20190328-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, AC Re SUBMISSION-Supplement 6

Page 1
1
2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
3 Margaret McMurdo, AC Royal Commissioner 28-3-2019
4 Victorian Royal Commission into Management of Police Informants
5 PO Box 18028, Melbourne VIC 3001.
6 https://www.rcmpi.vic.gov.au
7 Ref: 20190328-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, AC
8 Re –SUBMISSION-Supplement 6
9
10 THIS SUBMISSION IS PROVIDED FOR PUBLICATION AS IDENTITIES RELATING
11 TO CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS HAVE NOT BEEN REVEALED.
12
13 Commissioner,
14 further to my 18-2-2019 submission and 26-2-2019 and 28-2-2019, 1-3-2019, 4-3-
15 2019, 5-3-2019 supplements I desire to state the following:
16
17 As a self-educated CONSTITUTIONALIST and (retired) Professional Advocate I express
18 my concern about what I understand is your conduct as to seeking certain media outlets to show
19 cause why they should not be dealt with for CONTEMPT OF COURT/CONTEMPT IN THE
20 FACE OF THE COURT. Below I will need to explain certain matters to show why I have a
21 legitimate concern.
22 Below I include documentation for which in 2017 Roberta Williams executor of the Mr Carl
23 Williams estate as well as executor of the George Williams estate gave me in writing permission
24 to disclose details of those and other documents.
25 I will now quote part of a statement which I view is relevant in the same manner in Australia
26 such as officers of the Court like Nicola Gobbo and others like her, and the Victorian Police and
27 Prosecutors even judicial officers alike. The High Court of Australia from onset in 1904 often
28 relied upon Authorities of foreign jurisdictions to compliment and/or rely upon judicial
29 decisions. Hence I refer to the following:
30
31 https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/9048a12b-2332-4645-
32 a1be-d645db216eb5/note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf
33 QUOTE William P. Barr Attorney-General
34
35 END QUOTE William P. Barr Attorney-General
28-3-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1
2 The wording “pending or contemplated proceedings” clearly means that where the police,
3 Officers of the Court (including Prosecutors) and judicial officers contemplated legal
4 proceedings against any person in regard of whom an Officer of the Court disclosed confidential
5 details then must be falling within the category described. It should also be understood that the
6 concealment of the identity of Nicolo Gobbo may have resulted that other Officers of the Court
7 subsequently acted in the same manner and as such the concealment of Nicolo Gobbo and other
8 Officers of the Court unlawful/unethical conduct undermined the credibility of the administration
9 and so also the rights of any accused to have a FAIR and PROPER trial. The concealment of her
10 and other Officers of the Court identity as the informer also I view should have resulted to all
11 judgments/orders to be set aside that may directly/indirectly be tainted/affected by this.
12 Here we have as I understand it the DPP pursuing CONTEMPT OFCOURT applications
13 regarding the media and others in regard of the George Pell case where one may have to ask if
14 the same Prosecutor was not involved in previously concealment of Officers of the Court
15 betraying their oath/affirmation. How indeed can any court pursue CONTEMPT OF COURT
16 when its own Officers of the Court has proven to act in defiance of their duties and obligations as
17 an OFFICER OF THE COURT and I view committed CONTEMPT OF COURT and/or
18 CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT? The latter relates to it being in the courtroom
19 and/or to do so against a party travelling to or from the court room.
20
21 Marchesi v. Barnes at p.439
22 QUOTE
23 If the particulars are not supplied the court has an inherent power to dismiss the
24 information.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 The following - or sat silent and acquiescent - by your silence also should be considered.
28 Please find why no Officer is exempt from Prosecution that has been adopted worldwide:
29 Extract from the Nuremberg Judgment within the International Military Tribunal 1st October
30 1946 bottom of page 100
31 QUOTE
32 “Many of these men have made a mockery of the soldier's oath of obedience to military
33 orders. When it suits their defence they say they had to obey; when confronted with
34 Hitler's brutal crimes, which are shown to have been within their general knowledge, they
35 say they disobeyed.
36 The truth is they actively participated in all these crimes, or sat silent and acquiescent,
37 witnessing the commission of crimes on a scale larger and more shocking than the world
38 has ever had the misfortune to know. This must be said: Where the facts warrant it, these
39 men should be brought to trial so that those among them who are guilty of these crimes
40 should not escape punishment.
41 END QUOTE
42 Likewise an Officer of the Court cannot excuse herself/himself for any wrongdoing and the
43 principal, the Court itself is also liable for what the Officer of the Court does when acting as an
44 Officer of the Court. In my view the Officer of the Court to deny the client proper representation
45 outside the court Is a CONTEMPT OF COURT and when so involved in litigation before the
46 court this also would be CONTEMPT IN FACE OF THE COURT.
47 .
Page 3
1 As was stated or sat silent and acquiescent then the silence by the Court not to immediate
2 take action for years following the discovery itself means at least in my view that the judges
3 themselves placed the court in disrepute.
4 Hence, any court that somehow doesn’t hold an Officer of the Court legally accountable for any
5 wrongdoing in my view can be described as a STAR CHAMBER COURT which violates the
6 Imperial Act application Act 1982 (Vic).
7
8 Any judge who conceal or otherwise fails to act against an Officer of the Court who violated
9 his/her position as an Officer of the Court should be likewise considered to commit
10 CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT where such failure eventuates within court
11 proceedings.
12
13 Marriage of McJarrow Fam LR6, 746 (1980)
14 QUOTE
15 (iii) Where a properly instituted application for contempt which was civil in nature was before
16 the court, the court could not properly proceed to hear and determine the application of its
17 own motion in the absence of the applicant.
18
19 “No formal order was taken out as to the dismissal of the wife’s application and the question
20 was raised by the Principal Registry on the filing of the notice of appeal as to whether or not
21 there was an order from which an appeal could arise. By arrangment a formal order was taken
22 out and the appeal proceeded.
23 In my judgment the signing by the registrar of an order is irrelevant to the question as to
24 whether or not an order was made. The signing and sealing of an order is no more that an
25 administrative act passing and entering the order into the records of the court. Once an order
26 has been pronounced by the court then there is in existence an order which can be appealed
27 pursuant to S94 of the Act.”
28 END QUOTE
29 And
31 QUOTE
32 “The powers of the High Court are those of the Queen’s Courts of Common Law and Equity
33 ie of superior courts of record.
34 Halsbury 3rd ed Vol 8 at p2 deals with contempts of superior courts of records and states;
35 Contempt of court is either criminal contempt, consisting of words or acts obstructing or
36 tending to obstruct, the administration of justice or contempt in procedure, consisting of
37 disobedience to the judgment, orders, or other process of the court, and involves a private
38 injury.” At page 3 it pointed out that criminal contempt is a misdemeanour punishable on
39 indictment by fine or imprisonment or by order to give security for good behavior.
40 The distinction is set out in Oswald”s Contempt of Court 3rd ed p36 and quoted with approval
41 by the Full Court of Canada in Tony Poje v A-G BC (1953) 2 DLR 785 at 792”… generally,
42 the distinction between contempts criminal and not criminal seems to be that contempts which
43 tend to bring the administration of justice into scorn, or which tend to interfere with the due
44 course of justice, are criminal in their nature; but that contempt in disregarding orders or
45 judgments of a Civil Court, or in not doing something ordered to be done in a cause, is not
46 criminal in its nature. In other words, where contempt involves a public injury or offence, it is
47 criminal in its nature, and the proper remedy is committal – but where the contempt involves
48 a private injury only it is not criminal in its nature..”
49 END QUOTE
50 And
Page 4
1 QUOTE
2 A contempt in procedure by disobedience of an order of the court or by breach of an
3 undertaking given to it may be accompanied by such contumacy or defiance on the part of the
4 party against whom the contempt proceedings are brought as evidences a criminal as well as a
5 civil contempt.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 QUOTE Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and
9 278
10 The oath of a justice of this court is ' to do right to all manner of people according to law'
11 Our sworn duty is to the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all.
12 If, then, we find the law to be plainly in conflict with what we or any of our predecessors
13 errornously thought it to be, we have, as I conceive no right to choose between giving
14 effect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, It is not, in my opinion,
15 better that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should be ultimately right..
16 Whatever else may be said with respect to previous decisions - and it is necessary here to
17 consider the principals upon which a court should act in particular cases - so much at
18 least emerges as is undoubtedly beyond challenge, that where a former decision is clearly
19 wrong, and there are no circumstances countervailing the primary duty of giving effect to
20 the law as the court finds it, the real opinion of the court should be expressed.
21 END QUOTE
22 And
23 QUOTE Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278
24 In my opinion, where the prior decision is manifestly wrong, then, irrespective of the
25 consequences, it is the paramount and sworn duty of this court to declare the law truly....
26 END QUOTE
27
28 Regrettably to my experiences too often judges ignore this legal principle.
29
30 https://www.scribd.com/document/351253345/20170611-Corrupt-Judges-Kangaroo-Court-
31 Issues-With-Comments
32
33 20170611-Corrupt Judges-Kangaroo Court Issues With...
34 We all have different manner of expressions but can it be deemed CONTEMPT OF COURT?
35
36 Something that struck me is that unless the Pell case before the County Court of Victoria was a
37 federal matter and the court for this invoked federal jurisdiction I for one question how on earth
38 His Honour Kidd J could issue an order for the whole of the Commonwealth and not restrict it to
39 the State of Victoria? After all if it was as mere State of Victoria jurisdictional matter than I view
40 an Australia wide ban for publication cannot be upheld as being within the jurisdiction of the
41 court.
42
43 I below quote an email I forward to Jeremy Gans.
44 QUOTE 2-3-2019 email to Jeremy Gans
45 jeremy.gans@unimelb.edu.au
46 Jeremy,
47
48 as a constitutionalist and (retired) Professional Advocate I enjoyed reading your article
49 Pell’s freeze is over.
50
Page 5
1 I have represented lawyers (the last one a barrister for 22 years) and would not make
2 submissions about something without having the facts known to me.
3 .
4 I hold that to do otherwise would undermine the Impartiality of the ADMINISTRATION

5 OF JUSTICE.
6
7 Let us not ignore the culpability of police and judges who directly/indirectly went along
8 to pervert the course of justice. They too should be held legally accountable as my 18-
9 2-2019 submission makes clear.
10
11 This document can be downloaded from:
12 https://www.scribd.com/document/400791928/20190218-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
13 B-to-Royal-Commissioner-Margaret-McMurdo-AC-Re-SUBMISSION
14
15 While it is arguable if the suppression order was realistic in todays age of the internet,
16 if it is about the credibility of the administration of justice then why did the courts so
17 far refuse to take action against the legal practitioners/police and others involved in
18 having legal practitioners acting in blatant violation of being Officers of the Court.
19
20 IT IS NOT THAT ANY LAWYER IS PREVENTED TO REPORT MATTERS OR BECOME AN
21 INFORMER BUT THEY CAN DO SO AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT ACT IN VIOLATION OF
22 THEIR DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT.
23
24 Legal practitioners are as any other citizen entitled to report matters to relevant
25 authorities but they are prohibited to do so if it violates their position as an Officer of
26 the Court. This as by informing about confidential lawyer-client matters which are not
27 conspiracy involving the lawyer himself/herself, the lawyer acts to undermine the
28 IMPARTIAL administration of justice. Hence, I view those who conspired to do so,
29 including police officers, prosecutors and the lawyers involved all should be charged
30 and held legally accountable for this.
31 .
32 Yet, we have that it is claimed none of them acted unlawful.
33 .
34 So, did the journalist do so when they were in their own way publishing their versions
35 of events like CENSORED where Kidd CJ appears not to have issued SHOW CAUSE
36 request to international media and others?
37 In Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56-Re Internet publication it
38 was held
39 QUOTE
40 The decision The Gutnick decision makes the Australian High Court the highest
41 appellate court in any country to consider the issue of jurisdiction for the purposes of
42 publication of defamatory material on the Internet. The decision effectively determined
43 that in cases of defamation, material is 'published', and defamation therefore occurs,
44 at the place where that material is viewed (or downloaded) rather than where it is
45 posted (or uploaded) onto the Internet. The proceedings were initiated by Joseph
46 Gutnick, a prominent Victorian businessman, regarding an allegedly defamatory article
47 that appeared in Barron's, a magazine published by Dow Jones. The magazine was
48 also available on a subscription website, which had a number of Australian
49 subscribers. Gutnick commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria,
50 complaining of publication in Victoria only, and offered an undertaking not to sue in
Page 6
1 any other jurisdiction. Dow Jones argued that the online version was not published in
2 Victoria but in New Jersey, the site at which material was uploaded from the web
3 server each time a copy of the material was requested. They alleged that downloading
4 was an independent action, akin to 'self-publishing', for which they could not properly
5 be held responsible. The plaintiff insisted that downloading was an intended and
6 natural consequence of the defendant's control of the entire process of publication,
7 from procuring subscribers to its website, to composing the article and placing it on its
8 web server. The plaintiff's argument, ultimately accepted by Justice Hedigan, and
9 eventually the High Court, was that actionable publication does not occur unless and
10 until a defamatory meaning is conveyed to a hearer or reader, in other words where
11 the subscriber 'downloads' the article onto their computer screen.
12 END QUOTE
13 This then may mean that where any overseas published allows downloading of the
14 identity of EF/Lawyer X/Informant 3838 in the state of Victoria then such media outlet
15 or for that anyone else could be held for CONTEMPT OF COURT.
16 .
17 If Kidd CJ only target local media outlets even so international media outlets having
18 articles being downloaded in Victoria may be deemed technically violating the
19 suppression order then why not demand them to show cause?
20 .
21 I was able to download articles about Nicola Gobbo of past newspapers articles
22 published on the internet and the suppression order may not have applied to those on
23 the internet available past publications.
24
25 Again, I really enjoyed reading your article and if you read my submission and
26 supplements you may (despite my self-professed crummy English) discover that I for
27 one pursue justice.
28
29 I may state that since I in 2018 commenced to investigate what appears to me the
30 Victorian Police involvement in the setting up of the vicious murder of Carl Williams I
31 had on 5 December 2018 a former police officer having a person trespassing through
32 my gates, despite signage against this, and cause an estimated $8,000 to $10,000
33 damage to my property. I did get the former police officer to acknowledge liability in
34 writing to me and so this is not in question. His claim is that it was a mistake.
35 .
36 That is part of life when exposing police misuse and abuse, not that I accept this to be
37 justified but I all along expected this and worse when taking on the police.
38
39 For the record I in both appeals on 19 July 2006 defeated the Commonwealth on
40 compulsory voting on constitutional grounds, representing myself. Also on 5 August
41 20105 defeated the Commonwealth on using AVERMENT in State courts without the
42 State Parliament having legislated for this.
43
44 I also on 4 December 2002 obtained by consent a court order that my Section 78B
45 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS was to be heard and determined by the High
46 Court of Australia, however the High Court of Australia so far has refused to hear the
47 matter. This also likely because I challenged the validity of the purported Australian
48 citizenship Act 1948 as being unconstitutional. This means that in view I made it a
49 legal challenge it is without legal force Ab Initio. Not just for me but for all persons.
50
51 My blog (see above link) is extensive about these issues.
52
53 Gerrit
54 --
55 END QUOTE 2-3-2019 email to Jeremy Gans
56
Page 7
1 QUOTE 170831231310-011-Statement GLW Re Paul Dale p015-$6,000 & Nicola Gobbo
2
3 QUOTE 170831231310-011-Statement GLW Re Paul Dale p015-$6,000 & Nicola Gobbo
4
5
6
Page 8
1
2
3 Where Nicolo Gobbo was contacting Mr Carl Williams for and on behalf of Paul Dale then one
4 has to ask did she fraudulently then charge Mr Carl Williams for service?
5
6 QUOTE 20070731-img-170831211819-001-Tony Hargraves-Gobbo v Garde-Wilson Re bill-$17,300

Page 9
1
2 END QUOTE 20070731-img-170831211819-001-Tony Hargraves-Gobbo v Garde-Wilson Re bill-$17,300
3
4
5
6
Page 10
2
3
5
Page 11
1
3
4
6
Page 12
1
3
5
Page 13
1
3
5
Page 14
1
3
5
Page 15
1
3
5
Page 16
1
3
5
Page 17
1
3
5
Page 18
1
2 QUOTE 20070731-img-170831211819-010-Tony Hargraves-Gobbo v Garde-Wilson Re billl-$17,300
3
4 END QUOTE 20070731-img-170831211819-010-Tony Hargraves-Gobbo v Garde-Wilson Re billl-$17,300
5

Page 19
1
2 From the above such as document 170831231310-011-Statement GLW Re Paul Dale p015-$6,000 & Nicola
3 Gobbo (Note the details of 170831231310-011- relates to my scanning device, this when I scanned
4 each document the scanner allocate a certain number as well as that I number consecutive
5 documents. I also may make clear that I provided copies of the electronic file when I returned the
6 hard copies to Roberta Williams. As such she has a record of all scanned material also in
7 electronic format.) it appears to me that Nicola Gobbo attended as a messenger to Mr Carl
8 Williams on behalf of former police officer Paul Dale. As such I view it would have been
9 fraudulent if she had claimed cost against Mr Carl Williams and/or Mr George Williams in
10 regard of those visits. Likewise I view the same might be an issue with other Officers of the
11 Court who as Nicolo Gobbo acted in violation of their position as an Officer of the Court.
12
13 Because it involve Officers of the Court it is the credibility of the administration of justice
14 involving all levels of courts that I view is so to say on trial. How on earth can anyone be
15 prosecutor for CONTEMPT OF COURT when the judiciary as Officers of the court themselves
16 concealed as I understand it relevant details about Nicola Gobbo and by this flaunted the ob
17 ligations of being also Officers of the Court not to undermine or place in disrepute the
18 administration of justice.
19
20 The legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur action” denies any remedy to a litigant
21 (including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands.
22
23 If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with “Dirty Hands”
24 best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!
25
26 As such if the Prosecutor(s) such as the DPP knew about it all but failed to disclose this and by
27 this undermined the administration of justice and placing the administration of justice in
28 disrepute and by the concealment perverted the course of justice and conspired to pervert the
29 course of justice then I view this should first be investigated and those involved held legally
30 accountable (Obviously by a judicial officer who is not also in question as to his/her standing as
31 an Officer of the Court) and their conduct to be placed on record as when they are before the
32 courts the courts will be aware as should be the accused of their past conduct.
33
34 We need to pursue to restore the trust in the administration of justice and this can only eventuate
35 if citizens are made aware that no one is above the rule of law! And anyone who undermines the
36 administration of justice will be held legally accountable regardless what position they may
37 occupy.
38
39 I suspect that ample of police officers who were involved in undermining the administration of
40 justice may have gained in the process promotions and other benefits and I view this should also
41 be taken into consideration that they advanced themselves financially or otherwise by
42 undermining the administration of justice.
43
44 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
45 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
46 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®
47 (Our name is our motto!)


20190328-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, AC Re SUBMISSION-Supplement 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

20190328-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, AC Re SUBMISSION-Supplement 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Page 1

28-3-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4 I hold that to do otherwise would undermine the Impartiality of the ADMINISTRATION

1 QUOTE 170831231310-011-Statement GLW Re Paul Dale p015-$6,000 & Nicola Gobbo

28-3-2019 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 QUOTE 20070731-img-170831211819-002-Tony Hargraves-Gobbo v Garde-Wilson Re bill-$17,300

28-3-2019 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

46 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

47 (Our name is our motto!)

28-3-2019 Page 19 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like