20150619-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Elliott Stafford and Associates Your Ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council

Page 1
Elliott Stafford and Associated

19-6-2015
C/o buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au Buloke Shire Council & lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Buloke Shire Council's Head Office is located 367 Broadway, Wycheproof, Victoria 3527.
5
Cc:
10
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Cr Reid Mather (Mayor) MALLEE WARD Mobile: 0438 306 259 Email:
crmather@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr David Pollard (Deputy Mayor) LOWER AVOCA WARD Mobile: 0458 918 638 Email:
crpollard@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Leo Tellefson MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD Mobile:
15
0427 320 166 Email: crtellefson@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Stuart McLean LOWER AVOCA WARD Mobile: 0439 327 839 Email:
crmclean@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Graeme Milne MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD Mobile: 0419 126 911 Email: crmilne@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Gail Sharp MOUNT JEFFCOTT WARD Mobile: 0437 090 172 Email:
crsharp@buloke.vic.gov.au
Cr Ellen White, MALLEE WARD, Mobile: 0417 560 706, Email: crwhite@buloke.vic.gov.au
20 Re: 20150619-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Ellion Stafford and Associates Your ref LA/05/06Re Buloke Shire Council-etc
Sir/Madam,
I received a 10 June 2015 correspondence I (reproduced below) purporting to be of
ES&A (Elliott Stafford and Associated) which in my view in itself on first sight is very
25 unprofessional, this as it lacks to show any postal and/or email address and was send out using
the Buloke Shire Council emblem on the envelope.
I do not know if the Buloke Shire Council maliciously uses the letterhead of ES&A or not, this
as I view any official correspondence by ES&A at the very least ought to show its address and
30 other relevant details.
p1
19-6-2015
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, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Page 2
With an internet search I located the following details:

1.
Elliott Stafford & Associates in Fitzroy North, Melbourne, VIC ...
www.truelocal.com.au Lawyers VIC Melbourne City Fitzroy North
Elliott Stafford & Associates in Fitzroy North, VIC 3068. Business contact details for Elliott Stafford
& Associates including phone number, reviews & map location ...
2.
Elliott Stafford & Associates in Fitzroy North, Vic 3068
www.solicitorscentral.com.au/solicitor/.../elliott-stafford-and-associates
Elliott Stafford & Associates is a boutique and long established law firm established in 1984 by
Bernadette Elliott. Basil Stafford joined the firm after 31 years as a ...
3.
Elliott Stafford & Associates in Clifton Hill, Vic 3068
www.lawyersfirms.com.au/lawyer/12386/elliott-stafford-and-associates
Elliott Stafford & Associates in Clifton Hill, Vic 3068 - Detailed information about lawyers and
solicitors located anywhere in Australia that specialise in a range of ...
10
15
http://www.elliottstaffordlawyers.com.au/ElliottStaffordAssociates2212/Page/24352/Contact+Us
.aspx
QUOTE
Office: First Floor, 316a Queens Parade, Clifton Hill
Mail:
316a Queens Parade, Clifton Hill VIC 3068
p2
19-6-2015
Page 3
DX:
DX 15406, Clifton Hill
Phone: 03 9486 7555
Fax: 03 9486 6444
Email: lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
END QUOTE
Why then not provide the relevant details if it is so to say fair dinkum conduct?
5 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
Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408; 4
10 Bouv Inst. n. 4411.
o Ex dolo malo non oritur action. Out of fraud no action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom's
Max. 349.
o Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.
o Fraus et jus numquam cohabitant. Fraud and justice never agree together. Wing. 680.
o Qui inique non erit aequi - He who has committed iniquity, shall not have equity.
Francis' Max., Max. 2.
15
The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
20 QUOTE
25
30
35
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."
END QUOTE
.
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
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
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
40 It should be obvious that no one can ever sign a signature exactly in the same identical manner,
and as such if the purported signature was to be found to overlap a signature of other
correspondence that may have been issued by Buloke Shire Council but pretending to be from
ES&A then it may be deemed by the courts to have been a signature stamp and not one
personally signed by Basil L Stafford LLB. Legal Practitioner, then records may perhaps
45 indicate that Basil L Stafford LLB. Legal Practitioner couldnt have signed the particular
p3
19-6-2015
Page 4
correspondence or have been at the location where the purported signature stamp was used then
it could cause a severe backlash to ES&A., in particularly to Basil L Stafford LLB. Legal
Practitioner. When I represented parties I made it always a condition that if I discovered that the
party I assisted was in any way dishonest I would walk out of the case. And at times I did so,
5 because to me my credibility never was for sale. Hence, I view that Basil L Stafford LLB. Legal
Practitioner would do better to immediately clarify matters, as I gained by a judge, way back in
1985 then already the nickname TRAPDOOR SPIDER in that during cross examination of
expert witnesses I would expose the truth. As just before retirement an opposing barrister was
complaining that I was surgically taking the witness affidavit apart.
10
What it appears to me is that ES&A may be charging fees for correspondences that it never did
in fact issue but Buloke Shire Council uses its letterhead and then pretend it is signed by ES&A.
That to may need to be investigated of this has been a modus operandi in past cases also and as
such ES&A fraudulently claimed cost to which it did perform no work where instead it may have
15 been Buloke Shire Council staff doing the writings.
In my view Buloke Shire Council is so to say on a slippery slope to seek to litigate against me if
indeed it commenced to use fraudulent ways to charge for cost and inappropriately issues
correspondences pretending that of a legal practitioner. And again if ES&A allows this kind of
20 conduct to flourish then I view its practicing certificate should be cancelled.
Any lawyer who conspires to pervert the course of justice in my view doesnt belong in the legal
practice.
25
Commonwealth v. Hunt
QUOTE
(1842), American legal case in which the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the common-law doctrine
of criminal conspiracy did not apply to labour unions. Until then, workers' attempts to establish closed shops
had been subject to prosecution. Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw asserted, however, that trade unions were legal
and that they had the right to strike or take other steps of peaceful coercion to raise wages and ban nonunion
workers.
30
The case stemmed from a demand by the Boston Journeymen Bootmakers' Society that an employer fire one
of its members who had disobeyed the society's rules. The employer, fearing a strike, complied, but the
dismissed employee complained to the district attorney, who then drew an indictment charging the society
with conspiracy. The Boston Municipal Court found the union guilty.
35
40
Justice Shaw, hearing the case on appeal, altered the traditional criteria for conspiracy by holding that the
mere act of combining for some purpose was not illegal. Only those combinations intended to accomplish
some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful,
by criminal or unlawful means could be prosecuted. Shaw, in effect, legalized the American labour union
movement by this decision.
END QUOTE
.
45
QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

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
.
Perhaps Buloke Shire Council is merely using a signature stamp to issue correspondences under
50 ES&A letterhead but then referring back to Wayne Wall of Buloke Shire Council. I may
consider filing a formal complaint with the Legal Service Commissioner where I view ES&A
allow Buloke Shire Council to issue correspondences under the ES&A letterhead and purportedly
signed by Basil L Stafford LLB. Legal Practitioner.
I doubt the legal Service Commissioner or for that any court would find it appropriate that a legal
55 practitioner would allow someone else to issue correspondences in such a manner. Obviously
Buloke Shire Council may have to investigator fully or have independently investigated if the
p4
19-6-2015
Page 5
correspondence was in fact signed by Basil L Stafford LLB or that Buloke Shire Council, so
any of its staff members has issued this and other correspondence to people pretending it was
issued and signed by Basil L Stafford LLB.
5 Prior to retirement I was a CONSTITUTIONAL advisor to a law firm and well aware that one
must include the lawyers office details when sending out official correspondences signed by the
legal practitioner concerned. If Mr Wayne Wall is the real person who issued the
correspondence and hence seek to rely upon Buloke Shire Council postal address as shown on
the envelope then I vie this is a deceptive conduct that Buloke Shire Council cannot tolerate.
10 Indeed, I view this may constitute fraud, to claim $23.80 expense for Buloke Shire Council and
not for the lawfirm ES&A. In my view impersonating a member of the legal profession is a very
serious matter.
.
I have represented solicitors and barristers and others in legal proceedings but so as a
15 CONSTITUTIONALIST and Professional Advocate and despite complaints by others claiming
I was conducting a legal practice Legal Service Commission extensive investigations found no
wrongdoing on my part. Actually, the last party I represented (before retirement) was a legal
practitioner, who for 22 years was a barrister, and so on 4 occasions (including in the Supreme
Court of Victoria) with the opponent party being the Legal Service Commissioner.
20
I take offence also to the statement:
QUOTE
25
30
35
END QUOTE
.
Using the term which will involve and not which may involve the correspondence therefore
has already decided for any court, that is if any court actually was to hold it can invoke
jurisdiction as I have from onset objected to this, then nevertheless the issue of cost already has
been dictated to the court to be issued against me.
.
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

(Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
In my view it may be held to be CONTEMPT OF COURT for seeking to predetermine what a

court may or may not do. This as I view it is to seek to intimidate the recipient of the
40 correspondence that the court will issue involve substantially cost, this even so the Supreme
Court of Victoria made clear:
QUOTE my 2-5-2015 CORRESPONDENCE TO Buloke Shire Council
45
I draw your attention to the decision in Hobsons Bay Council v Viking in Supreme Court
of Victoria re an infringement notice, where the Supreme Court upheld the Magistrates
decision that cost should not be awarded where cost isnt applied if the Police prosecuted
for the same. (I have reproduced the decision below)
END QUOTE my 2-5-2015 CORRESPONDENCE TO Buloke Shire Council
50 I inderstand you can download the decision from the following weblink:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2010/386.html
Hobsons Bay City Council v Viking Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 386 (27 August 2010)
p5
19-6-2015
Page 6
I understand that at times the Supreme Court of Victoria ordered cost against the legal
practitioners themselves where shoddy and/or other inappropriate conduct was held to have
eventuated by the Court.
5 In about 1986 I made a submission that the other party had committed assault. The trial judge
then zeroed in to me that this was a general statement and means absolutely nothing in law. As
His Honour then went on to explain someone could claim that he had seen me intoxicated and
that would deny me any ability to refuse the allegation, but if the person was to claim that he had
seen me on the street swaying about reeking to alcohol then I may respond that I had earlier been
10 hit by a motor vehicle and at hospital my wounds were cleaned with alcohol and I decided to
walk back home despite being a bit unstable as after effect of the motor vehicle accident. As such
a precise set out is required to allow the opponent to be able to respond as to what really had
eventuated, etc.
If then we consider the Infringement Noticer, as I recall, it before it was misplaced and Buloke
15 Shire Council refused/denied to provide a requested copy, then one may notice the Infringement
Notice refers to as I rec al it Failure to comply with notice. No officer would be able to deal
with a matter on the vague and aloof description notice (Consider my example of assault). Is
the judicial officer to guess if it is an eviction notice by a landlord? Is it a notice to produce that
was not complained with and so may possibly attract a CONTEMPT OF COURT litigation?
20 An opponent party is entitled to be appropriately informed as to what was alleged and if an
Infringement Notice was not validly stating the grounds relied upon then to demand nevertheless
a payment and a threat to charge cost and further cost I view is highly inappropriate that may
perhaps serve a gutter tactic kind of legal practitioner, but I view not a decent lawfirm.
25 A bit of a summary of issues regarding council versus the constitution, etc.
The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/264713857/20150509-Schorel-Hlavka-to-Buloke-Shire-CouncilCare-of-Mayor
30
35
40
45
50
55
QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 9-5-2015

I also indicated in my recent writings (see my blog www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati) that upon Federation
the newly created State of Victoria on 2-1-1901 published a Gazette in which the British Monarch had
revoked the Letters Patent appointing the Governor of the Colony of Victoria and instead commissioned a
permanent Office of the Governor where the governor was to impartially appoint judges, etc. As such the
Courts cannot exercise any ABN registration which also involves the Justice Department and even the
Prostitution Control Commission. And I also provided a retirement statement of Phillips J of 2005 as
published then in The Age newspaper that the government had access to the courts computers and that the
courts were listed as Business Unit 19 with the government. Hence, no court/tribunal can hear the matters
in dispute where they are not impartial from the Government and so any one exercising delegated powers of
the Government.
END QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 9-5-2015
https://www.scribd.com/doc/264713857/20150509-Schorel-Hlavka-to-Buloke-Shire-Council-Care-of-Mayor
I also did set out that for federation purposes the Colonies became States but the Framers of the constitution
held that the States were the local Government and the Commonwealth was the central government.
One cannot have a purported local government being municipal/shire councils as the States themselves
are the local government within the Federation. Further, the States created within s106 of the constitution
subject to this constitution are bound by the legal provisions and implied legal principles of the federal
constitution. As such a separation of powers (as also indicated in the 2-1-1901 Gazette published in
Victoria) that the judiciary shall be impartial must be adhered to. Municipal/shire councils are not a level of
Government provided for in the federal constitution and as such violates the legal principles embedded in
this constitution. Neither is the structure of a municipal/shire council conforming with the legal principles
embedded in the federal constitution. The purported Local Government Act (Vic) allows for a council to
sell a persons property, whereas the Federal constitution doesnt allow for this kind of absurd principle.
The federal constitution provides for acquisition and a just price to be paid. If there is a debt or alleged debt
then the courts are there to decide the matter. No unilateral grabbing of a citizens property and selling the
p6
19-6-2015
10
15
20
25
Page 7
property, as has been found in the past the council having sold the wrong property of a person who had no
debt whatsoever.
I have made clear that in past litigation (not involving Buloke Shire Council) the Infringement Registrar
refused a review which made the Infringement court to be unconstitutional, this as the High Court of
Australia in Harris v Caladine made clear a registrars decision always must be reviewable and if it is
refused the Registrars orders as unconstitutional. For this also the Infringement Court cannot hear and
determine any matters.
I have also set out that the Infringement Court is not an open court and its decisions are not published by
the Magistrates Court of Victoria, this even so it is claimed to be part of the Magistrates Court of Victoria.
As I did set out that on 19 July 2006 after a 5 year epic legal battled I comprehensively defeated the
Commonwealth of Australia, and all Attorney-Generals were provided with the s78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and accepted the court decision, that the County Court of Victoria
exercising federal jurisdiction upheld all my submissions when it upheld both appeals unchallenged. Hence
the state of Victoria cannot litigate the same issues against me again as it is bound by the courts decision.
Likewise so any council seeking to exercise delegated powers. Further, An Infringement Court is not a
court that is invested with federal jurisdiction. Further, the Magistrates Court of Victoria allowing under
its heading to have an Infringement Court operating in violation to the Framers of the Constitution that a
judicial determination can only be handed down after hearing both sides, which the Infringement Court
doesnt provide for, and allows a private company to use the Magistrates Court of Victoria letter head to
purport a decision was made by or under authority of the Magistrates Court of Victoria then it has itself
proven to be bias and cannot hear and determine matters. Nor can the Magistrates Court of Victoria
overrule or otherwise undermine the legal benefits I gained from the 19-7-2006 County Court of Victoria
(having exercised federal jurisdiction) decision to uphold my appeals on all matters I submitted to the court
and so unchallenged, including by the then Attorney-General of the State of Victoria.
The following quotations were also quoted in my 13-1-2015 correspondence to Buloke Shire
Council.
30
35

We can no longer hold that the judiciary is above suspicion because clearly the ABN number has indeed a
more sinister application then just referring to a taxation status.
So what was its real purpose then other then perhaps Government control over judicial decisions and access
to computer network to dictate any judicial decisions?
THE ABN CONNECTION OF THE COURTS WITH THE PROSECUTOR ETC.

40
45
50
55
60
STATE OF VICTORIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ABN: 32 790 228 959

www.abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?SearchText=32+790+228+959
This extract is based on information supplied by businesses to the Registrar of the Australian Business
Register. Neither the Registrar nor the Federal Government guarantee this information is accurate, up to
date or complete. Consider verifying this information from other sources.
www.abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?SearchText=32+790+228+959
ABN: 32 790 228 959 View ABN history
Last modified: 02 Sep 2010
01 Nov 1999
QUOTE
Trading Names:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
IMES
Infringement Management & Enforcement Services
Sheriffs Office Victoria
RTBA - Residential Tenancies Bond Authority
Coroners Court of Victoria
Office of the Special Investigations Monitor
Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
Registrar of Births Deaths & Marriages Victoria
Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages
OESC - Office of Emergency Services Commissioner
CAV - Consumer Affairs Victoria
ABN status: Active from
p7
19-6-2015
Page 8
Enforcement Management
MPPO - Major Procurement Program Office
Professional Standards Council
BEST - Bureau of Emergency Services Telecommunications
VCAT
Dispute Settlement Centre
Road Safety Enforcement Technology
Victim Support Agency
Corrections Victoria
Sentencing Advisory Council
JUDICIAL COLLEGE OF VICTORIA
BOOKMAKER & BOOKMAKERS CLERK'S REGISTRATION COMMITTEE
GAMBLING RESEARCH PANEL
LIQUOR LICENSING VICTORIA
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL
TRADE MEASUREMENT VICTORIA
THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
PRIVACY VICTORIA
OFFICE OF THE VICTORIAN PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
VICTORIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION
ADULT PAROLE BOARD VICTORIA
ASSET CONFISCATION OFFICE
BUSINESS LICENSING AUTHORITY
CONSUMER CREDIT FUND
COUNCIL AGAINST VIOLENCE
COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
DONOR TISSUE BANK OF VICTORIA
ESTATE AGENTS COUNCIL
MAGISTRATES COURT VICTORIA
MOTOR CAR TRADERS GUARANTEE FUND CLAIMS COMMITTEE
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE
PROSTITUTION CONTROL ACT MINISTERIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
VICTORIA STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
VICTORIAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL AGAINST VIOLENCE
VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR
VICTORIAN INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC MEDICINE
END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
No impartial judiciary!
45
I have been for long as a CONSTITUTIONALIST an outspoken critic as to the diversion indeed hijacking of our
judicial system and the business relationship between the Department of Justice, the courts and even the
Prostitution Control Commission.
.
50
55
60
Fancy that the Justice Department litigate against the Prostitution Control Commission before any court of or
tribunal where all three are part of the same Australian Business Number (ABN) entity!
From The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
The corporatising of our courts
Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria
March 24, 2005
QUOTE
As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,
particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what they
can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians, but while I
have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's independence.
END QUOTE
p8
19-6-2015
Page 9
10
From The Age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
The corporatising of our courts
Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria
March 24, 2005
Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive officer
be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be ultimately
answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.
That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming
absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a
movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.
15 END QUOTE
Where then judicial officers (including magistrates) by Victorian legal provisions can only be
appointed if they are lawyers then clearly there is already an implied bias towards the legal
profession. Where then a sitting judge exposed that the Courts are Business Unit 19 with the
20 government then clearly this also prevents impartial appointments made to the courts.
Considering also that on 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of

Australia in the County Court of Victoria on FAILING TO VOTE that constitutionally one
25 cannot be compelled to vote, and the Commonwealth nor any other of the Attorney-Generals
challenged any of my constitutional based submission, including that citizenship is a state issue
and only one can AUTOMATICALLY obtain Commonwealth citizenship if one obtains State
citizenship then where the Victorian Government made clear it has no State Citizenship then
all and any voting right cannot exist. Nor can then any politician be validly be appointed to the
30 Victorian Parliament for that without citizenship there can be no franchise and no ability to stand
for Parliament in political elections.
ADDRESS TO THE COURT
County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
35 QUOTE
40
QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Attorney General
19-11-2002
Victoria
Fax 9651 0577
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
URGENT
Sir/Madam
Since 27-9-2002 I sought clarification about what, if any State citizenship I have as to be able to
obtain Australian citizenship, yet, in the recent 18 November 2002 response it was stated;
45
As explained in my previous letter, citizenship is a matter for the Commonwealth, not the States. You
indicated that you were naturalized in 1994. As result of that, you are an Australian citizen.
This utter ridiculous response was provided by RUVANI WICKS, Assistant Director, Civil Branch of the
50 Department of Justice
END QUOTE
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
p9
19-6-2015
Page 10
QUOTE
10
15
20
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and
clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to
place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the
right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a
thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than 1,000 a year should
be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
25
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
END QUOTE
ADDRESS TO THE COURT

County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
30 QUOTE
35
40
The Defendant submits, that he has in an elaborate way made constitutional based objections against the
validity of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, to declare/define citizenship as he submit, citizenship is a
State legislative power. Further more, he submit, that constitutionally ss51(xix) provides only for the
naturalization of aliens to become British nationals, which when residing in the Commonwealth of
Australia are referred to as Australians as much as are aliens residing in the Commonwealth of Australia
and as such where the Attorney-General of the State of Victoria made known there is no State citizenship
then the Defendant submits, there can be no Australian citizenship either. In any event, the Defendant
submits, that the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) enacted within subsection 51(xxvi) is in fact
unconstitutional but by it causes a disability against all Australians and for this not a single Australia has
franchise as this is in the citizenship which is removed by the effect of this Act.
END QUOTE
As the Attorney-General of the State of Victoria neither did challenge this and in fact made
known to abuse by the courts (19-6-2006) decision, which upheld both appeals, then where this
45 was a constitutional issue no Infringement Registrar or for that any Magistrates Court or even
the County Court of Victoria can interfere with this decision to uphold my appeals with all
submissions remaining unchallenged aby any and all Attorney-Generals despite a s78B
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS having been served upon them all.
50 See also:
Citizenship and nationality are different issues, and on 19-6-2006 the Court upheld my
submissions regarding this.
20150614-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re removal of citizenship-etc
55 The document can be downloaded from:

p10
19-6-2015
Page 11
https://www.scribd.com/doc/268637264/20150614-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Mr-TONYABBOTT-PM-Re-Removal-of-Citizenship-etc
ANTHONY FERNANDO v PORT PHILLIP CITY COUNCIL AND OTHERS 2330 of 2011
5 QUOTE at 52
10
The Attorney-General also made the following remarks about the power of magistrates:
The bill gives broader options to magistrates in open court hearings which occur after
the execution of an enforcement warrant. By this stage, other enforcement sanctions,
instalment payment plans or community work will not have been successful in expiating
the fines. These hearings will consider whether a person should be imprisoned, and will
determine whether the individual has extenuating circumstances.
END QUOTE
I did not elect to go to court, and made ongoing clear that no court in the Commonwealth of
15 Australia would have jurisdiction to hear and determine matters. (See Wakim 27 of 1999)
constitutional matters once raised between matters cannot be re-litigated between the same
parties. And as Buloke Shire Council is purportedly exercising delegated powers of the State of
Victoria then as the High Court of Australia made clear it is to be deemed to be in place of the
State. Hence the 19-7-2006 County Court of Victoria decision cannot be circumvented. As the
20 ANTHONY FERNANDO v PORT PHILLIP CITY COUNCIL AND OTHERS 2330 of 2011
Case set out: the Attorney General outlined how the Infringement act applied, and clearly no
Infringement Registrar was involved in the case so far and neither could as it is not a court
invested with federal jurisdiction, then I view for this also the Magistrates Court or for that the
County Court of Victoria cannot hear and determine the matters either.
25
It is my view that if indeed Buloke Shire Council is sending out correspondence(s) of demands
under the letter head of ES&A and using the signature and identity of Basil L Stafford LLB.
Legal Practitioner then Basil L Stafford LLB. as a legal practitioner has an obligation and duty
to report matters to the Victorian Police as well as to the Legal Service Commissioner, as I hold
30 that impersonating as legal practitioner may be a serious offence, this in particular where this
also contains a demand (I view extortion) for monies to be paid under threat of litigation and
other will substantial cost. Where I do not receive sufficient details/information as to indicate
to me that the 10 June correspondence quoted above is to be held appropriate correspondence
Basil L Stafford LLB. then I contemplate to report matters myself to the relevant authorities!
35 I hold it critical for a democratic society that there must be an independent and impartial court to
adjudicate matters and not a court being told that is must issue orders for cost, etc. And I for one
cannot accept that Buloke Shire Council also considering my past and present writings, has
any legal standing to litigate. As I questioned why on earth Buloke Shire Council a $1,476.00
Infringement Notice which in another council is a $500.00 amount one surely has to question
40 how can Buloke Shire Council claim this to be enforcing state legislation. Any legislation must
be considered and applied equally to all people. And as I indicated the weed/grass was slashed
twice before the Infringement Notice was issued and subsequently again, where as I provided
images how Buloke Shire Council has at times weed/grass in excess of 1metres high along
Calder Highway and one can see then also various areas where there had been a fire. As such
45 Buloke Shire Council in fact IN MY VIEW IS THE WORST OFFENDER BUT BIAS IS
NOT FINED FOR DOING SO. As Such it is not a model litigant!
Awaiting your response,
50
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
p11
19-6-2015

20150619-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Elliott Stafford and Associates Your Ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

20150619-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Elliott Stafford and Associates Your Ref LA-05-06-Re Buloke Shire Council

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Page 1

Elliott Stafford and Associated

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

0427 320 166 Email: crtellefson@buloke.vic.gov.au

With an internet search I located the following details:

316a Queens Parade, Clifton Hill VIC 3068

DX 15406, Clifton Hill

Phone: 03 9486 7555

Fax: 03 9486 6444

QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

In my view it may be held to be CONTEMPT OF COURT for seeking to predetermine what a

QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 9-5-2015

QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 13-1-2015

THE ABN CONNECTION OF THE COURTS WITH THE PROSECUTOR ETC.

STATE OF VICTORIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ABN: 32 790 228 959

ABN status: Active from

From The Age

Considering also that on 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of

QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General

ADDRESS TO THE COURT

55 The document can be downloaded from:

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Potrebbero piacerti anche