20240205-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Julie Inman-Grant, Office of The ESafety Commissioner-Supplement 02

Page 1
1
2
3 Julie Inman-Grant, 5-2-2024
4 Office of the eSafety Commissioner
5 enquiries@esafety.gov.au
6 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
7
8 Re: 20240205-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Julie Inman-Grant, Office of the eSafety
9 Commissioner-Supplement 02
10 Madam,
11 What the rule of law is really is often misunderstood and then we all got all kinds of
12 people putting their 2 cents worth in regardless if they may be totally wrong.
13
14 Let us use the following as an example:
15
16 https://neoskosmos.com/en/2020/08/26/dialogue/parliament-an-instrument-that-ensures-the-
17 ultimate-safety-of-citizens/
18 Emergency powers enacted by the Victorian government have made the Chief Health Officer the
19 most powerful person in the state
20 QUOTE
21 Fotis Kapetopoulos
22 26 August 2020 1:15pm
23 FacebookTwitter: @NeosKosmosInstagram
24 Victoria’s Premier Daniel Andrews wants parliament to agree on a 12-month extension of
25 the state’s emergency powers. This is unlikely to pass the Legislative Council.
26 These powers have made the Victorian Chief Health Officer (CHO) Brett Sutton the
27 most powerful person in the state. Necessary at a time of pandemic.
28 Mr Sutton has the extraordinary power to stop parliament from sitting. He has the
29 power to limit citizens’ movements and to detain them in their homes, all without any
30 parliamentary scrutiny.
31 END QUOTE
32 And
33 QUOTE
34 Fotis Kapetopoulos was English editor of Neos Kosmos between 2007 and 2010 and was
35 also the Multicultural Media and Assistant Policy Adviser to former Premier Ted Bailleu.
36 He is now a senior contributor to Neos Kosmsos
37 END QUOTE
38
39 First of all we have to understand that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
40 (UK) provides for “ ” which means that nobody can interfere with the other body established
41 under the constitution. Because the States within Section 16 are created “subject to this
42 constitution” this means the same applies to the States.
43
5-2-2024 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 Then CHO Brett Sutton made known that politicians and the judiciary are not subject to the
2 mandates. What he did by this admit was that there were mandates, albeit as I have repeatedly
3 stated they were unconstitutional. This was not however that Brett Sutton had some legal
4 authority to exclude politicians and the judiciary from any mandates even if hypothetically he
5 had legal powers regarding mandates, which I made clear time and time again he never had, but
6 because he as an administrators cannot interfere with the judiciary or the legislators in any event.
7 The State Parliament is “sovereign” in its own rights, which means the Parliament cannot
8 legislate as to the Parliament itself and neither can it suspend any sittings, this because the
9 Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council are the onces
10 who ultimately are so to say ruling the roost as to whatever eventuate within the precint of the
11 State Parliament.
12 For example, if a person is chased by the police and run into the Parliament then the police must
13 refrain from entering the Parliament unless it has obtained permission from the
14 Speaker/President to enter and to arrest the person. The same applies to the courts. If a person
15 being chased by the police enters to precintts of a court then the police cannot continue the chase
16 but must first obtrain permission from the Chief Justice to do so. This is because both are
17 “soverign” bodies in their own rights.
18 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) does not permit some person to
19 have a police force as an army in his/her own right. While at the time Brett Sutton was allegedly
20 wielding his (unconstitutional) mandates and using members of the police force as his own
21 private army, this was in my view unconstitutional.
22
23 114 States may not raise forces. Taxation of property of
24 Commonwealth or State
25 A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the
26 Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or
27 impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the
28 Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on
29 property of any kind belonging to a State.
30
31 What we had now was that the Victorian Police were using weapons such as firing rubber bullets
32 upon parents holding their small children in their arms when exercising their constitutional
33 powers to protest (political liberty) and what was clear was that while Brett Sutton as CHO
34 (albeit if he exercised legitimate powers which I view he did not) then he could have engaged the
35 members of the Victorian Police as to assist but without any weapons, etc. Actually, without any
36 use of police powers.
37 Even if Brett Sutton had valid mandate powers, which I do not seek to imply he had neither
38 concede this to have been existing, then nevertheless any mandates never could have affected the
39 Parliament or the judiciary, due to the separation of powers.
40 Therefore the part quoted below in its entirely utter and sheer nonsense.
41
42 QUOTE
43 These powers have made the Victorian Chief Health Officer (CHO) Brett Sutton the
44 most powerful person in the state. Necessary at a time of pandemic.
45 Mr Sutton has the extraordinary power to stop parliament from sitting. He has the
46 power to limit citizens’ movements and to detain them in their homes, all without any
47 parliamentary scrutiny.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 We have the judiciary which ultimately decide if a person shall be denied his/her constitutional,
51 legal, human, natural and/or common law rights. There is no such thing as to have some person
52 like Brett Sutton to be a dictater in his own rights.
Page 3
1
2 When there was this alleged 5 km limit to travel in 2020 and the Victoria Police then asked me
3 how far I was from my residence I responjded about 8.5km. While they indicated they would
4 issue a summons, as I neither wore a mask, in the end they never did, perhaps because I
5 responded “I’m ready”.
6
7 At no time did I throughout the years wore a mask!!!!!! Neither had this “gene therapy”
8 DEPOPULATION bioweapon jab! And neither fell ill!
9
10 Obviously, what was the eSafety Commissioner doing to stop this false and misleading
11 advertising, etc, by the State of Victoria and others about the mandates, etc? Or is the eSafety
12 Commissioner really in the pocket of the foreign (enemy) powers and not at all interested about
13 eSafety at all but rather using this as some excuse to infact seek to pursue unsafe conditions such
14 as the unlawful purported “covid-19 vaccines” which really were “gene therapy”
15 DEPOPULATION bioweapons jabs?
16
17 Let us have a look at what is reported about the USA:
18
19 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/02/free-speech-showdown-gateway-pundit-states-
20 missouri-louisiana/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=the-gateway-
21 pundit&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=2024-02-03
22 FREE SPEECH SHOWDOWN: Gateway Pundit, States of Missouri & Louisiana, Fellow
23 Plaintiffs, File Brief Today in MO v. Biden with Supreme Court, “Most Important Free
24 Speech Case in a Generation”
25 By Benjamin Wetmore Feb. 2, 2024 12:40 pm
26 QUOTE
27 At issue in the case is fundamentally whether the government, via the FBI and Intelligence
28 Community, can demand that social media companies delete specific comments, topics,
29 and people, from their platforms.
30 It has repeatedly emerged that the government was not just interested in
31 suppressing false information, but was also actively suppressing what they knew
32 was truthful information.
33 The claim that this case is about ‘combatting misinformation’ or ‘stopping the spread of
34 disinformation’ is false. This case involves the ability of the government to control the
35 existence and flow of what they knew was truthful information.
36 What the legal discovery process has revealed in this case is that the federal
37 government in the wake of the COVID plandemic set up a free-speech-suppression
38 industrial complex. Not only could the White House, FBI, and literally dozens of other
39 federal officials and agencies complain about one supposed bit of so-called
40 ‘disinformation’ on a social media platform, but they had, instead, set up an automated
41 system to suppress the thoughts, words, arguments, expressions, comments, of millions of
42 Americans. The discovery process has revealed a massive speech suppression system.
43 Multiple outlets have correctly noted that this case represents the most important free
44 speech court case in a generation. They note that if the government has the right to
45 suppress entire topics from online discourse, then what won’t the government be able
46 to do when suppressing news and views of those the elites in power dislike?
47 The opening paragraph of the Respondents’ brief identifies the stakes at issue in this case:
48 This Court “has rarely,” if ever, “faced … a coordinated campaign of this magnitude
49 orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.”
50 J.A.70-71. The federal Petitioners (“Defendants”) “have engaged in a broad pressure
51 campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers,
Page 4
1 viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government.” J.A.82. “The harms that radiate
2 from such conduct extend far beyond just the Plaintiffs,” and they “impact[] every social-
3 media user.” J.A.82. Defendants’ conduct fundamentally transforms online discourse
4 and renders entire viewpoints on great social and political questions
5 virtually unspeakable on social media, “the modern public square.”
6 The federal government set up a wide array of “disinformation offices” in many
7 federal departments in order to prosecute these petty speech suppressions. These
8 offices were the ones tasked with watching social media platforms to demand that
9 individual users and comments and topics be suppressed. The Biden
10 Administration has designated thoughts and ideas as part of the nation’s ‘critical
11 infrastructure’ allowing this censorship regime to grow.
12 These speech suppressions were not on obscure topics or lightly used, the government
13 deleted, deplatformed, suppressed, and banned major current political topics, went after
14 both prominent and obscure individuals, and were working hand-in-hand with third
15 party left-wing non-profits and activist groups.
16 In just one request for takedowns, the FBI demanded Twitter delete 929,000 tweets they
17 claimed were ‘foreign’ speech they disliked.
18 In another instance, the FBI demanded the deletion of a pro-Second Amendment post
19 ‘liked’ by nearly 100,000 users on Facebook.
20 END QUOTE
21 And
22 QUOTE
23 The government tried to create a ‘real-time’ monitoring and flagging of content it disliked
24 which,
25
26 The primary topics of government concern for suppression were: COVID, Vaccines,
27 Election Integrity. The brief notes that the censorship regime has now expanded its
28 topic list to include: climate change, gender discussions, abortion, economic policy,
29 the origins of the COVID plandemic, the efficacy of vaccines, racial justice, the
30 withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the support of the United States for Ukraine in the
31 Ukrainian-Russian war.
32 Facebook and Twitter even gently pushed back on the government’s demands, only to be
33 threatened, told they were “killing people” and “spreading poison” and a variety of veiled
34 threats used to enforce compliance. At other points, government agents threatened to use
35 anti-trust enforcement against the social media companies unless they complied.
36 Eventually the social media companies engaged in what the brief describes as “total
37 compliance” with the federal government.
38 In their communications, White House officials repeatedly stressed that they were “on the
39 same team” as the people they were communicating with at the social media companies.
40 One prominent example of the type of speech suppression involved the White House
41 demanding Twitter delete a post by noted vaccine skeptic and Presidential candidate RFK,
42 Jr.:
43 At 1:04 a.m. on January 23, 2021, the White House flagged an anti-vaccine tweet by
44 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (“RFK Jr.”) and instructed Twitter to “get moving on the process
45 for having it removed ASAP.” J.A.637. “And then,” the White House added, “if we can
46 keep an eye out for tweets that fall in this same ~genre that would be great.”
47 The dishonest mainstream media has falsely portrayed this case as representing the
48 government’s ‘ability to communicate’ with social media companies. The reporting very
49 plainly avoids mentioning the 1) coercion and demands by the government, 2) that it was
50 seeking to suppress truthful information, 3) the scale and scope of the content suppressed.
51 Reuters avoids the coercive language used by the Administration: “”

Page 5
1 New York Times avoids the fact the White House was demanding truthful information be
2 suppressed: “”
3 Bloomberg dishonestly avoided the coercive aspects of the case and said that the case was
4 about “pushing social media companies to moderate content on their websites.”
5 MSNBC opined and lied by saying the case was about “Biden administration must cease
6 contacting social media companies” about “misinformation.”
7 END QUOTE
8
9 It should be understood that it never was about preventing “misinformatiopn” or even
10 “disinformation” but rather to prevent as much as possible any publication of real FACTS that
11 may be considered against the governments and pharmaceutical mantra.
12
13 In my view a similar deceptive and unconstitutional system was operating within the
14 Commonwealth of Australia.
15
16 Let us understand that ultimately the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
17 is the principle law of the Commonwealth and so also of the States/Territories. Any business that
18 desire to operate within the Commonwealth of Australia must operate within the legal principles
19 embedded in this constitution. If a business doesn’t like to do so then well they can pack their
20 bags and leave.
21
22 Meaning that Big Tech companies are bound also by the constitution!
23
24 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
25 Australasian Convention)
26 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
27 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
28 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
29 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
30 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
31 embrace and unite.
32 END QUOTE
33 And
34 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
35 QUOTE
36 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
37 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
38 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
39 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
40 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
41 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
42 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 There are Big Tech companies that claim that they have their own (community) standards, which
46 often are vague and aloof, but they cannot use those standards to prevent a person like myself to
47 publish my material merely because some idiot in government may not like my writings. The
48 Big Tech company therefore cannot deny me to publish material unless it actually violates
49 criminal law provisions. Failing that the Big Tech Company would be offending my
50 constitutional rights as an Australian.
51

Page 6
1
2
3 This shows that all documents I uploaded since 30 December 2023 have been shadow banned by
4 Scribd.
5
6 The eSafety Commissioner therefore must now hold Scribd accountable as to upon what legal
7 basis it “shadow banned” numerous documents. It did likewise so since about Augusat 2023 on
8 many documents. After all, where my documents are revealing safety issues then it is critical that
9 other Australians have access to my published documents.
10
11 Further, where those documents also are an exercise of my “political liberty” then again the
12 “shadow banning” is unconstitutional.
13
14 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/daniel-shepherd-pericarditis-pfizer-covid-vaccine-
15 injury/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=202402
16 01
17 Australian Man Injured by Pfizer Vaccine Wins ‘Landmark’ Claim Against Employer
18 QUOTE
19 But Judge Mark Calligeros, deputy president of the South Australia Employment
20 Tribunal, disagreed. “It would be astonishing if parliament intended that an
21 employee of the state, injured adhering to an EM (Emergency Management) Act
22 direction, was to be precluded from receiving workers compensation.”
23 “I am not satisfied that parliament intended to deny compensation to employees of
24 the state injured by heeding a vaccination mandate designed to protect the health and
25 welfare of citizens,” he said in the ruling.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 While the judge appeared to rely upon the “EM (Emergency Management) Act” in my view
29 this pourported Act had absoluterly no legal basis when it came to enforcement of any purported
30 mandates.
31
32 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
33 Convention)
34 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-

Page 7
1 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
2 clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
3 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 While the High Court of Australia appeared to me to conceal the true application of the legal
7 principles embedded in the constitution in Palmer v WA the fact that mandates were relation to
8 “QUARANTINE” issues of a “man-kind” infectious disease that fell since 1908 in the exclusive
9 legislative powers of the Commonwealth then no purported State legislation can override the
10 legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
11 I personally experienced on 10 August 2020 that Officework, Coles, Bunnings were preventing
12 me to enter due to the purported mandates and well time for legal accountability, I have no doubt
13 will still come. Never again should we accept in any shape or form that some corporation can
14 demand “self-harm” to be able to enter the business. Not even Qantas!
15
16 Obviously, what needs to be attended to what was your personal involvement to prevent
17 publications of posts, etc, to eventuate? What was the involvement of ACMA? And I understood
18 that the current Governor for Queensland was at the time the CHO/CMO of Queensland
19 requesting Big Tech companies to prevent publications of those who challenged in any way the
20 mantra of the government.
21
22 QUOTE 20210806-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian
23 Federal Police-COMPLAINT(2)
24 https://www.9news.com.au/national/coronavirus-anti-vaxxers-targeted-special-team-detectives-fears-could-target-
25 vaccine-hubs/fad28908-9340-4d0e-80f7-f5e21d61f0e7
26 Coronavirus: Anti vaxxers targeted by special team of detectives amid fears they could target
27 vaccine hubs (9news.com.au)
28 Fears vaccine hubs could be 'targeted' as online chatter spikes
29 QUOTE
30 A special team of AFP detectives has been appointed by the Federal Government to
31 watch the online interactions of the anti-vaccination "movement".
32 END QUOTE
33
34 My concern is also that the Federal Government is aiding and abetting with the States as to
35 succeed in this to install a NEW WORLD ORDER, violating our constitutional rights, by
36 providing funding for the unconstitutional lockdowns or any state/territory.
37
38 Hansard 23-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
40 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
41 We ought to leave it open to this extent, that while we agree upon essentials, and express ourselves fully
42 and freely upon all our views, still, so far as our views are not negatived by any principle here laid down,
43 their embodiment in any resolution may stand over for Select Committee and afterwards [start page 20] for
44 Committee of the whole House, when they may be debated with the freest publicity and fullest
45 freedom. I believe we shall by this process best arrive at conclusions; not that, as many of us would like.
46 we shall be able to drive our own particular views to an issue at once, but we shall discuss all these matters,
47 both constitutionally and otherwise, and then we may arrive at views which, though contrary to our
48 present opinions, shall essentially represent the views of those who sent us here to deal with the
49 problems we have to discuss.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 The legal principle of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is that We,
53 the People, elect our representatives to act on our behalf laws and governance for “peace, order
54 and good” governance. A NEW WORLD ORDER that would take over those legal principles

Page 8
1 would be akin to treason by those who are promoting and/or aiding and abetting in this regard to
2 apply/install the NEW WORLD ORDER.
3 Mr Brad Hazzard purported NSW Minister for health is recorded at least on 2 videos making
4 known he is using the NEW WORLD ORDER. In my view, this disqualifies him from being a
5 Member of any Australian Parliament as provided for in Section 44 of the constitution to which
6 the States within Section 106 are “subject to this constitution”. Likewise, any other purported
7 Member of any Australian Parliament who is aiding and abetting in this TREASONOUS
8 conduct.
9 END QUOTE 20210806-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the
10 Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT(2)
11
12 Video “The WHO Pandemic Treaty will change EVERYTHING _ _layton Morris”
13 QUOTE
14
15 END QUOTE
16 And
17 QUOTE
18
19 END QUOTE
20
21 The more any person/organisation seeks to prevent to have the truth exposed the more I will
22 pursue legal accountability. It actually makes not one of iota difference if the person has left a
23 job as it will not be some excuse to avoid legal accountability.
24
25 Too many have become victims, and too many died, and all Australians have an obligation to
26 pursue JUSTICE for them!
27
28 I require you to provide me with detailed information as to who were/are involved in the
29 unconstitutional suppression of postings, and what, if anything, you did to address this issues as
Page 9
1 to ensure that those weho had to make an “informed decision” were not denied doing so by the
2 concealment of relevant information due to governments and their collaborators and Big
3 tech/media conduct? In particular also about Scribd and its shadow banning?
4
5 Video: “This is the dangerous AI that got Sam Altman fire_ya Sutskever”
6 QUOTE
7
8 END QUOTE
9 And
10 QUOTE Midle image is not original - for comparison only
11
12 END QUOTE Midle image is not original - for comparison only
13
14 These are AI (Artificial Intelligence) images of models albeit you can see they are AI because
15 the hair is about the same way despite that the model, in one wears bathers and the other a dress.
16 In my view no woman would ordinary have the hair in the same way when moving about
17 changing clothing.
18
19 Video: “Will Scott Morrison sell Australian government se_his new jobs_”
20 QUOTE
21
22 END QUOTE
Page 10
1 And
2 QUOTE
3
4 END QUOTE
5 And
6 QUOTE
7
8 END QUOTE
9 And
10 QUOTE
11
12 END QUOTE

Page 11
1
2 We seem to have an eSafety Commissioner who I understand is more interested to betray our
3 constitutional rights, etc, such as working/cooperating with the W.E.F., while the real offenders
4 such as Scott Morrison can betray NATIONAL SECURITY, etc. And let us not ignore
5 Anthony Albanese (Travelling Pete)!
6
7 Video: “Bombshell Congressional Report Outlines Structure_rial Complex’-James O'Keefe”
8 QUOTE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 12
1
2 END QUOTE
3
4 As I understand it various Big Tech companies have investment in pharmaceutical companies
5 and this might have been the real reasons why they were clamping down on those exposing the
6 truth. After all, it reportedly was documented that woman did can, infertility , etc, has been
7 scientifically established to result form the jabs. Where then was the eSafety Commissioner to
8 address this issue, rather then to do the dirty work for W.E.F. and others? As mfor vaccines
9 causing AUTISM I understand scientific evidence proved this already!
10
12 QUOTE
13
Page 13
1
2 END QUOTE
3 IMPORTANT
4
5
6
7 This means that the eSafety Commissioner, ACMA and Big Tech cannot go about in a unilateral
8 manner determining what is an ‘opinion’, etc, but only can do so placing the matter before a
9 court of competent jurisdiction.
10 It is very clear that regardless if an opinion is posted on the internet it is not for the eSafety
11 Commissioner to be judge, jury and executor, and this merely because he/she works for the
12 W.E.F., U.N., WHO, government or other person/body.
13
15 QUOTE
16
17
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6 END QUOTE
Page 16
1
2 From the above quoted it must be clear that a person posting his opinion/view/understanding
3 cannot be regarded as misinformation/disinformation merely because someone else may not
4 agree with what was posted. In particular where it relates to “political liberty” and “religious
5 liberty” one may or may not agree with a person expressing his/her opinion/view/understanding
6 but he/she is entitled upon them, as much as the person is to disagree with it.
7 For legal purposes you cannot deny a person posting his/her opinion/view/understanding merely
8 because it goes against the mantra of the government, U.N., WHO, W.E.F., etc. It is only when
9 one seeks to enforce ones opinion, view, understanding upon others that others have to comply
10 with such opinion, view, understanding then it becomes a different issue all together.
11
12 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
14 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
15 "religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious
16 tests hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world."
17 END QUOTE
18
19 HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
20 QUOTE Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-
21 If under a Constitution in which no such words as these appear such legislation has
22 been carried, what further danger will arise from inserting the words in our
23 Constitution? I do not see, speaking in ordinary language, how the insertion of such
24 words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is necessarily a Christian
25 country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of Almighty
26 God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also
27 by Jews, Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and are
28 not necessarily applicable only to Christians.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 It therefore should be clear that Aboriginals may have their (religious) beliefs about “traditional
32 custodians” but they cannot force it upon others and purport to m ean “traqditional owners”.
33 They can have their alleged man-crocodile and again cannont force it upon others. They can
34 have their ‘singing whales’ and again cannot force it upon others. Yet, we find that in violation
35 of s116 somehow the Commonwealth and the Courts are now enforcing some “beliefs” upon
36 other Australians. Worse, Scribd in the process as “shadown banning” my articles relating to
37 the then Voice proposed referendum, being it using AI or whatever, as such prohiting my
38 constitutional rights of “political liberty” and “religious liberty”.
39 Where then is the eSafety Commission and/or ACMA and/or others to stop the BigTech
40 companies from this unconstitutional interference and denial of constitutional rights?
41
42 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
43
44 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
45 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
46 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

47 (Our name is our motto!)


20240205-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Julie Inman-Grant, Office of The ESafety Commissioner-Supplement 02

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

20240205-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Julie Inman-Grant, Office of The ESafety Commissioner-Supplement 02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

5-2-2024 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5-2-2024 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5-2-2024 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5-2-2024 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5-2-2024 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5-2-2024 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

46 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

5-2-2024 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like