20240323-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council, CR Mayor Tom Melican and Ors

Page 1
1
2
3 Banyule City Council & Mayor Cr Melican & Ors (Australia, Victoria date) 23-3-2024
4 enquiries@banyule.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
19 Re: 20240323-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council Mayor Cr Tom Melican and Ors
20 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
21 COMPLAINT
22 Sir & Ors,
23 I understand that Banyule City Council is seeking me to pay purported delegated State
24 land taxation as “council rates” however despite my past request to show constitutional validity
25 to do so has been all along ignored. The Framers of the Constitution (the Commonwealth of
26 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within which the States were created in section 106
27 “subject to this constitution” made known that any taxation that was unconstitutional had to be
28 refunded. Meaning that Banyule City Council owes me in that regard also a lot of monies.
29
30 As Banyule City Council has been as I understand it using “council rates” being purported
31 delegated “State land taxation” also in regard of the unconstitutional “covid-19 scam” mandates
32 I will therefore provide some details regarding this “covid-19 scam” issue.
33
34 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
35 Convention)
36 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
37 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
38 clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
39 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 On 8 April 2020 I lodged a complaint with the Victorian Ombudsman regarding the States not
43 having any legislative, executive and administrative power to enforce mandates regarding the
44 “covid-19 scam” who referred the matter to IBAC. I on 13 April 2020 also lodged a more
45 comprehensive complaint with the Victorian Human Rights Commissioner who didn’t bother to
46 respond. On 19 April 2020 IBAC responded that it held it was not in the “public interest”. Well
47 tell that to those who ended up harmed and even died and whose businesses were destroyed as
23-3-2024 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 result of the “covid-19 scam”! First of all, despite that I understand that Peter Doherty Institute
2 claimed in January 2020 to have established about 8 versions of the alleged “covid-19 virus” in
3 subsequent German legal proceedings I understand it was held Peter Doherty Institute never
4 actually isolated the alleged covid-19 virus!
5 The then Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andrews in August 2020 refused/failed to provide
6 details I requested regarding the alleged “covid-19 virus” and so did then (prime) Minister Scott
7 Morrison, etc. It however never deterred me to pursue justice.
8
9 I understand that Banyule City Council participated to enforce the “mandates” this even so there
10 was no constitutional validity to do so. Moreover, it used its Banyule City Council health centres
11 to also inject allegedly childhood vaccines this even so of the harm of many of those vaccines,
12 even as I understand it resulting to children ending up with AUTISM.
13
14 It appears to me that Banyule City Council has been using monies extorted from property owners
15 to fund and/or force people to be jabbed despite that the alleged “covid-19 vaccine” in reality
16 was not a vaccine at all but a “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION “bioweapon” that was
17 harmful to those being jabbed. Indeed, many died within a very short period after being jabbed. I
18 am not going to set out all relevant details because most of it can be downloaded from my blog
19 https:/www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
20
21 https://karenkingston.substack.com/p/medical-researchers-call-for-urgent?utm_source=post-
22 email-title&publication_id=1103773&post_id=142869919&utm_campaign=email-post-
23 title&isFreemail=true&r=1a0316&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
24 Medical Researchers Call for Urgent Actions to Deal with Mass Contamination of Blood
25 Supply
26 QUOTE
27 Medical Researchers Call for Urgent Actions to Deal with Mass Contamination of Blood
28 Supply
29 "Japanese researchers have published disturbing evidence that blood transfusions
30 from individuals who received COVID-19 shots are tainted with a myriad of
31 dangers." - Jeff Dornik
32 END QUOTE
33 And
34 QUOTE
35 For the safety of the public, the use of mRNA nanoparticle injections must be
36 banned from every county and state in America.
37 Every American has standing in their state to demand that the COVID-19 mRNA
38 nanoparticle ‘vaccines’ be banned from their state. You can send a demand letter to
39 your governor, attorney general, and even local sheriff. If they fail to take action, you
40 can petition your state’s Supreme Court to order the governor and attorney general to
41 seize the injections and ban the use of mRNA nanoparticle injections.
42 END QUOTE
43
44 Councillors ought to keep in mind that not only are they themselves at risk but also their family
45 members of the harm regarding the “covid scam” jabs as well as having participated to place
46 resident’s and others in harm’s way.
47
48 Also I have extensively written about “council rates” according to the High Court of Australia
49 Sydney Municipal v Commonwealth 1904 being a “State land tax”, this as councils being
50 corporations have no legislative powers. .
51 The following should be clearly understood that on 11 November 1910 the States lost their
52 “concurrent” legislative powers regarding “land taxation” and from then on it became and
53 remained to be “exclusive” Commonwealth legislative powers, irrespective if the
54 Commonwealth abolished “land taxation”. This, as the constitution doesn’t provide a mechanism
Page 3
1 to return “concurrent” legislative powers to the States! Once Caesar made a decision then it will
2 always remain to be under Caesar! Once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate it forever
3 became an “exclusive” Commonwealth legislative power! The Commonwealth had and still has
4 every right in its wisdom to abolish any land taxation where it held it was a too greater burden
5 upon property owners.
6
7 QUOTE 110308-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX – etc
8 Premier Kristina Keneally 8-3-2011
9 <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>
10 .
11 Cc: * Mr Ted Baillieu Premier ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au
12 * Tony Newbury Chief Commissioner of State Revenue C/o peter.geffroy@osr.nsw.gov.au
13 * Mr Robert Pincevic <roblp@bigpond.com> PO Box 15 Luddenham NSW 2745
14 .
15 Re: State Land tax - etc
16 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
17 .
18 Kristina,
19 your office for having provided me with a 13 September 2010 response (in regard of my
20 31 August 2010 correspondence to you regarding the unconstitutional State land taxes:
21 QUOTE
22 CMU10-16940
23 13 September 2010
24 Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
25 schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
26
27 Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
28 I write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax.
29 As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the Hon
30 Eric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention.
31 You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration.
32 Yours sincerely
33 David Swain
34 for Director General
35 END QUOTE
36 .
37 I received on 8-3-2011 a response dated 2-3-2011 from Barry Collier MP Parliamentary
38 Secretary Assisting the Treasurer on behalf of the Treasurer he responded.
39 Section 107 he refers to is very clear that for example “Income Tax” albeit was a Colonial and
40 later State legislative power the moment the Commonwealth legislated upon “Income Tax” then
41 the power became an exclusive Commonwealth power and the States had to retire from this.
42 Once it became an exclusive power then the constitution doesn’t permit it to return to become a
43 “concurrent” power, as I have set out in past correspondence. The legislative powers on the
44 particular field is forever an exclusive power of the Commonwealth!
45 In regard of the State Land Taxes the same applies. Once the Commonwealth commenced to
46 legislate as to “Land taxes” then it became by this an exclusive legislative power and as such the
47 State no longer had concurrent legislative powers on Land taxes matters.
48 The States were created out of the former colonies and as s.106 of the (federal) constitution
49 makes clear “subject to this constitution” and this clearly provides in s51 for concurrent
50 legislative powers to become exclusive Commonwealth legislative powers. It is not relevant if
51 the Commonwealth, as like with the 1952 abolition land taxes were to abolish “income tax”
52 because it would still remain an exclusive Commonwealth legislative power. As for s5 of the
53 Constitution Act 1992 (NSW) it cannot override any Commonwealth exclusive powers and as it
54 clearly is subject to the Commonwealth constitution it therefore cannot be perceived it somehow
55 gives legislative powers no longer permissible by the Commonwealth Constitution to be
56 exercisable by a state.
Page 4
1
2 .
3 Critical might be the claim:
4 QUOTE
Page 5
1 Land taxes were imposed by the States prior to federation. They were introduced at the federal level in 1910.
2 In 1952, the Commonwealth Government abolished land tax. This did not have the effect of preventing the
3 States from imposing land tax, but rather returned taxation powers back to them. Accordingly, the NSW
4 Government introduced the land Management Act in 1956.
5 END QUOTE
6 Obviously, contrary to what was claimed by Barry Collier MP the Commonwealth Government
7 has no constitutional powers to abolish any legislation as it being the Executive it can refuse to
8 enforce legislative provisions but cannot abolish an act of Parliament. As such it is the
9 Commonwealth Parliament that can only abolish legislation.
10 What may be noted is the wording “but rather returned taxation powers back to them” as
11 such this is a concession that in fact since 1910 land taxes were an exclusive Commonwealth
12 legislative power. The question then is how does one “return” a legislative power to any State,
13 not just NSW, where the Constitution never provided for this? Clearly Barry Collier MP didn’t
14 clarifyy within what constitutional powers, if any, a reversal of legislative power could eventuate
15 and quite frankly the Framers of the Constitution made clear that once a legislative power was a
16 Commonwealth legislative power then this was the end of the States dealing with the subject.
17 .
18 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
19 Australasian Convention)
20 QUOTE
21 Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
22 position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that
23 law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the
24 Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no
25 power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary
26 revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even
27 when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it
28 has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I
29 should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be
30 settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and
31 that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
32 END QUOTE
33 .
34 HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
35 QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
36 The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
37 the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
38 END QUOTE
39 .
40 Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
41 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
42 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
43 An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
44 Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
45 END QUOTE
46 .
48 QUOTE
49 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
50 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
51 END QUOTE
52 And
54 QUOTE
55 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
56 Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
57 Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The

Page 6
1 Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
2 sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
3 END QUOTE
4 .
6 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
7 But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the
8 imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the
9 whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
10 END QUOTE
11 And
13 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
14 On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it may
15 determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average
16 opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout
17 the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states
18 for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.
19 END QUOTE
20
22 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
23 2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties shall be uniform
24 throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods exported from one
25 state to another;
26 END QUOTE
27
29 QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-
30 Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty
31 shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.
32 END QUOTE
33 .
35 QUOTE
36 Mr. BARTON.-I am saying now that I do not think there is any necessity for clause 95 in its present form.
37 What I am saying however, is that it should be made certain that in the same way as you provide that the
38 Tariff or any taxation imposed shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, so it should be
39 provided with reference to trade and commerce that it shall be uniform and equal, so that the
40 Commonwealth shall not give preference to any state or part of a state. Inasmuch as we provide that
41 all taxation, whether it be customs or excise duties, or direct taxation, must be uniform, and inasmuch
42 as we follow the United States Constitution in that particular-in the very same way I argue that we should
43 protect the trade and commerce sub-section by not doing anything which will limit its effect. That is the real
44 logical position.
45 END QUOTE
46 .
47 Hansard 3-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
48 Australasian Convention)
49 QUOTE
50 Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the
51 Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page 1856] a
52 considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided
53 that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect
54 taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that an
55 income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the Drafting
56 Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax of any
57 kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property, wherever it is
58 found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very careful, we shall get
59 into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to be imposed
60 might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not absolutely uniform.
61 END QUOTE
62 .

Page 7
1 It should be clear that a “UNIFORM” law under the Commonwealth cannot somehow revert
2 back to a non-uniform law merely because of the States desiring to pursue their own kind of land
3 taxation. As such, on this basis also the State land taxes are floored (and so also any Territorial
4 land taxes).
5 .
7 QUOTE
8 Mr. ISAACS.-The court would not consider whether it was an oversight or not. They would take the
9 law and ask whether it complied with the Constitution. If it did not, they would say that it was invalid.
10 They would not go into the question of what was in the minds of the Members of Parliament when the law
11 was passed. That would be a political question which it would be impossible for the court to determine.
12 END QUOTE
13 .
14 As I previously indicated the Commonwealth could have allowed the States to collect under its
15 authority land taxes but it still would have to be uniform through the Commonwealth and as such
16 all States and Territories (quasi States) would be bound to have the same land taxes application
17 and not different rates. This then would clearly be a waste of exercise as why allow different
18 States/Territories to collect taxes when one federal office can do the same?
19 The issue then is of the Commonwealth somehow could enact legislation to retrospective provide
20 for legislation for the States/Territories to have collected land taxes on its behalf. Again, the first
21 hurdle is that retrospective legislation would be invalid where so to say it makes the conduct of a
22 honest man to be a criminal conduct. Further, where the States raised different levels of land
23 taxes then it cannot be uniform. One couldn’t accept that a person of one State having paid less
24 then in another State now suddenly was to pay more by some kind of retrospective legislation
25 and neither that some who paid more now were going to receive a refund of any land taxes paid
26 above that of other States. After all commercial entities are based upon overhead cost, including
27 land taxes, etc, and as such a business enterprise might be determined where the lowest taxation
28 is available. Changing the system after the contracts are already in operation would make a
29 mockery of the reliability of State provisions.
30 I have indicated for years that what is needed is an OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN which
31 would advise the government, the parliament, the people and the Courts as to constitutional
32 meanings and application as a constitutional council. This is what is missing in Australia and as
33 result we have sport stars and singers and whatever elected to the parliament and basically no
34 one understands let alone comprehend the meaning and application of the constitutions.
35 .
36 It is obviously of concern to me that it took a massive 6 month period (from 31 August 2010 till
37 2 March 2011) to present this kind of response that doesn’t appear to me to indicate to be any
38 well researched response.
39 .
40 Obviously I will pass on the 2-3-2011 response and my reply to those concerned with the issue.
41 .
42 EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!
43 .
44
45
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
.
46 Our name is our motto!

47 .
48
49 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
50 END QUOTE 110308-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc
51
52 The High Court of Australia is on record that for example when the Commonwealth commenced
53 to legislate as to income tax the States no longer could do so.
Page 8
1
2 As I indicated above the States never had any legislative, executive and/or administrative powers
3 regarding the “covid-19 scam” mandates and as such neither could the State of Victoria apply
4 any charges/levy regarding this “covid-19 scam”.
5
6 It ought to be very clear that had governments and their puppets not ignored my warnings but
7 acted appropriately then many businesses would not have been caused in bankruptcy and
8 certainly many Australians may never have ended up having been harmed, let alone have died as
9 result of the US of A military DoD “covid-19 scam” to depopulate!
10
11 END QUOTE 20230728-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl
12 101F- DEMOCIDE 2.0
13 1974/12/10 – Secretary of State Henry Kissenger’s national
14 Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) study
15 completed as the Kissinger Report, establishing global
16 depopulation as US geopolitical strategy.
17
18 1975/11/26 – President Gerald Ford endorsed the Kissinger Report’s depopulation plan
19 through National Security Decision Memorandum 314
20
21
22 Let us first therefore look at the (USA) DoD DEPOPULATION plan:
23
24 Let us look as Deagel.com (http://www.deagel.com/country/forecast.aspx) population forecast
25 of 2017 and in particular, the current countries hit with COVID-19!
26
27 Name Country 2017 2025 Reduction %
28
29 United Kingdom 65,650,000 14,517,860 51,132,140 77.886%
30 Ireland 5,010,000 1,318,740 3,691,260 73.678%
31 Germany 80,590,000 28,134,920 52,455,080 65.089%
32 Spain 48,960,000 27,763,280 21,196,720 43.294%
33
34 France 67,100,000 39,114,580 27,985,420 41.707%
35 Switzerland 8,240,000 5,342,540 2,897,460 35.163%
36 Denmark 5,600,000 3,771,760 1,828,240 32.647%
37 Belgium 11,490,000 8,060,900 3,429,100 29.844%
38
39 Italy 62,140,000 43,760,260 18,379,740 29.578%
40 Austria 8,750,000 6,215,000 2,535,000 28.971%
41 Ukraine 44,030,000 31,628,980 12,401,020 28.165%
42 Norway 5,320,000 3,833,960 1,486,040 27.933%
43
44 Portugal 10,840,000 8,113,860 2,726,140 25.149%
45 Poland 38,480,000 33,230,780 5,249,220 13.641%
46
47 TOTALS 462,200,000 254,807,420 207,392,580 44.871%
48
49 United States of America 326,620,000 99,553,100 227,066,900 69.520%
50
51 Australia 23,230,000 15,196,600 8,033,400 34.582%
52
Page 9
1 And to silence critics they went on to pay handsomely the media (albeit also unconstitutionally)
2 as I understood was what Event201 October 2019 was indicating, as to prevent others to become
3 aware of their murderous DEPOPULATION scam. The eSafety Commissioner, Ombudsman,
4 Human Rights Commissioners were simploy AWOL (Absent Without Leave) and if anything
5 not just refused to enforce constitutional rights but rather supported this TREASONOUS
6 conduct and let DICTATORSHIP & TERRORISM be the rule of the day.
7 END QUOTE 20230728-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl
8 101F- DEMOCIDE 2.0
9
10 There can be absolutely no question about it that I have been indeed vary patience with writing
11 about the unconstitutional purported State land taxation (council rates) despite that Banyule City
12 Council blatantly disregarded my writings. Likewise, with the ATO which stole tens of
13 thousands of dollars from my 91 year old wife over more than 2 decades. With Banyule City
14 Council also using its ill gained “council rates” to terrorise my wife and myself, including
15 trespassing on 6 September 2023 and also again on 7 September 2023 and even then vandalising
16 my wife’s lawfully parked motor vehicle and again trespassing on 29 November 2023 by this
17 causing my wife (being a heart failure patient) having her heart rate going from about 72 to 122
18 when unbeknown to my wife as to the identity of the person, a council worker was bashing on
19 the backdoor that my wife was in fear of her life and urged me to deal with it as someone was
20 trying to break in, after which I caught the 2 Banyule City Council officers in the backyard and I
21 had been given the understanding by Angela O’Brien that they had climbed over the fence. This
22 despite of the signage’s:
23
24
25
26 Businesses around Australia have signs prohibiting entry and it would be absurd to hold that
27 some council can ignore this merely because it deems itself above the rule of law. As I made
28 clear Banyule City Council having been STALKING us since at least 2018 (as your lawyers
29 provided the photographic evidence for this) and Banyule City Council having in 2023 and 2024
30 further made unlawful images and in the process of this terrorism caused my wife since 29
31 November 2023 to be unable to walk on her own that she now needs to rely upon a wheelchair,
32 Banyule City Council so to say cross the red line and will have to cop the legal consequences.
33
34 Had the ATO not stolen the tens of thousands of dollars from my wife and Banyule City Council
35 not extorted the unconstitutional “council rates” then we may have been able to purchase a motor
36 vehicle to with an elevator/lift to accommodate for my wife to be in a wheelchair.
37
38 At no time has Banyule City Council apologized for its criminal conduct and well, Banyule City
39 Council will now have to face reality. Obviously, Banyule City Council may elect to pursue
40 matters by way of litigation, however no court can invoke jurisdiction to enforce unconstitutional
41 alleged delegated State land taxation “council rates”.
42

Page 10
1 Judges are OFFICERS OF THE COURT bound to uphold the constitution and where a judge is
2 made aware of criminal conduct then the judge being an OFFICER OF THE COURT is
3 obligated to report the matter to the relevant authorities. Meaning, if Banyule City Council was
4 to attempt to litigate a judge, provided the judge can invoke jurisdiction (which I do not concede
5 the judge can) must await a proper investigation as to the criminal issues I referred to. This, as it
6 is relevant to the matters.
7
8 The legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur action” denies any remedy to a litigant
9 (including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands.
10 If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with “Dirty Hands”
11 best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!
12
13 Also, as Banyule City Council stole by its repeated trespassing images of my artwork, and so far
14 I indicated a charge of $127 million, then this also be part of any consideration.
15 I also indicated that the (Commonwealth) ATO v Melton was unconstitutional, and Banyule City
16 Council failed to adhere to the legal requirement to pay its taxation, as any other corporation,
17 then this also must be considered to be part of the litigation, that is if the court can invoke
18 jurisdiction, which I view it cannot! Obviously, where Banyule City Council fails in its litigation
19 against me then people around Australia may just decide that they too have no legal obligation to
20 pay any purported State land taxation named “council rates” or whatever.
22 QUOTE
23 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
24 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
25 END QUOTE
26 The very reason the Commonwealth has limited powers was to prevent both the States and the
27 Commonwealth to legislate upon the same matters. I understand that twice the electors defeated
28 a referendum to recognise “councils” (also referred to as “local government”) this even so
29 constitutionally the States are the “local governments” and the Commonwealth the “central
30 government”, and while those defeats didn’t have any prohibition in itself, the constitution
31 however doesn’t allow for a State to create another level of government. Therefore, unless and
32 until if ever at all a referendum was to succeed to amend the constitution to allow another level
33 of “local government” municipal councils remain nothing more but “corporations”. And if a
34 council “corporation” can elude appropriate taxation then why not so any other corporation?
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!)

20240323-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council, CR Mayor Tom Melican and Ors

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

20240323-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council, CR Mayor Tom Melican and Ors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

23-3-2024 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

23-3-2024 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

46 Our name is our motto!

23-3-2024 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

41 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like