20230621-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To VLA Complaints and Statutory Compliance

Page 1
1
2
3 VLA Complaints and Statutory Compliance (Australia, Victoria date) 21-6-2023
4 complaints@vla.vic.gov.au
5 Canev Kizartici Senior Lawyer
6
7 Re: 20230621-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VLA Complaints and Statutory Compliance
8
9 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
10
11 Sir/Madam,
12 it is my understanding that the VLA (Victorian Legal Aid) is a body of lawyers
13 which pursue to assist certain parties regarding legal issues.
14
15 I understand that Mr Ian Redfern has been in contact with the VLA but appears to remain
16 dissatisfied about how the VA is handling matters. I understand that Mr Ian Redfern declined to
17 take the matter before the Victorian Ombudsman.
18
19 I make it very clear I do not represent Mr Ian Redfern but will express my concerns that the
20 VLA seems to fail to act within the objects the VLA was created for.
21 The Victorian Ombudsman appears to be bound to follow “government policy” (as TGA John
22 Skerritt also stated way back in 2021) and as such where this “government policy” then
23 obviously the complaint of Mr Ian Redfern will as I view it be railroaded, rather than having
24 lawyers dealing with matters “according to law”.
25
26 It should be understood that for constitutional/legal purposes any “government policy” that
27 violates the rule of law has no legal force, even if it purportedly backed by alleged
28 legislative/executives/administrative actions and/or court orders!
29
30 "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
31 Marbury vs. Madison 1803, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176.
32
33 The following also applies to the Commonwealth of Australia:
34
35 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
36 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative of
37 the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution,
38 and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his
39 person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
40 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the
41 supreme authority of the United States”.
42
43 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
44 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
21-6-2023 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
2 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
3 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
4 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
5 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
6 END QUOTE
7
9 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
10 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
11 justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
12 END QUOTE
13
14 Regretfully we appear to have the High Court of Australia that I view is miserably incompetent
15 to ensure that all matters are heard and determined within the true meaning and application of the
16 legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
17 within which the States created in Section 106 “subject to this constitution” are legally bound
18 to follow. While the3 HCA denied the usage of the Hansard in 1904 somehow some 70 years
19 later it permitted it to be used but by then numerous judgments were handed down in violation of
20 constitutional legal principles and no one seems to bother to correct the records, meaning the
21 incorrect judgments are still being used, etc.
22
24 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
25 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
26 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
27 END QUOTE
28
30 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
31 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
32 clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
33 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 This relates to “QUARANTINE” regarding “man-kind” infectious diseases. Hence, State/
37 Territories have no legal powers to demand even polio, measles, etc, vaccinations!
38
39 On 8 April 2020 I actually informed the Victorian Ombudsman of this and the Victorian
40 Ombudsman referred this to IBAC whom on 19 April 2020 held that it was not deemed a “public
41 interest” issue. Well more than 3 years later tell that to the many thousands of victims of the
42 “gene therapy” bioweapon covid scam jabs referred to as covid-19 vaccine (which it is not), and
43 obviously you cannot tell this to the numerous victims that already died! On 13 April 2020 I also
44 wrote to the Victorian Human Rights Commissioner who didn’t bother then to respond either.
45
46 Of concern is that we do not really have an ‘impartial” ‘administration of justice’ as required by
47 the Letters Patent for the Governor, this because I view too often, indeed far too often, the judges
48 are violating the separation of powers, and by this enter the field of legislative powers well
49 beyond its judicial powers to be “part of the constitution”, not above it.
50
51 HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
52 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
53 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
54 shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I

Page 3
1 believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
2 invest with federal jurisdiction.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates
6 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
7 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
8 through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
9 of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
10 act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
11 Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
12 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
13 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way
14 of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive
15 than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to
16 protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of
17 interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the
18 country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There
19 is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought
20 to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not
21 providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain,
22 and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free
23 Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the
24 provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have
25 provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all
26 other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
27 Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not
28 provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the
29 people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of
30 its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but
31 acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in
32 the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to
33 be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose
34 of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament
35 of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to
36 serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any
37 Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have
38 that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
39 which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
40 creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
41 preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
42 action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
43 Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 One only has to consider the MABO case where the court failed to acknowledge that in about
47 1656 the Dutch claimed the Southern Land as New Holland, and never did provide Aboriginals
48 with land rights. With the Palmer v WA the court blatantly concealed:
49
51 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
52 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
53 clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
54 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
55 END QUOTE
56
57 In Sykes v Cleary the Court also blatantly ignored that Edmund Barton when presenting what is
58 now s44 of the constitution made clear that the previous clauses remained as such applicable.
59 This that a person in employment with a State was eligible to stand as a candidate in federal
Page 4
1 elections albeit had to dispose of it before taking up a seat in the federal Parliament if elected for
2 this. They made clear that a Minister of a State Parliament may or may not resign his seat in the
3 State Parliament, if elected to Federal Parliament but not wanting to take up the seat. (Perhaps,
4 because the party the Minister stood for did not end up in government?)
5
6 In Sue v Hill the High Court of Australia scandalously argued that Heather Hill was not entitled
7 to be a Senator because she was a “Subject of the British Crown”. Well surprise, surprise, every
8 Australian natural born is a “Subject of the British Crown”. Now any grossly incompetent lawyer
9 may seek to challenge this lacking proper education in the true meaning and application of the
10 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) but that doesn’t mean it is not
11 applicable. One simply cannot educate a person who lives by utter stupidity!
12
13 I in 2001 challenged the validity of the 2001 federal election and made clear that the
14 “compulsory” part of voting was UNCONSTITUTIONAL Well. The Australian Electoral
15 Commission decides to teach me a lesson and charged me with FAILING TO VOTE in AEC v
16 Schorel-Hlavka. Upon this I (representing myself) filed a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
17 MATTER and served this upon all 9 Attorney-Generals and on 4 December 2002 the court
18 ordered this to be heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The latter despite being
19 were aware of it has not heard and determined this matter and actually cannot ever do so this
20 because of implied bias!
21
22 Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 II,L.C. 759
23 QUOTE
24 The fundamental rule of English (Australian) law is that "No man can be a judge in his
25 own case". It has long been held that if there is bias or the appearance of bias such as to
26 deny justice or create the impression that justice has not been done, then that bias, or
27 apparent bias, is sufficient to invalidate the decision of those who made the decision.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 The AEC then added in 20904 the charge for FAILING TO VOTE in the 2004 federal election,
31 despite that ass I had already on constitutional/legal grounds had objected to the validity of the
32 “compulsory” part of voting and also that Australian Citizenship was not a constitutional term
33 for ‘nationality’ as Australians were and remained to be “Subjects of the British Crown”.
34 Meaning that any person lacking this nationality “Subject of the British Crown” but claiming to
35 have Australian Citizenship as a ‘nationality” is not qualified to be an elector, candidate in a
36 political election, Member of Parliament, legal practitioner (being a lawyer is by qualification
37 and does not rely upon nationality) judge, police officer, etc.
38
39 On 4 August 2005 the matter was again before the Court and the Commonwealth claimed
40 AVERMENT. I submitted this was unconstitutional (NSW Kable) and the Court agreed with my
41 submission and ordered the Commonwealth to file and serve all evidence it relied upon. The
42 Prosecutor argued that this would be truckloads of documents, and he lied because the 2001
43 ballot papers were by legal provisions already destroyed and the 2004 ballot papers were about
44 to be destroyed and the Prosecutor made no application to preserve the documents for evidence
45 purposes). No documents were filed and served. On 16 & 17 November 2005 then the Court
46 made clear not to abide by the previous court orders and simply convicted me on both charges. I
47 successfully appealed this on 19 July 2006 and the Court then made clear that the
48 Commonwealth had not filed any evidence! This making clear the 4 August 2005 orders were
49 applicable! However, there is more to it, as I had filed and served (also upon all 9 Attorney-
50 Generals) a 409 page written submission (ADDRESS TO THE COURT) setting out the
51 purported ‘compulsory” voting issue, the ‘averment’ issue, the purported Australian Citizenship
52 nationality issue, etc, etc. None of the Attorney-Generals and neither the Commonwealth DPP
Page 5
1 challenged any part of my numerous constitutional and other legal submissions. Meaning, that
2 for legal purposes they were all implied acknowledged to be correct. The ATO (Australian
3 Taxation Office) nevertheless in for example ATO v George William nevertheless relied upon
4 AVERT. Again, by the 4 August 2005 ruling this no longer could be applied. Likewise, I
5 understand the ATO and the AEC pursue AVERMENT/AVERT ignoring the court’s decision!
6 So, what grossly incompetent lawyers do we have when lawyers are failing to pursue the correct
7 rule of law?
8
9 Let it be clear at least as I view it the High Court of Australia started to deny JUSTICE when in
10 1904 it prohibited the usage of the Hansard records of the Constitutional convention Debates.
11
12 Again:
14 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
15 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
16 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 Had the High Court of Australia not stuffed about then I view Heather Hill would have remained
20 to be a Senator and Phil Cleary would neither have been ousted. Actually neither so Barnaby
21 Joyce, and many others!
22
23 HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
24 QUOTE
25 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike
26 subjects of the British Crown.
27 END QUOTE
28
30 QUOTE
31 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and
32 the states on terms that are just to both.
33 Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.
34 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no
35 Constitution is required at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of
36 gentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and, without limitation, do what they like.
37 Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very life-blood of the
38 Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would
39 give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most
40 important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances
41 before, in matters that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already
42 arrived at.
43 END QUOTE
44
46 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
47 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
48 Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
49 legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
50 to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
51 Parliament."
52 END QUOTE
53

Page 6
1 QUOTE
2 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded the spirit of
3 federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has enlarged, with great emphasis, on
4 the necessity of establishing and securing one citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is
5 to secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again
6 and again. We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be recognised as
7 lying at the very basis of this Constitution.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 If “citizenship” was referring to “nationality” then obviously this doesn’t make sense to have
11 “dual citizenship” and if it related to being a person residing in the Commonwealth of Australia
12 then it doesn’t make sense for the Commonwealth to interfere with it because citizenship is
13 obtained when residing in a State/Territory and by this also residing in the Commonwealth.
14 Hence, “dual citizenship”.
15
17 QUOTE
18 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
19 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
20 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
21 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
22 established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
23 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
24 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
25 are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
26 is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
27 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
28 be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
29 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 This also enforces that Commonwealth of Australia is not at all a “constitutional monarchy”
33 and neither can be a republic. Yet, somehow the current purported Governor-General whom I
34 deem illegitimate to be a Governor-General to have provided King Charles III to be King of
35 Australia. What an utter and sheer nonsense!
36 King Charles III is King ‘over’ the Commonwealth of Australia that is a different terminology.
37
38 I understand we have about 100,000 lawyers and surely at least one of them ought to have the
39 brain capacity to understand this?
40
41 Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 38 (14 August 1997)
42 KIRBY J. : “ One highly influential international statement on the understand of universal
43 and fundamental rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document
44 is not a treaty to which Australia is a party. Indeed it is not a treaty at all. It is not part of
45 Australia’s domestic law, still less of its Constitution. ”
46
47 In my view this is untrue:
48
50 QUOTE
51 The Right Hon. G.H. REID: I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my hon. and learned
52 friend has hinted at. This is an expression which would be more in place in the United States Constitution,
53 where treaties are dealt with by the President and the senate, than in the constitution of a colony within the

Page 7
1 empire. The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United Kingdom,
2 and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to treaties,
3 but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they
4 neglect them very seriously without involving any important legal consequences. The expression, I think,
5 ought to be omitted. I will deal with the other suggested amendments when the time comes.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 While treaties cannot be enforced against Australians unless they are duly enforced by legitimate
9 Australian legislation, nevertheless English law provisions including those of the European
10 Union are different from ‘treaties’ due to the United Kingdom having been part of the European
11 Union constitution.
12
14 QUOTE
15 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-We spend time enough in discussing things here, and when
16 every one is agreed that this clause is not to be adopted in the form in which it is printed,
17 but is only to be a power of the Parliament, it is not worth while to discuss the question of
18 whether it is [start page 1665] absolutely necessary to put in the words. Where there is a
19 wide difference of opinion, it would be safer to do it. I agree with Mr. Barton that there is
20 no power, because sub-section (37) of clause 52 reads-
21 Any matters necessary for or incidental to the carrying into execution of the foregoing
22 powers, or of any other powers vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or Executive
23 Government of the Commonwealth, or in any department or officer thereof.
24 I venture to say that these are not necessary or incidental to the execution of any powers.
25 The Commonwealth will come into existence under this Constitution plus English
26 law, one of whose principles is that the Queen can do no wrong. That is the
27 foundation on which the Constitution is established.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 How does English law then work with the constitution?
31
32 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such
33 considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English
34 Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark
35 (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment
36 IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168
37 It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
38 Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is
39 complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
40 Act 1900 (UK) is.
41
42 This means that British law and also European Union laws (while the UK was a Member and
43 further for so far it accepts the continuation of EU law in certain circumstances) is and remain
44 applicable to the Commonwealth of Australia for so far it remains “complimentary” to
45 Australian law and not conflict with Australian law. Any competent lawyer (legal practitioner)
46 ought to understand this but it seems to me we seems to lack competent lawyers/judges in that
47 regard.
48
49 With the elaborate covid-19 scam (see my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati for this
50 also for further details/information) it ought to be understood that the Commonwealth has no
51 constitutional powers to force any person to be injected with some poison. At most the
52 Commonwealth can petition a court of competent jurisdiction, after hearing both sides, to order a
53 person to be injected if the court conclude this to be justified.
Page 8
1
2 It ought to be understood that one the Commonwealth commenced to legislate with the
3 Quarantine Act 1908 since then substituted with the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) then the
4 States/Territories had to retire from any legislative, executive and/or administrative exercises.
5
6 Forget about the purported Australian Act 1986 (UK) & (Cth) scam because one cannot amend
7 the constitution other than by a Constitution Amendment Act and this purported Australian Act
8 1986 (UK) & (Cth) cannot be applied as it lacks any powers to amend the constitution, and
9 neither can it amend the first 8 Clauses of the constitution Act.
10
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
14 Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
15 END QUOTE
16
18 QUOTE
19 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the
20 states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
21 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
22 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws
23 will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of
24 making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
25 END QUOTE
26
28 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
29 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
30 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
31 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the
32 meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
33 END QUOTE
34
35 The High Court of Australia in the income tax case made this abundantly clear!
36
37 Mandates regarding alleged vaccinations, social distancing, compulsory mask wearing, QR, lock
38 downs, lock outs, ring of street, 5 km limit and a lot more were all unconstitutional as the
39 States/Territories had no legislative, executives or administrative powers for this.
40
42 QUOTE
43 Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to

44 legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
45 Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard
46 to that question-the Ministers for the time being in
47 each state might say-"We are favorable to this law,
48 because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a
49 year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy
Page 9
1 for our schools," and thus they might wink at a

2 violation of the Constitution, while no one could
3 complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we
4 have these elaborate provisions for the amendment
5 of the Constitution? Why should we not say that
6 the Constitution may be amended in any way that
7 the Ministries of the several colonies may
8 unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a
9 referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why
10 not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day?
11 But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for
12 that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a
13 few minutes in discussing it.
14 END QUOTE
15 And
16 QUOTE
17 Each individual and each state looks upon it that such declaration is given only in
18 pursuance of the Constitution. Public attention is probably directed to other matters, and
19 the question has, in many cases, shrunk into its native insignificance; and "it is to the
20 interest of every man who wishes the Federal Constitution to be observed that the
21 judgments of the federal tribunals should be respected, and they take it that the courts are
22 the protectors of the federal compact, and that the federal compact is, in the long run, the
23 guarantee of the rights of the separate state."
24 If the proposal of the honorable member (Mr.
25 Gordon) was carried into effect-though of that, I
26 think, there is not the slightest chance-it would
27 follow that any person who was aggrieved by an
28 unconstitutional enactment would have to
29 persuade the Attorney-General of the state or of
30 the Commonwealth, as the case might be, to in
31 some way set the law in motion to ascertain the
32 legality of the enactment,
33 END QUOTE
34

Page 10
1 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-

2 So that any citizen of any portion of the Commonwealth would have the guarantee of
3 liberty and safety in regard to the processes of law, and also would have a guarantee of the
4 equal administration of the law as it exists. I think Mr. Isaacs will bear me out, that in the
5 United States it has been decided that the title to equal treatment under the law does not
6 mean that you cannot make a law which differentiates one class of the community from
7 another; but, as has been decided, it means that in the administration of the laws you have
8 made, all the citizens shall be treated equally. And that should be so. Whatever privilege
9 we give to our citizens, the administration of the law should be equal to all, whatever
10 their colour. The case I refer to is one of the Chinese cases-I forget the name of it.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 Again:
14 Whatever privilege we give to our citizens, the
15 administration of the law should be equal to all,
16 whatever their colour.
17
18 Well we now have former judges of the High Court of Australia, as I understand it, making
19 known that it is all right to discriminate on basis of colour. Indeed it already did, when allowing
20 2 convicted New Zealand born convicted criminals to stay in the Commonwealth of Australia if
21 they were accepted by some Aboriginal tribe. It must be clear that the HCA proved to be bias
22 when it comes to the colour of skin and not at all is impartial within judicial matters.
23
24 25 Provision as to races disqualified from voting
25 For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all
26 persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the
27 more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in
28 reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the
29 Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not
30 be counted.
31
32 Ok, how on earth is the (proposed) Voice going to work if any state can simply disqualify a race
33 from voting in elections?
34
35 Also the implications of Ss51(xxvi) would not be circumvented either. See my blog for this also!
36
37 Politicians can ignore it and refuse to waste monies on fat-cat Aboriginals who might be ripping
38 of the system!
39
40 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11071533/Geoff-Clark-ex-ATSIC-chief-facing-2million-fraud-
41 charges-threatens-senator-Jacinta-Price.html?fbclid=IwAR3k3SKVeiXZzV-HBpIZIh0_u-
42 Qk5XFsnxmEhmKgpX7H7FrRJL75LOC5QUw
43
44 How head of failed forerunner to the 'Voice to Parliament' is charged with fleecing
45 $2MILLION from the Aboriginal Trust
46 Ex-ATSIC chairman Geoff Clark is facing 380 charges of fraud and deception
47 Family members had faced 1100-plus charges over the alleged $2million fraud
48 Senator Jacinta Price warned ATSIC was a reason against a Voice to Parliament
49 By KEVIN AIRS FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA
Page 11
1 PUBLISHED: 14:30 AEST, 3 August 2022 | UPDATED: 17:31 AEST, 4 August 2022
2
3 There is no constitutional powers existing that allow such spending, registration of Aboriginal
4 companies different than that registering companies by other Australians!
5
6 QUOTE 20230615-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus-The Voice
7 DISINFORMATION & Deception, etc
8 https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2023/02/27/1385518/voice-to-parliament-debunking-
9 10-myths-and-misconceptions
10 Voice to Parliament: Debunking 10 myths and misconceptions
11 END QUOTE 20230615-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus-The Voice
12 DISINFORMATION & Deception, etc
13
14 QUOTE
15 The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a generous invitation to all Australians from First
16 Nations peoples to walk together towards a better future. Having a referendum on a First
17 Nations Voice to Parliament is the first step on that walk; a chance to change the
18 Constitution to enable First Nations people to be heard in matters that affect them.
19 END QUOTE
20
21 What “is a generous invitation” when there is nothing on offer for Australians other than caving
22 in to “white guilt” regardless many Australians are neither Aboriginal or white of colour of skin?
23
24 What is the “to walk together” when Aboriginals are preventing non-Aboriginals to have access
25 to breaches, etc, because of their claimed land rights?
26
27 QUOTE
28 For Indigenous representatives to persistently advocate or vote for Indigenous interests
29 they must first convince their party to support those interests.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 Well, the same is with the Italians, Greeks, Chinese and other races. So why should it be
33 different with Aboriginals?
34
35 QUOTE
36 individual representatives cannot usurp the authority and role of Traditional Owners and
37 elders to speak for their Country.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 Well we know what happened with Late “Kumanjayi Walker”?
41 And the Elders allegedly involved and well “Travelling Pete” (Anthony Albanese) appears to me
42 to have been busy scheming with certain Aboriginals that he has no time to care about the gross
43 injustice being done to Aboriginals and so the Late “Kumanjayi Walker”?
44 Traditional Owners and Elders are plenty full and well when you look at the crime rate then how
45 on earth will the Voice make one of Iota difference if they cannot even manage their current
46 group of Aboriginals?
47
48 QUOTE
49 The Australian Parliament has passed special laws that only affect Aboriginal and
50 Torres Strait Islander people. This is the only group of people in Australia about which
51 special laws are made. If Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the only group
52 that has special laws made about them, it is reasonable that they should be able to speak to
53 the Parliament and government about those laws.
Page 12
1 END QUOTE
2
3 QUOTE
4 12. Will an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice cede Aboriginal and Torres
5 Strait Islander peoples' sovereignty?
6 An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will be an Indigenous representative body enshrined in
7 the Australian Constitution. Because the Voice will be located within the Constitution, some
8 Indigenous activists and commentators have argued that it will require Indigenous peoples cede
9 sovereignty. Are they correct?
10 An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice cannot and will not cede Indigenous peoples'
11 sovereignty. Leading Indigenous and non-Indigenous constitutional and international lawyers, such as
12 Megan Davis, Asmi Wood, Hannah McGlade, George Williams and Anne Twomey have examined
13 this issue and agree. There are several reasons why this is the case.
14  Indigenous sovereignty cannot be ceded except by agreement and the proposal
15 says nothing about Indigenous sovereignty. The proposal does not mention
16 Indigenous sovereignty. Rather, it empowers Indigenous peoples with the opportunity to
17 make representations to Parliament and the government. In any event, the referendum
18 requires the support of non-Indigenous Australians. It makes little sense that non-
19 Indigenous Australians could cede Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples'
20 sovereignty. Only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can cede their
21 sovereignty.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 Now here is the TROJAN HORSE! This Voice appears to me to be that in effect this Voice will
25 be a declaration of separate sovereignty of Aboriginals versus other Australians. I am well aware
26 that other Australians at times claiming in court that they are sovereign and the Court basically
27 held them to be idiots. The truth is that all Australians are sovereign. Again, I canvassed this
28 extensively in documents published at my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati and so no
29 need to canvas it all again. Simply Australians are all sovereign, they and only they can amend
30 any constitution, albeit the High Court of Australia seems to me to blatantly ignore this. It are the
31 sovereign people who elect their representatives to represent them in the respective Parliament.
32 The respective constitution is a contract between the sovereign citizen and the executives which
33 limits the executive powers.
34 The Monarch is in that regard representing the interest of the constituents (Subjects of the British
35 Crown) and in the Commonwealth of Australia this means the Governor-General is the
36 Commander-in-Chief, not the Monarch. If a Minister of Defence desires to engage in a war then
37 he and he alone can petition the Governor-General to publish in the Gazette a DECLARATION
38 OF WAR naming a particular country. The Governor-General may refuse to do so (being
39 prerogative powers) if he holds the view it would be against the interest of Australians. Hence
40 the invasion into Afghanistan & Iraq were unconstitutional and the current involvement in the
41 dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation without a DECLARATION OF WAR is
42 also unconstitutional, meaning that by s44 all of those who are TRAITORS are no longer
43 Members of Parliament and neither Ministers of State.
44
45 QUOTE
46  There is no such thing as 'race'. To even speak of the notion of race is misguided.
47 There is no scientific or biological foundation for the idea of race. Scientists that have
48 mapped the human genome have found there is no basis in the genetic code for race.
49 Race is a social construct. This emphasises again that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
50 Islander Voice reflects the inherent rights Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
51 hold as the original inhabitants of the Australian continent. It is not based on race.
52 END QUOTE
53
Page 13
1 Firstly todays science might be tomorrow proven to have been incorrect. When a married couple
2 has twins of which one if black (as the father) and the other one Caucasian (like the mother) then
3 clearly there is something in the Genes that relates to “race” even so scientist have not as yet
4 established which gene might be the relevant one or what combination!
5 We had ample of unconstitutional restrictions about “science” that turned out NOT to be
6 “science” at all but rather the elaborate covid-19 scam pushed by politicians and their
7 collaborators. Well, all lawyers/judges (/politicians and collaborators) who claim to be
8 lawyers/judges better keep in mind that if they failed to pursue the truth and one of their family
9 members if not themselves is injured or even die then they may be responsible for this.
10 Congratulations to show your gross incompetence as a lawyer/judge and facilitate the DoD
11 (USA) DEPOPUILATION as predicted by its Deagel forecast. The USA thought the DoD
12 (Department of Defence) has for long planned to decrease world population significantly and
13 Australia through its various treaties seems to act like a puppet-on-a-string as to assist in the
14 decrease (DEPOPULATE) of the world population.
15 Obviously I am aware that you are not just going to take my word for it and would require some
16 sort of prove (evidence) that indeed this is what was being planned and what is being done.
17
18 Let us first therefore look at the (USA) DoD plan:
19 Let us look as Deagel.com (http://www.deagel.com/country/forecast.aspx) population forecast
20 and in particular, the current countries hit with COVID-19!
21
22 Name Country 2017 2025 Reduction %
23
24 United Kingdom 65,650,000 14,517,860 51,132,140 77.886%
25 Ireland 5,010,000 1,318,740 3,691,260 73.678%
26 Germany 80,590,000 28,134,920 52,455,080 65.089%
27 Spain 48,960,000 27,763,280 21,196,720 43.294%
28
29 France 67,100,000 39,114,580 27,985,420 41.707%
30 Switzerland 8,240,000 5,342,540 2,897,460 35.163%
31 Denmark 5,600,000 3,771,760 1,828,240 32.647%
32 Belgium 11,490,000 8,060,900 3,429,100 29.844%
33
34 Italy 62,140,000 43,760,260 18,379,740 29.578%
35 Austria 8,750,000 6,215,000 2,535,000 28.971%
36 Ukraine 44,030,000 31,628,980 12,401,020 28.165%
37 Norway 5,320,000 3,833,960 1,486,040 27.933%
38
39 Portugal 10,840,000 8,113,860 2,726,140 25.149%
40 Poland 38,480,000 33,230,780 5,249,220 13.641%
41
42 TOTALS 462,200,000 254,807,420 207,392,580 44.871%
43
44 United States of America 326,620,000 99,553,100 227,066,900 69.520%
45
46 Australia 23,230,000 15,196,600 8,033,400 34.582%
47
48 The website makes clear no “pandemic” was included into the forecast!
49
50 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-deaths-cause-unknown/
51 01/ 0 9/ 2 3
52 Seeing Is Believing: What the Data Reveal About Deaths Following COVID Vaccine
53 Rollouts Around the World
Page 14
1 Why would so many countries big and small, rich and poor, in different parts of the
2 world, some with congested cities, some sparsely populated, cold weather or hot
3 weather, tropical or desert, high altitude or low altitude, small islands or landlocked —
4 why would they all see increases in COVID-19 deaths after mass vaccination?
5
6 In my view those lawyers/judges who failed to pursue the FACTS may be considered to have
7 been enablers, and became collaborators, as those who became OFFICERS OF THE COURT
8 were duty bound to take appropriate action and failing this they may be deemed to have failed
9 their legal duties and obligations as an OFFICER OF THE COURT!
10
11 In British Medical Association v The Commonwealth [1949] HCA 44; 79 CLR 201 at [p293] Webb J
12 To require a person to do something which he
observed: “
13 may lawfully decline to do but only at the sacrifice of the

14 whole or a substantial part of the means of his livelihood
15 would, I think, be to subject him to practical compulsion
16 amounting to conscription [unlawful impressment and
17 press-ganging by force]… If Parliament cannot lawfully
18 do this directly by legal means it cannot lawfully do it
19 indirectly by creating a situation, as distinct from merely
20 taking advantage of one, in which the individual is left no
21 real choice [of abstention] but compliance. ” Cf. The Commonwealth
22 of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 [63 & 64 Vict.] (Imp.), Sect. 51 – (xxiiiA.) The provision of
23 maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical,
24 sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of
25 civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances.
26
27 Magna Carta 1297 (25 Edw I c 29) (Imp., NSW, ACT), c. 29 “No freeman shall be taken or
28 imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or in any
29 other wise destroyed; nor will We pass upon him nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his
30 peers or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, and we will not deny or defer to any man,
31 either justice or right. We, ratifying and approving these gifts and grants aforesaid, confirm and
32 make strong all the same for us and our heirs perpetually, and by the tenor of these presents do
33 renew the same: willing and granting for us and our heirs that this Charter and all and singular its
34 articles for ever shall be steadfastly, firmly and inviolably observed.” Cf. Why Magna Carta Still
35 Matters [2015] by Steven Rares J, FCA at [13, 24–27], President of the Judicial Conference of
36 Australia; IVAN JOSIP LUKATELA v JOHN ARTHUR BIRCH [2008] ACTSC 99 at [3-6], Magna
37 Carta, c. 29; Human Rights.
38
39 Federal Parliament and so the executives and administrators could not pursue mandates as it did
40 and the States/Territories had no legal powers to do so merely because the Commonwealth
41 allowed this but the lawyers/judges and their collaborators simply went along.
42
43 Currently Australia is actually in an unconstitutional “HOT WAR” with the Russian
44 Federation due to its financial, military and other support for Ukraine NAZI Government to
45 continue its genocide upon ethnic Russians that commenced in about 2014 and reportedly some
46 14,000 citizens were killed in the Donbass and surround area before the Russian SMO
47 commenced in February 2022 within the provisions of Article 51 of the United Nations.
48 In my view the alleged current federal government (so did its predecessor) stole monies from
49 Consolidated Revenue Funds for this as well as robbed our military without the warrant of law
Page 15
1 when Albanese did so without any Parliament sitting to even approve this. Besides the fact that
2 Parliament had no such legislative powers. It also means that monies rightfully belong to the
3 States are unconstitutionally denied to them!
4
5 The same we have with the World Health Organisation (WHO) where the current purported
6 federal government (so it’s predecessor) approved to allow the WHO powers over the
7 Commonwealth of Australia in clear violation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
8 Act 1900 (UK).
9
10 Currently Premier Daniel Andrews is pushing the World Economic Forum (W.E.F.) agenda that
11 is also the United Nations (U.N.) agenda to implement unconstitutional programs!
12
13 Our food is being poisoned by the mRNA poison implications but lawyers/judges (and their
14 collaborators) seems to me to perhaps too busy counting the monies they are receiving to remain
15 silent then to pursue what is just and proper within our constitutional system!
16
17 When did any lawyer acting as a legal practitioner ever exposed that the purported Victorian
18 Constitution Act 1975 is not a constitution at all?
19
20 When did any lawyer pursue that the purported Infringement Court is unconstitutional?
21
22 When did any lawyer pursue that the State land taxation (including council/shire rates) since 11
23 November 1910 is unconstitutional?
24
25 Numerous other issues are ignored by legal practitioners/judges and as it seems to me they are
26 simply puppets-on-a-string for the elite rather than upholding their oath/affirmation of office!
27
28 And quite frankly I got more respect for a person like Mr Ian Redfern seeking to get to the truth
29 then those seeking to use all kind of legal gibbering to frustrate him to obtain
30 details/information!
31
32
33
34 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal
35 constitution!
36
37 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
38 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
39 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

40 (Our name is our motto!)

20230621-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To VLA Complaints and Statutory Compliance

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

20230621-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To VLA Complaints and Statutory Compliance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

21-6-2023 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

21-6-2023 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

21-6-2023 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

43 Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to

1 for our schools," and thus they might wink at a

21-6-2023 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-

13 may lawfully decline to do but only at the sacrifice of the

39 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like