20150902-g. h. schorel-hlavka o.w.b. re press release as to royal commission into tugac-submission...

8/20/2019 20150902-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re PRESS RELEASE as to Royal Commission Into TUGaC-submission to Dis…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/20150902-g-h-schorel-hlavka-owb-re-press-release-as-to-royal-commission 1/8

Page 1 2-9-2015 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist)

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, by fax

0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail [email protected] See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

WITHOUT PREJUDICEThe Hon John Dyson Heydon AC QC 2-9-2015

C/o [email protected] [email protected]

Cc: Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o [email protected]

Bill Shorten [email protected], Senator George Brandis [email protected] George Williams [email protected], Mr Clive Palmer [email protected]

Jacqui Lambie [email protected] , Sharon Firebrace [email protected]

Herald Sun Andrew Bolt [email protected], [email protected]

Mark Robinson [email protected] [email protected]

Ref; 20150902-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re PRESS RELEASE as to Royal Commission into TUGaC-

submission to disqualify for bias-implied bias-supplement-2

Sir,

further to my previous submissions I desire to add the following:

In your 31-8-2015 reasons you refer to the hundreds of Notices to Produce and to Letters Patent

issued by Governors/administrator and Governor-General but not in which order they were

issued and the dates. This is critical because a Letter Patent ordinary only obtain its validity from

the day it is published in the Gazette and not before. Further, were Notice to Produce issued

before the relevant Letters Patent were published in the Gazette’s?

But wait there is more!

Let’s go back to the Victorian Proclamation Gazetted 2-1-1901.

On 2015-08-21 15:22, Legal TradeUnion wrote:

QUOTE email 2015-08-21 15:22

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka,

The Commission acknowledges receipt of your email and submission dated 18 August 2015.

We also refer you to the relevant part of the Commission’s website where details regarding Letters

Patent issued by State Governors is located:

http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/About/Pages/Stateletterspatent.aspx

Regards, Matthew

Matthew Ashworth | Legal Officer

Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption P. 1800 221 245 (Hotline)

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


















































Note: This email, and any attachments, has been issued by the Office of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption

and is intended only for the use of the addressee. The information transmitted may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you

are not the intended recipient, use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received it in error, please let me

know by reply email and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute

waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.

From: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2015 7:19 PMTo:

SubmissionsCc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; GeorgeBrandis; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]: see attachment 20150818-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commission into Trade UnionGovernance and Corruption-SUBMISSION-Re OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

The Hon John Dyson Heydon AC QC18-8-2015

C/o [email protected]


Bill Shorten [email protected]

Senator George Brandis [email protected]

George Williams [email protected]

Mr Clive Palmer [email protected]

Jacqui Lambie [email protected]



Sharon Firebrace [email protected]

Ref; 20150818-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commission into Trade UnionGovernance and Corruption-SUBMISSION-Re OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

Sir,

see attachment 20150818-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commission into TradeUnion Governance and Corruption-SUBMISSION-Re OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION



























































-- Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

107 Graham Road

Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia

Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and other legal

issues.

THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE DISABLED

If you have received this transmission in error pleasenotify us immediately by return e-mail and delete allcopies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sentto you in error, that error does not constitute waiverof any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respectof information in the e-mail or attachments.

END QUOTE email 2015-08-21 15:22

QUOTE 20150823-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re PRESS RELEASE as to Royal Commission into TUGaC

WITHOUT PREJUDICEThe Hon John Dyson Heydon AC QC 23-8-2015

C/o [email protected]


Bill Shorten [email protected], Senator George Brandis [email protected]

George Williams [email protected], Mr Clive Palmer [email protected]

Jacqui Lambie [email protected] , Sharon Firebrace [email protected]



Ref; 20150823-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re PRESS RELEASE as to Royal Commission into TUGaC

Sir,

I checked out as to any of my submissions having been published at

http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Submissions but found none listed.

On 10 February 2014 you were as I understand it commissioned to be Royal Commissioner into

Trade Union Governance and Corruption. Upon which on 15 February 2014 (5 days later) I made

an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. This included that the RC had no powers to deal with

state matters.24 March the Governor of Queensland issued Letters Patent which was extended on 18 December 2014

15 April 2014 Victoria which was replaced on 4 June 2015 with new Letters Patent

QUOTE

On 15 April 2014, the Governor of Victoria, His Excellency the Honourable Alex Chernov AC QC, issuedLetters Patent establishing a Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption in the state of

Victoria and formally appointed the Commissioner The Honourable John Dyson Heydon AC QC to conduct

the Inquiry.

END QUOTE

9 April 2014 N.S.W. which was extended on 14 January 2015

13 May 2014 Tasmania which was amended 10 February 201522 May 2014 South Australia extended on 18 June 2015

8 July 2014 Administrator of Western Australia extended by the Governor on 29 April 2015

Hence, it clearly proved that after I made my initial OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION it was

recognised I was right, and so effort was made to get Letters Patents from the states, considering

the subsequent Letters Patents, but failure to provide from onset for the hearing to deal with






























http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Submissions





















“JURISDICTIONAL” issues means the Royal Commission never invoked jurisdiction. The issue

by the states of various Letters patent cannot in itself overcome my OBJECTION TO

JURISDICTION but merely underlined I was correct. And considering HCA 27 of 1999

Wakim principle, the States cannot authorise the Commonwealth to give pretended jurisdiction.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all

issues/details. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)


(Our name is our motto! )END QUOTE 20150823-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re PRESS RELEASE as to Royal Commission into TUGaC

Considering the more extensive details I provided as to the dates of the Letters Patent’s then you

did in your 31-8-2015 reasons then one may ask how many Notice to Produce were issued prior

to the relevant state having issued a Letters Patent? Likewise how many witnesses gave evidence

by affidavit or otherwise before the relevant state Letters patent were issued?.

But there is more to it:

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I “ bothered” to find out what are the prerogative powers of the

Monarch and in general this doesn’t include for the Crown (Her Majesty) to get involved in

political issues. Neither does Her Majesty get involved in legal disputes as Her Majesty has for

this the Privy Council.

As the Framers of the constitution made clear that the Parliament can provided additional powers

to the Governor-General besides the exercise of prerogative powers ordinary existing with the

Crown. As such the Parliament may provide that certain events cannot occur unless the

Governor-General proclaims it. This is not an interference with the prerogative powers of the

Crown exercisable by the Governor-General on behalf of the Monarch but additional powers,

albeit always subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australi a Constitu tion Act 1900 (UK); .

Commonwealth of Australi a Constitution Act 1900 (UK) QUOTE

2 Governor-GeneralA Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be HerMajesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the

Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.END QUOTE

What is clear is that the constitution provides “but subject to this Constitution” and as such thegovernor-General cannot act in violation of the constitution, including its embedded legal

principles of separation of powers.

In my view the Parliament itself has no constitutional powers to issue any Letters Patent. Neither

can it dictate to the Governor-General to issue a Letters Patent. It is so to say a prerogative

order/commission/direction as if from Her Majesty personally.

The Bill of Rights was the result of that the Parliament didn’t want a Monarch to interfere with

the Government of the Day, as then as I understand it the Monarch had sacked the Attorney-
















General. Our constitution does provide for the Governor-General to withdraw his/her

commission to any Minister but obviously such exercise is to be carefully proceeded with.

The question is did Quintin Bryce Governor-General have the prerogative powers to issue Letters

patent for the establishment of a Royal commission in regard of “Royal Commission into trade

union governance and corruption”? In my view the Governor-General had no such powers

regardless what might be stated in any act of Parliament (Actually the Parliament never provides

any act as it only passes a “Bill” may or may not become an act pending royal ascent and

publication ion the Gazette – the current format of merely “registering” a proclamation as an act

or registering an act is not sufficient to validate a “ bill” passed to become an “Act”. Hence

many so called “Acts” are not legislation at all!), this as the term “corruption” indicates a

criminal issues to which Her Majesty would never personally get involved to issue Letters Patent

for.

FOURTH SUPPLEMENT

TO THE

VICTORIA

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE

OF FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1900.

Published by Authority

No. 2.] WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2. [1901. QUOTE (This is a “copy and paste” version with grammatical errors in it as reproduced)

LETTIHI5 PATENT PASSED UNDER THE GREAT SEAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM CON-

Letters Patent,

STITUTING THE OFFiCE OF GOVItISNOIL OF TIlE STATE OF VICTORIA AND ITS dated 29th

October,

DEPENDENCIES, IN TILE COIL3IONWEALTIL OF AUSTRALIA. 1900.

VICTORIA, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India To, all to whom these

Presents shall come, Greeting.

WHEREAS, by certain Letters Patent, under tbe Great Seal of Our United Kingdom Preamble.

of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date at WTestminster the Twenty-first (lay Recites Lettersof February 1879, We did constitute the Office of GOVerLIOr and Commander-in- Patent of 21st Feb.

Chief in and over Our Colony of Victoria as therein described, and its Depeiiden- mary, 18i9.

eies And whereas, in virtue of the provisions of the Commonwealth of

Australia Constitution Act, 1900, and of Our Proclamation issued thereunder, by Recites IniperialAct

and with the advice of Our Privy Council on the Seventeenth day of September, 63 & 64 Vict., c.12,

~90O, We have by certain Letters Patent tinder the said Great Seal of Our United Pr~cIa:n~ttonbof

Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing even date herewith, made provision 1900, and~Letter~

for the Office of Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Our Patent of 29th

Commonwealth of Australia And whereas it has become necessary to make permanent October, IäOO.

prevision for the Office of Governor in and ever Our State of Victoria and its Dependencies,

in the Commonwealth of Australia, without ninking new Letters Patent on each demise of -the said Office. New know ye that We do by these presents revoke and determine the Revocation of Let.

said first — recited Letters Patent of the Twenty — first day of February 1879, and everything t~rsPatent of

21st

therein contained, from and after the prochunatiun of these Our Letters Patent as herein — lebruary, 15,9.after provided : And further know ye that We do by these presents constitute, order, and Office of Governor

declare that thero shall he a Governor in and ever Our State of Victoria (comprising the constituted.territories hounded on the west by Our Stale of South Australia, on the south by the J3oundarics.

sea, and on the east and north by a straight line drawn from Cape Howe to the nearest

source of the River Murray, and thence by the course of that river to the Eastern

Boundary of Our State of Soitt Ii Austral in) anti its Dependencies, in the Cooi,nonweal fit

of Australia (which said State of Victoria and its Dependencies are, hereinafter called

the State), and that appointments to the said Office shall be made by Commission underur Sign Manual and Signet. –

END QUOTE (This is a “copy and paste” version with grammatical errors in it as reproduced)

QUOTE (This is a “copy and paste” version with grammatical errors in it as reproduced)
















No. 2. — JANUARY 2, 1901. — i.

.January 2, 1901. S

Governor ’s powers II. We (10 hereby authorize, empower, and command Our said Governor to do andand authorities, execute all tlnngs that belong to his said Office, according to the tenor of these OurLetters Patent and of such Commission as may be issued to him under Our SignManual and Signet, and according to such Instructions as may from time to time be given

to him under Oar Sign Manual and Signet, or by Our Order in Our Privy Council, or by

Us, through one of Our Principal Secretaries of State, and to such Laws as are now orshall hereafter be in force in the State.

ITT. We do also by these Our Letters Patent declare Our will and pleasure as

follows :— END QUOTE (This is a “copy and paste” version with grammatical errors in it as reproduced)

What is clear is that the Office of the governor is a permanent office and the governor can only

act within the Letters Patent provided for that office, as may also be provided through “one of

Our Principle Secretaries of State”. This then doesn’t mean that the “one of Our Principle

Secretaries of State” can dictate whatever but must only involve instructions within the ambit of

the Letters Patent. In my view this doesn’t provide for the governor to issue Letters Patent

outside the State of Victoria such as for the Commonwealth’s Royal commissioner and neither

for any criminal issue, such as “corruption” .QUOTE 20150713-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and

Corruption-SUBMISSION-supplement-01 FOURTH SUPPLEMENT

TO THE

VICTORIA

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE

OF FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1900.

Published by Authority

No. 2.] WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2. [1901. QUOTE

follows :—

IV. Every person appointed to fill the Office of Governor shall with, all due solemnity, before entering onany of the duties of his Office, cause’ the Commission appointing to be Governor to be read and published

at, the seat of Government, in the presence of the Chief .Justice, or some other Judge of the Supreme Court of

the State, and of she Members of the Executive Council thereof, which being done, he shall then and there

take before them the Oath of Allegiance, in the form provided by an Act passed in the Session holden in tileThirty-first and Thirty-second years of Our Reign, intituled an Act to amend the Law relating to Promissory

Oaths ; ,and likewise the usual Oath for the due execution of the Office of Governor, and for the due and

impartial administration of justice which Oaths the said Chief Justice or Judge ishereby required to

administer.

END QUOTE

The Office of the Governor (Victoria) as per 2-1-1901 PROCLAMATION, that was Gazetted

requires that the Governor appoints independent judges! As such, any notion that there being no

separation of powers in the states utter and sheer nonsense.Where then unions find that their union members and others are denied their constitutional rights

and the Victorian Parliament for example without authority of the State electors purportedly

referred legislative (and so judicial) powers to the Commonwealth of Australia then one hardly

can wonder that unions will seek to use their powers in whatever way they deem fit and

appropriate to try to address issues. I may not approve of unions doing so but then the courts

themselves should have acted appropriately and this I view it fails far too often to do.

Workers (not just members) by this have been robbed of their constitutional rights of contracts as

was provided for by the legal principles embedded in the constitution, also applicable to the State

of Victoria.
















END QUOTE 20150713-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and

Corruption-SUBMISSION-supplement-01

And as the Letters Patentmakes clear that the Office of the governor is established “And whereas, in

virtue of the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900.” Then clearly the legal principles

embedded in this constitution, including separation of powers are applicable.

We also have the legal principle embedded in the constitution:

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)

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

As such the issue that you may or may not belong to a political party and/or support any political party or its doctrine is a personal right no one can have an issue with.

However, when you occupy a position to act for the Monarch within Letters patent, then it is

expected that you act as would be the Monarch impartially and without bias and/or implied bias.

This, as while you have personal political liberty it is another matter when this personal liberty

when exercised may place in question your conduct as a person acting for the Monarch within

the commission of Letters Patent.

The book "Law Made Simple" by Colin F. Padfield, LL.B.,D.P.A.(Lond.) on page 55:

QUOTE

"The Rule against Bias. A true judicial decision can be reached only if the judge himself is impartial. This is

an obvious requirement in a court of law or a tribunal. In R. v Rand (1866) it was held that a judge is

disqualified where (i) he has a direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject-matter in dispute; or (ii)there is real likelihood that the judge would have a bias in favour of one of the parties.

For example, if a judge is related to, or is a friend of, one of the parties to a dispute there would be real

likelihood of bias. It is immaterial whether a judicial decision was in fact biased, for as was said by Lord

Chief Justice Heward in R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924): 'Justice should not only be done, butshould manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.'

As an example of pecuniary bias we may quote:

Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852). Lord Chancellor Cottenham made decrees in a Chancery suit infavour of a canal company. Lord Cottenham held several shares in the company. Held: (by the House of

Lords): that the decrees be set aside on the ground of pecurniary interest. No bias was proved in fact, nor

could it be shown that Lord Cottenham was in any way influenced by his shareholding.

As an example of likelihood of bias we may quote:

R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924). A was summoned before magistrates for a motoring

offence. The acting clerk to the justices was a member of a firm of solicitors representing A in civil

proceedings arising out of the same accident. The acting clerk did not advise the magistrates, but he retired

with them to consider their decision. Held: that as the acting clerk was connected with the case in the civil

action he ought not to advise the magistrates in the criminal prosecution. Conviction accordingly quashed,

despite the fact that the acting clerk took no part in the decision to convict and had not been asked by the

justices to give his opinion or advice. "

END QUOTE
















The issue of Notice to Produce and in this case reportedly some 687 of them not on application

by say the government but apparently by the Royal commission itself surely indicates an

enormous implied bias.

QUOTE POINT 4 AT PAGE 4 31-8-2015 reasons of John Dyson Haydon RC

Extensive written submissions were exchanged in October-November 2014. Oral argument took place in

November 2014. An Interim Report was delivered to the Governor-General on 15 December 2014. Apartfrom Appendixes, it was 1712 pages long. By the time that Report was prepared, 239 witnesses had given

evidence to the Commission. Of those, 33 gave evidence by witness statement or affidavit and were notrequired to give oral evidence. Other potential witnesses were interviewed, but were not called when it

became clear that their evidence would not advance the inquiry. The Commission had issued 687 Notices to

Produce. Hearings were conducted in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. In 2014, the Commission sat

on 16 days in private hearings and on 60 days in public hearings.

END QUOTE

Where were the formal applications for each Notice to Produce and where is the transcript or

other relevant documentation that each and every Notice to Produce was issued on basis of law

on legal justification? Or is it that the Notice to Produce were issued like giving out lollies?

687 Notices to Produced just to sign them is a considerable job and so consider the legal

justification to issue each and every Notice to Produce would have been an enormous amount of

time. Let me guess you do not use a computer, so they were by a staff member issued inautomatically printed of and likely never signed by you personally. You may never even have

seen any of the Notice to Produce before they were send out?

This places in question if your staff really are running the show rather then you are?.

If you in the past attended any of the lectures regarding Sir Garfield Barwick then a FAIR

MINDED PERSON would have concluded that you reasonably knew it was a Liberal Party

organised event. Exercising your “ political liberty” as a person is not in question as that is an

embedded legal principle in the constitution, but doing so when purportedly acting within

numerous Letters Patent for and on behalf of the Monarch then I view there is a conflict of

interest and bias and implied bias. Even attending the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture in 2014 in my

view, after having been selected and announced to conduct a Royal commission on 10 February2014, would have been so to say to thumb your on Royal protocol not to get involved in political

issues.

The Liberal Party (as any other political party) is also a “union” and so why not have any Notice

to Produce issued against them? I get it, your commission was to deal with those funding the

political opponents of those in government, not the ills of the union(s) in power, is that it?.

Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The I nspector General of Government HCT -00-CV-M A-593-2003

QUOTE

The purpose of a review is to correct a glaring absurdity in light of discovery of new facts and

circumstances. It is in light of the above that even courts of law also review their judgments and orders.

END QUOTE

If requested I can provide a copy of the 2-1-19012 Gazette publication of the letters Patent.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all

issues/details.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)


(Our name is our motto! )









20150902-g. h. schorel-hlavka o.w.b. re press release as to royal commission into tugac-submission...

Documents