20221125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of The AFP-Suppl 93 - Part 1 - Electors-Candidates-Covid Scam, Et

Page 1
1
2
3
4 Reece Kershaw (Australian/Victoria date) 25-10-2022
5 Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
6 Forwarded via email commissioner@afp.gov.au
7
8 Cc: acv@health.gov.au Advisory Committee on Vaccines, Therapeutic Goods Administration
9 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Pharmacovigilance and Special Access Branch, MDP 122
10 Committees@health.gov.au Committee Support Unit, Therapeutic Goods Administration
11 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Scheduling & Committee Support Section, MDP 122
12
13 Mr A. Albanese (via portal)
14
15 Mr Daniel Andrews Premier daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
16 attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
17
18 Re: 20221125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the AFP-Suppl 93 -
19 Part 1-Electors-candidates-covid scam, etc
20 COMPLAINT
21 Sir,
22 further to my original COMPLAINT of 6 August 2021 I provide a further supplement hereby.
23
24 One thing I learned over the decades is that officials generally couldn’t care less as to what harm
25 they inflicted as they count on it that if there was any adverse court decision then well the
26 taxpayers would have to fork the bill.
27 My aim was all along to ensure I provided details to relevant persons and so when it came to
28 accountability then they can be held personally legally liable rather than for the taxpayers to foot
29 the bill.
30 Since Pfizer Director Janine Small when questioned by EUNP Mr Rob Roos as to any testing
31 having been done regarding the (so called) vaccine preventing infection and transmission her
32 answer was “No”.
33 Yet citizens were bombarded with mantras like “do it for your mum and dad, grand parents and
34 others. People who didn’t concede to be vaccinated were even labelled to be “murderers”. I was
35 even physically attacked by a man about 1/3 of my age. Despite the store making clear they had
36 video of the assault the police claimed otherwise. I suspected that to them I was the criminal
37 offender not wearing a mask.
38 Times are changing as now more and more people are realising that they were duped by a covid
39 scam. It doesn’t mean people did not fall ill as they often do from all kinds of diseases but that
40 doesn’t mean that it was covid-19!
41 More and more such as during Senate Estimates it is becoming increasingly obvious that the TG
42 and other government entities as well as medical boards were all on the band wagon to push the
43 vaccine narrative and now somehow seek to blame whomever to try to avoid accountability.
44 They had no qualms about destroying the earnings of medical doctors who desired to be just
45 what they ought to be medical doctors whom their patients could trust. This conduct cannot be
46 ignored where they were pushing the vaccinate mantra even so they ought to have all along been
47 aware that they were wrong. Well that is on a scientific basis.
25-11-2022 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
2 Let me quote one of the many the emails I received about what went on:
3
4 QUOTE 25-11-2022 EMAIL (sender doesn’t desire email address disclosed)
5 RE: Fw: see attachment 20221125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC-
6 COMPLAINT Supplement 1 -Part 7
7
8 From:
9 To: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
10 Cc:
11 Fri, 25 Nov at 6:26 am
12 Gerrit,
13 Thankyou.
14
15 My mother in law died in a nursing home section of a retirement complex in October 2021.
16 Some research online found that it was run by an American hospital group.
17
18 The amount of lockdowns inside that facility was extensive.
19 For many weeks, if not months, in total my mother in law was not allowed to have any visitors.
20 Actual physical contact was essential to her as that was what was the essence of this wonderful
21 loving lady.
22 She lost the use of her legs before the convid regime began and was limited to her bed or
23 wheelchair.
24
25 It was the loneliness of no family visits or other people visits in her single bed room (and the jab/s
26 administered) that she died from.
27
28 The staff that were tasked to look after her were flat out as many staff were apparently either
29 sacked or resigned.
30 She often would miss out on the care she rightfully deserved and had paid for.
31
32 Wish to write more, but for now will pause.
33
34 Regards
35
36
37 -------- Original message --------
38 From: "Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B." <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>
39 Date: 25/11/22 3:44 am (GMT+10:00)
40 To: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
41 Subject: Fw: see attachment 20221125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC-COMPLAINT
42 Supplement 1 -Part 7
43
44 F.Y.I.
45
46 Constitutionalist & Consultant
47
48 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
49 Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN
50 (OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
51 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
52 Ph (International) 61394577209
53 .
54 Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
55

Page 3
1 The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
2 unless specifically otherwise stated.
3
4 If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do
5 is to consider the content appropriately!
6
7 A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING
8 CONCERNED TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.
9
10 ----- Forwarded message -----
11 From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>
12 To: info@ibac.vic.gov.au <info@ibac.vic.gov.au>
13 Cc: Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>
14 Sent: Friday, 25 November 2022, 03:38:53 am AEDT
15 Subject: see attachment 20221125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC-
16 COMPLAINT Supplement 1 -Part 7
17
18 Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission 25-11-
19 2022
20 Address: GPO Box 24234, Melbourne VIC 3001
21 Telephone: 1300 735 135
22 Email: info@ibac.vic.gov.au
23
24 COMPLAINT
25
26 20221125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC – COMPLAINT
27 Supplement 1-Part 7
28
29 THE ELEBORATE FRAUD PURPETRATED BASED ON A HOAX
30
31 Sir/Madam,
32 in this COMPLAINT ( which will be in several parts) I will address various
33 matters albeit not stated in any order of importance, while some must be considered also as
34 to my past complaints provided to IBAC.
35 IBAC & JURISDICTION

36 Supplement 1
37
38 Is Australia on target to DEPOPULATE to about 15 million as appears to have been
39 planned way back in 2005? Will IBAC take consideration of all relevant issues to
40 determine if Premier Daniel Andrews and his minions have flagrantly acted against
41 Victorians interest and wellbeing and he and his minions should be held legally
42 accountable, or do we need militia to finally rectify matters?
43 You can download the document from:

44 https://www.scribd.com/document/610005183/20221125-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
45 B-to-IBAC-COMPLAINT-Supplement-1-Part-7
Page 4
1
2 see attachment
3 20221125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC-COMPLAINT Supplement 1 -Part 7
4
5 Constitutionalist & Consultant
6
8 Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN
9 (OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
10 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
11 Ph (International) 61394577209
12 .
13 Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
14
15 The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless
16 specifically otherwise stated.
17
18 If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do
19 is to consider the content appropriately!
20
21 A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING
22 CONCERNED TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.
23 END QUOTE 25-11-2022 EMAIL
24
25 Again:
26
27 For many weeks, if not months, in total my mother in law was not allowed to have any visitors.
28 Actual physical contact was essential to her as that was what was the essence of this wonderful
29 loving lady.
30 She lost the use of her legs before the convid regime began and was limited to her bed or
31 wheelchair.
32
33 It was the loneliness of no family visits or other people visits in her single bed room (and the jab/s
34 administered) that she died from.
35
36 We owe it to those people who essentially were tortured to death to pursue justice.
37
38 We must seek to avoid such a repeat ever to occur again.
39
40 I today did write to a “fact checker” as to what I view was deceptive statement in the article
41 published at https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/09/newswars/no-clear-evidence-
42 covid-19-vaccines-are-responsibl/
43
44 QUOTE 25-11-2022 EMAIL to fact checker
45 Naseem Ferdowsi
46
47 I respond to your article “No clear evidence that COVID vaccines are responsible for
48 strange blood clots observed by embalmers” and it appears to me there is a confusion
49 in the article.
50
51 Let me make it clear I am neither a scientist or a medical doctor just someone who pursue
52 to use “common sense”.
53
Page 5
1 In 2021 there was a presentation by a Polish Scientist name Franc, and he indicated to have
2 located micro eggs (in vails) which when heated would grow. Months later I came across
3 videos of embalmers who claimed they located clots in the death bodies not being “blood
4 cloths” but of a different structure. I understand that test done on the “cloths” (not being
5 blood cloths” indeed proved they were not blood cloths.
6
7 Not being a scientist it appears to me that what Franc presented might be that the eggs are
8 indeed growing inside human bodies and then attract certain chemicals and by this able to
9 grow considerably finally causing death to a human.
10 Perhaps you may be so called “vaccinated” and soon or later may have problems that
11 might be associated with the evolvement of those “The Thing” Dr Franc referred to and
12 well perhaps a D-Dimer test may discover it before it might cause you to die.
13
14 You are entitled to your ‘opinion’ as much as I am but to claim it is ‘fact check’ when it
15 appears to me you are confusing the different kinds of cloths undermines in my view your
16 credibility.
17
18 Fact too often ‘fact checkers’ ridiculous people having made a statement about something
19 only afterwards the ‘fact checkers’ when proven to be wrong that they merely gave an
20 ‘opinion’. That is not fact checking but deceptive claim to be fact checkers and in the
21 process may very well be responsible for people ending up death who are relying upon fact
22 checkers statements.
23 Would it therefore be wiser to have a statement by so called fact checkers that the
24 statement is not intended and neither must be perceived as medical advice and neither be
25 relied upon as being FACT as evolving science may in time to show contrary findings?
26
27 Would you really desire one of your family members to end up death having relied upon
28 your fact checkers statement and so may have trusted whatever and well suffered the
29 consequences of it.
30
31 For sure blood cloths may occur for a variety of reasons but that is not what the embalmers
32 were referring to. Indeed they pointed out that these were not blood cloths but rather
33 different cloths. Therefore if you really wanted to a proper fact checkers job then why
34 didn’t you pursue to have the non-blood cloths analysed as to what its structure existed
35 upon and then have investigated how such a cloth could grow inside the body of a human?
36
37 If indeed those cloths are not “blood cloths” but cloths of a totally different nature then one
38 day someone may very well hold you legally liable for posting a fact check opinion failing
39 to provide proper information about the difference of actual blood cloths and those the
40 embalmers discovered not being blood cloths. (Think about Alex Jones court orders for
41 damages)
42
43 In my view, the so called ‘fact checkers’ have lost credibility because they seem to be out
44 not to do actual ‘fact checking’ but rather to serve some goal most likely suitable to the
45 pharmaceutical companies.
46
47 I do my own kind of ‘fact checking’ this as Olga my 90 year old wife suffering from heart
48 failure and other comorbidity life depends upon it. When then her specialist recommended
49 for her (and myself – even so he knows nothing about my health status and neither was I
50 ever a patient) to be jabbed regarding COVID-19 I asked him a question how it might
51 affect Olga’s heart and well he didn’t have a clue. His response was to state that I was
Page 6
1 ‘very intelligent” but that is not what I came for. My wife was his patient and in my view
2 he was essentially sentencing to death had she followed his recommendation. Olga
3 changed specialist as result and well I did advise him why Olga decided to change
4 specialist! Mind you is the head of a department at a major hospital and claiming that more
5 than 800,000 patients were vaccinated.
6 The truth is they were jabbed not vaccinated as the Pfizer/Moderna mRNA are not
7 “vaccines” but are ‘gene treatments’.
8
9 Remember to be vaccinated to do it for your mum and dad, your grandmother and for
10 others that now was clearly admitted by Pfizer Director Janine Small when questioned by
11 EUMP Rob Roos that it was never tested for preventing infections and infecting others.
12 Yet we had people terrorised that there was the ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated” when I
13 understand the vaccinated (well those who had the ‘gene treatment’ actually appeared to be
14 the one worse of.
15
16 Perhaps for you to earn an income by falsification, etc, might be more important than to
17 stand up for the rights of all humans and not to participate in deception that enriches the
18 pharmaceutical companies and others who are getting financial and other kickbacks?
19
20 I have a blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati and you can download my extensive
21 writings and I do not earn a single cent from any one downloading my writings.
22
23 Because I actually make formal complaints to law enforcement authorities I am conscious
24 to seek to make sure that I do my research to rely upon. While I reside in Australia and I
25 understand you may be residing in the USA nevertheless we share a mutual obligation to
26 society at large that we must protect the vulnerable and not sell yourself to the highest
27 bidder to destroy in one way or another the lives of many uncalled for.
28
29 It should be understood that while you refer to blood cloths happening as informed by
30 doctors when a body is kept in a freezer, etc, to me that was not relevant as the issue was
31 that non-blood cloths were located in the dead bodies, and such non-blood cloths should
32 have been the issue as to how they possibly could have grown inside a human being.
33
34 If it turns out that “The Thing” Dr Franc exposed to exist and this is what actually might
35 cause the non-blood cloths now located by embalmers then I view you may have done a
36 great disservice to humanity by failing to use FACTS but pretending to do so as a fact
37 checker.
38
39 Obviously I look forwards to you providing the relevant chemical annalistic evidence
40 showing that the so called special cloths are actually all blood cloths as to underline that
41 your fact checking statement was based upon FACTS and not merely some unsupported
42 opinion.
43
44 For the record, I have been a QUALITY CONTROL OFFICER and always questioned
45 what appeared to be the FACT if they truly were, and discovered that in fact at times they
46 were not!
47
48 Gerrit
49 END QUOTE 25-11-2022 EMAIL to fact checker
50

Page 7
1 In my view those who deliberately published disinformation must be held legally accountable.
2 This included the media.
3
4 https://www.wnd.com/2022/11/washington-post-busts-pandemic-unvaccinated-
5 narrative/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=wnd-breaking&ff_campaign=breaking&ff_content=breaking
6 Washington Post busts 'pandemic of the unvaccinated' narrative
7
8 After several years of criticism upon those who pursued to expose the covid scam now the media
9 is realising that they could be held legally liable and so are now singing from a different tune.
10 Just that in my view, they earned monies to pursue the propaganda that there was this (albeit
11 unproven) SARS-CoV-2 virus and well they were willing to do s and I view if it now is proven
12 they were wrong then well sell those media businesses and have the proceeds going to the
13 victims.
14
15 The same with TGA, APHRA and medical boards and others whom were spruiking the mantra
16 and cause medical doctors to lose their reputation and income because they held their patients
17 interest and wellbeing more important. Dr William Bay of Queensland is a clear example who
18 suffered because he decided to expose the truth.
19 It was in Victoria that Premier Daniel Andrews was daily claiming about the covid deaths, but
20 not revealing that the overall death rate was in fact lower. Yes he too was on the bandwagon to
21 claim “pandemic of the unvaccinated”. Well those who did get jabbed now may realise they are
22 likely slowing being strangled on the inside of their veins, arteries, etc, because of the special
23 cloths that are growing inside of them.
24
25 Olga, my 90 year old wife, last year, was not even to go with me shopping because the Victorian
26 Government mandated only 1 person per household and as such is suffering from heart failure
27 and other comorbidity it means each time I had to leave her on her home at home her life was at
28 risk. Never mind that the entire mandates were without any scientific basis. We were told to
29 ‘follow the science” which I did but the politicians and their minions were obviously claiming
30 that it was their political science and nothing else was acceptable. As in Queensland they are
31 now legislating that a medical doctor cannot go against the political science of the government.
32
33 Well, if it comes to politics they may just have their surprise as I have made clear in regard of the
34 26 November Victorian State election there are no lawful electors and neither any lawful
35 candidates. And Section 41 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is
36 very clear that the only way one can have federal franchise to be a federal voter is to have State
37 franchise to vote. Meaning that no State election (not just Victoria) and neither any federal
38 election had legally valid electors and/or legally valid candidates.
39
40 The many governments had about 20 years to contact me and try to resolve in a constitutional
41 valid manner the crisis I pointed out on 4 December 2002 existed but they as usual were arrogant
42 and well time for reckoning has come all right.
43 It is not that I am somehow destroying the Commonwealth of Australia, as I am just the herald
44 bringing the bad tiding as to their own gross incompetence that caused the issue in the first place.
45
46 Now that we have “Travelling Pete” (Anthony Albanese) in my view robbing Consolidated
47 Revenue Funds to aid in the genocide of the Ukrainian NAZII government upon Ukrainians and
48 others there needs to be a proper investigation about it all!
49
50 https://www.rt.com/russia/566935-they-robbed-ukraine/
51 24 Nov, 2022 08:50 HomeRussia & FSU
52 Bye, bye Kiev, hello Cote D'Azur: As Westerners send aid, here's how Ukraine's
53 corrupt elites are profiting from the conflict
Page 8
1
2 In my view “Travelling Pete”
3 Had no legal authority to provide monies, weapons, etc, to the Ukraine NAZI government
4 without any constitutional powers to do so and neither any Parliament in session to question the
5 constitutional validity of doing so.
6 It is not relevant if by convention former Ministers did likewise, as conventions do not in any
7 shape or form override constitutional limitations.
8
9 QUOTE 20221114-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC – COMPLAINT-Part 1
10 Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission 14-11-2022
11 Address: GPO Box 24234, Melbourne VIC 3001
12 Telephone: 1300 735 135
13 Email: info@ibac.vic.gov.au
14
15 COMPLAINT
16
17 20221114-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC – COMPLAINT-Part 1
18
19 THE ELEBORATE FRAUD PURPETRATED BASED ON A HOAX
20
21 Sir/Madam,
22 in this COMPLAINT ( which will be in several parts) I will address various matters
23 albeit not stated in any order of importance, while some must be considered also as to my past
24 complaints provided to IBAC.
25
26 I as a professional advocate have besides self-representation also represented parties and became
27 aware that when one read a statement/affidavit one must question every part of it and not merely
28 go along with what the deponent may try to make out of it. I will first give some examples before
29 dealing with matters of concern.
30
31 Item 1
32
33 After I arrived in Australia, way back in 1971 I held that it was utterly useless to learn what were
34 claimed to be the relevant laws without knowing and understanding what the true meaning and
35 application of the constitution was. Having to learn the English language in the process (no
36 formal education) obviously made it harder for me, still I never regretted or looked back doing
37 so.
38
39 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
40 Australasian Convention)
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
43 END QUOTE
44 .
45 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
46 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
47 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
48 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
49 END QUOTE
50
52 QUOTE

Page 9
1 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
2 terms that are just to both.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 Ok, we seem to have a constitution and the legislators, the executives and the judiciary all are
6 part of this, not above it.
7
8 Just that I at times when appearing at the bar table had judges claiming that the constitution
9 didn’t apply to them. No, I am not joking!
10
11 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
12 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
13 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
14 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
15 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
16 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
17 authority of the United States”.
18
19 This legal principle also applies to the Commonwealth of Australia.
20
22 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
23 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
24 the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
25 that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
26 Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
27 any private person would be.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
32 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
33 shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
34 believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
35 invest with federal jurisdiction.
36 END QUOTE
37
39 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
40 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
41 justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
42 END QUOTE
43
44 The requirement to be a legal practitioner
45
46 CARL THEODORUS MÖLLER v THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR LEGAL PRACTITIONERS
47 No. 4480 of 1999
48 QUOTE
49 HIS HONOUR:
50 The applicant Carl Theodorus Möller was born in Johannesburg in the Republic of South
51 Africa on 24 March 1972. In April 1989 he left South Africa with his family and moved to
52 New Zealand.
53 In February 1991 the applicant and his family emigrated to Australia. The applicant (and I
54 presume his family) had been granted permanent resident status in this country.
Page 10
1 Between February 1991 and February 1997 the applicant was a student at the University of
2 Tasmania.
3 In May 1995 the applicant graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours. In
4 May 1997 he graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Laws with First Class Honours.
5 At some time during 1992 or 1993 the applicant made enquiries about becoming an
6 Australian citizen. As a result of the enquiries he learned that in order to become an
7 Australian citizen it would be necessary for him to swear an oath of allegiance to Her
8 Majesty the Queen. As the applicant is a staunch republican and believes that any oath of
9 allegiance should be to Australia rather than to The Queen, he did not pursue an
10 application to become an Australian citizen at that time.
11 At some time in 1994 the process of obtaining Australian citizenship changed in that as
12 from that time applicants for Australian citizenship were no longer required to swear an
13 oath of allegiance to The Queen but were required to make a pledge to Australia.
14 Pursuant to the provisions of s.15 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 the pledge an
15 applicant is required to make can be in either of the following forms:
16 "FORM OF PLEDGE NO. 1
17 From this time forward, under God,
18 I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
19 whose democratic beliefs I share,
20 whose rights and liberties I respect, and
21 whose laws I will uphold and obey.
22 FORM OF PLEDGE NO. 2
23 From this time forward,
24 I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
25 whose democratic beliefs I share,
26 whose rights and liberties I respect, and
27 whose laws I will uphold and obey."
28 As a result of the change, and in February 1995 the applicant became an Australian citizen.
29 In June 1997 the applicant moved from Hobart to Melbourne where he took up part-time
30 employment as a paralegal with a Melbourne firm of solicitors.
31 In September 1997 the Commonwealth Government appointed the applicant one of the 36
32 non-parliamentary delegates to the Constitutional Convention. In February 1998 the
33 applicant attended the Convention in Canberra.
34 In March 1998 the applicant entered into articles with a member of the firm of solicitors at
35 which he had worked as a paralegal.
36 Once the applicant completes his articles he will have completed all requirements for
37 admission to legal practice in this State.
38 The applicant now seeks an order under Rule 14.06 of Order 14 of Chapter II of the
39 Supreme Court Rules that he be excused from taking the oath of allegiance prescribed by
40 Rule 14.05 of that order. Those rules read:
41 "[II 14.05] Oaths - Forms 2-14A and 2-14B
42 14.05 (1) A person applying to be admitted to legal practice in Victoria shall take the oath
43 of allegiance and an oath of office.
44 (2) The oath of allegiance may be in Form 2-14A and the oath of office may be in Form 2-
45 14B.
46 [II 14.06] Excuse
47 14.06 (1) The Court may upon application excuse a person from taking the oath of
48 allegiance.
49 (2) The application shall be made by originating motion and heard no later than 30 days
50 before the first day of the month in which application for admission to legal practice is to
51 be sought."
Page 11
1 The rules were passed to enable the Court to meet the requirements of s.6(1)(c) of the
2 Legal Practice Act 1996. Section 6(1) of the Act reads:
3 "6. Admission to legal practice
4 (1) The Supreme Court may admit a person to legal practice in Victoria if he or she -
5 (a) meets the requirements of the admission rules; and
6 (b) pays the admission fee; and
7 (c) takes the oath, or makes the affirmation, required by the Court."
8 The reason why the applicant seeks to be excused from complying with Rule 14.05 is set
9 out in his affidavit sworn 23 February 1999 the relevant paragraphs of which read:
10 "18. I have a conscientious objection to taking an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the
11 Queen.
12 19. My objection is bona fide and unrelated to any disloyalty or lack of respect for either
13 the laws of Australia or Her Majesty the Queen. Rather, my objection stems from my
14 sincere and genuine belief that to take an oath is a solemn, serious and sincere act which
15 should not be undertaken lightly or without full and proper consideration of its content and
16 import.
17 20. Given my belief as to the solemn, serious and sincere nature of an oath, my
18 conscientious objection to taking an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty arises as follows:
19 (a) I believe that Australia should adopt a republican form of government.
20 (b) I am committed to amendment of the Commonwealth Constitution so as to achieve that
21 republican form of government and am an advocate for that cause. This is consistent with
22 the role I have played to date as well as the role I have played in the Constitutional
23 Convention referred to above and with the part I intend to take in the campaign prior to the
24 forthcoming Constitutional referendum on the issue and the vote I intend to cast in that
25 referendum.
26 (c) I believe that my advocacy for an Australian republic will be compromised by having
27 made an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. I would be troubled, having sworn
28 my allegiance to Her Majesty as Queen of Australia, by advocating a cause which
29 proposes the discontinuation of Her position as such. In this regard, it has been my
30 experience that it is not uncommon for advocates of an Australian republic who have
31 sworn an oath to the Queen in some capacity or other to be accused of inconsistency or
32 hypocrisy in their position on the issue of the republic.
33 (d) Upon reflection, the particular oath of allegiance I would be required to swear on
34 admission to legal practice is restrictive in that it requires that allegiance be sworn to Her
35 Majesty the Queen and does not provide for allegiance to Her heirs and successors
36 according to law.
37 21. I am genuinely troubled about swearing an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the
38 Queen when Her Majesty has little to do with the practical governance of Australia.
39 22. Since my status as an Australian citizen has not depended on my making an oath of
40 allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and I in fact delayed becoming a citizen until such
41 time as I could make a commitment to Australia, I am genuinely troubled by any
42 requirement that I make an oath to Her Majesty as Queen of Australia.
43 23. I make this application to this Honourable Court genuinely and sincerely. I have spent
44 considerable time reflecting upon the matters of conscience upon which it is grounded. I
45 am genuinely troubled by having to swear an oath:
46 (a) the substance of which I do not actually believe; and
47 (b) which is inconsistent with my stated beliefs as to the continuation of Her Majesty's
48 position as the Australian Head of State."
49 The concept of allegiance was considered by Ormiston, J. (as he then was) in Nicholls v.
50 Board of Examiners for Barristers and Solicitors [1986] V.R. 719. At p.728 his Honour
51 said:
Page 12
1 "Allegiance is a concept which is at the same time both obvious and subtle. Its precise
2 nature has varied over the centuries in ways which it is unnecessary to discuss here. For
3 those reasons it is undesirable to say more about the duty of allegiance than is necessary
4 for the decision in this case. It should be observed, however, that it is not now an
5 obligation peculiar to monarchical systems of government, whatever may have been its
6 basis in Stuart times: cf. the Case of the Postnati:: Calvin's Case (1608) 7 Co. Rep. 1a; 2
7 State Trials 559; 73 E.R. 761 and Re the Stepney Election Petition (1886) 17 Q.B.D.
8 54. Secondly, the present case does not concern the oath of allegiance to be given by a
9 subject, national or citizen. Even when an alien had virtually no rights, the correlative
10 right of protection by the sovereign was sufficient to justify a duty of allegiance on the part
11 of aliens, at least aliens from friendly countries, who lived within the realm. Since the
12 disabilities of aliens have been largely abolished, except as to the right of entry into the
13 country, their duty of allegiance, when they live within this country, cannot be
14 disputed. On the other hand, I have found no authority, at least since the Middle Ages,
15 which suggests that the taking of an oath of allegiance creates any new or different
16 obligation on a resident foreign national. In making this latter observation, I am in no way
17 referring to those oaths which are taken as part of a naturalization ceremony or which
18 otherwise contain a renouncing of all other allegiance, as appears in the oaths in Schedules
19 2 and 3 to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. I add that what I have said as to the status
20 of aliens appears applicable to all those who do not owe a general duty of allegiance and I
21 say nothing as to the effects of the repeal of the Aliens Act 1947 and the prospective repeal
22 of the definition of 'alien' in the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Act No. 129 of 1984,
23 s.4(2)(a)).
24 Consequently there would appear to be significant differences between the local duty of
25 allegiance owed by aliens or non-citizens, and that owed by citizens or those who
26 otherwise owe a general duty of allegiance. When Parliament amended s.5(2) of the Legal
27 Profession Practice Act 1958, it chose to retain the obligation to take an oath of allegiance
28 for those who wished to become admitted to practise, but gave a right to those applicants
29 to seek exemption from that obligation. As was pointed out by the Chief Justice in Re
30 Miller [1979] V.R. 381, at p.383, this appears to be a recognition by Parliament of the
31 importance attaching to that obligation. It is therefore neither necessary nor desirable that
32 any opinion should be expressed as to the right of persons other than aliens or non-citizens
33 to seek exemption under the amended sub-section. The present applicant is a citizen of a
34 foreign country and the considerations applicable to him are not necessarily considerations
35 applicable to citizens of this country, nor to persons who may hold dual citizenship."
36 Australia is a constitutional monarchy. Rule 14.05 requires the applicant to swear an oath
37 of allegiance to its Head of State Her Majesty The Queen.
38 The form of the oath in Form 2-14A reads:
39 "I swear by almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty
40 Queen Elizabeth the Second by the grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other realms
41 and territories Head of the Commonwealth."
42 In my opinion it is clear from the form of the oath that the applicant is required to swear
43 allegiance to Her Majesty not as Queen of England or any other of Her realms but as
44 Queen of Australia and Head of the Commonwealth.
45 In doing so he would be doing no more than swearing allegiance to the Head of State of
46 the country of which he is now a citizen.
47 When he chose to come to Australia the applicant must have known full well that Australia
48 is a constitutional monarchy with Her Majesty The Queen as its Head of State. He would
49 also know that Australia is a member of the Commonwealth.
50 Once the applicant became a citizen of this country he assumed a duty of allegiance to
51 Australia and to its Head of State. The requirement that he take an oath of allegiance as a
Page 13
1 condition of being admitted to practise is nothing more than a recognition of that

2 duty. The taking of an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty as Queen of Australia amounts to
3 no more, in my opinion, than taking an oath of allegiance to Australia.
4 The fact that the applicant is a dedicated republican is not to the point. The swearing of
5 the oath will not change that fact nor will it prejudice the applicant in that regard.
6 By s.8(1) of the Legal Practice Act 1996 a person admitted to legal practice is an officer of
7 the Supreme Court. Generally speaking that was not previously the case. See s.8 of the
8 Legal Profession Practice Act 1958.
9 If the applicant is to become an officer of the Court I consider it is appropriate that he
10 swear an oath of allegiance to the Head of State of this country in the same fashion as any
11 other officer of the Court.
12 The applicant's application is refused.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 From this I understand that if you are not holding a “Australian Citizenship” as a “nationality”
16 then despite having graduated as a lawyer you still cannot become a member of the bar (of the
17 Supreme Court) and then not practice law as a solicitor and/or barrister. As such, neither can
18 become a judge of a Court. The same with a person wanting to be a candidate in a state/federal
19 election one need to hold “Australian Citizenship” as a “nationality”. Hence, if a person doesn’t
20 have “Australian Citizenship” as a “nationality” the person cannot be lawfully registered as a
21 candidate let alone become a Member of Parliament in any Australian Parliament. However a
22 Governor-General is not required to have any “Australian Citizenship” as a “nationality” this is
23 because the Constitution was created based upon the Governor-General being a “subject of the
24 British Crown” and representing the British Monarch.
25
26 We had that allegedly more than 100 persons, mainly allegedly police officers, had not been
27 properly sworn in while nevertheless assaulting and in other criminal manner acting against
28 unarmed political protestors, even firing bullets in the back of unarmed protesters holding
29 children at the Shrine of Remembrance, who did no more then exercising their political rights.
30
32 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
33 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and
34 the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined
35 in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of
36 the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 Often it is claimed that Australia has no Bill of Rights, however this is because people generally
40 do not understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of the Commonwealth of
41 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), even if they are claiming to be “constitutional lawyers”
42 which itself is an oxymoron as would be a firebug fire fighter.
43
45 QUOTE
46 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
47 people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
48 for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
49 history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
50 Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
51 charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
52 END QUOTE
53

Page 14
1 Reality is that to my understanding not a single person claiming to be a police officer actually is
2 lawfully a police officer. If therefore there are no legal practitioners, police officers and/or
3 judges then all and any conviction is and remain without the warrant of law.
4
5 Some decades ago a lawyer had some time on his hands and well decided to sit in the public
6 gallery to watch me in action at the bar table. He afterwards gave me the understanding that he
7 held I was a very dangerous person, because of the way I had conducted matters at the bar table
8 and so to say utterly destroyed the opponent barrister. (If you can call him a barrister, that is.) As
9 he made clear, he never would want me to have me as an opponent, because while he held I
10 acted within the rules of the court, nevertheless, my legal tactics were considerably different then
11 a legal practitioner ordinary would pursue. Well, I could agree with that because time and time
12 again I exposed that numerous lawyers were more acting like Nicola Gobbo was exposed of
13 doing. Not a kind of conduct I would desire to engage in.
14
15 Obviously, the issue is if I can claim that no one possesses any “Australian Citizenship” as a
16 ”nationality” then what legal basis do I have to prove this. After all it cannot just be an illusion
17 that can apply.
18
19 I for long have been researching the true meaning and application of the Commonwealth of
20 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and well aware that no matter the Framers of the
21 Constitution stated:
22
24 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
25 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
26 important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 I held that the courts have been too much corrupted as to in general unethically shield a
30 government from any litigation when it related to violations of the constitution, hence held that
31 filing an application will generally be doomed as the court would use legal tactics to destroy any
32 attempt to pursue enforcement of constitutionally legal principles and award cost as some for off
33 punishment to scare away any would be sentry.
34
36 QUOTE
37 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
38
39 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
40 state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
41 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
42 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 Hence, I held it was better to get the government pursuing me in court and then I could pursue
46 constitutional issues.
47
48 I with the 2001 federal election had learned that my case was railroaded no matter what, but I
49 made known I had no intention to vote “compulsory” (even so being a candidate in the federal
50 election) and well the Commonwealth in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka pursued a charge “FAILING
51 TO VOTE”. Upon this I filed a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER in which I
52 challenged the Commonwealth constitutional powers to declare/define “citizenship” as the
53 Framers of the Constitution specifically denied the Commonwealth from doing so.
Page 15
1
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
5 operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
6 citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
7 state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
8 citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
9 be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
10 citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
11 citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
12 of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
13 But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
14 who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
15 expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
16 dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
17 Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision
18 and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want
19 to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it,
20 the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate
21 such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year
22 should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
23 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
24 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
25 Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
26 citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
27 restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
28 disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
29 END QUOTE
30
32 QUOTE
33 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
34 exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
35 in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
36 END QUOTE
37
38
40 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
41 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
42 END QUOTE
43
45 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
46 No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act
47 capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let
48 the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but
49 trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution.
50 The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the
51 Constitution.
52 END QUOTE
53
55 QUOTE
56 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
57 terms that are just to both.
Page 16
1 Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.
2 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is
3 required at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet
4 together, and, without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to
5 draw the very life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment,
6 which would give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most
7 important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters
8 that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at.
9 END QUOTE
10
12 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
13 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
14 Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
15 legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
16 to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
17 Parliament."
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Well, the matter came before the Magistrates of Victoria at Heidelberg exercising federal
21 jurisdiction and the Court ordered that the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER had
22 to be heard and determined by the High Court of Australia.
23
24 Obviously, if the High Court of Australia’s own judges were not holding “Australian
25 Citizenship” as a “nationality” then where are the judges?
26
27 Well the matter so far was never heard and determined by the High Court of Australia!
28
29 What does this mean in legal terms?
30
31 Well as the Framers of the Constitution stated:
32
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
36 may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
37 declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
38 beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
39 interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
40 END QUOTE
41
43 QUOTE
44 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
45 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
46 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
47 [start page 2004]
48 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 In legal terms the legislation, or part thereof, that is challenged becomes ULTRA VIRES Ab
52 Initio unless and until if ever at all a court of competent jurisdiction declares it to be INTRA
53 VIRES.
54

Page 17
1 In response to the Commonwealth charging me in regard of the 2004 federal election

2 “FAILING TO VOTE” I then responded that as I had challenged the validity of the purported
3 Australian Citizenship Act then the legislation no longer was applicable Ab Initio!
4
5 In my “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” (written submissions) County Court of Victoria, Case
6 numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 (where I represented myself all along) the court upheld both
7 appeals and noted that the Commonwealth had not filed any evidence. On 4 August 2005 the
8 Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg exercising federal jurisdiction then ordered the
9 Commonwealth to file and serve all and any evidence it sought to rely upon. The Counsel for the
10 Commonwealth pursued to proceed without evidence because of the Commonwealth legislation
11 providing for “AVERMENT” however I successfully opposed this that the legislation could not
12 be used in a state court. (Kable N.S.W.). As such, whenever the ATO (Australian Taxation
13 Office) relies upon “AVERT” then it is actually perverting the administration of justice,
14 Now one may start to understand why the lawyers held I was a dangerous person, because my
15 knowledge and ability essentially caused every lawyer not to be a legal practitioner (including
16 judges). Likewise so with politician not to be validly elected. And also in regard of the police
17 force, etc.
18
20 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
21 With respect to the qualification of the electors-a subject discussed in this
22 Convention-the proposal of the committee is that it shall be the same as that for the
23 electors for the more numerous branch of the parliament of each state.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 Actually I also in the process disenfranchise ever person to be an elector, this as the AEC
27 (Australian Electoral Commission) demands a person to have “Australian citizenship” as a
28 “nationality” which clearly doesn’t exist as such.
29
30 I wrote also to the Victorian Minister for Police Carbines that my grandson Dion Schorel was
31 kidnapped from his father by the State of Victoria. Even so I am supposed to be a constituent in
32 his electorate he has not responded. Even if, not that I am aware of, there was any ex parte court
33 decision that in itself would have been without legal validity!
34
36 QUOTE
37 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on
38 the point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must
39 be heard.
40 Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
41 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything the
42 state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person accused will
43 have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in
44 criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 As such, if there were no legally validly appointed judges then no valid court order, that is if
48 there was one at all, could exist. And if a hearing was “ex-parte” without my son Mark as the
49 custodian having been involved then for this also there was no valid legal order.
50
51 It is now about 20 years since the 4 December 2002 Order was issued by the magistrates Court
52 of Victoria at Heidelberg exercising federal jurisdiction and despite I alerted the High Court of
53 Australia about this order the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER nevertheless
54 never was heard and determined. As the appeals I filed were upheld on 19 July 2006 then clearly
Page 18
1 there can be no argument that somehow the matter was lost without the NOTICE OF
2 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER needing to be heard. In my view every conviction must be
3 deemed unlawful not just any conviction that was against me that I successfully appealed but any
4 conviction against any other person where there was a legal requirement for a need to have
5 “Australian citizenship” as a ‘nationality”. This effectively means every person currently
6 imprisoned is so unlawfully because the convictions relied upon are without warrant of law. In
7 my view also all and any criminal charges can only be pursued in the name of the British
8 Monarch and not some DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) as the Framers of the Constitution
9 made very clear!
10
11 When I lodged my COMPLAINT on 8 April 2020 against the police involvement regarding the
12 mandates I was advised to lodge my complaint with IBAC, this I did. But as one usually can
13 expect IBAC didn’t take in my view appropriate action. Matters have escalated considerably and
14 many people have died, this while I view had IBAC acted appropriately then most harm,
15 including deaths, might have been avoided.
16
17 Let us see if the Victorian Ombudsman really is going to do her job as I have set out in the document
18 regarding COVID-19 restrictions.
19 This document can be downloaded from:
20 https://www.scribd.com/document/455424459/20200408-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Deborah-
21 Glass-Victorian-Ombudsman
22
23 This 49 page document surely has taken me a lot of time in research and compilation. Then again,
24 if anyone were to take me to Court then I wouldn’t hesitate to use it against any aggressor of my
25 constitutional rights.
27 https://www.scribd.com/document/455508857/20200408-Mr-g-h-Schorel-hlavka-o-w-b-to-Pm-Mr-
28 Scott-Morrison-re-Constitutional-Quarantine-Powers
29
30 This is a document of some 97 pages and surely going to take time not just to read it but also to digest
31 it, but I view the various subject matters makes it worth to learn about what you never may have
32 known but should have.
34 https://www.scribd.com/document/456216898/20200413-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Victoria-s-
35 Human-Rights-Commissioner-Kristen-Hilton
36
37 And I also provided my writings to:
38
39 20200827-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Snr Sgt Kim French -Re INVOLVEMENT POLICE
40 UNION
41
42 I did provide also further writings.
43
44 It must therefore be very clear that I did alert the many, including Premier Daniel Andrews at
45 numerous times but he too couldn’t bother to properly consider matters. Well, now that the
46 covid scam is slowly being exposed (see also below in further parts of this COMPLAINT) then
47 forget the issue of “amnesty” as now people want to be applied for the evil doers, as I gave
48 everyone ample of opportunities to appropriately address matters and their failure/ignorance to
49 do so and in the process allow many victims to suffer and many also die then legal accountability
50 is required.
51
52 Olga, my wife, albeit resenting to having to vote nevertheless she did do early voting because of
53 the legal problems to end up in court litigation, which she can do well without. While I do not
54 intend to vote, even so I accompanied my wife to the polling place/boot, etc, as I recognise that
55 my wife has rights to exercise her liberties even so she is unconstitutionally coerced in this.
56

Page 19
1 It should however be clear that the current ongoing Victorian State election has no legal
2 candidates and neither can be held in a legal manner where the purported candidates are
3 not legally entitled to be candidates.
4
5 What neither must be overlooked is that where for decades no valid elections were held, being
6 both Federal and/or State election then all and any legislation by such purported Members of
7 Parliament can have no value.
8
9 It is in my view truly having KANGAROO COURT procedures in not only the various
10 Parliaments but also in the Courts.
11
12 Not a single person in the Commonwealth of Australia in essence achieved as I did to essentially
13 nullify by my legal challenge as to the purported nationality “Australian Citizenship”
14 lawyers/judges/politicians/police, etc, as well as court convictions.
15
16 It should be understood that my issue is that the States created within Section 106 of the
17 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) “subject to this constitution” (which
18 includes the legal principles embedded in this constitution) had no legislative, executive and/or
19 administrative powers to pursue “mandates” such as mask, face shield, QR code, ring of steel,
20 lockdowns, social distancing, lockouts, curfews, etc. The fact that IBAC regarding my original 8
21 April 2020 COMPLAINT to the Victorian Ombudsman failed to appropriately consider the
22 issues I had stated means that in my view IBAC has blood on its hands. In my view had IBAC
23 properly attended to the issues I raised then I view it would have concluded that indeed the
24 mandates were without constitutional validity and an abuse and misuse of powers.
25
26 ABS statistics Re increasing excess death toll.

27
28 Perhaps, it may indicate sheer and gross incompetence by IBAC and/or political or other bias to
29 instead of upholding the rule of law it bend over to suit the purported government in nits
30 unconstitutional/unlawful conduct with the so called Victorian Police force aiding and abetting
31 in untold criminal activities.
32
33 This part 1 will be followed by “20221115-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC –
34 COMPLAINT-Part 1” which further will deal with legal issues also.
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 address all issues.
39 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

41 (Our name is our motto!)
42 END QUOTE 20221114-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC-COMPLAINT Part 1
43
Page 20
1 Let it be clear no one can argue that I merely put this all up because I may not like the end result
2 of the Victorian election, as the election has not been held and neither can be lawful regardless
3 whomever is allegedly successful in the purported Victorian election.
4
5 What we need to do is to have say some meeting and where all the legalities are addressed. And
6 we may then finally revert back to what the true meaning and application of the Commonwealth
7 of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) strands for.
8
9 The Framers of the Constitution debated that citizens could form militias as to fight invaders and
10 I view this includes home grown terrorist and traitors. If politicians prefer to leave it for such
11 militias to restore citizens democratic rights then well so be it. The then can set up their own
12 tribunals to deal with those accused and well forget about crooked judges who violated their oath
13 of office.
14
15 Politicians and also judges may claim that citizens should pursue the legal processes and well
16 that is precisely what I did and defeated the Commonwealth and all Attorney-Generals in the
17 process. And any government that defies my rights and benefits of the court decisions obviously
18 must be held legally accountable. Where the constitution was not just created some more than
19 120 years ago to suit me, as I was not even existing at that time, then it must be clear that the
20 constitution applies to all citizens and therefore they all have the same rights and benefits of the
21 orders I was able to obtain.
22 Consider what is the validity of any purported legislation if none of those voting were actually
23 lawfully elected?
24 Anyone who assumed that I was wasting my time writing because law enforcement authorities
25 and others would simply ignore it all may just discover that I all along expected this and this was
26 in the past also my strategy with opponent lawyers in litigation. Then when they are suddenly
27 confronted with having ignored to address the issues they find it too late to then attend to it.
28 There are numerous Australians which are having issues about unconstitutional conduct by
29 politicians, judges, etc but experience that there is no proper system in place to deal with their
30 grievances. Hence, I held that using the rule of law was the best way to go about, as I did, albeit I
31 have great respect for those citizens who exercised their constitutional rights of “political liberty”
32 when lawfully protesting, even so some carrying their children were shot at by the Victorian
33 Police., and those min Canberra were also brutalised with equipment causing burns, etc.
34
35 So to say, the tide is turning and those people who were harmed and those who lost loved ones
36 because politicians and their officials and their minions couldn’t care less may just discover that
37 there be no AMNESTY (as now pursued) but one of legal accountability.
38 As I understand it we were betrayed by the TGA big time and we need to take all measurers that
39 this never again may eventuate.
40
41 So far there are already 7 parts of the COMPLAINT to (Victorian) IBAC and I propose to
42 provide them to the AFP separately, where matters are also relating to federal issues.
43
44 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
45
46 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
47 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

49 (Our name is our motto!)


20221125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of The AFP-Suppl 93 - Part 1 - Electors-Candidates-Covid Scam, Et

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

20221125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of The AFP-Suppl 93 - Part 1 - Electors-Candidates-Covid Scam, Et

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

25-11-2022 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

35 IBAC & JURISDICTION

43 You can download the document from:

25-11-2022 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-11-2022 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 condition of being admitted to practise is nothing more than a recognition of that

25-11-2022 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

23 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

1 Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.

25-11-2022 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 In response to the Commonwealth charging me in regard of the 2004 federal election

25-11-2022 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

26 ABS statistics Re increasing excess death toll.

40 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

48 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

25-11-2022 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like