20181123-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Matthew - Carrazzo, Vgso-Vic-gov

Page 1
1
2
3 Victorian Government Solicitors Office 23-11-2018
4 C/o Matthew Carrazzo
5 Principal Solicitor @ Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
6 Workplace Relations & Regulatory Compliance
7
8 Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
9 Level 39, 80 Collins Street, Melbourne Vic 3000
10 t +61 3 9032 3004 f +61 3 9032 3049
11 matthew.carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au
12 www.vgso.vic.gov.au
13 Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au <Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au>
Managing Lawyer @ Brimbank Melton Community Legal Centre
14
15 Ref: 20181123-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Government Solicitors Office
16
17 Sir,
18 because your email address is doubtful as to if it is with or without spaces, etc, I will use
19 different versions as to try to make sure you receive it.
20
21 As you may recall you were involved in the Pervakis v Schorel-Hlavka CCV No AP-12-
22 1704 matter in which the Victorian Government Solicitors Office represented Pervakis and
23 when the matter came on appeal before Her Honour Gaynor J in the County Court of Victoria
24 Her Honour made it clear that within the provisions of the legislation anyone could bring a case
25 regarding such matter to the court.
26 QUOTE
From: Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au <Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au>
To: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com, schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com

Cc:
Date: Friday, September 21, 2012 04:10 pm

Subject: Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis - County Court Appeal (Our Ref: 1121763)
27
28 (2KB)
29 Scho3107Extract.doc (47KB)
30
31 Gerritt,
32
33 I refer to our telephone discussion this afternoon
34
35 Please find attached a transcript of the digital audio file containing the recording of your evidence
36 to the Magistrates' Court at the hearing on 31 July 2012:
37
38
39 I will arrange for a copy of the CD containing the complete recording to be sent by express post this
23-11-2018 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 afternoon, so that it shall hopefully arrive on Monday.

2
3 I am grateful for your indication that you preliminary indication that you will not take issue with the
4 authenticity of the recording. I understand your position to be that the admissibility of the recording
5 as evidence of any admission by you concerning the failure to lodge a campaign donation return
6 may still be the subject of argument.
7
8 I am also grateful for your indication that you do not require Mr Oldfield's attendance as a witness,
9 as was the case with the Magistrates' Court hearing. I will notify Mr Oldfield that his attendance is
10 not required.
11
12 Finally, I confirm that I will seek instructions from my client as to any application for an adjournment
13 of the hearing on Wednesday, on the basis that your preparation for the hearing has been
14 disrupted by the hacking of your home computer systems and deletion of much of your stored data.
15 I will contact you on Monday to confirm these instructions.
16
17 Yours sincerely,
Matthew Carrazzo
Senior Solicitor
Workplace Relations & Regulatory Compliance
Victorian Government Solicitor's Office

Level 39, 80 Collins Street, Melbourne Vic 3000
t +61 3 9032 3004 f +61 3 9032 3049
matthew.carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au
www.vgso.vic.gov.au
 Think Green before printing this email.

18 END QUOTE
19
20 Hence, I now request that the Victorian Government Solicitors Office institute legal proceedings
21 against those ALP members who failed to disclose the monies the Victorian Ombudsman held
22 they benefitted in their financial declaration, by this using me as the informer.
23
24 I understand that reportedly Mr Anthony Carbines benefitted $12,361 and obviously where I
25 understand he would have failed to declare this in his financial statement at the time then I view
26 he committed perjury filing a false and misleading statement. This is precisely what I stated in
27 court I didn’t want to do.
28 Where also this was in relation to ALP person Lenders than I view this constitute a
29 CONSPIRACY where it involved more than one person to do so.
30
31 I understand it was also unlawful for Mr Anthony Carbines (then being a Banyule City Council
32 councillor) using council employees for his personal political ends, as he did with regard of
33 sending a by-law officer to my residence claiming I had littered outside his office and that
34 causing him/them to remove my banners and posters that were part of my election as an
35 INDEPENDENT candidate in the 2010 Ivanhoe State election.
36 I have other pictures which shows that my posters in Banyule City were ripped off from where
37 they had been displayed, which are not included in my 22-11-2018 correspondence to the Chief
38 Commissioner of Police Mr Graham Ashton.
39
40 See also my correspondence posted at my blog:
Page 3
1
2 Our democracy finds its roots in FAIR and PROPER elections but it now appears to
3 me that the Victorian Police takes far too much time to do the job that could have
4 been expected from it to hold certain people legally accountable!
5
6 This document can be downloaded from:
7 https://www.scribd.com/document/393860400/20181122-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
8 Graham-Ashton-AM-Chief-Commissioner-Victorian-Police-RED-SHIRT-Issue-
9 Investigation-etc-Suppl-6
10
11 This document shows images relating to the damages to my election banners and posters, etc.
12 If you are really concerned about upholding the rule of law then why not pursue appropriate
13 charges against those who omitted to disclose their financial gains in their financial statements?
14
15 Further, as I make clear the issue is that when a State election is called then all seats are declared
16 vacant, and as such until the return of the writs wed do not have a single Member of Parliament.
17 We do however have a care-taking government in that time. It means that the care-taking
18 Government must act without political bias and as such cannot at taxpayers cost involve itself in
19 political matters to favour themselves. Hence any usage of telephone, time and office facilities
20 cannot be used for political election. Neither can any former Member of Parliament, regardless if
21 they are in a ministerial position or not use taxpayers funded services. As such all and any
22 Member of Parliament/former Member of Parliament who uses public monies to advance
23 himself/herself or other political aligned person would be financially benefitting from this and
24 regardless if there is any legislation on foot to purportedly permit this it nevertheless violated s44
25 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) to which the States within
26 Section 106 “subject to this constitution” are bound to the embedded legal principle of Section
27 44, which was derived from the colonial constitutions.
28
29 There is also an issue that Premier Mr Daniel Andrews authorized the release of about 80,000
30 pages relating to decisions of Mr Matthew Guy then as planning Minister. The issue is that
31 clearly the release (itself breaches publications of privacy legislation of certain confidential
32 details) was for no other purpose but as a political tool. To scan in and convert those 80,000
33 pages into a pdf format would have taken numerous hours and hence the cost of this for political
34 purposes cannot be deemed for the public purpose and I view by this Mr Daniel Andrews
35 misused/abused his office and legal powers as a Premier to do a political battle and should be
36 held legally accountable for the cost associated with this.
37 .
38 Likewise so with the rorting of the Red Shirt issue, I view that the litigation such as the High
39 Court of Victoria case against the Victorian Ombudsman was not one of a nature of public
40 interest but was a private matter of those involved in the Red shirt issue and hence the cost of
41 reportedly more than $1 million was to be deemed a private matter cost which the Premier and
42 others involved should re-reimburse the taxpayers and be held legally accountable for defrauding
43 the State consolidated Revenue fund (taxpayers).
44
45 Further, as it is a violation of electoral laws to interfere with the political material of a candidate
46 and my evidence before the court, not challenged whatsoever by the prosecution both before the
47 Magistrates Court of Victoria and on appeal before Her Honour Gaynor J in the County Court of
48 Victoria then I view charges should have been laid against Mr Anthony Cart bines and those who
49 assisted him in vandalizing, stealing, interfering my election material.
50

Page 4
1 The following transcript is about the court case against me and it must be made clear and
2 understood that my evidence as to Banyule City Council involvement and so of Anthony
3 carbines and others was never challenged! As such it was uncontested evidence in court.
4
5 Pervakis v Schorel-Hlavka CCV No AP-12-1704
6
7 QUOTE 31 July 2012
8 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
9
10 MAGISTRATES' COURT
11
12 No. C11666860
13
14 HEIDELBERG
15
16 TUESDAY 31 JULY 2012
17
18
19 BEFORE MS S.M. WAKELING, MAGISTRATE
20
21 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTORATE v. GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-
22 HLAVKA
23
24
25 EXTRACT OF PROCEEDINGS
26
27
28 MR M. CARRAZZO appeared on behalf of the Local Government Inspectorate.
29
30 MR G.H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA appeared in person.
31
32 PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY MAGISTRATES' COURT
33
34
35 SPARK AND CANNON 9248-5678
36 Level 9, 620 Bourke Street, Melbourne
37
38 The Crown in right of the State of Victoria.
39 This work is copyright. No part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic,
40 mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in
41 a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission of the Authorised
42 Officer.
43
44 HER HONOUR: Yes, all right, now, Mr Schorel-Hlavka, I've indicated to you previously
45 that you are not required to respond to the evidence that I've heard, that if you choose to
46 give evidence in response to the evidence of the prosecution this is your time to do so.
47 MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: Can I take my laptop with me?
48 HER HONOUR: Absolutely.
49
50 <GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA, sworn and examined:
51 HER HONOUR: Now, you're welcome to have a seat, Mr Schorel-Hlavka?---Thank you.
52 May I make a statement first of all, Your Honour, so that that may help?
53 Yes, I think that the best way of proceeding is for you simply to tell me about the
54 circumstances that I need to know about in response to the allegation that is made?

Page 5
1 ---Your Honour, Banyule City Council and myself had a long running dispute in regard
2 of elections. I'm a person who stands up for the constitution and my elections are about
3 constitutional matters and a proper observation of the constitution. One of the issues I
4 have been dealing with is that the councils were overcharging ratepayers in certain ways
5 like on pensions because they're not following the Commonwealth requirement to limit the
6 rate increases to CPI, so what Banyule council's been doing; for instance when I stood
7 against one of the councillors for the election they then, in 2010, started to remove all my
8 posters and banners because of the damage to the council if I was to get elected. The
9 extent was that far that even the police got involved because my posters were slashed, it
10 scared my wife, they dumped them in my yard. Councillor Anthony Carbines at the time;
11 he instructed councillors to remove my banners and posters and this went on, so that was
12 during the Ivanhoe election.
13 Who was it? Who do you say instructed the council - - -?
14 ---It was then Councillor Anthony Carbines. He was then subsequently elected in that
15 election. I was also - had my posters and banners regarding opposition of freeway when he
16 was in favour of the freeway, so there was quite a clash there. He even had the council on
17 my back saying that I was littering the road with how to vote cards. Now, I gave out free
18 how-to-vote cards outside the post office and because he had his office next to the post
19 office - - -
20 You've identified the problem that you were having?---Yes, okay, so there was a little bit
21 of problem there, so the council basically was targeting me unrealistically because how-to-
22 vote cards are outside our litter laws, but anyhow, so that had been going on which the
23 police investigated and I said, "Look I want from the council an investigation and I want
24 you to compensate me for the missing posters and banners." When it came down to the
25 Olympia ward election the same thing again was happening; that's the election ward
26 (indistinct) the same thing happened. My banners and posters were being removed, not of
27 any other candidate, only mine, and there was quite a correspondence of that, so my letter -
28 and then Kylie Boyle; she wrote about the returns and everything else and I had already
29 written previous to the council that for me to do a return I would have to know how much
30 compensation do council provide because that basically has to be disclosed as part of a
31 donation because it was regarding cost incurred previously, et cetera.
32 Let me just make sure I understand what you're telling me there. You're saying that in
33 order to determine the declarable donations received by you in the election campaign you
34 had to have resolved the issue of the compensation due to you from the council?---Yes,
35 that's what I was asking for; the loss of all the banners that they were taking away during
36 the election.
37 You were proposing to set off the compensation owed to you by the council against the
38 donations that you received. Is that right?---Well, I didn't receive any donations, but if the
39 council were to give me a donation then that would have to be declared as a settlement,
40 let's say, for the missing posters. In fact, Your Honour, when Kylie Boyle was involved in
41 that there was ongoing correspondence. Now, one of the letters was in fact my 5 May
42 2011 correspondence to Kylie Boyle, immediately the same day when she wrote to me,
43 you know, that I still could file and in that for instance I stated where I am to make a
44 declaration that obviously the issue is that it must be done to the facts and not simply is
45 concocted or just made up and hence I will await from each council their report to me as to
46 resolve the investigation and also any conclusive report that the Victoria Police may
47 provide. Finally, one day, I can, in all honesty, provide any declaration that ordinarily are
48 or may be required within a specific time period. It was simply I have asked for
49 investigations by the council already for a long running time and ask them to compensate
50 me for the damage that was done et cetera which is basically towards the election funds
51 because it's part of it. I've clearly indicated that, so it wasn't an issue about saying I thumb
Page 6
1 my nose on the law, I don't do that. It was simply that I am saying, "Look if you want me
2 to make a declaration let me do it in an honest and proper manner." That's what the issue
3 was about, so there was ongoing correspondence, but I'm just saying the 5th. So what
4 council obviously did, and the witness before said that he didn't know about it, but clearly I
5 was in communication with Kylie Boyle from Banyule council. There was police
6 investigation going, there was council elections going on and I still haven't had a response.
7 Now, when I immediately the same day respond, right, to them then it doesn't show that I
8 just thumb my nose on them and said, "Look I ignore you." I have asked them to respond
9 back to me and I know councils don't always respond back immediately, they take their
10 time. It has been in other matters that I have written to council too that it takes sometimes
11 a year or more before I get a response, so in that regard there's nothing that I did to say,
12 "Look I don't care." It is simply - and this letter on 5 May relates to it and this is what I'm
13 saying. There was a lot of waiting going on about matters and I believe that in the
14 circumstances I acted properly and when Kylie Boyle said, "Look we give you an
15 extension of time," whether it's 16 May or not, where she is acting on behalf of the council
16 I'm entitled to assume that she is lawfully authorised to give the extension. If she misled
17 me that is not my fault. I acted in good faith to what they were saying. Now, in this letter,
18 you know, of 5 May - I haven't got a hard copy with me, but I can email it and
19 Your Honour can straightaway have a copy of it. It clearly will underline, without going
20 into all the details, that this was an ongoing conflict regarding council versus me and I say
21 that this matter currently before the court simply is another way of them trying to get back
22 on me because I'm exposing what they are doing wrong. I don't believe this is in good
23 faith to say, "Look, you know, this man just thumbs his nose on the law." That wasn't it at
24 all. Mr McMillan, himself, knows that over the past I have had numerous council issues
25 with him regarding a 400 million dollar project in Greensborough. I was the only objector
26 and in the end it didn't go ahead because I wrote to the Federal Government it was
27 unconstitutional to fund it and in the pub case, so that is basically what I want to say,
28 Your Honour.
29 Thank you. I just want to be very clear about my understanding of your evidence then. I
30 do understand that you were engaged in discussions with the council at least and had
31 requested an investigation by the council and an investigation by the Victoria Police with
32 respect to allegations made by you that the council was systematically targeting you for the
33 purpose of discouraging you from seeking election or hindering your chances of being
34 elected?---Yes, not seeking election, Your Honour, if I may correct you - - -
35 Hindering your chances of being successful?--- - - - but determined to undermine my
36 election.
37 You were in correspondence and discussion with Kylie Boyle on behalf of the council with
38 respect to the claims that you were making on council and to Victoria Police. Am I correct
39 about that?---Yes, that's right.
40 During those discussions you received a reminder from Ms Boyle dated 5 May to lodge
41 your declaration by 15 May. You had made it clear to Ms Boyle that you were seeking to
42 resolve the question as to the moneys owed to you by council either by means of a council
43 investigation or a police investigation. You were genuinely and honestly convinced that
44 you would be required to declare any funds that you did receive as a result of the
45 investigation by council or police in the return following the bi-election and that having
46 regard to the fact that that dispute was as yet unresolved you were deferring lodging your
47 return. Is that what you're saying?---That's what I indicated. I indicated and, as I said, the
48 moment I got her email regarding the declarations I immediately returned back the letter
49 saying this and that, so that was all - - -
50 Sorry, no, I don't understand that?---When Ms Kylie Boyle wrote to me on 5 May the same
51 day I wrote back to her immediately on that.
Page 7
1 Yes?---The problem with have sometimes is the different council office do different things,
2 they don't seem to communicate - - -
3 What did you say in response to her?---Well, that's what I read out before to you.
4 Yes, sorry, and I didn't follow it, so just take me through it again?---Okay. That I wanted
5 to do a declaration, but I said here, "One day can I honestly provide a declaration that
6 ordinarily may be required within a specific time period", so I'm saying, "Look I want to
7 do the declaration, but I don't want to make a false declaration because then I can be held
8 liable by law for filing a declaration that may be untrue", so what I needed to do was a
9 declaration and I said, at that very moment, "I cannot make a declaration because the
10 council has not responded back to me, the police hasn't given me any information yet and
11 so I'm in no legal position to give a declaration because if I do now I am liable to making a
12 false declaration."
13 All right, thank you. I think I've understood your evidence?
14 ---Thank you.
15 Any cross-examination?
16 MR CARRAZZO: No, Your Honour.
17 HER HONOUR: Thank you. You're free to leave the witness box. Thank you, Mr
18 Schorel-Hlavka?---Thank you, Your Honour.
19 <(THE WITNESS WITHDREW)
20 HER HONOUR: Are there any other witnesses that you would like to call?
21 MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: No, thank you, Your Honour.
22 HER HONOUR: So that's your evidence?
23 MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: That's correct, Your Honour.
24 HER HONOUR: Thank you very much.
25 END OF EXTRACT
26
27 END QUOTE 31 July 2012
28
29 Mr Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka and Banyule City Council Chief Executive officer Mr
30 Simon Mc Millan are back in court again on Wednesday 26 September 2012, this time in
31 the County Court of Victoria for an appeal.
32 Her Honour Gaynor J made clear the constitution doesn’t apply to her which caused some
33 uproar in the public gallery then Her Honour warned the public to have them all removed
34 if they again made a comment. Obviously with a judge who claims to be above the
35 constitution one can expect nothing less then to side with the prosecutor.
36 Still, I made my case and as my evidence was never challenged then clearly it was implied
37 admitted by the prosecutor. Yet, nothing eventuated as to any investigation, etc, after all
38 we were, as I understood it, dealing with ALP dominated councils and a council officer
39 misusing his position against a other State election candidate didn’t seem to be an issue for
40 all concerned other than myself, not even for the VEC.
41
42 You may have wondered at the time why I was not challenging the issue of the financial
43 statement, such as false claiming perhaps it was purportedly send in or whatever, but my aim
44 was to place on court record that Mr Anthony Carbines and Banyule /City council unlawfully
45 interfered with my democratic rights as a INDEPENDENT candidate in the 2010 state Ivanhoe
46 election as I all along expected that years later I could rely upon this evidence having been
47 uncontested. It was at the time open to the Prosecution to have called Banyule City council staff
48 and Mr Anthony Carbines to the court, such as in relation to the appeal before Her Honour
49 Gaynor J to counteract, if that was needed if it was held I had made any
50 false/misleading/incorrect statement what I had state in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at
51 Heidelberg on 31 July 2012, however this was not done.
Page 8
1 Where you then went along to use this transcript before Her Honour Gaynor then you implied
2 that the evidence in the transcript is not contested and neither sought to do so in the appeal.
3
4 I in 1985 was given the nickname TRAPDOOR SPIDER by a judge for the manner in which I
5 cross-examined witnesses, albeit he did state I was within the rules of cross-examination, and
6 refusing/dismissing the submission of opposing Council for an adjournment. A judge then also
7 made a comment that I was not addressing an appeal but a single judge, where the judge became
8 aware I was making statement for purpose of a subsequent appeal. As a (now retired)
9 Professional Advocate I have also represented lawyers (one was a barrister for 22 years) and I do
10 not consider a hearing to be isolated in particularly not the first hearing but built upon it for
11 further litigation and making it a spring plank for future litigation. Hence, my original evidence
12 in the transcript was that I expected you would go along with this and not realize my long term
13 intentions.
14
15 For the record Banyule City Council or for that anyone else did not offer and neither made any
16 compensation to me for the damage to my election posters/banners, etc.
17
18 I am providing you with this correspondence less than 1 hour prior to Saturday 24 November
19 2018 Victorian State election day to commence so it cannot be claimed I make this complaint,
20 etc, for sour grapes as to someone losing an election, in which I am not a candidate either, but
21 pursues that as the Principle solicitor you now will prosecute Mr Anthony Carbines and others
22 who defrauded the State Consolidate Revenue Funds and failed to disclose their ill gained
23 financial benefits in their financial statements at the time and so also concealed relevant details.
24 .
25 At the time that the case was against me I held that this was nothing less than a political matters
26 against me as another candidate who neither within the time frame had filed a financial
27 declaration was not charged. If despite my reasons and not having to declare any donations
28 nevertheless was held to be an offence and needed to be prosecuted then I have no doubt that you
29 as a lawyer and oath as a Member of the Bar will ensure that you will vigorously now pursue
30 others for their failures to disclose financial issues relevant to the State election of 2014 in
31 particular where I had already in my correspondence 20140616-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
32 to Christine Fyffe, Speaker Re EXPULSION Daniel Andrews + James Merlino required-
33 etc which also was then forwarded to Mr Daniel Andrews leader of the opposition, as with other
34 correspondences, that he knew or ought to have known that misuse of public monies was not
35 permitted nor the misuse of his office.
36
37 http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
38 QUOTE
39 Ethics Orientation for State Officials

40 Misuse of Public Funds
41 Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
42 END QUOTE
43
44 QUOTE 20140616-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Christine Fyffe, Speaker Re EXPULSION
45 Daniel Andrews + James Merlino required-etc
46 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
47 Christine Fyffe, Speaker 16-6-2014
48 christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au
49
50 Cc: Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
Page 9
1 Treasurer Michael O’Brien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au

2 Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
3 Mr Geoff Shaw geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
4 Robert Clark Attorney General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au
5 Louise Asher louise.asher@parliament.vic.gov.au
6 Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
7 David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
8 Bruce Atkinson bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au
9 Mr Ken Smith ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
10 George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
11
12 20140612-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Christine Fyffe, Speaker
13 Re EXPULSION Daniel Andrews + James Merlino required -etc
14 Christine,
15 I am wondering what on earth the “donations” you referred to on 12 June 2014 related to:
16 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 12-6-2014
17 The SPEAKER—Order! Before calling for questions I would like to advise the house that
18 following numerous inquiries received this morning I have chosen to donate the moneys from the
19 member for Frankston’s repayment, as decided by the house yesterday, to bowel cancer research. I
20 am advised that this amount will be $4200, so added to the contributions already made by the
21 Leader of the Opposition, the member for Monbulk and the member for Bendigo East of $5793,
22 this will result in just under $10 000 being given to bowel cancer research.
23 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 12-6-2014
24
25 I checked the Hansard of 10, 11 and 12 June 2014 and was unable to find any explanation why
26 the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Bendigo East provided such donation.
27 In the way it is recorded in the Hansard it may appear to ordinary readers that Mr Daniel
28 Andrews, Leader of the Opposition is such a kind and benefactor person to donate $5,793. And
29 like wise so with the Member for Bendigo East Jacinta Allen, who according to her website
30 appears to be an ALP member. (http://www.jacintaallan.com)
31
32 In my 7-6-2014 correspondence to you I stated:
33 QUOTE 7-6-2014 CORRESPONDENCE
34 As was reported in an article in the Herald Sun 6-6-2014 under the heading “Book of Daniel unread” that Mr
35 Daniel Andrews allegedly on 5-6-2014 went to Frankston and so with alleged “candidate” for the ALP and
36 state deputy ALP leader James Merlino r4egarding the candidate.
37 Moment is this not CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT for Mr Daniel Andres and Mr James Merlino to go
38 electioneering even so the Speaker n or the governor issued any writ for a by-election?
39 Is it now that Mr Daniel Andrews what the speaker of the Legislative Assembly or the Governor must do?
40 In my view this kind of conduct is unbecoming to being a Member of Parliament.
41 In my view it is undermining the authority of both the speaker and the Governor.
42 In my view it is unduly undermining the right of Mr Geoff Shaw to be regarded as the duly elected
43 representative of Frankston.
44 END QUOTE 7-6-2014 CORRESPONDENCE
45 OK, there is at least an offending typing error in the word “r4egarding” but hardly a hanging
46 offence, and quoting one cannot removed a typing error. Just to let you know I am aware of it.
47 Now, as since my 7-6-2014 correspondence (that was actually when I turned 67 – and to the
48 displeasure of my wife I was writing instead of celebrating) it seems to me very suspicious that
49 Mr Daniel Andrews would make a $5,793. A very odd figure, and as such I assume, again I state
50 I assume, that this is where he may have calculated that this might be the estimated cost he had
51 charged to the taxpayers for his grotesque conduct to parade a “candidate” for the Frankston by-
52 election that didn’t exist. Admittedly he and his deputy leader are not the only once, as I view it,
53 misusing and abusing their position to refer to a “candidate”, where no such “candidate” was
54 declared by the electoral commission.
55 I spend some 16 years in numerous elections as an INDEPENDENT candidate and actually
56 complained against the Clive Palmer advertising to vote for Clive Palmer as Prime Minister, as
57 there is no such electoral system in Australia that you can vote for a Prime Minister or for a
Page 10
1 Premier. Yet, Members of Parliament are ongoing deceiving electors with that they can vote for
2 someone to become Premier. I may state that the within hours of making the complaint against
3 the Clive Palmer false/misleading advertising the advertisement was withdrawn.
4 I on 15-6-2014 received in the mailbox documentation which states “Liberal Candidate for
5 Ivanhoe”. To my knowledge Parliament is still sitting, and no writs were issued, let alone
6 nominations for candidates having closed and certainly the electoral commission has to my
7 knowledge not declared any “candidate” for the November state election.
8 Perhaps I was wrong over the 16 years to hold that one is not a “candidate” until the electoral
9 commission announces the accepted nominations?
10
11
12 It appears therefore that not the constitution, Governor, the Speaker/President or even the
13 Parliament decides when writs will be issued and if an election will be held but that those leading
14 political now dictate what is to be deemed the law.
15 This I view would be anarchy.
16
17 Notice that it was authorised & Printed by Anthony Fernandez!
18 In the Broadmeadows 2011 by-election then too the newspapers were full about the ALP
19 candidate (councillor with Hume City Council) and yet in the end he never was a candidate as
20 McGuire became the candidate. As such this rot is going on and on where both the liberal and
21 labour parties are involved in deceiving the electorate about candidates who in fact are not
22 candidates at all. Yet, somehow the electoral commission so far to my knowledge has done
23 nothing against such false/fraudulent/deceptive conduct also involving persons who are
24 subsequently elected Members of Parliament.
25
26 Remember what Premier Denis Napthine stated (as recorded in Hansard 11-6-2014):
27 “a fair, just and appropriate penalty for the member for Frankston”
28 Why then is he silent about the misuse and abuses against the authority of the Parliament
29 (CONTEMPT), The misuse and abuses against the VICTORIAN Constitution Act 1975
30 (contempt) and the misuse and abuses against the electoral act?
31 After all if this is about compliance with rules and regulations and his party being on about “law
32 and order’ then why is it that his party is defying it all?
33 Is this that the Liberal Party can disregard the rule of law as it has placed itself above the law and
34 indeed above the constitution and know that the speaker/President and the electoral commission
35 will so to say close their eyes in regard of the abuses/fraudulent conduct?
36 How on earth can we have “fair and proper” elections when this rot goes on?
37 How many more ghost “candidates” are there currently promoted for the November State or
38 other purported by-elections where candidates are not candidates at all but might be “potential
39 candidates” or “person interested to be candidates”? Are they there to deceive electorates so than
40 the later real candidate can have it easy?

Page 11
1 In my view the Liberal Party, Mr Ziebell and Mr Anthony Fernandez who authorised and
2 printed the documentation all should be severely dealt with. After all to undermine the
3 democratic processes of an election cannot be tolerated. This must stop and right now!
4 .
5 Political parties should not dominate the Parliament as to so to say get away with their elaborate
6 fraud upon the elect orates as if we are going to have “a fair, just and appropriate penalty for
7 the member for Frankston” then the Parliament is bound to apply the same to anyone else who
8 defies the rule of law.
9
10 As I spend decades in court representing parties I am too well aware that often a person will
11 claim not to have received my email, this even so they are just making a fraudulent claim.
12 Hence, I ordinary forward to myself a copy of the email which then also list those email
13 addresses to whom a copy was forwarded. The email address
14 daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au clearly is that of the Leader of the Opposition Mr Daniel
15 Andrews and so he knew or could have known that I pursued he be dealt with what I viewed
16 CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT and rorting public monies. It is not relevant if he did or
17 didn’t read my correspondence as that is his choice to make and he might have been briefed ab
18 out the content by others, but in the end he was provided with an opportunity to be aware of it. It
19 is his decision if he disregarded it. Not uncommon I had opponent lawyers disregarding what I
20 had written only then in court seeking an adjournment to respond, which I then opposed as
21 ignorance is no excuse.
22
23 QUOTE 6-7-2014 EMAIL
From: G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com>
To: christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com, geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au,
ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au, daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au,
denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au, michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au,
matthew.johnston@news.com.au
Date: Saturday, June 07, 2014 03:00 am
Subject: see attachment 20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc
Attachments: Text version of this message. (1KB)
20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc.pdf (782KB)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Christine Fyffe, Speaker

7-6-
2014
christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au
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

Page 12
Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
VICTORIAN Treasurer Michael O’Brien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
COMPLAINT
20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT -etc
Christine,
see attachment 20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc
Gerrit
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084
Victoria, Australia
Blog (constitutional issues) http://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati

.
Website: http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/
The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless
specifically otherwise stated.
If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do is to
consider the content appropriately!
A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING

CONCERNED TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.
1 END QUOTE 6-7-2014 EMAIL
2
3 Again I refer to:

Page 13
1 The SPEAKER—Order! Before calling for questions I would like to advise the house that
2 following numerous inquiries received this morning I have chosen to donate the moneys from the
3 member for Frankston’s repayment, as decided by the house yesterday, to bowel cancer research. I
4 am advised that this amount will be $4200, so added to the contributions already made by the
5 Leader of the Opposition, the member for Monbulk and the member for Bendigo East of $5793,
6 this will result in just under $10 000 being given to bowel cancer research.
8
9 In my view it would be deceptive if you place on records that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr
10 Daniel Andrews) made a “donation” if in fact this so called donation was in fact a repayment of
11 misuse of public monies. In my view as a Speaker you must honour your parliamentarian office
12 to be and remain neutral and not to conceal from the Parliament relevant details and as such if
13 the “donation” was related to misuse/abuse of public monies, perhaps such as to the fictional
14 Frankston by-election travel, etc, then this was in my view rorting and you cannot have that a
15 Leader of the opposition demanding a member of Parliament to be expelled for what he alleges
16 was “rorting” them himself under cover of “donation” may have paid back some monies that he
17 may have rorted on the public pursed, by this trying to make out he is an man with credibility
18 rather than a “rorter”. In my view there are serious matters to be addressed.
19 .
20 In particular where Mr Daniel Andrews made such an issue about Mr Geoff Shaw rorting the
21 system and should for this be expelled from Parliament then his own conduct as I understand it
22 to be rorting the system while pursuing Mr Geoff Shaw for this cannot be overlooked and he
23 must suffer the very faith he had pursued against Mr Geoff Shaw.
24 .
25 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 (colour and bolding added)
26 Mr ANDREWS (Leader of the Opposition)—If anyone wants to know why ours is regarded as the
27 lowest profession, then simply look at the conduct of the member for Frankston and the Premier’s
28 protection of him. If anyone in this chamber wants to know why we are regarded as being for the
29 public purse instead of the public good, if anyone in this chamber wants to know why we are held
30 in such low regard by the hardworking people of this great state, then look no further than the
31 conduct of the member for Frankston and the Premier’s protection of him via this motion. The
32 Premier says this motion was carefully drafted. We will return to that in a few moments. It is this
33 sort of conduct, this sort of weakness, this apologising for the member for Frankston that sums up
34 this Premier, sums up this government and sums up, sadly, why the community has lost faith in us
35 as a class of person— all of us—and, what is more, lost faith in this chamber and the institution of
36 this Parliament.
37 The Premier’s presentation was littered with inconsistencies and littered with the notions of
38 strength and of doing the right thing. At the outset I remind all honourable members and all
39 Victorians that it has taken the best part of 19 months for us to arrive at this position. Only after the
40 member for Frankston indicated he would withdraw his support from this Premier is the Premier, in
41 complete fulfilment of the great saying ‘There is nothing like a convert’, prepared to act and
42 prepared to ensure that no wrongdoing goes unpunished. The Premier is prepared to make sure—I
43 should not have to refer to my notes, because we have heard it so many times today—that
44 punishments are ‘fair, just and appropriate’.
45 Apparently one can only take the most extreme action if a murder has been committed, if there has
46 been some other piece of absolute malfeasance at the highest of high standards or if it is September.
47 That is the great arbiter of what sort of penalty should be applied, because timing is everything. If
48 the member for Frankston were appropriately punished and an appropriate penalty were levied
49 upon him—that is to say, if he were expelled from this house, which is exactly what should
50 occur, for his completely inappropriate behaviour and for putting his private interests and
51 profits ahead of his public duty and the public trust placed in him by the good people of
52 Frankston—there would be every expectation that a by-election would be held.
53 Captain Courageous over there, the Premier——
54 The SPEAKER—Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that I made it very clear that
55 members should be referred to by their correct titles.
56 Mr ANDREWS—The Premier then, Speaker, fearful of a by-election——
Page 14

2
3 I may also state that I view that Mr Daniel Andrews comparison of a Member of Parliament
4 versus an employee of the State is misguided as Mr Geoff Shaw was not and is not an employee
5 of the State! And as I have canvassed in previous correspondence the issue of “allowance” is
6 what it is about. The Parliament is not and never was the workplace for members of parliament
7 as the term “workplace” in my view implies employment, which a Member of Parliament t
8 doesn’t have as otherwise it would be an Office of Profit and disqualifies the Member from
9 being a Member of Parliament unless being a Minister of the crown. Hence, it is Mr Daniel
10 Andrews himself I view is in breach of the law because as a “shadow Minister’ he is paid not an
11 “allowance” but a salary with fringe benefits that I view must be deemed to be an Office of
12 Profit and so he has no place in the Parliament to hold a seat. Why then is he and others not held
13 accountable considering his mantra against Mr Geoff Shaw?
14 In my view the statement “The Privileges Committee majority report, which is a complete
15 and utter whitewash” should never have been allowed by the Speaker, this as it undermines the
16 credibility of the privileges committee. Whereas my c riticism was upon its legality to deal with
17 the matter I view that the statement “The Privileges Committee majority report, which is a
18 complete and utter whitewash” is a derogation of the work of the privilege committee and
19 unbecoming to that of a Member of Parliament.
20
21 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
22 Indeed we have seen examples across the public sector of people in senior positions, and others in less senior
23 positions, who have been dismissed or have resigned knowing that their position was untenable for much less
24 than the member for Frankston got up to. They have gone; they have done the right thing. They did not have
25 to be pushed or forced. In many respects the matter was not for them—they were dismissed immediately. If it
26 is good enough for a staff member of this Parliament, if it is good enough for a public servant in that
27 traditional sense of the term, then why is it not good enough for a servant of the public?
28 If it is good enough for a member of staff in this Parliament to go for doing what the member for Frankston
29 did, or even perhaps less, why is it not the same? Why is it not good enough for the member for
30 Frankston to be expelled from this workplace for having brought dishonour on all of us, regardless of
31 what political party we are from, regardless of what electorate we represent, regardless of how long we
32 have been here, regardless of what motivates us and regardless of what burns inside us? The member
33 for Frankston has defamed all of us, and he ought to be dealt with by all of us, not to suit our own political
34 purposes and not in an act of conversion but in an act of conscience, an act of decency, an act of character,
35 might I say, and an act of leadership—a concept foreign to the Premier, because he became offended by this
36 conduct only after the member for Frankston said, ‘Well, you know what? I’ve had enough of you’. It was
37 only at that point that the Premier thought that this matter could not wait until after the winter break. It was
38 only at that point that the Premier thought we had to be fair, just and appropriate—but not too appropriate!
39 Mr Merlino—And not too early.
40 Mr ANDREWS—And not too early! ‘We have to act on this, We have to do all this wonderful work,
41 Speaker. We have to hurry around, convincing people that we are tough on the member for Frankston, but
42 not too quickly, and not too much and not too well!’. That is the issue here. The Premier is paralysed to act
43 appropriately on the member for Frankston, and this motion shows it.
44 The Privileges Committee majority report, which is a complete and utter whitewash, finds as a matter of
45 fact that, ‘Yes, of course the member for Frankston did it all’, but it could not find him wilful. It could not
46 find that he did it on purpose. It could only find that he was ‘not diligent’. ‘Not diligent’ is not doing a
47 spellcheck. ‘Not diligent’ is not returning a phone call. It does not apply to rorting wilfully and
48 systematically and working on your alibi as well. It does not apply to giving instructions to the staff
49 you have told to misuse the resources—‘If anyone asks, make sure you say it’s for private use’—as if
50 that works anyway! How is going to and from work the responsibility of taxpayers? How is the member
51 for Frankston’s commercial staff getting to and from work a matter for any of our constituents? He did not
52 just give them the line to run if they were ever queried. The member for Frankston also told them how to
53 drive in—how to back the vehicle up so that the security camera did not see what he was doing. So confident
54 was he that he was doing the right thing that he did not want anyone to film it.
56
57 Mr Daniel Andrews refers to “work” where in fact only Ministers of the Crown are attending to
58 their work being in employment with the Crown. A Leader of the opposition promoting to be the
Page 15
1 alternative government not even understanding the basics of constitutional provisions to me is

2 utter scandalous.
3
4 Let’s apply this statement “It does not apply to rorting wilfully and systematically and
5 working on your alibi as well. It does not apply to giving instructions to the staff you have
6 told to misuse the resources—‘If anyone asks, make sure you say it’s for private use’—as if
7 that works anyway! How is going to and from work the responsibility of taxpayers?” to his
8 usage of arranging for a trip to and from Frankston. Did he use his office staff, computer system,
9 telephone, mobile, etc, to arrange the trip? Telephone/mobile and other records may prove what
10 numbers he called, for this which had nothing to do with the interest of the public or for that
11 constituents of Frankston but merely as I view it his own personal benefits to advance the what I
12 consider fraudulent presentation of a “candidate”. Even if an by-election was called and writs
13 issued I view it still would be rorting the public purse, but where there is no by-election called
14 and no writs issued and yet he and as I understand it Member of Parliament Mr Merlino are
15 rorting public monies while hypocritically alleging Mr Geoff Shaw is doing so and for this
16 should be expelled. At least Mr Geoff Shaw faced his accusers and clearly they were defeated,
17 and yet no such position can be taken by Mr Daniel Andrews, Mr Merlino, and numerous
18 others.
19 In my view it is a matter of credibility of the Parliament that both Mr Daniel Andrews, Mr
20 Merlino are facing the kind of punishment of what I view of their “rorting” as they
21 pursued against Mr Geoff Shaw.
22 It must be clear that where Premier Denis Napthine made clear as referred to below “For a
23 government that says it will not be held to ransom” that therefore he declares to the
24 Parliament what he based his as I view it scurrilous allegations against the Member for
25 Frankston Mr Geoff Shaw upon. We cannot have a Member of Parliament and certainly not
26 being a Premier, making scurrilous allegations to incite opposition against the Member for
27 Frankston Mr Geoff Shaw and then drop it all as if it never eventuated. In my view, the public is
28 entitled to know if Premier Denis Napthine concocted it all as after all using the term “ransom”
29 implies a unlawful conduct and I view the Parliament cannot tolerate this kind of allegations
30 without full and proper explanation if such claims were justified or were mere scurrilous
31 allegations to get Members of the Legislative Assembly on site to “punish” Mr Geoff Shaw.
32
34 Mr PALLAS (Tarneit)—I rise to speak on the matter of public importance put forward by the Deputy
35 Premier. The words of Napoleon Bonaparte come to my mind. He once said that you should never interrupt
36 an enemy while they are busy making a mistake. If that principle were to apply, we would never get a word
37 in in this place, because this government is littered with error, mistake and illusion. For a government that
38 says it will not be held to ransom, this resolution proves that its members’ grasp on reality has been
39 abducted, and it
40 is Victoria’s and Victorians’ opportunities that have been held hostage.
42
44 The Premier has no shame when it comes to these things. He has done nothing. He has spoken barely a word
45 of criticism against the member for Frankston. But the moment the member for Frankston says, ‘I have had
46 enough of your government that bears no relation to the government fairly and squarely elected three and a
47 half years ago’, suddenly the Premier is about fairness and justice and being appropriate—but only in
48 September. This is transparent, and it is central to the reason why the people of this great state have
49 such low regard for us as parliamentarians and politicians. The conduct of the member for Frankston, the
50 protection of the member for Frankston by the Premier and the Premier’s very recent conversion, motivated
51 by self-interest and nothing more, to hold the member for Frankston to account for appalling behaviour, as
52 found by the Ombudsman, are a reflection——
53 Honourable members interjecting.
54 Mr ANDREWS—Well, that is the fact of these matters, that the Premier has only been motivated by self-
55 interest. That is why he has not spoken one word against the member for Frankston but has been happy to
56 deal with member for Frankston one-on-one in meetings, in texting back and forth, on the phone, in relation
Page 16
1 to all sorts of agreements around supply and confidence and in rewriting the laws of this state. He has been
2 happy to accede to demands, despite his protestations last week.
3 Mr Ryan interjected.
4 Mr ANDREWS—I am only quoting the Premier. The Deputy Premier might want to look at the tape. I
5 would never want to misquote the Premier; his error can live on. I am happy for that to occur.
6 The issue here is that the Premier has been motivated by one thing and one thing only, and that is his
7 survival. If decency, fairness, accountability, the public trust, the public good, and saying no to the
8 abuse of the public purse were motivations for the Premier, then he would not have waited until the
9 member for Frankston went on ABC radio 774 and said, ‘I have had enough of this Premier’ before speaking
10 up and making the case that the member for Frankston had acted appallingly. The Premier says, ‘I only just
11 received the report’. I am not sure whether Hansard got that. The report was tabled at the end of the previous
12 sitting week, and the Premier spent the entire weekend and the Monday, indicating, ‘Well, we will need to
13 get advice, and I see no reason why this matter needs to be dealt with before the winter break’. There we are,
14 back to September again, you see, Speaker. So confident is the government of support in Frankston that the
15 Premier will do anything to avoid being subject to the views of the people of Frankston.
16 There was talk about legal advice. We have seen none of that legal advice. We have had journalists quoted.
17 We have had conservative commentators—I think it is fair to say that—quoted. We have had quotes from the
18 UK. We have had all sorts of material dressed up as expert opinion, but where is this advice? Where is this
19 legal advice that holds that it would be unsafe to apply an appropriate sanction to the member for Frankston,
20 unless it is in September? Where is that advice that says it would be not only inappropriate and
21 unprecedented but could be open to legal challenge? Where is that advice? Where is that advice for the
22 consumption and consideration of every member of this house and indeed every Victorian? Again, so
23 confident is it in this legal opinion, apparently paid for by the taxpayer—sought by the government and
24 secured by the government— that the government will not come forward and give us a look at it; it will not
25 table it and make it publicly available. That is because this is not a legal strategy; this is a political strategy.
26 This is not a strategy about probity; it is a strategy about politics. It is not a strategy
27 about representation; it is a strategy about apologising for rorting. That is what it is. It is not a strategy
28 put forward by the government that is about the highest of standards or punishment; it is about protection.
29 That is exactly what this is: it is about protection, plain and simple.
30 Let us have a look at what the member for Frankston actually did. The Premier skated around a few of these
31 issues and used a few terms to describe it, albeit tough talk by the Premier’s pretty low standards. There was
32 deafening silence from the Premier on the conduct of the member for Frankston for every single day of his
33 premiership, until the day the member for Frankston said, ‘I might end your premiership’, when the Premier
34 then found his voice. It is a mere coincidence, no doubt, Speaker!
35 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
36
37 Again we should apply this mantra by Mr Daniel Andrews Leader of the Opposition to himself
38 and others (including premier Denis Napthine) and ensure that before the week is out appropriate
39 independent investigations are conducted in these matters so that Mr Daniel Andrews statements
40 “If decency, fairness, accountability, the public trust, the public good, and saying no to the
41 abuse of the public purse were motivations for the Premier, then he would not have
42 waited” and “It is not a strategy about representation; it is a strategy about apologising for
43 rorting. That is what it is.” Must be applied as he pursued then let he and others be used as
44 examples.
45 No excuses about what he may have expected as to the holding of a by-election in Frankston but
46 “accountability” for what I view his “rorting’ of public monies.
47 .
49 This vehicle was used expressly for the member for Frankston’s profit, not for the profit of this state,
50 the public good or the public in any sense.
51 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
52 If Mr Daniel Andrews did the same then surely he has to answer for it, at least Mr Geoff Shaw so
53 to say stared down his accusers in court and is entitled to the benefit of this.
54
55 In the 1970’s when in management of factories I had this worker complaining about how another
56 worker had faulty production and by this weeks of production had to be scrapped. I decided to
57 investigate all worksheets and discovered that the accuser was actually the culprit. This is life,
58 that those who are rorting the most often desire to point the finger at others, and have them
59 punished, as after all you cannot allow others to rort! As such accusers often seem so to say play
Page 17
1 the high grounds that they are invisible. They think they can get away with their rorting and
2 abused of position and power. THIS CANNOT BE TOLERATED
3 .
4 I have previously requested details/information, etc, to which I am not aware of you provided
5 what was requested to me. I view that the failure to do so may compromise your own position
6 and may make your position as Speaker untenable. After all, I view you acted without legal
7 authority to use Standing Orders 125 and to disregard compliance with Standing Order 126 and
8 this may make your own position untenable as a Speaker. If you failed to act appropriately then
9 the vote cannot be deemed valid and I view you as speaker should have acted immediately, when
10 I altered you to this at the very least, to ensure that the harm inflicted upon Mr Geoff Shaw as
11 Member for Frankston was not aggregated and unduly prolonged. In my view Ms Louise Ashe
12 was in CONTEMPT OF COURT by undermining Mr Geoff Shaw’s benefits and entitlement
13 by the court accepting the withdrawal of the criminal charges.
14 It is easy to vilify a person of “rorting” where the person may by error, misunderstanding,
15 misinterpretation or whatever have used something not deemed entitled upon. What may then to
16 one person appear to be “rorting” to me may in fact not be at all because I look from the point of
17 view of constitutional principles? A clear example is where for example Mr Geoff Shaw
18 Member for Frankston was attacked for working in his business when not attending Parliament,
19 as if this was a sin to be s corned for, where in fact constitutionally it was all along intended by
20 the Framers of the Constitution that a person when not attending to the Parliament engage in his
21 ordinary daily work. As such Mr Geoff Shaw was unduly vilified and this is why people get also
22 a disrespect for politicians as they often so to say run around as a chicken without a head not
23 knowing what they are talking about but pursuing others allegedly for a wrongdoing and then
24 when it turns out they are in the wrong themselves then they try to use any excuse under the
25 horizon to excuse themselves. Obviously with the lack of constitutional knowledge Members of
26 Parliament may then deplore a conduct which is only in their mind an offence but seek to dictate
27 others to accept this as fact. While I do not have all details nevertheless some of the outlines
28 recorded in the Hansard of 11-6-2014 to me indicates a gross misconception by many Members
29 of Parliament how matters are to be considered. For example, rightly or wrongly, there is a
30 rumour that Members of Parliament pay a certain amount of moneys and for this are allowed to
31 use a taxpayers funded motor vehicle and free usage of fuel. In my view the providing of the
32 motor vehicle is the real problem as logic is that where a person pays to be allowed a motor
33 vehicle he/she then holds entitled to use it. One must be a complete idiot to argue that not a
34 single Member of Parliament ever misused their vehicle or for that fuel card, as ample use their
35 vehicle to transport friends and others not related to parliamentarian duties. In the circumstances
36 and as I outlined to the Chief Commissioner of police it would be extremely difficult to hold that
37 Mr Geoff Shaw misused public funding. And hence, I was not surprised that subsequently the
38 criminal charges against Mr Geoff Shaw were withdrawn. And that should have been the end
39 of it. However, Parliament decided otherwise to undermine the benefits Mr Geoff Shaw was
40 entitled upon and ad hoc acted against him not even acting within the Standing Orders and in
41 those circumstances I view that the very mantra used against Mr Geoff Shaw Member for
42 Frankston should be used against those who vilified him and accused him in pursued of
43 “punishment”. If the government had for example consulted me about matters, I may have been
44 able to explain what the real constitutional principles are and the government may have saved a
45 lot of public monies avoiding all kinds of defective legal advice of lawyers. In my view a
46 comprehensive INDEPENDENT investigation should be conducted as to all Members of
47 Parliament as to any “rorting” and they should be held accountable. And in my view both Mr
48 Daniel Andrews, Mr Merlino ought to face to be expelled for what I consider
49 inappropriate/unlawful conduct. And if Premier Denis Napthine proved to have falsely accused
50 Member for Frankston Mr Geoff Shaw ab out holding the government to ransom about a judicial
51 decision then I view he too should be expelled.

Page 18
1 As you are an Officer of Parliament to perform a duty regardless of your political alliance,
2 then I expect no less than that you will explain within which part of Standing Orders 125
3 you claim to have had the power to “name” the Member for Frankston, and also why there
4 was a failure of compliance with Standing order 126.
5 When I was a quality control officer I rejected pallet after pallet of products, this even so the
6 product was what the car manufacturer needed and used and the product were to the
7 requirements of the drawings. I had discovered that the customer had in error placed an incorrect
8 order but our sales staff had substituted this for what they understood was actually intended to be
9 ordered. I indicated we required to have a deviation order, so we could supply the product, and
10 the deviation order was placed and I received the compliments of the Board of Directors for
11 being so attentive to details avoiding another huge damage cost, due a similar previous incident
12 (before my time). I was very strict on compliance, and this as if you allow to have slips then
13 where does it stop. Two wrongs doesn’t make it right and therefore (not that I imply Mr Geoff
14 Shaw acted wrongly) even if he had made an error it cannot justify you to fail to comply and act
15 within Standing orders and hence the vote of the Legislative Assembly I view cannot stand and
16 should be set aside. After all it is about “fair, just and appropriate” I understand being the
17 mantra of Premier Denis Napthine?
18 Is there any appropriate training for Members of Parliament about constitutional
19 principles? As to me if even the Leader of the Opposition appears not to grasp legal principles
20 embedded in the constitution, then there is a basic failure of education regarding this!
21 Where Members of Parliament cannot even act sensibly amongst each other than how can they
22 expect the community to trust their wisdom (if there is any) to provide sensible rules for others?
23 So much more to state, but for the moment you should be concerned to what I expose, and I look
24 forwards to your positive response.
25 .
26 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to be legal advice and
27 may not be the same were factual details be different than those understood to be by the writer.
28 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me
29 Gerrit)
30
31 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®
32 ( Our name is our motto!)

33 END QUOTE 20140616-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Christine Fyffe, Speaker Re
34 EXPULSION Daniel Andrews + James Merlino required-etc
35
36 It must be clear that the statements Mr Daniel Andrews made in the Parliament (against Geoff
37 Shaw) now may be used against him.
38
39 The issue is now will the Victorian Government Solicitors Office now pursue those who at the
40 time, not being in government either, purse those who misused public monies, omitted and as
41 such filed false declaration as to financial matters, and as members of Parliament then used
42 public monies for their personal private benefits or is it political bias?
43 As the monies at least for so far the Victorian Ombudsman estimated, but could have been a lot
44 more, was repaid by the ALP then clearly it was an ALP private issue. It also should be
45 questioned of the ALP should be stripped of its Not-For-Profit taxation entitlements as it clearly
46 has been misusing Consolidated Revenue funds and misuse public office facilities which cannot
47 be held in the public interest (including the about $1 million to seek to prevent a Victorian
48 Ombudsman investigation.
49 And the $1.2 rfeportede cost to cancel legal contracts that were in relation to the East West ,link.
50 .
Page 19
1 And also I view that Mr Daniel Andrews and others involved in the sale of the Port of
2 Melbourne facilities should be charged for violating Section 92 of the Commonwealth of
3 Australia Constitution act 1900 (UK)
4
5 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. HENRY: I would like to ask Mr. Barton what effect this would have on several Marine Boards and
8 Harbor Trusts of the colonies which are dependent for their revenues on tonnage rates. This clause, I see,
9 provides that no tonnage duty should be imposed except by Commonwealth. What position, I would like to
10 know, would the various Harbor Trusts and Marine Boards, which are dependent for a portion of their
11 revenue on these tonnage dues, occupy till the Federal Commonwealth has had time to legislate upon this
12 matter.
13 Mr. BARTON: If the tonnage dues are not an infringement upon the principles of intercolonial freetrade, I
14 take it that they would remain in force after the establishment of the Commonwealth; but if the State
15 proposed to take in hand legislation on the subject, it would not be permitted to legislate on that subject
16 without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
17 Mr. HIGGINS: If it were only an amendment?
18 Mr. BARTON: Possibly the only trouble there would be, that a period of six months would elapse before
19 the Commonwealth Parliament was called together after it is established. So far as the tonnage dues,
20 mentioned by Mr. Henry, did not infringe upon the principles of intercolonial freedom of trade, there would
21 be no difficulty.
22 Mr. GLYNN: I think the last few words of this clause are too comprehensive in their meaning. In South
23 Australia there is a lot of land which is leased with the right of purchase, and I can see that under the latter
24 portion of this clause there is considerable danger of defeating the effect of direct taxation.
25 Mr. O'CONNOR: In a case of that kind the reversion which is in the Crown would not be taxed, but
26 the letting value would be taxed.
27 Mr. BARTON: I might mention that the property of the Commonwealth in that land is the reversion upon
28 the lease. The reversion upon the lease would not be [start page 1002] taxable, but the interest of the lessee in
29 the property would be taxable.
30 Mr. GLYNN: I am only pointing out a difficulty that might arise.
31 Mr. HENRY: I would like to raise a question as to the right of the Commonwealth to tax materials
32 for State purposes. In the event of a colony importing rails, machinery, engines, &c., for State
33 purposes, I would like to know whether such exports are to be free from Customs duties. Will the
34 Federal Parliament have a right to levy duties on materials imported for State purposes?
35 Mr. BARTON: This is a matter that was discussed very fully in the Constitutional Committee, and I think
36 my hon. friend Sir George Turner will remember that I consulted the members of the Finance Committee
37 upon it, intimating to them the opinion of the Constitutional Committee on the point. The words:
38 Impose any tax on property
39 do not refer to the importation of goods at all, and any amendment to except the Customs would be
40 unnecessary. This clause states that a State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the
41 Commonwealth, impose taxation on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, meaning by that
42 property of any kind which is in hand, such as land within the Commonwealth. That has no reference to
43 Customs duties.
44 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Will articles imported by the States Governments come in free?
45 Mr. BARTON: The question then arises whether articles imported by the States Governments are to
46 come in free, but this section has nothing to do with that. Under this Bill and in the measure of 1891 I
47 believe duties would have been collectable upon imports by any State, and after the consultation which
48 I had with the hon. member and his colleagues on the Finance Committee the Constitutional
49 Committee decided not to make any exemption in the case of any State.
Page 20
1 The CHAIRMAN: I would ask hon. members to confine themselves to the discussion of this clause.
2 Sir GEORGE TURNER: I propose to carry out your desire, Sir, to restrict my remarks to this particular
3 clause. In Victoria, as I mentioned the other day, we have an independent body called a Harbor Trust, which
4 collects a large amount of money and, as far as I can recollect, does it in the way of tonnage dues. If we pass
5 this clause, and we deprive this body of its revenue, they will simply have to fall back upon the Government
6 of the State. What is the meaning of the phrase:
7 Impose tonnage dues?
8 According to the way I read the clause it means that it is not to pass any law which would put on any fresh
9 dues.
10 Mr. MCMILLAN: I suppose the States gave these rights to the harbor trust.
11 Sir GEORGE TURNER: The State passes a law constituting a Harbor Trust and gives over to them the
12 right to collect these various revenues. What I desire is to preserve that right, whatever it may be. I am in
13 great difficulty as how this particular clause will affect that body, as well as similar bodies in other colonies
14 which collect small sums. I would be glad if my hon. friend Mr. Barton can give me any assistance with
15 regard to this matter, and tell us if this clause will or will not interfere with this existing body. If that be so I
16 shall be prepared to let the clause pass, and then, before the adjourned Convention is held, we shall have an
17 opportunity in the different colonies of ascertaining how these dues and rates are collected, and how this
18 clause will affect them, and whether we should make this amendment. In the meantime I should like Mr.
19 Barton to give me the real meaning of the clause.
20 Mr. BARTON: As far as I can gather from this clause and the clause of 1891, it seems to me to refer to
21 any future legislation on the subject:
22 The State shall not impose tonnage dues.
23 [start page 1003]
24 The question of whether existing legislation would be invalidated would depend, first, upon whether
25 the dues were an infringement of the equality of trade throughout the Commonwealth, and next upon
26 whether the Commonwealth passed a law which-if it were in the province of the Commonwealth to past; it-
27 was in conflict with the law of the State, in which case, to the extent of the difference between the laws, the
28 law of the Commonwealth would prevail if section 98 were passed. It deals only with future legislation, I
29 think. but these tonnage dues may incur a prohibition if we find that they are a system of taxation,
30 because the Parliament of the Commonwealth has power to raise funds by any method of taxation. If
31 the method of carrying out that power were found to be in conflict with the law of the State, the law of
32 the Commonwealth would prevail. We have no provision for the Commonwealth taking over harbors or
33 harbor works, and it may be a question for consideration whether the Commonwealth, as it has power to
34 legislate on other subjects relating to the regulation of commerce and trade and so on, should not take over
35 harbor works too. That is what, on the face of it, seems to me to be the effect of the clause.
36 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think these tonnage dues must be excepted if the Parliament is to take over harbors.
37 Tonnage dues are simply payment for services rendered, and they do not practically come under the system
38 of taxation at all. They are levied for something done. If they are not excepted great trouble will ensue,
39 especially in regard to corporations. Is that System referred to by Sir George Turner administered by a
40 Minister of the Crown?
41 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No.
42 Mr. MCMILLAN: Does it apply then? These. are dues paid by the State as a State, but the case mentioned
43 is one of a corporation, in which there is a payment for services rendered. Tolls are exacted for the services,
44 call them dues or wharfage rates or whatever you like; they are the same in essence.
45 Sir GEORGE TURNER: If we do not guard against it corporate bodies may evade the Act, and the State
46 may appoint corporations to do work so as to evade it.
47 Mr. MCMILLAN: Something will have to be done or great trouble may ensue.

Page 21
1 Mr. BARTON: With reference to the question of wharfage rates, members will recollect that the United
2 States Constitution contains a prohibition against the State levying tonnage duties without the consent of
3 Congress. It has been decided in the case of the Packet Company v. Catlettsburg, 105 U.S., 559:
4 A city or town on a navigable river may exact a reasonable compensation for the use of the wharf which it
5 owns without infringing the constitutional provisions concerning tonnage taxes or regulations of commerce.
6 That would appear to be rather in favor of the exemption of the harbor trust.
7 Mr. HENRY: It is within my own knowledge that there are Marine Boards in Australia, at all events in
8 Tasmania, worked as State departments. They are nominee bodies with a Minister practically at their head.
9 Mr. HIGGINS: Who gets the money?
10 Mr. HENRY: The Customs officers collect the wharfage and tonnage dues, and they pass into the hands of
11 the Government. I would like to ask Mr. Barton how it would operate in cases where the tonnage rates vary at
12 different ports in Australia? We might have one harbor with a particular rate and another with double or
13 treble that rate, so that we would not have an equality of trade. This is one of the difficulties which Mr.
14 Barton. and others, in considering this matter, should have placed before them. In this clause we are going to
15 hand to the Federal Government the right to legislate with regard to tonnage dues, and it is desirable that we
16 should know precisely what we [start page 1004] are doing and how it is going to affect the various harbor
17 trusts and marine boards.
18 Mr. BARTON: On considering the matter, I think that the tonnage dues mentioned here-we have altered
19 the word "duties" into "dues," and they seem to me like the word "tonnage dues" that used to prevail in the
20 the old country, such as tonnage dues on wines. We find the word referred to in Acts 9 Anne, and 10 George
21 IV. They were tonnage dues granted to the Queen, and I think those referred to here were the same in the
22 United States Constitution. Whether that be so or not, the tonnage dues referred to in the clause seem to be
23 charges for services performed. For instance, a Harbor Trust is formed and carries out improvements and as a
24 means of recouping themselves the harbor authorities charge dues. Wharfage dues are for the use of a
25 wharf and have they not a similar meaning in the modern acceptation of the term? One is an impost
26 for the use of a wharf, the other for the use of a harbor on which money has been spent for the purpose
27 of rendering it more adapted for shipping. If that is so the words may be left out, and if they are left
28 out any tonnage due which is not a charge for services performed would be an impost interfering with
29 the freedom of trade and intercourse, and would come under section 86; that is to say, as soon as
30 uniform duties have been imposed, trade and intercourse shall be absolutely free, If they interfere they
31 could only do so so far as they are of the nature of taxes. If they are only charges for services
32 performed, as I explained in connection with clause 83, then there can be no objection to them. because
33 charges for use of a wharf are much in the same position as charges of the post office authorities for
34 the carriage of letters; they are payments for services. If that view is taken I shall offer no objection to
35 it.
36 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Why not for post and telegraphs?
37 Mr. BARTON: Any mere service that the Commonwealth does not take over is still in the hands of the
38 State. Clause 86 can only be infringed by something which means an interference with the freedom of
39 trade and intercourse. Anything that is fairly construable as a payment for services performed is not
40 handed over-the mere service can be charged for as before, because it is not an interference with trade
41 and intercourse. In such cases as that, mere service can be charged for as before, because it is not an
42 interference with trade or intercourse. I think we may well accept that view and leave out the words:
43 Impose tonnage dues or.
44 I move that they be left out.

45 END QUOTE
46
47 It must be clear that the reported about $9 billion the State government obtained from the about
48 50 year lease is not related to actual harbor cost but a profit that constitutes a tax in violation of
49 Section 92 of the constitution.
50 .
51 QUOTE

Page 22
1 92 Trade within the Commonwealth to be free

2 On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce,
3 and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal
4 carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
5 But notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, goods imported
6 before the imposition of uniform duties of customs into any State,
7 or into any Colony which, whilst the goods remain therein,
8 becomes a State, shall, on thence passing into another State within
9 two years after the imposition of such duties, be liable to any duty
10 chargeable on the importation of such goods into the
11 Commonwealth, less any duty paid in respect of the goods on their
12 importation.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 It is obvious that to sell/lease the rights to a company who needs to make profits and so has to
16 get its billion dollar payment back from those using the port, then this is an additional charge
17 violating s92 as any vessel (ship) using the port cannot within Section 92 be charged this
18 additional cost.
19
20 I look forwards to appropriate assistance to ensure that those who violate legal provisions, in
21 particular the constitution will be held legally accountable as no one is above the rule of law!
22
23 As this correspondence is addressed to Victorian Government Solicitors Office then if you are
24 not in any position to personally deal with the matter then I am sure you will ensure that the
25 correspondence is forwarded to the appropriate person.
26
27 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
28 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
29 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®
30 (Our name is our motto!)


20181123-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Matthew - Carrazzo, Vgso-Vic-gov

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

20181123-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Matthew - Carrazzo, Vgso-Vic-gov

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Page 1

To: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com, schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com

Date: Friday, September 21, 2012 04:10 pm

1 afternoon, so that it shall hopefully arrive on Monday.

Victorian Government Solicitor's Office

 Think Green before printing this email.

23-11-2018 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

23-11-2018 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

39 Ethics Orientation for State Officials

1 Treasurer Michael O’Brien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au

23-11-2018 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Christine Fyffe, Speaker

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

23-11-2018 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au

VICTORIAN Treasurer Michael O’Brien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au

Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au

see attachment 20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc

Blog (constitutional issues) http://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati

A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING

23-11-2018 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014

1 alternative government not even understanding the basics of constitutional provisions to me is

23-11-2018 Page 17 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

31 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

32 ( Our name is our motto!)

17 Mr. HIGGINS: If it were only an amendment?

30 Mr. GLYNN: I am only pointing out a difficulty that might arise.

38 Impose any tax on property

7 Impose tonnage dues?

22 The State shall not impose tonnage dues.

23 [start page 1003]

41 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No.

23-11-2018 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9 Mr. HIGGINS: Who gets the money?

36 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Why not for post and telegraphs?

43 Impose tonnage dues or.

44 I move that they be left out.

23-11-2018 Page 21 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 92 Trade within the Commonwealth to be free

29 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

30 (Our name is our motto!)

23-11-2018 Page 22 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Вам также может понравиться