202403029-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Jacinta Allan Premier

Page 1
1
2
3 Jacinta Allan, Premier (Australia, Victoria date) 29-3-2024
4 jacinta.allan@parliament.vic.gov.au
5
6 Re: 20240329-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Jacinta Allan
7 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
8 COMPLAINT
9 Madam,
10 it is regrettable that we have “representatives” elected to a parliament who I view in
11 general either do not know the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in
12 the constitution or simply couldn’t care less about it.
13
14 It appears to me you do not have a clue what a government is about, and I will attempt to educate
15 you in this.
16
17 We often hear (first) Ministers (Premier/prime Ministers) claiming they are to govern for all
18 while in reality are simply pursuing their own political aspirations no matter how
19 unconstitutional it might be. Electoral commissions are much at fault because they allow
20 unconstitutionally politicians to claim that they should vote for them to be (first) Minister
21 (Premier/prime Minister) this even so electors cannot do so as in the Commonwealth the
22 Governor-General decide who he shall commission to be (prime) Minister regardless if the
23 person is or is not a Member of Parliament (subject to S64 of the constitution) and in a State the
24 Governor does so.
25 The Governor-General/Governor then also commission other persons to be Ministers each then
26 are responsible for the portfolios they have been commissio0ned for. No such thing as a (prime)
27 Minister/Premier to dictate a Minister what he/she can or cannot do regarding a portfolio. As for
28 a “cabinet” that is no more but a meeting between Ministers to discuss certain issues but no
29 “cabinet” has the power to overrule or otherwise interfere with the relevant Ministers decision
30 powers. A premier is the Minister for the Office of the premier and cabinet but cannot interfere
31 with the powers of the relevant Ministers regarding another portfolio.
32
33 In my view when you became Premier your first task was to ensure that all purported
34 unconstitutional legislation and enforcement was appropriately taken care off. However it
35 appears to me you lack the competence to be a Premier.
36 After all, as the Framers of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within
37 which in Section 106 the States were created “subject to this constitution” made very clear that
38 Ministers are to be “constitutional advisers”. Meaning that any talking head being a Minister
39 should shut his trap and first show that he/she is a competent constitutional adviser and not some
40 braindead politician.
41
42 For example when you became Premier you should have immediately requested the State
43 Attorney-General to ensure that any litigation against electors for allegedly to vote is abandoned
44 as it violates their constitutional rights that they cannot be forced to vote in any political election.
45
29-3-2024 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 Reportedly former Premier Daniel Andrews had 96 advisers and I understand many were being
2 paid about $1 million or even more, and yet he seems to make his own fantasy world decisions.
3 Waiting a lot of taxpayers monies in the process. Yet, since you became Premier it appears to me
4 little has changed. And do not think for a moment that I seek to pick out Labor as while I view
5 the same applies to Anthony Albanese “Travelling Pete”; the same applies to leaders of the
6 Opposition, Scott Morrison John Howard, etc. Actually we can go back to 1904 with the High
7 Court of Australia judges unconstitutionally prohibiting the usage of the Hansard Constitutional
8 Convention Debates and politicians then in power, regardless to which political party they were
9 associated with. It is because of the High Court of Australia prohibiting then the usage of the
10 Hansard that things went down the slope into the gutter.
11 The Framers of the Constitution were well aware of this danger and for this specifically provided
12 that ordinary Australians could take on any unconstitutional legislation not having to depend
13 upon some Attorney-General accepting to do so. But when I write to basically tone deaf
14 politicians they generally ignore it when it doesn’t suit their goals.
15 I decided decades ago I would pursue matter my own way, using the constitution and so the \true
16 meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution, well aware this
17 could take decades to achieve to restore our constitutional system.
18
19 The issue is what is your position as a Premier in this all?
20 Councils were recognised by the Framers of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
21 1900 (UK) to be “corporations” and in Sydney Municipal v Commonwealth 1904 the High
22 Court of Australia held that councils are a corporation and cannot legislate, however can exercise
23 “delegated” “State land taxation” where the State legislated for this. However, on 11 November
24 1910 the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to land taxation and that means the States no
25 longer had “concurrent” legislative powers as to “land taxation” and by this neither could
26 councils then have any “delegated” land taxation powers referred to as “council rates”.
27 Because, albeit unconstitutional, the High Court of Australia denied litigants to rely upon the
28 Hansard records of the constitution convention Debates it resulted that not uncommon the High
29 Court of Australia handed down decisions that were in violation to the legal principles embedded
30 in the constitution. The States decided that the “concurrent” legislative powers somehow was
31 always applicable, at least so it appears to me, albeit this was wrong!
32
33
Page 3
1
2 Meaning that the State of Victoria (and any other state for that) lacked legislative powers for
3 land taxation. This means that the State of Victoria couldn’t delegate land taxation to ‘councils”
4 where it had no legislative powers in the first place regarding land taxation. As the Framers of
5 the Constitution made very clear that any unconstitutional tax has to be refunded! Remember, the
6 States were created in Section 106 of this constitution “subject to this constitution”?
7
8 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
9 Convention)
10 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
11 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
12 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 Despite of that the Commonwealth on 11 November 1910 commenced to legislate as to “land
16 taxation” the State of Victoria then did albeit unconstitutionally the same subsequently on 26
17 December 1910.
18
19 Once I was sitting in the public gallery when the trial judge addressed me that he wanted me to
20 leave as I would use whatever he stated in that case in another case. My response was; “Not if
21 you do not use DOUBLE STANDARDS. This judge had past experiences where I had quoted
22 him in a later case, but he couldn’t force me to leave and I didn’t.
23 I know however that at least in my view far too often judges fails to act as to their oath of office
24 and will try to railroad a case on flimsy or non-existing grounds generally well aware that a party
25 may not be able to fend for himself/herself to pursue an expensive appeal.
26 So my strategy was to see if I could get some government authority to wrongly pursue me in
27 litigation and then so to say turn the tables on them. With voting I came to understand that one
28 couldn’t trust an electoral commission, which so to say was bending backwards to accommodate
29 political parties no matter how wrong in law or even unconstitutional. I therefore decided to in
30 my way to challenge the Australian Electoral Commission without letting them know I did so.
31 I was an INDEPENDENT candidate in 2001 in the federal election of Jagajaga may recall my
32 card:
33
34 Again:
35
Page 4
1
2
3 I had no doubt that the Australian Electoral Commission more than likely would charge me with
4 FAILING TO VOTE so that upon any conviction it then could pursue me for making false and
5 misleading statements that could have deceived electors, etc.
6 Well, the AEC in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka did precisely this to charge me with FAILING TO
7 VOTE. And Well I then filed a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS (also served
8 upon all 9 Attorney-Generals) challenging various issues on constitutional grounds. Counsel for
9 the Commonwealth gave me the understanding that no one had ever before made those
10 challenged on constitutional grounds! The court or5dered the matter to be heard and determined
11 by the High Court of Australia, however now more than 21 years later since this 4 December
12 2002 order the High Court of Australia has not done so and I expect it never will because of the
13 implied bias of all judges to have to essentially declare themselves validly commissioned as
14 judges.
15 Still, the AEC charged me again in regard of the 2004 federal election for FAILING TO VOTE,
16 this even so I had already challenged the validity of the legislation and as such unless and until if
17 ever at all my original objection had been overruled (which till this day never has been) then the
18 legislation became ULTRA VIRES and still is so.
19 Then on 4 August 2005 the matter returned to the court and the magistrate then was faced that
20 Counsel for the Commonwealth submitting for “AVERMENT” I successfully opposed this also
21 referring to NSW Kable case. I understood that Counsel for the Commonwealth was making
22 false and misleading statements from the bar table, nevertheless he failed miserably.
23 When the matter then returned on 16 and 17 November 2005 it appeared that the magistrate
24 agreed that the 2001 federal election for the House of Representative was legally invalid, but
25 then the next day he somehow seemed to rule that he was not going to apply the previous orders
26 in my favour and simply convicted me on both charges. I successfully appealed this and did file
27 and serve a 409 pages written submission referred to as ADDRESS TO THE COURT and so
28 UNCHALLENGED by the Commonwealth and/or any or all of the 9 Attorney-Generals, even
29 so the issues that were stated in the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS were also
30 before the Court during the appeals. When a party or parties do not challenge an opponent then
31 this implies it/they concede the truth thereof.
32
33 I decided to see if Artificial Intelligence (AI) would know about the successful appeals and well
34 the following responses were received:
35
36 QUOTE 20240326-Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I on 19 July 2006 succeeded in both appeals
37 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+in+
38 AEC+v+Schorel-Hlavka+I+on+19+July+2006+succeeded+in+both+appeals%3F
39 Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I on 19 July 2006 succeeded in both
40 appeals?
Page 5
1
2 According to www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Questions Search Engine:
3 Yes, in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I on 19 July 2006, the defendant succeeded in both appeals.
4 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:
51. Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)

62. Legal Database
73. Court Records
8 Web Search Results
9 5 results
10
11 Comments:High Court of Australia dismisses appeal against conviction ...
12 https//en.m.wikinews.org › wiki ›
13 Comments:High_Court_of_Australia_dismisses_appeal_against_conviction,_compulsory_vot
14 ing
15 Comments:High Court of Australia dismisses appeal against conviction ...
16 The defendant claims that he has a right to disregard the will of the majority regarding
17 compulsory voting. I argue here that he does not. A holding to the ...
18
19 Submission-0506-Gerrit-Schorel-Hlavka.pdf
20 https//www.parliament.act.gov.au › __data › assets › pdf_file › 0009 › 1945197 › Submission-
21 0506-Gerrit-Schorel-Hlavka.pdf
22 Submission-0506-Gerrit-Schorel-Hlavka.pdf
23 On 19 July 2006 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka County Court of Victoria, Case numbers
24 T01567737. 12. & Q10897630 (representing myself) I succeeded in ...
25
26 20190507-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Australian Electoral ...
27 https//www.scribd.com › document › 409006849 › 20190507-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-
28 to-Australian-Electoral-Commission-Re-COMPLAINTS
30 20190507-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Australian Electoral Commission Re
31 COMPLAINTS - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) ...
32
33 ELECTORAL LITIGATION
34 https//www.aph.gov.au › parliamentary_business › committees ›
35 house_of_representatives_committees
36 ELECTORAL LITIGATION
37 Injunctions. Mr Ned Kelly's application on late candidate nomination. On 22 October. 2001,
38 Mr Ned Kelly, previously known as Mr Terry Sharples, filed an.
39
40 20200719-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Victorian Inspectorate ...
41 https//www.scribd.com › document › 469674114 › 20200719-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
42 B-to-the-Victorian-Inspectorate-Reference-11722468

Page 6
1 20200719-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Victorian Inspectorate ...

2 20200719-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to the Victorian Inspectorate-Reference #
3 11722468 - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), ...
4 END QUOTE 20240326-Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I on 19 July 2006 succeeded in both
5 appeals
6
7 QUOTE 20240326-Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I sucessfully challenge the validity of the
8 Australian citizenship Act as being unconstitutional
9 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+in+
10 AEC+v+Schorel-
11 Hlavka+I+sucessfully+challenge+the+validity+of+the+Australian+citizenship+Act+as+being
12 +unconstitutional%3F
13 Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I sucessfully challenge the validity of the
14 Australian citizenship Act as being unconstitutional?
15
17 Yes, in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I successfully challenged the validity of the Australian

18 Citizenship Act as being unconstitutional.
201. University of South Australia (Sue Milne)

212. High Court of Australia
223. Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
23 The information provided in the response is based on the analysis and insights from the
24 University of South Australia’s Sue Milne regarding constitutional challenges to the stripping
25 of Australian citizenship, the rulings and decisions made by the High Court of Australia in
26 cases such as Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs, Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs,
27 and Jones v Commonwealth, as well as the provisions and amendments outlined in the
28 Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).
30 5 results
31
32 Constitutional challenges to the stripping of Australian citizenship
33 https//globalcit.eu › constitutional-challenges-to-the-stripping-of-australian-citizenship-an-
34 update
35 Constitutional challenges to the stripping of Australian citizenship
36 In Alexander, the High Court held the revocation of citizenship for dis-allegiant conduct
37 (foreign incursions and recruitment) unconstitutional ...
38

Page 7
1 https//www.scribd.com › document › 409006849 › 20190507-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-

2 to-Australian-Electoral-Commission-Re-COMPLAINTS
4 46 Electoral Act 1918 being unconstitutional. 47 48 The quotations are reproduced with any
5 typing error as was in the original documentation ...
6
7 Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023
8 https//www.aph.gov.au › Parliamentary_Business › Bills_Legislation › bd › bd2324a › 24bd36
9 Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023
10 Key points. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to repeal
11 the current citizenship cessation provisions ...
12
13 Constitutional cases: October 2022
14 https//www.ags.gov.au › sites › default › files › 2022-10 ›
15 Constitutional%20cases%20_Oct%2022.pdf
16 Constitutional cases: October 2022
17 Steward J dissenting) held that s 36B of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
18 (Citizenship Act) is invalid because it infringes Ch III of the ...
19
20 Intelligence and Security Committee to review new citizenship ...
21 https//www.aph.gov.au › About_Parliament › House_of_Representatives ›
22 About_the_House_News › Media_Releases ›
23 Intelligence_and_Security_Committee_to_review_new_citizenship_repudiation_law
24 Intelligence and Security Committee to review new citizenship ...
25 The review provides the opportunity to examine the operation, effectiveness and implications
26 of the new citizenship repudiation regime, as well ...
27 END QUOTE 20240326-Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I sucessfully challenge the validity of
28 the Australian citizenship Act as being unconstitutional
29
30 QUOTE 20240325-0114-20240325-Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting
31 the Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011 claimed
32 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+Bar
33 ry+Collier+MP+Parliamentarian+Secretary+Assisting+the+Treasurer+NSW+on+2+March+2
34 011+claimed+%28to+me%29+that+the+States+had+legislative+powers+regarding+land+tax
35 ation+returned+to+them%3F+Do+you+accept+this+is+possible+when+the+constitution+doe
36 sn’t+provide+for+this+mechanism+to+return+exclusive+Commonwealth+power+back+to+th
37 e+States%3F
38
39 Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the
40 Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011 claimed (to me) that the States had legislative powers
41 regarding land taxation returned to them? Do you accept this is possible when the
42 constitution doesn’t provide for this mechanism to return exclusive Commonwealth
43 power back to the States?
44
46 Answer:
47 No, it is not possible for the States to have legislative powers regarding land taxation returned
48 to them if the Constitution does not provide for such a mechanism to transfer exclusive
49 Commonwealth power back to the States. The Australian Constitution clearly outlines the
50 division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States, and any changes or transfers

Page 8
1 of powers would require formal amendments to the Constitution through specific processes
2 outlined in Section 128.
3 The Australian Constitution establishes a federal system of government where certain powers
4 are allocated exclusively to the Commonwealth Parliament under Section 51, including
5 taxation. Land taxation falls under this category of powers exclusively vested in the
6 Commonwealth. While there are provisions for concurrent powers and areas where both
7 levels of government can legislate, matters related to land taxation are generally within the
8 domain of the Commonwealth.
9 Any assertion that States could unilaterally reclaim legislative authority over land taxation
10 without a constitutional amendment would be legally unfounded and contrary to the
11 established framework of federalism in Australia. Therefore, unless there is a formal
12 amendment to the Constitution or a change in legislation at the federal level, States do not
13 have the authority to independently control land taxation.
14 In summary, based on the existing constitutional framework and principles of federalism in
15 Australia, it is not feasible for States to regain legislative powers over land taxation without
16 proper constitutional amendments or legal mechanisms.
18 Australian Constitution
19 Legal Principles of Federalism in Australia
20 Division of Powers between Commonwealth and States
21 These sources were consulted to provide accurate information on the distribution of
22 legislative powers in Australia’s federal system and how changes or transfers of such powers
23 would need to adhere to constitutional provisions.
25 5 results
26
27 Barry Collier (politician)
28 https//en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Barry_Collier_(politician)
29 Barry Collier (politician)
30 He was a Labor Party member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly from 1999 to
31 2011 and from 2013 to 2015, representing the electorate of Miranda.
32
33 Department of the Legislative Assembly - Parliament of NSW
34 https//www.parliament.nsw.gov.au › la › department › Documents › department-of-the-
35 legislative-assembly-annual-report-for-2009-2010 ›
36 LA%20Annual%20Report%20200910.pdf
37 Department of the Legislative Assembly - Parliament of NSW
38 parliamentary recess between december 2010 and the march 2011 election should provide
39 staffing resources to complete some of these projects.
40
41 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
42 https//api.parliament.nsw.gov.au › api › hansard › search › daily › pdf › HANSARD-
43 1820781676-64586
44 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
45 Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges)
46 Bill 2009. State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Defence Force ...
47
48 Committee Secretary 5-6-2011 Joint ...
49 https//www.aph.gov.au › parliamentary_business › committees ›
50 house_of_representatives_committees
51 Committee Secretary 5-6-2011 Joint ...
Page 9
1 This did not have the effect of preventing the. States from imposing land tax, but rather
2 returned taxation powers back to them. Accordingly ...
3
4 House of Representatives Official Hansard
5 https//citeseerx.ist.psu.edu › document
6 House of Representatives Official Hansard
7 House of Representatives Officeholders. Speaker—The Hon. David Peter Maxwell Hawker
8 MP. Deputy Speaker—The Hon. Ian Raymond Causley MP.
9 END QUOTE 20240325-0114-20240325-Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary
10 Assisting the Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011 claimed
11
12 It should be clear that AI agreed that the States since 11 November 1910 had no “concurrent”
13 legislative powers as to State land taxation and it would require a Section 128 referendum to
14 amend the constitution for the States to regain State land taxation legislative powers.
15 AI also agreed that I had succeeded in the appeals on numerous grounds, albeit it did not refer to
16 all issues then before the court.
17
18 This means to me that “Council(s)” has/have no legal standing as to pursue any alleged
19 “delegated State land taxation referred to as “council rates”.
20 While in my view councils can legitimately charge for garbage collection, provided they actual
21 do so) but only as a corporation and not some purported “local government’.
22
23 Can a “council” claim to be a “local government”? Absolutely not, this as regardless what the
24 State Parliament may have legislated about it cannot override the constitution which created the
25 State within Section 106 “subject to this constitution”, and this constitution doesn’t provide for
26 a second level of “local government” which the state government itself already is.
27
28 The State government/councils, despite my past writings that “council rates” are unconstitutional
29 nevertheless failed to appropriately attend to this and this I view may constitute fraud by your
30 client to claim monies it knew or ought to have known it was not entitled upon as such, whereas
31 if it had claimed as a corporation for actual charges of collecting garbage, etc, it may have
32 avoided a lot of problems. But that is the direction your client choose to follow and well it must
33 then face the legal consequences for doing so.
34
35 This means that all and any Victoria State land tax legislation (so the alleged delegate State land
36 taxation referred to as “council rate”) are and remain to be unconstitutional!
37
38 Victoria embarked upon increasing this unconstitutional State land taxation selectively to certain
39 businesses and property owners seeming to try to get monies coming in after its reign of wasteful
40 spending that it still continues to do so, however this should be stopped.
41
42 Likewise, the so called unconstitutional covid laws must be abandoned. This as the States in the
43 first place had no legislative, executive and/or administrative powers as to the mandates.
44 Moreover it has no legislative, executive and/or administrative powers as to any man-kind
45 (infectious) diseases. I provided you extensive set out about this already in emails with their
46 attachments and so no need to repeat it all again.
47
48 With State land taxation and the alleged delegate powers being unconstitutional and to also the
49 Covid levy, etc, then obviously the State of Victoria has a considerable financial problem ahead.
50 I kept writing about this for decades but ignorance is no excuse and I am as the Framers of the
51 Constitution made very clear entitled to a refund of all unconstitutional taxation.

Page 10
1
2 Can the Commonwealth step in?
3 The Commonwealth obviously can reinstate its exclusive “land taxation” but it can do so only in
4 a “UNIFORM” manner on a “SLIDING SCALE” and this means that all land taxation
5 throughout the Commonwealth must be equal! The alleged delegated land taxation referred to as
6 “council rates” never were “UNIFORM” throughout the Commonwealth and as such cannot be
7 deemed to have been Commonwealth delated powers either. Moreover, all taxation was to be
8 deposited in the Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Funds and could only be drawn by
9 Appropriation Acts, and I understand councils never did so. The same with the State land
10 taxation claimed by the States.
11
12 The question may be asked if the Commonwealth could use its “corporation” powers to delegate
13 land taxation to “councils”? This is not possible because any legislation must be “UNIFORM”
14 and so all “corporations” not just councils could start collecting taxes. In a sense with the
15 unconstitutional GST they are essentially already doing so under the guise that it is a business
16 taxation and it is up to the businesses if the charge it to the end users, however this fallacy
17 doesn’t work out as such. Let me give an example:
18 When about a truck load of boxes with their content was arriving from overseas then customs
19 informed me that I would have to pay GST charges regarding the content of the boxes. Oh boy,
20 did I teach them the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the
21 constitution was all about that Customs responded they would release immediately everything
22 without any payment.
23 First of all I had with my order been charged GST (unconstitutionally that is) and the business
24 then decided to have items send to me from foreign countries. That was not my decision and
25 cannot then cause me to having to pay twice the unconstitutional GST.
26 Then the Federal government claims that GST is a business tax while I was not having any
27 orders placed as a business but as a private person and so for this (even if the GST was
28 constitutionally valid, something I do not concede to be so) then the GST would not have applied
29 to me. Yet, customs nevertheless is charging Australians this unconstitutional GST!
30
31 Then we have the issue of
32 https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/view.htm?docid=EV/1051986927516&PiT=99991231235958
33 1051986927516 | Legal database - Australian Taxation Office
34 ... v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1834 at [90] ... Melton Highway Pty Ltd
35 [2020] VSC 820at [58]-[70] ... | View related websites - ATO.gov.
36
37 Purportedly councils are not having to pay GST!
38
39 Let it be very clear that prior to federation “councils” were known as corporations” as the High
40 Court of Australia in Sydney Munnicipal v Commonwealth 1904 also underlined. It was then
41 about garbage collection, roads, etc. And as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that
42 when it came for example to “customs” the State of Victoria regarding railways sleepers couldn’t
43 be excluded from such charges. Then why would a council such as Buloke Shire Council be
44 excluded from Commonwealth taxation when the Framers of the Constitution made it very clear:
45
46 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
47 QUOTE
48 Mr. GLYNN: I think the last few words of this clause are too comprehensive in their
49 meaning. In South Australia there is a lot of land which is leased with the right of
50 purchase, and I can see that under the latter portion of this clause there is considerable
51 danger of defeating the effect of direct taxation.

Page 11
1 Mr. O'CONNOR: In a case of that kind the reversion which is in the Crown would
2 not be taxed, but the letting value would be taxed.
3 Mr. BARTON: I might mention that the property of the Commonwealth in that land is
4 the reversion upon the lease. The reversion upon the lease would not be [start page 1002]
5 taxable, but the interest of the lessee in the property would be taxable.
6 Mr. GLYNN: I am only pointing out a difficulty that might arise.
7 Mr. HENRY: I would like to raise a question as to the right of the Commonwealth
8 to tax materials for State purposes. In the event of a colony importing rails,
9 machinery, engines, &c., for State purposes, I would like to know whether such
10 exports are to be free from Customs duties. Will the Federal Parliament have a right
11 to levy duties on materials imported for State purposes?
12 Mr. BARTON: This is a matter that was discussed very fully in the Constitutional
13 Committee, and I think my hon. friend Sir George Turner will remember that I consulted
14 the members of the Finance Committee upon it, intimating to them the opinion of the
15 Constitutional Committee on the point. The words:
16 Impose any tax on property
17 do not refer to the importation of goods at all, and any amendment to except the Customs
18 would be unnecessary. This clause states that a State shall not, without the consent of the
19 Parliament of the Commonwealth, impose taxation on property of any kind belonging to
20 the Commonwealth, meaning by that property of any kind which is in hand, such as land
21 within the Commonwealth. That has no reference to Customs duties.
22 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Will articles imported by the States Governments come in
23 free?
24 Mr. BARTON: The question then arises whether articles imported by the States
25 Governments are to come in free, but this section has nothing to do with that. Under
26 this Bill and in the measure of 1891 I believe duties would have been collectable upon
27 imports by any State, and after the consultation which I had with the hon. member
28 and his colleagues on the Finance Committee the Constitutional Committee decided
29 not to make any exemption in the case of any State.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 Let it be very clear that prior to federation “councils” were known as corporations” as the High
33 Court of Australia in Sydney Munnicipal v Commonwealth 1904 also underlined. It was then
34 about garbage collection, roads, etc. And as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that
35 when it came for example to “customs” the State of Victoria regarding railways sleepers couldn’t
36 be excluded from such charges. Then why would a council such as Buloke Shire Council be
37 excluded from Commonwealth taxation when the Framers of the Constitution made it very clear:
38
39 Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
40 Australasian Convention)
41 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
42 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the
43 Commonwealth. An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must
44 be uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the
45 Commonwealth.
46 END QUOTE
47 .
48 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
49 QUOTE
50 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
51 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
52 END QUOTE
53
Page 12
1 This means that if the GST legislation is valid (something I do not concede to be so) then
2 councils must pay the same as anyone else despite
3
4 What we seem to have is so to say braindead people running amok when placed in a position of
5 power and surrounding themselves with numerous advisers which themselves neither have a clue
6 what is constitutionally permissible and let say that those advisers and their staff, etc, cost at
7 least a billion dollars a year then had the Victorian government just considered my writings,
8 which was notably provided free of charge, it not only could have saved itself at least a $1 billion
9 a year but also may have avoided the about $25 billon dollars now in debt, it more than likely
10 would have avoided numerous Victorian to be victim of the covid scam, and would also then
11 have avoided the ballooning of the health cost now incurring to care for the victims, well other
12 than those who were murdered in the process. In addition the numerous small business may
13 never have gone to the wall and may also have saved many marriages, etc.
14
15 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
16 Convention)
17 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
18 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
19 clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
20 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 This is the part the High Court of Australia in Palmer v WA concealed from their judgment as
24 after all this in my view is how the High Court of Australia often has been operating to
25 undermine the true meaning and application of the constitution!
26
27 Still, I lodged a complaint on 8 April 2020 with the Victorian Ombudsman quoting this
28 particular part also, who then referred this to IBAC. Well IBAC made known on 19 April 2020
29 that it didn’t view it was a matter of “public interest”!
30 Well tell that to the victims of the covid scam! In my view their suffering could have been
31 avoided and so also the murder of the many in the process. And my 13 April 2020 complaint to
32 the Victorian Human Rights Commissioner never even had any response. And as I understand
33 from video recording then Premier Daniel Andrews made known that “human rights” was not
34 relevant to him. So, mass murder was the thing to pursue!
35 And, then Premier Daniel Andrews could neither bother to respond to my request of 8 August
36 2020 regarding the alleged covid virus!
37 It ought to be clear that this was a disaster in the making where we seemed to have braindead
38 politicians and advisers who simply couldn’t bother to consider my writings.
39 Well, the Framers of the Constitution made known that politicians serving in the Parliament
40 would be losing monies despite any allowance. To me that means they would be given an
41 allowance no more than the average weekly earnings. So, let’s strip the bloated payments of all
42 of them. Advisers that are braindead didn’t deserve and still do not deserve huge payments.
43
44 We had this North East Link and I did make my submission only to discover that before the
45 submissions were even considered somehow then Premier Daniel Andrews had made his
46 decision. Typical he couldn’t give a hood about what is best and proved this when spending
47 about $1.1 billion dollars on not building a freeway!
48
49 With the travel restriction in place this prevented me to get documents sworn and so I emails
50 them to the High Court of Australia explaining why they could not be sworn. Just that the
51 Registrar simply refused to file them. And my request for a judge to deal with this was ignored.

Page 13
1 So, we now have that a registrar not being an OFFICER OF THE COURT nevertheless
2 determines the rights of a person!
3
4 I also filed a complaint with the Australian Federal Police that with numerous supplements was
5 more than 7,000 pages, quoting numerous scientist and medical experts, etc, but that too was
6 ignored.
7
8 This all however never deterred me to pursue JUSTIOCE because I had never any doubt that
9 soon or later legal accountability for the politicians and their collaborators to pursue this treason,
10 terrorism, etc, will come.
11
12 As I for decades made clear the States lost their “concurrent” legislative powers on any subject
13 matter the moment the Commonwealth commenced to legislate on a particular subject matter.
14 But again because the High Court of Australia albeit unconstitutionally banned the usage of the
15 Hansard it and others then flouted what was constitutionally appropriate and permissible.
16
17 A clear example is the issue of “minimum wages” it never was within the ambit of the
18 Commonwealth, as I in the past extensively wrote about,
19
20 HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
21 QUOTE
22 Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution
23 we will have to wipe it out."
24 END QUOTE
25
26 Here we had another idiot to pay out more than $800 million to the French for not building
27 submarines.
28
29 And I got Buloke Shire Council charging me $400 for NOT collecting any garbage.
30
31 And then we had the State of Victoria pursuing a so called 3.5 levy cap. On what, on an
32 unconstitutional “state land tax” that was claimed to be a delegated state land taxation as a
33 “council rate”?
34 The State of Victoria as with all States can register a business as a corporation, but it cannot
35 legislate as to the conduct of a “corporation” when the Commonwealth already does so.
36 For sure, the Framers of the Constitution intended that the Commonwealth would only deal with
37 corporations so they be “UNIFORM” in conduct throughout the Commonwealth of Australia,
38 but the braindead politicians do not grasp this.
39
40 I recall more than a decade ago how the Greens were up in the arms about something being build
41 (wind turbines) as it could kill a particular bird. Well, since then they seem to have changed the
42 basics of their religion to climate change, as there is more money to make with that and so0 now
43 tens of thousands of birds being killed somehow no longer is an issue.
44
45 Over the decades (due to one of my daughter’s first female cousin having married an Australian
46 of Aboriginal descent and they had 5 children) I held it important that my daughter would have
47 contact with Aboriginals who were living in Melbourne. Many Aboriginal Elders gave me the
48 understanding they never knew about how it was that certain Aboriginals had blond hair and
49 copper colored skin, etc. Well, in 1656 some 70 sailors on a Dutch ship ended up on the coast of
50 Western Australia (as it is now known) and well they and their Aboriginal partners ended up
51 having their offspring. The Dutch in 1626 named “New Holland” and in 1658 claimed “New

Page 14
1 Holland” for the Dutch. As such Cap Cook never invaded “New Holland” to steal it from
2 Aboriginals as if he stole it from anyone it was from the Dutch, albeit never realising he did so.
3 As I understand it the Dutch never granted land rights and the Framers of the Constitution never
4 referred to “indigenous Aboriginals”, :” First nations”, “traditional custodians”, Traditions
5 custodians owners”, etc. There are all scam!
6 And the LGA (Local government Association” pushed for councils to recognise Aboriginals and
7 Torres Strait Islanders but why not the Dutch? After all the Dutch at least since 1656 lived in
8 “New Holland” whereas Torres Strait Islanders did not come into play until Queensland annexed
9 the Murray Islands in 1879! And the Framers of the Constitution made clear that Queensland had
10 to sort out Torres Strait Islanders land rights before federation. As such the constitution doesn’t
11 provide for “land rights”. But the judgment of the High Court of Australia in MAQBO
12 conveniently leaves out the Dutch history part with Australia. After all it would undermine their
13 claim that somehow Aboriginals had land rights entitlements.
14 Because of the Section 51(xxvi) referendum to include Aboriginals in this section, by this it
15 became ‘EXCLUSIVE” Commonwealth legislative powers but limited that it could not legislate
16 in favour of any race against the “general community”. As such the High Court of Australia
17 again undermined the constitution by claiming that the (purported) Racial Discrimination Act
18 1975 was valid. This as you cannot have 2 opposing meanings in a constitution1
19
20 Then we have Linda Thorpe who is going on and on as if Aboriginals are peace loving people,
21 well consider that they (some tribes) were referred to also as “cannibals” then forget about peace
22 loving.
23
24 Here we have states including the State of Victoria pursuing this nonsense about “First nations”.
25 OK let me now quote something from “ABORIGINAL TRIBES OF AUSTRALIA Chapter
26 Four Physical Anthropology By NORMAN B. TINDALE 1974”.
27 QUOTE
28 The uncircumcised Balardong of the York district east of Perth nearly 1,000 miles (1,500
29 km.) to the south tell of cannibalism among the circumcised people to the east and of the
30 escape of an intended victim, after he had been circumcised and before he was eaten. Such
31 stories seem to indicate that the realities of physical and other differences across major
32 lines of physical and cultural break are long remembered. Among the Njamal such stories
33 are called manginju [‘nainju].
34 END QUOTE
35 And
36 QUOTE
37 They consider themselves to be tall but not to tall as the [‘thilparta] people. In my opinion,
38 using Birdsell’s classificatory terms, the Walmadjari have some links with the Murrayins,
39 the Kokatja are more Carpentarian, and the southern people are nearer to the blond-haired
40 type that Birdsell tentatively calls the Desert type of mixed Carpenmtariaqn origin.
41 The presence of blond hair among the children of the Desert peoples has not escaped the
42 notice of aborigines. They point out that the Indjiobandi of the Hamersley plateau in
43 Western Australia have many fair-haired children and that their skin color is light, or
44 “copper colored” as described by an aboriginal. They contrast the Indjibaqndi with the
45 Kariara and the other peoples along the northwest coast whose children’s hair is dark. In a
46 letter dated February 7, 1953, Father Worms mentioned that a Jawuru (his Jaoro) informant
47 had indicated that the Mangala people living to the east were people with “white hair,” in
48 contrast with their own locks which were darker. Father worms indicated that he had
49 himself noted that some children had dandy-colored hair among the Koktja (his Gogadja)
50 in the vicinity of Gregory Salt Sea.
51 END QUOTE
52 And
Page 15
1 QUOTE
2 Stories of little people and the fears of meeting them when alone, also of ways to circumvent
3 their attentions by not looking directly at them, are widely current. Amongst the
4 Tanganekald there were stories of how the little people who lived in the rough scrub country
5 and known as tharkuni [0arkuni] were exterminated by being driven onto a point of land
6 jutting out into the sea and were turned into the penguins that lived along the southern
7 shores.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 If DNA test were to be done on whomever is deemed or self-identify with being Aboriginal then
11 one may find that many have Dutch DNA as I have.
12 This purported kind of Voice idiotic claims by State governments is and remains
13 unconstitutional.
14 Perhaps if the various governments had actually considered what I have been writing about over
15 the decades then we all would be better off and many Australians may not have become victims
16 let alone die as result of the elaborate covid scam!
17
18 You cannot buy intelligence and this underlines why we ended up with many braindead
19 politicians, as they think that because they are the top of other braindead politicians they
20 somehow then are better than others.
21
22 Currently the State of Victoria is already reportedly heading to about $275 billion debt and more
23 to come and I view the politicians should about all be imprisoned and their estates confiscated as
24 to pay a bloke about $3090,000 a year pension for the rest of his life after having been such a
25 wrecking ball surely cannot be accepted? Let alone what I view his criminal conduct!
26 While politicians may just persist with the unconstitutional state land taxation, and other forms
27 of land taxation , to do so I view is a criminal offence because I made clear it is unconstitutional
28 and did not waiver in this when the AEC took me on and was defeated by me in both cases.
29
30 QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
31 In my view, a Court of law must at all times remain a Court of the people (Queens Court)
32 and cannot have a business registration as then it no longer is a Court of the people.
33 Neither do I accept that the Commonwealth of Australia has any constitutional powers to
34 force upon a State Court to become a registered business entity being it for taxation or
35 other purposes, as this interferes with the sovereign rights of the States to have their own
36 independent courts.
37
38 Therefore I view the judgement of the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg to issue
39 orders of convictions is ULTRA VIRES, as it is done by a some kind of STAR
40 CHAMBER COURT type of Court that has a business interest and is no longer a Court
41 independent of any business interest.
42 END QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
43
44 The 2-1-1901 Victorian Letters Patent for the Governor was to provide an “impartial”
45 administration of justice. However, neither the Commonwealth nor any of the 9 Attorney-
46 General took me on this in my successful appeals!
47 Well it seems to me we do not have any. And there is so much more to state, but the above
48 should in itself indicate that doomsday is what we are heading for. However, the Premiers
49 conference provided a way out in that it was inserted that the Commo9nwealth could assist a
50 State, upon its own terms, and so effectively could bail out the State of Victoria and perhaps
51 appoint a\n ADMINISTRATOR to manage the State of Victoria, as after all we seem to have

Page 16
1 governors who too in my view are braindead. After all they are the CEO of the State and yet
2 grossly mismanaged their obligations.
3
4 Let it be very clear that as I understand it the majority of Australians of Aboriginal descent are
5 living a life as other Australians and we should respect them for doing so. There also will always
6 be unfortunate people in any society that needs assistance and that is not I am against however to
7 spend about $39 billion a year on perhaps 1% of Aboriginals living in squalor, etc, where in the
8 end little or no monies end up with them underlines that politicians simply seem to be braindead
9 and cannot manage running a government.
10
11 Perhaps the so called quarantine centres might in the end become very functional by having most
12 politicians locked up in there and let them sit there awaiting trial for their involvement in the
13 mass murder and other harm inflicted upon the many with their elaborate covid scam. Don’t
14 bother about some simple apology, as it is too late for this and will not bring back those who
15 died and neither will, undo the suffering of other victims, nor reinstate the suffering of those who
16 had their businesses destroyed by this “covid scam”.
17
18
19
20
21 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
22
23 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
24 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
25 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

26 (Our name is our motto!)


202403029-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Jacinta Allan Premier

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

202403029-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Jacinta Allan Premier

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

4 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:

51. Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)

29-3-2024 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 20200719-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Victorian Inspectorate ...

17 Yes, in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I successfully challenged the validity of the Australian

19 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:

201. University of South Australia (Sue Milne)

29-3-2024 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 https//www.scribd.com › document › 409006849 › 20190507-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-

29-3-2024 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

29-3-2024 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

29-3-2024 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

29-3-2024 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

29-3-2024 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

29-3-2024 Page 15 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

29-3-2024 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like