20231028-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Buloke Shire Council & Ors-Supplement 1

Page 1
1
2
3 Buloke Shire Council & Ors 28-10-2023
4 buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
5
6 Cc: Cr Alan Getley (Mayor) crgetley@buloke.vic.gov.au
7 Cr David Pollard (Deputy Mayor) crpollard@buloke.vic.gov.au
8 Cr Carolyn Stewart crstewart@buloke.vic.gov.au
9 Cr Bernadette Hogan crhogan@buloke.vic.gov.au
10 Cr Graeme Milne crmilne@buloke.vic.gov.au
11 Cr Bronwyn Simpson crsimpson@buloke.vic.gov.au
12 Cr Daryl Warren crwarren@buloke.vic.gov.au
13
14 Ref; 20231028-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Buloke Shire Council & Ors-Supplement 1
15
16 Objection to so called council rates, etc.
17 Sir,
18 firstly I object to the purported Notice 17338 Fire Prevention Notice on legal grounds as I
19 will set out below, and request/demand the notice is withdrawn.
20
21 I noticed that in its 13 October 2023 correspondence Buloke Shire Council (Penelope Grant)
22 stated that the pension rate is not applicable due to that the property is not my place of residence.
23 And yet, Buloke Shire Council has been charging me for more than a decade for collection of
24 waste even so no one resided at the property.
25
26 As I outlined in the past people caused damage and stole most of my tools and equipment from
27 the property and if they have any conscious should return it all in a safe and secure manner, etc,
28 but to be very honest I do not think this will happen. I may not practice any religion but at least
29 have the view to act honourable!
30
31 It is now time for farmers/ growers and other citizens to take a stand and hold those who
32 committed TREASON/TERRORISM, including their collaborators and minions legally
33 accountable.
34
35
36 Some may recall I was an INDEPENDENT candidate in the 18 September 1999 State election
37 for Swan Hill. During my speech in Wycheproof I then referred to how Aboriginals were
38 pursuing land rights while farmers had to cop the expenses to fund their own defence.
39
40 Let anyone being federal, State/Territory or whomever prove that Aboriginals are in fact
41 indigenous and just like anyone else who was born in Australia being “natives”.
42
43 This is very critical because I understand that the Victorian Government has somehow made
44 (unconstitutional) deals with some Aboriginals that they can dictate over property owners what
45 they can or cannot do. Actually, it seems that they now somehow may enter anyone’s home
28-10-2023 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 without a warrant. So, forget about the safety of your child because privacy is no more if this is
2 left unattended!
3 Well consider the following:
4
5 History of elections in Victoria | Victorian Electoral Commission (vec.vic.gov.au)
6 QUOTE
7 The Victorian Electoral Commission acknowledges and pays respect to the Traditional Owners
8 of the land.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Well, who really are the traditional owners when legally the Dutch in 1658 claimed “New
12 Holland” (now Australia) and to my knowledge never granted any land rights?
13
14 https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous/bolster-power-of-culture-police-says-
15 victorian-aboriginal-heritage-council/news-
16 story/f6628a351e2f7259575f087310ccdb1f?amp&nk=923fdaed28cd985771e164c81667404d-
17 1698186757
18 ‘Bolster power of culture police’, says Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council
19 QUOTE
20 “We just will not support those sorts of powers because the only people who have
21 those sorts of powers are police,’’ Mr Walsh said.
22 END QUOTE
23 And
24 QUOTE
25 A rock climber’s house has twice been visited by a unit inspector who claimed the
26 unnamed owner’s vehicle had been identified in multiple alleged offences.
27 The First Peoples-State Relations unit is part of the Department of Premier and
28 Cabinet.
29 END QUOTE
30 And
31 QUOTE
32 Indigenous cultural investigators should be free to enter private properties such as farms
33 and houses in Victoria without the owner’s or renter’s permission, under reforms sought by
34 the peak First Nations heritage body.
35 The Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council warned in a pre-election legislative review that
36 staff investigating alleged cultural heritage breaches had too little power to properly
37 determine what has happened.
38 The council said the law should be toughened so that officers can enter land or premises
39 without the consent of the occupier, which would also mean investigators could walk
40 on to farms or other land if the owner was away.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 As if the elaborate “covid scam” was not enough, now your children’s safety and tranquillity is
44 placed at risk and I wonder are there any farmers/growers/and other citizens who have balls to
45 stand up for their rights and so that of their family members or is it just me who cares about this
46 all?
47
48 Perhaps any person who attended to my speech at Wycheproof may recall I also made clear to
49 oppose the State government to reduce bus services and leave small children standing at the road
50 side in danger and in weather conditions, etc.
51
52 No, I am not being paid or make any monies from the legal battles because I provide my writings
53 free of charge at my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
Page 3
1
2 https://archive.is/HAcXv#selection-253.5-253.94
3 Saved from: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous/grampians-covert-culture-cops-
4 drop-in-for-a-chilling-home-visit-with-threat-of-346000-fine/news-
5 story/5d179c6f946f4638244154805c292d02?amp&nk=782637fc6f0995d50f45f3c53ff26983-
6 1698061248
7 Grampians National Park users threatened with $346,000 fines under cultural heritage
8 laws
9
10 Ask yourself which of those Aboriginals are listed on your land titles to give them any rights
11 over your properties? Which one of them have worked on your property to make it productive?
12
13 My wife and I reside in Banyule City Council and well they now have engaged lawyers to battle
14 me but I have no doubt they will be defeated because I am not going to have my monies used for
15 this nonsense that Aboriginals somehow can dictate the Government or even my properties. At
16 least I have the balls to stand my ground!
17
18 And well Buloke Shire Council might want to litigate against me again, as they wasted
19 previously some $18,000 litigating against me. It engaged lawyers who were violating court
20 orders, used misleading/deceptive details and both witnesses would have been committing
21 perjury was it not that the hearing was without jurisdiction, this, because when I made my
22 objection to jurisdiction the judge simply failed to hold a jurisdictional hearing despite legally
23 required to do so and as such never invoked jurisdiction and the hearing was a scam and never
24 valid in law!
25
26 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
27 27 (17 June 1999)
28 QUOTE
29 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue
30 estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the
31 orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he
32 will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying
33 on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 No judge can railroad any constitutional issue for an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as then
37 the case and any orders are NULL AND VOID.
38
39 Who can ignore the extreme hardship that was placed upon many farmers/growers and other
40 citizens with the covid scam? Let the State of Victoria and/or any Buloke Shire Council
41 councillor prove that the alleged SARS-CoV-2 (covid-19) virus actually existed as to my
42 knowledge despite allegedly about 12 million people around the world having died from covid-
43 19 somehow it never was isolated and purified by the Koch postulate. In fact from FOI Act
44 documents I understand that Peter Doherty Institute admitted that they actually never did so
45 either, yet they appeared to have claimed they did and were provided with government contracts
46 as well as a $10,000 prize!
47
48 You do not need to take it from me as you can simply check out the videos:
49
50 https://rumble.com/v13kefy-must-see-the-plan-who-plans-for-10-years-of-pandemics-
51 from-2020-to-2030.html
52 THE PLAN - WHO plans for 10 years of pandemics, from 2020 to 2030
Page 4
1
2 https://www.facebook.com/traitstosuccess/videos/how-they-pulled-off-the-pandemic-david-
3 icke/380994153098722/
4 How They Pulled Off The 'Pandemic'– David Icke | Facebook
5 16 Nov 2020 ... An Animated Film Explanation By David Icke. The Answer – the new and life-changing
6 book by David Icke now available for pre-order to be ...
7
8 It makes no difference which of the major political parties are involved because as I understand
9 it they all were. Worse also most medical doctors were eager to inject the bioweapon into
10 people’s arms as they were making monies from it and never mind if the person (including
11 children) ended up with severe health problems and/or death.
12
13 At least I had the balls to refuse to participate in the mask nonsense, the QR code nonsense he
14 “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION bioweapon! Indeed when a specialist urged my wife to have
15 the jab I confronted him about the harm this may cause upon my wife. Well, he didn’t know! My
16 wife never again went back to him because the jab would have killed her!
17
18 There is this website https://stopworldcontrol.com and in my view any responsible person should
19 at the very least check out what it publishes. It might one day be that alarm bells are ringing that
20 you were forewarned and may protect not just yourself but also your family members.
21
22 Consider some of the following:
23
24
25
26 The education system is corrupt and children are subjected to horrific conduct and while I can
27 understand that for example farmers are often hard at work to try to make a living for the family,
28 in the end as I indicated regarding the busses issue, what is it worth if your child could be placed
29 in harm’s way?
30
31 How many parents really are aware that many of the childhood vaccinations are not within the
32 State’s legal authority where they relate to “man-kind” infectious diseases? OK, when I was a
33 single parent I didn’t have a clue about that until I was researching constitutional law when I
34 discovered this. Most lawyers wouldn’t have a clue let alone doctors, etc. Well, how many
35 children ended up with AUTISM and other health issues as result of those unlawful
36 vaccinations?
37
38 I for years have had a legal battle with GWMWater for failing to comply with the Safe Drinking
39 Water Act 2004. In the end the Ombudsman made clear it was a legal issue and well
40 GWMWater never took it to court, at least so far, that I refused to pay for “untreated” water.
41 Consider the firefighters who have been seeking to save lives, etc, and each time may have been
42 covered with the “untreated” water and may have ended up with illnesses never realising this
43 was caused by the “untreated” water?
44 Well, with my “20220510-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to GWMWater - Survey to gauge
45 Berriwillock's support, etc.- SUBMISSION” I set out legal issues. Followed with further
Page 5
1 supplements on 14-5-2022, 24-5-2022, 2-6-2022 and 5-6-02022. It appears that now

2 GWMWater is going to finally after some 20 years going to upgrade to provide safe drinking
3 water. Well, parents should now question if any health issues they and their family members, in
4 particular children, may have suffered from that might be connected to the “untreated” water!
5 Let it be clear, Buloke Shire Council in my view failed to address the issue of the “untreated”
6 water which I view they ought to have done!
7
8 Likewise in my view it failed to attend to the “man-kind” infectious disease vaccinations not
9 being lawful by State Government.
10
11 Getting back to the issue of Fire Notice and Infringement Notice that it has no legal basis, it is
12 because
13 All State legislation regarding Aboriginals (Voice/First Nation Assembly, etc), State land
14 taxation (including council rates), “man-kind” infectious disease childhood vaccinations,
15 etc, including to exclude politicians and officials from legal accountability are
16 unconstitutional.
17 You can download the document from:
18 https://www.scribd.com/document/679054806/20231021-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Jacinta-Allen-
19 Premier-of-Victoria-Ors-Suppplement-1
20 QUOTE
21 Jacinta Allen Premier of Victoria & Ors (Australia, Victoria date) 21-10-2023
22 jacinta.allan@parliament.vic.gov.au
23
24 Cc: John Pesutto Leader of the Victorian Liberal Party john.pesutto@parliament.vic.gov.au
25
26 Moira Deeming MP moira.deeming@parliament.vic.gov.au
27
28 Re: 20231021-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Jacinta Allen, Premier of Victoria & Ors – Supplement 1
29
30 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
31 COMPLAINT
32 Madam & Ors,
33 Further to my 210 October 2023 complaint I provide this Supplement 1.
34
35 Hereby, I object to the validity of certain parts of the “Country Fire Authority Act 1958 -
36 Victorian legislation” as well as seek to point out further issues of concern, albeit this is not
37 intended and neither must be deemed to be all issues of concern.
38
39 I am a self-educated CONSTITUTIONALIST and also a retired Professional Advocate.
40 Buloke Shire Council previously litigated against me, which did cost Buloke Shire Council about
41 $18,000 and the purported legal proceedings proved and underlined that despite the 200 pages of
42 the purported “Country Fire Authority Act 1958” there is really no proper system working.
43 Some of which I will set out below. Let me give an example.
44
45 In Buloke Shire Council v Schorel-Hlavka the Infringement allegedly claimed was also about
46 the nature strip. In particular in small country towns/townships the nature strip is often not
47 specifically designated and simply may be the soft should from the road surface to the fence line
48 of a privately owned property. As such, where there is no demarcation of a line where the nature
49 strip ends then the fenceline of the private property should be considered to be the nature strip,
50 yet despite this you have a purported “fire prevention officer” which in violation of:
51 16C Delegation of powers of Chief Executive Officer

Page 6
1 The Chief Executive Officer may, by instrument, delegate to any person by

2 name or to the holder of an office or position approved by the Authority, any
3 responsibility, power, authority, duty or function conferred on the Chief
4 Executive Officer under this Act or the regulations, except this power of
5 delegation.
6
7 is appointed by the council. Hence not the “Chief Executive Officer” but the council delegated
8 the powers.
9 Now we have the following legal issue also:
10
11 41 Fire prevention notices Error! Bookmark not defined.
12 (1) In the country area of Victoria, the fire prevention officer of a
13 municipal council may serve a fire prevention notice on the owner or occupier
14 of land in the municipal district of that council (other than a public authority)
15 in respect of anything—
16
17 The wording “(other than a public authority)” in my view makes this part unconstitutional,
18 hence invalid. Meaning it cannot be applied to anyone, as I will set out below!
19 END QUOTE
20
21 Consider:
22 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
23 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
24 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
25 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
26 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the
27 righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable
28 for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person
29 would be.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 If therefore the legislation excludes Ministers and their officials such as a “public authority”
33 then it violated the very legal principle embedded in the constitution and as such the purported
34 legislation has no legal basis.
35
36 Over the years I made thousands of photos of all different councils where their weed was often
37 higher than the roof of my motor vehicle, as I also exposed when Buloke Shire Council litigated
38 against me, whereas councils pursue citizens to have it no more but 10 cm!
39 It often is that the soft shoulder along roads is where motorist pull into and then the exhaust
40 causes a fire. That is where the real fire danger is! Yet, it are those purportedly excluded from
41 being held legally accountable which violated the legal principle embedded in the constitution.
42
43 HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
46 saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
47 they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 Meaning that this is really not about fire safety at all, merely an excuse for councils to terrorise
51 property owners while being the worst offenders themselves.
52
Page 7
1 One also may ask who is getting the monies of the fines? After all if it is for the state
2 Government then why should councils keep it?
3
4 Contrary to the nonsense parroted “councils” are not a level of government but merely
5 “corporations” and forget about “by-laws”! Corporations cannot legislate, they can only make
6 corporate rules!
7
8 I understand that in the past Buloke Shire Council was fining a person bound to a wheelchair for
9 high weed, and yet itself (again) has growth well above the height of my motor vehicle, as the
10 witness admitted was a fire danger!
11
12 Getting back to the Aboriginal issue, every Australian is a custodian of the land to act as a
13 sentry, also regarding legal issues!
14
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
18
19 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law,
20 every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state
21 Parliament will be a sentry.
22 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
23 sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 Well, I do my bit and now let us see how many others likewise are standing up and be counted.
27
28 On 23 October 2023 I had an adult who has AUTISM slashing the property, and with his mother
29 going back to spray, etc. Whereas I understand Buloke Shire Council workers in the past dumped
30 road tar onto my property.
31
32 Anyhow consider also what I did set out below:
33
34 QUOTE 27 October 2023 Email
35 Gerrit to Kunal - FEEDBACK
36 From: Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
37 To kunal.sharma@banco.net.au
38 Cc Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
39 Reply to admin@inspector-rikati.com
40 Date Fri 19:06
41
42 Kunal,
43 I noticed your contact address in:
44 QUOTE
45 https://www.banco.net.au/barristers/kunal-sharma
46 Kunal Sharma | Barristers - Banco Chambers
47 Kunal Sharma. Call 2021. Email kunal.sharma@banco.net.au. Phone +61 2 8239 0275. PDF ... Kunal was
48 also an associate to the Hon Anna Katzmann (Federal Court of ...
49 END QUOTE
50
51 I just came across a document written by Anna Katzmann:
52 QUOTE
53 THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
54 THE 2012 TERM
55 Anna Katzmann[1]
56
Page 8
1 [1] Judge of the Federal Court of Australia and Additional Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian
2 Capital Territory.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 In this it was stated:
6 QUOTE
7 The second decision was relevantly concerned with the referral power in s 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution.
8 The Court held that the referral by the NSW Parliament to the Commonwealth Parliament of certain powers
9 with respect to the custody and guardianship of children did not deprive the NSW Parliament of any power to
10 make laws on the same subject.
11 END QUOTE
12 And
13 QUOTE
14 De Jersey CJ and Muir JA held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the first limb of the Lange test had
15 been satisfied. But McMurdo P held that s 124A did not burden the freedom. Consistently with what the
16 Victorian Court of Appeal decided in Catch the Fire Ministries v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc[1] and with
17 what Basten JA said in Sunol v Collier (No 2),[2] her Honour found that, rather than burden the freedom,
18 s 124A “set parameters to enhance communications about government and political matters in a civilised,
19 diverse democracy, which values all its members, irrespective of race, religion, sexuality or gender
20 identity”.[3] She said she was unable to see that the incitement of hatred towards, serious contempt for, or
21 severe ridicule of others on the proscribed grounds could amount to political and government communication
22 of the kind contemplated by the implied freedom under a diverse, modern democracy. Special leave was
23 sought and the application is being heard as I speak.[4]
24 END QUOTE
25
26 My concern is the misconception expressed in this document, albeit it refers to judgments, about what is
27 constitutionally appropriate. Perhaps, you may pass this on to Anna Katzmann?
28
29 Due to the separation of powers the State Parliaments no longer are "constitutional" (note this should be
30 sovereign”) parliaments as they were before Federation as they became "constitutional" Parliaments.
32 QUOTE
33 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty.
34 Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary
35 sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative,
36 but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their
37 constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament
38 under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its
39 constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are
40 coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is
41 this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of
42 parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and
43 executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
44 END QUOTE
45
47 QUOTE
48 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
49 legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
50 END QUOTE
51
53 QUOTE
54 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
55 nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
56 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
57 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
58 remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all
59 the more forced on the Commonwealth.
60 END QUOTE
61
Page 9
1 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-

2 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age pensions if it be
3 practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away from the states. The sub-section
4 would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the
5 matter in hand.
6 END QUOTE
7
9 QUOTE
10 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Will you briefly restate the point?
11 Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive
12 at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working
13 of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole
14 of the Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will
15 have no power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the
16 necessary revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question
17 whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes
18 place on it, it has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the
19 question? I should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and
20 should be settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of
21 Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference. It appears to me that
22 this sub-section, which is certainly one of the very valuable sub-sections of this clause, affording, as it does,
23 means by which the colonies may by common agreement bring about federal action, without amending the
24 Constitution, needs to be rendered more explicit. One point more especially which needs to be rendered clear
25 is whether, when we have this federal action, there shall not be a federal means of providing for the necessary
26 revenue that may be required or for imposing the necessary charges under such legislation.
27 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Is that not implied?
28 Mr. DEAKIN.-If it is implied, would it not be best to make it explicit? The parentage of this clause, as I
29 have shown-originating as it does in a body with practically no financial power-casts a certain suspicion on
30 that reading of it, although, of course, the provision when embodied in this Act would have a different
31 effect. Still, why not make it clear whether we mean that, when the Federal Parliament has passed
32 federal legislation for some of the colonies, we shall allow that same legislation to deal with any
33 necessary raising of revenue from those colonies which may be required to give effect to the
34 legislation?
35 Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-I think the point taken by my honorable friend (Mr. Deakin) is one well worthy of
36 the consideration of the Drafting Committee, and probably the difficulty to which he has drawn attention
37 could be obviated by some such provision as that which he suggested. But this matter has struck me also
38 from another point of view, and it seems to me that the provision affords an easy method of amending
39 the Federal Constitution, without referring such amendments to the people of the various states for
40 their assent. Now, either when the state Parliaments have referred these matters to the Federal Parliament,
41 and the Federal Parliament has dealt with such matters, that becomes a federal law, and cannot afterwards be
42 repealed or revoked by the State Parliaments-that is one position, and in that case, of course, the reference
43 once made [start page 218] is a reference for all time, and cannot be revoked, so that to that extent it
44 becomes an amendment of the states' Constitution, incorporated in and engrafted on the Federal
45 Constitution without the consent of the people of the various states. On the other hand, if that be not so,
46 and the states can, after making such reference, repeal such reference, what is the result? You have a
47 constant state of change-no guarantee for continuity or permanence-in this class of laws, and this might lead
48 to a great deal of confusion and a most unsatisfactory state of things. My principal objection to the provision
49 is that it affords a free and easy method of amending the Federal Constitution without such amendments
50 being carried into effect in the manner provided by this Constitution.
51 Mr. BARTON.-I cannot understand how it gives an opportunity of amending the Federal
52 Constitution.
53 END QUOTE
54
55 What this means is that once the Commonwealth Parliament legislate on a certain subject matter then the
56 "concurrent" powers no longer is existing.
57
58 Moreover, due to the separation of powers the State Parliament cannot deminish the judicial powers of the
59 State Supreme Court, as it was able to do prior to federation. This means that the referral of legislative
60 powers that obviously would reduct the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, must be approved by state
61 referendum.
62
Page 10
1 French J (then of WA but later French CJ of HCA) made clear that Ss51(xxxvii) did no more but to grant the
2 Commonwealth powers to accept the referral of powers but the powers of the State to do so must be found
3 elsewhere.
4
5 In AEC v Schorel-Hlavka the AEC charged me with FAILING TO VOTE in 2001 federal election. I
6 (representing myself) then filed a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS (also served upon all 9
7 Attorney-Generals) which on 4 December 2002 was ordered to be heard and determined by the High Court of
8 Australia.
9 The AEC charged me again with FAILING TO VOTE in the 2004 federal election.
10
11 My submissions based upon constitutional provisions were that the "compulsory" part of voting was
12 unconstitutional. Further, that "Australian citizenship" is NOT a "nationality" but merely is about the abode
13 of a person residing in Australia.
14 There is a lot more to it all but on 19 July 2006 I succeeded in both appeals!
15
16 The reasonm is that I do not just refer to some constitutional provision but actually did set out what the
17 Framers of the Constitution intended with the particular provision.
18
19 Contrary to the general belief that the HCA in the Albert Langer case acknowledge there was a "political
20 liberty" the truth is this was embedded in the constitution!
21 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
22 Australasian Convention)
23 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
24 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and
25 the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in
26 this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the
27 peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
28 END QUOTE
29 And
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
33 people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
34 for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
35 history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
36 Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
37 charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
38 END QUOTE
39 And
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of
43 the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under
44 it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-
45 the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
46 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
47 this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
48 degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
49 guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the
50 court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal
51 as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
52 constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere
53 of the Commonwealth.
54 END QUOTE
55 .
56 The problem is that most lawyers/judges haven't got a clue as to what really a constitutional provision stands
57 for whereas I did extensive research and this is why I succeeded.
58
59 In Palmer v WA the HCA somehow held that the State could limit a person to travel over state boundary
60 because of the alleged COVID, however the truth is that State/Territories lack any legislative/executive and
61 administrative powers regarding childhood and alleged covid jabs because since 1908 it became exclusive
62 Commonwealth powers by the Quarantine Act since then replaced by the Biosecurity Act 2015.
Page 11
1
2 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
4 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
5 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd clause, is
6 intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine. That simply applies to
7 quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 I could list numerous other issues but the above ought to make clear that we should have special
11 constitutional trained judges rather than judges sitting at the High Court of Australia or elsewhere who are
12 basically making a quick pick judgment.
13
14 As for the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MMATTERS the High Court of Australia actually can never
15 hear the case, (albeit the same issues were successfully canvassed during the 19 July 2006 appeals) because
16 as I challenged "Australian citizenship" as not being a "nationality" it means the purported legislation
17 is ULTRA VIRES ab initio unless and until if ever at all a competent court of jurisdiction declares it to be
18 INTRA VIRES. Because the qualification of the judges rest upon holding "Australia Citizenship" as a
19 "nationality" which constitutionally doesn't exist, then there would be bias by the judges as they in effect
20 would have to declare their own validity of appointment.
21 The Sue v Hill purported judgment was outside the Courts jurisdiction as it sat as a Court of Disputed
22 Returns and not as HCA and as such was sitting as a "political" tribunal" and not as the HCA,
23
24 KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of Australia was wrongly decided
25 as it offended Ss51(xxvi) of the constitution.
26
27 MABO was wrongly decided because the Court failed to consider that in 1658 the Dutch claimed "New
28 Holland" and did not provide, at least to my understanding, land rights to Aboriginals (which included Torres
29 Strait Islanders.
30
31 Sykes v Cleary was wrongly decided because Mr Cleary was not employed with the Commonwealth , too
32 complicated to explain in this email but extensively canvassed at my
33 blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
34
35 While the referendum on 14 October 2023 rre Voice failed it should have been understood that the proposed
36 referendum clashed with Section 25 and Ss51(xxvi)!
37
38 While the States now seem to implement their kind of Voice, I have now made clear to 2 different councils I
39 am withholding the unconstitutional "council rates" and let them litigate to seek to justify the State to allow
40 Aboriginals to dictate my and other property holders ESTATE IN FEE SIMPLE rights.
41
42 Recently Banyule City council officers disregard my chain locked gates and signs ENTRY PROHIBITED,
43 etc, and twice trespassed and causing damage, etc. Also then vandalised my wife's Ford AU that was lawfully
44 parked in front of out property, causing ill held to not only me but also to my 90-year-old wife who suffers
45 from heart failure and other comorbidities.
46 Well, they picked upon the wrong person in this and because of my extensive knowledge about
47 constitutional matters I have no doubt to defeat them.
48
49 You may be aware that often legislation is enacted that excludes the government and public servants, etc, but
50 in real terms this is unconstitutional this because the legal principle in the constitution is that all persons are
51 equal!
52
54 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
55 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the
56 substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that
57 there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown
58 and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any
59 private person would be.
60 END QUOTE
61
Page 12
1 So much more but you may get the gist that I have done my research and would like to see that judges who
2 deal with constitutional matters are to have completed a course about the true meaning and application of
3 legal principles embedded in the constitution!
4
5 I may state that the HCA in 1904 commenced the problems by refusing to allow the Hansard records to be
6 used in litigation, until some 7 decades later and in that time numerous incorrect judgments were handed
7 down and still relied upon!
9 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
10 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
11 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
12 END QUOTE
13
15 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
16 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
17 END QUOTE
18 .
20 QUOTE
21 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
22 exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put in
23 words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
24 END QUOTE
25
27 QUOTE
28 Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
29 END QUOTE
30
32 QUOTE
33 Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not think that could be the intention. We are attempting to legislate for a very
34 limited possibility. You will get disputes so long as there are lawyers in the world. I do not know
35 whether Federation will do away with lawyers.
36 Mr. BARTON: Not until merchants will cease to quarrel.
37 Mr. MCMILLAN: If so it would simplify our arrangements very much. At the same time it does seem that
38 there ought to be something introduced to prevent the law being put into operation for a mere breach of
39 procedure, if there is such a chance.
40 Mr. SYMON: There is no chance.
41 Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not suppose that any ordinary moral layman would do it, unless he were
42 instructed by a less moral lawyer.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
47 QUOTE
48 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
53 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
54 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
55 END QUOTE
56
58 QUOTE
59 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
60 the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
61 Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
62 those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
Page 13
1 END QUOTE
2
3 OK, that is enough for now, and you can always check my blog.
4
5 Gerrit
6
7 --
8
9 Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
10 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
11 107 Graham Road
12 Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia
13
14 Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and other legal issues.
15
16 THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE
17 DISABLED
18 END QUOTE 27 October 2023 Email
19
20
21 I provided Buloke Shire Council (in my writings) with a sign ENTRY PROHIBITED and that
22 is ultimately what governs. As some people at times remove signs I use this manner to underline
23 the warning about ENTRY PROHIBITED.
24
25
26
27 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal
28 constitution!
29
30 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
31 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
32 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

33 (Our name is our motto!)

20231028-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Buloke Shire Council & Ors-Supplement 1

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

20231028-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Buloke Shire Council & Ors-Supplement 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

28-10-2023 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 supplements on 14-5-2022, 24-5-2022, 2-6-2022 and 5-6-02022. It appears that now

28-10-2023 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 The Chief Executive Officer may, by instrument, delegate to any person by

1 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-

32 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like