20161024-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Secretary Environment and Planning Committee-Supplement 6

1
The Secretary Environment and Planning Committee
24-10-2016
Parliament House, Spring Street, EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002
Phone: 03 8682 2869 Email: epc@parliament.vic.gov.au

SUBMISSION Supplement 6
Re: 20161024-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to The Secretary Environment and Planning Committee-
10
Sir/Madam,
Further to my 17-10-2016 submission and 18-10-2016 supplement 1 & 19-10-2016
Supplement 2 & 20-10-2016 Supplement 3 & 21-10-2016 Supplement 4 & 23-10-2016
Supplement 5 I desire to add the following;
15
20
While it may be held that my submission with supplements is extensive, reality is that it is so to
say the needle in a haystack and the real FIRE DANGER is considerable larger than my
submission sets out, this as the hundreds of photos (images) I eventually will include in my next
book will give a much greater insight about Buloke Shire fire danger, and even that will still be
very limited to mainly Calder Highway.
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
25
30
35
40
45
The so called FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN is in my view sheer and utter nonsense when in
real terms the lives of motorist, fire fighters and local communities are every year left at the peril
of uncalled fire dangers.
Municipal Fire Protection Officer Mr Wayne Wall and his assistant Mr Grove might be good in
scoring conviction in courts to so called upholding local laws but reality is, as I exposed, that
they perjure themselves under oath with false/misleading/deceptive evidence. Lawyers are
engaged who in my view, as I exposed, do not even seem to know the basic legal requirements
let alone follow them, and they are not the first law firm lawyers I exposed as such.
How on earth can it serve the general community and any FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN to
have court orders issued against innocent landholders and the departments and councils blatantly
disregard the real FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN?
This is why I was so good in representing/assisting parties (including lawyers) in litigation in that
I exposed what lawyers generally fail to realise. The same when I was in management of
factories, I would be hands-on and drastically revise it all to get a safe and better working
condition for the workers concern and in the process improve production.
.
We have a litany of CCs (Community Correction Orders) issued against people who allegedly
were deemed guilty of Fire Protection Notices but why are those people nolt pujt to work on
clearing roadsides from dead branches? When I used to reside in Berriwillock I would with a
trailer drive along the highway and collect dead wood/branches. As such while not talking about
recycling as when I was a child we didnt talk about recycling, we just did it as a habit, the
collection of dead wood/branches was making the roadside a safer place and provided me with
free fire wood for my open fire. We got too many laws in place that are as such anti-environment
friendly while at the same time have laws that so to say insist on environment friendly conduct.
p1
24-10-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
The entire Infringement system is unconstitutional in its concept, as I explained in previous
Supplements constitutionally both sides need to be heard, and this simply in general isnt
eventuating. Too often ex parte orders are issued, in the thousands that is!
How can any FAIR MINDED PERSON accept that a landowner is liable to clear for 10metres
around the perimeters of his property the area from fire dangers? My neighbours property is
under FEE SIMPLE and owned by the Captain of the local fire brigade and surely he is not
going to accept for me to demolish his house, trees, rip out the wooden fence poles, removed his
motor vehicle and so also the local school bus and V/Line bus all because Mr Wayne Wall as
Municipal Fire Prevention Officer by his Fire Prevention Notice is deemed to order me to do so.
As I have proven that years and years on end the dead branches of trees remain on the roadside
unabated. Meaning that Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention Officer drives past this
time and time again and yet somehow is blindsided to notice this. To me this is nothing but gross
incompetence.
It isnt just that I selectively stopped at the side of the road to make some photos, as I collected
hundreds of pictures all showing fire danger. And because it is along the Calder Highway, a
major travel route that connects the various town in Buloke Shire (it cannot be claimed, albeit not
any excuse if it were) that somehow the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer may not have been
able to in a reasonable manner notice this. So to say even Blind Freddy would have noticed more
than 100 kilometres of fire danger along Calder Highway, and if a Municipal Fire Prevention
Officer still doesnt understand/realise this then I view he is totally incompetent to perform the
job appropriately. As I understand it Mr Wayne Wall is the so called Local Law Officer, albeit
not being a lawyer, and so may be very good in achieving convictions with or without perjury
involved but this might be taking up too much of his time to be as doing the duties and
obligations of a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer.
The system isnt broken as we simply do not have a system at all. All we have is a pretended
system! Hundreds of people might be involved in creating for each council Fire Management
Plans but in reality the fire danger continues.
Those families who had the loss of live of a family member as a fire fighter hardly will accept
some excused that a Municipal Fire Protection Officer was not properly trained or simply
incompetent to do his job. What people should be able to rely upon is that those who are placed
in a function as a Municipal fire Prevention officer are given an appropriate training and that
their duties and obligations are properly fulfilled.
I recall that when I was a single parent with up to 5 children in my care and even provided home
schooling to 2 of them, there were members of the local community who then berated me for not
being in the local CFA (Country Fire Authority brigade). My position was that I would not be
suitable as a fire fighter because I had children to care for on a full time basis, and so I would be
more of a danger if I were to have joined a CFA as a fire fighter because I would likely not be
able to attend to a fire if the children were not at school (besides the 2 being home schooled) but
in my immediate care. Fancy a fire break out and I was rostered to attend but couldnt leave 5
children home alone. Then others who could attend but relied upon me would then not attend!
This is why I held I couldnt join the CFA. However in my own bit having the trailer and
collecting firewood from the roadsides means I was reducing the fire danger even if in a minor
manner along the roads.
And this is how I view we could use CCOs as to get people to collect the fire wood along the
roads and then perhaps donate it to senior citizens who have open fires in their houses.
The great thing is that if we were even to ensure that offenders of Fire Prevention Notices were
subjected to attend a seminar as to fire dangers and then be put to work to collect this firewood
then this is so to say more than A double whammy BECAUSE WE LOOK AFTER WE
MAKE THE PLACE FIRE SAFE, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND SERVE THE ELDERLY
IN THE PROCESS. And we dont burden people with more and more legislation as we simply
use common sense!
p2
24-10-2016
10
15
20
25
30
35
3
Councils/departments engage professional (?) mowers who sit on their ride-on mowers and well
drive along the highways at times to slash the growth, unless the departments/council simply just
spray poison, as photos shows is the alternative used to make it more and not less fire prone!
Obviously, those so called professional contractors doing the mowing are limited in time as after
all they are not there to make it look fancy and so leave difficult areas, and this than also means
that the growth (weed/grass/etc) they mow is left lying there as an added fuel source for a
potential fire. Great, we have actually ended up making the area more fire prone but
pretend it is safer! Who cares a darn about fire fighters losing their lives in the process to
battle fires that could have been prevented? Well I do.
How come Members of Parliament who drive along highways never bothered to report fire
danger areas? Well it simply is something they may not bother about! Likewise so with the local
police!
For years I recommended to the State Government to build shelters in fire prone areas such as
forests. Well the greenies might not like it but in the end the lives of fire fighters should not be
unduly placed at risk. What we need is to simply be realistic and have fire prove roads/paths so
that when a major fire breaks out fire fighters knows they can retrieve via fire safe roads/parts to
a shelter to seek sanction from an overwhelming fire danger. As such, if we say cut roads/path of
10 metre clearances through forest at distances say of 2 kilometres then fire fighters can achieve
a better access to forest fires, and with underground concrete shelters they could then find a safe
haven if the fire becomes too much for them. Having such shelters connected with an electronic
system means that the moment such a shelter is accessed the command centre will get an alarm
this is so and can then set out to rescue those who are held up in such a shelter. Animals also will
have a place to escape to as the clearance of roads/paths throughout the forest will enable them to
escape from a raging fire better than being stuck/trapped in the midst of trees.
We may also have to look into how to make trees less fire prone! Perhaps create a kind of DNA
system for trees that is fire resistant? It may seem silly but reality is that in todays society we
likely can achieve this. If we slowly then replace dead trees in the forest and elsewhere with
more fire resistant trees than the overall cost to the community is far less. After all every dead of
an animal besides that of that of human beings is a cost to society and this besides the huge cost
of fire fighting in money terms.
As I showed with Banyule City Council (an inner city council) it has growth slashed to some
extend and then leave the slashed worth as a fire danger and still leaves a high growth along the
creek, etc. Yet, if I were to leave far less growth in or near my property then I could be hit with
an about $1,550 Infringement Notice? How absurd is this?
.
40
45
50
With making the local Captain of the fire brigade the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer you
place the issue in the hands of the most competent person dealing with firefighting. After all his
own life as well as that of the crew would be on the line if not doing a proper job in making
areas fire safe to the best of his ability.
And as I indicated using untreated water because some water supplier cant give a darn about the
Safe Drinking Water Act 2003, and so unduly places the health and safety of firefighters at risk
also must not be tolerated. For sure, firefighters may need to resort at times to use water from
dams, but that is a different issue. Where a fire truck needs replenishing then it should be
ordinary from safe drinking water. After all if they seek to battle a house fire to save it from
destruction it is to no use if in the process they spray untreated water over/onto the building and
it because saved from further destruction by fire but is a health hazard (generally unknown to the
occupiers) because of the usage of untreated water. (Remember Friskeville contamination issue?)
p3
24-10-2016
4
When firefighters unduly are subjected to untreated water chemicals then their partners are
also when doing the washing, and then the chemicals can spread onto the clothes of children and
so forth. As such, we are ignoring the health and safety of entire firefighters families.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Proper FIRE MANAGEMENT should always include the safety of firefighters, and their
extended families! (For clarification, because my neighbour is the local Captain of the fire
brigade doesnt mean I am bias in what I write about, because in the about 3 decades we may
have spoken perhaps 3 times only! No need to go into details.)
My issue is that when a person is appointed to be the Captain of the local fire brigade then
obviously he is deemed to be the most competent person to understand firefighting and as such
we should as a society utilise this to the best of our advantages and the issue of FIRE
PREVENTION surely is in the interest of the Captain and his crew also!
Beyond doubt, the numerous people attending from the CFA, departments including VicRoads
and councils all will tell the Environment and Planning Committee how they make it all fire
safe, but reality is as some photos I already provided proves it is all an elaborate con job. And
this is the reality!
Because of my skills in decades of litigations I know how to prepare for litigation and expose the
weaknesses of an opponent, and as such prepared the case against Buloke Shire Council years
before the Infringement Notice was even issued. The truth being that the Municipal Fire
Prevention Officer so to say couldnt give a darn about the illegality of what the Fire prevention
Notice was about because the Magistrates Court of Victoria simply enforces Infringement
Notices without any evidence, another way to undermine the intent of the Parliament to pursue
fire safe conditions. A farmer or an ordinary employee cannot afford to lose a lot of time (and
income) to attend some distant Magistrate Court of Victoria and so end up paying for the
Infringement Notice regardless how ridiculous such Fire Prevention Notice and indeed unlawful
it is.
In my view the entire system needs to be overhauled badly. The Environment and Planning
Committee is now so to say in the drivers seat to pursue this and to recommend this to be done
both in legislative amendments as well as in government management. If it fails to do so it may
so to say end up with blood on its hands of those who may in time lose their lives where
appropriate changes were not made that could have prevented the loss of life. As author of books
in the INSPECTOR-RIKATIseries on certain constitutional and other legal issues I certainly
will reproduced the numerous photos/images I collected about existing fire dangers. Then any
grieving family member may use this to sue the State of their loved one lost his/her life when this
was preventable, using those photos/images as evidence that I did expose it all.
We do not need some council employee who is some so to say administrative clerk doing a pen
pushing job as some Municipal Fire Prevention Officer by sitting on his backside in an office e
just issuing about 500 Fire Prevention Notices without even bothering to do any inspection for
the need and legal justification of any or all of them.
I for one cannot accept Fire Prevention Notices being issued regarding properties that are still
flooded/soaked with water because of the heavy rains!
Let us be very clear about it, that what the case with Buloke Shire Council against me proved
was no matter the sheer incompetence of Mr Wayne Wall as Municipal Fire Prevention Officer
and the lawyers involved in the end I was the one at risk of huge cost while he and the lawyers
earn their income with this sheer and utter nonsense and the local community by increase of rates
are copping the final bill of more than $18,000.00. As such the lack of personal liability that is
the real problem by departments/VicRoads/councils. The Infringement System is grossly
misused for this purpose also and as we now found that the courts rather than exposing the rot are
(implied) condoning this. But I for one will persist with my battles to make it more community
friendly and a safer place for local firefighters to do their job!
p4
24-10-2016
5
Back-burning:
We often hear about back-burning having gone out of hand and resulted to bush fires and
destruction of private property. Considering what I have so far submitted to the Environment
and Planning Commission there is no question about it that back-burning may have caused this
kind of destruction because no one bothered to first clear the site of dead branches, etc. For sure
in time of an approaching fire this may not be possible but surely when doing preventative backburning first all the lose branches should be removed. After all not doing so you actually create
the very fire hazard that is purportedly trying to be avoided. Again, using CCOs for the sake of
the community might be a better way and serves the general community better.
10
15
A major problem what I view exist is the blatant ignorance by lawyers/politicians and indeed
judges as to the true meaning and of the constitution. And this took resulted to some draconic
provisions in the Country fire authority act 1958where citizens are liable to fines but the
offenders such as departments/councils/VicRoad are not. For this I will briefly set out some
issues why any legislation that is directed against citizens but not against the government or
those acting on its behalf in my view is unconstitutional. I and many others have come across
judges such as Her Honour Gaynor J of the County Court of Victoria who declared that the
constitution doesnt apply to Her Honour. Well Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions
(NSW) [1996] HCA 24
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Where the State creates a corporation such as VicRoads then it must be held equally legally
liable as any other private citizen and so if an Infringement notice can be issued against a private
citizen so then should it be against VicRoads for each and every offends it commits in any
street/highway, etc. Likewise corporations like councils must be equally subjected to the same
rules as a private citizen. After all if it is about fire safety then it should not make one of iota
difference if the offender is a corporation or a private citizen as such. Below are some examples
of Authorities to consider.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
p5
24-10-2016
6
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
Hence, a referral of legislative of powers by a State to the commonwealth is not reversible as the
constitution being the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) doesnt provide
for any reversal of legislative powers, can only be permitted by a s123 of the constitution
approval in a State referendum, this as a referral of legislative powers include a referral of
judicial powers, and because of the separation of powers the State Parliament cannot refer
directly and/or indirectly judicial powers from the Supreme Ccourt of the State of Victoria to the
Commonwealth.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
No Parliament (State/Territory or Federal) can amend or create its own constitution this as it is
the product of the constitution. A child cannot so to say give birth to its mother! It also means
that the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is no constitution at all as it was never
passed by State referendum by State Electors!
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law
that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union,
because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power,
until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue
for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a
state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has anyand if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be
inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should
say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not
be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
END QUOTE
https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=61502
QUOTE H. L. DEMDEN v F. PEDDER High Court of Australia
40
The Commonwealth and the States are, with respect to the matters which under the Constitution are within
the ambit of their respective legislative or executive authority, sovereign States, subject only to the
restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or
implied. Where, therefore, the Constitution makes a grant of legislative or executive power to the
Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is entitled to exercise that power in absolute freedom, and without any
45
interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.

END QUOTE
50
55
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0003.f.cas/0003.f.cas.0221.pdf BENNETT V. BOGGS.

QUOTE
We cannot declare legislative act void because it conflicts with our opinions of policy, expediency or
justice. We are not the guardians of the rights of the people of a state unless they are secured by some
constitutional provision which comes within our judicial cognizance. The remedy for unwise or
oppressive legislation, within constitutional bounds, is by an appeal to the justice and patriotism of the
representatives of the people. If this fails, the people in their sovereign capacity can correct the evil; but
courts cannot assume their rights.
END QUOTE
p6
24-10-2016
7
United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia (1824) 22 US (9 Wheat) 904, 6 L.Ed 244:
QUOTE
It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it
divests itself, so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its sovereign character, and takes that of
a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a
level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to
the business which is to be transacted. Thus, many States of this Union who have an interest in Banks, are not
suable even in their own Courts; yet they never exempt the corporation from being sued. The State of
Georgia, by giving to the Bank the capacity to sue and be sued, voluntarily strips itself of its sovereign
character, so far as respects the transactions of the Bank, and waives all the privileges of that character. As a
member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and
exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation, than are expressly given by the
incorporating act.
10
15
END QUOTE
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/case.html
20
25
30
35
40
McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

QUOTE
The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its
laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land.
There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which
exclude incidental or implied powers.
If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which
are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it
into effect.
The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the
means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means
of exercising any of the powers given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union, it may be
exercised by that Government.
If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the
Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its
necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.
The Bank of the United States has, constitutionally, a right to establish its branches or offices of discount and
deposit within any state.
The State within which such branch may be established cannot, without violating the Constitution, tax that
branch.
END QUOTE
It should be understood that Foreign authorities such as from the USA has been relied upon by
the High Court of Australia since it was created, albeit one can only do so validly where it is
within the provisions of our constitution.
.
45

QUOTE Mr. SYMON:
There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of the
common law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot be justly applied here.
END QUOTE
.
50
Not uncommon I detect that in gross error the High Court of Australia applies foreign Authorities
and doctrines in blatant disregard of what our constitution stands for.
.
55
Section 51(xxvi) of the constitution deals with racial discrimination and regardless that
personally I find it offensive to racial discriminate nevertheless as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I
am bound to interpret the constitution to its true meaning and application!
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
60
The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments of all the
states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs of the territory of the
commonwealth, or any part of it, which can at the date of the establishment of this constitution be exercised
p7
24-10-2016
8
only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject
to the provisions of this constitution.
We are aware, sir, that there are many things now upon which the legislatures and governments of the
several Australian colonies may agree, and upon which they may desire to see a law established; but we are
obliged, if we want that law made, to go to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and ask them to be good
enough to make the law for us; and when it is made we will obey it. I contend, for myself, as I have had an
opportunity of saying before, that after the federal parliament is established anything which the legislatures of
Australia want done in the way of legislation should be done within Australia, and then parliament of the
commonwealth should have that power. It is not proposed by this provision to enable the parliament of
the commonwealth to interfere with the state legislatures; but only, when the state legislatures agree in
requesting such legislation, to pass it, so that there shall be no longer any necessity to have recourse to a
parliament beyond our own shores when once this constitution has been passed by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. With respect to these subjects, it is not proposed to give the parliament of the
commonwealth exclusive jurisdiction; they will have paramount jurisdiction; but it is proposed that, until they
exercise those powers, the existing laws shall remain [start page 525] in force, and that, until they choose to
make laws to the contrary, the state legislatures may go on exercising their existing powers. It is only when
the federal parliament comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make laws on those matters that
the powers of the states will be excluded, and then only to the extent to which the federal legislature
chooses to exercise its functions. In addition to the powers to be exercised in that way, not interfering with
the existing rights of states until the federal legislature thinks it necessary to do so, it is proposed to give some
exclusive powers to the legislature of the commonwealth. One of them is to deal with the affairs of people
of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the
general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to the
aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori race in New Zealand.
10
15
20
25
30
END QUOTE
Because of the 1967 referendum Aboriginals can now be discriminated against as if they are
aliens. They themselves desired to have this referendum to amend the constitution to be
successful and so be it.
This also means that any so called Koorie court is unconstitutional as it is a racial based court
that falls within the ambit of s51(xxvi) and a state therefore is prohibited to engage in race laws.
.
35
In the current litigation against Bernard Gaynor, a former officer of the Australian armed forces
on discrimination I understand that the State of N.S.W. has intervened on basis that it has a right
to legislate as to racial issues. What is essential is that one must understand the true meaning and
application of the constitution before legislating as a state in this area.
.
40
45
50
It is clear that 116 of the constitution prohibits the Commonwealth to provide for any kind of
legislation regarding religion, albeit criminal offences that are purportedly falling within an
ambit of religion or claimed religion can still be legislated upon. As such, when some religious
group claiming to be a religion of peace promotes Jihad and killing infidels and unbelievers that
the State as well as the Federal parliaments are entitled within the scope of criminal law,
terrorism laws, etc, to legislate as it is inciting violence. Just that I am not aware any Parliament
having done so. Indeed as the Joseph Goetnick case proved that if such pictures are beamed
across the media and/or internet then the place a person receives it on their computer can be
deemed the location where the offence was committed. In that case when those threats of
violence are received on mobile phones, computers and the likes then it is I view a technical
offence within the boundaries of the legal jurisdiction where it was received.
Yet, we find politicians falling over each other to defend these kind of terrorism
statements/threats as to we must be tolerant and be more inclusive!
QUOTE
55
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and also an
amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law prohibiting the
free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices which would otherwise
be strictly prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the "suttee," and
p8
24-10-2016
9
another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other barbarous cruelty, to the
devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice.
Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites
of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-
But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing
character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
10

QUOTE
Mr. FRASER (Victoria).-I think that if we give the right to an infinitesimal minority to come here and
indulge in extraordinary practices, under the pretence that this is a new religion, we may have all the
theatres and all the music-halls in Australia open on Sundays. If that is possible we ought to do what
we can to provide against it.
15
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I want if I can to recommend the Commonwealth Bill and get it carried. But
why should we be faced with this difficulty? You have put in the preamble a religious recital which is not in
the Constitution of the United States of America, but you have not put in the safeguard against religious
intolerance which they have there. I ask honorable members how I shall face that difficulty? There is a grave
suspicion evidenced by what I said that there were 36,000 distinct signatures upon this very point. I do not
think it is too much for me to say that we ought to reassure those persons. They may be wrong. It may be
right, as my friend (Mr. Barton) says, that there is no power by implication in the Commonwealth to pass this
law. It may be right as he says, that the Commonwealth ought to have the power. But I only say that it is a
state matter, and it should be left to the states. My honorable friend (Mr. Fraser), with all respect to him,
shows the current ignorance on this matter because he will not understand that the state, if my proposal is
carried, will have the same power as it has now to stop any theatrical performances on Sunday.
20
25
END QUOTE
30
35
What this means is that while a State can legislate as to business hours of shops regardless of
religious issues it is a different matter when to legislate as to so-called Racial Discrimination
laws. Neither the State or the Commonwealth can legislate in that regard, because s51(xxvi) was
specifically inserted in the constitution to also avoid any international law to interfere with the
powers of the Commonwealth to discriminate against aliens. My published books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues set this out more
comprehensively. Safe to say that lawyers/judges/politicians do better to learn what the true
meaning and application of the constitution stands for before legislating.
.
40
What we now have is a concocted Country Fire Authority Act 1958 that purports to be for the
safety of local communities and firefighters when it fact it has left loopholes that so to say you
can drive a semitrailer through. Tell the widows/widowers of fire fighters who died that
somehow it is all right for departments/VicRoads/councils to deliberately engage in a conduct
causing the death of their loved once but innocent land owners are to be persecuted and
prosecuted on flimsy and ridiculous unconstitutional claims.
.
45
50
55

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
p9
24-10-2016
10
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
10

QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: Local freedom and government by the people are inseparable.
END QUOTE
15

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.END QUOTE
.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but
every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have
made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a
Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other
questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided,
first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is
the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be
twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting
independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the
constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. We can have every faith in
the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be
above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of
saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve.
What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or
any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that
Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating
here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the
popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the
Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE
Again for no citizen is above it, but under it; as such corporations like VicRoads and councils must
be held equally liable for their failure to fire safety.
.

p10
24-10-2016
11
10
15
20
25
30
35
QUOTE
Mr. WISE:
The power of the senate to deal with money bills is so clearly defined that I doubt if any ingenuity could
suggest the possibility of dispute arising between the two houses on that question. That at once removes one
of the most prolific sources of dispute between the two chambers in the past. Then as to the second class of
dispute arising from social differences, all through this discussion, not, I admit, in this house but outside, the
controversialists of one party ignore, or seem to ignore, the limitations of federal government. They forget
that this commonwealth can only deal with those matters that are expressly remitted to its jurisdiction;
and excluded from its jurisdiction are all matters that affect civil rights, all matters that affect
property, all matters, in a word, affecting the two great objects which stir the passions and affect the
interests of mankind. I fail entirely and I shall be glad if some alarmist will enlarge my views on this matterto perceive in this bill any question on which there is any possibility of a conflict between the states and the
people, except, in one respect, and I will define that in the largest possible way. In legislation affecting
commercial interests, or financial interests, it is possible to imagine that the states will be brought into
conflict as states with the concentrated majority of the populations of the two large states over a question of
trade. It is possible to imagine the same thing arising over a question of commerce, or over a question of
finance.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
40
45
50
55
60

QUOTE Mr. CLARK.the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
https://alhr.org.au/alert-alarmed-lawyers-back-president-triggs-federal-bill-rights-judges-lawyers-must-lead/
QUOTE
Alert and Alarmed; Lawyers Back President Triggs on Federal Bill of Rights: Judges and Lawyers Must Lead
October 5, 2016
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) applauds AHRC President Gillian Triggs recent call to
reignite the dialogue about a federal Bill of Rights for Australia. Australia remains alone among western
liberal democracies and common law legal systems as bereft of a national bill of rights. ALHR President
Benedict Coyne said, The Parliament of Australia is failing in its duty to protect the human rights of the
Australian people. ALHR strongly backs President Triggs statement that we should all be alarmed at the
p11
24-10-2016
12
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
failure of our legal system and lawyers to protect fundamental rights. These rights have evolved over
millennia
as
the
very
foundations
of
democracy.
The Australian people need to step up and address the ongoing and escalating erosion of fundamental human
rights protections. We must recognise and should be angered by the fact that in recent years increasingly
autocratic, disproportionate government measures and excessive executive powers have become the norm.
This is not democracy said Mr Coyne, When you step back and look at the big picture these are truly
frightening
times
for
our
civil
liberties.
Continuing incremental incursions on our civil liberties since 9/11 have meant that Australia has had more
counter-terrorism and national security legislation passed than America and the United Kingdom combined.
Whilst ALHR recognises that governments must act to protect national security, Australians must also ask
whether the parliaments responses have been proportionate to the threat. Many more people have been, and
continue
to
be,
killed
in
family
violence
than
in
terror
attacks.
The government seems to have tossed aside any regard for fundamental rights and freedoms in too many
policy areas. As the only western democracy without a bill of rights we have no legal protection. We cannot
rely solely on the separation of powers. The High Court has been extremely weak on protecting fundamental
rights and freedoms in recent times. This is particularly clear through its case law establishing that indefinite
detention of asylum seekers is permissible under Australian law, despite those people having committed no
crime
under
international
or
Australian
law.
ALHR agrees with President Triggs recently expressed concerns that Australian lawyers seem to have lost
their focus as protectors of the most vulnerable.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
Anyone who understood and comprehended what our constitution stands for will be aware that
this constitution itself is our Magda Carta and Bill of Rights!
Again
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
.
45

QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE
And this is why a person like myself who researched the true meaning and application of the
constitution so to say leaves lawyers for dead in litigation.
50
55
To my knowledge I am the only person ever to defeat (on 19 July 2006) the Commonwealth of
Australia on that compulsory voting is unconstitutional. This may underline that those
contemplating to take me on in litigation may just end up being exposed as charlatans in legal
matters. I occasionally do vote, but when I hold there is a worthy candidate, as such I am not
against voting but against unconstitutional compulsory voting. And the fact that I succeeded in
both appeals underlines that I was right! Just that when it comes to human lives such as with fire
management then it never should have to be left up to the courts to get some common sense in
matters. And when one comes across unfortunately with judges like Gaynor J, Mallaly J and
Carmody J well then so to say JUSTICE is thrown out of the window.
p12
24-10-2016
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
13
As for volunteer firefighters, in my view they should be appropriately renumerated, including for
being on stand-by, out of pocket expenses, and time to travel to and from attending to the job, as
after all we as landholders are forced to pay a fire levy and ass such I see absolutely no
justification to deny them appropriate remuneration, including entitlements as such to
superannuation, etc. By ensuring we appropriately compensate/reward volunteer firefighters we
can achieve a more competent force that is available whenever society has a need for it without
expecting them to suffer financial losses in the process. After all we do so for politicians who
cannot even manage to understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of the
constitution, and well to me fire fighters are well above this kind of position as at least one can
be assured they do their job often at the peril of fire danger. As for the FEE SIMPLE issue, I
canvassed this already extensively in my written submissions in my ADDRESS TO THE
COURT when representing Mr Colosimo before Her Honour Harbison J in the County Court of
Victoria on 19 March 2009 as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Professional Advocate. This
document is published at my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati. Safe to say that any
purported Infringement Court that fails to be within the provisions of the 2-1-1901 published in
the Victorian Gazette Letters Patent to be impartial and independent is therefore unauthorised.
Save to say if a neighbour desires to grow Tulips because he likes me having been born in The
Netherlands than that is his/her business and Parliament cannot exercised any control over this. It
is only when someone does something on a property affecting the rights of others that Parliament
can intervene with legislative provisions. The same regarding the Country Fire Authority Act
1958 provisions which deals with matters that are internal property rights within FEE SIMPLE
and cannot be govern by legislation!
Again, the long list of judicial errors, and the exposure of Mr Wayne Wall and Mr Groves to
having given false/misleading evidence should be of concern, this in particular where both
allegedly are enforcing local laws. One has then to ask if they have this as a modus operandi in
local law enforcement! In particular where His Honour Carmody J was made aware by me that
I had warned Mr Wayne Wall I would cross-examine him as to the truth of matters then it cannot
be claimed that Mr Wayne Wall was so to say unprepared for cross-examination. In fact the
withholding of the alleged correspondence of a committee in January 2015 from the brief and so
preventing me to check and verify the credibility of those correspondence and then to be used in
my cross-examination under false pretences I had responded to them via email where no such
details are on record then this was I view a deplorable conduct both by Mr Wayne Wall and the
lawyers involved. It should be understood that farmers generally are good in their jobs but may
not have the skills and legal knowledge how to expose the perjury and deception by so called
law enforcement staff and as such are so to say roosted. Whenever this elaborate kind of
conduct is exposed I view that such persons must never be place or be continued to be placed in a
position where honesty and facts are critical such as in the issue of Fire Management Plan. What
if this kind of conduct is perpetrated to firefighters who are deceived as to the conditions existing
and then go out fighting some fire only to lose their lives in the process? They are dead and so
cannot testify that they were misled by the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer! Is this really what
the intent of the Parliament is? I doubt so!
Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842),
QUOTE
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
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.
p13
24-10-2016
14
END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
I have fequested within the provisions of the FOI Act details of the evidence Mr Wayne Wall and
Mr Groves gave at the hearing before His Honour Carmody J on 30 may 2016 before His Honour
Carmody J as I intend to pursue this further.
.
It is essential I do so because the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice never can nor must
be condoned by those who claim to be in local law enforcement.
The time that people claiming to enforce laws themselves are misusing and abusing their
positions must be ended as they too must be held liable for their gross deception. We cannot have
a proper functioning court if those claiming to enforce the law are themselves
fabricating/falsifying evidence. The courts generally will accept the evidence of a law
enforcement person as to why should such a person lie in court? Well, I view that what is
needed is appropriate legislation that whenever a person is found to give false/misleading
evidence this is placed on court records and so when this person is giving evidence then the
court will be aware this person was in the past found to have been a lair.
I recall a matter where a police officer had obtained an ex party order against me claiming he had
served me at my Coburg residence even was invited to drink tea, and that I had been speeding 75
kilometres in a 60 kilometre zone. In the end the Magistrate found that the police officer could
never have served me the summons as I had moved out of the property 6 months before the date
he claimed to have been serving the documents, as I was able to prove I had purchased then a
house in west meadows. And when it came to the speeding the magistrate accepted that indeed as
I had stated I had only been doing 50 kilometres in a 75 kilometre, as the police officer recanted
that it was a 60 kilometres zone, when I confronted him with pictures of the road showing a 75
kilometre zone, in fact there was a 75 kilometres zone. Yet, such a lair still can give evidence in
other cases without his record having been found to be a lair by the court being on record.
Likewise, albeit likely unbeknown to most politicians police officers who have issued a
Infringement Notice then alter the copy they file with the Infringement Court so as that to make
the speeding allegation more severe. This is the corruption that goes on involving the
unconstitutional Infringement Court!
In an appeal in Bendigo the court set aside a Magistrates order against me as His Honour
couldnt accept the police officer evidence that my trailer headlights were working but not one
of my tail lights, when my then about 11 year old son was summoned by the police officer to
operate the motor vehicle indicators. A FAIR MINDED PERSON would hold that trailers do
not have headlights but the barrister appearing for the police in the appeal somehow didnt find
this strange!
And this is why we must not sway from the legal principle embedded in the constitution that
both sides must be heard before a judicial determination can be made. As we saw the
Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Andrew (the wrong court venue also) simply issued orders
without bothering to consider any evidence nor the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION And to
me this is a very serious matter when we are dealing with fire prevention issues as having
deception/ perjury/conspiracy/ etc part of litigation for the sake to score court orders against a
land owner I view must be totally deplored.
A Captain of a local fire brigade doesnt have to be friends with everyone, but at least one can
trust his judgment to competently deal with fire management issues where it also involved his
own safety and survival and that of his crew and the local community!
When contemplating to email this submission I discovered the following email in my inbox:
QUOTE
FOI Request
50
From
Bill Hutcheson
To
admin@inspector-rikati.com
p14
24-10-2016
15
Date
Today 06:45
Message 1 of 251 < >
Capture P1 - BSC website - FOI information.PNG
Capture P2 - BSC website FOI information.PNG
foirequestform.doc
Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
I understand from your correspondence with Council (letter dated 21 Oct 2016) that you wish to lodge
an FOI request.
10
Please find attached information relating to the process of lodging a Freedom of Information Request
from Councils website along with the relevant form to complete.
15
Please complete the form and return to our office with the appropriate fee so that we can assess your
request.
Thank you
Bill Hutcheson
20
25
Director Corporate Services

Buloke Shire Council
p. 1300 520 520 | 54 7801 19
f. 03 5493 7395
a. PO Box 1, Wycheproof VIC 3527
BHutcheson@buloke.vic.gov.au
END QUOTE
30
35
40
45
As I made the FOI Act request to Mr Wayne Wall and he was made aware of my submissions to
the Environment and Planning Committee then I view Buloke Shire Council should not cause
further frustration and/or delays as the request was very clear what I asked for.
Perhaps because of my submission and supplements a delay tactic serves them to seek to prevent
me to expose more of the rot to the Environment and Planning Committee. Because the
information/details I requested should have been disclosed in the brief originally but wasnt it
is of concern that further legal tactics are used to delay matters. As for that it is clear that Buloke
Shire Council is aware of my submissions and supplements to the Environment and Planning
Committee then one has to ask if this may not constitute CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT
where is seeks to frustrate/hinder my further submissions to the Environment and Planning
Committee. Again we are dealing with the possibility of life and death matters of fire fighters
and local community members as well as others and ordinary delay tactics should not be
accepted as proper. While councils may design their own system to deal with FOI Act request, in
the end I made a request and this should govern and be replied upon without delay appropriately
by providing the requested details/information.
My reply:
QUOTE
Mr Bill Hutcheson, Director Corporate Services

Email: buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au, BHutcheson@buloke.vic.gov.au
50
24-10-2016
Sir,
as you are ware from my writings the Environment and Planning committee are currently
investigating fire management issues. As the FIO Act request I made in general deals with
p15
24-10-2016
10
15
20
25
30
35
16
details/information relating to evidence Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire Prevention Officer and
Mr Groves gave on 30 May 2016 in the County Court of Victoria before His Honour Carmody J
and Counsel for Buloke Shire Council then claimed then those details in right should have been
disclosed in the brief. As such I view that in the circumstances rather than perhaps trying to
delay it to up to 45days you show management conduct to immediately provide the
details/information/etc requested with any complimentary information.
It should be understood that the withholding of the information/details in the first place should
never have eventuated and as such as the corporate manager I view you ought to do your utmost
best to address the issue without delay and being aware that I am filing to some extend a
comprehensive submission with supplements to the Environment and Planning Commission
you should be the last person to seek to undermined the ability of the Parliament to urgently be
provided with this information.
If you as a corporate manager had been so zealous on how Mr Wayne Wall Municipal Fire
Prevention Officer executed his job you might have avoided any litigation and so Buloke Shire
Council wasting more than $18,000.00 litigating against me, and then have the Emergency
Service Commission gran ting an above rate cap increase to collect an additional $56,000 from
struggling citizens. Is this really how you manage corporate affairs, as to allow ridiculous
litigation at cost of citizens to be conducted?
Again, most if not all of this information ought to have been in the brief and was not done so
and as such I view that as a competent corporate manager you will beyond doubt seek to a void
frustrating the Environment and Planning Commission and myself and do your utmost best to
provide the requested information/details by return email.
In my view as the corporate manager you ought to investigate matters extensively and thoroughly
and you may for this consider the submission and supplements I made to the Environment and
Planning Commission also as well as the Court documents I provided to the court so you may
get an understanding how grossly incompetent the litigation against me was executed and how
citizens monies were as such wasted on litigation that should and could have been avoided.
Worse of it how firefighters, local community members and others lives and wellbeing are
unduly jeopardized. Check the pictures I provided so far if you doubt my credibility!
A copy of this correspondence will also be placed before the Environment and Planning
Commission and keep also in mind a 45 days period isnt going to assist the Environment and
Planning Commission to deal with current fire dangers that may need to be addressed!
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

END QUOTE
40
45
It may be noticed that not the FOI Act manager but to corporate manager is now dealing with
matters. If just he so to say had been on the ball while the litigation was going on when I wrote
extensively to Buloke Shire Council then the litigation could have been aborted immediately and
time and monies better spend on educating a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer as to how to do
his duties and obligations appropriately.
In my view legislation should be in place that any Municipal Fire Prevention Officer must have
received appropriate training and completed the same, including basic firefighters training, so
that he understand what it is about. As I view this currently seems to be lacking.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
50
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

p16
24-10-2016

20161024-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Secretary Environment and Planning Committee-Supplement 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20161024-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Secretary Environment and Planning Committee-Supplement 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

The Secretary Environment and Planning Committee

Parliament House, Spring Street, EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002

Phone: 03 8682 2869 Email: epc@parliament.vic.gov.au

interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0003.f.cas/0003.f.cas.0221.pdf BENNETT V. BOGGS.

McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 9-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates

Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Capture P1 - BSC website - FOI information.PNG

Capture P2 - BSC website FOI information.PNG

Director Corporate Services

Mr Bill Hutcheson, Director Corporate Services

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

You might also like