20230803-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR W Gately-VEC-COMPLAINT-Re Mark Craig Schorel - Infringement 4120508
Uploaded by
Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka20230803-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR W Gately-VEC-COMPLAINT-Re Mark Craig Schorel - Infringement 4120508
Uploaded by
Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-HlavkaPage 1
1
2
3 Mr Warwick Gately (VEC) (Australia, Victoria time) 3-8-2023
4 [email protected]
5
6 Cc: B Sutherland Issuing Officer
7
8 Re 20230803-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr W Gately (VEC) -COMPLAINT-
9 Re Mark Craig Schorel- Infringement 4120508
10 Sir,
11 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION & NO CASE TO ANSWER, etc.
12
13 As I stated previously in my 7 July 2023 correspondence:
14 QUOTE
15 My son Mark Craig Schorel received a purported infringement notice no 4120508 which
16 I understand related to an allegation of FAILING TO VOTE in the 2022 Victorian State
17 election. As I am a constitutionalist and a Professional Advocate and have considerable
18 knowledge and experiences in this matter I therefore accepted to assist my son in these
19 matters.
20 END QUOTE
21 And
22 QUOTE
23 Ordinary a State matters falls within the State jurisdiction however if the matter relates to
24 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then it becomes a federal
25 issue which would require federal jurisdiction.
26 END QUOTE
27 And
28 QUOTE
29 Obviously, no one can expect my son Mark to have the knowledge and experiences I have
30 accumulated over the decades, after all we all have our own particular interest and so I
31 have referred to my own experiences to expose the rot. As I made clear that it is not for the
32 VEC to sit in judgment if Mark did or didn’t use any religious objection as that is not its
33 function. Neither if Mark can or cannot exercise his political liberty, this as every citizen is
34 entitled to make his/her own judgment and only a court of competent jurisdiction may to
35 some limited extent inquire into matters that is if it ever came that far at all. This I doubt
36 considering AEC v Schorel-Hlavka 19 July 2006 end result. Time will tell. The VEC
37 needs to withdraw the notice and apologise!
38 END QUOTE
39
40 I now received a response from B Sutherland Issuing Officer who seems to me to fail to
41 understand the legal issues.
42 As I for and on behalf of my son Mark Craig Schorel referred to the Commonwealth of
43 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) the4 following applies also:
44
3-8-2023 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 The High Court of Australia held that where a party pleads the non-application of a State
2 Act because of Commonwealth legislation then the State Court is exercising Federal
3 jurisdiction. Troy v Wrigglesworth (1919) 26 C.L.R. 305; 25 (1926) 38 C.L.R. 441; 33
4 A.L.R. 66.
5
6 A so called Infringement Court is not a court that can exercise federal jurisdiction and as such
7 any alleged matter pertaining an alleged failure of State law can only be heard by a State Court
8 that is authorised to hear and determine federal issues within federal jurisdiction.
9 You may also find that even ordinary traffic offences involving a person from another State
10 neither can be determined by a so called Infringement Court. The fact it nevertheless may have
11 often done so doesn’t validate the Infringement Court legal powers.
12
13 Held that a State Court exercising federal jurisdiction when it erroneously applies
14 Commonwealth Act to subject matter before the Court. Commonwealth v Cole, (1923)
15 32 C.L.R. 602 and Commonwealth v Dalton, (1924) 33 C.L.R.. 452; 30 A.L.R. 85
16
17 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
18 39 Federal jurisdiction of State Courts in other matters
19 QUOTE
20 (1) The jurisdiction of the High Court, so far as it is not exclusive of the jurisdiction of any Court of a
21 State by virtue of section 38, shall be exclusive of the jurisdiction of the several Courts of the States,
22 except as provided in this section.
23 (2) The several Courts of the States shall within the limits of their several jurisdictions, whether such
24 limits are as to locality, subject-matter, or otherwise, be invested with federal jurisdiction, in all
25 matters in which the High Court has original jurisdiction or in which original jurisdiction can be
26 conferred upon it, except as provided in section 38, and subject to the following conditions and
27 restrictions:
28 (a) A decision of a Court of a State, whether in original or in appellate jurisdiction, shall not be
29 subject to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, whether by special leave or otherwise.
30 Special leave to appeal from decisions of State Courts though State law prohibits appeal
31 (c) The High Court may grant special leave to appeal to the High Court from any decision of any
32 Court or Judge of a State notwithstanding that the law of the State may prohibit any appeal from
33 such Court or Judge.
34 Exercise of federal jurisdiction by State Courts of summary jurisdiction
35 (d) The federal jurisdiction of a Court of summary jurisdiction of a State shall not be judicially
36 exercised except by a Stipendiary or Police or Special Magistrate, or some Magistrate of the
37 State who is specially authorized by the Governor-General to exercise such jurisdiction, or an
38 arbitrator on whom the jurisdiction, or part of the jurisdiction, of that Court is conferred by a
39 prescribed law of the State, within the limits of the jurisdiction so conferred.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 In my 7 July 2023 correspondence I did quote:
43
44 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
45 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
46 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
47 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
48 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
49 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
50 embrace and unite.
51 END QUOTE
52
53 What this means is that regardless of your reference to:
54
3-8-2023 Page 2 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 3
1 - Electoral Act 2002 (Electoral Act)
2
3 This cannot interfere with my son Mark’s constitutional rights of “political liberty and religious
4 liberty”, by the State of Victoria purportedly legislating and adding his name to the Electoral
5 Roll without his knowledge and consent.
6
7 Again the States were created in Section 106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
8 Act 1900 (UK):
9
10 106 Saving of Constitutions
11 The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution,
12 continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or
13 establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the
14 Constitution of the State.
15
16 This applies to the legal principles embedded in the Constitution, including “political liberty and
17 religious liberty”!
18
19 As to “your son has the right to take matter to the Magistrates’ Court” it ought to be obvious that
20 he has no legal duty to pursue to go to court for something that violates his constitutional rights!
21
22 Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
23 QUOTE
24 Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief
25 Justice Latham, "sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of
26 power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to
27 disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, but
28 such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not
29 valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is
30 invalid ab initio.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
34 27 (17 June 1999)
35 QUOTE
36 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue
37 estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the
38 orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he
39 will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying
40 on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 As for the referenced of purported ‘Constitution Act 1975’ this is not a valid constitution as set
44 out previously
45 QUOTE page 16 of my 7 July 2023 correspondence:
46 This means that the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is no constitution at all as
47 it is merely an Act of Parliament that has no constitutional/legal validity.
48 Therefore any alleged legislation that purportedly falls within the alleged provisions of the
49 “Victorian Constitution Act 1975” but not within “Victorian (State) Constitution Act
50 1855.”
51 END QUOTE page 16 of my 7 July 2023 correspondence:
52
53 Because the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg on 4 December 2002 in AEC v Schorel-
54 Hlavka ordered the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS I (representing myself)
55 had filed was to be heard and determined by the High Court of Australia regarding issues such as
3-8-2023 Page 3 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 4
1 ‘compulsory’ voting & Australian Citizenship, and Mark relies upon this also, no magistrate can
2 therefore interfere with this matter, which has not as yet been heard and determined by the High
3 Court of Australia, and may never be heard because of the implied bias by every judge.
4 However, the same matters were before the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 Case
5 numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 and both of my appeals were upheld without the
6 Commonwealth and/or any of the 9 Attorney-General’s challenging my 409 pages “written
7 submissions” ADDRESS TO THE COURT. In fact (then) Rob Hulls Victorian Attorney
8 General indicated that the State of Victoria would abide by the court decision.
9 The State of Victoria cannot re-litigate the same issue in which it was defeated in 2006!
10 The County Court of Victoria cannot entertain any litigation by the State of Victoria (so any one
11 acting for and on behalf of the State of Victoria) to seek to undermine 19 July 2006 decision. For
12 this the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the County Court of Victoria have no jurisdiction to
13 hear and determine matters where Mark relies upon those decisions on court record.
14
15 In my view Mark doesn’t need to go to court to litigate a purported Infringement Notice which
16 has no warrant of law! My 7 July 2023 correspondence was some 119 pages and if you do not
17 desire to consider it all that would be your problem, but not that of Mark. If you do not
18 understand/comprehend the relevant legal issues I have placed in writing for and on behalf of
19 Mark then well you better consult a ‘competent’ lawyer who does.
20
21 As you are not a judge of a court and considering the separation of powers it is my view that you
22 do not have any legal basis to fine Mark, or for that anyone else, this as it is an exclusive judicial
23 power! Mark doesn’t have to explain to you or anyone else of VEC about the exercise of his
24 constitutional rights of “political liberty and religious liberty” because that would be an
25 infringement of his constitutional rights itself. As I indicated, I went through this over several
26 years and comprehensively defeated the AEC on the same issues and as such I would not hesitate
27 to defend Mark’s constitutional rights if this were to end up in court litigation!
28 Most people trusted the medical profession as to their claims that vaccines are “safe and
29 effective” but now because of the covid scam many no longer trust them. Likewise, most citizens
30 trusted that “compulsory” part of voting was lawful, however I (as a constitutionalist)
31 successfully challenged this in both cases! The VEC claimed that I didn’t vote either in 2022 but
32 cannot overcome the res judicata, and this applies to all citizens not just for myself! This as the
33 constitution was not enacted merely for me but applies to all persons equally!
34
35
36
37 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
38
39 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
40 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
41 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
42 (Our name is our motto!)
3-8-2023 Page 4 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
