Page 1

1
2
3 Mr Warwick Gately (VEC) (Australia, Victoria time) 22-8-2023
4 info@vec.vic.gov.au
5
6 Cc: B Sutherland Issuing Officer
7
8 Re 20230822-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr W Gately (VEC) -COMPLAINT-
9 Re Mark Craig Schorel- Infringement 4120508
10 Sir,
11 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION & NO CASE TO ANSWER, etc.
12
13 As I actually address the correspondences to Mr Warwick Gately (VEC) then I view he should
14 be personally become involved and not leave the matter to some person who appears to me to
15 understand the legal implications I did comprehensively set out.
16 If you nevertheless persist to pursue a purported court order from an Infringement Court then
17 you may in fact be held guilty of obstructing the Administration of Justice and perverting the
18 course of Justice. Such order would have no legal validity!
19
20 “A pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all.
21 Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it”. Chief Justice Latham 1942
22
23 As such, it is irrelevant to my son mark what the Electoral Act 2002 may state where it violates
24 his constitutional rights provided for by the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of
25 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
26 As I previously indicated that my son mark relies upon the legal principles embedded in the
27 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and as the purported Infringement
28 Court has not been provided with “federal jurisdiction” then any sought enforcement must be in
29 a court that can exercise “federal jurisdiction”.
30
31 As I stated previously in my 7 July 2023 & 3-8-2023 correspondence:
32 QUOTE
33 In my view Mark doesn’t need to go to court to litigate a purported Infringement Notice
34 which has no warrant of law! My 7 July 2023 correspondence was some 119 pages and if
35 you do not desire to consider it all that would be your problem, but not that of Mark. If you
36 do not understand/comprehend the relevant legal issues I have placed in writing for and on
37 behalf of Mark then well you better consult a ‘competent’ lawyer who does.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 QUOTE
41 My son Mark Craig Schorel received a purported infringement notice no 4120508 which
42 I understand related to an allegation of FAILING TO VOTE in the 2022 Victorian State
43 election. As I am a constitutionalist and a Professional Advocate and have considerable
44 knowledge and experiences in this matter I therefore accepted to assist my son in these
45 matters.
46 END QUOTE
47 And
22-8-2023 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 QUOTE
2 Ordinary a State matters falls within the State jurisdiction however if the matter relates to
3 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then it becomes a federal
4 issue which would require federal jurisdiction.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
8 27 (17 June 1999)
9 QUOTE
10 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue
11 estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the
12 orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he
13 will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying
14 on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 Obviously, citizens around Australia would likely want to see this matter proceeding in Court so
18 that when a decision is made to uphold Mark’s constitutional rights this then will apply to all
19 other Australians! As I indicated this issue was successfully litigated by me on 17 July 2006
20 AEC v Schorel-Hlavka and the Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls made clear to accept the
21 court’s decision and as such that decision is beyond reproach. As I was not charged by the VEC
22 for FAILING TO VOTE in regard of the Nov 2022 State election and the State cannot
23 selectively litigate against one citizen and not another then this means the State of Victoria either
24 must accept that the “compulsory” part of voting is and remains unconstitutional and the
25 legislation is indeed invalid or face litigation against me which in view of the 19 July 2006 court
26 decision would be a failure as res judicata applies! (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata &
27 http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UQLawJl/1952/2.pdf for clarification).
28 The Framers of the Constitution made clear that all Australians are equal and all laws must be
29 applied in a “UNIFORM” manner “throughout the Commonwealth”, hence the VEC cannot
30 pursue my son Mark & others but not me. The VEC would first have to overcome the
31 “OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION” which I view it never will be able to do and without
32 conceding it might it has to overcome also “NO CASE TO ANSWER”, etc. Where the
33 commonwealth & 9 Attorney-Generals failed to defeat me in 2 cases do you really think you will
34 do any better? As I indicated previously consult a competent lawyers!
35
36 If the VEC doesn’t proceed to pursue matters against not just mark but also against myself for
37 allegedly FAILING TO VOTE then it means it likewise cannot proceed against any other
38 Victorian for allegedly FAILING TO VOTE.
39
40 All you have done, in my view, is to up the ante to make matters worse for the VEC, as I
41 expected you would do, because Mark (and so others) are entitled to the same rights as I have
42 successfully pursued. The VEC being prevented by res judicata to pursue me then likewise my
43 son Mark and others are entitled to be free from legal harassment by the VEC about their
44 exercise of their constitutional rights to vote or not to vote in any political election!
45
46 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
47
48 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
49 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

50 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

51 (Our name is our motto!)
22-8-2023 Page 2 © 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