20140604-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Premier D Napthine-Re Geoff Shaw MP-etc

p1 4-6-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1
st
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE
Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria 4-6-2014
denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
5
Cc: Mr Geoff Shaw MP geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Ken Smith, Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly Victoria, ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

20140604-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier D Napthine-Re Geoff Shaw MP-etc 10

Sir,
I view that before the ALP lead by Mr Daniel Andrews and Mr Ken Smith embark upon some
kind of action by the Parliament against Mr Geoff Shaw I view it would be appropriate to
consider constitutional issues, as you I understood hinted to. 15
As a self-educated CONSTITUTIONALIST I for one comprehensively defeated on 19 July
2006 the Commonwealth of Australia on compulsory voting and numerous other constitutionally
issues in the County Court of Victoria.
.
A major problem is that those with English as their native language fail to appropriately consider 20
what the constitution is really about and so its embedded legal principles. The states created
within s106 of this constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK))
subject to this constitution therefore are bound by the same legal principles.
.
Mr Andrew Daniels purportedly is the leader of the opposition and a so called shadow minister 25
receiving a salary which makes him to be in conflict as the constitution doesnt recognise a
shadow minister and neither does s44 exclude a Shadow Minister from s44.
On the basis of this it appears to me that Mr Daniel Andrews and other so called shadow Minister
are in eligible to sit in Parliament as they are not ministers of the crown and yet receiving a
salary that means they have an employment with the Crown in conflict to their positions as 30
Member of Parliament.
What this also means that where neither Mr Daniel Andrews or other so called shadow Ministers
have any constitutional right to be Members of Parliament then any vote would have to exclude
them. .
The Speaker while actually being a speaker is employed not by the Government but by the 35
parliament, the moment the speaker leaves the position as a speaker he is not entitled any further
to an y benefits as a speaker. Neither can any Member of parliament receive an thing but an
allowance and no superannuation benefits because this again would mean a conflict as it would
mean the Member of parliament would be employed by the Crown. A Minister can only receive
a salary relating to the actual time being a minister but cannot receive any superannuation 40
benefits unless this is paid by the Queen personally as they are and never were employed by the
State of Victoria.

p2 4-6-2014
A 1
st
There is a lot more to it all but as I perceive it every Member of Parliament may be in violation
with the legal principles embedded in the constitution and as such before turning against Mr
Geoff Shaw I would recommend every Member of Parliament better consider if he/she is not
defrauding the Consolidated Revenue Funds of the State, and so taxpayers.
5
I am not seeking to shield Mr Geoff Shaw, rather the taxpayers as I view were there be a vote to
oust Mr Geoff Shaw and he be ousted then Mr Geoff Shaw might if he desire to do so
(something I do not know) personally sue those who ousted him.
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 10
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as 15
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
.
I could make numerous other quotations but rest assure I will publish them on my blog if this
matter proceeds any further. 20
.
As I understood it the Parliament provided for a committee to investigate and to present its
recommendation. As I understand it they declined to hold Mr Geoff Shaw in contempt. As such,
I view that the Parliament is bound by that decision and cannot circumvent this as appears to be
intended by Mr Ken Smith and Mr Daniel Andrews. 25
.
If this matter were to come before a Court then I expect the court would have to consider if those
Members of Parliament were entitled to be Members of Parliament in the first place before even
considering the Parliament having ousted Mr Geoff Shaw. And if those now Ministers were
ineligible because they when in opposition were receiving a salary and as such employed by 30
the crown while not being Minister of the Crown, then they too would have to repay all and any
monies they received.
Another example might be the former Premier Mr Ted Baillieu I understand having the benefit of
a car paid for by the taxpayers and for what? And I could raise numerous other issues.
35
And let us check out how many phone calls were made by the then government at the time of the
last election using public servants, etc, to shore up its political party, etc.
You may find that likely not a single Member of Parliament may be clear from fraudulent
conduct.
. 40
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I would love this matter to be fought out before the courts as I
totally dislike people pretending to be Members of Parliament while ripping of the taxpayers.
I will not set out all matters at this time but will quote below some correspondences to Mr Geoff
Shaw, Mr Ken Smith and others which may itself explain something also. And you can always
contact me for further explanations, if you desire to do so. 45

I urge you and others to consider the following quoted correspondences and then see what you
view being better to do.
As the head of Centrelink made clear against people defrauding the Commonwealth that it is not
if you get caught but rather when you will get caught. And I would say the same to Members of 50
the Victorian Parliament that you ought to understand that the Parliament created laws that allow

p3 4-6-2014
A 1
st
the confiscation of any property that was the product of crimes. As such, if Members of
Parliament defrauded the State Consolidated Revenue Funds
Taxpayers would love it if those who defrauded them will lose everything like common
criminals, so they too I suspect will enjoy a legal battle before the courts so to say as to who was
the biggest crook/criminal. 5
In my view, those in the Parliament should know better not to act as a criminal and where
nevertheless a Member of Parliament persist in fraudulent conduct than it is important to make
such a Member of Parliament as an example to others not to follow this kind of criminal conduct.
.
QUOTE 20130923 correspondence 10

Mr Ken Lay Chief Commissioner of Police 23-9-2013

Ref: 130923-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Ken Lay Chief Commissioner of Police-terrorism- etc
Sir, 15
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I express my concerns as to the misuse and abuse of police
powers which I view may constitute a form of terrorism. As shown in the quotation below
terrorism can have different meanings, however, in the language of the Framers of the
Constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK)) within which in section 106 the
States were created, they held 20
.
HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS: If he is a South Australian, is he prepared to disfranchise the women of his colony; if he is a
New South Welshman, is he prepared to give way on the question of proportional representation in the 25
people's House; if he is a Victorian is he willing to allow a property qualification for the electors? Now this
establishes, I think, beyond any possibility of doubt, the position we must take up; that while we are prepared
to admit the necessity-not only the advisability, but the necessity of compromise-for that is very evident from
the diverse opinions which have been expressed all round the Chamber, there are limits which cannot be
passed. There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to pass that line 30
would be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely to abandon the principle of
responsible government, when we are invited to surrender the latest-born, but, as I think, the noblest child of
our constitutional system-a system which has not only nurtured and preserved, but has strengthened the
liberties of our people-then,
END QUOTE 35
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, 40
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution; 45
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. 50
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, 55
END QUOTE
QUOTE

p4 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown
in prosecuting criminals are.
END QUOTE

Again, it can only act as the agents of the people. and it is well known in law that an agent (The 5
Government of the Day /the Parliament/ the government authorities (including the Police and
Sheriffs Office) cannot exercise a greater power then the grantor (The people).

No one can be a criminal for exercising his/her constitutional rights!
10
No law no matter its intention can in any way deny a person his/her constitutional rights!

No court can deny a person his/her constitutional rights!

Yet, we find time and time again that ordinary citizens are subjected to a form of 15
terrorism/extortion etc that involved the police. It is general held that not knowing the law is not
excuse, well that should likewise apply to the police and the sheriff!
.
In my correspondence (130921-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbullt Re republican versus
monarchist-etc) to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Minister in the Mr Tony Abbott led Federal Government, I 20
stated the following:

QUOTE 21-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
Recently, I wrote to the Sheriff of Victoria Mr Brendan Facey, and pointed out how the Supreme Court of Victoria
in its 2010 decision erred in constitutional law. It somehow held that because the Commonwealth had not legislated 25
that then the Victorian Parliament legislation as to radar units was lawful!
.
Well this is what then Framers of the Constitution stated;
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE
35
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws? 40
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
END QUOTE 21-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE 45

QUOTE 21-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE
QUOTE Mr. REID:
We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points 50
enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two
laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal
criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any
complication of the kind.
END QUOTE 55
.
QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the
commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this 60
power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate

p5 4-6-2014
A 1
st
on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to
exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from
that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
END QUOTE 21-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE 5

In my correspondence 130904-COMPLAINT Ref Brendan Facey Director IM&ES -Sheriff)
OBL 1106575301-CONSTITUTIONAL issues etc I did very much set out why the Agar v
Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) decision by the Victorian Supreme
Court of Victoria was without legal validity as to hold that the state somehow could legislate 10
where the Commonwealth had not for a particular radar unit.
No one in his right mind could possibly expect any Parliament to legislate for every particular
item that may be created in the world. It would be for those who pursue legislation to request the
rightful legislator to provide for legislation. If the request is not made or made but refused or not
attended to then this doesnt mean that somehow then the State can do its own thing disregarding 15
constitutional limitations. That is taking the law into its own hands, unconstitutionally, and the
Victorian Police should never be aiding and betting in criminal conduct like this, where this
result in the denial of citizens constitutional rights.
Therefore, it is not relevant if the State of Victoria or others did request the Commonwealth to
legislate as all that is relevant is if the Commonwealth did or didnt legislate for it. 20
As the Supreme Court of Victoria held that the Commonwealth had not legislated for it
then it had no judicial powers to nevertheless enforce the radar equipment alleged findings
merely because the Victorian Parliament had legislated for this.
As the States were created within s106 of the constitution subject to this constitution then it is
bound by the true meaning and application of the constitution, and it is irrelevant if a judge may 25
fancy to ignore this as no judge can override the constitution and implied legal principles.
The Supreme Court of Victoria made a finding of fact in Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC
506 (11 November 2010) decision that the particular speed detection equipment was not
certified by the Commonwealth of Australia, and as such on that basis the Court had in my view
no legal authority to ignore this, but was bound to accept that the failure of appropriate 30
jurisdiction didnt exist.
The court cannot assume jurisdiction merely because it fancy to do so! And because it is a
corporated court using the same ABN number as the Department of Justice then clearly its
impartiality is in question. This I successfully litigated also on 19 July 2006 against the
Commonwealth in the County Court of Victoria. 35
.
The same as I did previously extensively set out to Sheriff Brendan Facey, that the purported
Infringement Court is unconstitutional, as it cannot have a registrar as a head of a court but must
be under supervision of a judge. And the claimed association with the Magistrates Court of
Victoria would be unconstitutional as the Magistrates Court of Victoria is a designated Chapter 40
III court of the constitution and the High Court of Australia made clear that this must be an
open court. Clearly the spitting out of more than 4 million pluss orders/warrants without any
open court hearing violates the constitutional requirement for a Chapter III court.
.
All taxation should go into Consolidated Revenue Funds, and as I understand it Premier 45
Napthine made known that Infringement fines are a form of taxation. Well then why is it all
going into an unregistered business entity Civic Compliance Vic bank account? At least this is
the title by Westpac!
As owner of the trademark MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL I was not permitted to
trade under this trademark unless I had it registered as a business name, as I have. Neither was I 50
permitted to operate finances unless I had a bank account with this identity, as I have. Then why
is the Victorian Police ignoring the rule of law and allow some private corporation to use the
Victorian trademark Civic Compliance Victoria and demand monies? also failing to disclose as

p6 4-6-2014
A 1
st
required by the deed certain details! Indeed, as I view it the Attorney-General (at that time) Mr
Robert Hulls and the police minister had no legal authority to authorise and sign a deed with a
private company that allowed this private company to access court records and issue court orders
and warrants through its computer system as if they are a competent court of jurisdiction court
orders. The separation of powers means that the government cannot interfere with the courts nor 5
give away access to the court system.

Below I quote part of my 23-1-2013 submission as Professional Advocate representing solicitor
and barristor Mr Harold James Johnson
QUOTE 10
We find however that the State Parliament has corrupted the system of separation of powers between the
executives, the government, and the judiciary, and by this now basically the government dictates as a how the
courts are to conduct themselves. Actually, having now allowed a private corporation under the government
trademark Civic Compliance Victoria to issue court orders, using court computers, and to fine people and issue
warrants without any real judge being involved, there is no proper judicial system in place. I will not dwell on 15
this further as the CCV issue is too large to detail all this. This also underlines why a VELVET
REVOLUTION is the only alternative to clean up this corrupt conduct, because it is unlikely any judge is
willing to stand up for the oath he/she made. Indeed, as I referred to at the previous hearing a Supreme Court of
Victoria judge made clear, that he speaks out just before he retires, that the Courts are now Business Unit 19
by the government, and that the Government has access to the courts compute. 20
It is the PERCEPTION that first of all undermines the judiciary, where a government has access to court
computers. But worse is that now a private company actually issues even warrants, and other court orders, use
the Police emblem and Sheriff emblem (to issue correspondence as if they are the police and/or the sheriff
office) all to terrorise people in paying up. As a matter of fact it was reported that by error Civic Compliance
Victoria did to against more than 2,000 NSW motorist. Now, how on earth could any judicial officer accept this 25
kind of elaborate rot to be permitted to continue, I may well ask. As a Registrar made clear to me, some 96% of
people rather pay then to fight, because they know it cost them more to fight and generally they will loose
anyhow irrespective if they are in their rights. Now, this is the STAR CHAMBER COURT mentality that now
is part of the modus operandi of our legal system
An innocent professional driver can lose points, and so his ability to earn an income, his ability to pay off his 30
truck payments, and in the end his entire life is disintegrating, and often marriage goes bust, and then later it is
found that the speed detection camera was incorrectly set, or that it was unstable, etc, to me this is terrorism!
END QUOTE.

Further, in Harris v Caladine the High Court of Australia made clear that a registrars decision 35
must always be reviewable as otherwise it is unconstitutional and null and void. Well, when the
Infringement Registrar purportedly issued an order against me he refused my request for a review
before a judge, Instead subsequently issued a warrant against me. THE ORDERS AND
SUBSEQUENT WARRANT WERE AND REMAIN TO BE WITHOUT LEGAL FORCE!
. 40
My aging wife (81 years old) travels with me generally in the car registered with RIKATI
number plate. and if the police were to say intercept me and or the Sheriff were to do so
and say my wife were to get a heart attack and dies then I can assure you I will sue the
pants of you all for causing her dead. In my view what you and other police officers are
involved in is nothing less but terrorism. To abuse and misuse powers for ulterior purposes. 45
.
In 1988, a warrant was issued against my 2 year old daughter, and the police then executed this
warrant. the Supreme Court of Victoria, a few days later, held the warrant was unlawful (The
warrant sought to achieve precisely contrary to the Supreme Court of Victoria orders, I had
obtained previously!). Later, I discovered that the police had actually gone to a nursing home and 50
got an elderly former Justice of the Peace signing the warrant, even so she suffered of
Alzheimers and didnt know what she was signing for. It was her son who gave me the
understanding that even so he had long ago cancelled her to be a Justice of the Peace
nevertheless the police kept pestering her to sign warrants, etc. This to me is terrorism, because
the Police were willing to pervert the course of justice, and arrest peopple on that basis, and 55
concealing this from the courts! While this was about 25 years ago, and so long before you were
Chief Commissioner, nevertheless, it shows the dirty conduct by certain police to achieve a

p7 4-6-2014
A 1
st
warrant. And to me this constitutes terrorism, as it is not only swindling the courts in that a valid
warrant was issued but also grossly denying an victim of his legal rights. and lawyers generally
would realise this con job when representing their clients.
Recently, there was an issue about police seemingly picking upon coloured persons. Well about
25 years ago I had a passenger in my private vehicle which was from Fiji and never had seen a 5
police car. I was lawfully parked (waiting for my children) in a parking bay on an estate and the
police then commanded my passenger to get out of the vehicle and started to ask him questions,
such as his identity, etc. I then intervened to explain he was a passenger and I viewed the police
had absolutely no right to make demands upon him, merely because he looked from the
passenger seat to the police car. So, the police then made clear they had a smart person on their 10
hands, and they would deal with that. They then declared my vehicle to be unroadworthty and
had bold tyres, etc. And made clear that if the car was still there in an hour then they would issue
further notices, and I was not permitted to drive the car away, as it had to be towed. I
immediately phoned the sergeant of Flemmington police and explained matters and he advised
me to drive the vehicle to Flemmington Police Station. This I did. A constable there advised me 15
the Sergeant was not in for the day, and he would inspect my vehicle. He did and he announced I
did better to pay the infringement notice, even so he could find nothing wrong with my vehicle. I
made clear that I had spoken with the sergeant earlier, and so he was in. Subsequently the
constable got the sergeant out, and he inspected the vehicle, noticing that in fact I had the
previous day fitted new tyres on the vehicle, and that there was absolutely nothing wrong with 20
my vehicle, and so he ripped the infringement notice up. I then filed a formal complaint with the
then Chief Commissioner of Police, and was subsequently advised that the two police officers
were sent on a training course, how to inspect vehicles for road worthiness.
What was clear was, that the police simply were terrorising me, and the constable at the station
even sought to let them get away with it but I would not take it as such. I do not accept that a 25
coloured person because of the colour of his skin should be picked upon by the police, as I view
was the way the police were operating in Flemmington then already. And, because I correctly
stood up for this passengers right then they abused and misuse police powers.
.
Also about 25 years ago, a police officer pulled me over, while I was driving in the country, and 30
made known to me one of my tail lights was out. I was able to fix it on the spot. He noticed that I
had 5 of my youngest children in the car, albeit all were in a seat belt, and he friendly wished me
a safe trip home. Minutes later he pulled me over again, and alerted me to that a warrant was
outstanding against me apparently issued in Williamstown. As it was close to midnight and with
5 little children in the car he accepted to come to my residence in a few weeks to seek to clarify 35
matters. He attended some weeks later, with the local police officer, and I then showed him a
letter form the Attorney-General that the police and the court had been unable to locate any files
as to why a warrant was issued against me, and the police had withdrawn the case, and the
warrant was no more. It was beyond me why on earth the Williamstown located Magistrates
Court would have issued any warrant as I had not being in that area for years and had no police 40
conflicts then either anywhere in the western part of Melbourne. Therefore, it was of concern to
me that somehow a warrant could be issued without court files! Then again, as I for decades
assisted people in their cases involving the police it may have been yet another police abuse of
powers. Going to court without any real case, and obviously without that I knew about it. So the
warrant is issued vexatiously. And it is no good to claim it doesnt happens because a magistrate 45
once faced with a police officer claiming to have served a summons upon me on a particular
date, and even claiming my (then) wife served him with coffee, made clear that unless I could
disprove he served the summons I had no way to get the previous conviction overturned, that was
issued in my absenteeism. Well, I showed the Magistrate my gas and electricity bills (of a
property I had 6 months earlier for residence), that I had moved out of that address 6 months 50
before the police claimed to have served the summons and my (then) wife gave him coffee.

p8 4-6-2014
A 1
st
More over when I cross examined the police about the alleged speed he claimed I was doing 75
kilometres in a 60 kilometres zone. I asked him if perhaps it could have been 74 or 76 but he
insisted it was 75 when I drove past the petrol station. I then submitted photos of that petrol
station which displayed a 75 kilometres speed zone . The magistrate told the police officer of for
having lied about serving the summons, and falsely claiming it was a 60 kilometre speed zone 5
where in fact it was clearly proven it was a 75 kilometre speed zone. But how many times do
police get away with them perverting the course of justice as this police officer had done to have
me in absenteeism convicted of speeding?
.
Why is it that in court police officers never have to disclose averse findings of their past 10
dishonesty in court?
I have been subjected to untold incidents of police abuse and misuse of power, and I do not
wonder at all why the youth of today may have little respect for police in particular the level of
criminality within the police force.
Including a police officer altering the Infringement Notice original afterwards whereas my copy 15
didnt show the alteration!
After all, no use for the police to hold that they can assist police against criminals not paying
traffic fines, because ample of police also are subjected to traffic fines, and so likewise are
deemed criminals. But you find that somehow often when a police officer challenges it then the
police officer wins the case but all other motorist who were fined by the use of the same camera 20
somehow still are criminals.

Now consider this:
And the High Court of Australia also stated:
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 25
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". 30
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
Well, as I indicated above the police officer who assisted in regard of my taillight (shining his
torch, while I replaced the faulty light bulb with a spare, I had with me) subsequently didnt
pursue the warrant but let me sort it out, we now find the police pulling over drivers and 35
directing them albeit I view illegally, to the Sheriff. At least it did so years ago in Broadmeadows
with me!
.
While the police may have powers to stop a motorist to inspect the vehicle for road worthiness, it
has to my understanding no powers to stop a motorist and then direct him to the Sheriff who then 40
check out if there is a warrant out or not. As such to me the police become terrorist abusing their
police powers for ulterior reasons.

http://www.northernweekly.com.au/story/1736859/joint-operation-to-clean-up-a-fine-mess/
QUOTE 45
Joint operation to clean up a fine mess
By TARA MURRAY and BENJ AMI N MI LLAR
Aug. 28, 2013, 2:17 p.m.
END QUOTE
50
QUOTE
The Sheriffs Office arrested more than 2000 people and took action over more than 1.1 million warrants last
year up more than 27 per cent on the previous year.

p9 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Clearly some people dont get the message until a sheriffs officer clamps their car, suspends their drivers
licence or arrests them, Mr Facey said. Across the state, 728,549 people racked up 3,760,798 unpaid fines
valued at $1,316,218,549.
END QUOTE
5
http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1709327/sheriffs-blitz-on-unpaid-fines-in-ballarat/
http://www.standard.net.au/story/1695720/sheriffs-office-bags-43000-clip-at-sheepvention/
http://www.monashweekly.com.au/story/1557662/high-noon-as-sheriff-nabs-fine-dodgers/
.
The rule of law is that the moment a person objects to the validity of legislation it is ULTRA 10
VIRES ab initio, unless and untill, if ever at all, a court of competent jurisdiction declares the
legislation to be INTRA VIRES.
Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
QUOTE
Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham, 15
"sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a
law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a
decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law.
The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is
invalid ab initio. 20
END QUOTE

Well, it seems the Victorian Police could give a damn about the terorism conduct it engage in by
assisting the Sheriff and his deputies to extort monies from people who are going on their daily
business, all because of unconstitutional and so illegal Infringement Court orders/warrants. 25
.
After all, as since Febraurty 2011 I objected to the jurisdiction of any court to deal with this
matter then unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction had overruled this no court could
invoke jurisdiction. The Infringement Court is not a court of competent jurisdiction nor invested
with federal jurisdiction to determine issues relating to the constitution, and as such its purported 30
issue of orders/warrant cannot be valid.
More over, when an objection against legislation is made then this is not only applicable for the
objector but so anyone else. Hence, when I objected to the constitutional validity of the
Infringement Act 2006 then the entire act could no longer be enforced against anyone, not just
only against me! But with the Victorian Police willing and able to assist in the terrorism by the 35
Sheriff against citizen s then why would the Sheriff and his deputies concern themselves about
what is lawful or not.

The Framers of the Constitution made clear that all that was needed was a JUDICIAL decision
AFTER both parfties were heard. Well, the Infringement Court clearly doesnt hear both parties 40
and so fails on this legal principle also. More over, the Magistrates Court has cedrtain legal
provisions and if the Infringement Court were to operate as part of the Magistrates Court of
Victoria then its legal procedures do not comply with the Magistrates Court Act
,
When I commenced to represented Mr Colosimo, as a Professional Advocate, before Her Honour 45
Harbison J, in the 6
th
contempt hearing, after Mr Colosimo got rid of his barrister, in a case that
involved more then 20 lawyers, I pointed out to Her Honour that she had no jurisdiction, there
was no legitimate evidence to rely upon, etc. Upon my submission Her Honour ordered a
permanent stay the contempt case, acknowledging that I was correct in law, that once filed the
other party could not withdraw the contempt application, and I opposed it to be withdrawn. Well 50
aware that if it was withdrawn they could file it again whereas a permanent stay would prevent
this.

I may use my self proclaimed crummy English, in view English was not my native language
and neither did I have any formal education in the English language, but I proved often enought 55

p10 4-6-2014
A 1
st
to defeat lawyers. and, it seems I better give you also a lesson in constitutional matters, but the
value of it is left up to the inteligence you may or may not posess to comprehend it all.
.
People who grew up in Australia are living with notions of procedures even so it can be totally
and utterly wrong. 5
As I wrote to Mr Malcolm Turnbull on 21 September 20013:

QUOTE 2 SEPTEMBER 2013 CORRESPONDENCE
Malcolm,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I put the challenge to you to disprove my reasoning in my 130920- 10
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re various issues-Republic by stealth!
correspondence to Mr Tony Abbott, of which you were provided a copy via email at the same time.

While your email refers to MP it must be clear you are not a Member of Parliament until the writs
are returned, and you are sworn in for the seat elected for. If in fact you fail to accept the seat then you 15
will not become an MP (Member of Parliament) either.

It is of concern to me what we have people running around using the references of MP even so they are not,
and worse are fraudulently using Consolidated Revenue Funds for this.
With all those lawyers in the parliament it seems not a single one understand the true meaning and 20
application of the constitution and many are therefore fraudulently using monies from Consolidated Revenue
Funds as result, but if a pensioner was to do the same then politicians would argue they deserved to be
punished as they are stealing from the taxpayers. Well to me every politician doing the same likewise should
be facing the courts and no excuse for not knowing what is applicable.
. 25
I can accept that any successful candidate for purpose of travelling to the Parliament to take up the seat would
be entitled to compensation in regard to this, including a limited overnight accommodation cost. That the
Framers of the Constitution considered and for this also provided for an allowance. Therefore a Minister of
the Crown is entitled, when having taken up a seat in the parliament, to an allowance and as a Minister also
entitled to receive remuneration for being a Minister of the Crown. the allowance is payable from 30
Consolidated Revenue Funds whereas the salary is payable by the Queen, for which Her Majesty receives
monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds.
It is important that it is understood that a Minister is and remains entitled to any allowance; when also
being a Member of Parliament. A Minister, such as yourself, not now being a Member of Parliament
therefore cannot receive the same amount of monies as you would once you become a Member of Parliament, 35
if at all. For example, so to say, you could be declared a bankrupt before being able to take up the seat and
then by s44 of the constitution you would not be able to take up the seat and your appointment as Minister
would expire by no later then 3 months after the appointment commenced (Section 64 of the constitution).

Obviously, my issue is if you and other former Members of Parliament, since the House of Representatives 40
was dissolved, nevertheless continue to use the perks as a Member of Parliament, such as mobile and other
communications at expenses of the taxpayers and likewise travel and use accommodation even so not
constitutionally entitled upon?
END QUOTE 2 SEPTEMBER 2013 CORRESPONDENCE
And also, for example: 45

130920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re various issues-Republic by
stealth!
QUOTE 2 SEPTEMBER 2013 CORRESPONDENCE
HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 50
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices
of Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are
parliamentary offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the 55
extent that really the Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to
submit their own Estimates, and those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own
colony, are altogether untouched by the Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but
not offices of profit under the Crown.

p11 4-6-2014
A 1
st
END QUOTE
What basically is applicable is, that a person not when elected but when actually taking up the seat in the
Parliament at the return of the writs, then and only from then on can the person be paid an allowance, not
being a salary.
On Wednesday 128 September 2013 I happen to read an article about a Victorian Member of Parliament 5
Geoff Shaw, who was instead of being at his local (Frankston) political office was actually working at his
accountancy office. it seems it was held he was ripping of the public doing so. The truth is he did precisely
what the Framers of the Constitution debated to be applicable. That those who are elected continue to work in
their normal daily job and receive an allowance (not being a salary) towards the travel expenses and loss
of income for attending to the Parliament. essentially people have been by masses brainwashed that a person 10
who actually acts appropriately in that regard may be deemed to be a thief.
END QUOTE 2 SEPTEMBER 2013 CORRESPONDENCE

For the record I have to my recollection never had contact with Mr Geoff Shaw or any of his
representatives, and so the man wouldnt even be aware of my writings, and may not even be 15
aware of my existence.

But, my issue is why did the police consider it appropriate to charge Mr Geoff Shaw for alleged
misuse of a vebicle but doesnt do so with others? Why is he singled out?
If you are going after those abusing Consolidated Revenue funds why then not after all of them,? 20

You see once the Governor dissolves the House then not a single person in the Lower House
remains to be a Member of Parliament. And as the States are constituted within s106 of the
(federal) constitution its legal principles apply. As such any candidate elected cannot receive an
allowance (not being a salary) until the writs are returned, and they have actually taken up the 25
seat elected for. So for all those months that they are after the dissolution of ther House and
before the writs are returned then they are not entitled to use their former parliamentarian titles,
phones, vehicles, etc. After all, they are and never were employed because they are elected to
represent. Then if they become Minister of the Crown then as like the Governor they are
employed by the British Crown, and payment is to be made to the Queen and Her Majesty 30
decides their pay. As such, those who were Members of the Parliament, prior to the Houses being
dissolved, and still continued to use their parliamentrian perks, but not c onsgtitutionally entitled
to this, in my view all defrauded Consolidated Revenue Funds. All of them failing to declare to
the Electoral Commission the monies they had received, the financial beneffits from the perks,
etc, then all would in my view have committed offences by concealing those details. 35
The State Parliament cannot override its creator the constitution nor its embedded legal
principles that applies to the states also.
.
As I indicated I understand from various statement on the internet that Mr Shaw was accused of
defrauding Consolidated Revenue for daring to work in his private office while being paid by the 40
State. While this may not be an issue pursued by the police it nevertheless show how the masses
have been brainwashed to believe in some version of events to be applicable contrary to what
actually is constitutionally aspplicable.
.
If Mr Shaw acted dishonest, not something I have nor can be permitted to decide, then lets deal 45
with each and every parliamentarian who has done so. Constitutionally there is no provision for a
shadow cabinet, So, why are there so many paid salaries for being a in a shadow cabinert?
To me thisn is defrauding taxpayewrs also.
Constitutionally, Minister are employed with the Monarch, that is the British Crown and no
other, and if Mr Baillieu is no longer a Minister then why is he not charged for using a driver and 50
vehicle? Are we applying double standards?
It should be clear that if Mr Shaw was not a Minister then he could not be in receipt of a salary
but only an allowance to compensate him for the loss of income of his ordinary daily work,

p12 4-6-2014
A 1
st
while attending to the Parliament. If therefore he was provided with a vehicle not being a
Minister, as Mr Ted Baillieu was, then I see quite frankly no difference as to one using it or the
other.
Seems to me, the Victorian Police should first of all check out what is constitutionally applicable,
and forget asking some lawyer who pretends to be a constitutional lawyer but knows likely next 5
to nothing avout it.
Go to any court case involving parties all being represented and of the 100 cases you find 100 set
of lawyers to be on the loosing ed and 100 set of lawyer on the winning end, when the court has
to adjudicate, and so you got a 50% chance to have a winning team or a losing set of lawyers. If
doctors had this in operations of 50% patients dying they would be deemded to be Charletans. 10
A constitutional lawyer is an oxymoron, as much as a humanist killer or a fire bug fire
fighhter.

As I indicated above, the states are bound subject to this constitution and so also the
embedded legal principles that Members of Parliament are not employed by the State and cannot 15
recieve a salary but only an allowance. Ministers of State are not employed by the State, but
are employed by the British Crown, to which their salaries are payable,.
It also means, that former Ministers, Premiers and Governors have no legal right to receive so
called pensions from the State Consiolidated Revenue Funds as relating to their employement
with the British Crown, as the moment their commission is terminated this is the end of their 20
entitlements of that pay.
As such, boy, did the police so to say open a Pandoora Box to charge Mr Shaw but not others as
this is like a can of worms where they all may be on a slippery slope.
Again, the State Parliament cannot legislate contrary to the legal principles embedded in the
constitution, and so it is immaterial if the state legislated for certain perks, as it is and remains to 25
be ULTRA VIRES to the constitution, if it offends the legal principles embedded in the
constitution.

Whatever may or may not be the allegations against Mr Shaw, the Victorian Police, I view has a
duty and obligation not to single him out and allow other perhaps more serious offenders to be 30
left untouched. It is because of my so called crummy English I tend to check out matters more
then most others, including lawyers, tend to do. Hence I discover details and facts most lawyer
would never become aware off.
.
A clear example is where I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth in both appeals on 35
FAILING TO VOTE as I submitted to the court on 19 July 2006, that compulsory voting was
unconstitutional, etc.
.
Now how many lawyers would be aware of this when they still fine people, albeit
unconstitutionally? How many magistrates understand this rule of law if they continue to find 40
electors guilty of FAILING TO VOTE, despite that I proved in court, and unchallenged by the
Commonwealth, it is unconstitutional to compel anyone to vote. Hence the legislation is
ULTRA VIRES for so far it compels a n elector to vote
.
QUOTE 45
From: Mal <csgroups@iprimus.com.au>

To: INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com
Cc:

p13 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:03 pm
Subject:
Julia Gillard paid $4243 to Department of Finance because Tim Mathieson misused
car | The Australian
Attachments: Text version of this message. (1KB)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-wrote-personal-cheque-for-4243-to-department-
of-finance-because-partner-tim-mathieson-misued-taxpayer-funded-car/story-e6frg6n6-
1226720672955

Geoff Shaw was charged today for similar alleged misuses of his State
Government car to do his private commercial business in it, was he not?
The former first bloke appears to have been an expensive hand-bag for her!
But will Tim now also be charged like Geoff Shaw, given the admission by
Ms. Gillard by her having herself refunded his misuses of public funded
vehicle after being caught out by the department of finance?
JULIA Gillard wrote a personal cheque for $4243 to the Department of Finance because her partner,
Tim Mathieson, had misused her taxpayer-funded car to drive around Victoria selling shampoo and
other haircare products in breach of parliamentary rules.
Documents released to The Australian under Freedom of Information laws yesterday show that Ms
Gillard made the payment on March 9, 2007, as deputy leader of the opposition because of concern
over a breach of rules forbidding the use of the car for commercial purposes.
The documents were provided yesterday after a 10-month battle by the former prime minister and
her office to prevent the Department of Finance from following through on its decision to release the
material.
The $4243 repayment by Ms Gillard indicates her office estimated that Mr Mathieson had driven
several thousand kilometres while pursuing his commercial interests in the private-plated car, which
was wholly funded by the commonwealth.
END QUOTE

5
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-wrote-personal-cheque-for-4243-to-department-of-finance-
because-partner-tim-mathieson-misued-taxpayer-funded-car/story-e6frg6n6-1226720672955
QUOTE
Julia Gillard paid $4243 to Department of Finance because Tim Mathieson misused car by:
Hedley Thomas From: The Australian September 17, 2013 9:22AM - See more at: 10
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-wrote-personal-cheque-for-4243-to-
department-of-finance-because-partner-tim-mathieson-misued-taxpayer-funded-car/story-
e6frg6n6-1226720672955#sthash.KRZcodVM.dpuf
END QUOTE
15

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tim-mathiesons-car-use-cost-julia-gillard-4000/story-fn59niix-
1226720523293#mm-premium
QUOTE
Tim Mathieson's car use cost Julia Gillard $4000 by: Hedley Thomas From: The Australian 20
September 17, 2013 12:00AM
JULIA Gillard wrote a personal cheque for $4243 to the Department of Finance because her
partner, Tim Mathieson, had misused her taxpayer-funded car to drive around Victoria selling

p14 4-6-2014
A 1
st
shampoo and other haircare products in breach of parliamentary rules.Documents released to The
Australian under Freedom of Information laws yesterday show that Ms Gillard made the
payment on March 9, 2007, as deputy leader of the opposition because of concern over a breach
of rules forbidding the use of the car for commercial purposes. The documents were provided
yesterday after a 10-month battle by the former prime minister and her office to prevent the 5
Department of Finance from following through on its decision to release the material. - See more
at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tim-mathiesons-car-use-cost-julia-gillard-
4000/story-fn59niix-1226720523293#sthash.KjKTDQIz.dpuf
END QUOTE
10

I be looking forwards if the Victorian Police will be laying any charges against Ms Julia
Gillard (as it was her vehicle apparently) and/or Tim Mathieson!

15
As I indicated, I view the Police themselves are involved in terrorism, when they are assisting the
Sheriffs Office to execute purported Infringement Court orders/warrants despite well aware that
since I commenced to challenge the validity of the legislation, etc, they cannot do so.
.
As I quoted above the Wakimdecision where the High Court of Australia clearly stated anyone 20
can ignore those unconstitutional court orders. Well the Sheriff and the Victorian Police
obviously are acting contrary to the High Court of Australia decision! Safe to say that the onus
was upon the so called enforcement agency to take the matter to a court of competent
jurisdiction, as to prove jurisdiction! Failing that, no valid court order/warrant can exist from the
Infringement Court! Hence, the police cannot act, and certainly not assist the Sheriffs Office in 25
executing those kind of unconstitutional court orders/warrants.
.
Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte
McCarthy ([1924].
Law Encyclopedia: Coram 30
[Latin, Before; in the presence of.]
The term coram is used in phrases that refer to the appearance of a person before another
individual or a group. Coram non judice, "in the presence of a person not a judge," is a
phrase that describes a proceeding brought before a court that lacks the jurisdiction to
hear such a matter. Any judgment rendered by the court in such a case is void. 35

Bowers v Smith (1953) 1 ALL ER 320 (Re Clarke Hall) and (Morrison on Children, 7 Ed, P3)
QUOTE
"... the first business of the court is to try to issue whether or not the case is bought within the terms of the
statute, and only if this be proven by proper evidence can the court proceed to decide upon treatment" 40
END QUOTE

HALSBURYS LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460): Consent to summary jurisdiction. The
consent to be tried summarily must be clear and unequivocal and a failure to carry out the procedure for obtaining
the consent will deprive the Court of Jurisdiction to determine the matters summarily. 45

A man who exercises his rights harms no one a Legal Maxim.

Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:
"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty 50
according to law in a public trial at which she/he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."
END QUOTE
.
The legal doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur action denies any remedy to a litigant
(including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands. 55

p15 4-6-2014
A 1
st
If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with Dirty Hands
best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!

Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The I nspector General of Government HCT-00-CV-MA-593-2003
QUOTE 5
Constitution needles to mention is a supreme law of the land.
END QUOTE

The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax- 10
tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
QUOTE
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into
which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." 15
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes
the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be 20
in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in
reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from
the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An 25
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a
statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no
rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies
no acts performed under it. . . 30
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede
any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is
superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
END QUOTE 35
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence 2d; SS: 256 & 257:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not 40
merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is
as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle
just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. 'Such an unconstitutional law is void', the general
principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or
authority to anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts preformed under it . . . 'A void act 45
cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any
existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is
superseded thereby. 'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to
enforce it." . . . The fact that one acts in reliance on a statute which has theretofore been adjudged
unconstitutional does not protect him from civil or criminal responsibility .... 50

Harris v Caladine[1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)
QUOTE CCH 92-217 page 78485 (1991)
The Court could not make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties
consent to it.. 55
END QUOTE
.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/9.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="otherwise%20fell%

p16 4-6-2014
A 1
st
20outside%20its%20jurisdiction%20"
QUOTE
The Full Court on appeal from Maxwell J. held that the review of the Deputy Registrar's decision was
confined to an inquiry whether the parties did in fact consent to the terms of the order and whether the terms 5
agreed upon were in a form appropriate to the type of order sought and were enforceable. But the order made
by the Deputy Registrar must have been made pursuant to s.79 - the section which confers power upon the
Court to order a settlement of or an alteration in the property interests of the parties. The Court could not
make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties consented to it
and it follows, a fortiori, that a Registrar, exercising a delegated power, could not do so. Thus, for instance, 10
under s.80(1)(j) of the Act the Court may make an order by consent, but only in exercising its powers under
Pt VIII. Section 37A(1)(g) allows the delegation to the Registrar of the power to make an order by consent,
but only where it is a power of the Court. And O.36A, r.2(1)(n) delegates to the Registrar the power referred
to in s.37A(1)(g).
END QUOTE 15

QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.
END QUOTE
20
QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,
Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
END QUOTE

QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768, 25
No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination. 30
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.
Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and
confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct 35
collateral attack.
END QUOTE

Some exampels as to how a court of competent jurisdiction deals with an OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION: 40
Director General, Department of Commerce v Cianfrano and Anor [2008] NSWADTAP
56 (24 July 2008) NEW SOUTH WALES ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL
QUOTE
3 The Tribunal decided, contrary to the Departments submission, that it did have jurisdiction to determine the
adequacy of search question: Director-General, Department of Commerce and anor (No 2) [2006] NSW 45
ADT 195. The matter was listed for further directions. The Tribunals orders were as follows:
1. First Respondents objection to
jurisdiction dismissed.
2. Tribunal to reconvene to make further directions as appropriate.
END QUOTE 50
.
Trapman v Sydney Water Corporation & Ors [2009] FMCA 942 (16 September 2009)
QUOTE
1. Accordingly, I find that the Court has jurisdiction to deal with the
matters contained in Particulars (a)(ii), (v), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), 55
(xi) and (xii) of Exhibit 1.
1. It follows that I find that the Court does not have jurisdiction to deal

p17 4-6-2014
A 1
st
with the matters contained in Particulars (a) (i),(iii), (iv) and (vi)
of Exhibit 1.
1. I make orders accordingly.
END QUOTE
. 5
Watson v Director-General, Department of Services, Technology and
Administration [2010] NSWADT 44 (12 February 2010)
QUOTE
He also stated that, if the Tribunal agreed this view, he would seek an
order that the Respondent pay the Applicants costs occasioned by the 10
objection to jurisdiction on an indemnity basis.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
The orders to be made 15

64 For the foregoing reasons, each of the applications constituting these
proceedings is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

65 In consequence, the Tribunals orders made on 6 January 2010 are 20
discharged.

66 In addition, the directions hearing set down for 15 February 2010 is
vacated.
END QUOTE 25

As I objected to the jurisdiction of any court, then the onus was upon the Victorian Police to
place matters before a COMPETENT COURT OF JURISDICTION that could invoke Federal
jurisdiction, in view that I all along relied upon legal principles embedded in the constitution.
Indeed, the police prosecutor as a OFFICER OF THE COURT should have disclosed my 30
objection to jurisdiction to the Infringement Court.
.
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
QUOTE
As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his 35
clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he
honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is
paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or
his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is
the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly 40
conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support
it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client
discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the
specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
END QUOTE 45

Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUOTE
In my opinion, the words 'false evidence' in s79A(1) do not mean evidence which is wilfully false. The sub-
section should be read according to its terms. To say that 'false evidence should be read as 'wilful false 50
evidence' is to introduce a provision not expressed by the provision; cf s6H of the Royal Commission Act
1902 which speaks of a witness 'who knowingly gives false testimony'. This interpretation is reinforced by
reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and suppression of evidence which
would comprehend cases of wilful false evidence. At common law, a judgment will be set aside if it
has been obtained by fraud. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, it has been held that an applicant must 55
show something more than perjury, ie. new facts (Baker v. Wadsworth [1898] 67 LJQB 301; Everett V.
Ribbands [1946] 175 LT 143). This tends to suggest that the words 'false evidence' should be given their
literal meaning
END QUOTE
And 60
Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUOTE

p18 4-6-2014
A 1
st
In my opinion, the jurisdiction extends not only to the setting aside of judgments which have been obtained
without service or notice to a party (Craig v. Kanssen [1943] KB 256 at 262 - 263) but to the setting aside
of a default or ex-parte judgment obtained when the absence of the party is due to no fault on his part. I can
find no indication in the Family Law Act of an intention to displace this inherent jurisdiction.
END QUOTE 5
.
QUOTE R.V. Crimmins (1959) VR 270
Suppression of relevant evidence
END QUOTE
. 10
QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343
Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true.
END QUOTE

The issue is not if some private company did or didnt set up a system that prevents a police 15
officer to notify the Infringement Registrar of an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION but that
the police officer was duty bound to notify the Infringement Registrar that I had objected to
jurisdiction and therefore the matter couldnt be proceedings before the Infringement Court,
unless and until, if at all, a court of competent jurisdiction ruled averse to my claims.
20
It is not relevant if ordinary the Infringement Court had been dealing with Infringement Notices
in the past, because it is the inherent legal right for a accused to object to the jurisdiction of a
court, and for the plaintiff/prosecutor then to prove jurisdiction. I learned this lesson when the
Supreme Court of Victoria had an objection to jurisdiction from government solicitors, and the
trailjudge made clear that it was their right to object no matter what, and I had the onus to prove 25
jurisdiction! As the trail judge made clear the fact that the Supreme Court of Victoria was the
higherst court of the State, and had been dealing with simular cases in the past, proved nothing!
.
While it is obvious that the State Government now relies upon the police to be a tax collector in
reality the police function is to maintain law and order and not become tax collectors. 30
It was not for me to elect to go to court as I was not seeking to sue anyone. the Police pursued I
had committed an offence and so it was for the police to then take it to as competent court of
jurisdiction, where from onset I made known my objections. where the police failed to do so then
this must be fatal to its case. Then to assist the Sheriff in executing purported Infringement Court
orders/warrants to me is nothing less then terrorism. 35
.
In my view the Chief Commissioner of Police has a duty of care towards police officers in the
police force, that they are not needlessly left at risk of being personally sued for seeking to
execute invalid Infringement Court orders/warrants, because their superior couldnt give a damn
about protecting them. There is no such thing for police officers deliberately left unknown by 40
their superiors of invalid Infringement Court orders/warrant and then executing them and be free
from being liable because their superiors seek to con their own officers in acting unlawfully.
.
The history of my case is extensive in writing and if the police and the Sheriffs Office elect to
ignore this then they must accept the legal consequences, and be personally liable because I do 45
not accept that taxpayers should be ending up paying for cost which was caused deliberately by
the Chief Commissioner and the Sheriff (and those working under them) for thwarting the rule of
law application.

AS I VIEW IT, THIS IS A DELIBERATE CONDUCT OF TERRORISM. INDEED, 50
STOPPING A PARENT IN DRIVING A CHILD TO SCHOOL FOR EXECUTING
INVALID INFRINGEMENT COURT ORDERS/WARRANTS AND TO EXTORT THEM
TO PAY UP OF BE IMPRISONED AND/OR ARRESTING THEM IS NOTHING LESS
IN MY VIEW THEN TERRORISM AND EXTORTION.
55
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO ISSUE WITH THE POLICE AND/OR THE SHERIFF
EXECUTING VALID COURT ORDERS/WARRANTS IN A LAWFUL MANNER, BUT

p19 4-6-2014
A 1
st
TOTALLY OPPOSE THE MISUSE AND ABUSE OF POWERS IN THE PROCESS OF
DOING SO.
IF A DRIVER IS STOPPED FOR A ROAD WORTHINESS CHECK AND THE POLICE
FIND THE VEHICLE TO BE OK THEN I VIEW THERE IS NO LEGAL JURISDICTION
THEN TO DIRECT THE DRIVER TO THE SHERIFF TO BE CHECKED OUT FOR ANY 5
OUTSTANDING ALLEGED ORDERS/WARRANTS BECAUSE THIS GOES BEYOND THE
POWERS OF THE POLICE FOR ROAD WORTHINESS CHECKING A VEHICLE.

There are ample of U.S.A Authorities which makes clear the police cannot stop a motorist for
ulterior purposes nothing to do with the vehicle itself. Indeed, time and time again it held 10
purported evidence found by the police in a vehicle to be inadmissible because it was an
unlawful search, nothing to do with the checking of a road worthiness.

As the Supreme Court of Victoria recently made clear a man running away not wanting to
answer questions was entitled to do so. As such, it must be clear that the police has the powers to 15
check if a driver is licensed to drive a motor vehicle, but not if somehow then this relaters to
other issues, because then the checking is not for lawfulness of using the vehicle but for ulterior
purposes which makes it unlawfull.
.
QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords 20
In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give
good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the
conspiracy.
END QUOTE
. 25
In my view, if therefore the Victorian Police uses its powers to stop motorist as to enable the
Sheriffs Office unlawfully to check the driver for outstanding fines/warrants then this becomes a
conspiracy!

A person may lawfully uses a motor vehicle not belonging to him, and the police cannot just stop 30
the vehicle, as it does unlawfully, just so the Sheriff can check the identity of the driver against
any outstanding orders/warrants., as much as the police cannot do so against a person walking
along a footpath or riding a bicycle for the Sheriff to check the identity. That must be clear by the
recent decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
35
And in R v Kidman [1915] HCA 58; (1915) 20 CLR 425 (16 September 1915) it was held
QUOTE
In more developed societies the redress of civil wrongs is in practice required to be sought by the party
aggrieved, while in the case of violations of the law entailing penal consequences the proceedings are
instituted in the name or on behalf of the sovereign authority. This has been for so long a time the rule 40
in British communities that any reference in a Statute to judicial power or its exercise must be
interpreted by its light.
The analogy between the two kinds of proceedings is thus expressed in Chitty on the Common Law (2nd
ed., vol. i., p. 841):"Criminal informations, properly so called, are analogous to declarations for the
redress of a personal injury, except that the latter are at the suit of a subject for the satisfaction of a 45
private wrong, and the former are in the name of the King, for the punishment of offences affecting the
interests of the public. They are accusations or complaints for serious misdemeanors, which, whether
they immediately affect the safety of the Crown, or, in the first instance, encroach more nearly on
individual rights, require to be speedily repressed for the good of society at large."
END QUOTE 50

R v Kidman [1915] HCA 58; (1915) 20 CLR 425 (16 September 1915)
QUOTE
A man attempting to steal Commonwealth treasure may be resisted to death; a man obstructing any
Commonwealth officer in the performance of his duty may be thrust aside with all the force necessary 55
to enable the officer to perform his duty.

p20 4-6-2014
A 1
st
All this is implied executive power, but punishment, whether regarded as retribution or as a deterrent,
is beyond the scope of the executive power. That is, it is not incidental to it, or to its execution, in the
sense which would include it by implication in the grant of power. The Executive cannot change or add
to the law; it can only execute it; and any change of or addition to law is not incidental when we are
speaking of a non-legislative power. 5
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown 10
in prosecuting criminals are.
END QUOTE

Then the question arises that if a warrant was issued, when were the matters prosecuted by the
Crown in court? When was the sumnmons served upon the accused in name of the Crown? 15
.
As a former police prosecutor stated:
QUOTE EMAIL
http://www.membersonly.aussiespeedingfines.com/memberspage.php
20
Saturday - Jun 22, 2013 9:21 am
How and why you should fight ALL fines - by an ex-Police Sergeant!

We have received the following e-mail from an Ex-Victoria Police Sergeant and we would urge everyone to
read it carefully and note that it details the very points that we raise in our e-book about challenging every 25
fine you get.

Hi,

My name is Stan. I am a retired Sergeant of Police in Victoria for 14 years. I was also a police prosecutor at 30
times, so I know what I am talking about. I spent half my life in Magistrates Court during my time in the
Force. I was only ever a very fair copper, and I am proud of my time in the job, looking after the interests of
Victorians, often to the detriment of my family and my health.

I never booked any driver for a trifling offence "ever". People committing trifling offences commonly used to 35
get a warning and a licence / vehicle check. It had to be serious before I booked anyone.

I am so annoyed at what is happening these days, in what I call "Indiscriminate revenue gathering" It is
absolutely disgusting. The government and the Police Force need to hang their heads in shame. If you did a
survey of current serving members of the police forces in this country, you would be hard pushed to find 40
many who disagree with me.

I know how the legal system works, and I know how to beat the system. This is how to do it, and if about 10%
of all drivers booked follow my specific instructions, then the entire system will crash and become
unworkable to the extent, that the government will have no choice but to stop issuing fines for every type of 45
traffic offence. The whole lot of them. Seriously.

I do not feel guilty about coming out with this information, as I think it's about time someone stood up for
hard working, civil minded, law abiding taxpayers in this country, who are being screwed.
50
This is very simple and very basic. The idea is to clog up the system in the traffic camera office and the courts
by drivers exercising their rights to remain innocent until proven guilty.

SIMPLE BASIC LEGAL STEPS TO FOLLOW................
55
1. Do not accept the alleged offence. There are numerous valid reasons to dispute every single alleged
offence. Often the charges are incorrect or the evidence is illegally or incorrectly gathered.

2. Challenge it, tell them that you are going to defend the matter. Make them earn their miserable $150 or
$200 or whatever. They have to prepare evidence and witnesses. Just the wages for the camera operator or 60

p21 4-6-2014
A 1
st
the Policeman on the day of the court, will be more than the actual fine. You are also taking a camera
operator or a member of the Police Force off the street for the day. But it won't get to that point.....read on....

3. If a court date is ever set, and it does not suit you, do not accept it, ask for a delay to a time and place that
suits you. 5

4. When they re set the date, delay it as often as possible. keep pleading not guilty all through the process.
You have every right to be sick, or go for an adjournment if the day does not suit for any legitimate
reason.For example you may have pressing family or work commitments which prevent you from attending a
particular court on a particular day. 10

5. If it ever actually gets to court, (which is unlikely if everyone does this) and if you are unwell that day, ring
the court in the morning and tell them that you cannot make it as you are sick. The camera operator, and a
police prosecutor will already be at court, and will be greatly inconvenienced, by having to come back
another day. The whole time this is going on, the amount of paperwork involved at the traffic camera office is 15
huge. Several staff are involved, and it rapidly becomes very costly, probably running into thousands. .....with
me so far.....keep reading.......

6. The court system is then placed under such a massive load by people who wanted "their day in court" that
it simply will not be able to cope unless they open up about another 50 magistrates courts, and this is 20
obviously going to cost the government a lot more than any revenue raised. If all the above fails, which is
highly unlikely....and you actually go to court and get convicted......you have a right of appeal. Make sure you
appeal the conviction. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what happens. They are not going to
spend millions chasing hundreds.
25
7 Tell everyone you know to challenge their alleged offences, and the entire system will crash within a few
weeks.

8. Please pass this on. AND ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
AND THAT THERE IS A VERY HIGH PROBABILITY THAT THE EVIDENCE USED AGAINST YOU IS 30
WRONG. YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CHALLENGE ANY ALLEGED OFFENCE. THIS IS WHY
COURTS EXIST....SO USE THEM......A LOT.

Regards,
35
Stan
END QUOTE EMAIL

The point is when did the police check if the advise on the infringement Notice to make a
payment to Civic Compliance Victoria was actually lawful? Politicians all over the world are 40
creating systems that they rip of taxpayers, and this one seems to be to me one of them.
Why is the Victorian Police advising to make a payment to a bank account purportedly being
Civic Compliance Victoria when in fact the Westpac bank has it as Civic Compliance Vic
not being the same as the trademark? Is this a deliberate different version so that monies are not
at all paid into an account of Civic Compliance Victoria but in another account known as Civic 45
Compliance Vic in a similar manner as Julia Gillard and her then boyfriend Wilson set up a
bank account purporting to be a Trade Union account, but was not?
Why indeed did Westpac allow the registration of a bank account in the name of Civic
Compliance Vic when to my knowledge there is no such registered business operating?
. 50
If the company behind Civic Compliance Victoria and/or Civic Compliance Vic is a private
company using the trademark or letterheads (as I previously exposed) of the police, the Sheriffs
office the Court, etc, then where does the liability lie if something goes terribly wrong? Is the
Chief Commissioner of Police willing to take full responsibility for any liability arising of
conduct by the company operating under the Victorian Trademark Civic Compliance Victoria 55
when it uses the Victorian Police letterhead?
Indeed, is this a lawful exercise by a private company?
.

p22 4-6-2014
A 1
st
It is lawful to issue orders/warrants purportedly issued by a Infringement Court Registrar but
actually being the private company parading as Infringement Registrar, and accessing court
computer facilities. (Seen below also the notation about Business Unit 19)
Why is it that the Magistrates court of Victoria doesnt list in its yearly reporting the number of
Infringement Court orders/warrants even so the Magistrates Court of Victoria letterhead is used 5
by the purported Infringement Registrar?
Why is it that the correspondence, most of it, are not signed? Is this because they are issued by
the private company and so no actual official police officer or Registrar is on the job, and may
only afterwards make out to have been.After all, as I did set out in the past, considering the
numerous Infringement Court orders/warrants then for a Registrar to be able to deal with this he 10
must be super human, as he somehow can on his own process more cases then as the Magistrates
Court in Victoria all magistrates together can deal with. If one were to consider the Sheriffs
claim:
QUOTE 15
The Sheriffs Office arrested more than 2000 people and took action over more than 1.1 million warrants last
year up more than 27 per cent on the previous year.
END QUOTE

IF WE TAKE IT THAT 1.1 MILLION WARRANTS ARE ISSUED IN A YEAR FOR 20
NON PAYMENTS, THIS MEANS THAT THERE ARE ABOUT 1.1 MILLION COURT
HEARINGS BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE INFRINGEMENT COURT TO HEAR AND
DETERMINE ACCORDING TO LAW IF A WARRANT SHOULD OR SHOULDNT BE
ISSUED.
. 25
Again, you will not find this number of warrants issued listed by the Magistrates Court of
Victoria, this even so where the Infringement Court uses the letterhead of the Magistrates Court
of Victoria then its orders/warrants should be included in yearly reporting.
So, about 1,100,000 warrants issued in a year. if we take the extreme that the Infringement Court
Registrar works on a 52 week basis without taking holidays or taking time of during the 30
festivities then this will come to about 1,100,000 : 52 = 21,153.84615 warrants a week

Calculated this on a daily basis would be 1.100.000 : 365 = 3013.69863 warrants a day, not
taking any time of for holidays, weekends. etc.
But if we are more realistic and consider there are usually 48 working weeks and 10 sick days 35
(apart of equipment break down, etc.) and ordinary a court may sit on average 6 hours a day then
we would have: 1,100,000 : {(48 x 5-10) x 6} = 1,100,000: {230 x 6} = 1,100,000 :
1380=797,1014492 warrants an hour or about 13,28502415 warrants a minute.
(For the record I used to work in production planning, and subsequently when promoted to
manage a factory had to do my own production planning also, hence I can easily understand that 40
the figures so to say do not add up, when it comes to the purported Infringement Court
orders/warrants. And again, I referred to the calculations of the warrants but if you add the
number of other coiurt orders then it be likely less then a second for every order/warrant. One
must be absolutely brain dead not to realise there is something wrong in this all!)
If we consider that ordinary that is in a competent court of law evidence is to be given under oath 45
both by the Prosecutor and the Defendant and the presiding judicial officer has to consider all
material presented to the court, as well as consider it all then we have a super human Registrar.
Indeed, one has to ask if the Victorian Police force can accomplish these kind of cases in giving
evidence then why cannot do the same in other cases?
Obviously the question is in which court room were the cases heard and determined? after all 50
there must be a court room for it. Why do Magistrates complain about their workload and can

p23 4-6-2014
A 1
st
only do a few cases a day when a registrar can do cases after case every minute of the day if not
in a few seconds?
.
Obviously one must be a humbug and/or a moron to accept that this is actually eventuating in a
court room. No one is in his right mind is going to accept that the police actually were under oath 5
giving evidence in criminal cases (as that is what they are effectively) of a rate of about 13 cases
every minute to obtain warrants.
As such, common sense alone should have warned you that this Infringement Court cannot be
operating to the standards of an open courtas required for the Magistrates Court of Victoria.
. 10
Did you as Chief Commissioner ever bother to attend to an Infringement Court hearing, after all
they are criminal matters arent day to discover why a 100% success rate in getting warrants
issues is a little suspicious?

What kind of policed officer can you if you betray the oath of a police officer to serve the people, 15
if you in fact go along with this kind of treason against the people. Dont you have any shame to
place other police officers in this kind of situation?
.
Dont you understand that this is also why not just the youth of today but a person like myself
loose respect for the police because they no longer are serving the general community but are 20
more interested to protect their own job security, even if this means to participate in an elaborate
fraud upon the people?
Your job, even if you may not be aware of this, albeit that is not an excuse, is to maintain law
and order and not flaunt this and assist a government to screw the citizens of the state and others.
In my view, if anyone needs to be arrested then it are the politicians for abusing and misusing 25
their powers to decimate our constitutional rights.

As I received correspondence from the Registrar of the Infringement Court under the letterhead
of the Magistrates Court of Victoria then I demand you come clean and make known how many
officers attend to the Infringement Court to under oath provided evidence, including in the case 30
against me, and when was an summons issued for me to attend as like others. As after all, the
Infringement Act 2006 did not dispose of the Magistrates Court of Victoria legal processes, and
so I view I am entitled to know what really eventuated.
.
Are you going to claim that you were not aware your officers actually never gave any sworn oath 35
in such criminal cases? Who is running the show I may then ask?
.
Are you saying you havent got a clue how the system operates, and didnt bother to check it out,
this even so your officers are assisting the Sheriff in executing about 1,100,000 warrants? Surely,
common sense alone should prevail that you are just not up to the job if you dont know this? 40

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, 45
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
.
Again, an agent (the government) cannot have greater powers then the grantor (the People).
So if the Government can get you to assist in the arrest of people because of an alleged debt, then 50
why do you not do the same for my wife? For nearly 2 years she is trying to get an $200 plus
overpayment refunded, that in error Yarra Valley Water had paid to the SRO (State Revenue

p24 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Office) as they claimed not to have my wifes address, this even so my wife was and still is a
customer of them. After about 2 years (and she is 81 years old) they have still failed to refund the
overpayment. If the government can have you and other police as fools running after alleged
debtors then why dont you do the same for my wife?
. 5
At least in her case it is not some accusation, but admitted by the SRO also that they are holding
this money for her. Just that so far they refused to pay it out, even so my wife made a personal
trip to YVW to identify herself as being the rightful person to claim the monies back.

You see, if you are going to play police officer then do it equally for all citizens, and not just be a 10
glorify debt collector for unlawful orders/warrants and in the process may destroy the lively hood
of many, destroy families and perhaps even cause suicides.
.
This is not about law breakers, because to establish a person being guilty or not must require a
proper forum of a competent court of jurisdiction not some STAR CHAMBER COURT 15
outlawed by the I mperial Act Application Act 1980 (Vic).

If those people who were subject to the extortion racket turned out never having been convicted
appropriately in law, because of the invalidity of the court orders/warrants, then you can never
undo the harm you caused to them. 20

Not once did you bother to respond to my past correspondences, and this to me underlines you
have no integrity to be Chief Commissioner of Police at all.
As I outlined above, with the policed officer and the taillight, when I advised him I was unaware
about the warrant case he simply allowed me sufficient time to sort it out. And when he did come 25
to check it out I provided him with a copy of the Attorney-Generals letter stating the warrant was
no more, as the case had been withdrawn.
As such, the police do not have to enforce orders/warrants that are invalid and without legal
force.. And my records of correspondence shows I alerted you of this time and time again.
. 30
As such I view you run a terrorism racket with the Sheriff and you both should vacate your
positions, and let as more competent person do the job. alternatively we have to have a VELVET
REVOLUTION which will return to us our constitutional and other legal rights in which
citizens can be guaranteed to have respective conduct by the police serving the community
according to law, including the principle law the constitution! 35
.
Dont you feel any shame as to the harm inflicted upon so many, who may be totally unaware
about the scam that is purport rated upon them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism 40

QUOTE
Terrorism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
45
Jump to: navigation, search
"Terrorist" redirects here. For other uses, see Terrorist (disambiguation).
"Terrorist organization" redirects here. For other uses, see List of designated terrorist organizations.

50
Terrorism

p25 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Definitions
History
Incidents

Types[show]
Anarchist
Nationalist
Communist
Conservative
Left-wing
Right-wing
Saffron terror

Militia movement
Resistance movement
Religious
Christian
Islamic
Jewish

Single-issue
Eco-terrorism
Anti-abortion

Ethnic
Narcoterrorism
Tactics[show]
Agro-terrorism
Aircraft hijacking
list

Animal-borne bomb attacks
Bioterrorism
Car bombing
list

Cyberterrorism
Dirty bomb
Dry run
Explosive
Hostage-taking
Improvised explosive device
Individual terror
Insurgency
Kidnapping
Letter bomb
Nuclear
Paper terrorism
Piracy
Propaganda of the deed
Proxy bomb
School shooting
Suicide attack
list

Rockets and mortars
Terrorist groups[show]
Charities accused of ties to terrorism
State terrorism[show]

By state
Pakistan
Russia

p26 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka
United States

Organization[show]
Fronting
Training camp
Lone wolf
Clandestine cell system
Leaderless resistance
Fighting terrorism[show]
International conventions
Anti-terrorism legislation
Terrorism insurance
t
e
Terrorism is the systematic use of violent terror as a means of coercion. In the international community, however,
terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.
[1][2]
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those
violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal;
and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of
unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a 5
code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a
politically motivated group.
The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,
[3]
and this greatly compounds the difficulty of
providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of terrorism.
[4][5]
The concept of terrorism
may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to 10
delegitimize political or other opponents,
[6]
and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against
opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).
[6][7]
Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations to further their objectives. It has been
practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries,
and ruling governments.
[8]
An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for 15
the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. The symbolism of terrorism can leverage human
fear to help achieve these goals.
[9]
Contents
[hide]
Origin of term[edit source | editbeta] 20
"Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme,
[10]
and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as
practiced by the French government during the Reign of terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the
Latin verb terre meaning I frighten.
[11]
The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in
response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BC. The Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing
a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.
[12][13]
After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a 25
term of abuse.
[6]
Although "terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government, currently it usually
refers to the killing of innocent people
[14]
for political purposes in such a way as to create a media spectacle. This
meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist".
[15]
Nechayev founded the
Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" ( ) in 1869.
[16]
In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause 30
death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or
compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".
[17]
Definition[edit source | editbeta]
Stamp of Azerbaijan with "Stop Terrorism!" description
The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different 35
definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to
formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the
term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.
[18]
In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian
Parliament, stated that

p27 4-6-2014
A 1
st
"The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism.
During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term floundered mainly due to differences of
opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and
self-determination."
[1]
These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on 5
International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition
terrorism.
[19]
The international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize
various types of terrorist activities.
Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following
political description of terrorism: 10
"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or
particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a
political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify
them."
[20]
Bruce Hoffman, a scholar, has noted: 15
It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of
terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In
the first edition of his magisterial survey, 'Political Terrorism: A Research Guide,' Alex Schmid devoted more than a
hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definitions of terrorism in an effort to discover a broadly
acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no 20
closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the search for an adequate
definition is still on Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the
subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt.
[21]
Hoffman believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:
The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people. 25
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to
appreciate that terrorism is :
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies,
underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:
Oslo, Norway immediately after the 2011 terrorist attack in Norway perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik. 30
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of
terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".
[citation needed]
This
criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually
considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.
[citation needed]
Property destruction that does
not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,
[according to whom?]
but some have described property 35
destruction by the Earth Liberation Front
[24]
and Animal Liberation Front
[25]
as violence and terrorism; see eco-
terrorism.
Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological
impact.
[26]
Each act of terrorism is a performance devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists
also attack national symbols,
[27]
to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they 40
are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist
organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.
[28]
Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.
[29]
Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting,
which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.
[according to
whom?]
The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of 45
civilians.
[citation needed]
This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a
political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"
[30]
struggle, such as over the control of
an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes
equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of
innocent civilians.
[31]
50
Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols,
tools, animals or corrupt beings"
[citation needed]
that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their
suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise
satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.
[32]
A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. 55
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the
act.
[33][better source needed]
to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of
other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as
terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.
[citation needed]
For example,
firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it 60

p28 4-6-2014
A 1
st
were authorized by a government.
[original research?]
This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally
accepted,
[attribution needed]
because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;
[34]
the same act may or may not be classed
as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and
"lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the
historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.
[10][35][36][37]
5
Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by
civilians against an invader in an occupied country.
[citation needed]
Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only
the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and
non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.
[citation needed]
According to Ali
Khan, the distinction lies ultimately in a political judgment.
[38]
10
An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.
[39]
The
semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have
previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI, terrorism
is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
[citation needed]
15
Barack Obama, commenting on the Boston Marathon bombings of April, 2013, declared "Anytime bombs are used
to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror."
[40]
Various commentators have pointed out the distinction between
"act of terror" and "terrorism", particularly when used by the White House.
[41][42][43]
Pejorative use[edit source | editbeta]
The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations.
[44]
20
These terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain actors as
immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population.
[45]
Those labeled "terrorists"
by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their
situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla,
rebel, patriot, or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultures. Jihadi, mujaheddin, and fedayeen are 25
similar Arabic words which have entered the English lexicon. It is common for both parties in a conflict to describe
each other as terrorists.
[46]
On the question of whether particular terrorist acts, such as killing civilians, can be justified as the lesser evil in a
particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: while, according to David Rodin, utilitarian
philosophers can (in theory) conceive of cases in which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good which could 30
not be achieved in a less morally costly way, in practice the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-
combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism".
[47]

Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism can be morally justified in only one
specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can
preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so".
[47][48]
35
In his book Inside Terrorism Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term terrorism becomes distorted:
The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's
freedom fighter".
[46]
This is exemplified when a group using irregular military methods is an ally of a state against a
mutual enemy, but later falls out with the state and starts to use those methods against its former ally. During World
War II, the Malayan Peoples Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, 40
members of its successor (the Malayan Races Liberation Army), were branded "terrorists" by the British.
[52][53]
More
recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen
"freedom fighters" during their war against the Soviet Union,
[54]
yet twenty years later, when a new generation of
Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks were
labelled "terrorism" by George W. Bush.
[55][56][57]
Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting 45
legitimate military or ideological action.
[58][59][60]
Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of
the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as
attacks against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and said:
Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called "terrorists" by the Western governments or
media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called "statesmen" by similar organizations. 50
Two examples of this phenomenon are the Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson
Mandela.
[62][63][64][65][66][67]
WikiLeaks whistleblower Julian Assange has been called a "terrorist" by Sarah Palin and
Joe Biden.
[68][69]
Sometimes, states which are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can disagree over whether or not
members of a certain organization are terrorists. For instance, for many years, some branches of the United States 55
government refused to label members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists while the IRA was using
methods against one of the United States' closest allies (the United Kingdom) which the UK branded as terrorism.
This was highlighted by the Quinn v. Robinson case.
[70][71]

p29 4-6-2014
A 1
st
For these and other reasons, media outlets wishing to preserve a reputation for impartiality try to be careful in their
use of the term.
[72][73]
Types of terrorism[edit source | editbeta]
King David Hotel after being bombed by the Zionist terrorist group Irgun, July 1946
5

A view of damages to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut caused by a terrorist bomb attack, April 1983

Sbarro pizza restaurant bombing in Jerusalem, in which 15 Israeli civilians were killed and 130 were wounded by a 10
Hamas suicide bomber.
In early 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed the National Advisory
Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five volumes that the committee wrote was entitled
Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the direction of H.H.A.
Cooper, Director of the Task Force staff.
[74]
The Task Force classified terrorism into six categories. 15
Number of failed, foiled or successful terrorist attacks by year and type within the European Union. Source:
Europol.
[76][77][78]
1 person died in terrorist attacks from separatist groups in 2010.
[76]
Several sources
[79][80][81]
have further defined the typology of terrorism:
Motivation of terrorists[edit source | editbeta]
Attacks on 'collaborators' are used to intimidate people from cooperating with the state in order to undermine state 20
control. This strategy was used in the USA in its War of Independence and in Ireland, in Kenya, in Algeria and in
Cyprus during their independence struggles.
Attacks on high profile symbolic targets are used to incite counter-terrorism by the state to polarise the population.
This strategy was used by Al Qaeda in its attacks on the USA in September 2001. These attacks are also used to
draw international attention to struggles which are otherwise unreported such as the Palestinian airplane hijackings 25
in 1970 and the South Moluccan hostage crises in the Netherlands in 1975.
Abrahm suggests that terrorist organizations do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.
[82]
Individual
terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by
political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.
[82]
Democracy and domestic terrorism[edit source | editbeta] 30
Demonstration in Madrid against ETA, January 2000. Roughly a million people met there.
The relationship between domestic terrorism and democracy is very complex. Terrorism is most common in nations
with intermediate political freedom, and is least common in the most democratic nations.
[83][84][85][86]
However, one
study suggests that suicide terrorism may be an exception to this general rule. Evidence regarding this particular
method of terrorism reveals that every modern suicide campaign has targeted a democracya state with a 35

p30 4-6-2014
A 1
st
considerable degree of political freedom.
[87]
The study suggests that concessions awarded to terrorists during the
1980s and 1990s for suicide attacks increased their frequency.
[88]
Some examples of "terrorism" in non-democracies include ETA in Spain under Francisco Franco (although the
group's terrorist activities increased sharply after Franco's death),
[89]
the Shining Path in Peru under Alberto
Fujimori,
[90]
the Kurdistan Workers Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders and the ANC in South 5
Africa.
[91]
Democracies, such as the United Kingdom, United States, Israel, Indonesia, India, Spain and the
Philippines, have also experienced domestic terrorism.
While a democratic nation espousing civil liberties may claim a sense of higher moral ground than other regimes, an
act of terrorism within such a state may cause a dilemma: whether to maintain its civil liberties and thus risk being
perceived as ineffective in dealing with the problem; or alternatively to restrict its civil liberties and thus risk 10
delegitimizing its claim of supporting civil liberties.
[92]
For this reason, homegrown terrorism has started to be seen
as a greater threat, as stated by former CIA Director Michael Hayden.
[93]
This dilemma, some social theorists would
conclude, may very well play into the initial plans of the acting terrorist(s); namely, to delegitimize the state.
[94]
Religious terrorism[edit source | editbeta]
Civilians trapped in a London Underground train after a bomb exploded further down the train at Russell Square 15
Tube station on 7th July 2005

Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. Some 35,000 Pakistanis have died from terrorist attacks in recent years.
[95]
Religious terrorism is terrorism performed by groups or individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted in 20
faith-based tenets. Terrorist acts throughout the centuries have been performed on religious grounds with the hope to
either spread or enforce a system of belief, viewpoint or opinion.
[96]
Religious terrorism does not in itself necessarily
define a specific religious standpoint or view, but instead usually defines an individual or a group view or
interpretation of that belief system's teachings.
Perpetrators[edit source | editbeta] 25
The perpetrators of acts of terrorism can be individuals, groups, or states. According to some definitions, clandestine
or semi-clandestine state actors may also carry out terrorist acts outside the framework of a state of war. However,
the most common image of terrorism is that it is carried out by small and secretive cells, highly motivated to serve a
particular cause and many of the most deadly operations in recent times, such as the September 11 attacks, the
London underground bombing, and the 2002 Bali bombing were planned and carried out by a close clique, 30
composed of close friends, family members and other strong social networks. These groups benefited from the free
flow of information and efficient telecommunications to succeed where others had failed.
[97]
Over the years, many people have attempted to come up with a terrorist profile to attempt to explain these
individuals' actions through their psychology and social circumstances. Others, like Roderick Hindery, have sought
to discern profiles in the propaganda tactics used by terrorists. Some security organizations designate these groups as 35
violent non-state actors.
[98]
A 2007 study by economist Alan B. Krueger found that terrorists were less likely to come
from an impoverished background (28% vs. 33%) and more likely to have at least a high-school education (47% vs.
38%). Another analysis found only 16% of terrorists came from impoverished families, vs. 30% of male
Palestinians, and over 60% had gone beyond high school, vs. 15% of the populace.
[99]
To avoid detection, a terrorist will look, dress, and behave normally until executing the assigned mission. Some 40
claim that attempts to profile terrorists based on personality, physical, or sociological traits are not useful.
[100]
The
physical and behavioral description of the terrorist could describe almost any normal person.
[101]
However, the
majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by military age men, aged 1640.
[101]
Terrorist groups[edit source | editbeta]
There is speculation that anthrax mailed inside letters to U.S. politicians was the work of a lone wolf terrorist. 45
Main articles: List of designated terrorist organizations and Lone wolf (terrorism)

p31 4-6-2014
A 1
st
State sponsors[edit source | editbeta]
A state can sponsor terrorism by funding or harboring a terrorist organization. Opinions as to which acts of violence
by states consist of state-sponsored terrorism vary widely. When states provide funding for groups considered by
some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them as such.
State terrorism[edit source | editbeta] 5
This terrified baby was almost the only human being left alive in Shanghai's South Station after brutal Japanese
bombing, August 28, 1937
As with "terrorism" the concept of "state terrorism" is controversial.
[103]
The Chairman of the United Nations
Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of 12 international Conventions on the
subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused 10
their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human
rights and international humanitarian law.
[104]
Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that it
is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated
under international law"
[105]
However, he also made clear that, "regardless of the differences between governments
on the question of definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on 15
innocent civilians, regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism."
[106]
State terrorism has been used to refer to terrorist acts by governmental agents or forces. This involves the use of state
resources employed by a state's foreign policies, such as using its military to directly perform acts of terrorism.
Professor of Political Science Michael Stohl cites the examples that include Germanys bombing of London and the
U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima during World War II. He argues that the use of terror tactics is common in 20
international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the
international system than insurgents." They also cite the First strike option as an example of the "terror of coercive
diplomacy" as a form of this, which holds the world hostage with the implied threat of using nuclear weapons in
"crisis management." They argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism has occurred as a result of changes that
took place following World War II. In this analysis, state terrorism exhibited as a form of foreign policy was shaped 25
by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an
increasingly accepted form of this state behavior.
[107][108][108]
Some theorists suggest genocide is a type of terrorism as committed by Adolf Hitler.
[citation needed]
State terrorism has also been used to describe peacetime actions by governmental agents such as the bombing of Pan
Am Flight 103.
[109]
Charles Stewart Parnell described William Ewart Gladstone's Irish Coercion Act as terrorism in 30
his "no-Rent manifesto" in 1881, during the Irish Land War.
[110]
The concept is also used to describe political
repressions by governments against their own civilian population with the purpose to incite fear. For example, taking
and executing civilian hostages or extrajudicial elimination campaigns are commonly considered "terror" or
terrorism, for example during the Red Terror or Great Terror.
[111]
Such actions are often also described as democide
or genocide which has been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism.
[112]
Empirical studies on this have found that 35
democracies have little democide.
[113][114]
Funding[edit source | editbeta]
State sponsors have constituted a major form of funding; for example, Palestine Liberation Organization,
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and some other terrorist groups were funded by the Soviet
Union.
[115][116]
The Stern Gang received funding from Italian Fascist officers in Beirut to undermine the British 40
Mandate for Palestine.
[117]
Pakistan has created and nurtured terrorist groups as policy for achieving tactical
objectives against its neighbours, especially India.
[118]
"Revolutionary tax" is another major form of funding, and essentially a euphemism for "protection money".
[115]

Revolutionary taxes are typically extorted from businesses, and they also "play a secondary role as one other means
of intimidating the target population".
[115]
45
Other major sources of funding include kidnapping for ransoms, smuggling, fraud and robbery.
[115]
The Financial Action Task Force is an inter-governmental body whose mandate, since October 2001, has included
combatting terrorist financing.
[119]
Tactics[edit source | editbeta]
The Wall Street bombing at noon on September 16, 1920 killed thirty-eight people and injured several hundred. The 50
perpetrators were never caught.
Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare, and is more common when direct conventional warfare will not be
effective because forces vary greatly in power.
[120]

p32 4-6-2014
A 1
st
The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a large-scale, unresolved political conflict. The type of conflict
varies widely; historical examples include:
Terrorist attacks are often targeted to maximize fear and publicity, usually using explosives or poison.
[121]
There is
concern about terrorist attacks employing weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist organizations usually methodically
plan attacks in advance, and may train participants, plant undercover agents, and raise money from supporters or 5
through organized crime. Communications occur through modern telecommunications, or through old-fashioned
methods such as couriers.
Responses[edit source | editbeta]
X-ray backscatter technology (AIT) machine used by the TSA to screen passengers. According to the TSA, this is
what the remote TSA agent would see on their screen. 10
Responses to terrorism are broad in scope. They can include re-alignments of the political spectrum and
reassessments of fundamental values.
Specific types of responses include:
The term "counter-terrorism" has a narrower connotation, implying that it is directed at terrorist actors.
According to a report by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin in the Washington Post, "Some 1,271 government 15
organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and
intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States."
[122]
Mass media[edit source | editbeta]
Mass media exposure may be a primary goal of those carrying out terrorism, to expose issues that would otherwise
be ignored by the media. Some consider this to be manipulation and exploitation of the media.
[123]
20
The Internet has created a new channel for groups to spread their messages. This has created a cycle of measures and
counter measures by groups in support of and in opposition to terrorist movements. The United Nations has created
its own online counter-terrorism resource.
[124]
The mass media will, on occasion, censor organizations involved in terrorism (through self-restraint or regulation) to
discourage further terrorism. However, this may encourage organizations to perform more extreme acts of terrorism 25
to be shown in the mass media. Conversely James F. Pastor explains the significant relationship between terrorism
and the media, and the underlying benefit each receives from the other.
[125]
History[edit source | editbeta]
Number of terrorist incidents 2010
The history of terrorism goes back to the Sicarii Zealots, a Jewish extremist group active in Judaea Province at the 30
beginning of the 1st century AD. After Zealotry rebellion in the 1st century AD, when some prominent collaborators
with Roman rule were killed,
[127][128]
according to contemporary historian Josephus, in 6 AD Judas of Galilee formed
a small and more extreme offshoot of the Zealots, the Sicarii.
[129]
Their terror also was directed against Jewish
"collaborators", including temple priests, Sadducees, Herodians, and other wealthy elites.
[130]
The term "terrorism" itself was originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club during the "Reign of 35
Terror" in the French Revolution. "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible," said Jacobin
leader Maximilien Robespierre. In 1795, Edmund Burke denounced the Jacobins for letting "thousands of those hell-
hounds called Terrorists...loose on the people" of France.
[131]
In January 1858, Italian patriot Felice Orsini threw three bombs in an attempt to assassinate French Emperor
Napoleon III.
[132]
Eight bystanders were killed and 142 injured.
[132]
The incident played a crucial role as an 40
inspiration for the development of the early Russian terrorist groups.
[132]
Russian Sergey Nechayev, who founded
People's Retribution in 1869, described himself as a "terrorist", an early example of the term being employed in its
modern meaning.
[15]
Nechayev's story is told in fictionalized form by Fyodor Dostoevsky in the novel The
Possessed. German anarchist writer Johann Most dispensed "advice for terrorists" in the 1880s.
[133]
Terrorism databases[edit source | editbeta] 45
The following terrorism databases are or were made publicly available for research purposes, and track specific acts
of terrorism:
The following publicly available resource indexes electronic and bibliographic resources on the subject of terrorism:
The following terrorism databases are maintained in secrecy by the United State Government for intelligence and
counter-terrorism purposes: 50

p33 4-6-2014
A 1
st
See also[edit source | editbeta]
This "see also" section may contain an excessive
number of suggestions. Please ensure that only the
most relevant suggestions are given and that they are not
red links, and consider integrating suggestions into the
article itself. (July 2013)

END QUOTE

Nothing in this correspondence is intended and neither must be perceived to indicate that I 5
somehow support a person to act in breach of law. What I am on about its that if a person is
accused of a breach of law then we must follow the legal principle embedded in the constitution
that a judicial determination can only be made AFTER both parties have been heard.

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-With reference to the meaning of the term due process of law, there is in Baker's
Annotated Notes on the Constitution of the United States, page 215, this statement-
Due process of law does not imply that all trials in the state courts affecting the property of persons must be
by jury. The requirement is met if the trial be in accordance with the settled course of judicial proceedings, 15
and this is regulated by the law of the state.
If the state law provides that there shall be a due hearing given to the rights of the parties-
Mr. BARTON.-And a judicial determination.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, and a judicial determination-that is all that is necessary.
END QUOTE 20

Registrars are not OFFICERS OF THE COURT as such, and cannot operate without the
supervision of a judger, and one doesnt need any reason to have a registrars decision reviewed
because the mere fact that a party seeks a revied is sufficient in law.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi- 25
bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/9.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="otherwise%20fell%
20outside%20its%20jurisdiction%20"
QUOTE
The Full Court on appeal from Maxwell J. held that the review of the Deputy Registrar's decision was 30
confined to an inquiry whether the parties did in fact consent to the terms of the order and whether the terms
agreed upon were in a form appropriate to the type of order sought and were enforceable. But the order made
by the Deputy Registrar must have been made pursuant to s.79 - the section which confers power upon the
Court to order a settlement of or an alteration in the property interests of the parties. The Court could not
make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties consented to it 35
and it follows, a fortiori, that a Registrar, exercising a delegated power, could not do so. Thus, for instance,
under s.80(1)(j) of the Act the Court may make an order by consent, but only in exercising its powers under
Pt VIII. Section 37A(1)(g) allows the delegation to the Registrar of the power to make an order by consent,
but only where it is a power of the Court. And O.36A, r.2(1)(n) delegates to the Registrar the power referred
to in s.37A(1)(g). 40
END QUOTE

QUOTE Scuderi v Morris [2001] VSCA 190 (29 October 2001
In order to resolve this appeal and to determine the relevant principles, we have had to look at a
considerable number of additional reported decisions as well as a variety of text books, many of which 45

p34 4-6-2014
A 1
st
we have had to find for ourselves with the invaluable assistance of the researchers engaged by the Court.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS: 5
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE

If therefore the supervising magistrate (if there is any) cannot dispose of matters (hearing and 10
determining cases) but in open court, then the Infringement Registrar clearly neither can
exercise such procedure.

Therefore, the Infringement Registrar supervised (if he is, as otherwise the Infringement Court is
without legal status) is bound by the limitations of the magistrate that supervises the 15
Infringement Registrar. Because the magistrate is bound by open court requirements then the
Infringement Registrar likewise is.
.
If you assisted in 1 year alone to have 2,000 people arrested by invalid warrants then can you
really sleep at night, knowing the terrorism you assisted with purport rated upon those innocent 20
people? After all, if the warrants are invalid then the victims are deemed innocent.

In my view to maintain the integrity of the Victorian Police force you should insist that no police
officer will assist in the execution of any invalid order/warrant and if the Sheriff and/or his
deputies persist doing so then you will not hesitate to have them arrested as you must serve and 25
protect the community again any tyrannical government conduct.

Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of 30
everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
END QUOTE

No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:
LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRI NI DAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335 35
QUOTE
But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned,
no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good
faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the
wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper 40
motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism,
and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a
cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of
ordinary man
END QUOTE 45
.
The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVENING NEWS (1880) N.S.W.
LR 211 AT 239.:
QUOTE 50
The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice of
sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day,
would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be
rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
END QUOTE 55
.
As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368

p35 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
SOLI CI TOR-GENERAL v RADI O AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all issues and 5
details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
10
(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 20130923 correspondence

QUOTE 20131207 correspondence
WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE 15
Mr Ken Smith, Speaker 7-12-2013
Legislative Assembly Victoria
ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc: Mr Geoff Shaw MP geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Denis Napthine Premier denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au 20

Ref: 131207-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Ken Smith, Speaker Re COMPLAINT etc
Sir,
I understand from media report that there appears to be some controversy between yourself
and Mr Geoff Shaw, however as you are the Speaker then I view your personal issues with Mr 25
Geoff Shaw should not detract from your obligations and responsibilities as a Speaker.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I hold it very important that we have a proper functioning
parliament and the Speaker is clearly in charge of the legislative Assembly.
30
I understand that you referred to the Ombudsman for an investigation into the alleged abuses by
Mr Geoff Shaw. I understand that the Ombudsman subsequently held that the Police should deal
with this.
.
Albeit I am not a legal practitioner as (now retired) a Professional Advocate I like to 35
explain something, to give you a better understanding about matters, which then can be
considered regarding the issues involving Mr Geoff Shaw, etc.
I was requested by Mr Frank Colosimo (December 2008) to take over from his barrister.
This I did albeit on the condition I would do so FREE OF CHARGE. One of the
correspondences Mr Frank Colosimo provided me with was from victoria Legal Aid that 40
Mr Colosimo should purge his contempt. Mr Colosimo had been placed under
administration upon medical reports from two practitioners. The Office of the Public
Advocate made clear to me on 29 January 2009 (before the appeal hearing of the
administration orders) that Mr Colosimo simply didnt understand the problems he was
in. I made clear that I could see no wrongdoing by Mr Colosimo, despite that on the 5th 45
CONTEMPT hearing before Her Honour Harbison J (A County Court of Victoria judge)
he was warned that (Mr Colosimo) faced the possibility of imprisonment.
On 29 January 2009 the appeal hearing was adjourned and repeated adjournments lasted
till March 2010, when the appeal was upheld and the administration orders were set aside.

p36 4-6-2014
A 1
st
However, on 26 March 2009 I appeared before Her Honour Harbison J and made
numerous submissions, including that there was no CONTEMPT, there was no evidence
of any CONTEMPT, etc. I in fact opposed the CONTEMPT application to be withdrawn
as I submitted that once it was filed it was for Her Honour to deal with it. Her Honour
Harbison J in her judgment agreed it was beyond being withdrawn once filed. Her 5
Honour also accepted my submission to permanently stay the proceedings. Her Honour
Harbison J also upon my submission ordered that FREE OF CHARGE I was to be
provided with the transcript of all 6 CONTEMPT hearings. Subsequently to this I
discovered that Her Honour actually never had formally charged Mr Colosimo with
CONTEMPT. She just seems to have overlooked doing so and the about 209 lawyers 10
involved in the case neither realised this is a basic legal requirement before one can hear
and determine a CONTEMPT charge. Moreover, the medical evidence were found to be
based upon advise of the Office of the Public Advocate that Mr Colosimo had been
convicted of CONTEMPT. But, to drive the nail into the coffin was that the allegation
that Mr Colosimo had without lawful authority build a shed/house and failed to comply 15
with the order to demolish it, was also a fiction of the mind of lawyers. After all, council
of the shire submitted authorities , and a stack of paperwork while making her
submission, to support her case for CONTEMPT, just that within seconds of being
handed the authorities I noticed what was required for a building to be a house, such as a
closed pan, water, etc, none existing in the shed. Also, I produced a certificate issued a 20
week before the council instructed lawyers to litigate against Mr Colosimo which in
effect was that the shed by the building code standards was lawful. Also that the alleged
evidence the shore relied upon was produced 89 days and some hours whereas the order
stipulated 90 days.
So, despite some 20 lawyers having been involved in the case none understood they were 25
on a fictitious case.
In the end had Mr Colosimo accepted the advice of Victorian Legal Aid way back in
2008 he would have been convicted wrongly. Because of my assistance Mr Colosimo got
rid of it all.
30
I do not particular watch television or read many newspapers or listen to the radio, save to say
however that I gained the understanding that Mr Geoff Shaw was portrayed in the media as some
criminal and that he was not entitled to work in his own business as a parliamentarian. As a
CONSTITUTIONALIST, and I wrote this to Mr Geoff Shaw, I explained that the Framers of
the constitution (the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) within witch in 35
s106 the States are created subject to this constitution including its embedded legal principles)
held that Members of Parliament were to be provided with an allowance (not a salary) as a
compensation towards the loss of income when away from their ordinary daily job, to attend to
the Parliament, and some compensation for expenses incurred to attend to the Parliament.
40
It is therefore horrifying to me that this attack was made upon Mr Geoff Shaw, a Member of
Parliament, for daring to be at his office (of his own business) where in fact he was doing
precisely what the Framers of the Constitution all along intended him (and other Members of
Parliament) to do. We had a display of trail by media rather than a proper constituted court
adjudicating upon facts. Moreover, the Parliament is an autonomy within the framework of the 45
constitution and I view it was CONTEMPT of PARLIAMENT for anyone to attack Mr Geoff
Shaw on the basis of allege misuse of his time to work in his own business office.
It undermines the credibility of the parliament as well as is a smear upon the character of a
Member of Parliament, in this case Mr Geoff Shaw, I view totally uncalled for.
There can be no excuse for the detractors to make insinuations, etc, on basis of not understanding 50
what is constitutionally permissible/required. As the Andrew Bolt case made clear there is a
responsibility by those writing about the alleged misdoings. Clearly, at least in my view as a

p37 4-6-2014
A 1
st
CONSTITUTIONALIST Mr Geoff Shaw, and indeed any other Member of Parliament not
engaged as a Minister of the Crown, should be able to earn an income outside Parliament as
intended by the Framers of the Constitution.
In my view this set the scene that Mr Geoff Shaw never could have received a FAIR and
PROPER hearing as to any charges that may have been pending against him, because of the 5
misconception as to what is or isnt constitutionally permissible.
Once you brand an innocent man as some criminal, then any further litigation likely will
fail to provide JUSTICE.
In fact this was a clear issue in the USA where a man was convicted of armed robbery and a
other case of murder. Having been found guilty in one crime, he elected not to give evidence in 10
the other criminal case against him and was so convicted also. Just that 18 years into his
sentence (of which 14 years in isolation and on death row- as he was sentenced to be executed)
This man hired an investigator, who then came across evidence that the prosecutor had concealed
from the court and so the trial that the criminal had left blood type B whereas the man convicted
had blood type O. As such, where the first trial was a failure then the Court held the second 15
conviction neither could stand either. The murder trial had to be re-heard and he was then
acquitted!
.
Clearly the Court held that a person facing a trial must be afforded a FAIR and PROPER hearing.
In my view, this trial by media about Mr Geoff Shaw being at his business office as I understood 20
it to portray him to be dishonest, and so connecting this with his alleged misuse of the motor
vehicle provided by the parliament, then no FAIR MINDED PERSON could separate the
different allegations.
QUOTE
JURISDICTION the power to hear and determine a case. 147 P.2d 759, 761. This power may be 25
established and described with reference to particular subjects or to parties who fall into a particular category.
In addition to the power to adjudicate, a valid exercise of jurisdiction requires fair notice and an opportunity
for the affected parties to be heard. Without jurisdiction, a court's judgment is void. A court must have
both SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION and PERSONAL JURISDICTION (see below). See also
territorial jurisdiction; title jurisdiction." 30
END QUOTE

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE 35
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything 40
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE
45
In my view, the Framers of the Constitution held that a person was entitled to a judicial
determination AFTER both parties had been heard. Regretfully, the unconstitutional conduct
with the so called Infringement Court computer issue of court orders/warrants underlines how
badly we have our legal system going.

p38 4-6-2014
A 1
st

We now have this Dr Mark Hobart facing sanction against him even so in my view as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST he acted within his constitutional rights, and the State cannot force
him against his constitutional rights.
This document addresses certain issues about abortion and same sex proposed marriages 5

The document can be downloaded from:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/189897831/131207-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Terri-
Kelleher-Re-Abortion-Gay-Marriage-Issues
10
Still, we had serious allegations made against Mr Geoff Shaw regarding misuse of a vehicle, etc.
Then I understood Mr Geoff Shaw was to make a certain plea but the Court refused this setting
out why it couldnt accept this.
I understand that subsequently the DPP now withdrew its charges.
This may also underline the danger of any kind of plea bargaining, because for the world you are 15
admitting to be guilty, regardless you might be innocent. As I referred to above, Victorian Legal
Aid recommend (before I became involved) Mr Colosimo to purge his CONTEMPT, whereas I
proved there never was nor could have been any CONTEMPT and neither was Mr Colosimo
formally charged with CONTEMPT.
While I do not insinuate that Mr Geoff Shaw was given legal advice to make some plea, I am 20
however well aware such as in the Michael Alderton case where Michael was advised to plea
guilty, and after he was convicted he ended up hanging himself in Pentridge. I understood from
Michael, the day before the hearing he would plea; NOT GUILTY. I understood his lawyer
advising him to plea guilty so the magistrate may give him time served as a sentence whereas if
he pleaded NOT GUILTY he may be sentenced severely, perhaps 6 months. Well the magistrate 25
sentenced him to 6 months! So much trying to make a bargain. The man hanged himself
subsequently whereas I view no conviction would have eventuated had he pleaded NOT
GUILTY as no mens rea could be proven.
.
On 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated to Commonwealth of Australia in 2 appeals of 30
FAILING TO VOTE, after a 45 year long epic legal battle, submitting numerous constitutional
issues to support my cases.
After the hearing Ms Jose van Rooy requested me if I could assist her with her case, as she had 3
charged against her, including using a motor vehicle injuring a police officer. I wrote to the DPP
NO CASE TO ANSWER and upon this the DPP withdrew 2 OF its 3 charges. For sure 35
lawyers would not make a submission NO CASE TO ANSWER nearly 2 years prior to the
commencement of a trial but I did so as there is no legal issue why one cannot do so long before
a trial. I never intended to appear in court and in fact Judge Wood asked Ms van Rooy why I
didnt attend. For me there was no need to do so. In the end the prosecutor spend 5 days
presenting evidence and then Judge Wood at the conclusion of the case by the prosecutor 40
instructed the jury to return a verdict NOT GUILTY as there was no case to answer.

As such, the mere fact that Mr Geoff Shaw was charged had no meaning to me. It is merely an
allegation and had I assisted him I would immediately submitted NO CASE TO ANSWER.
Why wait to the conclusion of the prosecutors case when one can do so long before and possibly 45
avoid any further litigation?
.
Regretfully, prosecutors are generally more interested in promotions then in placing all relevant
details and matters before the court and let the court determine the issue.
The courts are not there to convict but to adjudicate upon the evidence before it, and if this 50
includes a conviction then so be it. But we know from media reports that the former Attorney-
Generals wife then prosecutor concealed evidence from the courts causing an innocent man to

p39 4-6-2014
A 1
st
be imprisoned and it was only after 18 months that he engaged a new lawyer who discovered the
evidence the prosecutor had withheld.
In every case where we allow an innocent person to be convicted we by this accept that the real
criminal, being it a murderer or whatever can continue his criminal conduct.
5
Our legal system should be to pursue the real criminals and if even after years or even decades
there is a significant doubt about the guilt of the convicted person, such as Martin Bryant
regarding the Port Arthur massacre, then we should remain open minded and better ensure we do
have the real culprit and not let the real mass murderer free to perhaps one day repeat the same.
. 10
QUOTE Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278
The oath of a justice of this court is ' to do right to all manner of people according to law' Our sworn duty is
to the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all. If, then, we find the law to be
plainly in conflict with what we or any of our predecessors errornously thought it to be, we have, as I
conceive no right to choose between giving effect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, It 15
is not, in my opinion, better that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should be ultimately
right..
Whatever else may be said with respect to previous decisions - and it is necessary here to consider the
principals upon which a court should act in particular cases - so much at least emerges as is undoubtedly
beyond challenge, that where a former decision is clearly wrong, and there are no circumstances 20
countervailing the primary duty of giving effect to the law as the court finds it, the real opinion of the court
should be expressed.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278 25
In my opinion, where the prior decision is manifestly wrong, then, irrespective of the consequences, it is the
paramount and sworn duty of this court to declare the law truly....
END QUOTE
.
In my view, and also considering my decades of experiences in litigation, I held it was not my 30
place to judge Mr Geoff Shaw about the alleged conduct in breach of law. However, I have the
understanding that you as a speaker did absolutely nothing to warn anyone as not to publish any
material which might be or be seen as CONTEMPT OF THE PARLIAMENT by seeking to
scandalise a Member of Parliament and by this the entire Parliament.
. 35
I am well known for my ongoing criticism upon many Members of Parliament and former
Members of Parliament as I always seek to rely upon FACTS and not FICTION.

There should in my view absolutely no doubt that the litigation and innuendo saga against mr
Geoff Shaw has been very serious and very damaging to his person, character and likely will also 40
be expressed in the 2014 state election. Hence, I view it is important that as the Speaker as well
as for Denis Napthine as Premier do make public statements that Mr Geoff Shaw is entitled to
the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and that nothing ought to be made out of what
transpired in the Magistrates Court of Victoria as people accused of inappropriate conduct may
seek to resolve matters in certain ways most suitable at the time, but unless and until an actual 45
conviction was recorded the accused remains to be entitled to be deemed innocent.

A former Supreme Court of Victoria judge (when still a sitting judge) made known that the
courts were Business Unit 19 and the government had access to the court computers.
I raised this issue with Smithers, when in Legal Service Commissioner v Harold J ames J ohnson 50
(a solicitor and barrister for 22 years) I represented him ( on 4 occasions) as a Professional
Advocate in proceedings held in VCAT and the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Within our constitutional framework this is unconstitutional as courts are not the third arm of
Government but as the Framers of the Constitution stated they are the third part within the
constitution. Courts should not share any business registration with the government, because no 55
business can adjudicate.

p40 4-6-2014
A 1
st
QUOTE 130721- John Wilson
The Constitutional Matter raised in these proceedings is a re-visit to the
Boilermakers Case, Citation: (1956) 94 CLR 254. ... R v Kirby; Ex parte
Boilermakers' Society of Australia. The High Court Of Australia ruled that a
statutory body that is not a court has no judicial 5
authority and cannot act judicially. An example being the State
Debt Recovery Office (SDRO) of New South Wales Australia cannot
impose any judgement or penalty or fines, which can only be done by a
court. The SDRO is not a court, instead is a private corporation conducting
business/commerce (a statutory body). So the cancelling of car licenses and 10
registrations at the direction of the SDRO to the Road and Traffic Authority
(RTA) of New South Wales, Australia (another private corporation
conducting business/commerce) is unlawful.
END QUOTE
15
Either we have a separate judicial system free from any business registration or we have no legal
judiciary system at all!
.
QUOTE 20
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary 25
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary 30
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or 40
invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) 45
QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-
We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just
interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE
50
QUOTE

p41 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Mr. O'CONNOR: You cannot ask a judge to serve two masters.
END QUOTE
Again:
QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN: 5
When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament,
you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive,
and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
END QUOTE
10
The judiciary (the courts) therefore cannot be within the control of the government, and neither
can the Commonwealth apply any form of taxation upon the judiciary (courts) as this could be
used to induce the judiciary to provide a judgment in favour of the government. As such the GST
business number registration cannot apply to State government nor the judiciary, albeit it can
apply to government businesses such as the railways, as the Framers of the constitution made this 15
very clear! And, also no State constitution can be amended since federation without the approval
of the State electors!

I now urge you (as well as the premier) to make clear statements so that the public may become
aware that Mr Geoff Shaw is entitled to be deemed innocent until proven guilty and it would be 20
inappropriate if not unlawful to smear his person/character as a sitting Member of Parliament.

As the Framers of the Constitution stated
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention) 25
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member
of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a
sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a 30
sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
No matter how much we may dislike certain politicians/governments, we should never lose sight
that we must provide to them the same legal processes as we expect and indeed demand from
them! Justice is served only if we follow the right legal processes! 35

It should be understood that Mr Geoff Shaw has no prior knowledge about my writings in this
correspondence, and will only become aware of the content of this correspondence when he
received a copy via email at the same time as I provide it to you and Premier Denis Napthine.
40


(Our name is our motto!) 45

WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE 50

p42 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Mr Sean Nicholls 21-5-2014
Sydney Morning Herald State Political Editor
srnicholls@fairfaxmedia.com.au

Cc: Joe Hockey MP 5
J.Hockey.MP@aph.gov.au

Mr Tony Abbott MP
Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
10
Mr Clive Palmer
Palmer United Party Admin@PalmerUnited.com

Ref: 20140521-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Sean Nicholls
Sean, 15
as a (self educated) CONSTITUTIONALIST I hold it very important that we understand
each other properly and so will set out matters below. I will set out some matters before going
into details as to the article.
.
I understand that Mr Joe Hockey is suing in regard of the article 20

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-for-sale-joe-hockey-offers-
privileged-access-20140504-zr06v.html
QUOTE
Treasurer for sale: Joe Hockey offers privileged access 25
Political News NSW
Date
May 5, 2014
END QUOTE
30
Regretfully most Australians, including politicians have no proper understanding as to the true
meaning and application of the constitution.
The constitution was designed so that the Governor-General can appoint anyone as a
constitutional advisor and as such assist the Governor-General in running Department for
which they are commissioned. 35
Contrary to the convention that the Governor-General commission the leader of the major
political party holding most of the seats in the House of Representatives, the truth is the
Governor-General appoints whomever he deems appropriate. The first governor-General
commissioned the then Premier of NSW Mr Reid as to form a government for the
Commonwealth of Australia, but Mr Reid returned the commission as I understand it no one 40
wanted to work with him, and so Mr Edmund Barton was then commissioned and he and 6 others
were commissioned as from 1 January 1901. At that time no elections had been held and no
Parliament existed. The constitution provides that a Minister can serve for maximum 3 months
unless he becomes a Member of Parliament.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 45
QUOTE
64 Ministers of State
The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the
Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

p43 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members
of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queens Ministers of State for the
Commonwealth.
Ministers to sit in Parliament
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three 5
months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
END QUOTE

Because with the first election no system existed as Parliament Ministers were not limited to
maximum 3 month period, but after the first federal election they were bound to be a Member of 10
Parliament no later than 3 months after being commissioned.

http://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Fact_Sheets/fact_sheets/fact2.pdf
QUOTE
1901 15
1 January - inauguration of the Commonwealth of Australia
29-30 March - first federal election
9 May opening of Commonwealth Parliament in Melbourne
END QUOTE
20
It is important to understand that a person elected in a general or double dissolution election
doesnt become a Member of Parliament unless and until the writs are returned and the
successful candidate has been sworn in to accept the seat elected for.
Senators who stand for election in a general election are still Senators and so members of
parliament (not in a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION) but Members of the House of Representatives 25
seize to be Members of Parliament when the Governor-General has published in the Gazette a
PROCLAMATION dissolving the House of Representatives.
I do not know if you ever read let alone understood the true meaning and application of the
constitution but just in case you never did so I am quoting below s3 and s66 of the constitution. I
have in bold and underlined as well as in red colour highlighted the wording There shall be 30
payable to the Queen as to ensure I can draw your attention to this.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
3 Salary of Governor-General 35
There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue fund of the
Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament
otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds.
The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office.
END QUOTE 40

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
66 Salaries of Ministers
There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the 45
Commonwealth, for the salaries of the Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament
otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a year.
END QUOTE

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) 50
QUOTE
44 Disqualification
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a
subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; 55
or

p44 4-6-2014
A 1
st
(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced,
for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for
one year or longer; or
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the 5
Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or
(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the
Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an
incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of 10
Representatives.
But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queens Ministers of State for the
Commonwealth, or of any of the Queens Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or
a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queens navy or army, or to the receipt of
pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person 15
whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

As such no person who holds an office of profit can be a Member of Parliament.
No Member of Parliament for holding a seat in the Parliament is permitted to be paid any monies 20
as a salary, but is entitled to an allowance, albeit a Minister of the Crown is entitled to have a
salary payable to the Queen, and as such cannot directly be paid from Consolidated Revenue
Funds. Neither are they employed by the Commonwealth of Australia, and hence not a single
Member of Parliament can receive any superannuation because this would be in violation to s44
of the constitution. And during an election, when not a single person can be a member of the 25
House of Representatives then none of the former Members of Parliament standing for re-
election can have any financial benefits from the Commonwealth of Australia. This means that
Joe Hockey, Tony Abbott, Julia Bishop, Malcolm Turnbull, Bill Shorten and numerous others
who were standing for re-election of the House of Representatives were not Members of
Parliament and in violation nevertheless used their email addresses as purporting to be MPs and 30
using the perks as if they were Members of Parliament.
Senators who stood for election were still during the 2013 federal election Members of
Parliament. But elections should not benefit Members of Parliament and neither should they use
their parliamentarian position to make calls for political issues using taxpayers monies.
. 35
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
QUOTE
Ethics Orientation for State Officials
Misuse of Public Funds
Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes 40
The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that public
funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose when
its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.
Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possesses
only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly. 45
The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not be
expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor are
they authorized.
The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal benefit may
result from an expenditure of public funds. 50
For example, the payment of a public employees salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it is
an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of the employee for public
purposes.

p45 4-6-2014
A 1
st
The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure is not merely
incidental. The term public funds is not limited to money, but includes anything of value belonging to a
public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers, and
fax machines and other equipment and resources.
5
Examples of Misuse of Public Funds
1. In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to purchase items for himself
and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even though those receiving the discount paid for the
items with personal funds.
2. In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county vehicle to transport a 10
political candidate, his staff and family.
3. In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to work on his political
campaign for Lieutenant Governor.
4. In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in connection with official
business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great Falls, Montana and back. 15
Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and civil sanctions.
These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.

State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections 20
There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal use of public funds.
This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot measure campaigns. Following is a list of what
well cover in this section.
Stanson v. Mott
Endorsements and Informational Materials 25
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines
Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns
The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of public
funds in election campaigns.
In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, 30
challenging the directors expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on a
statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concluding that in
the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a
partisan position in an election campaign.
Stanson v. Mott 35
The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: A fundamental precept of this nations democratic electoral process is that
the government may not take sides in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing
factions. A principal danger feared by our countrys founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental
authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....
The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson ...The selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course, 40
raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.
Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a government agency may
endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promote its passage.
Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not
promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign. 45
Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot measure
elections.
1. The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to disseminate information
relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the public with a fair presentation of relevant
information. 50
2. The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable public agencies from
disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such disclosure is full and impartial and does not
amount to improper campaign activity.

p46 4-6-2014
A 1
st
3. To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal treatment to both sides of
the issue.
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger fines from the
Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a
$10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several 5
ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a
neutral and fair presentation of the facts.
Let's Review
TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.
Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible. 10
Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few telephone calls
before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent Governors campaign fundraising
dinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have dealings with the state government on a variety of issues,
may she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.
Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal political purposes rather 15
than for a public purpose.
Let's Review
Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answer questions about
the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend funds for this purpose.
a. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure. 20
b. The materials do not make false statements.
c. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure.
Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of
the measure.
Remember These Points 25
Expenditures must be for a public purpose
Expenditures must be authorized
Public funds may not be expended for personal use
Information must be fairly presented
Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions 30
END QUOTE

Clearly politicians shouldnt use their public office to do election campaigns, pursue political
battles, etc. Ministers are commissioned for no other purpose but to be constitutional advisors
to the Governor-General and manage relevant Departments, irrespective of their political alliance 35
to any political party.
.
QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
The resolutions conclude: 40
An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.

p47 4-6-2014
A 1
st
What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other 5
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE

A Minister must therefore not use his Ministerial position for political purposes or for obtaining
donations or other payments for his political party as this would I view place in question the 10
credibility and standing of the Minister. An y person who is commissioned as a Minister of the
crown is to remain non-political as to exercise his Ministerial position.
.
http://www.rba.gov.au/
QUOTE 15
Welcome to the website of Australia's central bank
The Reserve Bank of Australia conducts monetary policy, works to
maintain a strong financial system and issues the nation's banknotes. The
Reserve Bank commenced
operations as Australia's central bank on 14 January 1960. 20
END QUOTE

http://www.rba.gov.au/about-rba/index.html
END QUOTE
25
About the RBA
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is Australia's central bank and derives its functions
and powers from the Reserve Bank Act 1959. Its duty is to contribute to the stability of the
currency, full employment, and the economic prosperity and welfare of the Australian
people. It does this by setting the cash rate to meet an agreed medium-term inflation target, 30
working to maintain a strong financial system and efficient payments system, and issuing
the nation's banknotes. The RBA provides certain banking services as required to the
Australian Government and its agencies, and to a number of overseas central banks and
official institutions. Additionally, it manages Australia's gold and foreign exchange
reserves. 35
END QUOTE
http://www.rba.gov.au/qa/role.html
QUOTE
Questions & Answers
About Our Role 40
Go To
1. What is the Reserve Bank of Australia and who owns it?
2. How does the Reserve Bank set interest rates?
3. Who is on the Reserve Bank Board and how are they appointed?

p48 4-6-2014
A 1
st
4. Can I open a bank account with the Reserve Bank?
5. What if I have a concern or complaint about my bank or similar financial institution?
1. What is the Reserve Bank of Australia and who owns it?
The Reserve Bank of Australia is Australia's central bank. Its role is set out in the Reserve
Bank Act 1959. The Bank conducts the nation's monetary policy and issues its currency. 5
It seeks to foster financial system stability and promotes the safety and efficiency of the
payments system. It also offers banking services to government. The Bank is a body
corporate wholly owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. For more information see
about the RBA.
END QUOTE 10
While it is stated that the Commonwealth of Australia owned by the Commonwealth of
Australia, it is however known as I understand it a corporation.
I understand that at times Departments or registered entities operating as corporations were
providing political donations to political parties, which I view was fraudulent conduct. It was
using public monies under the guise of foreign affairs to channel donations to political parties. 15
Australasian Convention) (Re Section 96 of the Constitution)
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-It is nicely wrapped up. Any one who reflects upon the conditions which must exist
before this provision can be brought into operation will see that it assumes that the states must be reduced to a 20
condition of pauperism before they can take advantage of it.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What would you do if they were?
Mr. OCONNOR.-I will come to that. Mr. Wise seems to be of opinion that there is some power
implied in the Constitution to give such aid. Now, from the consideration and study which I have been
able to give to the Constitution, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that there is no such power 25
implied. The Constitution is formed for certain definite purposes. There are definite powers of legislation and
definite powers of administration, and the clause that the Right Hon. Sir John Forrest called attention to
just now-clause 81-expressly provides that the revenues of the Commonwealth shall form one
consolidated fund, to be appropriated for the public services of the Commonwealth in the manner and
subject to the charges provided in this Constitution. 30
Mr. WISE-The order and good government of the Commonwealth would come under the term "public
services of the Commonwealth."
Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not agree with the honorable member in his interpretation of the powers of the
Commonwealth, especially when dealing with the expenditure of the money of the taxpayers. In such a
case there will be a great deal of care taken to keep the nose of the Federal Parliament to the grindstone in the 35
matter of this expenditure. I do not think any expenditure will be constitutional which travels outside
these limits. We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution
will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. If any Act were carried giving
monetary assistance to any state it would be unconstitutional, and the object sought would not be 40
attained. That brings me to the question of whether it is desirable that there should be any such power either
expressed or implied. I have no hesitation in saying that it would be a disastrous thing for the future of the
[start page 1109] Commonwealth if there was any such power given.
END QUOTE
45

p49 4-6-2014
A 1
st
If foreign investment or other Departments channelled back to political parties donations under
the cover that it was for foreign investment then surely this should be deemed fraudulent
conduct.

We should also consider that membership referred to in the article somehow appears to be kept 5
secret, and this defies an open government.
As I outlined to Mr Tony Abbott in 20140520-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony
Abbott PM- Re financial issues one cannot have the government dealing in secrecy awarding
contracts, as if it is for public purposes then the public is entitled to known how much of their
taxpayers monies is involved. 10
The document can be downloaded from:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225067265/20140520-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Mr-Tony-
Abbott-PM-Re-Financial-Issues
I understood from reports that at the time Phillip Ruddock as Minister for Immigration was
providing citizenship to people who had donated $10,000 to the Liberal Party. And clearly this I 15
view would be also an abuse and misuse of a ministerial position.

Where then as I understand it Mr Joe Hockey was using his position as treasurer for political gain
and to achieve political donations then I view he was so to say selling himself to the highest
bidder. 20
.
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say 25
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
30
MILLBROOK v. UNITED STATES 11-10362
Millbrook v. US: Holding the Government Accountable for Misconduct by
Law Enforcement Officials

April 01, 2013 35
A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by
anybody.Thomas Paine
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/millbrook_v_u
s_holding_the_government_accountable_for_misconduct_by_la
QUOTE 40
Under the law, the government allows itself to be sued when a government representative commits a tort. A
tort is an act done negligently or intentionally that results in injury to someone. However, if the tort was
intentional, the law does not allow the lawsuit to proceed except in cases where the defendant is a law
enforcement official. And even in those cases, the federal government can be liable only if the officer was
acting within the scope of his office or employment. 45
Although both courts noted that the prison guards alleged behavior was troubling, they ducked the issue and
dismissed the case on the grounds that the federal government has sovereign immunitythat is, although an
egregious wrong may have been committed by a government employee, they cannot be held liable for money

p50 4-6-2014
A 1
st
damages for their behavior. Specifically, the courts reasoned that the FTCA only applies to police officers
while they are in the process of making an arrest or seizure, or executing a search.
Undeterred, Millbrook filed a handwritten petition, in pencil no less, to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in a rare
show of magnanimity, the Court agreed to hear his case and assigned a lawyer to represent him. Curiously
enough, after the Court announced it could hear the case, the U.S. Justice Departmentwhich had defended 5
the governments actions at every level of the judicial proceedings, including asking the Supreme Court not
to take the casedid an about-face and switched its position to argue that the FTCA does apply to prison
guards as law-enforcement officials.
The Supreme Courts subsequent ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is a technical analysis of the
FTCA, to whom it applies and in what circumstances. The bottom line, according to the nine justices in a rare 10
show of agreement, is that the lower courts misconstrued the FTCA, which clearly provides for the
government to be held accountable for wrongdoing carried out by law enforcement officials in its employ
while on the job. (Although even the FTCA, it must be said, is notable for the many exceptions it provides to
shield government officials from wrongdoing.)
Having been given the green light for his lawsuit to proceed, Millbrook still has an uphill battle ahead of him. 15
Indeed, Millbrook has to prove to the lower courts that he was, in fact, sexually assaulted by the guards.
Whether or not his allegations prove to be true, however, his case is a painful reminder that such kinds of
abuses are not only par for the course in our nations overcrowded prisons but are often tolerated by prison
officials.
END QUOTE 20

In my view, a minister who uses his position for financial gain not associated with his ordinary
function ought to be held legally accountable for misuse and abuse of his office. This not only
relates to what was alleged against Mr Joe Hockey but also others of whatever political party
they belong. 25

It must not be overlooked that it was reported that Mr Joe Hockey as soon as he was
commissioned to be treasurer, but several months before the writs were returned and Parliament
sat, he reportedly transferred $8 billion dollars to the Reserve Bank of Australia.
30
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042] as he
pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws for taxation 35
including more than the one subject of taxation, and no proposed Appropriation Bill going outside the
ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be imperatively required, in the
discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any stage of its existence.
END QUOTE 40

Clearly, the 2013 federal election had just been held and yet soon after being commissioned as
treasurer Mr Joe Hockey allegedly transferred such huge sum of moneys to the Reserve Bank of
Australia. Obviously the question arises to me on what constitutional valid basis could he do so?
It couldnt be deemed to be part of ordinary annual services covered by Appropriation Bills that 45
were passed prior to the 2013-2014 financial year in the relevant budge Appropriation Bills
It therefore in my view it is appropriate to question the justification of such large amount of
monies in the circumstances then prevailing. Considering that he was only as I understand it a
mere few days/weeks in the job then this to me stinks as some prior deal made with whomever.
And considering Mr Joe Hockey as treasurer holding reportedly confidential meetings with 50
those who paid for a membership then I view it is questionable if this transfer of substantial

p51 4-6-2014
A 1
st
monies not known to be authorised by Appropriation Bill was a done deal with whomever Mr
Joe Hockey had meetings with?

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-361915/
QUOTE 5
Oct 23, 2013
Australia Gives Central Bank Billions, Citing Global Risks
Government Is Concerned About Potential Global Economic Shocks

Australia's new conservative government gave the central bank a multibillion-dollar cash 10
injection, saying it was necessary to protect the nation from potential global economic
shocks.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 15
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE 20

No one in his right mind would hold that the reported about $8 billion is not a significant amount
of monies that demands clarification. And again, as the ALP was just tossed out of office but the
Ministers were still care taking Ministers for about another week but were in no position to make
any deals, then again it must be questioned by what authority the monies could be paid to the 25
Reserve Bank of Australia.
If we can have a Minister so to say willy nilly transfer or cause to transfer such large amount of
monies without accountability to the people, represented by the Members of Parliament, then the
danger is there that fraudulent conduct might be rife.
Surely any justification to transfer about $8 billion would need careful consideration and that 30
hardly can be deemed to have been applicable within days of being commissioned as treasurer.

Again, expenses not part of the ordinary serviced of a Department must be approved by special
Appropriation Bill.
35
The following email quoted also stated;
QUOTE
Here we have an Australian Central Bank, masquerading as being
owned/controlled by the Federal Government, but in fact is privately
owned and completely independent (read the Australian Banking Act) 40
and in fact, whilst they are quick to point out when asked who owns it,
that the Australian government injected a million dollars to get it
started!
END QUOTE
45
QUOTE

p52 4-6-2014
A 1
st
$8 Billion to the reserve bank of Australia, while people of Australia are in
poverty. (2)
Jim From: kjbart149@gmail.com Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 03:43:56 +1100 Subject: $8 Billion to
the reserve bank of Australia, while people of Australia are in poverty. The link below proves
that all this debt 5
25 Oct 2013
Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
Admin The so-called conservative federal government in this last week gave the Reserve
Bank of Australia 8 Billion Dollars, saying it was necessary to protect the nation from global
economic 10
To CQ FREESTATE TEAMPOLITICIANSCHURCH MILITANT and 2 More...
25 Oct 2013
The so-called conservative federal government in this last week gave
the Reserve Bank of Australia 8 Billion Dollars, saying it was necessary to
protect the nation from global economic shocks. HELLO? 15

Here we have an Australian Central Bank, masquerading as being
owned/controlled by the Federal Government, but in fact is privately owned
and completely independent (read the Australian Banking Act) and in fact,
whilst they are quick to point out when asked who owns it, that the 20
Australian government injected a million dollars to get it started!

So the stupid goyim are indoctrinated and brainwashed to believe that the
RBA is owned and controlled by the Federal Government, when in fact it is
nothing of the kind, it is owned and controlled by the Federal Reserve 25
Bank of America, which in turn is owned and controlled by the
Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Goldman Sachs, and other Jewish international
banksters.

Now this week we have idiot treasurer Joe Hockey, saying that the 30
Federal government has to put $8 Billion back into the RBA to protect the
nation from global economic shocks!

Here we have the Federal government, who was given the funds by the
RBA in the first place, who created it out of nothing - thin air - with the flick 35
of a few computer keys, (which we are not supposed to know, or even
discuss) handing it back to the RBA to protect the nation. What does the
RBA do with it? They cancel it out of existence of course, ready for the next
loan out to the stupid goy government all at interest of course, which
they also create out of thin air! 40

When I went to primary school, this kind of behaviour was know as insanity,
but today of course, we are more educated. Now its called economics!
YEAH RIGHT!
45

p53 4-6-2014
A 1
st
They all should be jailed!

The business by which banks create money out of nothing
is so simple, that the mind is repelled. Prof. John Kenneth
Gailbraith. 5

Admin

------ Forwarded Message
10

Subject: FW: $8 Billion to the reserve bank of Australia, while people of
Australia are in poverty.

15
Subject: $8 Billion to the reserve bank of Australia, while people of
Australia are in poverty.

From: kjbart149@gmail.com <mailto:kjbart149@gmail.com> 20

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 03:43:56 +1100
Subject: $8 Billion to the reserve bank of Australia, while people of Australia are in poverty.

The link below proves that all this debt we have is a total illusion,..... it is just a game of 25
Monopoly.

Australia is giving billions in foreign aid,... While telling its own people that we need to
reduce your pensions and cut back on services. 30

It is interesting to note that the politicians are giving them huge massive wage
increases all the time and have set themselves up with super schemes, that will
give them millions when they leave Parliament.
35

This is what happens when you put politicians in an ivory tower,....who are middle
management for a foreign owned corporation.
40

So our foreign owned corporate government,....has now given monopoly money of $8 billion
to another foreign owned corporation,..called the Reserve bank of Australia, (this is only a
name of a foreign private corporation ). That has a board of directors and shareholders
overseas, it is nothing to do with Australia at all, it is not tied to the government at all,.... It 45
is time for us to wake up to all this hogwash.

Effectively what this foreign owned corporate government of Australia has done is transfer
wealth from the Australian people into the pockets of a foreign multinational corporation
called the reserve bank of Australia that is nothing to do with Australia at all. 50

p54 4-6-2014
A 1
st

On top of this We are paying $16 billion in interest payments on a debt that is a false and
illusionary Monopoly money debt,... We are paying with physically hard earned money,...
This money is going to a foreign corporation from overseas.
5
Our foreign owned private corporate government has also raise the debt limit to $500
billion,(they made a promise before the election to reduce this debt),... So much for
promises... This is also an illusion.

10

The Australian people need to start working together, helping each other out, with no
money in return,... This is the only way we will defeat these money junkies.

15

Politicians and Money Junkies/tapeworms/parasites, are all tarred with the same brush,
these people make a psychopath look like a saint.

20
-----

Australia Gives Central Bank Billions, Citing Global Risks

Government Is Concerned About Potential Global Economic Shocks 25

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By James Glynn
30
24 October 2013

Australia's new conservative government gave the central bank a multibillion-dollar cash
injection, saying it was necessary to protect the nation from potential global economic
shocks. 35

SYDNEYAustralias new conservative government gave the central bank a multibillion-
dollar cash injection, saying it was necessary to protect the nation from potential global
economic shocks. The 8.8 billion Australian dollar (US$8.5 billion) payout would strengthen
the central banks balance sheet when economies from the U.S. to Europe remain 40
vulnerable, Treasurer Joe Hockey said.

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-361915/
<http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-361915/>
45
WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK HOCKEY! YOURE NOTHING BUT AN AGENT FOR THE
BANKSTERS! ERRR GANGSTERS!!!!
END QUOTE

50
QUOTE
On Friday, 16 May 2014 5:31 PM, Jim <jim.sovereign@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

p55 4-6-2014
A 1
st

Both the Liberal and Labor governments are experts at spending and wasting public tax
revenue on themselves without any permission from their employers - the Australian people.

I'm unaware of the federal constitution authorising any government to spend public tax revenue 5
on frivolous things such as campaigns for remote school attendance, rollout of low aromatic fuel
(what b.s.!!), state memorial service (for who and why?), checking news reports on indigenous
issues and other ridiculous excuses to waste public monies.

Over the last 20 years the Liberal and Labor fe'ral morons have probably blown over a billion 10
dollars between themselves on constitutionally unauthorised, and unnecessary advertising,
consultancies and other rorts that the public is mostly unaware of, but indirectly consents to by
continuing to vote for the major parties.

Jim 15

$2.5m consultant, ad bill for PM's dept

news.com.au 20
AAP
May 16, 2014 1:36PM

25
The PM's department has spent more than $2.5 million on advertising and consultants in four
months. Source: AAP

TONY Abbott's department spent more than $2.5 million on advertising, media training
and consultancies in four months. 30

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet spent $244,000 on advertising between
November and February.

The campaigns covered remote school attendance, the rollout of low aromatic fuel, indigenous 35
jobs, staff recruitment and a state memorial service.

Five consultancies or reviews initiated by the department have cost $2.3 million so far, but the
final bills have yet to come in.

p56 4-6-2014
A 1
st

They include a yet-to-be-determined amount for the federation white paper, $1.2 million for the
renewable energy target review and $300,000 for the review of Indigenous Business Australia
and the Indigenous Land Corporation.
5
There was also $620,000 for the "industry investment and competitiveness agenda" and an
internal budget item for the report by the Interdepartmental Committee on Intercountry
Adoption, information from the department released through senate estimates shows.
Media monitoring in the period from December to the end of February cost just under $50,000,
with one contract - for checking news reports on indigenous issues - costing $5000 a month. 10

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/m-consultant-ad-bill-for-pms-dept/story-
e6frfku9-1226920037880
END QUOTE
15
Yet, I am not aware such consultancy fees were approved by special Appropriation Bills.

In my view, it does appear not just that Mr Joe Hockey as treasurer is for sale but that he uis
involved in so to say dealings, etc , that may be involve fraud/fraudulent conduct.
20
In my view the heading Treasurer for sale: Joe Hockey offers privileged access is a
reasonable conclusion I draw also from the conduct of Mr Joe Hockley as I understand it to be.
It should be understood, at least as I understand the membership is about, that it relates to people
paying a membership so they can have a personal meeting with Mr Joe Hockey in his capacity as
a treasurer and not merely because he happens to be a Member of Parliament. In my view anyone 25
who makes a donation should be revealed as to his/her identity, so that in the event such a donor
received a government contract it might clarify some bribery. I understood that Mr John Howard
as Prime minister was involved in providing financial benefits for the Ethanol producers after
they had made as I understand it considerable political donations. Hence the need to have
donations to politic candidates/parties to me required to be reported and any such 30
person/business making a donation is banned for no less than 7 years of being engaged in any
contract with the Commonwealth of Australia, so in the event the party does get into power it
cannot use public monies to so to say filter it back to the donors perhaps 10 fold.
QUOTE
Treasurer Joe Hockey is offering privileged access to a select group including business people and industry 35
lobbyists in return for tens of thousands of dollars in donations to the Liberal Party via a secretive fund-raising
body whose activities are not fully disclosed to election funding authorities.
END QUOTE

Lobbyist clearly have a purpose to advance those they act for and I view a Minister of the Crown 40
who accepts directly or indirectly monies may be deemed to accept bribes.
The above is only a limited set out see also my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
I look forwards to your detailed reply!

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit) 45


p57 4-6-2014
A 1
st

Mr Sean Nicholls 22-5-2014 5
Sydney Morning Herald State Political Editor
srnicholls@fairfaxmedia.com.au

Cc: Joe Hockey MP J.Hockey.MP@aph.gov.au
10
Mr Tony Abbott MP Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

Mr Clive Palmer Palmer United Party Admin@PalmerUnited.com

Ref: 20140522-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Sean Nicholls-supplement 15
Sean,
As an author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and
other legal issues I always keep in mind that one need to do reasonable research before so to say
putting pen to paper.
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good 25
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
Therefore, when criticising a politician like Mr Joe Hockey he should understand that the public
should be able to dissect his conduct. And this includes journalist challenging conduct that may
appear to be inappropriate. 30
If Mr Joe Hockey uses his Ministerial position or even prior to this as a candidate in the political
election as to raise funds for the election then he is in my view guilty of conduct unbecoming to
that if a Minister of the crown. The Governor-General representing the Monarch is not interested,
or better to say, should not be interested the political affiliation any Minister has as long as the
Minister conduct himself appropriately and deal with matters without political bias. 35
QUOTE
Mr. WISE: I can see no other course. It has taken 100 years for the United States to pass a Civil Service
Act, and now it is not of very much value. If we get a party system, and follow it out in the appointment of
civil servants, we will be initiating a system of corruption which would gain strength every day. 40
END QUOTE
In my view no political party should be operating in both Houses of Parliament, this because
there would be a conflict of interest. Senators are elected to serve their respective State interest
whereas Members of the House of Representatives are to represent Australians regardless in
which State (Territories) they may reside. 45
When we look at the bailing out of banks, such as by the Rudd/Gillard government to provide a
government guarantee I view is unconstitutional, as it essentially is to support private
irresponsible corporations with public monies but not for public purposes. (See my blog
www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati as to documentation setting out the issues of public purposes.)
50
There is so much going on that is unconstitutional that basically we need a VELVET
REVOLUTION (not some education revolution that never achieved anything but wasting
billions of dollars unconstitutionally that is).

p58 4-6-2014
A 1
st
If one consider that the constitution is our primary law then consider for a moment where it is
stated that there is such a thing as a shadow cabinet? So, all those who were members of
parliament and were receiving payments as shadow treasurer and other so called shadow
Ministers. In fact by s44 of the constitution those so called shadow Ministers are automatically
disqualified from being a Member of Parliament, this as s44 only exempts actual Ministers of the 5
crown not pretend once. Hence, I view Joe Hickey, Tony Abbott and numerous others were
disqualified to be Members of Parliament and their validity to be now Members of Parliament I
view is questionable. Likewise, currently with Bill shorten and others being Shadow Ministers,
they are in my view receiving financial benefits from the Commonwealth of Australia
(Consolidated Revenue Funds).If Joe Hockey is a governor of the World Bank/IMF or any other 10
foreign organisation then I view by this he is by s44 also precluded from being a Member of
Parliament because he would have obligations and allegiance to another country.
The Framers of the Constitution specifically wanted to oust anyone from the Parliament who
may have allegiance foreign to domestic policies.
I may also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution made known that anyone who would 15
enter Parliament likely would be losing monies doing so as the allowance would not likely be
sufficient to make up the loss of income from an ordinary day job.
Just before the Police dropped the charges against Victorian Geoff Shaw, I wrote to Mr Geoff
Shaw indicating that contrary to public perceptions that he was defrauding taxpayers as to work
in his own business when not in the State Parliament, that in fact this was the legal principle the 20
Framers of the constitution embedded in the constitution, and as the stated by s106 were subject
to this constitution then his conduct as such to work in his own business was actually legitimate
and an example that other politicians rather then so to say ripping off taxpayers with
unconstitutional salaries, they too should accept an allowance which would merely be some
compensation to the loos of income and out of pocket expenses. Any superannuation by 25
politicians from Consolidated Revenue Funds is in my view unconstitutional.
What I view we basically have is not gangs od smugglers but gangs of rip off artist who have
devised a system of elections to limit the commission of a Prime Minister between the leader of 2
criminal gangs referred to as political parties.
It should be understood that I challenged the validity of the 2001 federal election and was 30
railroaded by the High Court of Australia. Likewise when I challenged the validity of the
invasion (then contemplated) in to Iraq on constitutional grounds (Again see my b log at
www.scribd.com/inspecgtorrikati) which was also railroaded by the High Court of Australia
AFTER they fraternized with the first Defendant the Governor-General. Which means their
subsequent decision was without legal validity. However, I was engaged in a protracted epic 35
legal battle with the Commonwealth of Australia as to compulsory voting, and I used this also to
make clear that I held that Mr John Howard was not a Prime Minister after the 3 months after he
was commissioner after the 2001 purported federal election and was a war criminal who
committed crimes against humanity, mass murder, etc and so those who were participating with
this. During various hearings I was able to defeat the Commonwealth on issues such as using 40
averment. The Magistrate ruled against the Commonwealth on this. In the end the matter came
before the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 and I comprehensively defeated the
Commonwealth in both appeals, without the commonwealth challenging any of my about 50
submissions based on constitutional issues, including that compulsory voting is
unconstitutional. While I understand that the court closed the files, I had already on 6 July 2006 45
published a book that included all material I had filed in the County Court of Victoria
proceedings and on my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati a copy of a correspondence is
published showing that I succeeded in both appeals.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights 50

p59 4-6-2014
A 1
st
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3

CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC

As far as I am concerned, and considering the Commonwealth of Australia didnt challenge my 5
submissions, I hold that not only Mr John Howard but also those who so to say aided and abetted
with him, such as Ministers at the time, including Mr Tony Abbott, Mr Joe Hockey, Ms Julia
Bishop and numerous others all therefore committed crimes against humanity, mass murder, war
crimes, etc, and none should be in Parliament. In m my view George bush (former president of
the USA) and Mr Tony Blair (former Prime minister of the UK) both also could be indicted as 10
associates to Mr John Howard to commit those crimes., even so in their own countries they may
be deemed to have been authorise to act as they did.

It would not be appropriate to add reams of documentation onto this correspondence where I
already published the material extensively in my published books of which one is referred to 15
above, albeit I will quote some details of what I had placed before the County Court of Victoria

It seems to me to be very odd that while I submitted in court and maintained this all along and it
was never challenged by the Commonwealth of Australia (nor by an y of the Attorney Generals
of the States/Territories who all had been served with the s78B NOTICE OF 20
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS) that I held John Howard and those associated with him in
the unconstitutional invasion into Iraq committed an unconstitutional invasion, war crimes,
crimes against humanity, mass murder, etc. and yet never did they even attempt discredit or
otherwise challenge me about it.
ADDRESS TO THE COURT 25
County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE

WHAT CONSTITUTES A RELIGIOUS OBJECTION?
30
&

UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION/DISABILITY

& 35

Communication, or there lack thereof, by CDPP (Prosecutor)

In May and June 2006 the Defendant provided the Commonwealth Director of Public
Prosecutions with correspondences which included most of the submissions the Defendant 40
intended to make to the Court, including for a PERMANENT STAY of orders, and also about
religious objection, seeking the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to consent to a
PERMANENT STAY of the proceedings relating to the charges. However, having done so,
the Defendant then is faced with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions being for
warned as to what the Defendant intends to do in most issues and as such may seek to counteract 45
those arguments. It is not the counter argument itself that the Defendant is worried about, but the
deceptive conduct employed in the past by the lawyers acting for the Australian Electoral
Commission in their litigation to the extend as to deliberately replace words in what is claimed to
be an Authority being quoted as to pretend to the Court that a judge made a certain ruling even so
the ruling is a fraudulent version to deceive the Court. Such as Mr Peter Hanks QC did before the 50
Federal Court of Australia and later again made a deceptive statement to the High Court of
Australia.

p60 4-6-2014
A 1
st
For example, checking the transcript of the hearing, it is noted that Mr Peter Hanks QC in his
argument in point 22 and 22.1 of the OUTLINE stated the following;

QUOTE
22 In Foster v J ododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred 5
to the general rule that not less than so many days refers to clear days unless the
context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention.
END QUOTE
His quotation is again false and misleading!
10
Mr Peter Hanks QC quoted of the judgment the following;
QUOTE
unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention
END QUOTE
This ought to be; 15
QUOTE
unless the context or the subject matter reveals a contrary intention
END QUOTE

Clearly, that is a gross deception. In legal terms there can be a significant difference in a case for 20
the Court to deal with a statutory intention versus subject matter.

Mr Peter Hanks QC stated to the Court (7 November 2001);

The researches of counsel have been unable to find provisions using simular language (not 25
less that or at least a number of days) where the language is as clear and specific as
found in ss156(1) and 157.

Thousands upon thousands of Internet references can be found upon a search shall not be less
than or shall not be less that. As such this statement by Mr. Peter Hanks QC for the 30
Australian Electoral Commission was a fraudulent statement. Likewise other statement were
found by the defendant to be deceptive and/or misleading.

We also have the fact that Counsel Mr peter Hanks QC argued the authority of the
35
ASSOCIATED DOMI NI ONS ASSURANCE SOCI ETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD
(1950) 81 CLR 161
What counsel did however was to make a false and misleading presentation of what the case
really was on about. 40
As the authority stated:

The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which
was too short by one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position.
45
Mr Peter Hank QC didnt argue that the authority wasnt relevant, to the contrary he argued its
relevance only by misrepresenting how it applied and what the authority really was on about. As
such, it had nothing to do with within as Mr Peter Hanks QC argued as clearly the usage
within was in a different context and not at all as Mr Hanks sought to imply and did imply.
50
It ought to be considered a serious matter that a barrister employs these kind of tactics, indeed
deceptive tactics, but it seems the Australian Electoral Commissioner does not seem to worry
about the means as long as it achieves his end results.

p61 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Because I expect the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to come up with any
nonsense and unable to verify the correctness of any claims they may make about any
AUTHORITY they may refer to I am left no alternative but to present my own research.
Lawyers are OFFICERS OF THE COURT but I experienced that when it comes to the
Australian Electoral Commissioner being the instructing party then it seems to me from 5
experiences their oath of alliance is worthless and they cannot be trusted, as set out also further
in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT.

It is my view, that had Mr Peter Hanks QC not concealed matters and not presented fraudulent
Authorities and how they applied then the Federal Court of Australia would not have ruled that it 10
had no legal jurisdiction, and would in fact have granted the orders I sought. And in the end this
case would never have eventuated before this Court as then matters could have been addressed
appropriately before any federal election had been held!

I take the position that Subsection 245(14) of the Constitution is not and cannot be regarded to 15
limit the right of a objection to be only a (theistic belief ) religious objection but includes also
any secular belief objection.

If Subsection 245(14) was limited to being theistic belief then it would be unconstitutional.
20
QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
Melbourne Office, 22
nd
Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 25
GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
T01567737 & Q01897630
AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
30
Re; religious objection (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)
offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.

Madam,
As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate 35
that while using the religious objection referred to in subsection 245(14) of the
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an objection
only to an theistic belief based religious objection but in fact it also includes any secular
belief based religious objection, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses as grounds for
an objection. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of 40
Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only theistic belief based religious
objections. Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source of
religious objection have a valid objection.
Neither do I accept that a person making an religious objection requires to state his/her
religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a religious objection as the 45
mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a
religious objection. Therefore, the wording religious objection is to be taken as objection
without the word religion having any special meaning in that regard.
If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard. 50

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006

p62 4-6-2014
A 1
st

QUOTE 7-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 7-6-2006
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 7-6-2006
C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer 5
Melbourne Office, 22
nd
Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
T01567737 & Q01897630
AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 10
Re; Charges, etc
Madam,
With proceedings due next month, I view it would be more appropriate if you were to
make some effort as to communicate with myself regarding matters relating to the charges and
indeed the legal justification of them. After all, the Commonwealth Director of Public 15
Prosecutions may be litigating against many people allegedly failing to vote, besides myself, and
it may be born out by my material that none of such litigation could be constitutionally valid. In
my view, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions must consider ALL RELEVANT
MATERIAL as to ensure it is not pursuing vexatious charges.
I assume that while you are a lawyer, more then likely you are not a constitutionalist, and as 20
such may lack the experiences and competence to understand and comprehend the material I am
relying upon, and for this you may do better to perhaps seek to consult a constitutionalist who
is appropriately trained in these matters. After all, if a constitutionalist were to conclude that
indeed I am on the right track that the charges have no constitutional validity then you could
surely save the Courts time to hear and determine vexatious charges or even to try to attempt to 25
do so.
Albeit, I am still working on the DRAFT version of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT, it
nevertheless is already comprehensive and would indicate to a constitutionalist that the charges
are ill conceived and without any constitutional bases to proceed with, and as such I am willing
to provide an electronic copy to you of the DRAFT, albeit not completed, version so you may 30
perhaps seek advise of a constitutionalist.

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
END QUOTE 7-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 7-6-2006
35
Firstly, I do wish to quote Section 117 and then 116 of the Constitution, both being relevant;

117 Rights of residents in States
A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject
in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would 40
not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen
resident in such other State.

Despite this, the Defendant continues to find that he is excluded from accessing High Court of
Australia, Federal Court of Australia and other AuslII.edu files. This despite ongoing complaints 45
filed via the Victorian Government, High Court of Australia, Federal Court of Australia, etc.

It appears to the Defendant that this denial of access to judgments has been to try to limit the
Defendant to have relevant Authorities for litigation on foot.
After having filed a complaint via the Victorian Government then for about 2 weeks access was 50
enabled, only to be excluded again, as such, it is a deliberate conduct to prevent me to research
judgments on record so as to frustrate me in legal proceedings.
I view that this is in breach of Section 117 of the Constitution.

p63 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Because of this deliberate blockage to access Australian Authorities I am forced to rely often
upon US Authorities. In view that in the USA there is also a prohibition to legislate in regard of
religion then the equivalent Authority can be relied upon.

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion 5
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth. 10

As shown below in greater extend the question of the Defendants religion itself would be an
invasion as to his rights. Further, there is no requirement to state any particular religion as the
matter in U.S. Supreme Court.
15
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust 20
under the Commonwealth.

WELSH v. UNI TED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNI TED
STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970 25

1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra,
and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who
in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual
analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training 30
and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized
worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that
provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by 35
exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief
while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with
that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from
a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the 40
longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than
nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who
have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.
END QUOTE
45
ADDRESS TO THE COURT
QUOTE
And;
50
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml

p64 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious
exemption letter and support materials provided in the following link:

Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation 5

Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and
practices of a recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member.
However, the law does not require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing
your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged. 10

And
Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than
required by law. You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or
daycare. The law allows you to submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet 15
the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to describe your
religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
And
Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely
unfamiliar with the law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by 20
deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are betting on the fact that you don't know
your rights.

What appears to be clear is that a religious objection is not qualified to a specific religion and
neither can be as this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be 25
associated with any particular religion as this would also interfere with Section 116 of the
Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the religious objection Subsection 245(14)
of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious person as this
would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNI TED
STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the religious objection applies 30
as much to non religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her
personal reasons to vote clearly is entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion
mentioned.

Again, because I have been prevented from researching judgments of the High Court of Australia 35
and other judgments in general which are under control of AusLii.edu I am unable to research
that avenue as to locate simular judgments within Australia judgments.
Still, for purpose of this case, I should not be denied the benefits of my research, where I am
wrongly excluded from my constitutional rights to access Australian judgments.
40
When the Australian Electoral Commissioner provided me with a fact sheet No. 17 about certain
decisions, I checked out the relevant judgments and responded to the Australian Electoral
Commission that none of those judgment were relevant. Since then I discovered having been
excluded from access High Court of Australia and other judgments.
45
I may state that when I am able to obtain certain website addresses of High Court judgments then
at times I ask others to download it for me and to email it to me. They have no problem to access
the web-address I provide them with even so I cannot access the same, which I understand is
because my computer has been blocked to access the websites. As such, it is not a error in web-
address (as others can access it for me) but a deliberate blocking me out. 50
Obviously I cannot expect others to download thousands of cases for me, and neither should this
be the way for me to obtain access to judgments that are published on the Internet or available
through the internet normally.

p65 4-6-2014
A 1
st
It merely underlines that the deliberate blocking out of my computer to access judgments for my
research is to FRUSTRATE me in presenting my case before the Court in a manner I desire with
relevant Australian judgments.

I view, this in itself is a denial of a FAIR and PROPER trial! 5

In my view any judicial officer should take it very serious that this kind of tactic is employed to
prevent a party to litigation being able to present his case with relevant Australian authorities to
be referred to as much as possible.
END QUOTE 10

ADDRESS TO THE COURT
QUOTE
The Defendant submits, that even so he does not require to state his religion and neither which 15
part of his religion is relevant for a religious objection as it can be a secular objection, he has
religious objections and one is that THOU SHALL NOT KILL where Mr. John Howard
unconstitutionally authorised the murderous invasions into Afghanistan and Iraq. How on earth
could anyone expect me to vote by preference voting for what I consider a mass murderer and
one who committed treachery, treason, sedition and committed crimes against humanity, and by 20
this voting for anyone who supported the war, such as members of his political party.
My right to abstain from voting could not be denied, neither be punished.
Likewise, in regard of the 2001 election where unconstitutionally, against International
obligations, such as the maritime report in regard of the sinking of the Titanic it is unlawful to
allow or to send any boat or ship away that is unseaworthy. Yet, we had the Government using 25
the navy to do so and refugees drowning in the process. We had the Australian Federal Police, a
law enforcement agency, being involved in what was claimed to be conduct to discourage people
smuggling, but it was being to prevent refugees to come to the Commonwealth of Australia, and
in the process we had the sinking of SIEV X, with 363 people aboard of which 146 children, on
19 October 2001. 30

The Defendant submits, that no one in his right mind could enforce any unconstitutional voting
electoral laws to force me to vote against me. I value human life to precious and it is my peaceful
way to protest against this kind of conduct.
The Defendant submits, that the Court rather seeking to enforce unconstitutional legislation 35
against the Defendant it would do better if the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
were to occupy the Courts time instead to have Mr John Howard and others facing the Courts as
to their unconstitutional and otherwise illegal conduct.
To disregard the, what I consider plain murder of refugees, by towing their unseaworthy boats
back into the sea and so leave the occupants left to the perils of the sea in my view is 40
unacceptable and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, so to say, ought to get his
act together and pursue those responsible for their day in Court. After all what are laws for if
those in power can unconstitutional authorise a murderous invasion and get away with it?
While the Australian Federal Police, as the Defendant understands it, seeks to excuse themselves
that they paid people to discourage refugees from coming to the Commonwealth of Australia, 45
in the defendants view, where any person acting so then goes to the extend to tamper with boats
causing the death of many, then the Australian Federal Police must be held accountable for their
deeds.
For this also, the Defendant holds that no one could demand nor expect that the defendant was to
cast a vote that could be utilised then by any person involved in such criminal conduct as to 50
claim to have the support of the people in view of the votes cast.

p66 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Because it is a preference voting system, the vote of an elector could turn out to go to a person
they never really wanted to vote for by the preference counting still could be.
The Defendant submits, that if the elections were held in a manner that an elector could vote for
the number of candidates he desire, and once those choices are exhausted then the vote simply no
longer is used, but because a preference voting system requires a voter to list all candidates, the 5
elector is by this robbed of a FREE election.
As a candidate, I opposed the murderous conduct against refugees in 2001 and for this also was
entitled not to vote where the major parties appeared to support the conduct to tow unseaworthy
boats in breach of Australian law, as well as International Law, back into Indonesian waters
regardless that people died as a result. 10
Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates [page 354]
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-
It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular
feeling of a particular state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it
would become the duty of every citizen to exercise his practical power of nullification 15
of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences against it. That is a means by
which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its condemnation
of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was
originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of
the states which should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the 20
power to interfere and prevent the citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence
of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by this Constitution.
Every person in this case include also any judicial officer!
The Defendant submits, that therefore that no judicial officer having made an oath of office
could in any way whatsoever cause a conviction against a person who stands up against tyranny 25
and murderous conduct and other inhumane conduct for the advance of human rights and
humanity at general.

This Court, as all Court uses the Bible so people can make an oath when giving evidence, then
this Court cannot act contrary to the teaching of this Bible, THOU SHALL NOT KILL, and 30
somehow seek to punish me for doing what any humane person does and that is to refuse to join
and/or support in any way (including voting for) a group of callous murderers, where they are
using their powers to authorise the killing of so many.
END QUOTE
35
ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 2
QUOTE

40
In my view, DUE PROCESS OF LAW does not mean that the judicial officer, such as the
magistrate on 17-11-2005, can disregard objections by refusing to deal with them!

p67 4-6-2014
A 1
st

FORCED TO VOTE FOR BOTH HOUSES AND DENIED TO VOTE FOR ONE AT THE
TIME, REGARDLESS IF ONE ELECTION MAY BE INVALID

Another is sue is that where I object even to, say, one election being held, such as the Senate for 5
the time periods in the writs being in breach of legal provisions, and hence the writ are invalid
and without legal force, then there would be no option for me to go to a polling booth, if that is
what I desired, to vote for the House of Representatives, if I were to hold that the writs were
valid, because the Australian Electoral Commission has simply put a system in place, that one
must vote for both the Senate and the House of Representatives at the same time, and denies any 10
elector to vote for one in one way and for the other another time or not at all.
There is no legislation in place that allows the Commonwealth Electoral Commission to
terrorise, as I view it to be, electors to force them to vote at the same occasion, as constitutionally
and also by the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, even if both elections are held
on the same date, they are for all purposes two different elections. 15
An elector may have travelling plans within the state and already having made up his/her mind
about who to vote for in the election governing House of Representatives may then do early
voting. However, the elector may desire to seek to find out more as to the candidates standing for
the Senate and may therefore elect not wanting to vote for the Senate until the day of election
being held. Constitutionally, and indeed legally, an elector is entitled to do so but for some 20
ridiculous strange reason the Australian Electoral Commission refuses this to be allowed, as the
marking off by staff of the Australian Electoral Commission governs allegedly both elections at
the same time, regardless if the elector only desired to vote in the one election.

Likewise, the legislation requires that there shall not be less than 10 days in regard of the 25
nominations for the House of Representatives. Because this is a period of 10 day it means that
weekends cannot be counted, as I have extensively already canvassed in my material already
filed in previous held proceedings that are now before the Court. Yet, one find that on one
occasions the election was called on 24 December and the Australian Electoral Commission
nevertheless applied the shall not be less than 11 days (as then was) even so the public 30
holidays and week end the offices were closed. The Australian Electoral Commissioner who
specifically is appointed to ensure elections are being conducted according to law it the very
culprit to deny this to occur.

Hence, it is then remarkable that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions rather to 35
have those absurd abnormalities addressed and corrected nevertheless continue vexatious charges
against me the elector would be denied to later vote in the other election held the same day.
In my view the Australian Director of Public Prosecution should perhaps rather pursue charges
against the Australian Electoral Commissioner for acting unlawfully in holding elections
contrary to legal provisions. 40

Elections are being held for the benefits of the electors so they may choose, if they desire to do
so, a legal representative to act for them, and not that elections are to be held in such manner that
the Australian electoral commissioner can avoid having to work on weekends at the peril of
electors and candidates finding the offices closed during the very period provided for in the 45
relevant legislation shall be not less than. The very term shall not be less than is by
numerous Authorities around the world held to be to be a continuous period with the exception
of where it is 10 days or less as then the weekends are not counted as being included in the
number of days.
50

p68 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Therefore, besides the issue of the proclamation having been published after the writs were
already issues and as such no writs in regard the House of Representatives for this was valid and
so with legal force as no vacancies existed to issue writs, the writs also failed to have the
incorrect time period on them, in conflict of what the relevant legislation provided for. And even
if we were to overcome these problems the conduct of the Australian Electoral Commission to 5
close its offices during the shall not be less period of 10 days also causes the elections not
being held according to law.
A problem is that the Australian Electoral Commission in its publications refer not to the relevant
time table of the State Senate legislative provisions but rather to the time table of ordinary State
elections, and by this deceive electors, candidates and the Government alike. 10
In my view the Australian electoral commission conducting elections and having the supervision
of it is a conflict and as I experienced ongoing the Australian Electoral Commission seems to be,
so to say, hell bend to use all legal trickery to circumvent matters to be heard upon their merits
and have matters appropriately addressed rather then to, so to say, sit at the table with any
objector and seek to rectify any of its wrongdoing. 15
People who are by law entitled to nominate as a candidate, being within the legislated period to
do so are nevertheless denied by the Australian Electoral Commission to do so because the
nomination period is shortened by 1 day or more.
As the Australian Electoral Commission has admitted to prepare thew writs for the governor-
General then clearly it itself was the cause of writs being incorrectly issued and cannot therefore 20
rely upon the Governor-General and Governors having issued DEFECTIVE writs, as they were
all the product of the deceptive (if that is the right word for it) conduct of the Australian Electoral
Commission to advise of elections time table.

We then have the added issue of the Australian Electoral Commission to deny an elector to vote 25
for each election separately!
In that regard there can be NO CASE TO ANSWER, as to any charges, as by the
FRUSTRATION caused by this all I am, as like others, prevented to exercise any rights (if they
were to exist) to vote in the manner as provided for by the Constitution and/or relevant
legislation. 30
END QUOTE

QUOTE 35
As I view it, the Commonwealth of Australia is seeking to brainwash the Australian
community at large by pretending that naturalization is becoming an Australian citizens this
even so at time of federation the Framers made clear that aliens who had paid their POLL tax
would retain their Colonial (now State) franchise, and so would obtain upon federation
Commonwealth franchise by being then also Australian citizens. 40

On personal and religious grounds also I would never vote in any election that involves people
who are warmongering and send troops out to in effect murder children in their beds by an armed
invasion, dropping bombs in discriminatory on their residence, merely for political gains, such as
was occurring in Iraq. In particularly not where I have extensively campaigned against the 45
unconstitutional and illegal conduct of such armed invasion involving Australian troops.

As a self educated constitutionalist I for one have a decent perception as to what the Framers
of the Constitution intended, and it certainly aint warmongering, as indeed they devised a
Constitution to seek to avoid any Jack-in-Office to act unilateral without proper cause. 50
END QUOTE

p69 4-6-2014
A 1
st

QUOTE
In my view, any judicial officer who were to contemplate let alone convict me would act in 5
derelict of his duty, and contrary to the very intentions of the Framers of the Constitution who
made clear that they wanted a structure of peace and indeed expressed this in Section 51 by using
the wording;
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have powers to make laws for the
peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to; 10

for the record, I am the only person who formally applied to the High Court of Australia to issues
within Section 75(v) a Prohibition and mandamus against various Ministers , such as in regard of
what I hold is the unconstitutional detention and/or deportation of refuges and children born to
them who are by birth Australian born (British nationals) and wrongly deported as Stateless, 15
the issue of citizenship and such as the issue of the unconstitutional deployment of troops for
an armed invasion into Iraq. On 11 February 2003 the Registrar refused to accept the application
on the basis that it was not according to the Rules of the Court and recommended certain changes
to be made, which I complied with and on 18 February 2003 presented the amended applications
as per her directions. Hayes J then the next day on 19 February 2003 refused to accept the 20
application for filing and as I understand it claiming the application was not according to the
Rules of the Court, even so it was prepared as directed by the Registrars format. Gummow J
upheld the ruling of Haynes J subsequently.
On 18 March 2003 I then lodged in the High Court of Australia a new application that basically
pursued those three above issues, and left off other applications, albeit now supported by about 25
800 pages of supportive documentation addressed in the various points and backed up by
relevant Authorities and Hansard quotations. Haynes J on 19 March 2003 (The day the armed
invasion commenced into the sovereign nation Iraq) again refused the application to be accepted
for filing, and Gummow J later upheld this decision also. Yet, I understand Kirby J then, so to
say, put a call out to lawyers that they should seek to challenge the validity of the citizenship 30
legislation.
Still, the fact that I opposed the unconstitutional armed invasion into a sovereign nation (Iraq) is
therefore on Court file. I can do no more but to lodge applications and if any Court refuses to
hear and determine applications upon their merits then that is something that is beyond my
powers to overrule, other then that I can expose this. Constitutionally however, there is no power 35
for the High Court of Australia to refuse to hear and determine upon its merits any application
involving the interpretation of the Constitution as the Framers made clear that an application
must be heard.

Mr. LYNE: I think I may say that we do not want to see in future generations either a
successful or an unsuccessful revolution. We want in this democratic country to lay the
foundation of a constitution on which ultimately the voice of the people must be heard and
must predominate. If you frame any other constitution you may depend upon it you are
laying the foundation of trouble that we little know of or heed at the present time. 45

In my view, we might very well end up with a revolution if people are robbed ongoing of their
constitutional rights and subjected to unconstitutional and other illegal demands and the Court
are acting in a manner that is interpreted to condone such unconstitutional and/or illegal conduct.
Indeed, the framers of the Constitution time and again warned against this! 50
END QUOTE

p70 4-6-2014
A 1
st

QUOTE
In the proceedings before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg on 16 and 17 5
November 2005 the Prosecutor at no time did cross examine the Defendant in that case, when
advised the staff of the Australian Electoral Commission did not issue any ballot papers, if this
was because of having been made or being aware of any religious objection. The Prosecutor
neither cross examined if the Defendant had not been issued with ballot papers because of having
declared perhaps that he had already submitted a postal voting or was to do so that day. And I 10
raised this with the magistrate that the Prosecutor had failed to address this!
As such, what we had was a conviction where even if all issues regarding validity of citizenship,
writs, proclamation, the appointment of Governor-Generals, etc were all overcome somehow by
the Prosecutor, something I view is beyond his capacity to get around, then in the end his own
usage of the averment rule is FATAL to his case as he could not now in cross examination call 15
witness , such as staff members of the Australian Electoral Commission to give evidence that
either they denied any religious objection having been made or otherwise any postal voting or
pre voting was recorded.
For example, in regard of the 2004 purported federal election, standing as a candidate, I was
known to refuse to indicate a preference vote as I opposed the murderous unconstitutional 20
invasion into the sovereign nations Afghanistan and Iraq and did not wish to be seen to support
this by giving preference vote indications which may be seen that somehow I supported this
humanitarian disaster and warmongering. Hence, it was therefore critical to the Prosecutors case
if perhaps the staff member sitting at the table when my wife and I attended at the polling station
may have been aware or have been made aware that I opposed any kind of involvement as to the 25
murderous invasions and as such was not issued any ballot papers on that basis.
I was well aware during the proceedings that it didnt matter for me to give whatever evidence as
ultimately having made a NO CASE TO ANSWER the magistrate was bound by this to
reconsider then if in light of the subsequent evidence his earlier ruling to dismiss my submission
of NO CASE TO ANSWER was found to be proven where I presented a reasonable excuse that 30
I had attended to the polling station and as such it was not for the Court to try to score some
conviction where the Prosecutor himself had elected not to call witnesses who could have
clarified what occurred that day.
Again, it was not for the magistrate to assume what may have occurred that day where the
Prosecutor himself refused to call witnesses whom could have elaborated on what had occurred 35
on that day! The Defendant was denied the option to cross witnesses in that regard as there were
none who could have shed light on this and as such the Prosecutor taking the gamble to prevent
the defendant to question any staff of the Australian Electoral Commission by this had
overplayed his hand, so to say.
END QUOTE 40

QUOTE
This ADDRESS OF THE COURT could not possibly detail all matters in full detail, and is 45
neither intended to do so, as it would take thousands of pages to do so, but already ought to give
ample of indications that the purported elections were never constitutionally and legally valid.
Thereby, I am aggrieved also that I am, as like other Australians, robbed of having a duly elected
government, both in 2001 and in 2004.
We may never have had the murderous armed invasion into the sovereign nation Iraq, had an 50
election in 2001 been rescheduled to be held according to constitutional and other relevant legal

p71 4-6-2014
A 1
st
provisions as this may have resulted to a different political party being in power who would not
have been, so to say been warmongering.
Neither would likely many unconstitutional legislative provisions have been enacted and as such
the conduct of the Australian Electoral Commission, so its lawyers, to prevent a valid election to
be held is a very serious matter then cannot and neither must be ignored. 5

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has placed before the Court matters as to
seemingly enforce Commonwealth law, and so this court then is placed in a position to address
matters in a appropriate judicial manner, even so this might not particularly be what the
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions had anticipated, or had in mind. 10

The fact that the Printer had on some of the delivery documents recorded that the despatch of the
Special Gazette was on 9 October 2001, even so the very document shows to have been printed
on 10 October 2001 also may indicate that on the face of the evidence already presented during
past proceedings there is justified concern that something serious untowards in elections 15
occurred. Only a unbias proper investigation may establish the truth of matters.

On 2 November 2001 I appeared before Finkelstein J of the Federal Court of Australia and His
Honour then directed for me to serve documents for the first respondents also on the Australian
Government Solicitors. This I did on 2 November 2001 and I filed an Affidavit sworn 5 20
November 2001 setting out what had occurred and the acceptance by the Australian Government
Solicitors of service for all respondents.

During a subsequent hearing before Marshall J of the Federal Court of Australia, Mr Peter Hanks
QC appeared as Australian Government Solicitors counsel and made known to the Court that he 25
was representing the Australian Government Solicitors, the Commonwealth would accept any
order made and didnt disclose anything he ought to have disclosed to the Court as to that the
AGS had not notified the first Defendants. He certainly didnt notify the Court of allegedly
having been unable to receive instructions from the Governor-General, as Mr Stephen Lucas,
Senior Executive Lawyer with Australian government Solicitors claimed in his 9 August 2002 30
faxed letter to me. That letter was in view of my appearance before the JSCEM hearing in
Windsor Hotel on 12 August 2002 as a witness, in view of past correspondence.

Mr Lucas in that 9 August 2002 letter then claimed that the AGS didnt accept service for the
Governors. 35

Obviously, if Mr Lucas had been correct, which I contest, then it would have been required that
Mr Peter Hanks QC would have contested my 5 November 2001 affidavit material of service as
to have made known to the Court that the AGS contested it. This was not done.
Neither did Mr Peter Hanks QC advise the Court that the AGS had been unable to obtain 40
instructions of the Governor-General!

As such, the UNCONTESTED evidence before the Court then was that the AGS had accepted
service for all Respondents.

p72 4-6-2014
A 1
st

While I am aware that there might be an issue that proper service ought to be done upon all
Respondents themselves, in the circumstances of limited time etc, it appears to me that His
Honour Finkelstein sought to have such urgent matter speedily done with, and as such, I view,
was entitled to make known that service on the AGS, if they accepted, would be sufficient. 5

The AGS simply could have refused to accept such service, this they didnt and neither, as stated
previously, did they object on 7 November 2001 before Marshall J about the service upon them.

The AGS could have contacted all first Defendants and then all first Defendants could have 10
simply decided to have their own legal representatives, in view, as now appears to me, there was
a conflict of interest for the AGS to act for the AEC and for all first Defendants and the
Commonwealth.

This, as all first Defendants had issued writs that stated according to law, whereas the AEC 15
and the Commonwealth sought to have elections in breach of law and the writs were incorrectly
drafted.

From the transcript at pages 8 and 9 of proceedings before Finkelstein J on 2 November 2001
Federal Court of Australia!; 20

MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA; Im not necessarily, at the moment, disputing the election.
Im disputing the writs.

HIS HONOUR; I understand. 25

MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: So thats different, sir. At least nobody say Im crying sour
grapes for not winning whatever an election ---

HIS HONOUR; Because you havent lost yet. 30

MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA; Thats right. I havent lost yet. Im doing before it.

It must therefore be clear that I was contesting the validity of the writs, not the election(s) itself!
35
As such, Marshall J on 7 November 2001 arguing otherwise clearly ignored the true issues before
the Court.

Extensive communication occurred since the proceedings with the Solicitor-General of Tasmania
but to no avail in the end. 40

It appears that there is a general misconception that as the election was held that is the end of the
injunction sought!

I offcourse have no such view. 45

The issue is that I contested the writs and I requested the court to order the reissue of the writs!
As such, if the writs are unconstitutional/unlawful and are ULTRA VIRES, then it makes not one
iota difference if any purported election had been held as simply the purported election was
technically never occurring. 50

p73 4-6-2014
A 1
st
The validity of the elections is pending upon the validity of the writs!

As such, if I can establish that the writs are defective and so ULTRA VIRES, then that is the
completion of my case and my injunction sought then is as valid now as was then!
5
The injunction also sought other relief about issues that are still current, such as, to stop the
Australian Electoral Commission to publish false and misleading details.

.V1145/2001 7.11.01 P-21 10
Commonwealth of Australia
Commission has the option of making a new date which (indistinct) prime
minister or return the writs. That was not done. So that's what I'm saying. The
Australian Electoral Commission also in my view had no power to close the
offices on Saturdays and Sundays. 15
5
HIS HONOUR: Have you seen Mr Hanks' written outline? Can I direct you
to paragraph 14 of that, page 3. He raises issues there as to why section 383 in
the circumstances of this case doesn't invest this court with jurisdiction. What
is your response to what is said there? 20
10
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: Well, your Honour, section 353 is, as I stated - - -
HIS HONOUR: As I take it, you rely on section 383.
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: I have here, your Honour. 15
HIS HONOUR: And Mr Hanks says why, in short compass, you can't. I'm 25
just interested in your response to that.
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: Your Honour, it is my view that section 353 is 20
subject to the alteration made since by parliament by section 383.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, I understand that.
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: Therefore I am saying that the validity of the 25 30
election in itself cannot be held (indistinct) Australian electoral commissioner
can ignore the rules of law of the Electoral Act. Therefore I'm saying that is
not the validity of the election in itself which is disputed after an election has
been held. Then you dispute the validity. What I am disputing is the process,
your Honour, and the conduct. 30 35
HIS HONOUR: I understand.

I repeat;
40
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: Therefore I am saying that the validity of the 25
election in itself cannot be held (indistinct) Australian electoral commissioner
can ignore the rules of law of the Electoral Act. Therefore I'm saying that is
not the validity of the election in itself which is disputed after an election has
been held. Then you dispute the validity. What I am disputing is the process, 45
your Honour, and the conduct. 30
HIS HONOUR: I understand.

Further;
50
.V1145/2001 7.11.01 P-22

p74 4-6-2014
A 1
st
governor-general?
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: What I'm saying, I have sought - request, that is
called, because it may not be an order - request the governor to reissue writs.
That can only be a request but - - - 5 5
HIS HONOUR: Are you seeking that I make any orders against any governor
or the governor-general?
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: No, I understand that. 10
HIS HONOUR: You're not?
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: No, I understand that. I have it in my wording 10
"request". I use that wording "request". But what I'm saying is that the 15
injunctions for 383(1)(b), "in any case the electoral commissioner" - it is very
clear that the parliament understood that if the Australian Electoral
Commission is in breach of this act, someone can go to court and take them to
account. 15
20
HIS HONOUR: No, what's said there is that they can take a case.
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: I beg your pardon?
HIS HONOUR: What's meant there is that they have the standing to bring the 25
case here. 20
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: Sorry, I can't hear your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: It simply indicates that an injunction may be sought to 30
restrain certain conduct on the application of, that is, the initiative of, a
candidate or the Electoral Commission.
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: That's right. Now, I'm saying here on the 25
applicant of the candidate, which I can, right? 35
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: As I said previously, the Australian electoral
commissioner has only been given power under this act to act in accordance to 40
the act. Therefore I'm saying, your Honour, where the Australian Electoral 30
Commission now is in making an offence against this act or any other law of
the Commonwealth, which is the Constitution, which I quoted before in my
affidavit, therefore this court has the power to make an order for an injunction
against the Australian electoral commissioner not to proceed with an election. 45
HIS HONOUR: But if I had jurisdiction to do that, why would I do it in 35
circumstances where all the Australian Electoral Commission is doing is
complying with a timetable that resulted from acts made by governors and the
.V1145/2001 7.11.01 P-23
governor-general? 40
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: No. The electoral commissioner is by law bound
to apply to law, not to a political decision, therefore his priority is an obligation
to the legislator, which is the act. 5
HIS HONOUR: But the steps that have been taken in accordance with the
timetable that has been made has got nothing to with the Australian Electoral 45
Commission.
10
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: No, but a timetable of the writs itself, as I
indicated before, is a political decision, not an executive decision.
HIS HONOUR: But it's not a decision by the Australian Electoral 50
Commission. 15

p75 4-6-2014
A 1
st
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: No, but therefore he is not bound by it when it
conflicts with the Australian Electoral Act. So if the Electoral Act dictates a
different version, then the Australian Electoral Commission is bound to comply
with the act, because otherwise the prime minister could say, "I'll have an 20
election tomorrow." 5
HIS HONOUR: So you say that the Australian Electoral Commission is
engaging in conduct which constitutes a contravention of the act - - -
25
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: Exactly.
HIS HONOUR: - - - by continuing on with the election in circumstances 10
where the steps taken by the governors and the governor-general were illegal?
30
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: And also by engaging in conduct which is not by
the writ but having closed its offices over Saturdays, Sundays. Despite having
been notified by me that they were breaching the act, they have continued to do 15
so. There are various other issues I have raised, such as having people
canvassing on the property of the electoral office commission when people are 35
doing voting. So they are canvassing there on the property, which is improper.
So there are a quite a few issues that I've raised, but basically what Im saying
is this court has jurisdiction because the Australian electoral commissioner is 20
not bound by the writ in itself because that can be withdrawn. His prima facie 40
responsibility is to the legislator, to the act. I believe that whether or not the
writs are having a date is a secondary issue, but it could not override the
commissioner's obligation to the parliament, because if this court were to
accept that, then what I'm saying is that a political decision of one person, 25
which happened to be the prime minister, would override the wishes of the 45
legislators which is done by the joint parties.

The writs do no more but to facilitate the election process and must facilitate the election 30
process within the terms of legislated provisions applicable. The Governor-General has no
Constitutional Powers whatsoever otherwise to direct the holding of any elections in breach of
legislative provisions. The Governor-General as such is bound by constitutional limitations to
issue writs according to law. Likewise so the Governors, where they stated in the writs
according to law. 35

Perhaps the following may indicate the bias of the Court in the proceedings;

.V1145/2001 7.11.01 P-20 40

HIS HONOUR: I understand what you're talking about. I want to be
addressed on jurisdiction.
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: Yes. So - - - 30 45
HIS HONOUR: Don't steal the show.
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: What I - - -
35
HIS HONOUR: This is my show - - -
50
It doesnt make sense to me for any judge to make such a comment!

p76 4-6-2014
A 1
st

Then the same with Finkelstein J on 2 November 2001;

.V1145/2001 2.11.01 P-8
Commonwealth of Australia 5

HIS HONOUR: But if you speak to the Australian Government Solicitors 30
office, then you probably will avoid the need of going to the governor's house
or sending the process server - - -
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: Yes, I understand that, your Honour. 10
35
HIS HONOUR: If you try and do that, you'll probably get arrested or
something.

I repeat; 15

HIS HONOUR: If you try and do that, you'll probably get arrested or
something.

That my 5 November 2001 sworn Affidavit that was before Marshall J stated (and this was not 20
contested by the Australian Government Solicitors at the time of the hearing);

4. That for the above stated, I filed the Form 4 on the 2
nd
day of November 2001
without any provisions of ORDERS SOUGHT, albeit I indicated in the supportive
affidavit, sworn on the 2
nd
day of November and filed the same day, that I sought 25
certain orders, such as indicated in paragraph 8 and 16 of the said affidavit.

5. That His Honour indicated that it was better to serve the Australian Government
Solicitors as quick as possible, and as the hearing concluded about 4 PM (thereabout),
I attended to the Australian Government Solicitors office (thereafter), and was 30
advised that the Director would attend to me. I asked for the name of the Director to
be written down for me, and I was handed a note, which appears to show the name of
the Director to be Mr Martian Brulkand.

p77 4-6-2014
A 1
st
6. That Mr Martian Brulkand referred to the Governors being stated as respondents, and
I indicated that I sought the Australian Government Solicitors to accept service for the
Governor General and all Governors of the States in view that the said Governors all
acted upon instructions of the Governor General to issue Writs. I further indicated that
the heading included for the Commonwealth of Australia also for the Australian 5
Electoral Commission. Upon this, the Director accepted service of the documents,
which were filed on the 2
nd
day of November 2001 and were before His Honour
during the EX PARTE proceedings.

It is obvious that neither on 2 November 2001 or during the proceedings before Marshall J the 10
Australian Government Solicitors indicated not accepting or having accepted service for all
Respondents!
Indeed, the claim by Mr Lucas that he couldnt obtain instructions from the Governor-General
rather indicates that the AGS accepted service for the 1st Defendants!
However, if Mr Lucas claim was true of not having been able to obtain instructions from the 15
Governor-General then clearly all Mr Peter Hanks QC had to do was to inform the Court of this
on 7 November 2001. But he did nothing of that sort!

.V1145/2001 2.11.01 P-7
Commonwealth of Australia 20
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: The form 4 indicates that I am seeking,
your Honour - - -
HIS HONOUR: If you want to tell people that you'll be asking for final relief 5
on that day, you should say so. If you're going to ask for directions on that
day, you should say so. If you want to ask for interlocutory injunctions on that 25
day, you should say that, because when the people come along to court, they
must know what it is is going to happen on that day.
10
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: I'm seeking in here that the writs be declared
defective and void and of no effect. I've also asked then, if the court does make 30
that step - or I've indicated in my affidavit that I would seek orders by this
court, if that's feasible, that those people who have done postal votes et cetera
maybe the court may make a special order to say that those votes still will be 15
acceptable for the re-issue of the writ. I don't know whether that is possible
within the powers of the court. But we're trying to do is to avoid a lot of 35
problems which I've tried to do for the last two weeks with the Prime Minister,
if he had done it.
20
HIS HONOUR: I suppose if you have the election put off for a couple of

p78 4-6-2014
A 1
st
weeks, that'll cause a few problems.
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: I look at it this way, your Honour. If there is no
doubt, and the election goes ahead at a huge cost and then the parties already 25
knowing about whoever is going to lose then - "hey, listen, he gave us a nice
trigger. We can go to court." Then we have to have a new election. That's 5
even worse. So it is from two bad positions, I think this is the best way to
solve it before we have the election. Now, your Honour, if you wish, I can also
of course file those documents on Monday in the High Court. But we have 30
then two courts - that whichever is applicable. I don't think that is sensible
because ultimately this matter has to be heard. If it's not by the Federal Court, 10
it would be the High Court. But if it's after the election, it would be the High
Court as court of dispute of return. But all I'm seeking, your Honour, at the
moment is that if your Honour believed that Mr Schorel-Hlavka seems to have 35
at least a genuine basis there what he's arguing on - I'm not asking you to judge
whether or not am I right. 15
HIS HONOUR: I won't.

I repeat;

MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: I'm seeking in here that the writs be declared 20
defective and void and of no effect.

.V1145/2001 7.11.01 P-19
I may invite you to go to page 10 of the affidavit that was sworn on 25
2 November. At the bottom part of the page it shows the Associated
Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v Balmford (1950) 81 CLR 161.
HIS HONOUR: 2 November. Was that the one that was filed with the 5
original application?
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: That's correct, your Honour. 30
HIS HONOUR: What page again? 10
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: Number 10, your Honour, and I'm referring to the
lower part of that page, Associated Dominions. The court there painstakingly
referred to dates and also it says, if I may quote a short paragraph:
15 35
In the present case the documents served allowed for a period of 14
days next ensuing after 2 May 1948. The period would expire at
midnight 16 May 1948. The document ought to be dated 30 April,
but it was served on 3 May. A period of 14 days from 3 April
would expire at midnight on 14 May, but a period of 14 days from 20 40
3 May would not expire until midnight 17 May. Therefore the date
of the notice in the act means the date which the document bears on
its face.
Your Honour - - - 25
HIS HONOUR: I understand your argument. 45
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: What the court is saying.

p79 4-6-2014
A 1
st
30
HIS HONOUR: Excuse me. Don't speak while I'm speaking to you.
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: Sorry.
HIS HONOUR: I understand your argument. I understand what it was saying 35
about the timing. Can you now answer Mr Hanks's jurisdictional issue. 5
MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: So, your Honour, what I am saying is that - so
with the jurisdiction is that issue, right. I've covered it well. What I'm saying
is that even so those writs may have given certain directions to the Australian 40
electoral commissioner, under the act he had to act. That is how he is
empowered. He failed to act in accordance to the legal provisions of the act. 10
So it is my view that the Australian electoral commissioner could have gone
back to the prime minister and indicated when the Australian Electoral
Commission was notified by me to have the writs withdrawn and reissue new 45
ones with the appropriate date. The Electoral Commission however decided in
its wisdom not to do so, the prime minister either. 15
It's my view, your Honour, that irrespective of what stated in the act, the
.V1145/2001 7.11.01 P-20
electoral commissioner must act in accordance to the act, because the writs are
issued by the prime minister, which is a political decision, not an executive 20
government decision. Therefore it would be an offence to the legislators if a
prime minister of the day, whether caretaker prime minister or not, could
short-cut an election in breach of what the parliament has decided. 5
The decision the prime minister makes of the setting of the election date, the
setting of the nomination date, has nothing to do with executive government. 25
The only decision he as a prime minister makes is that he must call an election
within a certain period. But when he calls it is purely a political decision. 10
Therefore the Australian electoral commissioner has an obligation to the
government, to the parliament, to the legislation, to ensure that if there is
something wrong with the writ he then will not act according to the writ but 30
return those writs and request the prime minister to maybe reissue them, but he
cannot act contrary to the act. 15
Now, a further issue is, your Honour - what I'm trying to indicate is this: I
shall show that the Electoral Commission has undermined also the provisions
of the act by closing on Saturdays and Sundays. Hypothetically, if the prime 35
minister would have called an election on 23 December - - - 20

I repeat;

What I'm saying 40
is that even so those writs may have given certain directions to the Australian 40
electoral commissioner, under the act he had to act. That is how he is
empowered. He failed to act in accordance to the legal provisions of the act.
So it is my view that the Australian electoral commissioner could have gone
back to the prime minister and indicated when the Australian Electoral 45
Commission was notified by me to have the writs withdrawn and reissue new 45
ones with the appropriate date.

Therefore the Australian electoral commissioner has an obligation to the
government, to the parliament, to the legislation, to ensure that if there is 50
something wrong with the writ he then will not act according to the writ but

p80 4-6-2014
A 1
st
return those writs and request the prime minister to maybe reissue them, but he
cannot act contrary to the act. 15

Before both Marshall J and Finkelstein J of the Federal Court of Australia I set out that the
reissue of writs was what was required. 5

Because the governors and governor-General had issued the writs, it seems correct to have them
included in the case as Defendants.

The Governor and the governor-General each pursued the writs to be issued according to law. 10
As such, it appears that there was no intention by either the governor-General and/or any
Governor to issue a writ in breach of applicable legislative provisions.

There is however a further matter to be considered;
15
The publication of the writs, the timing of issue of the writs etc.

From the submission of Australian Electoral Commissioner Mr Becker to the JSCEM it is clear
that the AEC prepared the DRAFt writs for the Governor-General merely upon having received a
press release and not at all first to have official notification and awaiting the publication of the 20
proclamation of the prorogue of the parliament and the Dissolution of the House of
Representatives.

p81 4-6-2014
A 1
st
As such, there was no official form of preparation for the DRAFT writs to be correct. The AEC
as such rather then to check dates validity according to legislative provisions have admitted to
the JSCEM they rely upon the issue of a press release.

In my view, the governor-General ought to be well entitled to accept that where the AEC 5
prepares the DRAFT writs then the AEC would be competent to check the correctness of any
time table according to applicable legislative provisions. Also, that as the Commonwealth (so the
AEC) has the modus operandi of the Senate elections then the AEC would be competent to
ensure that the elections dates were appropriately to consider a coincidental election for the
Senate. 10

What is however shown is that the AEC was incorrectly publishing in the Pocket Handbook of
Elections on Page 27 the incorrect State legislations, not those relating to Senate elections but
State ordinary elections. As such, the AEC lacking apparently any internal check and balancing
system has gone about for years without realising it was referring to the incorrect electoral laws. 15

The Prime Minister of the Day, calling an election relies upon the information published by the
AEC and as this information was false and misleading, also on the AEC website, the Candidate
Handbook etc, the AEC not only misled the public, the Commonwealth and the Government but
also itself. 20

Mr Becker as Australian Electoral Commission did apparently everything but to organise the
conduct of elections according to law.

p82 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Even the closure of electoral offices during the weekends and public holidays was contrary to the
legislative provisions of shall not be less than as by this in 1983 the by-election was reduced
by a massive 7 days!

However, as I see it, the gross incompetence wasnt just with the AEC but also with other 5
Departments.

For example I discovered that Gazettes were not at all simutaniously issued throughout the
Commonwealth, rather that in some States no Gazette was publishe at all as such.
10
Take for example Special Gazette S421 that was to publish the Proclamation of the Prorogue of
the parliament and the dissolution of the House of Representatives. It was never published as
such in either New South Wales or Tasmania!

It must be clear that writs issued by the Governor-General are on a State basis, and as such, the 15
publication of the Special Gazette must be done on a State by State basis (Territories are quasi
States).

WATSON v. LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374
20
"Where any statutory rules are required by any Act to be published or
notified in the Gazette, a notice in the Gazette of the rules having been
made, and of the place where copies of them can be purchased, shall be
sufficient compliance with that requirement." (at p379)
25
6. The primary means of notifying the terms of a regulation which has been
made is by its publication in full in the Gazette. What is required by HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s48.html" s. 48

p83 4-6-2014
A 1
st
(1) is notification of the regulation, not of the fact of its making or of the
date of its making. In my opinion, the notification of a regulation involves
the bringing to notice of its actual terms. Thus, in my opinion, HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s48.html" s. 48 (1) of
the HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/" 5
Acts Interpretation Act really requires the terms of the regulation to be
published in the Gazette. It must be accepted that such publication places the
citizen in the position of being able to inform himself of the terms of the
law by which he is to be bound. (at p379)
10

Meaning, that unless the Proclamation can be proven to have been provided for sale to the
citizen, there was never any publication on 8 October 2001! If there no publication on 8 October
2001, then the issue of the writs also was not constitutional possible!
15
As you are well aware, in view of your evidence given to the JSCEM) I am currently having
litigation against the Australian Electoral Commission, the Commonwealth and all Governors as
well as the Governor-General before the High Court of Australia!

Again also; 20
It must be accepted that such publication places the
citizen in the position of being able to inform himself of the terms of the
law by which he is to be bound.

Meaning that the Gazette must be actually published in every Member State to be effective! 25
Writs are being issued for each member State separately and cant be constitutional valid unless
first a writs in regard of the Proclamation was first Gazetted in that member State.
Details now obtained under the FOI Act, albeit with about 8 months delay, shows that at no time
was Special Gazette S421 containing the Proclamation actually published in New South Wales or
Tasmania! In Canberra it was on 9 October 2001, In Victoria 10 October 2001, and so on! 30

As such, each and every writs was issued PRIOR TO the proclamation being actually published.

PM - Monday, 19 September , 2005 18:42:00
Minchin renews voluntary vote call 35

MARK COLVIN: The Federal Minister for Finance, Nick Minchin, has renewed his call
for voluntary voting in Australia.
And
ALEXANDRA KIRK: But the Prime Minister hasn't sought fit to do so, so far. 40

NICK MINCHIN: Well his personal view, I know, and he's expressed it publicly, is that he
thinks you shouldn't be guilty of an offence for not voting.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: But he accepts the system as it is. 45

NICK MINCHIN: Well it's a question of whether the Coalition parties and Members of
Parliament are prepared to agree that when we go to the next election, we should propose to the
people that you no longer be forced to vote and then if we're successful at the election, then we
look to introducing that in the next term of parliament. 50

p84 4-6-2014
A 1
st
ALEXANDRA KIRK: Has the Prime Minister given you any indication that he'd be willing to
do that?

NICK MINCHIN: We haven't discussed it. I think it's a matter of letting the debate ensue, and
testing the waters, and seeing what the views are within the Coalition. 5

ALEXANDRA KIRK: And have any of your colleagues in the Coalition given you any cause for
optimism?

NICK MINCHIN: Oh there are many, many Liberals who share my view, from the Prime 10
Minister down, so I hope we can build a consensus around what is a very liberal position on this
issue, and that we can give Australians the right that New Zealanders have.
END QUOTE

It should be clear that I placed matters before the courts and in the end comprehensively defeated 15
the Commonwealth of Australia and as such entitled upon the benefits of the judgments. Hence, I
am entitled to hold that the failure of the Commonwealth of Australia to challenge my
submissions such as the unconstitutional invasion into Iraq therefore was implied conceded.
.
I wonder therefore why on earth would Mr Joe Hockey pursue you about the article: 20
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-for-sale-joe-hockey-offers-
privileged-access-20140504-zr06v.html
QUOTE
Treasurer for sale: Joe Hockey offers privileged access
Political News NSW 25
Date
May 5, 2014
END QUOTE
While what I stated in court and not challenged by him either was I view far more serious.
30
While we seem to have all kinds of Royal Commissions including about the death of 4 installers
in the insulation debacle, the murder/deaths of so many innocent people in Iraq and SIEV X
somehow not requiring Royal Commission. One may ask why not, after all we have Australian
soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and if their deaths were on unconstitutional
grounds and in vein then surely a Royal Commission I have requested for so long is a necessity. 35

Im might be, albeit wrongly, deemed that I am just pursuing the coalition when in government,
and so to make clear that I am not I will also include 2 correspondences (now before the Royal
commission in regard of the insulation debacle) proving that on 15 February 2010 I wrote to
Prime minister Kevin Rudd as to dangers. It was not until 19 February 2010 that the insulation 40
installation scheme was abandoned and then I requested for a Royal Commission.
I understand that Mr Kevin Rudd gave evidence that he was not advised about dangers regarding
the home insulation scheme, but clearly my emails prove he was and still continued for days after
this instead of immediately aborting it.
45
QUOTE

On Monday, 15 February 2010 6:03 PM, "info@pm.gov.au" <info@pm.gov.au> wrote:
Thank you for your message to the Prime Minister at www.pm.gov.au.
50

p85 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Below is a copy for your records.

Responses prepared to your message will generally be emailed to you. If you
have supplied a postal address, a response may be sent to you via Australia
Post. In some cases, your message may be forwarded to other Federal Ministers 5
for their consideration.

This is an automatically generated email. Please do not reply to this email
as this address is not monitored. If you have any problems with this service
please contact the Web Administrator through the site feedback service at 10
http://www.pm.gov.au/Site_Feedback

Submitted on 15 February 2010

Title: Mr 15
First Name: Gerrit Hendrik
Last Name: Schorel-Hlavka
Email Address: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Street Address: 107 Graham Road
Suburb/City: Viewbank 20
State: Victoria
Postcode/Zip: 3084
Country: Australia
Subject: DUTY OF CARE - Minister Peter Garret - etc
Comment: 25
Kevin Rudd PM
.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
Kevin, 30
With the issue about the death of several installers of foil the first issue
is under which constitutional powers is the commonwealth provision this
funding?
.
After all, as the Framers of the Constitution stated: 35
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power. 40
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on 45
the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE 50
Mr. ISAACS.-The court would not consider whether it was an oversight or

p86 4-6-2014
A 1
st
not. They would take the law and ask whether it complied with the
Constitution. If it did not, they would say that it was invalid. They would
not go into the question of what was in the minds of the Members of
Parliament when the law was passed. That would be a political question which
it would be impossible for the court to determine. 5
END QUOTE
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I didnt detect any provisions that authorised the
Commonwealth to legislate as to environment! I invite you to point out where
this is provided for, just in case you can read something that doesnt 10
exist in the copy of the constitution that is for sale by the Government
Printers?
.
Further, the question ought to be ask if there was culpability by Minister
Peter Garret for the death of installers. 15
.
.
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just 20
advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the
form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall
be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of
the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong
they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. 25
END QUOTE
.
.
the issue first of all is if the minister acted within constitutional powers,
and as I stated above I view he didnt. 30
.
Also while a minister ordinary cannot be held legally liable for the conduct
of private companies, nevertheless he has a DUTY OF CARE that where he
basically is flooding the market with monies and he knew or should have known
that this would create a shortage of qualified installers, and as I 35
understand it was notified of this also, then he should have stipulated that
no Commonwealth funding could be claimed if the insulation was installed by a
person not properly trained and not qualified for the job.
.
In my view the Minister could reasonably be aware that by flooding the 40
insulation business with a lot of money there would be likely businesses who
would seek to have short cuts in disregard of the safety and wellbeing of
installers.
.
In my view a Minister neither can disregard various criterias such as that 45
in older homes, mice and other rodents may have chewed through electrical
wiring and as such placing foil on it will create a danger zone not just for
the installer but also for the people in the residence. Hence, any funding
should have been coupled with certain conditions that would ensure that only
safe installation practices were being used and that any installation into an 50
older residence first had to be having an assessment by an electrician if the

p87 4-6-2014
A 1
st
conditions of the wiring of the residence were in suitable condition.
.
While the usage of foil might be reasonable safe is appropriately installed
with caution, it is another matter where the conditions of the electrical
wiring is such as to have decayed over time. Further, with rodents and other 5
animals liking the chew upon electrical wiring they then can use the foil for
nesting under neat of it and the foil creates a breeding ground for rodents
and make it more of a hazard then to eliminate any dangers.
.
When more then two years ago there was this solar panel business promoting to 10
have the government discount installation, upon closer inspection I
discovered that it would be cutting down on average a persons electricity
bill bey a mere 25 percentage (And that if you had an all day sun shine on
the plates as otherwise it be far less!) and the installation itself would be
guaranteed for merely a bout 4 years. On that basis the huge cost out of my 15
own pocket wasnt even worth to undertake this, let alone the cost to the
Federal government. My view is and was all along that monies are being
squandered left, right and centre.
.
I doubt if the Minister has any clue at all about what is to be addressed 20
before installing any kind of insulation material?
.
I used to be (more then 30 years ago) an insulation consultant and was too
well aware that you cannot install fibreglass in homes where over time the
house is settling and then cracks appears and the fibre glass will slowly get 25
into cabinets containing food and clothing and then cause problems to the
people using this residence. As one person made known to me then they had to
move out of a house because the fibre glass was coming into all cabinets,
etc. With an allergy then the occupiers have no house at all to reside in.
have you tried yourself to lay onto fibreglass bats and see if you were 30
getting a rash? Most people wouldnt have a clue about this danger until
after it is installed and then it is too late!
.
I found that the blow in type of insulation, provided it is quality material
was generally the best kind of material to be used as it deter also rodents 35
and in case of a fire does at times prevent the house to burn down because
the blow-in type of insulation acts as a fire retarding material and closing
of the air to the fire. And for the record I have this all along in the roof
also! The problem might be that over time it settles and needs a so to say
pop up which would be far lesser costly if contractors doing this were to 40
charge the appropriate cost involved. What we have however is that many
property owners are charged more then what it appropriate because with any
roof one has to deduct at least 10 percent due to the beams space usage,
which is not being insulated! You find however that most companies are not
deducting this 10 percent but in fact are calculating more then the actual 45
roof size is and so make huge profits, albeit fraudulently.
.
Also, with installing foil one should warn a property owner as to any
problems that may arise when an electrician has to work in the roof and
having to locate wiring may have to rip away any foil that might be covering 50
electrical wiring.

p88 4-6-2014
A 1
st
.
There is so much more to it and yet it appears to me that Minister Peter
Garret was more about this astronomical handout of moneys of the taxpayers
then to first make him self aware of all technical and other issues
associated with it all and to ensure that any funding used would be for any 5
WELL INFORMED property owner!
.
I seek you to place this correspondence in the hands of the Auditor-General
so his office can inspect how many federal government jobs were funded but
never done, were over charged, were not properly completed, etc. 10
.
In my view, those who lost their love ones should sue Minister peter Garret
in private capacity for having funded the project without lawful authority as
the constitution doesnt provide for such legislative powers regarding
environment and also for failing in a DUTY OF CARE. 15
.
Gerrit
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
. 20
15-2-2010
END QUOTE
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/6827578/garrett-to-suspend-insulation-scheme/
QUOTE
Garrett to suspend insulation scheme 25

Yahoo!7 February 19, 2010, 1:11 pm
The Federal Government's home insulation scheme and the solar hot water rebate scheme have
been scrapped, Environment Minister Peter Garrett has announced.
They will be replaced by a new household renewable energy bonus scheme, Mr Garrett said. 30
The changes follow accusations by the opposition that Mr Garrett has ignored repeated warnings of
safety problems with the insulation program, which offered a rebate of $1200 to people who install
thermal insulation in their homes.
Four insulation installers have died since the scheme was introduced 12 months ago.
The old insulation and rebate schemes will end at close of business today, Mr Garrett said. 35
Installers were told of the decision before the announcement.
One installer said companies had began receiving messages from the Government that the
program would be put on ice.
END QUOTE
40
QUOTE

p89 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Email to the Prime Minister [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
info@pm.gov.au Snippet unavailable
To Me
26 Apr 2010
Thank you for your message to the Prime Minister at www.pm.gov.au. 5

Below is a copy for your records.

Responses prepared to your message will generally be emailed to you. If you
have supplied a postal address, a response may be sent to you via Australia 10
Post. In some cases, your message may be forwarded to other Federal Ministers
for their consideration.

This is an automatically generated email. Please do not reply to this email
as this address is not monitored. If you have any problems with this service 15
please contact the Web Administrator through the site feedback service at
http://www.pm.gov.au/Site_Feedback

Submitted on 26 April 2010
20
Title: Mr
First Name: Gerrit Hendrik
Last Name: Schorel-Hlavka
Email Address: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Street Address: 107 Graham Road 25
Suburb/City: Viewbank
State: Victoria
Postcode/Zip: 3084
Country: Australia
Subject: Request for documentation/material - ROYAL COMMISSION -etc 30
Comment:
Kevin Rudd PM
.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
. 35
Kevin,
It is my understanding that when a 14-year old Aboriginal girl was pack raped
(Queensland) you were allegedly involved in the destruction of documents.
(Heiner affair).
. 40
Today ABC Four corners presented the Home Insulation fiasco and about matt
Fuller being the first person to die by electrocution.
.
More then 3 decades ago I was a insulation consultant and as such have a
certain understanding about home insulation (as I wrote to you about 45
previously).
.
the four corners program did mention 4 items of correspondences that were
forwarded by Mr peter Garrett to your office and I request that you provide
me with copies of those 4 items of correspondences as after all we do not 50
want the same to have happen as happened with the 14 year old rape victim
case of investigation that documents were destroyed.
.
I may use the opportunity that while at times destruction of documents might
be lawful if however it is done by conspiracy to pervert the course of 55
JUSTICE then the destruction as such can be an unlawful conduct.
.
Hence, now that I have requested you formally to prove me with copies of the
documents you will be aware that I have a valid lawful claim for this.
. 60
If you are not willing to just like that to hand them over then consider the

p90 4-6-2014
A 1
st
request to be one under the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT and I request that all
charges and fees are waived.
After all you are employed by the taxpayers and as a constitutionalist I do
desire to remind you of the following:
. 5
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of
that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the 10
people.
END QUOTE
.
Do understand that in view of my request it would be unlawful for you now to
order any destruction of the documents and/or have anyone else to destroy the 15
same and, so to say, I would recommend you place a battalion of soldier
around the documents to safeguard it against anyone who may seek to destroy
the documents as I for one will not be too kind to disregard any willful
destruction as I would pursue to hold you legally accountable as you should
as the pm have enough sense to ensure the documents are now safeguarded and 20
copies are on record so that at all times copies will be available.
.
I understand from the comments made by the parents of Matt Fuller that you
didnt have the common decency to apologize for the death of their son, and
I urge you to at least show appropriate compassion towards them as after all 25
it was their only child who now has died.
.
Personally I view it as blatant stupid for anyone to use iron staples in
roofs or under a house to affix foil and view that the commonwealth did
better to provide grants for alternative material to be used as staples that 30
will not conduct electricity.
.
More over, I view it is also stupid to use foil where there are electrical
wiring because wiring tend to decay over time and so electrify the foil when
this occurs. 35
.
The Four Corner program also showed that bats were ripped in half and clearly
this is a fraudulent conduct as to charge for whole bats when only half of it
was used.
. 40
Also, again having been an insulation consultant I am aware that the roofing
area that exist must be reduced by 10% because of bats and blow-in type of
insulation going between the beams and the beams themselves take about 10% of
the entire roof space! Also, using any foil onto beams in the roof means that
whenever an electrician subsequently has to work there he has to rip up the 45
foil and this defeat the purpose of insulation also. Hence, foil should be
fitted underneath the beams holding the roof-tile and not on the beams
themselves that are holding the ceiling plaster.
.
When I saw how the little old lady had her roof bats basically left on top of 50
the beams and she already had roofing insulation (pink bats) prior to this
then clearly this was irresponsible and dangerous, as well as a total rip off
because no such insulation was needed.
.
It seems to me that it was not at all about creating jobs rather to create 55
millionaires as much seemed to be a rip off. I understand a call center was a
insulation registered business who then engaged a electrician as a
subcontractor who then as I understood it engaged basically staff who were
ill equipped for the job.
. 60
As I recall it you made known that the buck stops with you, but after 4
deaths you didnt resign and as such it seems that after all you are not

p91 4-6-2014
A 1
st
taking any real responsibility for the utter mismanagement of not just
taxpayers moneys but more over having directly or indirectly been involved in
such conduct that resulted not only in numerous houses to burn down but even
people being killed.
Is this the kind of responsibility you are willing to take to ignore even an 5
appropriate apology to the parents of the death?
.
One issue that was raised was that installers needed to have light when
installing insulation material. Well, they do sell inverters in most hardware
stores that you can charge up and then when the power is off you can use the 10
inverter to run a 240 Volt lamp of. Also, I use battery charged neon lights
so that I can use them whenever I need to work in darken areas in the roof
at home and have no electricity available. As such, I view the government
having thrown all that money around without making clear there were to be
safety protocols to be followed then I view the government must provide for a 15
ROYAL COMMISSION to investigate matters.
.
I request you to ensure a ROYAL COMMISSION is held into the entire affair as
after all people died and perhaps more may die as a result.
. 20
Gerrit
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
.
26-4-2010 25

END QUOTE
I am well aware about the Federal Court of Australia ruling against Mr Andrew Bolt, albeit I
view that that the court failed to appropriately consider the constitutional/legal rights of Mr
Andrew Bolt. As once the Supreme Court of Victoria itself when overturning a conviction 30
against an Aboriginal man made clear that he may look and talk like an Aboriginal but the court
(below) failing to establish that he was an aboriginal therefore the conviction couldnt stand.
One therefore must ask how can you establish if a person who looks like an Aboriginal actually
is one? How do you establish that a Caucasian looking person is or is not an Aboriginal? I
understand that in Tasmania they tried DNA testing but that turned out to be useless. 35
One also has to ask why would a person from mixed races referred to as a being an Aboriginal,
where one of the parents was Aborigine, but somehow not referred to the other parents race or
nationality?
While some people may like to take me on about my writings, the problem to them is that I have
a right to exercise my freedoms and even the courts recognise this when I severely criticise them. 40
Only once, when I was acting as a Professional Advocate (now retired) in the Francis Colosimo
case was it that a judicial officer had called in government solicitors to pursue me for contempt
of court regarding publications criticism this judical officer. But, I was never charged because I
made clear that I was well entitled to express my views and expose the wrongdoing of this
judicial officer. And I succeeded in getting rid of the administration orders in a successful appeal 45
and also of the contempt proceedings against Mr Colosimo.

If therefore one can legitimately criticise the courts then politicians should not be above a robust
communication as to their honesty and integrity.
If they prefer to be in a glass house then they should not be in a parliament let alone be a minister 50
of the Crown.
.
When we consider what Mr Tony Abbott stated during the September 2013 election period and
what now was done with the budget (Itself overdue by many months as it should be submitted to
the Parliament about 6 months prior to the financial year commencing as to allow the 55

p92 4-6-2014
A 1
st
constitutional process associated with it ) then I view Mr Tony Abbott clearly in my view lied to
the electors and should be removed from office for this alone.
We have an epidemic of youth who show disregard for law and order, and I view much also may
be because they grow up with lying cheating politicians who show a disregard for law and order
themselves. 5
Hence, I view your article is a wake-up call to politicians that they must not only act honestly but
be seen to act honestly and in my view Mr Joe Hockey by having alleged secret meetings and
donations while being the treasurer must blame himself then to be in the eye off criticism.
M Joe Hockey when accepting his position as treasurer should have realised that his conduct
must be beyond reproach and that irrespective of the position of anyone in society he must not 10
show any favour towards certain people or classes and neither charge for setting out matters as a
treasurer for people to attend to a fee paying dinner or something to that nature.
Mr Joe Hockey needs to understand that any Minister of the crown must act in the interest of the
general community and not play favourite to those who pay huge amount of monies that they can
get a special treatment where ordinary citizen have no such equal opportunity. 15

Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of
everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance. 20
END QUOTE

No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:
LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRI NI DAD and TABAGO (1936)
A.C. 332, at 335 25
QUOTE
But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned,
no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good
faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the
wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper 30
motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism,
and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a
cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of
ordinary man
END QUOTE 35
.
The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVENING
NEWS (1880) N.S.W. LR 211 AT 239.:
QUOTE 40
The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice of
sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day,
would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be
rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
END QUOTE 45
.
As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
(a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368
(b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
(c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537 50
(d) SOLI CI TOR-GENERAL v RADI O AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31

And I am not just criticising politicians in the Parliament as I also hold Mr Peter Cosgrove to be
a war criminal, etc. After all in my 22-7-2002 correspondence to him I alerted him upon the fact
that to invade any country he would require a DECLARATION OF WAR to be published by the 55

p93 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Governor-General in the Gazette and this clearly he failed to ensure. As much as it appeared to
me Julia Gillard as Prime Minister was appointing her former fellow lawyers to the bench of the
court so to say to prevent them spilling the beans about what was going on involving her past,
likewise it appears to me that Mr Tony Abbott had Mr Peter Cosgrove commissioned to be
Governor-General so he would not expose the truth. 5
The Framers of the Constitution relied upon the press to inform the public, but regretfully little
really is coming from this in there times and I view Mr Joe Hockeys conduct is one of so to say
scaremongering as to try to make it worry some for journalist to question suspicious conduct.
It appears to me when in opposition neither Mr Joe Hockey or Mr Tony Abbott to mention a few
had any problems with criticising those in government, but now themselves in government they 10
somehow view this is different.

To me Joe Hockey was part of the Howard government to authorise (unconstitutionally) the
armed murderous invasion into Iraq and as such I view he is by this a mass murderer, committed
crimes against humanity, committed war crimes, etc, because by failing to speak up and act to a 15
void the war he must be deemed to have been an associate to it all;.
It is as I understand it a well-established legal principle that when you fail to act appropriately
when someone commits a crime then you can be held legally accountable for this.
The argument that Cabinet can determine to go to war or not is a falsehood, as it can do no more
but to recommend to the Minister of Defence who as the responsible Minister then has to 20
decide if he recommends to the Governor-General to publish a DECLARATION OF WAR in the
Gazette naming the country against which the Commonwealth of Australia desires to go to war.
And it is the Governor-General who then determines if he hold it in the best interest of the
general community to publish a DECLARATION OF WAR or not. And where the Governor-
General refuses to publish a DECLARATION OF WAR then no authority exist by the Minister 25
of defence to authorise Australian troops to nevertheless invade a foreign nation. The Prime
minister of the Day has actually no say in this, unless he is the Minister of Defence and then still
limited by what the Governor-General decides. And how can we have Mr Peter Cosgrove who
defied the then Governor-General now himself fulfil the position as Governor-General I wonder.
Hence my objection to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II opposing his commission to be 30
Governor-General. While nevertheless he was still commissioner, at least I placed it on record
why I objected. As much as I was the only person who pursued legal action seeking to avoid the
unconstitutional armed invasion into Iraq. All that the then Minister of Defence needed was for
the Governor-General to publish a DECLARATION OF WAR against Iraq and it would from a
constitutional point of view have been appropriate. 35

CLARIFICATION: While I have made clear that one cannot let people drown, it must not be
perceived and neither intended to be that I support people smuggling, etc. As I view that Mr
Tony Abbotts turn back the boats is a constitutional valid issue. The Framers of the Constitution
embedded the legal principle in the constitution that a government has this right. 40
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects. 45
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power 50
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.

p94 4-6-2014
A 1
st
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
END QUOTE
. 5
I have canvassed this issue extensively in numerous writings and hold that it would be more
appropriate to give those who are longest in a refugee camp the opportunity to show they
are worthy to be allowed to reside in the Commonwealth of Australia. Such as that they
used their time in refugee camp as top learn the English language, the customers of the
Commonwealth of Australia, including to show respect for women, etc. 10

The above supplement is only a limited set out see also my blog at
www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
I look forwards to your detailed reply!
15
Note: English is not my native language and neither did I have formal education in the English
language and so if despite of this I nevertheless can better understand/comprehend what is
constitutionally appropriate than consider my writings for this!

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit) 20

25
The above quoted correspondences may be helpful and I would like to see that taxpayers
will now see that Members of Parliament are not placing themselves above the law.

30

35

20140604-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Premier D Napthine-Re Geoff Shaw MP-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

20140604-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Premier D Napthine-Re Geoff Shaw MP-etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

p1 4-6-2014

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

You might also like