0% found this document useful (0 votes)
35 views2 pages

20250320-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Buloke Shire Council & Ors

The document is a correspondence from G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire Council disputing a demand for payment and alleging unauthorized entry onto his properties, which he claims constitutes trespassing. Schorel-Hlavka references past legal cases and asserts that the State of Victoria lacks a valid constitution, rendering its legislation invalid. He warns of potential legal consequences for those involved in the alleged harassment and emphasizes the need to adhere to constitutional principles.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
35 views2 pages

20250320-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Buloke Shire Council & Ors

The document is a correspondence from G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to Buloke Shire Council disputing a demand for payment and alleging unauthorized entry onto his properties, which he claims constitutes trespassing. Schorel-Hlavka references past legal cases and asserts that the State of Victoria lacks a valid constitution, rendering its legislation invalid. He warns of potential legal consequences for those involved in the alleged harassment and emphasizes the need to adhere to constitutional principles.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Page 1

1
2
3 Buloke Shire Council & Ors 20-3-2025
4 [email protected]
5
6 Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
7 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
8
9 Re: 20250320-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Buloke Shire Council & Ors
10
11 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
12
13 Sir/Madam & Ors,
14 as for your 25-2-2025 purported demand for $596.25 I at no time authorised
15 Buloke Shire Council to enter my properties and neither so any other person without my consent.
16 Hence, your allegations only prove trespassing/vandalism, etc, and so by more than one person
17 to conspire to do so and to interfere with my FEE SIMPLE rights. I remind you of previous
18 warnings that any further demands attract common law compensation claims and double that
19 added where 2 or more person conspired to do so.
20 I refer to my previous many correspondences and as I indicated to Premier Jacinta Allen all
21 and any common law compensation charges not then paid within 14 days would be doubled.
22
23 As I also previously made clear that I also rely upon the 19-6-2006 AEC v Schorel-Hlavka
24 successful appeals where neither the Commonwealth DPP and/or any of the 9 Attorney Generals
25 challenged my submissions, etc, including many constitutional issues and as such no court can
26 now interfere with these issues. Neither can any court intervene in any purported claims where it
27 is the last resort and so far, Buloke Shire Council and/or the Victorian Government Attorney
28 General has failed to show any details to prove me wrong.
29 As the State of Victoria since Federation lacked any valid constitution then all and any
30 legislation purportedly enacted is ULTRA VIRES AB INITO! Hence, any Victorian legislation
31 you may desire to rely upon may be ULTRA VIRES AB INITO!
32 As I made clear I dispute the jurisdiction of any Victorian Court, and in my view any
33 Government entity or any body claiming to act to enforce State government purported legislative
34 provisions better hand the matter over to the Victorian Attorney General, who for years is well
35 aware of matters!
36
37 For any farmer, etc, their FEE SIMPLE rights are also robbed as now (albeit unconstitutionally)
38 they are forced to pay huge sums of moneys to Aboriginals for being permitted to put a post at a
39 certain depth, clearly violating the Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923)
40 33 CLR 1 (9 August 1923) decision as to FEE SIMPLE right
41
42 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/ttps://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/
43 Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1 (9 August 1923)
44 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
45 KNOX C.J., ISAACS, HIGGINS, GAVAN DUFFY AND STARKE JJ.
46 THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PLAINTIFF against
20-3-2025 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 STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS


2 1920-1923: SYDNEY, Dec. 1-3, 1920; Mar. 21-29, 1922; Aug. 9, 1923 33 CLR 1
3 Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:- (1920) 33 CLR 1 at 42
4 QUOTE
5 “It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful
6 right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which
7 can enter into the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste; and,
8 for all practical purposes of ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a
9 chattel, in nothing except the physical indestructibility of its subject.”
10 “Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute
11 right, both of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will.”
12 END QUOTE
13 And
14 QUOTE
15 ISAACS J. In Challis's Real Property, 3rd ed., p. 218,
16 it is stated with perfect accuracy:—
17 “In the language of the English law, the word fee signifies an estate of inheritance as
18 distinguished from a less estate; not, as in the language of the feudists, a subject of tenure
19 as distinguished from an allodium.”
20 “Allodium being wholly unknown to English law, the latter distinction would in fact have
21 no meaning.” “A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in
22 respect to the rights which it confers, of all estates known to the law.”
23 END QUOTE
24
25 Again
26 “A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the
27 most absolute in respect to the rights which it confers, of
28 all estates known to the law.”
29
30 In my view any lawyer who were to be so stupid to litigate against to me violate my
31 constitutional and other legal rights should understand that treasonous/terrorism conduct can be
32 resulting in disbarment! That is for so far any lawyer can claim to be a Member of the Bar as that
33 too is in question! Also, where councillors knowingly aware that I objected to the harassment,
34 etc, by Buloke Shire Council and failed to take appropriate action to stop this harassment, etc,
35 then they may face legal consequences as their refusal to act against this harassment, etc!
36 As I at no time consented for anyone to enter my properties to perform some alleged work, etc,
37 and therefore there can for this also no alleged debt then no purported debt collector could claim
38 to pursue a debt!
39
40 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
41
42 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
43 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

44 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®


45 (Our name is our motto!)

20-3-2025 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

You might also like