20240120-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Lawyers Molly Metcalf, Becklegal-Supplement 10-Qualifications, Etc

Page 1
1
2
3 Molly Metcalf Lawyer, becklegal (Australia, Victoria date) 20-1-2024
4 mmetcalf@becklegal.com.au
5
6 Cc: Cr Alison Champion alison.champion@banyule.vic.gov.au
7 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos fiona.mitsdinikos@banyule.vic.gov.au
8 Cr Elizabeth Nealy elizabeth.nealy@banyule.vic.gov.au
9 Cr Mark Di Pasquate mark.dipasquale@banyule.vic.gov.au
10 Cr Alida McKern alida.mckern@banyule.vic.gov.au
11 Cr Peter Dimarelos peter.demarelos@banyule.vic.gov.au
12 Cr Rick Garotti rick.garotti@banyule.vic.gov.au
13 Cr Tom Melican tom.melican@banyule.vic.gov.au
14 Cr Peter Casteldo peter.castaldo@banyule.vic.gov.au
15 Mr RomanWojtkowski enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
16 Jan Richarson enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
17 Officer Janet Redgrave Team Leader Development Planning enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
18 Banyule City Council enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au
19
20 Re: 20240120-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Molly Metcalf lawyer, becklegal-Supplement 10-
21 Qualifications, etc
22 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
23 COMPLAINT-Supplement 10
24 Madam,
25 Banyule City Council on 3 January 2024 had a staff member violating my wife and
26 myself privacy by recording without our consent images of our property, etc. Some of his
27 conduct has been set out in:
28
29 As for “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” that is utter and sheer nonsense, because the
30 constitution doesn’t provide for this, and the Parliament(s) cannot overrule the
31 constitution!
32 You can download the document from:
33 https://www.scribd.com/document/698618737/20240113-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
34 B-to-Chief-Commissioner-of-Victoria-Police-Mr-Shane-Patton-COMPLAINT-
35 Supplement-5
36
37 Without conceding that the purported NOTIFICATION TO NOTICE TO ENTER has any
38 legal validity, the issue is that Banyule City Council purports/purported to act also in regard of
39 the following:
40
41
20-1-2024 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
2 a. Taking of photographs or measurements; and
3 b. The making of sketches or recordings; and
4 c. The taking or removing of samples
5
6 Anyone who may watch the news services over the years may have been aware how a man was
7 imprisoned for a rape that turn out he never committed, and only by engaging another lawyer I
8 understand that this lawyer discovered that the prosecutor had concealed relevant evidence that
9 would have shown the man was innocent but also that the laboratory had allegedly contaminated
10 the items and as result an incorrect conclusion had been drawn from the samples tested.
11
12 As for a “Taking of photographs or measurements” one then has to make sure that the person
13 doing so is “qualified” in such performance and not that it is a Girl Friday who happen to come
14 along with a trolley for coffee and then well happens to know how to press a button on a camera
15 but not having a clue what is professionally required. Actually, “weight and measures” is a
16 Subsection 51 “(xv) weights and measures;” provision in the Commonwealth of Australia and as
17 such a person requires to be licensed by the Commonwealth to perform any lawful conduct as
18 such.
19
20 Likewise, with b “making of sketches or recordings”, this requires not just a Girl Friday but a
21 qualified person to perform such matters, as after all your client pursues matters for litigation and
22 the Court cannot accept a mere Girl Friday perhaps incompetent performance but requires
23 specialist to prove they were qualified in that kind of performance and presentation of any
24 alleged “evidence”.
25 I always enjoyed cross examining specialist such as in one case 3 medical doctors all gave
26 about identical evidence and not being a medical practitioner I could hardly go against
27 their medical evidence other than to prove that in law their evidence didn’t stack up, as all
28 3 medical doctors claimed to be the only family doctor whereas the evidence before the
29 court was that (albeit unbeknown to the medical doctors) all 3 were the family doctor at the
30 same period of time and each had different details of medical issues they claimed to have
31 attended to. As such, they came stuck on their evidence.
32 The same when I was cross-examining an expert who claimed to know the equipment he
33 was selling for a company having done so for about 14 years. Just that the company was
34 registered about 14 months before the cross examination! Moreover, when I cross
35 examined him about the internal workings he as the expert obviously knew it all and made
36 clear there were no adjustment system possible for the pressure, whereas I then confronted
37 him with an image of the equipment showed as he then admitted it had adjustment of
38 pressure facilities. He also made an Affidavit that he had demonstrated the equipment to be
39 working on site, and that was clear from a video he filed, just that he failed to disclose that
40 the power connector used to be able to operate the equipment was removed by him when
41 he left and took this with him and so the equipment was useless without this.
42
43 I could list numerous incidents but you get the gist? Anyhow, there was this opponent lawyer
44 and well I objected her making a statement from the Bar table as that is not giving evidence and
45 so the trial judge made clear that she would have to give sworn evidence as otherwise there is no
46 evidence. Well, she then gave sworn evidence and wanting to leave the witness box I objected as
47 I intended to cross-examine her. She objected but the trial judge made clear I was entitled to
48 cross examine her in regard to matters relevant to her evidence. Oh boy, she didn’t like it a bit
49 but had to accept that I was entitled to cross examine her.
50 And well keep in mind your 25 October 2023 correspondence to me, and I can assure you I am
51 entitled to cross examine you about this, like it or not!
Page 3
1
2 Let us not ignore part c “The taking or removing of samples”. What items to remove of sample
3 does this relate to as this is not clarified at all? Is your client proposing to remove a brick from
4 the house as a sample? Perhaps sand, as to try to make a case the sand comes from the beach (I
5 do not have sand around, it is merely an example)? And obviously the qualifications of a person
6 taking the samples then is in question! Or will this also a Girl Friday kind of performance?
7
8 Let us just consider the following:
9
10 https://www.wnd.com/2024/01/legal-experts-jack-smiths-charges-president-trump-
11 illegitimate/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=wnd-
12 breaking&ff_campaign=breaking&ff_content=breaking
13 Legal experts: Jack Smith's charges against President Trump illegitimate
14 'That appointment was unlawful, as are all the actions that have flowed from it'
15
16 Meaning that if your client’s staff member who attended on 3 January 2024 to do the things of a,
17 b, and c then his qualifications obviously will be relevant. If he lacked the required expertise and
18 qualifications then one has to ask how often has your client acted in the same manner in other
19 cases?
20
21 I understand that becklegal claims to be experts in council matters, well then obviously you
22 would have made sure that your client had a person who was duly and properly trained and
23 qualified for the performance he was to do! Perhaps there ought to be a comprehensive
24 investigation regarding other cases in which a, b, and c were part of your clients cases?
25
26 Again, I refer to:
27
28 As for “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” that is utter and sheer nonsense, because the
29 constitution doesn’t provide for this, and the Parliament(s) cannot overrule the
30 constitution!
31 You can download the document from:
32 https://www.scribd.com/document/698618737/20240113-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
33 B-to-Chief-Commissioner-of-Victoria-Police-Mr-Shane-Patton-COMPLAINT-
34 Supplement-5
35
36 In my view this exposes that your client’s staff member was anything but professional. After all
37 this person should have been well aware that any alleged “evidence” must be lawfully obtained.
38 And in my view trespassing upon neighbour’s property is unlawful and so any purported
39 “evidence” allegedly obtained. Having someone running around with a camera hardly proves the
40 person is more competent and qualified than a Girl Friday!
41
42 Let me make it very clear, I refer to Girl Friday not because a Girl Friday might be incompetent
43 in her job but to merely use it as an example to compare. Each person, no matter what position
44 they hold have their own expertise and no derogation is intended upon a Girl Friday. I, when in
45 management, always made clear that every employee was a link in a chain and no one desires to
46 be the weakest link.
47
48 Some months ago I did indicate for your client (Banyule City Council) to give an undertaking
49 not to trespass anymore which was ignored. When it comes to litigation, a court would have to
50 consider if this refusal to provide this undertaking, considering in particular the harm upon my
51 91-year-old-wife and her heart condition and other comorbidities was legally justified in the
Page 4
1 circumstances prevailing, etc. My wife still suffers considerably from anxiety in fear that if I
2 attend to the gate I might be harmed by or on behalf of your client. Her heart rate going up to
3 132!
4
5 If just you had properly considered my 4 November 2023 correspondence you may have realised
6 that you better ensure your client would at all times act lawfully.
7
8 Anthony Carbines, previously a councillor of Banyule City Council, and then used Banyule City
9 Council against me during the time we were both in a State election as candidates. The police
10 attended to find my posters and banners being slashed and dumped in my driveway and council
11 staff attending to my property I was given the understanding by council staff that they acted on
12 directions of then councillor Anthony Carbines, now Minister for Police. I, last year, wrote to
13 Anthony Carbines as to the kidnapping by DHS of my grandson Dion but he couldn’t bother to
14 respond. Well, I am a very patient person. I understand my grandson was injected then with the
15 “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION bioweapon jab allegedly claimed to be a covid-19 vaccine.
16 Well, On Sunday 14 January 2024 my son contacted me wanting to institute legal proceedings
17 being completely denied any contact with Dion. I asked him to let me first work on details. Low
18 and behold Dion’s mother now admits there was never any court order existing re Dion, and also
19 she support Dion to have contact with his father! Meaning that indeed Dion was kidnapped when
20 in his father’s legal care. Now where Dion is being held tries to avoid legal accountability by
21 claiming it was someone else who made the decision to prevent Dion to have contact with his
22 father. Now that there was never a court order for them to hold Dion in the first place the State of
23 Victoria can be in very serious problems as well as for having jabbed him with this “gene
24 therapy” DEPOPULATION bio weapon. So, now within 24 hours I got relevant details this even
25 so Anthony Carbines State member for Ivanhoe and so purportedly is my representative could
26 not bother to investigate. Well he can kiss goodbye as to any “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” this
27 as the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
28
29 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
30 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
31 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
32 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
33 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
34 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
35 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 And keep in mind the same applies to councillors, lawyers, etc.
39
40 Your problem will be that I wrote extensively to you and well it appears to me you did nothing to
41 stop your client from acting unlawfully. Neither, did you withdraw your services to discontinue
42 to represent your client, and as such I view you went along with your client’s unlawful conduct.
43 For 37 years I had people contacting me about the INJUSTICE they suffered and I am
44 determine to pursue to reclaim our constitutional rights.
45 The State of Victoria obviously has a major problem on its hands having unconstitutionally
46 pushed for the mandates, and while then Premier Daniel Andrews was making clear, as I
47 understood it, that people who were not “vaccinated” were a danger to others, selfish, etc, and
48 should be locked out, etc. Only Brett Sutton then Chief Health Officer in 2021 actually
49 announced that politicians and judges were not to be subject to any covid-19 mandates. As such,
50 it was an implied admission they were mandates but somehow politicians and judges were not
51 subjected to those mandates, which underlines it was idiotic that ordinary Victorians were a
52 danger to society if not “vaccinated” but politicians and judges were not.
Page 5
1 No wonder that Anthony Carbines and Banyule City Council are pursuing a political persecution
2 against me because they all are at risk of legal accountability. And where becklegal nevertheless
3 goes along then well suffer the legal consequences!
4
5 There is a lot more to it all but you may just get the gist that the 3 January 2024 incident
6 involving your client has resulted for me to build further a case against your client and others!
7
8 As I made clear, your client has absolutely no legal justification for STALKING, reign of terror,
9 trespassing, etc, and must suffer the legal consequences for their unlawful conduct and so their
10 collaborators!
11
12 I have made clear to Banyule City Council that I am not prepared to pay the purported
13 ‘COUNCIL RATES” this as I deem it to be unconstitutional, etc.
14
15 The so called “COUNCIL RATES” is allegedly built upon property assessment and well I
16 wonder is this some Girl Friday doing the assessment? After all in the decades I resided in
17 Banyule I have never been provided with any “valuation report” that sets out what property was
18 valuated, any images of the property as to ensure the property owner can verify they did actually
19 attend to the correct property that was claimed to have been evaluated.
20
21 What actual qualifications does the person allegedly doing the evaluations possesses to make it a
22 competent evaluation? For all I know the assessor may have gone to 106 Graham Road and then
23 well decided to some “Iene miene mutte tien pond grutte tien pond kaas iene miene mutte is de baas
24 maar jij kan de baas niet zijn want je bent nog veel te klein”
25
26
27
28 In reality when I used this in The Netherlands it really was that you were doing this to end up
29 with whomever in the group or whatever item you ended up with.
30
31 Meaning, a purported assessor not knowing what to do simply may uses the 105 to 109 numbers
32 and whichever he ends up with may be gi8ven a certain value regardless if the is any value at all.
33
34 Also, such alleged assessment is to compel a person to pay a higher so called “COUNCIL
35 RATE” as some form of punishment for having increased the value of the property as his/her
36 own cost. Hence hiding the property fro0m ordinary sight means that there can be no proper
37 property valuation. Moreo0ver, by leaving the property deco0rated to devalue any valuation
38 might be a way to avoid any increase in the so called “COUNCIL RATE”. If for example there

Page 6
1 are 2 identical properties and property A is not improved while property B is made attractive
2 with flower beds, etc. then Property B owner is being punished for making the property more
3 attractive and so allegedly increases the property value. However, then there is a flooding and
4 Property B with the flower beds, etc, now causes major structural problems to the residence and
5 it needs to be torn down, while Property A remains the same. Now however, property B owner
6 has for years been “punished” for having improved his property and charged more for this in so
7 called “COUNCIL RATES” for something that in the end turned out to have lesser value when
8 to be sold then if Property A owner at the same time also sells his property. Instead of having the
9 Court by separation of powers determining that a person who violated a law is being punished as
10 the court deems appropriate, we now had that property owner B was punished for improving
11 (allegedly) his property even so it real terms he was devaluing his property.
12 For example, one neighbour was showing me how over the years he had put a gazebo onto the
13 house and how he was having plants under it right next to the house. I had then already ripped all
14 concrete around our house as I discovered that the builder had put down concrete where the
15 water (when it rained) was flooding under the house because the concrete was above the lower
16 part of the vents in the walls. had to actually do renovations to remove the white ants invasion
17 that had eventuated. So, my neighbour being warned about this then immediately ripped out all
18 the plants next to the house and discovered that he also had a lake under his house compliment
19 when it rained. I noticed also another neighbour having the concrete above the lower part of the
20 vents and so made clear about the dangers.
21 As such, property owners may decorate their property with gardens, etc, and actually reduce the
22 value of their property in the process but the alleged property valuer will value the property
23 higher because it appears to look better. Hence, Banyule City Council seeks to get people to
24 improve the value of their property so they can pay more rates. Never mind it is not their
25 business to terrorise property owners and neither to be judge, jury and executor. While a council
26 will claim that they in the end will not receive more monies because the total of the property
27 charges will be determined by their planned expenses, reality is that if you have an increase in
28 charges then you are the one having to pay it and not others. And when council goes berserk to
29 buy all kinds of disposal bins with a different colour because after all they need to have a green
30 bin, a recycle bin and whatever, then people are dictated they must NOT put certain plastics in
31 the recycle bin because it cannot be recycled. So, you now may need some expert degree in
32 plastic to know what can be put in what bin. Only then to discover that the council not having
33 any facilities to dispose of anything but use contractors to do so then those contractors charge for
34 sending it overseas, etc, to other countries where a lot of it ends up in the ocean. And then people
35 are told to recycle because we need to protect the environment when in fact it is the recycling
36 process that is causing the pollution. There are ample of videos on the internet showing the
37 rubbish piling up in poor countries with mainly children collecting certain plastic and well the
38 rest is then floating in the ocean where all the plastic was dumped. Meaning that councils have
39 been blatant ignorant as to where the recycling plastic really ended up and it is them not ordinary
40 citizens who are effectively causing the pollution of rivers, oceans, etc. As I wrote about more
41 than 3 decades ago, at country towns the cartons were separately collected and placed in a
42 separate area at the local refuge/tip. Then the bulldozer would come and shove all the carton on
43 the general waste of the tip and the lot that is put on fire. But they claim it is environmental
44 effective to collect cartons separately! Yes, pull the other leg. After all collecting cartons
45 separately as cost of trucks driving around, etc, and then burning the cartons anyhow it make no
46 sense to collect cartons separately at all.
47 Council therefore are in my view grossly incompetent and cannot manage what they were
48 supposed to already do before federation and that is to properly collection and dispose of
49 garbage.
50 So, councils are wasting property owner’s monies because there really is no one in charge as to
51 be held legally accountable.
Page 7
1 You may be aware that ordinary a government has a “responsible Minister” but when have you
2 come across a “responsible Minister” in a council? They want to be some form of government
3 but lack the separation of powers to be a form of government.
4 When I was living in the country I purchased a large furnace on an auction for $20.00 [  ] on
5 an auction and well most garbage was burned and little was left over.
6 Councils having everywhere fire dangers along highway with weed as high as 1 metre or more,
7 but then pest property owners for even having a tiny bit of growth over 100mmm but council so
8 eager to avoid fire danger obviously ignore the real fire dangers.
9
10 Getting back to the valuations, where is the evidence that not some Girl Friday simply had some
11 time left having been around providing coffee and tea and then well just increases property
12 values by sitting at a desk and throwing a dice by how much a property is deemed to have
13 increased in value?
14
15 As I have made clear ‘councils” as a registered corporation have no powers to charge land
16 taxation (council rate) and can only do so for and on behalf of ta State government. However, the
17 States lost land taxation legislative powers on 11 November 1910 when the Commonwealth took
18 over land taxation.
19 Little wonder that Banyule City Council is pursuing a political persecution against me and so my
20 wife also, because the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any unlawful taxation must be
21 refunded.
22 It should be very clear that Municipal/shire councils cannot apply what really is a form of
23 punishment for improving a property at your own cost and no court really was involved to
24 punish you not for violating a law but for doing no more but do something you are entitled to do.
25
26
27
28 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/
29 Fee Simple. - Constitution Watch
30 12 July 2022 ... What is an Estate in Fee Simple? Commonwealth v New South
31 Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1. (9 August 1923) .
32
33 There is an excellent article at https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/ which also refers to
34 Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; 919230 33 CLR 1 (9August 1923)
35 QUOTE
36 Fee Simple.
37 Posted onMay 10, 2022AuthorEditor
38 What is an Estate in Fee Simple?
39
40 Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1
Page 8
1 (9 August 1923)
2 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
3 KNOX C.J., ISAACS, HIGGINS, GAVAN DUFFY AND STARKE JJ.
4 THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PLAINTIFF
5 AGAINST
6 THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS
7 1920-1923: SYDNEY, Dec. 1-3, 1920; Mar. 21-29, 1922; Aug. 9, 1923 33 CLR 1
8 Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:-
9 (1920) 33 CLR 1 at 42
10
11
12 ISAACS J. In Challis's Real Property, 3rd ed., p. 218,
13 it is stated with perfect accuracy:—
14 “In the language of the English law, the word fee signifies an estate of inheritance as distinguished
15 from a less estate; not, as in the language of the feudists, a subject of tenure as distinguished from
16 an allodium.”
17 “Allodium being wholly unknown to English law, the latter distinction would in fact have no
18 meaning.” “A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in respect to the
19 rights which it confers, of all estates known to the law.”
20 “It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful right to
21 exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which can enter into
22 the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste; and, for all practical
23 purposes of ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a chattel,
24 in nothing except the physical indestructibility of its subject.”
25 “Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute
26 right, both of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will.” 2
27 Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:-
28 (1920) 33 CLR 1 at 45
29 ISAACS J.
30 With respect to the expression “fee simple”, the view enunciated in the joint opinion that “fee
31 simple” indicates the quantum of estate, and not feudal tenure, is confirmed by the observation of
32 Viscount Haldane for the Privy Council in the White Cap Case (Amodu Tijani v. Secretary,
33 Southern Nigeria[50]), where the learned Lord refers to—
34 “an estate in fee” as “the most comprehensive estate in land which the law recognizes.”
35 On the same page Lord Haldane also speaks of a case where “the title of the Sovereign is a pure
36 legal estate, to which beneficial rights may or may not be attached.”
37 The same learned Lord in Matamajaw Salmon Club v. Duchaine[51] says that in England “there
38 has always been permitted great latitude in splitting up the title to the fee simple.” The same learned
39 Lord, again for the Privy Council, had already in Smith v. Vermillion Hills Municipality[52]
40 recognized the principle when he spoke of certain land—
41 “the fee of which is in the Crown.”
42 It is obviously right, therefore, to say that under sec. 85 (I.) the Commonwealth holds the land for
43 an estate of fee simple in possession, that having no reference to any tenure under the State. The
44 title transferred by sec. 85 is taken from the State, as I have already said, adversely to State law and
45 by a law superior, and by that superior law is vested in the Commonwealth; and, as that superior
46 law is the sole source of title, it follows that nothing henceforth can depend on State registration
47 laws or State laws of any kind.
48 But as the land—not being in Commonwealth “territory” properly so called, that is, outside a
49 State—remains in the State boundaries, it was necessary to provide that the governmental powers
50 of the Commonwealth—exclusive in themselves—should, for the purpose for which the land was
51 transferred, be entirely free from State jurisdiction. To this end sec. 52 (I.) was shaped in the form
52 in which it exists. It enacts that the Commonwealth Parliament shall have exclusive power to
53 legislate for—
54 “the seat of government of the Commonwealth, and all places acquired by the Commonwealth for
55 public purposes.”
Page 9
1 Even in America, it may be necessary to repeat, where no such explicit law exists, it is held that the
2 Congress may validly legislate for the protection of its public lands, even within a State.
3 As Brown J. said for the Court, in Camfield v. United States[53], “a different rule would place the
4 public domain of the United States completely at the mercy of State legislation.” This was a
5 decision in 1897, and the later Commonwealth Constitution has provided specifically, and in larger
6 terms, for the Federal power. The grant of exclusive power carries an inevitable inference with it. It
7 shows that the proprietorship and the sovereignty were intended to go together in this respect.
8
9 4 pages, use toolbar at top to open.
10 END QUOTE
11
12
13
14 END QUOTE clips of a video
15
16 Red arrow shows camera in his hand, leaving after trespassing.
17
18 END QUOTE clips of a video
19
20 The following albeit from USA legislation also indicated that trespassing also can relate to a
21 vehicle:
22
23
24
Page 10
1 Again:
2
3
4 As the person already twice trespassed upon the land (6 & 7 September 2023) despite it being
5 blocked off by tress and gates and with NOTICES (SIGNS) and then following this trespassing
6 further upon the motor vehicle 1XK6MV
7
8
9
10
11
12
Page 11
1
2 All these occurrences of invading our privacy/trespassing and yet there appears to be no end to it
3 and we seem to have a grossly incompetent Chief Commissioner of Police who would be eager
4 to go after a person for daring to pursue their constitutional rights but can’t bother to hold real
5 criminals legally accountable.
6
7 23 August 2018 - 11 September 2019 - 7 September 2020 - 2 September 2021
8 20 September 2022 - 16 September 2023 - 6 September 2023 - 7 September 2023
9 29 November 2023 - 1 December 2023 - 8 December 2023 - 3 January 2024
10
11 As the trespassing also occurred on neighbouring properties and at no time was to my knowledge
12 any WARRANT issued to enter any property then it is Banyule City council that is violating the
13 rule of law time and time again. Eventually this matter likely will end up in the courts as after all
14 as much as I challenge the constitutional validity of any State land taxation others around
15 Australia may realize this is a multibillion dollars issue. Not only because of the about $20
16 billion councils are reportedly collecting but also the State of Victoria is adding further State
17 land taxation regarding the “covid scam” cost, where the State government reportedly plunged
18 the State into $40 Billion dollars debts. Well, how much of this was paid to the media for their
19 collateral conduct regarding the “covid scam”? Ordinary citizen didn’t desire to be
20 forced/coerced to be jabbed, etc, and they didn’t twist the arm of any member of government
21 and/or official to pursue the unconstitutional murderous mandates, and so why should a former
22 Premier you presided over the utter mesh be paid reportedly $300,000.00 for the rest on an
23 unconstitutional superannuation payout (violating s44 of the constitution) laughing all the way to
24 the ban, while ordinary Victorians has to suffer the financial debacle he left behind? And the
25 same with other States.
26 Informed Choice cross-posted a post from Ian Brighthope's Substack
27 Jabbed children have died! Ian Brighthope
28 Any other drug would have been withdrawn immediately.
29
30 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
32 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
33 important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
34 END QUOTE
35
36
37 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
38
39 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
40 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
41 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

42 (Our name is our motto!)

20240120-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Lawyers Molly Metcalf, Becklegal-Supplement 10-Qualifications, Etc

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

20240120-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Lawyers Molly Metcalf, Becklegal-Supplement 10-Qualifications, Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

20-1-2024 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

41 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like