a fishing expedition to try to establish if there is any possible evidence it can obtain. Oh
10 boy, would the police love this kind of nonsense that they can trespass and then claim they did so
11 to obtain evidence they could obtain to charge a person. I got news for you, if you rely upon the
12 rule of law then you cannot misuse or otherwise ignore the rule of law.
13 Just in case you may overlook this, when a court finds that Banyule City Council and councillors
14 acted unlawfully then it may consider what, if any, attempt the wrongdoers may have engaged in
15 to stop the rot. Also how long it has been going on as to aggravated compensation, etc.
16 Any legislation that exist can only be used for the purpose it was enacted and not otherwise. For
17 example the police may issue an infringement notice to a person who is what is referred to as
18 jaywalking, when for example ignoring to use a pedestrian crossing but simply walks in an
19 uncalled dangerous manner across a street. However, the police couldn’t say issue aqn
20 i9nfringment notice say against me for jay walking when walking within my property to my
21 motor vehicle, this, as my private property doesn’t fall within the provisions of such legislation
22 and wouldn’t have any pedestrian crossing either.
23 The same with this purported Planning & Environment Act 1987 provisions. The issue would be
24 if the purported legislation actually is applicable at all in the circumstances pursued by Banyule
25 City Council. If not then neither Banyule City Council or for that the Victorian Police would
26 have any legal supported powers to seek to enforce the provisions of such a claimed legislation.
27 It means that any person of Banyule City Council and/or police officer are not at all acting within
28 their respective employment, etc, but are acting as a “private person” and can be held legally
29 accountable in their personal capacity. It is not mine concern if such person acting as a “private
30 person” did so having obtained any legal advice of a lawyer, because a lawyer doesn’t decide the
31 rule of law but merely can give “legal advice” that may or may not be correct. Therefore any
32 alleged “legal advice” would be an issue for the “private person” as to consider if it is likely
33 appropriate or not, and perhaps seeking a so called second opinion. A “private person” who seek
34 to rely upon certain “legal advice” would also leave himself/herself open to be required to
35 provide disclosure of what ordinary is deemed client-lawyer privileged information as after all a
36 lawyer may have provided “legal advice” upon whatever the client may have communicated to
37 the lawyer and this may be considerably different then upon what the lawyer actually was
38 purportedly relying upon.
39 It should not be ignored either that when Angela O’Brien and her male accomplish was caught
40 so to say red handed in the back of our property and had clearly trespassed not just onto the
41 property but also through the gazebo by what I consider breaking and entry, and never even
42 apologised for this then considering the serious health problems also caused upon Olga (my
43 wife) that she was fearing the male accomplish was trying to break into our house, this matter
44 has gone far beyond any belated excuse in particular where Angela O’Brien persisted with yet
45 another 2 versions of the purported NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF ENTRY.
46
47 It appears to me very clear that Angela O’Brien and her male accomplish are so to say loose
48 cannons, who are terrorising residents as if they are above the rule of law. The fact that the
49 Victoria Police appears to me have failed to take appropriate legal action against them I view
50 makes them accomplish of the criminal conduct Banyule City Council (including its staff and
51 councillors) engaged in. The Victorian Police cannot choose and pick when they will take
52 appropriate action against any criminal offender as it is bound to enforce the rule of law without
Page 8
1 any bias. This I wrote about also in my complaint of 21 December 2023 to Mr Shane Patton the
2 Chief Commissioner of the Victorian Police.
3
4 In AEC v Schorel-Hlavka as to FAILING TO VOTE I for example relied upon the legal
5 principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) that the
6 “council rates” (purportedly being State land taxation) is unconstitutional. Likewise that the
7 deployment of Australians ar5my into Iraq likewise was unconstitutional. I representing myself
8 in both cases successfully defeated the Commonwealth and 9 Attorney-Generals in both cases
9 unchallenged. Plenty of lawyers claimed I would never succeed but in the end I did. No court can
10 overrule the constitution and this is why I so much rely upon the legal principles embedded in
11 the constitution.
12 If the King cannot enter my castle without my permission then for sure Banyule City Council
13 can neither! Our constitution contains our Bill of Rights regardless most lawyers will claim we
14 do not have a Bill of Rights, as they simply were never properly trained, as after all I succeeded
15 that the “compulsory” part of voting was unconstitutional despite about every Australian
16 (including lawyers/judges) goes to vote because it allegedly is “compulsory”.
17 A court can only issue a WARRANT to override my constitutional and other rights AFTER
18 having heard both sides and only if there is any validity in an applicant’s petition to the court. As
19 I indicated that Banyule City Council has so to say not a leg to stand on and a court could only
20 throw out of the window any petition and then it is my time to pursue Banyule City Council and
21 its collaborators for damages!
22
23 https://www.westernjournal.com/former-ag-pens-jaw-dropping-letter-supreme-court-jack-smiths-appointment-
24 special-counsel-wasnt-legal/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=conservative-brief-
25 WJ&ff_campaign=dailypm&ff_content=western-journal
26 Former AG Pens Jaw-Dropping Letter to Supreme Court: Jack Smith's Appointment as
27 Special Counsel Wasn't Legal
28 QUOTE
29 The brief asserted that Jack Smith did not acquire his purported authority as special
30 counsel in a legal or constitutional manner and therefore lacks standing to represent the
31 United States in front of a federal court.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 What has got this article to do with Banyule City Council issues? Well, as I have made clear that
35 I (representing myself) succeeded in both AEC v Schorel-Hlavka appeals unchallenged which
36 means that the Commonwealth and the 9 Attorney-Generals accepted my written submissions
37 ADDRESS TO THE COURT of some 409 pages to be correct. This included that there is
38 constitutionally no such thing as nationality being “Australian Citizenship”. The High Court in
39 Sue v Hill purported there was but the High Court of Australia lacks any judicial powers to
40 amend the meaning of the constitution! As such, only what is constitutionally appropriate can be
41 applied. Meaning that anyone purportedly appointed based upon holding a nationality of
42 “Australian citizenship” violates the legal principles embedded in the constitution. This means
43 we do not have validly appointed judges, lawyers, police officers, politicians, etc.
44
45 Without conceding that Section 137 of the purported Planning & Environment Act 1987 is
46 applicable or even legally valid, the reference to a police officer would be limited to a duly and
47 properly appointed police officer and not one pretending to be so but never was.
48 Keep in mind that Banyule City Council cannot re-litigate this matter purportedly acting as an
49 agent for the State Government because at the time R Hulls Attorney-General for the State of
50 Victoria made clear to accept the court’s ruling. (Res Judicata)
51
52 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
53 QUOTE

Page 9
1 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
2 Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
3 END QUOTE
4
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the
8 states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
9 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
10 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws
11 will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of
12 making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
13 END QUOTE
14
16 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
17 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
18 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
19 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the
20 meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 Also the purported “Planning & Environment Act 1987” itself in questionable as to its
24 constitutional validity because if the Federal Parliament can exercise such powers then the States
25 lack such legislative powers. Now a court needs to find a legitimately appointed judge and then
26 the court has to determine who constitutionally actually has the legislative powers regarding
27 issues pursued by Banyule City Council. Constitutionally “State Governments” are “Local
28 Governments” and the constitution doesn’t provide for 2 levels of “Local governments”!
29
30 I am the one who have experienced how the trespassing and vandalising of Olga’s Ford AU
31 caused such a stress that Olga no longer can walk unaided, and also need now to use a
32 wheelchair. Well, I am determent to hold Banyule City Council and its collaborators legally
33 accountable!
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
40 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
41 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

42 (Our name is our motto!)
43 END QUOTE 20231222-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council, Cr Mayor Tom Melican
44 and Ors-TRESPASS, etc-Supplement 19
45
Page 10
1 There can be absolutely no question about it that more males then females are committing
2 suicide. It doesn’t mean that any female committing is not of concern, rather that it is out of
3 control.
4 When I in 1982 was faced with as female contemplating suicide I decided to be there for this
5 female and she is still alive. Many I assisted contact me at times decades later as to thank me for
6 my assistance long ago making known that having been there when they needed someone to
7 listen to them made the difference, and of court that at no time did I request/accept to be paid for
8 my services to them. I in 1994 decided to naturalise as to also have a better legal position in legal
9 issues to seek to advance matters. I was well aware that if I didn’t naturalise then those I exposed
10 of wrongdoings would try to find any nonsense as an excuse to get me deported. I also was well
11 aware that pursuing justice would likely make me the target for political persecution and hence
12 it was important I was as much as possible prepared for this. To be able to challenge the
13 unconstitutional “compulsory” voting I had to be naturalised as to have a legal standing.
14 And to avoid being convicted of misleading electors that they cannot be “compulsory” forced to
15 vote I had to succeed in defeating the Commonwealth and the 9 Attorney-Generals on
16 constitutional grounds, that the “compulsory” part of voting was unconstitutional.
17 With having already for some years been assisting/representing parties who were wronged by
18 councils/courts, etc, I was well aware as to how rotten the system was and I expected the same to
19 eventuate with any litigation I was to be involved in and I was proven to be right. On 17
20 November 2005 the Magistrate convicted me announcing he was ignoring previous orders by the
21 court. The issue that “Australian Citizenship” was not a “nationality” not only served me for the
22 “FAILING TO VOTE” issue but was also to essentially put all courts on a check mate by my
23 appeal in which I represented myself successfully on 19 July2006, in both cases. After all, if
24 “Australian Citizenship” is constitutionally not within the Commonwealth legislative powers
25 then no alleged official can hear and determine any court litigation, etc, where “Australian
26 Citizenship-“ is a legal requirement to be commissioned/appointed. Well, as I did unchallenged
27 succeeded in this it effectively shut down the entire legal system and so all and any courts in the
28 Commonwealth of Australia. None, and I repeat none of the courts had any validity. While for
29 example the Victoria Police swindled Carl Williams to plea guilty and was sentence for this, in
30 reality the court lacked jurisdiction. Also the purported Orders against the late George Williams
31 have no legal validity and all and any monies would be returned to the estate plus any additional
32 cost and compensation to Dhakota Williams, his gr4anddaughter.
33 When the “covid scam” commenced I did complain to the Victorian Ombudsman, the Victorian
34 Human Rights Commissioner in April 2020 but well aware that as usual they will ignore it all.
35 And IBAC on 19 April 2020 responded it was not an issue of “public interest”. Well mass
36 murdering Victorian to me is of “public interest”.
37 Here we had the High Court of Australia handing down all kind of decisions regarding
38 “Australian citizenship” including that for example Barnaby Joyce was not validly a Member of
39 Parliament, while the High Court of Australia blatantly ignored to first deal with my legal
40 challenge since 4 December 2002 as to that “Australia Citizenship” was not within the powers of
41 the Commonwealth to declare to be a nationality, etc. One I made a constitutionally based legal
42 challenge to the validity of the purported Australian Citizenship Act 2007 then it became
43 ULTRA VIRES Ab initio and not even the High Court of Australia could hear and determine
44 the issue due to implied bias as it would have to declare their own judges to be validly
45 commissioned as judges. And with the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council then there is no
46 authority left to hear and determine the matter at all. While the Commonwealth purportedly
47 legislated the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, reality is that as I already challenged since 2002
48 the lack of legislative powers of the Commonwealth to legislate in that regard it had no legal
49 powers to pretend to legislate again.
50 If therefore we had and still do not have any valid courts then all purported judgments such as
51 against protesters (Re covid scam) would be without legal powers.
Page 11
1 There is a lot more to it all as I over the decades certainly didn’t waste my time to research
2 matters.
3 From time to time I raise certain critical issues but know that the system is to blatantly ignore the
4 rule of law. I am given the understanding that lawyers simply are making deals before hearings
5 which party is to lose the case and which to succeed and then the judge merely use the hearing to
6 try to get some details he can use out of context to seek to validate the already planned decision.
7
8 Lawyers are generally ongoing swindling the legal processes and Nicola Gobbo (former Carl
9 Williams lawyers who he outed as being a police informer) in my view was merely one who got
10 caught. More than 3 decades ago I was walking in Bourke Street when I noticed workers
11 stacking up boxes for documents to be destructed. I noticed they were legal documents,
12 including law reports and so asked if I could have some of the boxes. I was given the
13 understanding I could take whatever I wanted. So, I took some boxes and well they were too
14 have to carry it all, I would walk with one box a distance and then go back for the next box, etc.
15 In the end I made it to Spencer Street Station (as it was known as such) and used all kinds of
16 lockers to store the documents/law reports. Then I went out buying old suitcases and then filled
17 them up with the documents/law reports. And using public transport to take it all home. There
18 were files about gold deposits, etc, but I wasn’t interested in that. I came across numerous files
19 such as where the instructing lawyer advised the Barrister to seek an adjournment on the basis
20 the father was accused of sexual abuse but to be careful because an investigation already had
21 cleared the father. My interest was purely to discover how lawyers being OFFICERS OF THE
22 COURT were violating their duties and obligations and perverting/undermining the
23 Administration of Justice to suit themselves. This is also how I learned what I consider to be the
24 corruption involving judges and other judicial officers. In the end my children decided to burn all
25 the files in the open fire as they had already served their purposes to gain an insight how rotten
26 and corrupt the legal system operated. Lawyers merely fabricating purported Authorities that
27 never existed merely so the judge will use that to defeat their opposing parties and lawyers
28 simply purportedly quoting an Authority but in fact substituting certain words, as I exposed
29 regarding Mr Peter Hanks QC when I compared the transcript with what actually the Judgement
30 he purportedly quoted was actually stating. Therefore, I knew too well before the 2001 federal
31 election that I had to be prepared and use every legal angle to boost my case and to expose
32 opponents.
33
34 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
35 Communication, or there lack thereof, by CDPP (Prosecutor)
36
37 In May and June 2006 the Defendant provided the Commonwealth Director of Public
38 Prosecutions with correspondences which included most of the submissions the Defendant
39 intended to make to the Court, including for a “PERMANENT STAY” of orders, and also
40 about religious objection, seeking the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to
41 consent to a “PERMANENT STAY” of the proceedings relating to the charges. However,
42 having done so, the Defendant then is faced with the Commonwealth Director of Public
43 Prosecutions being for warned as to what the Defendant intends to do in most issues and as
44 such may seek to counteract those arguments. It is not the counter argument itself that the
45 Defendant is worried about, but the deceptive conduct employed in the past by the lawyers
46 acting for the Australian Electoral Commission in their litigation to the extend as to
47 deliberately replace words in what is claimed to be an Authority being quoted as to pretend to
48 the Court that a judge made a certain ruling even so the ruling is a fraudulent version to
49 deceive the Court. Such as Mr Peter Hanks QC did before the Federal Court of Australia and
50 later again made a deceptive statement to the High Court of Australia.
51
Page 12
1 For example, checking the transcript of the hearing, it is noted that Mr Peter Hanks QC in his
2 argument in point 22 and 22.1 of the OUTLINE stated the following;
3
4 QUOTE
5 22 In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred
6 to the general rule that “not less than” so many days refers to clear days – “unless the
7 context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention”.
8 END QUOTE
9 His quotation is again false and misleading!
10
11 Mr Peter Hanks QC quoted of the judgment the following;
12 QUOTE
13 “unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention”
14 END QUOTE
15 This ought to be;
16 QUOTE
17 “unless the context or the subject matter reveals a contrary intention”
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Clearly, that is a gross deception. In legal terms there can be a significant difference in a case
21 for the Court to deal with a “statutory intention” versus “subject matter”.
22
23 Mr Peter Hanks QC stated to the Court (7 November 2001);
24
25 The researches of counsel have been unable to find provisions using simular language (“not
26 less that” or “at least” a number of days) where the language is as clear and specific as
27 found in ss156(1) and 157.
28
29 Thousands upon thousands of Internet references can be found upon a search “shall not be
30 less than” or “shall not be less that”. As such this statement by Mr. Peter Hanks QC for the
31 Australian Electoral Commission was a fraudulent statement. Likewise other statement were
32 found by the defendant to be deceptive and/or misleading.
33
34 We also have the fact that Counsel Mr peter Hanks QC argued the authority of the
35
36 ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD
37 (1950) 81 CLR 161
38
39 What counsel did however was to make a false and misleading presentation of what the case
40 really was on about.
41 As the authority stated:
42
43 The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which
44 was too short by one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position.
45
46 Mr Peter Hank QC didn’t argue that the authority wasn’t relevant, to the contrary he argued
47 its relevance only by misrepresenting how it applied and what the authority really was on
48 about. As such, it had nothing to do with “within” as Mr Peter Hanks QC argued as clearly the
49 usage “within” was in a different context and not at all as Mr Hanks sought to imply and did
50 imply.
51
Page 13
1 It ought to be considered a serious matter that a barrister employs these kind of tactics, indeed
2 deceptive tactics, but it seems the Australian Electoral Commissioner does not seem to worry
3 about the means as long as it achieves his end results.
4 Because I expect the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to come up with any
5 nonsense and unable to verify the correctness of any claims they may make about any
6 AUTHORITY they may refer to I am left no alternative but to present my own research.
7 Lawyers are “OFFICERS OF THE COURT” but I experienced that when it comes to the
8 Australian Electoral Commissioner being the instructing party then it seems to me from
9 experiences their “oath of alliance” is worthless and they cannot be trusted, as set out also
10 further in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT.
11
12 It is my view, that had Mr Peter Hanks QC not concealed matters and not presented
13 fraudulent Authorities and how they applied then the Federal Court of Australia would not
14 have ruled that it had no legal jurisdiction, and would in fact have granted the orders I sought.
15 And in the end this case would never have eventuated before this Court as then matters could
16 have been addressed appropriately before any federal election had been held!
17 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
18
19 Reality is that the Victorian Police itself was in my view undermining the Administration of
20 Justice by enlisting a lawyer like Nicola Gobbo to disclose confidential details that Carl
21 Williams and others may have revealed to her.
22 Actually so was the ATO as in 2017 I alerted them that “avert” they were using against the late
23 George Williams was unconstitutional in view of the 4 August 2005 decision I had obtained by
24 the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg in regard of AEC v Schorel-Hlavka. The Court
25 therefore not only lacked jurisdiction but was in my view swindled by the ATO, etc.
26 Some may say that I am more like a porcupine, too dangerous to have a dispute with.
27 In 1994 I made clear that a court cannot operate without a judge as registrars are no OFFICERS
28 OF THE COURT and bound to be supervised by a judge. And not long thereafter in WA they
29 discovered that they didn’t have a supervising judge. Actually, the same applied to the purported
30 (former Perin) Infringement Court! I complained that my grandson Dion Schorel was kidnapped
31 and I maintain this, after all without any valid court existing no order can be held to be valid. So
32 much more but the above is plenty to consider and rectification may even reduce the death of
33 those otherwise committing suicide!
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)
40 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

41 (Our name is our motto!)

20231225-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police MR Shane Patton - COMPLAINT-Supplement 1

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

20231225-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police MR Shane Patton - COMPLAINT-Supplement 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

25-12-2023 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-12-2023 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-12-2023 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

41 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

40 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like