20240102-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police MR Shane Patton - COMPLAINT-Supplement 3 PDF

Page 1
1
2
3 Mr Shane Patton, Chief Commissioner of Police (Australia, Victoria date) 2-01-2024
4 Email via HEIDELBERG.UNI@police.vic.gov.au
5
6 Cc: Cr Tom Melican Mayor tom.melican@banyule.vic.gov.au
7 Alison Champion alison.champion@banyule.vic.gov.au
8 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos fiona.mitsdinikos@banyule.vic.gov.au
9 Cr Elizabeth Nealy elizabeth.nealy@banyule.vic.gov.au
10 Cr Mark Di Pasquate mark.dipasquale@banyule.vic.gov.au
11 Cr Alida McKern alida.mckern@banyule.vic.gov.au
12 Cr Peter Dimarelos peter.demarelos@banyule.vic.gov.au
13 Cr Rick Garotti rick.garotti@banyule.vic.gov.au
14 Cr Peter Casteldo peter.castaldo@banyule.vic.gov.au
15 Jan Richardson enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
16 Janet Redgrave Team Leader Development Planning enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
17 Mr RomanWojtkowski enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
18 Banyule City Council enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
19
20 20240102-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police Mr Shane Patton –
21 COMPLAINT-Supplement 3
22 Sir,
23 it appears that you still did not respond to my 21 December 2023 COMPLAINT and
24 Supplements and well this is another Supplement and for this I will so to say further up the ante.
25
26 COMMERCIAL LIABILITY:
27
28 When it comes to governments, and corporations they all these days are registered as a business
29 entity and for this must have COMMERICAL LIABILITY insurance. However, an insurance
30 company may reject any insurance payout on the basis that those who were in the wrong failed to
31 act appropriately and could have at the very least minimize the overall damages for which
32 insurance liability is claimed.
33
34 For example, where the Chief Commissioner of Police and/or other police officers blatantly
35 failed to act appropriately and by this unduly caused more harm for which damages are claimed
36 then the insurers company may hold that the Chief Commissioner of Police should be held
37 personally liable for any damages and restitution.
38 Likewise, the same applies to Banyule City Council and so its councillors, where despite my
39 extensive writings they are deemed to have failed to act in a reasonable manner to avoid any
40 escalation of harm and as such the insurance company may hold that Banyule City Council
41 and/or its councillors are to be personally liable for all and any compensation cost regarding
42 undue harm inflicted.
43 Also the State/Federal Government Departments and/or their Ministers and officials can be held
44 personally liable where their conduct is deemed by the insurance company to have been such that
45 a reasonable person would have avoided any escalation of further harm.
2-1-2024 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 As a former insurance agent I was well aware to be extremely careful in creating insurance
2 policies and also if a claim was made if this was a reasonable claim or the claimant unduly
3 caused escalation of harm and so may be held personally liable rather than the insurance
4 company.
5
6 For about a decade I have a legal dispute with GWMWater and they are for ever escalating their
7 claimed charges this even so by their own admission they cannot charge me. In fact the Victorian
8 Ombudsman held it was a legal issue, after debt collectors withdrew because of the question of
9 legal validity for GWMW to claim me for providing “untreated water” not suitable as “safe
10 drinking water” as was legislated in 2003 by the Safe Drinking Water Act. GWMwater failing to
11 comply, and to this day still has not complied, to provide “safe drinking water’. As a corporation
12 it cannot force me to pay something for what I do not desire.
13
14 Then we have Buloke Shire Council which now allegedly allows Aboriginals to have a say over
15 private property registered in my name. I do not accept this to be lawful and so have indicated
16 that their charges are unlawful, and they are also fraud, etc. After all, despite no waste collection
17 for more than a decades it nevertheless purportedly charges me $400 for this non-existing
18 service. As it is a corporation then clearly it cannot force me to pay for something merely
19 because it as a corporation desires to do so in violation of my rights. Buloke Shire Council
20 previously litigated against me and I OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
21 but the Magistrate simply disregarded this./ Then appearing before Carmody again OBJECTING
22 TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT Carmody simply made clear he had jurisdiction
23 because I had filed an appeal, which in law is utter and sheer nonsense, this because ample of
24 times a party may file an appeal and then the Court strikes it out for want of jurisdiction.
25
26 "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any
27 case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to
28 decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los
29 Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
30
31 McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)
32
33 The authority which the statute vests in the court to enforce the limitations of its
34 jurisdiction precludes the idea that jurisdiction may be maintained by mere averment or
35 that the party asserting jurisdiction may be relieved of his burden by any formal procedure.
36 If his allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate
37 manner, he must support them by competent proof. And where they are not so challenged
38 the court may still insist that the jurisdictional facts be established or the case be dismissed,
39 and for that purpose the court may demand that the party alleging jurisdiction justify his
40 allegations by a p - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-
41 court/298/178.html#sthash.vq35K1Gk.dpuf
42
43 http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Speeches/2016%20Speeches/Beazley_
44 20151029.pdf
45 The content of the duty and “the judge’s dilemma”
46 23. In practice the base line duty to a self represented litigant extends, at least, to the giving of
47 information on court procedure and the options available. As was said by Mason J in MacPherson v
48 The Queen 18 at 534:
49
50 “A trial in which a judge allows an accused to remain in ignorance of a fundamental
51 procedure which, if invoked, may prove to be advantageous to him, can hardly be labelled as
52 ‘fair’.”
Page 3
1
2 HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
3 Australasian Convention)
4 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
5 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a
6 judiciary, there shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as
7 a part of the Constitution-that I believe to be an improvement-and other courts which
8 the Parliament may from time to time create or invest with federal jurisdiction.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 VCAT is not a court invested with federal jurisdiction and therefore cannot hear and determine a
12 matter involving the Commonwealt5h of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
13
14 QUOTE ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.
15 A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law
16 provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments,
17 and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their
18 judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to
19 or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
23 Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed
24 and must be decided.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
28 Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 QUOTE Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.
32 Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the
33 legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 QUOTE Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27
37 Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it
38 assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. .
39 END QUOTE
40
41 QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,
42 Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
43 END QUOTE
44
45 QUOTE HALSBURY’S LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460):
46 Consent to summary jurisdiction The consent to be tried summarily must be clear and
47 unequivocal and a failure to carry out the procedures for obtaining the consent will deprive
48 the court of jurisdiction to determine the matters summarily.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 QUOTE Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
52 Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on
53 appeal.
54 END QUOTE
55
56 QUOTE In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

Page 4
1 Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have
2 jurisdiction to hear is void, ab initio.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 QUOTE (Jagens v. Lavine, 415 S.Ct.768).
6 Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.
7 END QUOTE
8
9 QUOTE Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
10 There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 QUOTE Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.
14 Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction
15 asserted.
16 END QUOTE
17
18 QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
19 The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it
20 must be proven.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 QUOTE Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
24 Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that
25 the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather,
26 should dismiss the action.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 QUOTE Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
30 Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of
31 law, court is deprived of juris.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 QUOTE Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
35 A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without
36 jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or
37 property.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 QUOTE Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
41 The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction."
42 END QUOTE
43
44 QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,
45 No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.
46 END QUOTE
47
48 QUOTE Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
49 Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 QUOTE Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.
53 When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the
54 municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in
55 administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially.
56 END QUOTE
57 .
58 QUOTE Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.
Page 5
1 Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are
2 a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may
3 be rejected upon direct collateral attack.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 Hansard 2-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
7 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
8 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
9 important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
10 END QUOTE
11 .
12 .
13
14 QUOTE Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns [1999] FamCA 64
15 (2) The Court always has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for the
16 purpose of and up to the point of deciding whether it has jurisdiction to
17 make the orders sought in the proceedings.
18 (3) In carrying out that limited exercise of jurisdiction, the Court is required to
19 determine any essential facts upon which the existence of its jurisdiction to make
20 the orders sought ultimately depends (“the jurisdictional facts”). That
21 determination is a function which is incidental to the exercise of the jurisdiction
22 referred to in (2) above.
23 END QUOTE
24 And
25 QUOTE Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns [1999] FamCA 64
26 (6) Once a respondent challenges the Court’s jurisdiction to make the orders
27 sought, the Court, before considering the adjudicational facts, must find the
28 existence of the jurisdictional facts, on the balance of probabilities.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 QUOTE
32 FAMILY LAW RULES 20042003 No. 375 - RULE 3.05
33 Objection to jurisdiction
34 (1)
35 If, in a Form 3A, a respondent objects to the jurisdiction of the court, the
36 respondent will not be taken to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court
37 by also seeking an order that the application be dismissed on another ground.
38 (2)
39 The objection to the jurisdiction must be determined before any other orders
40 sought in the Form 3A.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 Director General, Department of Commerce v Cianfrano and Anor [2008] NSWADTAP 56
44 (24 July 2008) NEW SOUTH WALES ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL
45 QUOTE
46 3 The Tribunal decided, contrary to the Department’s submission, that it did have
47 jurisdiction to determine the adequacy of search question: Director-General, Department
48 of Commerce and anor (No 2) [2006] NSW ADT 195. The matter was listed for further
49 directions. The Tribunal’s orders were as follows:
50 1. First Respondent’s objection to jurisdiction dismissed.
51 2. Tribunal to reconvene to make further directions as appropriate.

Page 6
1 END QUOTE
2 .
3 Trapman v Sydney Water Corporation & Ors [2009] FMCA 942 (16 September 2009)
4 QUOTE
5 1. Accordingly, I find that the Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matters contained in
6 Particulars (a)(ii), (v), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi) and (xii) of Exhibit 1.
7 1. It follows that I find that the Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matters
8 contained in Particulars (a) (i),(iii), (iv) and (vi) of Exhibit 1.
9 1. I make orders accordingly.
10 END QUOTE
11 .
12 Watson v Director-General, Department of Services, Technology and Administration [2010]
13 NSWADT 44 (12 February 2010)
14 QUOTE
15 He also stated that, if the Tribunal agreed this view, he would seek an order that the
16 Respondent pay the Applicants’ costs occasioned by the objection to jurisdiction on an
17 indemnity basis.
18 END QUOTE
19 And
20 QUOTE
21 The orders to be made
22
23 64 For the foregoing reasons, each of the applications constituting these proceedings is
24 dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
25
26 65 In consequence, the Tribunal’s orders made on 6 January 2010 are discharged.
27
28 66 In addition, the directions hearing set down for 15 February 2010 is vacated.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 As with the Buloke Shire Council case Carmody never did provide a hearing to determine
32 jurisdiction and as such Buloke Shire Council lawyers never presented any case why the court
33 could invoke jurisdiction and by this any purported subsequent litigation were without legal
34 basis.
35
36 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
37 27 (17 June 1999)
38 QUOTE
39 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue
40 estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the
41 orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he
42 will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying
43 on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 Let this sink in, that regardless if a Court, including the High Court of Australia, issue a
47 purported Order but it is in violation of the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of
48 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then such purported Order has no legal force and anyone
49 acting to enforce such purported order could be held legally accountable.
50
51 The Infringement Court is not a Court at all and neither can invoke federal jurisdiction. As the
52 Framers of the Constitution made clear that a court can only determine a matter before it AFTER
53 having both parties heard. The purported Infringement Court doesn’t at all allow for both parties

Page 7
1 to be heard as it merely act upon whatever fabricated allegation has been made by some police
2 officer or other person for a council, etc.
3
4 The Letters Patent of 2 January 1901 regarding the powers of the Governor for Victoria also
5 specifically stipulates that the Governor can appoint an impartial administration of Justice.
6
7 I will now quote some images of a video “Eureka 2.0 Lets Go - Tim Dwyer”
8 QUOTE
9
10
11
12
13
14
Page 8
1
2
3
4 END QUOTE
5
6 Hansard 4-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. HIGGINS.-But the Commonwealth Parliament will be one of the parties to the
10 purchase.
11 Mr. BARTON.-No; the Executive Government will be a party to the purchase. There
12 must be some authority to determine the mode of compensation. It is the second sub-
13 section which provides for the ascertaining. of the value. A separate sub-section makes
14 provision for the manner of the compensation, that is to say, whether the compensation
15 shall be in cash or bonds, or in some other way. Clearly, the High Court could not
16 determine a matter of that kind. It is a matter of political arrangement between the
17 Commonwealth and the state.
18 Sir JOHN FORREST.-Will it be optional with the state to say whether property shall or
19 shall not be handed over?
20 Mr. BARTON.-If my right honorable friend will look at sub-section (3) he will see that
21 it is not the state but the Commonwealth which has this option. Of course, the
22 Commonwealth, as a general rule, will not take over property except such as is to be
23 exclusively used for a service that has been transferred to it.
24 Sir JOHN FORREST.-The clause does not contain the words "with the consent of the
25 state."
26 Mr. BARTON.-That is so, but you cannot carry a, sale into effect without knowing the
27 price. The price is a condition to be determined before the sale is made.
28 Sir JOHN FORREST.-I thought that where property was not to be used exclusively
29 by the Commonwealth there was to be no absolute power in the Commonwealth to
30 take it over.
31 Mr. BARTON.-I understood that the feeling of the committee was that the
32 Commonwealth should have the option of saying whether it would or would not take over
33 any property, but that the state should be able to arrange with the Commonwealth as to the
34 price to be paid for any property taken over. If the parties cannot agree, the price is to be

Page 9
1 determined according to the law of the state in regard to the acquisition of property for
2 public purposes.
3 Mr. KINGSTON.-Is there any special reason for providing for two special modes of
4 ascertaining the value of property?
5 Mr. BARTON.-There is no attempt to provide for two different modes of ascertaining
6 the value. The second sub-section provides for the ascertaining of the value, while the third
7 sub-section provides only for the manner of the compensation. That was one of the most
8 difficult clauses in the Bill to redraft, because of the very nature of its provisions. There are
9 the three cases to be considered. There is the property exclusively used for a transferred
10 service; that goes over to the Commonwealth absolutely, except in the case of departments
11 controlling customs and excise and bounties, in which case it goes over to the
12 Commonwealth only for a time to be declared by the Governor-General in [start page
13 1904] Council. Then you come to the ascertaining of the price where property is used by
14 the Commonwealth, but not exclusively used by it, in connexion with any transferred
15 department or service. In this case the value is to be ascertained by agreement, or, failing
16 that, by the ordinary law in force in the state for the ascertaining of the value of property
17 acquired by the Government for public purposes.
18 Sir JOHN FORREST.-The Commonwealth might take a quarter or half of a
19 building.
20 Mr. BARTON.-I do not think that is likely. There would probably be some
21 arrangement made by which either the state or the Commonwealth would take over
22 the whole building. Then we come to the manner of compensation, which is to be decided
23 by agreement, if possible, but, if no agreement can be come to, by the provisions of an Act
24 passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. I strongly object to any one being a judge
25 in his own cause, but in this case you do not allow one of the parties to determine his own
26 cause, because the Parliament of the Commonwealth will not be a party to the transaction,
27 but a body in which all the states will be represented. The fourth sub-section deals with
28 that part of clause 69 to which the honorable and learned member (Mr. Higgins) objected.
29 At his instance, I consented to agree to the striking out of the last two words of that clause.
30 The provision finds its proper place in this clause, where there is a distinction between the
31 price and the liabilities taken over.
32 Mr. ISAACS.-Do the words "any property passing to the Commonwealth," which occur
33 in sub-section (3), include property dealt with in sub-section (2)?
34 Mr. BARTON.-The third sub-section provides for the manner of compensation in regard
35 to any property passing to the Commonwealth. The matter was the subject of a long debate
36 here. Honorable members, the Right Hon. Sir George Turner amongst them-suggested that
37 the value need not necessarily be paid in cash, but that there might be some provision for
38 an arrangement between the parties as to the mode of paying it.
39 Mr. ISAACS.-Ought you not to put in the words "manner of the payment of
40 compensation"?
41 Mr. BARTON.-I think that the words "manner of compensation" are sufficient. The
42 price will have been ascertained beforehand.
43 Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-May I ask the honorable and learned member a question in
44 regard to a practical difficulty? A custom-house is not an easy property to sell or to value.
45 Is there not, therefore, need of a provision defining the basis of valuation which is to be
46 applied? I suppose a big building like the Custom-house in Sydney or Melbourne is not to
47 be valued upon the basis of the receipts for the last few years?
48 Mr. BARTON.-I suppose not, unless my honorable and learned friend is going to
49 suggest an amendment to that effect.
50 Mr. HIGGINS.-The question is one of great practical difficulty. You can value the land
51 easily enough, but not the buildings.
Page 10
1 Mr. BARTON.-The Acts dealing with the taking over of land in any state deal also with
2 the taking over of buildings, so far as I know.
3 Mr. HIGGINS.-Yes, but the value of a building like a custom-house, a state school, or
4 lands titles office, would depend very much upon the use to which it could be put.
5 Mr. BARTON.-There will be no good will to take over. I suppose that any authority
6 wishing to arrive at a valuation would ask the question-"What did this building cost to
7 build?" or "For what could a building of this kind be built?"
8 END QUOTE
9
10 What ought to be understood is that the Framers of the constitution held that the Commonwealth
11 should own the property used for its services. As the States were created within Section 106 of
12 the constitution “subject to this constitution” then likewise it must be accepted that the States
13 must own the buildings from which it provides its services. In particular with Court services it
14 must be and be seen to be “impartial” and cannot be subject to strangers (private organisations)
15 which may compromise also the security and may cause parties before the court having to pay
16 cost because the State government has to pay rent to private owners, etc, which would not be
17 applicable where the courts buildings remained in State’s ownership.
18 In my view the selling and then renting of court buildings violate the legal principle embedded in
19 the constitution as well as in the 2-1-1901 Letters Patent as the Court no longer can be deemed to
20 be “impartial”.
21
22 As a matter of fact the same with the Land Titles Office somehow having been provided to a
23 private organisation where the Registrar of Titles, now being in private organisation hands can
24 unilaterally transfer ownership of all Titles to anyone, like the W.E.F. The Governor by the
25 Letters Patent 2-1-1901 is given the authority to provide a Minister with authority to act on
26 behalf of the Monarch regarding properties, one may compare this as a lawyer acting for a client.
27 The authority of a lawyer would be limited to the matter engaged, and the lawyer cannot then
28 claim ownership of part of the property or sell the property, etc, but can only act within the strict
29 assignment provided. Likewise the Minister can only deal with matters as assigned by the
30 Governor and not give the powers to a stranger such as a private corporation who may then do
31 whatever.
32
33 The fact the Minister cannot hand over Ministerial responsibility but must be personally hands
34 on may be understood from the following quotes:
35
38 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
39 It is just as important that the Federal Government shall have the care and management of the vehicles which
40 carry human beings and their goods as that it should have the care and [start page 769] management of
41 the vehicles or ways which carry letters and telegrams.
42 END QUOTE
43
44 (Writers note: Notice they even refer to “management of the vehicles” not just photo
45 opportunities for a Minister!)
46
47 And:
50 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
51 If you give over the telegraph and postal business you thereby hand to the custody of the Federal Government
52 all the local appointments-the appointing of the postmasters, clerks, and other officers, who do not do
53 national, but the purest local business; and you at once raise up a large army of civil servants, the
54 influence of which we want to dissociate from our national life
Page 11
1 END QUOTE
2
3 (Writers note: Notice they refer to appointments of officers etc and “large army of civil servants”
4 clearly this relates to Commonwealth Management, not some private company)
5
6 It should be clear that the Minister personally must be accountable and involved and not leave it
7 to some private company. When any government let a private company run a department, such
8 as the Land Titles Office than it fails to act within the legal requirements of the constitution and
9 the Minister may be deemed to be involved in TREASON.
10
11 In my view the same applies to the police force, where police officers must be and remain to be
12 public servants and are not and cannot be held legally responsible as a private person for
13 anything they do as a public servant police officer.
14
16 QUOTE
17
18
19 END QUOTE
20
21 https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/administrative-bungle-leaves-1000-victorian-police-officers-
22 wrongly-sworn-in-20220224-p59z72.html
23 Victoria Police admits over 1000 officers strongly sworn in - The Age
24 24 Feb 2022 ... More than 1000 Victorian police officers have been carrying guns and issuing charges
25 without proper authorisation, in a major graduation ...
26
27 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/victoria-police-officers-sworn-in-incorrectly-lisa-
28 neville/100856402
29 More than 1,000 Victorian police officers incorrectly sworn in due to ...
30 23 Feb 2022 ... The Victorian government is urgently drafting retrospective legislation to address an
31 administrative error which has resulted in more than ...
Page 12
1
2 https://www.9news.com.au/national/victoria-police-swearing-in-error-will-not-allow-criminals-to-walk-free-
3 en-masse/6b568a95-60b8-46a4-98ea-b67bf9239c7b
4 Victoria Police swearing in error will not allow criminals to walk free ...
5 10 Mar 2022 ... The "administrative error" allowed the officers to be sworn in by an acting assistant
6 commissioner who did not have authority to do so under the ...
7
8 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/24/administrative-bungle-means-1200-victoria-police-
9 have-been-working-without-proper-authority
10 questions raised over 1200 unauthorised Victorian police officers ...
11 23 Feb 2022 ... The state's chief commissioner, Shane Patton, on Thursday revealed between July 2014 and
12 August 2021 1,076 police officers, 157 protective ...
13
14 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-10/victoria-police-administrative-bungle-case-thrown-out/100897964
15 Victoria Police confident swearing-in bungle that led to charges ...
16 9 Mar 2022 ... Since 2014, hundreds of Victorian police officers have been incorrectly sworn in ... Shane
17 Patton, a man with short dark hair, speaks to media in ...
18
19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3EtSHKBJQ
20 Victoria Police Officers Incorrectly Sworn In | 10 News First - YouTube
21 23 Feb 2022 ... More than 1000 Victoria Police Officers have been incorrectly sworn in over the past eight
22 years. Countless arrests, search warrants and ...
23
24 https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/victoria-police-administration-bungle-how-did-it-happen-
25 20220224-p59zdp.html
26 Victoria Police administration bungle: How did it happen? - The Age
27 24 Feb 2022 ... On Thursday, it was revealed acting assistant commissioners have been swearing these new
28 officers in despite legislative changes that came into ...
29
30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TILPYGYrIr0
31 More than 1000 Victorian police officers incorrectly sworn in - YouTube
32 24 Feb 2022 ... An administrative bungle has resulted in more than 1000 Victoria Police officers going about
33 their job without being properly sworn in.
34
35 https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/victoria-police-reveals-mammoth-admin-bungle-caused-
36 cops-to-be-wrongly-sworn-in/news-story/01ba4ff941a3913e19ca755bbaf37863
37 Victoria Police: Amin bungle caused cops to be wrongly sworn in
38 24 Feb 2022 ... Victoria Police's Chief Commissioner has revealed the more than 1000 officers
39 wrongly sworn in were working without the “valid powers” to do so.
40
41 https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/hundreds-of-victoria-police-officers-incorrectly-sworn-in-over-
42 seven-years/news-story/a2873d0aec4f350aa64c2a9cb39eb3ba
43 Victoria Police officers incorrectly sworn in, 'weren't legally policec'
44 25 Feb 2022 ... The blunder saw 1262 police officers, PSOs and police custody officers wrongly sworn
45 in between 2014 and 2021 due to amendments to the Victoria ...
46
47 I recall a case where the Federal Government an d upheld by the High Court of Australia had
48 reportedly granted citizenship to a man who was as a child with his parents permitted to enter
49 the Commonwealth of Australia but the man not having been notified was nevertheless deported
50 as he had not formally accepted the citizenship.
51
53 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
54 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
55 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
56 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
57 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
58 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
59 END QUOTE

Page 13
1 .
2 Alec Kruger & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia; George Ernest Bray & Ors v The
3 Commonwealth of Australia [1997] HCA 27 (31 July 1997)
4 Matter No M21 of 1995
5 QUOTE
6 "Q.2. Does the Constitution contain any right, guarantee, immunity, freedom or provision
7 as referred to in paragraph 29 of the Amended Statement of Claim, a breach of which by -
8 (a) an officer of the Commonwealth; or
9 (b) a person acting for and on behalf of the Commonwealth;
10 gives rise to a right of action (distinct from a right of action in tort or for breach of
11 contract) against the Commonwealth sounding in damages?"
12 A. No.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 No matter what all and any Tasmania magistrate orders which were issues without the magistrate
16 having been properly sworn in must be deemed never to have been made, and all such purported
17 decision to be removed from the records. Also be charged for impersonating a judicial officer,
18 etc.
19
20 The same with where police officers and others were not properly sworn in then each and
21 everyone should have been charged for impersonating a police officer and all and any of their
22 conduct in regard of litigation be removed, and any evidence, charges, etc they were involved in
23 and should be held legally accountable in private capacity for any harm and injustice that was
24 inflicted upon others.
25
26 We cannot have that if a motorist while having paid motor vehicle registration nevertheless is
27 charged for driving an unregistered motor vehicle because VicRoads while having received the
28 payment has not allocated the payment properly, etc, the motorist nevertheless can be held in the
29 wrong while the very people who are to enforce/uphold the law somehow can flaunt proper
30 compliance to legal requirements. I understand that VicRoads has thousands of payments that
31 never were allocated to a particular person. I discovered this when I was checking with
32 VicRoads about a payment I had made for my son and then was advised they never had received
33 any payments. Just, that I had bank records showing the payment was made. Then in the end
34 VicRoads admitted they actually had received the payment but had it placed in an account where
35 they claimed thousands of payments were still waiting to be allocated.
36
37 Let us then consider the following:
38
40 QUOTE
41 Sir JOHN BRAY: What the hon. gentleman has said is quite right so far as the purposes
42 of this section are concerned as regards reckoning the time of retirement. But in another
43 part of the bill it is provided that the senators are to be paid for their services, and the
44 question arises, does the term of service of a senator for the purposes of payment begin
45 from the date of his election, from the date when he is sworn in, or from the first day of
46 January?
47 HON. MEMBERS: On the day when he is sworn in!
48 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Surely when his
49 service begins!
50 Sir: I think we ought to have that fixed. It seems to me very undesirable to provide, as
51 suggested by Colonel Smith, that although a senator is elected in June, his term of
52 service and payment for service shall not begin until the following January.
53 Mr. CLARK: He will not do anything until the following January!
Page 14
1 Sir JOHN BRAY: For the purposes of retirement, a date should be fixed from which the
2 time should be reckoned; but for all other purposes a senator ought to be a senator from the
3 day he is chosen.
4 Mr. BAKER: How can he be when there is another man in his place?
5 Sir JOHN BRAY: I can quite see that for the purposes of this section the provision as
6 contained in the clause is right; but, as regards other portions of the bill, it seems to me that
7 it is not right, and the question ought to be clearly understood.
8 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: So far as the objection with regard to payment is concerned,
9 there is a good deal in it, and the matter should be dealt with now. The clause only deals
10 with the first senators. Afterwards the term of service begins on the 1st of January. I
11 suppose a senator can hardly be called a senator until the 1st of January arrives. He
12 will be a senator elect, but he will not be a senator really until that day. If parliament
13 is in session on the 1st of January, he will walk in and take his seat, and the other man
14 will walk out, and his pay, I apprehend, will begin on the same day. But the hon.
15 member has pointed out a blot with respect to the first senators. A man might be elected in
16 December and claim twelve months' pay, dating from the previous January. This, I think,
17 would be remedied by inserting in the second paragraph the words "for the purposes of his
18 retirement."
19 Mr. WRIXON: The matter will want a little thinking over, because I apprehend a
20 man is not a senator until he presents himself and takes the oath.
21 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Why not?
22 Mr. WRIXON: He might refuse to take the oath, and so would be disqualified from
23 the beginning. It is not until be presents himself and takes the oath that he is really a
24 senator. He is in potentiality a senator; but he is not completely clad in that position until
25 he [start page 602] appears at the table and takes the oath, and I apprehend he is not
26 entitled to payment until that takes place. I would suggest that it is somewhat hazardous
27 to make an amendment at the table in a bill of this kind, which has been carefully
28 considered; and if these matters are home in mind, they can be afterwards dealt with by the
29 draftsman. I would deprecate any hurried amendment on the spot, where it may not be
30 required.
31 Sir HARRY ATKINSON: The clause states that the term of service of a senator
32 shall not begin until the 1st January following the day of his election. If a vacancy
33 occurs, and a senator is elected in June, he then becomes a senator; but, according to
34 this part of the clause, he cannot become an actual senator until the following
35 January. Though parliament might be in session, he would be unable to take his seat. I
36 would suggest to the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, that he should take a note of this
37 point, and consider it. I do not think we could make any amendment here that would meet
38 the case. For the purposes of this particular clause the provision is right enough; but I think
39 there will be a difficulty in regard to payment, and also as to vacancies occurring.
40 Sir JOHN BRAY: I quite agree with Sir Samuel Griffith, that if we are not to overlook
41 this question entirely it ought to be settled somewhere in this clause, and if the hon.
42 gentleman sees no strong objection to such a course I shall move the insertion at the
43 beginning of the second paragraph of the words "for the purposes of this section." It would
44 be manifestly absurd in regard to the first election of senators to say that if a man is elected
45 in September or October the term of his service shall begin from the preceding January,
46 and that he shall be entitled to all the privileges of a senator from that date. It is quite
47 possible that this may not be the best amendment that can ultimately be made, but it seems
48 to me clear that the second paragraph was drawn with the idea, that it applied to this
49 section only and not to other portions of the bill. I beg, therefore, to move as an
50 amendment:

Page 15
1 That before the words "The term of service" line 11, the words "For the purposes of this
2 section" be inserted.
3 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That is quite correct: those are the right words!
4 Amendment agreed to.
5 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: In reference to the point raised by the hon. member, Sir
6 Harry Atkinson, in regard to vacancies occurring by death, the difficulty would be met by
7 substituting for the words "retiring senators" the words "senators retiring by rotation."
8 Amendment (by Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH) proposed:
9 That the words retiring senators," line 17, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof
10 the words "senators retiring by rotation."
11 Mr. MARMION: Is this intended to refer to senators retiring by rotation throughout, or
12 only in the first instance?
13 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Always!
14 Mr. MARMION: It seems to me that there are two portions of the bill which may be
15 affected by the proposed amendment. In the first place, unless it is distinctly laid down in
16 the bill that a senator, though elected, does not become a senator until the 1st of January,
17 there will be during that interval twelve senators instead of eight; because there will be
18 four who will not retire for some considerable period after the election. There is another
19 view of the case. A senator may be prevented for a period from holding his seat in the
20 local house of representatives. When he is elected to the senate, he cannot sit any
21 longer in the state house of representatives, and if his election to the senate takes
22 place some time prior to the end of the year, unless it is distinctly laid down that the
23 mere fact of his election [start page 603] does not make him a senator, he will be
24 obliged to retire from the local house of representatives.
25 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: There is no doubt a little difficulty. In the cases of which we
26 have experience, members of parliament are elected by a constituency that may be said to
27 be in permanent session. Here we have to deal with the case of a constituency which is in
28 session only sometimes. We must, therefore, deal specially with it. There cannot be more
29 than eight senators at a time. There will be eight senators and four senators elect; for
30 a senator elect is not a senator until his term begins. There is no reason why a
31 member of the house of representatives should not be elected to be a senator in June;
32 next January he becomes a senator and ceases to be a member of the house of
33 representatives.
34 Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, agreed to.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 Meaning that any purported Member of Parliament who didn’t take the Oath/Affirmation never
38 was formally commissioned/appointed, et,c and essentially was an imposter.
39
41 QUOTE
42
43 QUOTE

Page 16
1
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the
5 actual right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and
6 protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the states. It must be
7 recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not
8 among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page
9 1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
13 QUOTE
14 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that
15 we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
16 END QUOTE
17
19 QUOTE
20 Mr. MUNRO: We have agreed to sub-clause 13, dealing with the incorporation of banks,
21 and I do not see why a similar provision should not be made in regard to the incorporation
22 of companies. Why should they not be under the control of federal officers? At the present
23 time the law as to incorporation is different in the different colonies, and the result is [start
24 page 686] extremely unsatisfactory in many cases. I do not see why we should not make
25 the same provision in regard to the incorporation of companies as we have made in regard
26 to the incorporation of banks. We might introduce at the commencement of the sub-clause
27 words to this effect: "The registration or incorporation of companies."
28 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I do not think we should. There are a great number of
29 different corporations. For instance, there are municipal, trading, and charitable
30 corporations, and these are all incorporated in different ways according to the law
31 obtaining in the different states.
32 Mr. MUNRO: But as to trading corporations!
33 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It is sometimes difficult to say what is a trading corporation.
34 What is important, however, is that there should be a uniform law for the recognition of
35 corporations. Some states might require an elaborate form, the payment of heavy fees, and
36 certain guarantees as to the stability of members, while another state might not think it
37 worth its while to take so much trouble, having regard to its different circumstances. I
38 think the states may be trusted to stipulate how they will incorporate companies, although
39 we ought to have some general law in regard to their recognition.
40 Sir JOHN BRAY: I think the point raised by the hon. member, Mr. Munro, is worth a
41 little more consideration than hon. members seem disposed to bestow upon it. We know
42 what some of these corporations are; and I think joint-stock companies might be
43 incorporated upon some uniform method. In South Australia, a banking company is not
44 allowed to be incorporated under the Companies Act; still, there is nothing in Victoria of
45 which I am aware to prevent a banking company from being registered there as a limited
46 company and opening a branch in South Australia a few days afterwards. I think it is
47 necessary, therefore, to have some uniform law. There is nothing in which the public
48 should have more confidence than in banks which are in any way recognised by the state;
49 and I think we should have some uniform system of incorporating banks. Many companies,
50 although doing business under different names, are, in reality, banks.
51 Mr. MUNRO: The banks are incorporated under the Companies Act in Victoria!
52 Sir JOHN BRAY: You can establish financial companies, which you do not call banks,
53 but which answer all the purposes of banks. We have provided that the federal parliament
Page 17
1 shall legislate as to the incorporation of banks; but there is nothing to prevent the
2 incorporation by the states themselves, quite apart from the federal parliament, of trading
3 companies which will do all the ordinary business of banks. If it is desirable to intrust
4 legislation as to the incorporation of banks to the federal government, there is no reason
5 why we should not say that the registration of financial companies doing all the business of
6 banks should be dealt with in the same manner.
7 Sub-clause agreed to.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 Now let this sink in:
11
12 Again
13 QUOTE
14 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It is sometimes difficult to say what is a trading corporation.
15 What is important, however, is that there should be a uniform law for the recognition of
16 corporations. Some states might require an elaborate form, the payment of heavy fees, and
17 certain guarantees as to the stability of members, while another state might not think it
18 worth its while to take so much trouble, having regard to its different circumstances. I
19 think the states may be trusted to stipulate how they will incorporate companies, although
20 we ought to have some general law in regard to their recognition.
21 END QUOTE
22 And
23 QUOTE
24 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I do not think we should. There are a great number of
25 different corporations. For instance, there are municipal, trading, and charitable
26 corporations, and these are all incorporated in different ways according to the law
27 obtaining in the different states.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 There can be absolutely no doubt in that the Constitution has embedded in it that municipal
31 councils are “incorporated companies” and not at all a kind of “local government”. Also that
32 the Commonwealth merely can legislate as to a uniform “recognition” of corporations and not
33 about micro managing corporations as to employments, etc.
34
35 It must be very clear that municipal councils cannot be “local government” as it violates the legal
36 principle embedded in the constitution that they are “incorporated companies”. Hence, Banyule
37 City Council has absolutely no legal standing to seek to force/enforce whatever against my
38 constitutional, legal, natural, human and common law rights. It means that the Victorian Police
39 failing to act against their offences are deemed to be accomplish to their criminal
40 activities/conduct
41
43 QUOTE
44 Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government
45 END QUOTE
46
47 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates
48 QUOTE Mr. HOLDER.-
49 We know that it could never have been perfect by any possible contingency. But we may
50 claim that it is sufficiently perfect for a free and self-reliant people to live under its
51 rule with their freedom undiminished; and my answer to those who ask whether the
52 Bill is acceptable in this light is this: When we met in this Convention we entered upon a
53 task in which we realized we should be untrue to the trust reposed in us if we had not
Page 18
1 dealt with the matters which came before us with the sense of responsibility resting upon
2 every one of us that we were dealing with matters on behalf of independent and self-
3 reliant states.
4 END QUOTE
5
7 QUOTE Mr. WISE:
8 The power of the senate to deal with money bills is so clearly defined that I doubt if any
9 ingenuity could suggest the possibility of dispute arising between the two houses on that
10 question. That at once removes one of the most prolific sources of dispute between the two
11 chambers in the past. Then as to the second class of dispute arising from social differences,
12 all through this discussion, not, I admit, in this house but outside, the controversialists of
13 one party ignore, or seem to ignore, the limitations of federal government. They forget
14 that this commonwealth can only deal with those matters that are expressly remitted
15 to its jurisdiction; and excluded from its jurisdiction are all matters that affect civil
16 rights, all matters that affect property, all matters, in a word, affecting the two great
17 objects which stir the passions and affect the interests of mankind. I fail entirely and I
18 shall be glad if some alarmist will enlarge my views on this matter-to perceive in this bill
19 any question on which there is any possibility of a conflict between the states and the
20 people, except, in one respect, and I will define that in the largest possible way. In
21 legislation affecting commercial interests, or financial interests, it is possible to imagine
22 that the states will be brought into conflict as states with the concentrated majority of the
23 populations of the two large states over a question of trade. It is possible to imagine the
24 same thing arising over a question of commerce, or over a question of finance.
25 END QUOTE
26
28 QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES
29 It is an organism, as I have tried to explain, for protecting each individual citizen in the undisturbed
30 possession of his property, in the undisturbed possession of his liberty, and from my point of view the
31 expense of that government ought to be defrayed in the easiest manner and only to the extent which is
32 necessary for that purpose, and that taxation is unjustifiable for any other purpose whatever.
33 END QUOTE
34
36 QUOTE
37 Mr. OCONNOR.-I think that the reason of the proposal is obvious. So long as each state
38 has to do only with its own citizens it may make what laws it thinks fit, but we are creating
39 now a new and a larger citizenship. We are giving new rights of citizenship to the whole
40 of the citizens of the Commonwealth, and we should take care that no man is deprived
41 of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law.
42 Mr. GORDON.-Might you not as well say that the states should not legalize murder?
43 Mr. OCONNOR-That is one of those suppositions that are against the first instincts of
44 humanity.
45 Mr. GORDON.-So is this.
46 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it is not. We need not go far back in history to find cases in
47 which the community, seized with a sort of madness with regard to particular
48 offences, have set aside all principles of justice. If a state did behave itself in that way,
49 why should not the citizens of the Commonwealth who did not belong to that state be
50 protected? Dr. Cockburn suggested in so contemptuous a way that there could be no
51 reason for this amendment, that I got up to state again what had been stated before.
52 Dr. COCKBURN.-Not contemptuous.

Page 19
1 Mr. OCONNOR.-I know the honorable member meant nothing personal, but I thought it
2 necessary to state the reasons of what, had it not been for the honorable member's
3 statement, would have seemed to be a perfectly obvious proposition. Mr. Clark, of
4 Tasmania, thought the amendment of importance, and pointed out that it had been put in
5 the United States Constitution. It should also be put in this Constitution, not necessarily as
6 an imputation on any state or any body of states, but as a guarantee for all time for the
7 citizens of the Commonwealth that they shall be treated according to what we
8 recognise to be the principles of justice and of equality.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Video: “Tims Christmas Rant”
12 QUOTE
13
14
15
16 END QUOTE
17
19 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
20 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
21 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
22 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
23 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
24 embrace and unite.
25 END QUOTE
26
28 QUOTE
29 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
30 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
31 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
32 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
33 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
34 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
35 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
36 END QUOTE

Page 20
1
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
5 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
6 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
7 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
8 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
9 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
10 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
11 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
12 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
13 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
14 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
15 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
16 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
17 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 When then I became aware that the Australian Federal Police was setting itself up too decide
21 what is or isn’t misinformation/disinformation I decided to put them to the test and since 6
22 August 2021 filed a COMPLAINT that with supplements already has increased to 7045 pages
23 and more to come about the deception, etc as to the covid scam and dangers etc with the “gene
24 therapy” DEPOPULATION bioweapon jab. All published at my blog
25 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati. Not a single page or part of a page was acted against,
26 and this may underline that the Australian Federal Police was well aware it had no legal powers
27 to interfere with the constitutional rights of Australians!
28
29 QUOTE 20210806-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian
30 Federal Police
31 Reece Kershaw 6-8-2021
32 Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
33 Forwarded via email/mail
34
35 Cc: Mr Scott Morrison via email
36 acv@health.gov.au Advisory Committee on Vaccines, Therapeutic Goods Administration
37 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Pharmacovigilance and Special Access Branch, MDP 122
38
39 Committees@health.gov.au Committee Support Unit, Therapeutic Goods Administration
40 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Scheduling & Committee Support Section, MDP 122
41
42 Mr Daniel Andrews Premier daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
43
44 Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au, attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
45
46 20210806-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
47 COMPLAINT
48 Sir,
49 I understand from news report that a special AFP team has been appointed regarding online
50 publications relating to the COVID-19 issue. I view therefore that it is within the AFP
51 investigative powers to investigate all relevant issues and not just those which the Government
52 may desire to be investigating to perhaps aids in its overthrow of the Commonwealth of
53 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and so the provisions therein.
54

Page 21
1 https://www.9news.com.au/national/coronavirus-anti-vaxxers-targeted-special-team-detectives-fears-could-target-
2 vaccine-hubs/fad28908-9340-4d0e-80f7-f5e21d61f0e7
3 Coronavirus: Anti vaxxers targeted by special team of detectives amid fears they could target
4 vaccine hubs (9news.com.au)
5 Fears vaccine hubs could be 'targeted' as online chatter spikes
6 QUOTE
7 A special team of AFP detectives has been appointed by the Federal Government to
8 watch the online interactions of the anti-vaccination "movement".
9 END QUOTE
10
11 My concern is also that the Federal Government is aiding and abetting with the States as to
12 succeed in this to install a NEW WORLD ORDER, violating our constitutional rights, by
13 providing funding for the unconstitutional lockdowns or any state/territory.
14
17 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
18 We ought to leave it open to this extent, that while we agree upon essentials, and express ourselves fully
19 and freely upon all our views, still, so far as our views are not negatived by any principle here laid down,
20 their embodiment in any resolution may stand over for Select Committee and afterwards [start page 20] for
21 Committee of the whole House, when they may be debated with the freest publicity and fullest
22 freedom. I believe we shall by this process best arrive at conclusions; not that, as many of us would like.
23 we shall be able to drive our own particular views to an issue at once, but we shall discuss all these matters,
24 both constitutionally and otherwise, and then we may arrive at views which, though contrary to our
25 present opinions, shall essentially represent the views of those who sent us here to deal with the
26 problems we have to discuss.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 The legal principle of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is that We,
30 the People, elect our representatives to act on our behalf laws and governance for “peace, order
31 and good” governance. A NEW WORLD ORDER that would take over those legal principles
32 would be akin to treason by those who are promoting and/or aiding and abetting in this regard to
33 apply/install the NEW WORLD ORDER.
34 Mr Brad Hazzard purported NSW Minister for health is recorded at least on 2 videos making
35 known he is using the NEW WORLD ORDER. In my view, this disqualifies him from being a
36 Member of any Australian Parliament as provided for in Section 44 of the constitution to which
37 the States within Section 106 are “subject to this constitution”. Likewise, any other purported
38 Member of any Australian Parliament who is aiding and abetting in this TREASONOUS
39 conduct.
40 .
42 QUOTE
43 Mr. CARRUTHERS:
44 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
45 END QUOTE
46 END QUOTE 20210806-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the
47 Australian Federal Police
48
49 The same with the Misinformation/Disinformation Bill it is outside the powers of the
50 Commonwealth to interfere with the “political liberty and/or the religious liberty of Australians.
51 Yet not a single police force has taken steps to enforce the provisions of the constitution and hold
52 the politicians and their collaborators legally accountable, meaning that the police forces
53 themselves are accessories to the crimes committed by the politicians and their collaborators.
54
55 If someone calls out “Fire” or “bomb” say in a theatre and people end up being harmed then they
56 can be charged and yet when we had politicians claiming: “safe and effective” even so they
Page 22
1 didn’t have a shred of evidence to prove this and in fact had the media going along to do its
2 fearmongering, etc, then why were they not charged?
3
5 QUOTE
6 Mr. DOBSON.-If it was perfectly plain that a small majority was infringing the
7 Constitution simply in order to coerce a minority, the law should be declared invalid.
8 END QUOTE
9
11 QUOTE
12
13
14
15 END QUOTE
16
17 It should be very clear from the above that the federal government has absolutely no
18 constitutional powers to micro manage or let some foreign company (WHO, U.N. W.E.F., etc) to
19 micromanage the lives of Australians.
Page 23
1
2 I will now quote from the video: “EMERGENCY CLAIM DEMOCIDE OCCURRING
3 COVID 19 PROVEN A LIE”:
4
5
6
7
8
9

Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6

Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6

Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6

Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
Page 28
1
2
3
Page 29
2
3 END QUOTE
4
5 The above, and previous correspondences/COMPLAINT parts, ought to make it very clear we do
6 not seem to have proper valid court facilities, judges, etc and as federal/state s are subject to
7 corporations within the District of Columbia and so subject to the rule of law of the USA
8 Congress then this violates s44 of the constitution and by this Section 45 operates. This then begs
9 the question which purported laws are real valid enforceable laws? What legal authority does
10 Banyule City Council actually have at all? Considering the Victorian Police involvement in the
11 mass murder of Victorians pushing the unconstitutional mandates has it then any legal standing
12 at all? There is a lot more to it all but for now it must be very clear the covid scam has been well
13 exposed, and those police officers involved must be all held legally accountable.
14
15 It must be very clear that Banyule City Council has no legal authority to trespass upon out
16 property on Wednesday 3 January 2024 and any it will be responsible for any harm that may
17 come to anyone that may result from the trespassing.
18
19
20
21 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
22
23 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
24 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
25 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

26 (Our name is our motto!)

20240102-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police MR Shane Patton - COMPLAINT-Supplement 3 PDF

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

20240102-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police MR Shane Patton - COMPLAINT-Supplement 3 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

2-1-2024 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

51 2. Tribunal to reconvene to make further directions as appropriate.

2-1-2024 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-1-2024 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-1-2024 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-1-2024 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-1-2024 Page 14 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-1-2024 Page 15 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-1-2024 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-1-2024 Page 19 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-1-2024 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-1-2024 Page 23 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-1-2024 Page 24 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-1-2024 Page 25 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-1-2024 Page 26 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like