Page 1

1 `
2
3 ATO 26-4-2024
4 C/o David Allen Deputy Commissioner of taxation
5 Email via: Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus Email attorney@ag.gov.au,
6
7 Ref: 8012118975687 8012202370345
8 20240426-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ATO David Allen DC of Taxation
9 Sir,
10 I received an unsigned document purporting to be from David Allen Deputy Commissioner
11 of Taxation, however as it has no formal signature it can be a scam, hence I will be very careful
12 to not release specific details in this correspondence.
13
14 I did state in my previous 13-3-2024 correspondence:
15 QUOTE
16 The problem is not the constitution but the fact we seem to have ‘braindead zombies’
17 who are placing themselves in some position of power, perhaps thinking they are above the
18 rule of law and blatantly disregard constitutional constrains!
19 END QUOTE
20
21 So, allegedly you are pursuing various taxation returns from “HLAVKA JAROSLAV
22 MIEAUST CPENG ESTATE” who died in January 2001, and was then cremated, but do not
23 fear he might not be appearing in Court, that is if you desire to cross examine his ashes, as I can
24 always present them, and perhaps you may have the super intelligence to question his ashes?
25

26
27
28 This in the heading means that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is part of the “Australian
29 Government”. It is my understanding that we have a “Commonwealth of Australia” [It might be
30 word while for you to check out the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)]
31 which provide for the “Commonwealth of Australia”, and while the Executive may desire to call
32 itself “useful idiots”, “Australian Government” or whatever, I am entitled to know that any
33 correspondence from the “Commonwealth of Australia” is appropriately headed, this because
34 ample of scams purport to represent some government organisation and often make basic errors
35 in their writings.
36
37 As I previously stated:
38
39 QUOTE 13-3-2024
40 As you are referring to overdue income tax returns for
41 1 July 2021 – 30 June 2022
42 1 July 2020 – 30 June 2021
43 1 July 2019 – 30 June 2020
44 1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019
45 1 July 2017 – 30 June 2018
46 1 July 2016 – 30 June 2017
47
26-4-2024 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
 Page 2

1 You can assist by making known what amounts, if any, tax was collected by the ATO
2 regarding the alleged account, so I might be able to seek to trace the origin of it. After all,
3 since Medibank, Optus, and other Government agencies appears to be hacked it very well
4 could be some foreign entity to be pretending to be the account. That I view is the first base to
5 work from.
6 END QUOTE 13-3-2024
7
8 https://www.westernjournal.com/state-supreme-court-overrules-hands-big-win-
9 voters/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=newsletter-CT&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=conservative-
10 tribune
11 State Supreme Court Overrules Itself and Hands a Big Win to Voters
12 QUOTE
13 Chief Justice Paul Newby said the court had overstepped the bounds of its authority to rule
14 on alleged gerrymandering.
15 “The will of the people is achieved when each branch of government performs its
16 assigned duties,” Newby wrote in an opinion. “When, however, one branch grasps a
17 task of another, that action violates separation of powers.”
18 Later in the opinion, Newby noted, “Our constitution expressly assigns the redistricting
19 authority to the General Assembly subject to explicit limitations in the text. Those
20 limitations do not address partisan gerrymandering.”
21 “Policy decisions belong to the legislative branch, not the judiciary,” he added.
22 Bottom of Form
23 Ultimately, Newby viewed the decision as reining in judicial overreach and ensuring the
24 branches of government operate as intended.
25 “This case is not about partisan politics but rather about realigning the proper roles
26 of the judicial and legislative branches,” Newby wrote. “Today we begin to correct
27 course, returning the judiciary to its designated lane.”
28 END QUOTE
29

30
31
32 As the ATO is not a court it therefore stating that “we will apply a penalty of at least 75% on
33 that amount. This means an extra $750 for every $1,000 you owe.” Is to violate the “separation
34 of powers” and purport to exercise a judicial position.
35 If the ATO now violate the “separation of powers” as to apply a fine rather than to make a
36 petition for the Court to do so then well, I now make clear that any monies the ATO is owning
37 then equally must be applied that it pays ¾ of any monies owned by the ATO to whomever.
38
39 It really must scare people who are senior citizens long retired that “This may effect your credit
40 rating, ability to trade, employment, or result in further cost to you.”.
41
42 It appears to me that with the level of intelligence displayed in this letter you may as well go to
43 some rock formation and try to scare the living daylight out of the rock formation in the same
44 manner, and more than likely the rock formation may simply ignore you, or do you really expect
45 you are going to have your fearmongering to scare the living daylight out of a rock formation?
46
26-4-2024 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
 Page 3

1 Are you one of those “useful idiots” who because of the scaremongering was stupid enough to
2 get this “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION “bioweapon” jab the FAKE “covid-19 vaccine” that
3 you lost any mind of acting in a reasonable manner?
4
5 If you are so to say a guardian of the Commonwealth of Australia Consolidated Revenue Funds
6 holdings then well your silence was deafening when the former federal government and the
7 current federal government have/are robbing monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds without
8 having obtained any Appropriation Act(s) to withdraw.
9 Any monies that has been used from Consolidated Revenue Funds must be revealed to taxpayers.
10
11 https://www.facebook.com/TonyWerriwa/ (Re AFL Lawyers)
12 QUOTE
13

14
15 END QUOTE
16
17 Yes, “public monies” was used for secret contracts at taxpayers expenses! Nothing was for free!
18
19 http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20081015&filename=led&sec_id=3&sid=1
20 QUOTE
21 Travesty of public purpose
22
23 State governments offer incredulous incentives to lure Tata
24
25 IN THE last few days Maharashtra and West Bengal witnessed two diametrically opposite
26 developments. In Maharashtra, for the first time in the history of this country, affected
27 farmers voted in a referendum on the upcoming Reliance special economic zone (SEZ).
28 Initial results suggest that the majority voted against the SEZ. In Singur, Tata’s plans kept
29 slipping into a deeper imbroglio by the day. Several state governments lined up to lure the
30 company as Tata seriously considered moving out—each one trying to outdo each other in
31 terms of offering incentives and freebies. Soon as West Bengal made some parts of the
32 ‘secret’ deal between the state and the company public, Tata Motors moved the High Court
33 obtaining a restraining order.
34
35 Tata’s lawyers argued that basically the agreement between them and the state government
36 was a trade secret. This means that the Nano project is private commercial venture.
37 Ironically the state government had acquired land for the project invoking the “public
38 purpose” law. The state government and company will have to come clean about what
39 exactly is the Nano project. If it is a commercial venture the company must directly need

26-4-2024 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

 Page 4

1 And if it is indeed a project meant to

deal with the farmers.
2 serve the public purpose, details of the agreement
3 must be immediately made public.
4
5 What is clear from the deal between the West Bengal government and Tata motors is that
6 state government are trying to outdo each other to attract investments. This is a race right
7 to the bottom. The moment Tata Motors threatened to walk away from Singur, several state
8 governments came forward. The lure of big-ticket project is such that governments are
9 willing to forgo taxes, forcibly acquire land, give subsidized water and electricity, give
10 capital subsidies and put thousands of security personnel to man the project. In all this,
11 industries are having free ride on public money. This is cheap industrialization. Where
12 not only states are giving fiscal subsidies, they are subsidizing the natural resources—
13 land, water, and energy. In a single economic entity that India is, competition
14 between states, by the way of subsidizing industrialization, is neither good for
15 economy nor is it good for environment. And it surely is not for ‘public purpose’.
16 END QUOTE
17
18 Again “details of the agreement must be immediately made public”
19 No such thing as a purported “NATIONAL SECURITY” excuse as the Australian Taxation
20 Office must be able to ascertain what were the terms of the contract and what special deals, if
21 any, were included that may have resulted in an unconstitutional contract! After all the
22 constitution provides for the High Court of Australia to be the appropriate court for any disputes
23 regarding a contract involving the Commonwealth and as such any contract providing for foreign
24 judgments involving the Commonwealth is unconstitutional!
25
26 http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
27 Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S.
28 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872) Olcott v. The Supervisors 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 678
29 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
30 QUOTE
31 What was considered was the uses for which taxation generally, taxation by any government, might
32 be authorized, and particularly whether the construction and maintenance of a railroad, owned by a
33 corporation, is a matter of public concern. It was asserted (what nobody doubts), that the taxing
34 power of a state extends no farther than to raise money for a public use, as distinguished from
35 private, or to accomplish some end public in its nature, and it was decided that building a railroad, if
36 it be constructed and owned by a corporation, though built by authority of the state, is not a matter
37 in which the public has any interest, of such a nature as to warrant taxation in its aid.
38 Page 83 U. S. 690
39 For this reason it was held that the state had no power to authorize the imposition of
40 taxes to aid in the construction of such a railroad, and therefore that the statute giving
41 Fond du Lac County power to extend such aid was invalid.
42 END QUOTE
43
44 http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
45 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872)
46 QUOTE
47 In 1870, that is to say, subsequent to the issue of these orders, though prior to the trial of this case in
48 the court below, the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin, in the
49 Page 83 U. S. 680
50 case of Whiting v. Fond du Lac County, [Footnote 1] held this act to be void, upon the ground that the
51 building of a railroad, to be owned and worked by a corporation in the usual way, was not an object
52 in which the public were interested, and therefore that the act in question was void, for the reason
53 that it authorized the levy of a tax for a private and not a public purpose. The court there said:
54 "The question is as to the power of the legislature to raise money or to authorize it to
55 be raised, by taxation, for the purpose of donating it to a private corporation. We
56 held, in Curtis v. Whipple, [Footnote 2] that the legislature possessed no such power, and

26-4-2024 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

 Page 5

1 the conclusion in that case we think follows inevitably in this, from the principles stated in
2 the opinion.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 Seems to me the reported $50+ million dollars to stage the Albert Park Grand Prix racing at
6 Melbourne is a payment to a private corporation that cannot be deemed to be for “public
7 purposes”, where entry is to pay for entry.
8
9 http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
10 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872)
11 QUOTE
12 Page 83 U. S. 693
13 "The legislature cannot create a public debt, or levy a tax, or authorize a municipal
14 corporation to do so, in order to raise funds for a mere private purpose. It cannot,
15 in the form of a tax, take the money of the citizen and give it to an individual, the
16 public interest or welfare being in no way connected with the transaction. The objects
17 for which the money is raised by taxation must be public, and such as subserve the
18 common interest and wellbeing of the community required to contribute. . . . To
19 justify the court in arresting the proceedings and declaring the tax void, the absence
20 of all possible public interest in the purposes for which the funds are raised must be
21 clear and palpable; so clear and palpable as to be perceptible by every mind AT THE
22 FIRST BLUSH."
23 All these expositions of the law of the state were made by its highest court before the
24 county orders now in suit were issued. They certainly did assert that building a railroad,
25 whether built by the state or by a corporation created by the state for the purpose, was a
26 matter of public concern, and that because it was a public use, the right of eminent
27 domain might be exerted or delegated for it, and taxation might be authorized for its aid.
28 It was the declared law of the state, therefore, when the bonds now in suit were issued,
29 that the uses of railroads, though built by private corporations, were public uses, such as
30 warranted the exercise of the public right of eminent domain in their aid, and also the
31 power of taxation.
32 We are not, then, concluded by a decision, made in 1870, that such public uses are
33 not of a nature to justify the imposition of taxes. We are at liberty to inquire what
34 are public uses, and what restrictions, if any, are imposed upon the state's taxing
35 power.
36 It is not claimed that the Constitution of Wisconsin contains any express denial of power
37 in the legislature to authorize municipal corporations to aid in the construction of
38 railroads, or to impose taxes for that purpose. The entire legislative power of the state is
39 confessedly vested in the General Assembly. An implied inhibition only is asserted.
40 Page 83 U. S. 694
41 It is insisted that, as the state cannot itself impose taxes for any other than a public
42 use, so the legislature cannot empower a municipal division of the state to levy and
43 collect taxes for any other than such a use,
44 END QUOTE
45
46 Where was the ATO when John Howard unconstitutionally provided Indonesia with about $1
47 Billion?
48
49 Where was the ATO to oppose the usage of Consolidated Revenue Funds for the
50 unconstitutional invasion by Australians armed forces into Iraq?
51
52 Where was the ATO opposing the unconstitutional funding of arts, sports, etc?
53
54 Where was the ATO opposing for example then (prime) Minister Scott Morrison
55 unconstitutionally providing monies, vehicles, etc to NAZI Ukraine?
56

26-4-2024 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

 Page 6

1 Where was the ATO opposing for example then (prime) Minister Anthony Albanese
2 unconstitutionally providing monies, vehicles, etc to NAZI Ukraine?
3
4 Where was the ATO for the unconstitutional alleged NATIONAL SECURITY payments to
5 pharmaceutical companies in billions of dollars?
6
7 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part
10 of an annual service.
11 Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?
12 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.
13 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we
14 distinguish from special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have
15 got rid of the phraseology to which we are accustomed, and instead of the words
16 Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.
17 Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to
18 place expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it
19 would not be a service.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 Hansard 3-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
23 QUOTE
24 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The intention of the clause as framed is that all laws for the
25 expenditure of money, whether for the annual services of the government, or for the
26 construction of railways, arsenals, [start page 706] ships of war, or anything else, shall
27 originate in the house of representatives; and I think that its what the words mean.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 As the Framers of the Constitution made very clear that even regarding a “bush fire” there had
31 to be a special Appropriation Bill to be passed by the Parliament.
32 Moreover, they also made clear that Taxation and Appropriation Bills were on a yearly basis. As
33 such, no such thing as holding over a Taxation Bill automatically for following years, as the
34 Parliament must consider each year to pass Taxation and Appropriation Bills!
35 What should be understood is that Appropriation Bills are to be divided between the annual cost
36 of running a Department and other bills incurred specially, such as bush fires, etc.
37 Also, the covid scam pharmaceutical contracts using taxpayer’s monies cannot be deemed secret
38 for NATIONAL SECURITY as any taxpayer’s monies require full disclosure to We, the People.
39 Where were the Appropriation Acts to permit monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds to be
40 used for paying off the media for promoting the fearmongering “covid scam”?
41
42 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
43 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
44 No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses
45 of Parliament act capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if
46 the Houses choose to agree to it-let the Houses do one thing one day and another the next,
47 and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but trust the Parliament." Of course; but
48 Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution. The Senate of to-
49 day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the
50 Constitution.
51 END QUOTE
52
53 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
54 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
55 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
56 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
57 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous

26-4-2024 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

 Page 7

1 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
2 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 Framers of the Constitution only once referred to the term “NATIONAL SECURITY”, at least
6 that I am aware of, during the Constitution Convention Debates in 1891, 1897 & 1898 as I am
7 showing below so you can get it in proper context, and nothing to do with some contract with a
8 foreign enemy entity such as pharmaceutical companies. Meaning that there was no such
9 provision in the Constitution for a federal government to create this nonsense of ‘NATIONAL
10 SECURITY” to hide any unconstitutional/unlawful contracts which I understand contained
11 likely also 2% commission and the issue is who received the reported 2% commission? If 2% of
12 the contract value was paid out to whomever was involved with engaging in the contract then I
13 view the ATO has an obligation to trace the monies. After all if the unconstitutional
14 MANDATES were pushed ahead with so that certain persons may collect perhaps a possible
15 commission of about 20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million dollars) or more pending how much was
16 paid out from Consolidated Revenue Funds regarding the various contracts as well as the
17 percentage of commission that was paid out. I understand that former NZ prime minister
18 allegedly had a bank holding increase of about $25 million in one year.
19 As such there has to be an investigation if the “commission” that was being paid out was the real
20 drive by certain politicians to push at all cost the FAKE so called covid-19 vaccines pretending it
21 to be “safe and effective” despite that already in early 2021 it was known they were not just
22 harmful but also deadly, as I have canvassed extensively in my complaint of more than 7,000
23 pages to the Australian Federal Police.
24
25 I understand that one of my children a 41-year-old now so to say is on DEAD ROW as he was
26 earlier this year given a period of 5 months to 5 years to live, due to a Turbo Cancer.
27 My exposure to the unconstitutional MANDATES was already on 8 April 2020 and thereafter
28 and as such not just because my son appears to have become a victim, albeit I am glad I have for
29 more than 4 years pursued the issues!
30 Again “details of the agreement must be immediately made public”
31 Indeed, the terms of the contract should be made known to all electors as to be able to evaluate
32 which candidate in an election were engaged in treasonous conduct and/or terrorism upon
33 Australians to force the unconstitutional MANDATES upon them.
34 Any FRAUD that any Member of Parliament engaged in, including stealing monies to fund a
35 NAZI Ukraine government to continue its genocide must be investigated, this so taxpayers can
36 rely upon the ATO to be the guardian of the Consolidated Revenue Funds and only permit the
37 withdrawing of monies that is authorised by an Appropriation Act and not otherwise. Likewise,
38 that any munition, weapons, equipment that were provided to the Australian Armed Forces
39 purchased with monies obtained from the Consolidated Revenue Funds by special Appropriation
40 Act(s) for ensuring that the Australian Armed Forces had appropriate items they were deemed to
41 need, must be held to have been theft as those items were to be purchased and used for which the
42 Appropriation Act provided and not for ulterior purposes.
43
44 Hansard 28-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
45 QUOTE
46 Mr. REID.-I again lament the use of the word "insolvency." This Convention is becoming a sort
47 of bankruptcy court if one may judge from the frequency with which that word is used. It is
48 positively revolting that we should hear an assembly representing these great Australian colonies
49 using these ominous words. They are words entirely unworthy of this great body. I am very glad to
50 think that no member from New South Wales defiles his lips with such expressions about the
51 solvency of the country he represents. I quite agree with Mr. Holder, and that is why I am so strong
52 on this subject, that we have been altogether wrong in all our financial labours if this is to he
53 persisted in. It reduces most of the labours [start page 1614] of the Finance Committee to an
54 absolute absurdity. Would it not have been infinitely more straight forward and honorable if, on the
55 motion for removing certain words from clause 92, which was agreed to without a division, this
56 proposal had been made? These words were omitted on the strength of the remarks which I am now

26-4-2024 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

 Page 8

1 making, or remarks of an exactly similar purport, only a few days ago. These words were struck out
2 without division:-
3 During the first five years after uniform duties of customs have been imposed the aggregate
4 amount to be paid to the whole of the states for any year shall not be less than the aggregate amount
5 returned to them during the year last before the imposition of such duties.
6 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-These words were removed because they were unsuitable-I refer to
7 the last ones.
8 Mr. REID.-Still, they could have been amended. There has been a perfect genius for offering
9 amendments in this Convention, and surely honorable members would have been equal to meet that
10 little difficulty. But instead of that-we addressed ourselves to the main proposition involved in
11 these words, and, as I say, following the lead of the Finance Committee-in which this present
12 proposal did not find any strong favour-these words were struck out. Now, I say it would have been
13 infinitely better to have left in that guarantee than in this round-about indirect way attempt to arrive
14 at the same point. My reason is this: The fewer objections to the measure you put in this Bill the
15 better. The fewer grounds you put in this Bill to create animosity and antipathy the better, and that
16 remark applies-to this proposition to make it absolutely compulsory, whether a state likes it or not,
17 that its finances shall be taken over by the Commonwealth, because that is what it means. The
18 Customs are handed over to the Commonwealth, not because the states shall be reduced to be mere
19 beggars standing at the door of the Commonwealth Treasury, not for any such ignoble reason, but
20 because the whole enterprise of federation was impossible except with a uniform Tariff, and with
21 the collection of the duties by one Central Government. We all gave way to that extent in this
22 federal enterprise, but it did not at all follow that we were prepared in other matters, not essential,
23 not vital, not unavoidable, to go so far that a colony would be compelled to give up its debts and
24 intrust them to the Commonwealth, without having the slightest voice as to whether it would
25 consent or not. Some colonies, no doubt, would be only too glad to consent, but I do not think our
26 colony would consent. We do not wish to put our debt upon the shoulders of the other colonies, and
27 I do not think we are at all keen to take upon our shoulders their debts. Not that I at all distrust the
28 absolute strength and stability of the states themselves, but we all want-and that has been the key
29 note of this federal enterprise until lately-to leave to the states those things which they can look
30 after themselves, and can best look after, whilst we only hand over to the Federation those things
31 which cannot be done by the states, separately. This one point is enough to destroy this proposal,
32 except as a desperate unwise extravagant expedient on the part of persons who have not sufficient
33 confidence in the soundness of their own states-that, as the honorable member (Mr. Holder) stated,
34 and as every one must admit, all the advantages to be derived in time to come by the states from a
35 conversion of their debts under the name of the Commonwealth, with the national security
36 attached, will be lost. I think that I heard the honorable member (Sir Philip Fysh), in tones of the
37 loftiest eloquence, describe the enormous advantage which it would be in time to come to have
38 such a conversion.
39 Sir PHILIP FYSH.-You have always denied it.
40 [start page 1615]
41 END QUOTE
42
43 In my view the ATO failing to ensure that matters are appropriately investigated and details of
44 the contracts are published it may very well be deemed to be party of the elaborate FRAUD upon
45 Consolidated Revenue Funds, etc!
46 Let it be very clear that the purported 18 April 2024 correspondence has absolutely no meaning
47 for what I have set out above and in previous correspondences. And as the ATO to my
48 knowledge has not provided any email address then my conduct to email correspondences via
49 the Attorney-General I view is appropriate.
50
51 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
52
53 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
54 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

55 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

56 (Our name is our motto!)
26-4-2024 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.