20240525-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To ES&a Lawyers & Ors Re-Misprision of Felony Etc

Page 1
1
2
3 ES&a lawyers (Australia, Victoria date) 25-5-2024
4 C/o Basil L Stafford LLB
5 Email: buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
6
7 Cc: Cr Alan Getley (Mayor) crgetley@buloke.vic.gov.au Cr David Pollard crpollard@buloke.vic.gov.au
8 Cr Carolyn Stewart crstewart@buloke.vic.gov.au Cr Bernadette Hogan crhogan@buloke.vic.gov.au
9 Cr Graeme Milne (Dep Mayor) crmilne@buloke.vic.gov.au Cr B Simpson crsimpson@buloke.vic.gov.au
10 Cr Daryl Warren crwarren@buloke.vic.gov.au Penelope Grant Revenue Officer buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
11
12 Re: 20240525-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ES7a lawyers - Re-Misprision of Felony etc
13
14 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
15 Sir/Madam,
16 ES&a lawyers while writings me a letter did not include an email address and hence I
17 use Buloke Shire email address. It refer to 14 days whereas the letter was forwarded via
18 Australian Post of which a week already was lost. While the demand shows “within fourteen
19 (14) days of the date of this letter” this obviously cannot be correct in particular where not
20 uncommon Australia Post delivers in excess of 3 weeks or more. In my view times should be
21 calculated from time of actual receipt and not some time that may not be appropriate in the
22 circumstances.
23
24 There can be absolutely no doubt that over the years I wrote extensively to Buloke Shire Council
25 such as about the deceptive notices, also regarding the unconstitutional “purported” Victorian
26 “State land taxation” with the “purported” “delegated” “council rates”, as well as raising
27 numerous other issues.
28
29 37-0114 No 1
30 QUOTE Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the Treasurer NSW on 2
31 March 2011
32 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+
33 Barry+Collier+MP+Parliamentarian+Secretary+Assisting+the+Treasurer+NSW+on+2+M
34 arch+2011+claimed+%28to+me%29+that+the+States+had+legislative+powers+regarding
35 +land+taxation+returned+to+them%3F+Do+you+accept+this+is+possible+when+the+con
36 stitution+doesn’t+provide+for+this+mechanism+to+return+exclusive+Commonwealth+po
37 wer+back+to+the+States%3F
38 Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the
39 Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011 claimed (to me) that the States had legislative
40 powers regarding land taxation returned to them? Do you accept this is possible when
41 the constitution doesn’t provide for this mechanism to return exclusive
42 Commonwealth power back to the States?
43
44 According to www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Questions Search Engine:
45 Answer:
25-5-2024 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 No, it is not possible for the States to have legislative powers regarding land taxation
2 returned to them if the Constitution does not provide for such a mechanism to
3 transfer exclusive Commonwealth power back to the States. The Australian
4 Constitution clearly outlines the division of powers between the Commonwealth and
5 the States, and any changes or transfers of powers would require formal amendments
6 to the Constitution through specific processes outlined in Section 128.
7 The Australian Constitution establishes a federal system of government where certain
8 powers are allocated exclusively to the Commonwealth Parliament under Section 51,
9 including taxation. Land taxation falls under this category of powers exclusively
10 vested in the Commonwealth. While there are provisions for concurrent powers and
11 areas where both levels of government can legislate, matters related to land taxation
12 are generally within the domain of the Commonwealth.
13 Any assertion that States could unilaterally reclaim legislative authority over land
14 taxation without a constitutional amendment would be legally unfounded and
15 contrary to the established framework of federalism in Australia. Therefore, unless
16 there is a formal amendment to the Constitution or a change in legislation at the
17 federal level, States do not have the authority to independently control land taxation.
18 In summary, based on the existing constitutional framework and principles of
19 federalism in Australia, it is not feasible for States to regain legislative powers over
20 land taxation without proper constitutional amendments or legal mechanisms.
21 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:
22 1. Australian Constitution
23 2. Legal Principles of Federalism in Australia
24 3. Division of Powers between Commonwealth and States
25 These sources were consulted to provide accurate information on the distribution of
26 legislative powers in Australia’s federal system and how changes or transfers of such
27 powers would need to adhere to constitutional provisions.
28 Web Search Results
29 5 results
30
31 Barry Collier (politician)
32 https//en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Barry_Collier_(politician)
33 Barry Collier (politician)
34 He was a Labor Party member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly from 1999
35 to 2011 and from 2013 to 2015, representing the electorate of Miranda.
36
37 Department of the Legislative Assembly - Parliament of NSW
38 https//www.parliament.nsw.gov.au › la › department › Documents › department-of-the-
39 legislative-assembly-annual-report-for-2009-2010 ›
40 LA%20Annual%20Report%20200910.pdf
41 Department of the Legislative Assembly - Parliament of NSW
42 parliamentary recess between december 2010 and the march 2011 election should provide
43 staffing resources to complete some of these projects.
44
45 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
46 https//api.parliament.nsw.gov.au › api › hansard › search › daily › pdf › HANSARD-1820781676-64586
47 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
48 Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges)
49 Bill 2009. State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Defence Force ...
50
51 Committee Secretary 5-6-2011 Joint ...
52 https//www.aph.gov.au › parliamentary_business › committees › house_of_representatives_committees
Page 3
1 Committee Secretary 5-6-2011 Joint ...

2 This did not have the effect of preventing the. States from imposing land tax, but rather
3 returned taxation powers back to them. Accordingly ...
4
5 House of Representatives Official Hansard
6 https//citeseerx.ist.psu.edu › document
7 House of Representatives Official Hansard
8 House of Representatives Officeholders. Speaker—The Hon. David Peter Maxwell
9 Hawker MP. Deputy Speaker—The Hon. Ian Raymond Causley MP.
10 END QUOTE Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the Treasurer NSW
11 on 2 March 2011
12
13 A City/Shire Council may just hold it is not a relevant issue to it and so may elect to disregard
14 the subject matter I wrote about, however, it cannot ignore the writings when it contrary to what
15 I wrote seek to made demands upon me in contradiction of what I stated.
16
17 I t must be very obvious that where a council had years to respond but never bothered to do so
18 and then pursued to enforce the UNCONSTITUTIONAL “State land taxation” such as the
19 purported “delegated” “council rates” then it lacks any legal ground to do so.
20
21 Merely making a demand is worthless as one needs a legal basis to justify it.
22
23 Say Peter goes to each and every neighbour and demands them to pay him $1,000 for having the privileges to
24 have him as a neighbour. Well, unlikely anyone would pay the monies. Peter may then start to litigate to
25 enforce his demand for the $1,000 payment against each and every neighbour but surely a Court would
26 question on what legal basis he can pursue such a demand.
27 Making a demand without any legal basis hardly is enforceable.
28
29 Frank might demand from John that he wants him to pay $2,000 for the cost of the repair of a joint fence.
30 John refuses this and well Frank engage a lawyer who now make a demand upon John to pay the $2,000 or
31 face litigation. John simply refuses to pay. He did write to the lawyer and Frank why he didn’t have to pay
32 but both couldn’t care less about the writings, as all they want id John to pay the $2,000. So, the lawyer
33 commence litigation in court and the judge ask Frank on what legal basis is he making the claim. Frank
34 makes clear that it is a joint fence and it did cost $4,000 to repair the fence and therefore John has to pay 50%
35 of the repair cost. Franks lawyer presents an array of Authorities (judgments) showing that the courts have
36 repeatedly upheld that both parties has to pay 50% of the cost, when it comes to a joint fence repair. Now it
37 is the turn of John and he explains he is without a lawyer as he cannot afford it but that in his view he should
38 not be forced to incur cost for a lawyer where Franks lawyer shows to be ignorant to properly deal with
39 matters. John explains that in his view the court must be the last resort for litigation where a reasonable
40 person could have resolved the matter without any dispute ending up in court. The judge ask John why did
41 you not pay half of the repair of the joint fence? John explained that previously he had paid for the repair of
42 the fence unaware he had not have to do so because Franks then smashed into the fence and caused the
43 damages. However now that Frank again caused the damages to the joint fence by again smashing into it he
44 had no choice but to refuse to pay as he had no part in causing the damage to the joint fence. John explained
45 that he wrote to the lawyers setting it all out but they blatantly ignored to respond.
46 The judge now asked Franks lawyer if what John stated was true. Franks Lawyer conceded that it was Frank
47 who caused the damages to the fence but he cannot be blamed as he was drunk (intoxicated) and had no
48 intentions to damage the fence. He just had driven home having had a celebration with some mates and
49 driving into the yard he lost control of the vehicle and now John had the obligation to pay half of the
50 accidental damaged that was caused.
51
52 The judge now made clear to the lawyer that ‘litigation should be the last resort’ and for a lawyer to disregard
53 the other parties writings cannot be excused when it comes to wasting the courts time to litigate in regard to
54 something that could have been resolved without litigation, unless parties are both sticking to their positions.
55 Clearly, John had stated his objection and where neither Frank or his legal representative bothered to respond
56 to his writings then there was no legal justification to litigate in court. As John is entitled to object to having
57 to pay for something that he had no part in as to the eventual damaged resulting by Frank’s dunked conduct
58 then where Frank’s lawyer admit that his client had been drunk driving, he should have reported this to the

Page 4
1 relevant law enforcement authorities as Frank could for the same had harmed a pedestrian or other road user.
2 As such this may amount of “misprision of Felony”! There clearly is no legal basis for the court in the
3 circumstances presented to issue any orders against John. The fact John paid previously in no way can be
4 deemed to mean he was obligated to do so.
5
6 Let us now use this forementioned example to the issue of so called “council rates”.
7
8 It must be very clear that I way back in 2001 was an INDEPENDENT candidate in the Federal
9 Election making known that “council rates” were unconstitutional. The same was claimed when
10 standing for other elections, including council and State elections. In addition, I wrote to Banyule
11 City Council and Buloke Shire Council about the same. Therefore, well over 2 decades I made
12 clear that the purported “State land taxation” and so the purported “delegated” “council rates”
13 were unconstitutional. Yet, even so both councils had lawyers representing them neither did
14 bother to deal with the matter. We are not just talking about a few days or even a few weeks but
15 decades. As such, “Misprision of Felony” may be applied in that this may constitute extortion of
16 monies where lawyers were made well aware of the disputed purported “delegated” “council
17 rates” but let their clients go on, ignoring the objections.
18
19 https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s337.html
20 CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 337 Misprision - 'classic' AustLII
21 Victorian Current Acts. [Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Act] [Notes] [Noteup]
22 [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help] ...
23
24 https://cdn.newsnow.io/exhitbitsnov2013/Exhibit 133.pdf
25 :MISPRISION OF FELONY AND OTHER CRIMINAL - newsnow.io
26 28 Nov 1995 ... Victoria Australia·. GPO Box 4592 Melbourne. DX 102 Mdboumc.
27 Telephone: (03) 9617 5711. Int:ernational:613 9617 57. Facsimile: (03) 9614 5577.
28
29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_felony
30 Misprision of felony
31 Failure to report a felony
32 QUOTE
33 Misprision of felony is a form of misprision, and an offence under the common law of
34 England that is no longer active in many common law countries. Where it was or is active,
35 it is classified as a misdemeanor. It consists of failing to report knowledge of a felony to
36 the appropriate authorities. Exceptions were made for close family members of the felon
37 and where the disclosure would tend to incriminate the reporter himself.
38 With the development of the modern law, this crime has been discarded in many
39 jurisdictions, and is generally only applied against persons placed in a special position of
40 authority or responsibility. In this case, the offence of misfeasance in public office or
41 malfeasance in public office may be considered instead. For example, corrections officers
42 who stand idly by while drug trafficking occurs within the prison may be prosecuted for
43 this crime.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 With Buloke Shire Council it litigated against me on basis of a Notice regardless that I had
47 written to them the Notice was defective. For example, referring to “combustible” which is such
48 a general word that no one really can comply with this notice. After all trees, fencing, residence,
49 sheds, etc, all are combustible materials, even a motor vehicle.
50 I had about 2 metres high stack of old sleepers stored as fire wood but then not wanting any
51 argument let my neighbour (of the local fire brigade) have the lot. Somehow, now that my
52 neighbour had it all suddenly it was no longer a fire danger.
Page 5
1 Also, as I was given the understanding Wycheproof Shire Council owned the land across the
2 road which contained grain silos and well as the grain was blowing across the road onto my
3 property causing wheat to grow. One a year a Wycheproof employee would then come with the
4 ride-on-mower and slash the wheat at no extra cost to me. However, when Buloke Shire Council
5 was created which included Wycheproof Shire council and others, there was no longer any such
6 moving service provided. Instead, I started to get terrorised about not allegedly slashing the
7 wheat, etc, this even so I never planted any of it. Neither did Buloke Shire Council pursue to put
8 any fencing up on the silo property to try at least to minimize the grain blowing on to my FEE
9 SIMPLE property. Yet is has been pestering me about the wheat, while it has the same growing
10 higher than my car.
11 And then when the matter went before Carmody, and I objected to the jurisdiction of the court,
12 Carmody simply claimed to have jurisdiction without any jurisdictional hearing and as such
13 never invoked jurisdiction. And the lawyers never revealed to the court that Buloke Shire
14 Council was at fault for various reasons.
15 Then with Banyule City Council it simply decided to trespass even so I had signs ENTRY
16 PROHIBITED and then it trespassed upon neighbours property and climbed over the joint fence
17 and caused damages and entered a gazebo all without any warrant! And they repeated the same
18 again and again with on 29 November 2023 bashing on the back door that my wife unknown to
19 know who the man was feared for her life he was trying to break in and her heart rate went from
20 72 to 122. For already being a heart failure patient with her heart only pumping for 30% and both
21 valves leaking and with other comorbidities it was also utterly stupid for Banyule City Council to
22 engage in that kind of conduct where they were well aware of my wife’s health problems.
23 And, yet on 3 January 2024 they were on it again, only this time I had a person video recording
24 the conduct of Banyule City Council employee. And well Banyule City Council then decided
25 (failing already 3 times with a purported notice) to use a different tactic of legal power, just that I
26 noticed the purported notice (the 4th one) was not dated and on 8 April 2024 exposed this as well
27 as did set out comprehensively why this purported notice was invalid in law besides the lack of
28 being dated. So, Banyule City Council decided to issue yet another (purported) notice (number
29 5) but back dating it to 26 March 2024. Backdating a notice itself makes the purported notice
30 invalid in law.
31 Both Banyule City Council and Buloke Shire Council seems to be hell bend to litigate against
32 me. But as I indicated lawyers who play this kind of game may very well be held legally
33 accountable for Misprision of Felony, etc.
34
35 Lets not overlook the content of the following document:
36
37 The validity of council charges and its conduct are in question. Likewise, the State
38 government to have engaged in agreement that Aboriginals can dictate certain
39 councils how to deal with matters, and incur the cost of this.
40 You can download the document from:
41 https://www.scribd.com/document/671606835/20230916-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
42 Buloke-Shire-Council-Ors
43
44 Lets not overlook either that Banyule City council vandalised my wife’s motor vehicle and as
45 result preventing me to use the motor vehicle to travel to Berriwillock to tow the trailer with my
46 ride-on-mower even if there were no other issues at hand like my wife’s health issues that since
47 29 November 2023 the fear caused her to be unable to walk unaided and now relying on using a
48 wheelchair.
49 And now Buloke Shire Council desires to litigate against me for not cleaning up the meh that it
50 failed to prevent and by this denied me my FEE SIMPLE rights.
51
Page 6
1 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/
2 Fee Simple. - Constitution Watch
3 12 July 2022 ... What is an Estate in Fee Simple? Commonwealth v New South
4 Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1. (9 August 1923) .
5
6 There is an excellent article at https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/ which also refers to
7 Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; 919230 33 CLR 1 (9August 1923)
8 QUOTE
9 Fee Simple.
10 Posted onMay 10, 2022AuthorEditor
11 What is an Estate in Fee Simple?
12
13 Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1
14 (9 August 1923)
15 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
16 KNOX C.J., ISAACS, HIGGINS, GAVAN DUFFY AND STARKE JJ.
17 THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PLAINTIFF
18 AGAINST
19 THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS
20 1920-1923: SYDNEY, Dec. 1-3, 1920; Mar. 21-29, 1922; Aug. 9, 1923 33 CLR 1
21 Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:-
22 (1920) 33 CLR 1 at 42
23 ISAACS J. In Challis's Real Property, 3rd ed., p. 218,
24 it is stated with perfect accuracy:—
25 “In the language of the English law, the word fee signifies an estate of inheritance as distinguished
26 from a less estate; not, as in the language of the feudists, a subject of tenure as distinguished from
27 an allodium.”
28 “Allodium being wholly unknown to English law, the latter distinction would in fact have no
29 meaning.” “A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in respect to the
30 rights which it confers, of all estates known to the law.”
31 “It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful right to
32 exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which can enter into
33 the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste; and, for all practical
34 purposes of ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a chattel, in nothing except
35 the physical indestructibility of its subject.”
36 “Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute right, both of
37 alienation inter vivos and of devise by will.” 2
38 Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:-
39 (1920) 33 CLR 1 at 45
40 ISAACS J.
41 With respect to the expression “fee simple”, the view enunciated in the joint opinion that “fee
42 simple” indicates the quantum of estate, and not feudal tenure, is confirmed by the observation of
43 Viscount Haldane for the Privy Council in the White Cap Case (Amodu Tijani v. Secretary,
44 Southern Nigeria[50]), where the learned Lord refers to—
45 “an estate in fee” as “the most comprehensive estate in land which the law recognizes.”
46 On the same page Lord Haldane also speaks of a case where “the title of the Sovereign is a pure
47 legal estate, to which beneficial rights may or may not be attached.”
48 The same learned Lord in Matamajaw Salmon Club v. Duchaine[51] says that in England “there
49 has always been permitted great latitude in splitting up the title to the fee simple.” The same learned
50 Lord, again for the Privy Council, had already in Smith v. Vermillion Hills Municipality[52]
51 recognized the principle when he spoke of certain land—
52 “the fee of which is in the Crown.”
53 It is obviously right, therefore, to say that under sec. 85 (I.) the Commonwealth holds the land for
54 an estate of fee simple in possession, that having no reference to any tenure under the State. The
Page 7
1 title transferred by sec. 85 is taken from the State, as I have already said, adversely to State law and
2 by a law superior, and by that superior law is vested in the Commonwealth; and, as that superior
3 law is the sole source of title, it follows that nothing henceforth can depend on State registration
4 laws or State laws of any kind.
5 But as the land—not being in Commonwealth “territory” properly so called, that is, outside a
6 State—remains in the State boundaries, it was necessary to provide that the governmental powers
7 of the Commonwealth—exclusive in themselves—should, for the purpose for which the land was
8 transferred, be entirely free from State jurisdiction. To this end sec. 52 (I.) was shaped in the form
9 in which it exists. It enacts that the Commonwealth Parliament shall have exclusive power to
10 legislate for—
11 “the seat of government of the Commonwealth, and all places acquired by the Commonwealth for
12 public purposes.”
13 Even in America, it may be necessary to repeat, where no such explicit law exists, it is held that the
14 Congress may validly legislate for the protection of its public lands, even within a State.
15 As Brown J. said for the Court, in Camfield v. United States[53], “a different rule would place the
16 public domain of the United States completely at the mercy of State legislation.” This was a
17 decision in 1897, and the later Commonwealth Constitution has provided specifically, and in larger
18 terms, for the Federal power. The grant of exclusive power carries an inevitable inference with it. It
19 shows that the proprietorship and the sovereignty were intended to go together in this respect.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 As the State of Victoria purportedly made special arrangements with Aboriginals this too is also
23 an issue in contention. As I indicated the States/Territories have no legislative, executive and
24 administrative powers regarding Aboriginals.
25 Let it be clear that one of my daughters first female cousin has 5 children from a marriage to an
26 Australian of Aboriginal descent, albeit this does not affect my views neither would it be
27 appropriate about constitutional issues to be bias in that regard.
28
29 In regard of unlawful entries and/or unlawfully staying within the Commonwealth of Australia
30 the High Court of Australia in November 2023 held that in “definitive” detention was unlawful.
31 As a constitutionalist this was a ruling totally absurd and I made this very clear to the Federal
32 Attorney-General and to the court;
33
34 QUOTE 20231118-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus-National Security
35 issues-Supplement 1
36 Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus 18-11-2023
37 Email attorney@ag.gov.au,
38
39 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
40 Re National Security issues-Supplement 1
41 Sir,
42 it appears to me that the High Court of Australia has set itself up to be another political
43 party governing from the bench rather than to remain impartial and adjudicate within the
44 confines of the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
45 Act 1900 (UK).
46
47
Page 8
1 In my view the Commonwealth of Australia likewise is entitled to deny entry/evict a person

2 who is TRESPASSING and refuse to leave then to incarcerate until the person complies to
3 leave As set out below each person failing to leave is not indefinitely incarcerated as the
4 person so to say had/has “the key to his prison cell” by simply leaving as lawfully required!
5 What I view is scandalous is that the High Court of Australia may take months to hand-down
6 a reason of judgment and by this deny the general community to be aware why it handed
7 down orders which may be ill conceived in any case. It also denies the Parliament to have
8 proper knowledge as to what the court used to hand down its orders and how within
9 constitutional provisions it may legislate to address certain issues, this in particular where the
10 court now appears to have overruled it past decision. I as a constitutionalist am concerned that
11 the decision may have been ill conceived and may be a failure to remain within judicial
12 powers and may have trespassed upon the powers of the Parliament to legislate. It is not upon
13 the court, as it did in past judgments violating the separation of powers and I have set out
14 below some issues. It may even result for the court having scored an own goal, as it now no
15 longer either can incarcerate a person indefinitely on the basis that the prisoner has the key to
16 his own cell door, and can leave if complying to a court order. In my view it is well over due
17 that court are limited and subject to legislative provisions that when a court holds a person in
18 contempt of court it then too cannot order the person to remain incarcerated unless the
19 person complies with a court order as one cannot have DOUBLE STANDARDS.
20
21 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12727823/Refugee-raped-boy-Australia-High-
22 Court-ruling.html
23 Paedophile refugee who raped a 10-year-old boy can stay in Australia after landmark
24 High Court ruling against indefinite detention - as advocates celebrate 'important'
25 victory
26 END QUOTE 20231118-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus-National
27 Security issues-Supplement 1
28
29 Well the court now changed its previous stand!
30
31
32 And here we are again where somehow, I seem to be more alert to what is constitutionally
33 appropriate then the lawyers/politicians/judges seem to be.
34
35 The Commonwealth is entitled to place in detention any person accused of violating
36 Commonwealth law, but Dan Duggan cannot be detained let alone denied contact
37 with his family for allegedly violating foreign countries laws!
39 https://www.scribd.com/document/735340152/20240523-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
40 B-to-Attorney-General-Mark-Dreyfus-Dan-Duggan
41
42 Let it be clear my wife cannot be left on her own for many hours for me to attend to some court
43 hearing because lawyers rather litigate then to make clear to their client’s they have no case. I on
Page 9
1 Wednesday 22 May 2024 had to attend to my son Mark (41) as he was a month ago given a life
2 span of 2 months to 2 years to live, and so documents had to be sworn in that leave to be the
3 executive of his estate in the event he dies. Due to the “covid scam” jabs, he became seriously if
4 not deadly ill and he had a fall and not just fracture a rib but X-rays also showed a broken rib.
5 When I returned home my wife left a note she had fallen of the chair and went to bed. Ordinary I
6 am 24/7 with her. Now imagine for me to be stuck in a court merely because lawyers desire to
7 litigate. Well, they better consider that this could back fire as they could be held “legally
8 accountable” were I be caused to attend to a court and my wife then ends up having a problem
9 without that I am there to assist her. Neither Banyule City Council or Buloke Shire Council has
10 any legitimate case against me, even so both seeks to pretend doing so. In my view, both
11 councils are engaged in felonies and well no court could go along with this and neither can any
12 Magistrates Court or County Court exercising federal jurisdiction overrule the High Court of
13 Australia and/or the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
14 In my view a good judge is one who hands down a decision that is based upon the FACTs that
15 were before the court regardless of which party succeeds in the litigation. Regretfully too often
16 lawyers are deceptive, Nicola Gobbo I view is a clear example, and judges like Carmody J
17 ignoring to follow proper legal procedures where I view the problems is that the “administration
18 of justice” has to a great extend lost the respect of the people. In particular the way the courts
19 dealt with the “covid scam” to uphold the unconstitutional power abuse instead of ensuring that
20 no one was allowed to violate the constitution!
21
22 In all the circumstances, as I highlighted in previous correspondences I engaged 2 adults who on
23 2 occasions attend to my property, whereas Buloke Shire Council failed to act against the
24 violation of my FEE SIMPLE rights to avoid or at least minimise my property being
25 contaminated without my knowledge and/or consent by the grain being blown from the property
26 with the silos across the road onto my property. I incurred undue cost for those people to attend
27 to my property on 2 occasions and Buloke Shire Council should compensate me for this as well
28 as ensure that finally it acts appropriately against the silo property owner.
29 Buloke Shire Council at no time addressed issues I raised and while it may hold this justified for
30 itself that however cannot then justify litigation let alone waste the courts time. I view there is
31 NO CASE TO ANSWER and as I previously also indicated the court couldn’t invoke
32 jurisdiction!
33
34 Buloke Shire Council claims to be a “Law Enforcement Agency” and runs local health centres,
35 where a nurse attends to kinder and then inject the children according to whatever the nurse
36 deems required. My daughter Gabrielle attended there as a 2-year-old and whenever the nurse
37 took Gabrielle in her office to inject something I never was provided with any information what
38 the injections were about. As such, as I became aware of since the “covid scam” there never was
39 any “informed consent” obtained for the jabs. And as I now know many jabs were in violation of
40 law. After all any jabs governing “man-kind” infectious diseases were since 1908 exclusive
41 Commonwealth legislative powers. Let’s look at the US of A published information:
42
43 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/05/joseph-mercola/childhood-vaccine-schedule-led-to-
44 greatest-decline-in-public-health-in-human-history/
45 Childhood Vaccine Schedule Led to ‘Greatest Decline in Public Health in
46 Human History’
47 QUOTE
48 A U.S. Senate roundtable discussion, hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson,
49 tackled a taboo topic — why public health agencies have not
50 studied the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated

Page 10
1 children — and have refused to make data on the topic available to

2 the public.1
3 “They do not publish the results [or] let any independent scientist
4 in to look at that information,” Brian Hooker, chief scientific officer
5 for Children’s Health Defense, said. “They refuse to publish the
6 results and they really know why. It’s because the bloated
7 vaccination schedule is responsible and is, I would say, in part
8 responsible for the epidemic of chronic disorders that we see in
9 children in the U.S.”2
10 In 1962, children received just five vaccine doses. As of 2023,
11 children up to age 18 receive 73 doses of 16 different vaccines. The
12 cumulative effects of this childhood vaccine schedule have never
13 been tested.
14 END QUOTE
15 And
16 QUOTE
17 Explosion of Childhood Vaccines Led to ‘Greatest Decline in Public Health in
18 Human History’
19 END QUOTE
20 And
21 QUOTE
22 “None of the 14 routine vaccines on the CDC’s recommended
23 schedule … was ever put through long-term double-blind placebo-
24 based safety trials prior to licensure. Since this type of trial is
25 really the only way to establish that a pharmaceutical product is
26 safe, it is misinformation to state that the vaccines are safe.”
27 On the contrary, a number of studies suggest that unvaccinated children may be healthier
28 than those who are vaxxed.
29 END QUOTE
30 And
31 QUOTE
32 Vaccinated Children Have Higher Rates of Asthma, Neurodevelopmental
33 Disorders and More
34 Dr. Paul Thomas, whose medical license was suspended due to his
35 advocacy for informed consent regarding vaccinations, along with James
36 Lyons-Weiler from the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK),
37 conducted a study comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated
38 children.6
39 Their findings revealed that vaccinated children experienced significantly
40 higher instances of various health issues, including:7
41
Page 11
1 Notably, among the 561 unvaccinated children, none were diagnosed with attention deficit
2 hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), whereas 0.063% of children who had received some or all
3 recommended vaccinations were diagnosed with ADHD.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 As I wrote about previously to Buloke Shire Council that then Minister for health Daniel
7 Andrews made clear that access to safe drinking water was a health issue. And the Victorian
8 parliament passed the “Safe Drinking Water Bill” which then was enacted in 2003. And the
9 Minister made clear that the State was providing funding to water companies for ensuring safe
10 drinking water was provided to all Victorians.
11 Well, GWMWater to my understanding by commencement of 2024 (some 20 years later) still
12 had not provided safe drinking water to for example Berriwillock.
13
14 QUOTE 20230916-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Buloke Shire Council & Ors
15 The mere fact that the State had no constitutional, executive and/or administrative powers to
16 issue the mandates somehow seemed to have been ignored by councils. My blog at
17 https://www.sscribd.com/inspectorrikati has a huge amount of information about it all!
18
19 http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=A
20 SSEMBLY&speech=23716&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=7&
21 date2=May&date3=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'wate
22 r'+%29
23 QUOTE
24 Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave)- It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking Water Bill.
25 This bill forms part of the government's strategic approach to water management, with
26 specific attention being paid to water quality and risk management as matters of public
27 health. It is worth noting that this is a debate about public health and about making
28 sure that each community across our state has access to the highest quality water. It is
29 also worth noting that this bill has been introduced by the Minister for Health as a matter
30 of public health.
31 The bill has four specific objectives. Before going on to those I welcome the support
32 shown by the Liberal and National parties for this bill. Every endeavour has been made to
33 try to provide as much information as possible.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 Well GWMWater still has not provided “safe drinking water” to various area’s this even so it
37 was clai9med that they would receive funding to perform the upgrade from untreated water
38 to safe drinking water and water service providers could engage other water service providers
39 to assist in performing the required work.
40 One then has to ask what happened to the monies?
41 I disputed the water charges and in 2014 the Victorian Ombudsman held it was a legal issue.
42 GWMWater therefore only alternative was to litigate against me. They never did but
43 purportedly keep increasing their alleged claims against me.
44 Last year I made an extensive submission and have been advised that GWMWater now
45 intends (finally) to upgrade the water supplies from untreated to safe drinking water.
46 Currently it is still violating legal requirement!
47 I, some years ago, did write to Buloke Shire Council as to this being clearly a “health” issue
48 but nothing came from it. Why not?
49

Page 12
1
2 The shown web site no longer operates as such)
3 What we have is that parents may have been working hard to provide for the family unaware
4 that the water they were using may have been extremely dangerous for the child(ren).
5
6 The same with the sickening mandates. Let it be clear that Brett Sutton as I understand it as a
7 Chief Health Officer was NOT a medical doctor, and apparently had not even any scientific
8 basis to justify any mandates, besides they were unconstitutional.
9
10 How many parent may be aware that many of the school children vaccinations may be
11 unconstitutional and often can cause harm such as SIDS, AUTISM, etc? My blog has
12 considerable information about it all. And I do NOT charge for anyone to download it.
13 END QUOTE 20230916-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Buloke Shire Council & Ors
14
15 The Minister at the time did make clear that if a water provider could not do the work then to
16 enlist the assistance of another water provider to assist with doing the works required. Well,
17 more than 20 years later Buloke Shire Council to my understanding did nothing at all to enforce
18 the law to ensure that safe drinking water was provided. Hardly showing to be a competent Law
19 Enforcement Agency!
20
21 The State of Victoria required for recycled water pipes and taps to be in purple colour. Yet, the
22 only property, to my knowledge that has purple taps is my property. This as to avoid anyone to
23 perhaps access water and become ill from using it.
24
25 Yet, Buloke Shire Council doesn’t seem to have been concerned that fire fighters had to be
26 exposed to using “untreated water” for fire fighting and it being used on fire fighting residents,
27 etc.
28
29 As such for Buloke Shire Council to claim it enforced the law itself is an absurdity where it
30 clearly fails to do so for decades!
31
32 When I had to travel to Berriwillock I had to being along containers of fresh drinking water and
33 yet GWMWater was trying to charge me for water connection to my vacant property while it had
34 acknowledged it didn’t charge vacant properties.
35
36 The State Government decided that with bush fires there had to be legislation to seek to
37 minimize fires. Hardly a brain breaker to understand that dangers to human lives is a priority.
38 Just that while Buloke shire council is claiming to pursue environmental issues, when I for
39 example was at Sea lake Tip, I noticed how cartons were with a bulldozer moved to the garbage
Page 13
1 area and the lot was then burned. So much for being environmental friendly. Charging property
2 holders for environmental friendly collections when in real term it was being burned as other
3 trash.
4 Moreover, when attending to the Berriwillock property I discovered that the Berriwillock tip was
5 permanently closed and so I could not dispose of any items I wanted to get rid of. For 2023/2024
6 Buloke Shire Council purportedly charged me $400 for garbage collection when there had been
7 none occurring for more than a decades and again Berriwillock tip was closed long ago.
8 Moreover, I discovered that Buloke Shire Council workers had dumped road tar onto my
9 property, seemingly because they couldn’t get rid of it at the former Berriwillock tip and Sea
10 Lake tip may have been too much out of their way or the more than 40 km round trip might have
11 been too much time consuming for them.
12 And the environmental conduct of Buloke Shire Council was that when it rains then the Sea
13 Lake tip is flooded. Well, that means that the salt area that is there also is flooded. And
14 considering that animal carcasses/bodies are dumped at Sea lake tip and also there is an area of
15 dumped motor vehicle bodies as well as hospital waste, including poisons, human waste, etc are
16 also dumped there then any one with a bit of a brain in working order would be well aware that
17 Buloke Shire Council is selectively claiming to be a Law Enforcement Agency while
18 disregarding any proper Law Enforcement when it comes to itself.
19
20 Purportedly a council can issue Notices against private property owners but not against
21 government bodies, etc. Meaning that the purported legislation is no more but for councils to
22 collect monies and not at all as to “safety”.
23
24 The States were created within S106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
25 (UK) “subject to this constitution” and as such the states are bound by the legal principles
26 embedded in this constitution.
27 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
28 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
29 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
30 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
31 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
32 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
33 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 Meaning, any law that pretends that government officials and even the Minister is not to be held
37 legally accountable is not a valid law at all.
38
39 A greater set out can be obtained from my correspondences/complaints to Victorian Premier
40 Jacinta Allan.
41
42 Virus, Hotel quarantine disaster, FOI Act and other issues!
45 B-to-Jacinta-Allan-Premier-Ors-Virus-Hotel-Quarantine-FOI-Act-Etc
46
47 END QUOTE 20240518-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Jacinta Allan Premier & Ors -Virus, -Hotel
48 quarantine, FOI Act, etc
49 When the British Parliament through the Monarch were able to enact the Commonwealth of
50 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) this had a profound implication upon the newly created
51 States (Section 106 “subject to this constitution”)
52
Page 14
1 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

2 QUOTE
3 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
4 parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark
5 on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer
6 supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They
7 have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That
8 must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament
9 under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of
10 changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
11 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of
12 being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary
13 sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring
14 into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and
15 executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
16 END QUOTE
17
18 What eventuated was that the Colony of Victoria Constitution Act 1855 on 1 January 1901
19 because of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) became the State of
20 Victoria Constitution Act 1855 on 1 January 1901. Likewise, so with other colonial
21 constitutions.
22
23 WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374;( JUDGE3 STEPHEN J.)
24 QUOTE
25 As Scott L.J. said in Blackpool Corporation v. Locker (1948) 1 KB 349, at p
26 361 , speaking there of sub-delegated legislation, "there is one quite general
27 question . . . of supreme importance to the continuance of the rule of law
28 under the British constitution, namely, the right of the public affected to
29 know what that law is". The maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse forms the
30 "working hypothesis on which the rule of law rests in British democracy" but to
31 operate it requires that "the whole of our law, written or unwritten, is accessible to
32 the public - in the sense, of course, that at any rate its legal advisers have access to it at
33 any moment, as of right".
34 END QUOTE
35 Again;
36 QUOTE
37 it requires that "the whole of our law, written or unwritten, is
38 accessible to the public - in the sense, of course,
39 END QUOTE
40
41 This then places the question when was the State of Victoria Constitution Act 1855 (UK) as
42 amended by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) gazetted to become
43 law in the State of Victoria?
44
45 While any Colonial law that was gazetted prior to federation and not violating the provisions of
46 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) continued to be valid in law,
47 however, any new legislation including the amended State of Victoria Constitution Act 1855
48 (UK) needed to be gazetted to be legally enforceable. Because as I understand it there was no
49 amended version gazetted politicians, lawyers, judges, etc, all seemed to go on as if the Colonial
50 State of Victoria Constitution Act 1855 (UK) was still applicable as such.
51 The fact that subjects such as QUARANTINE for “man-kind” diseases became a
52 Commonwealth power and the States could only legislate using “concurrent” legislative powers
Page 15
1 until the Commonwealth commenced to legislate, as it did with the Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth)
2 that was later replaced by the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth).
3 END QUOTE 20240518-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Jacinta Allan Premier & Ors -Virus, -Hotel
4 quarantine, FOI Act, etc
5
6 And also consider the content of the following:
7
8 “Climate The Movie” exposes the “climate scam” which is like the elaborate “covid
9 scam” in violation of the constitutional provision “for the peace, order, and good
10 government” and well let hold the politicians legally accountable!
13 B-to-Jacinta-Allan-Premier-Ors-For-the-Peace-Order-And-Good-Government
14
15 Well, Buloke Shire Council evidence before Carmody J was that the person it employed was not
16 trained at all into the job. His evidence was he didn’t follow up the fire dangers with VicRoads,
17 etc. He admitted that the property (with the grain silos) across the road of my property had fire
18 danger growth, etc. A few years later when I was travelling to Berriwillock I took pictures of the
19 same area as the pictures at the time before Carmody J and well the same fire danger was there,
20 as the branches that were on numerous pictures that were years earlier filed before Carmody J
21 were still there. Actually, the soft shoulder of the road showed it had been burned.
22
23 Below, I quoted from a 29 August 2013 correspondence even having created a special sign to be
24 used warning drivers about the danger of driving into the soft should considering a hot exhaust
25 pipe under neath of the vehicle.
26
27 QUOTE 20240320-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Buloke Shire Council & Ors
28 QUOTE 130829-Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire Council care of Wayne Wall
29 QUOTE 130128-G H Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier TED BAILLIEU Re FIRE-WATER-TAXES-etc
30 FIRE DANGERS
31 When I drove recently to my country property in Berriwillock, towing a trailer with a ride-
32 on mower, it was noticeable that rest stops are far and few in-between the 370 kilometres.
33 Ample of signage telling you to take a power nap, but where?
34 Mr Ian Wight as the V/Line bus driver may himself be well aware of, the fires that were
35 along the Calder Highway where motorist pulled over in the high grass and the heat of the
36 motor vehicle caused a grass fire, on either side of the road.
37 The Parliament seemed to have introduced that municipal/shire councils can fine
38 landholders about $1,408.00 for failing to keep weed/grass below a certain height, but what
39 is remarkable is that while my property boundary fence is some 7 meters from the bitumen
40 road, you find along Calder Highway the shire itself failing sufficient clearance. At some
41 placed it was about 1 1/2 metre high. Indeed in Loddon Shire there was over long distances
42 no attempt to have it cut down.
43 So here we have the shire so to say terrorising ratepayers about keeping weed/grass down
44 while it is the greatest offender but somehow that is alright if it causes the loss of lives.
45 How on earth can this be justified, I ask? Fire-fighters like Mr Ian Wight should not have
46 to place their lives at risk because Shires are ignorant to the dangers of fire while seeking
47 to issue Infringement Notices to rate payers purporting to act rightfully. In my view it
48 should be the local fire captain who should be paid to do inspections, and then be able to
49 take to task the Shire if it fails to keep weed/grass along the highways under control. You
50 cannot have a Shire being both judge/jury and executor. We must never allow fire-fighters
51 to be unduly placed in harm’s way because a shire cannot bother to keep itself on top of
52 any fire dangers. All the shire seems to be doing is to be on the back of ratepayers while it
Page 16
1 basically disregarding the real dangers. For the record I made numerous photos of the high
2 weed/grass along the highway.
3
4 Proposed Road signage:
6
7 END QUOTE 130128-G H Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier TED BAILLIEU Re FIRE-WATER-
8 TAXES-etc
9 Again, as there appears to be a lack of spaces to pull over, drivers unaware of the fire danger
10 of their exhaust when driving into the grass shoulder of a highway, that can cause and indeed
11 does create at times fires. more then 20 years ago, during the night, I noticed near Ultima a
12 fire, and called the fire brigade and then about 2 days later (on my way back) noticed at the
13 same spot the fire starting up again, apparently from a tree that still had been smouldering,
14 and so called the fire brigade again to the spot.
15
16 I also reported fire matters at the time at other locations and very much concerned about the
17 risk of people losing their lives, besides property damage. However, we must also have a
18 responsible council that will itself act appropriately and not be the greatest offender, as well
19 as it must act in a reasonable manner. I noticed that the correspondence states:
20 QUOTE 20-8-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
21 Buloke Shire is preparing again for the coming fire season and will be starting property inspections in towns
22 across the Shire in early September.
23 END QUOTE 20-8-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
24
25 Early September could be even on 1 September 2013, and I view this hardly is a reasonable
26 time for notification. It may not be done on 1 September 2013, but that is not for me to know.
27 Hence, we have to consider the following also:
28 QUOTE 20-8-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

Page 17
1 Given the wet weather experienced over the winter months the spring growing season is likely to be
2 vigorous so you will need to keep an eye on your property to ensure that it is maintained in a safe condition.
3 END QUOTE 20-8-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
4
5 It appears to me that this is not some incident that arose suddenly in the last few days, rather
6 that someone just happen to decide to now bring the inspections forwards, as I understand this
7 used to be in October, and hence made my wife aware that in October I would have to go to
8 Berriwillock for the preparation of the fire season, and as such any medical appointments she
9 needs to have must be before October.
10 .
11 In my view, this rain wasn’t just coming now, but was obviously happening for some months
12 and as such one has to ask why on earth no earlier warning but leave it with no more but the
13 coming weekend at the very least in time notification. Surely, if Buloke Shire was sincere
14 about fire danger it would work with landowners as to ensure they had ample of time of
15 notification.
16 .
17 While councillors may spend their monies, being that of ratepayers as if there is no tomorrow,
18 such as adverting for the Yes referendum that didn’t proceed, It would in my view be more
19 responsible if councillors were to consider that any genuine attempt to prepare for a fire
20 season must be in a progressive manner and not so to say backstabbing as to get some fine for
21 landholders due to insufficient lack of time.
22 END QUOTE 20240320-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Buloke Shire Council & Ors
23 Constitution act 1855 was no more at time of federation on 1 January 1901. It had morphed into
24 the State of Victoria Constitution Act 1855 subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth of
25 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). With this the state Parliament lost its “sovereignty” as it
26 became a “constitutional parliament” that no longer could amend its own constitution. And the
27 supreme Court of Victoria in the Albert Park charges so to say threw out of the window all
28 charges against objectors because the purported legislation had never been published in the
29 Gazette. The validity of Royal Assent is not just when a Governor signs a document to be
30 enacted but rather when the signed document is published in the Gazette.
31 Hence, the newly morphed State of Victoria Constitution Act 1855 subject to the provisions of
32 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) should have been published in the
33 Gazette but to my understanding never was as such.
34 Therefore the Colonial constitution was no more and the state constitution was neither legally
35 enforceable. And as result technically all and any legislation purportedly within the State of
36 Victoria Constitution Act 1855 was of no legal effect. And likewise the purported Victorian
37 Constitution Act 1975 was not even worth the paper it was written upon, this, because there had
38 been no required State referendum to approve any changed/new state constitution.
39 It also means that the State Parliament legislation that Buloke Shire Council may rely upon has
40 no legal basis.
41
42 As for this alleged invasion by the British:
43
44 40-0121
45 QUOTE Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by the Dutch?
46 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Do+you+accept+that+Cap+C
47 ook+did+not+invade+"New+Holland"+as+it+was+already+claimed+by+the+Dutch%3F
48 Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by
49 the Dutch?
50
51 According to www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Questions Search Engine:
52 Answer:
53 No, Captain Cook did not invade “New Holland” as it was already claimed by the Dutch.

Page 18
1 The story of Lieutenant James Cook and British Sovereignty over Australia has been somewhat
2 misconstrued. While Cook did chart the east coast of New Holland (Australia) in 1770 during his
3 voyage, his primary mission was not to claim the land for Britain. Cook’s initial objective was to
4 reach Tahiti to study the Transit of Venus and then search for the mythical Great Southern Land,
5 Terra Australis.
6 When Cook was heading back after mapping New Zealand (Aotearoa), he intended to return via
7 Cape Horn in South America to potentially discover Terra Australis. However, due to the
8 condition of his ship, he decided to sail north along the east coast of New Holland towards
9 Batavia (Java) for repairs and supplies. Cook’s intention was not to invade or claim New
10 Holland but rather to navigate a route back home that would benefit his mission.
11 Cook’s journal entries indicate that he consulted with his officers on the best route to take for
12 their return journey, ultimately deciding to sail west until they reached the East Coast of New
13 Holland and then follow its direction northward. The decision to explore parts of New Holland
14 was based on practical considerations and the need for provisions rather than a deliberate
15 invasion or claim of sovereignty.
16 Therefore, it can be concluded that Captain Cook did not invade “New Holland” as it was
17 already claimed by the Dutch, and his exploration of the east coast of Australia was part of a
18 larger navigational journey rather than a conquest.
19 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:
20 1. National Library of Australia
21 2. Australian National Maritime Museum
22 3. State Library of New South Wales
23 These sources provided historical records, journals, and archives related to Captain James
24 Cook’s voyages and explorations in Australia, offering valuable insights into the events
25 surrounding his navigation along the coast of New Holland.
26 Web Search Results
27 5 results
28
29 New Holland (Australia)
30 https//en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › New_Holland_(Australia)
31 New Holland (Australia)
32 New Holland was never settled by the Dutch people, whose colonial forces and buoyant
33 population had a settled preference for the Dutch Cape Colony, Dutch ...
34
35 Why do the Dutch think that they discovered Australia before ...
36 https//www.quora.com › Why-do-the-Dutch-think-that-they-discovered-Australia-before-the-
37 British
38 Why do the Dutch think that they discovered Australia before ...
39 The Dutch called it “New Holland”, rather strangely because it looked nothing remotely like
40 Holland. They were quite unimpressed with the areas ...
41
42 'Over Cooked': Is Captain Cook the source of British sovereignty in ...
43 http//nationalunitygovernment.org › content › over-cooked-captain-cook-source-british-
44 sovereignty-australia
45 'Over Cooked': Is Captain Cook the source of British sovereignty in ...
46 Another oddity in the story is that Cook's Journal speaks of it not being widely known whether a
47 strait exists between New Holland and New Guinea, but back in ...
48
49 The Search for 'Terra Australis'
50 https//www.nationalarchives.gov.uk › education › resources › the-search-for-terra-australis
51 The Search for 'Terra Australis'
Page 19
1 Why do you think it's important for Cook to be sure that he is the first European to visit before
2 he claims the lands? Can you find out where 'New Holland' is?
3
4 The Blind Spot on Our Indigenous History
5 https//www.linkedin.com › pulse › blind-spot-our-indigenous-history-leon-gettler
6 The Blind Spot on Our Indigenous History
7 The guide does not say that Cook “invaded” the country, merely that he was the first Englishman
8 to map the coast of New Holland. It points ...
9
10
11
12 END QUOTE Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by the
13 Dutch?
14
15 Despite this the (nominated) Governor-General designate has been vocal about a “bloody
16 invasion” by the British seeking to claim Aboriginal rights, the State of Victoria has no
17 legislative, executive and/or administrative powers regarding any race other then what was in a
18 limited manner provided in Section 25 of the constitution. Yet, the State of Victoria purportedly
19 made decisions, etc, that somehow Aboriginals have the right to dictate property holders in
20 certain circumstances what they can or cannot do and the council is bound by this.
21
22 There is a lot more to it all and it should be noted I kept writing for decades about this and in
23 2001 as an INDEPENDENT candidate challenged the validity of the “compulsory” part of
24 voting and also the unconstitutional “land taxation” by the state. The Australian electoral
25 commission then decided to charge me for FAILING TO VOTE and I representing myself filed
26 and served (also on all 9 Attorney Generals) a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER
27 which also challenged the validity of the Commonwealth purported Australian Citizenship Act.
28 In the end I succeeded in both appeals on 19 July 2006 without either the commonwealth and/or
29 any Attorney General seeking to challenge my 409 pages written submissions “ADDRESS TO
30 THE COURT”. Hence the case is beyond challenge. Res Judicata.
31 As the then Victorian Attorney General made known to accept the court ruling then no council
32 can actually act in violation of issues which were canvassed in the proceedings AEC v Schorel-
33 Hlavka.
34 Any council claiming to enforce State legislation is bound by the AEC v Schorel-Hlavka
35 outcome. And also hampered by the fact that without publication of the State of Victoria
36 Constitution Act 1855 as amended by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
37 (UK) not having been published as such, then what legislation is Buloke Shire Council or for that
38 any council or other government official relying upon.
Page 20
1
2 It appears to me that more than likely Carmody J knew or could have realized that my
3 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION could never be defeated and so pretended to rule the court
4 had jurisdiction when it never had any.
5 It makes no difference if a party lodge an appeal because ample of appeals are struck out without
6 the issue concerned ever been heard, such as an appeal to have been filed out of time, etc. The
7 Court cannot hear any matter unless it first deals with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
8 and Carmody J should have invited Counsel for Buloke Shire Council to present his case why he
9 claimed there was jurisdiction. Counsel however was and remained silent and Carmody J (as per
10 2 January 21901 published Gazette) was bound to observe that the Letters Patent required a
11 “impartial administration of justice” and not some judge doing the job for for the prosecution.
12
13 For the above and this includes my writings to Buloke Shire Council I take the position that
14 Buloke Shire Council has no legal standing to pursue any case against me for numerous grounds
15 I have over time written about. As a Magistrates Court cannot override either a Country court of
16 Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction and neither any High Court of Australia ruling it must be
17 clear that no Magistrates Court can override my claimed rights, etc. Likewise, a Country Court
18 of Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction (as I rely upon the provisions of the Commonwealth of
19 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and decisions of the High Court of Australia then cannot
20 hear and determine matters either.
21 Where the AEC v Schorel-Hlavka is Res Judicata then this is another legal issue.
22 Buloke Shire Council would be better to accept that its own failures and abuse of power is the
23 real problem and I look forwards to it making proposals how to resolve the issues at hand to my
24 satisfaction and this including the council taking responsibility for having ongoing violated my
25 FEE SIMPLE rights.
26
27 If the Governor-General designate hasn’t got a clue as to the history of Australia then we are
28 heading for problems! With the Moller case the Supreme Court of Victoria was very clear about
29 matters regarding a lawyer desiring to become a legal practitioner taking the oath of allegiance.
30 As “Australian citizenship” is not a “nationality” and neither the Governor of a State of the
31 Governor-General of the Commonwealth is ‘Head of State’ but rather representing/acting on
32 behalf of the Head of State, any oath of allegiance can only be made to the Monarch. A person
33 being admitted as an OFFICER OF THE COURT but not having an oath of alliance to uphold
34 the Monarchs enactments (Known as ‘Act of Parliament’) would be in a conflict of interest.
35 HANSARD 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates GLYNN: “You cannot have two, allegiances.” &
36 “Mr. BARTON: No; a man might have to go out of our Parliament to serve against us.” The same should
37 apply to the courts this as the Monarch is the Head of the Courts.
38 https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/BalJlNTLawSoc/1999/227.pdf
39 As I explained above, I challenged the validity of the purported ‘Australian Citizenship Act’ and
40 neither the Commonwealth and/or any of the 9 Attorney-Generals challenged me on this. Why
41 then does Buloke Shire Council and other councils hold Australian Citizenship ceremonies?
42
43 Why are Australians of Aboriginal descent going on and on about 26 January being “invasion
44 day” when there never was an invasion?
45 As for all the land rights and other issues involving Aboriginals, I have made it very clear that
46 the Dutch in 1658 claimed “New Holland” for the Dutch and it is not known to have provided
47 “land rights” to Aboriginals. Meaning, that when the British arrived there were no Aboriginal
48 land rights. And when Queensland in 1879 annexed Murray Islands the Framers of the
49 constitution made it very clear that any land rights issues regarding Murray Islands was to be
50 resolved before federation. As such, the High Court of Australia had no legal position to deal
51 with MABO as to land rights regarding Murray Islands, as they were extinguished at federation.
52 It also means all purported land rights court decision as without warrant of law.
Page 21
1 How then can Buloke Shire Council or for that any other council dictate property owners what
2 they can or cannot do pending what some Aboriginal may determine?
3 Why indeed should property owners have to pay for cost of Aboriginals to determine the rights
4 of property owners?
5 All of the above and the numerous writings of myself are relevant to the issues in dispute
6 between Buloke Shire Council and myself and this also means that Buloke Shire Council
7 somehow has to battle before the High Court of Australia to see if it can be granted any legal
8 position to litigate against me. This I doubt because not even the High Court of Australia can
9 override me constitutional rights!
10
11 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
14 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
15 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
16 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
17 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
18 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
19 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
20 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
21 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
22 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
23 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
24 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
25 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
26 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
27 END QUOTE
28
30 Mr. CARRUTHERS: “This is a Constitutionwhich the unlettered people of the
31 community ought to be able to understand.”
32
34 Mr. ISAACS.- “We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.”
35
36
37
38 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
39
40 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
41 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
42 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

43 (Our name is our motto!)

20240525-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To ES&a Lawyers & Ors Re-Misprision of Felony 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

20240525-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To ES&a Lawyers & Ors Re-Misprision of Felony Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

25-5-2024 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Committee Secretary 5-6-2011 Joint ...

25-5-2024 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 In my view the Commonwealth of Australia likewise is entitled to deny entry/evict a person

25-5-2024 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 children — and have refused to make data on the topic available to

25-5-2024 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

25-5-2024 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-5-2024 Page 17 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

42 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like