20190218-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, AC Re SUBMISSION

Page 1
1
2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
3 Margaret McMurdo, AC Royal Commissioner 18-2-2019
4 Victorian Royal Commission into Management of Police Informants
5 PO Box 18028, Melbourne VIC 3001.
6
7 Ref: 20190218-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, AC
8 Re -SUBMISSION
9
10 THIS SUBMISSION IS PROVIDED FOR PUBLICATION AS IDENTITIES RELATING
11 TO CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS HAVE NOT BEEN REVEALED.
12
13 Commissioner,
14 this submission is extensive as it related to Lawyer X and a lot more that I view is
15 relevant. I do view however that from my experiences of nearly 4 decades at the bar table
16 Lawyer X case cannot be considered in isolation but must be considered in the overall as the
17 courts (administration of justice) as well as law enforcement authorities operate.
18 This submission is also in part to set out the extend of the misuse and abuse of the administration
19 of justice by the judges themselves which I view is must responsible for the misuse and abuse of
20 lawyers to be involved as informers contrary to their positions as an Officer of the Court.
21
22 From onset I may state I am pleased that the commissioner, so I understand from reports in the
23 media made clear that the Royal commission is not to set aside any convictions. After all the
24 Royal Commission is as I view it a political tool by the government limited to the terms of
25 references provided for in the Letters Patent and as such cannot even investigate other relevant
26 matters albeit can consider them.
27 .
28 For example it much goes to the issue of the CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS if a witness
29 appearing before the Royal Commission or providing any kind of evidence otherwise is a
30 credible witness.
31 .
32 The following is a clear warning that using the accused as to provide details against himself, via
33 an informant Officer of the Court who represents the accused clearly violated accusatorial
34 system of justice. The prosecutor/police deliberate conduct persisted with over decades cannot be
35 excused, and all those involved should be prosecutor for this.
36
37 QUOTE FROM AUTHORITY BELOW
38 This is because the fairness of a trial can be tested by its conformity with those
39 principles underlying the accusatorial system of justice ..A fair trial is a public
40 hearing in which the Crown makes a specific allegation, for which the accused has
41 never before been convicted or acquitted, that the accused has violated a pre-
42 existing rule of law, during which trial the Crown bears the burden of establishing
43 that allegation with evidence before an independent and neutral trier of law and
44 fact, without compelling the accused in any way to participate in establishing the
45 allegation against him until a case to meet has been established, and in which the
18-2-2019 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 accused is provided with a reasonable opportunity to make full answer and defence.
2 It is only where the conduct of those responsible for the prosecution of an offence
3 has jeopardized one or more of these accusatorial principles that the power to act to
4 ensure a fair trial should arise."
5 END QUOTE FROM AUTHORITY BELOW
6
7 As I view it the Victorian Police, the Government, the DPP, etc are operating as criminal gangs
8 who hold themselves above the Rule of law. After all each time the courts were holding trials
9 where EF/Informer 3838/Lawyer X and other lawyers had violated their positions as Officers of
10 the Court the Victorian Police, DPP and the Victorian Government concealed this from the
11 courts. As such I view they conspired to pervert the course of justice.
12
13 And let us not ignore that after Carl Williams was viciously murdered then:
14
15 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/gangland-info-missing-with-vanished-jail-chief-
16 david-prideaux/news-
17 story/8cad6b93e7c102954eca96afa7c69b2c?sv=35c4e0436797efaf80a32ca125ed9658
18 QUOTE
19 Gangland info missing with vanished jail chief David Prideaux
20 Exclusive: Adam Shand, TheAustralian
21 March 1, 2013 8:37am
22 MISSING jail boss David Prideaux had copies of statements made by gangland serial killer
23 Carl Williams and his father, George, including sensational allegations of police
24 involvement in corruption and murder, when he disappeared in Victoria's high country
25 during a hunting trip in June 2011.
26 It is understood that police have been unable to locate the explosive statements, contained on
27 a CD-ROM, since Mr Prideaux's disappearance.
28 The Australian has learned that during the eight-day search for Mr Prideaux, a work
29 colleague found sensitive files in his four-wheel-drive vehicle parked at the remote
30 Tomahawk Hut, on the Buckland Spur Track in the Alpine National Park, where he was last
31 seen.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 It is remarkable how authorities tend to lose relevant details when it comes to being against
35 them. This I view in itself is to pervert the course of justice.
36
37 As I have outlined below I suspected the Victorian Police to be involved in the setup of the
38 murder of the then inmate Carl Williams. I also wrote without success to the Legal Service
39 Commissioner that I suspected lawyers had failed to appropriately represent their clients.
40 Nothing eventuated from this.
41 I also lodged request with the coroner to reopen the inquest in the murder of Carl /Williams, as
42 the inquest had relied upon the Victorian Ombudsman and the Victoria Police investigations and
43 so never did any proper investigation/inquest itself. To no avail.
44 .
45 I also notified the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria who simply ignored it all.
46 And the Victorian Police investigations likewise ended up with the same.
47 .
Page 3
1 One thing that did I understand eventuate from this all is that on 5 December 2018 I was targeted
2 by a former police officer causing I estimate about $8,000 to $10,000 damages on my property.
3
4 I do have signage of private property and all relevant court decisions but it appears to me the
5 Victorian Police and so former police officer may just not care less about that.
6
7 After all we saw this with the Red Shirt issue where those who were outed by the Victorian
8 Ombudsman to have inappropriately used taxpayer’s monies now allegedly were exonerated
9 from any wrongdoing.
10
11 To me the word exonerated means to have been proven to be innocent. Clearly no such thing
12 eventuated. The relevant persons were simply refusing to co-operate with a police investigation
13 and by this concealed relevant details at least that is in my view. More over;
14
15 Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria 4-6-2014
16 denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
17
18 Cc: Mr Geoff Shaw MP geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
19 Mr Ken Smith, Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly Victoria, ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
20 Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

21 QUOTE 4-6-2014 correspondence
22 http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
23 QUOTE
24 Ethics Orientation for State Officials

25 Misuse of Public Funds
26 Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
27 END QUOTE 4-6-2014 correspondence
28
29 When then despite this prior warning the Red Shirt case went on to defraud taxpayers of monies
30 and yet the Victorian police claims that the persons involved are exonerated then the following
31 communications from me may just underline that the Victorian Police continue their deceptive
32 conduct.
33
34 Why on earth would the Victorian Police admit to the truth when so far not a single one of them
35 appears to have been legally accountable for the crimes they committed by conspiring to pervert
36 the court of justice?
37
38 QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
39 In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by
40 actual injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is
41 not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.
42 END QUOTE
43
44 http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Conspiracy
45 QUOTE
46 Conspiracy
47 CONSPIRACY, noun [Latin See Conspire.]

Page 4
1 1. A combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement between two or more persons, to
2 commit some crime in concert; particularly, a combination to commit treason, or excite
3 sedition or insurrection against the government of a state; a plot; as a conspiracy against the
4 life of a king; a conspiracy against the government.
5 More than forty had made this conspiracy Acts 23:13.
6 2. In law, an agreement between two or more persons, falsely and maliciously to indict, or
7 procure to be indicted, an innocent person of felony.
8 3. A concurrence; a general tendency of two or more causes to one event.

9 END QUOTE
10
11 In my view an INNOCENT person is any person who is accused but not convicted of a
12 crime/offence. As such it is not relevant how forceful the alleged evidence might appear to be
13 against the accused as that in itself is merely part of the trial and cannot in itself mean a person is
14 guilty as charged. Indeed often it is found police in various jurisdiction to have fabricated
15 evidence and/or concealed relevant evidence that would likely have proven the accused to be
16 innocent of any charges. Likewise we have in my view a corrupt conduct by the police to so to
17 say circumvent criminal prosecutors against one of their own (so former police officers also)
18 and/or others. Hence, the police claiming that the persons involved in the Red Shirt issue are
19 exonerated I view is a clear and deliberate conduct to deceive the general community of the
20 truth. As shown below I specifically requested the DPP to pursue charges against those who
21 were involved in the Red Shirt issue and to my knowledge this is still outstanding.
22
23 One has to question how on earth the Royal Commission is going to force any person to disclose
24 relevant details when the very Government of the Day refused to cooperate with the Victorian
25 Police investigation.
26 How on earth can we have that ordinary citizens can be compelled to give evidence even in
27 inquiries?
28 Here we had for example a 7 June 2005 demand from the Crime Commission that George
29 Williams was to provide details to it and yet the Victorian Government thumps it nose on any
30 investigation and the Victorian Police in my view is in cahoots with them.
31 So ordinary persons who were staff but unaware that they were assisting candidates to defraud
32 the Consolidated Revenue Funds were arrested and even a strip search but those who were the
33 real culprits are not subjected to the same by the Victorian Police?
34 Surely this may underline the bias by the Victorian Police!
35
36 And in recent days my wife discovered that someone had been in our backyard and caused a
37 stack of bricks to fall down, and while the damages this time is minimal nevertheless she has
38 indicated we do better to sell out property as she fears that my writings to disclose the rot and
39 corruption of the Victorian Police. The Government and others is resulting in that we are
40 targeted. After all Anthony Carbines is now part of the Government of the Day and never was
41 held accountable for what we view was criminal conduct.
42
43 One has to consider was Ms Gobbo perhaps EF/Informer 3838/Lawyer X involved in providing
44 legal advice to the Hudson’s and facilitated by this for Paul Dale to enter the property as a police
45 officer and then I suspect the subsequent murder s eventuated?
46 .
47 How many persons were ending up dead because of Ms Gobbo and/or EF/Informer 3838/Lawyer
48 X being informers?
Page 5
1
2 How many were making monies out of this kind of issue?
3 .
4 I refer to a newspaper article I downloaded from the Internet that is as follows:
5
6 IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ARTICLE STATES:
7 QUOTE
8 Ms Gobbo claims she travelled around Australia under an assumed name and was moved
9 to 14 locations.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 As such the identity of Ms Gobbo is not known where she uses an assumed name. Hence, I view
13 any assumed name could not be disclosed or it is known to me. Also as she claimed “and was
14 moved to 14 locations.” It means that unlike EF/Informant 3838/Lawyer X she was under the
15 witness protection being moved. As if she moved by herself the wording “was moved” should be
16 “had moved”.
17
18 Whereas the High Court of Australia as I understand it specifically stated that EF/Informer
19 3838/Lawyer X refused to use police protection and indicated that the authorities may have to
20 consider the safety of the children then on that basis it is reasonable to assume that EF/Informer
21 3838/Lawyer X is not the same person as Ms Gobbo, this even so both might have been involved
22 as informers. Indeed, the Victorian Police by now seemingly admitted that there were more
23 lawyers as informers then
24
25 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/gobbo/news-
26 story/9d63460ed55cf8acfde68098f4b821ee?sv=5e8da4fdd596834a973dca785827058d
27 QUOTE
28 Lawyer Nicola Gobbo settles legal action against police, government
29 Kate Jones and Padraic Murphy, HeraldSun
30 September 25, 2010 12:00am
31 HIGH-profile barrister Nicola Gobbo has settled her court case against Victoria Police and
32 the State of Victoria.
33 Ms Gobbo's claim for damages was formally dismissed in the Supreme Court yesterday
34 after the matter was settled out of court.
35 Ms Gobbo, 38, said yesterday she could not comment because of a confidentiality
36 agreement and health concerns.
37 "I'm unable to comment on the terms of settlement due to confidentiality provisions," she
38 said. "However I look forward to commenting in so far as I am able to once my health is
39 restored."
40 Ms Gobbo was a key witness against former detective Paul Dale, who was charged with
41 murdering police informer Terence Hodson.
42 Mr Hodson and his wife Christine were shot dead in their Kew East home in 2004.

Page 6
1 Charges against Mr Dale and another man, who cannot be named, were dropped by the
2 Office of Public Prosecutions in June due to insufficient evidence.
3 Ms Gobbo was a prosecution witness against Mr Dale and wore a recording device to tape
4 a conversation she had with him in December 2008.
5 In a writ lodged in the Supreme Court in April, she said the stress of being a key witness in
6 the case had caused her to fear for her life and exacerbated health problems stemming from
7 a stroke she suffered in 2004.
8 Ms Gobbo claims she travelled around Australia under an assumed name and was moved
9 to 14 locations.
10 She alleged police had breached their agreement and had not provided appropriate support.
11 Reports suggested Ms Gobbo had sought millions in compensation.
12 A spokeswoman for Victoria Police said the terms of the settlement would remain
13 confidential.
14 "Victoria Police can confirm it has settled matters in relation to Ms Gobbo," she said.
15 "Victoria Police will be making no further comment."
16 Originally published as Gobbo settles case against police
17 END QUOTE
18
19 I prior to the 5 December 2018 complained to
20
21 QUOTE
22 Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office 28-3-2018
23
24 C/o Marlo Baragwanath
25 enquiries@vgso.vic.gov.au
26 Sir/Madam,
27 as you may recall in Re: Parvakis v Schorel-Hlavka (ex MCV No.C11666860)
28 Her Honour Gaynor made known that anyone could institute proceedings. In that case the
29 issue was that I had not filed a candidate’s expense form, this even so I had no expenses and
30 there was a dispute with Banyule City Council.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 Despite of this I am not aware any proper investigation was followed upon this.
34 I have below reproduced the entire correspondence (3 pages)
35
36 Likewise I am not aware others did pursue a proper investigation as I have from time to time
37 requested.
38
39 QUOTE

Page 7
1
2 Victorian Electoral Commission 3-12-2014
3 Level 8, 5050 Little Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria
4 Email: complaints@vec.vic.gov.au
5
6 Cc: Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
7 Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
8 David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
9 George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
10
11 Ref; 20141203-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Electoral Commission-COMPLAINT
12
13 And
14
15 Why have a VEC (Victorian Electoral Commission) if it is incompetent to provide FAIR
16 and PROPER elections required to ensure a democracy?
17
18 This document can be downloaded from:
19 https://www.scribd.com/document/391494081/20181024-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
20 Warwick-Gately-AM-Victorian-Electoral-Commissioner-COMPLAINT
21
22 END QUOTE
23 Warwick Gately AM Victoria's Electoral Commissioner. 24-10-2018
24 Victorian Electoral Commission
25 Address: 530 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000
26 complaints@vec.vic.gov.au
27
28 COMPLAINT (various issues)
29 END QUOTE
30
31 And
32 QUOTE
33 Victorian Government Solicitors Office 23-11-2018
34 C/o Matthew Carrazzo
35 Principal Solicitor @ Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
36 Workplace Relations & Regulatory Compliance
37
38 Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
39 Level 39, 80 Collins Street, Melbourne Vic 3000
40 t +61 3 9032 3004 f +61 3 9032 3049
41 matthew.carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au
42 www.vgso.vic.gov.au
43 Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au <Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au>
Managing Lawyer @ Brimbank Melton Community Legal Centre
44
45 Ref: 20181123-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Government Solicitors Office
46 END QUOTE
47
48 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr Daniel ANDREWS
49 It does not apply to rorting wilfully and systematically and working on your alibi as well. It does not
50 apply to giving instructions to the staff you have told to misuse the resources—‘If anyone asks, make
51 sure you say it’s for private use’—as if that works anyway! How is going to and from work the
52 responsibility of taxpayers?
53 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr Daniel ANDREWS
54
Page 8
1 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr Daniel ANDREWS

2 This is transparent, and it is central to the reason why the people of this great state have such low
3 regard for us as parliamentarians and politicians.
4 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr Daniel ANDREWS
5
6
7 The appalling conduct of the Chief Justice to deny communication in a responsible
8 manner.
9
10 The document can be downloaded from:
11 https://www.scribd.com/document/353623319/20170713-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
12 Marilyn-Warren-AC-CJ-Ors
13
14 Will the coroner unreasonably resist to hold an inquest regarding Mr Carl Williams?
15
16
18 https://www.scribd.com/document/352264762/20170626-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-
19 Re-SUBMISSION-to-Coroner-Sara-Hinchey-J-Re-Request-for-Inquest-Into-the-Death-of-
20 Mr-Carl-Williams
21
22
23 This document exposes what appears to me a multimillion dollar fraud involving lawyers and
24 others.
25
27 https://www.scribd.com/doc/275119866/20150819-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Legal-
28 Service-Commissioner-COMPLAINT-Against-Gadens-Lawyers-Etc
29
30 No matter what Authority one complaint to basically they all seem to me to railroad my
31 complaints.
32 Let us not forget that the Williams, at least to my knowledge of the bills they had for legal
33 representation, had to pay out hundreds of dollars in fees for legal representation and I view
34 where such purported legal representation was a denial of proper legal representation due to a
35 lawyer being a police informer in violation to being an Officer of the Court then I view each
36 such a lawyer should be charged also for defrauding their clients.
37
38 When the Victorian Ombudsman did its investigation into the vicious murder of Carl Williams
39 one has to ask did the Victorian Police then disclose to the Victorian Ombudsman about EF
40 (Informer 3838) that (as I understand from media reports) Mr Carl Williams was known to have
41 expressed that Lawyer X who was then his lawyer was a RAT of being suspected to be a police
42 informer and related details?
43
44 I personally hold the view that the Victorian Police lacks any credibility as a witness and the
45 royal Commission may likewise be duped by the Victorian Police as to do so in any
46 statement(s)/evidence to the Royal Commission.
47 We already had that Chief Commissioner of police failed to disclose that Lawyer X was already
48 a registered informer in 1995 and claimed that it was since 2005 making up a story why she did
49 so, only to show that she was about 10 years earlier already a registered informer. As such I view
50 that Chief Commissioner of Police Graham, Ashton misled the Royal Commission and others
51 from onset.
52 .
Page 9
1 As the media appears to report Graham Ashton himself was in a committee overseeing Lawyer X
2 as an informer. And yet despite the Comrie investigation this use/misuse of lawyer X and/or
3 others continued.
4
5 After the 5 December 2018 trespassing, malicious destruction, etc on my property the former
6 police officer albeit in writing admitting liability made clear that the Chief Commissioner of
7 Police would shred my complaint and do nothing.
8 Now let me be clear about trespassing causing malicious damages, etc:
9
10 http://netk.net.au/Australia/Ibbett.asp
11 Networked Knowledge - Law Reports NSW v Ibbett 2006 HCA 57
12
13 CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 197 Destroying or damaging property
14 classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s197.html
15 Victorian Current Acts. [Index] [Table] ... CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 197. Destroying ... (a) his purpose or one of
16 his purposes is to destroy or damage property; or.
17
18 Destruction or Damage to Property in Victoria - Leanne Warren and ...
19 https://leannewarren.com.au/destruction-or-damage-to-property-in-victoria/
20 Jun 20, 2018 - In Victoria, it is an offence to intentionally cause damage to property ... You could also be charged
21 with an alternate offence of 'wilful damage' if the alleged damage to the ... [7] Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) s
22 9(1)(c).
23
24 Theft and property damage | Victoria Legal Aid
25 https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal.../criminal.../theft-and-property-damage
26 Dec 17, 2013 - Information about theft and property damage offences, and possible ... Property damage offences,
27 also known as wilful or criminal damage ...
28
29 Wilful Damage - Doogue + George
30 https://www.criminal-lawyers.com.au/offences/wilful-damage
31 Feb 1, 2019 - Do you need help with a charge of Wilful Damage? ... “SAC Statistics – Summary Offences Act 1966
32 (Vic) : s 9 – wilfully damage, injure or ...
33 [DOC]
34
35 Summary Offences Act 1966
36 www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/...nsf/.../66-7405a095.doc
37 Jul 1, 2008 - Part I—Provisions Applicable Throughout Victoria. Division 1—Public order ... 9 Wilful destruction,
38 damage etc. of property. 9A Repealed.
39
40 7.5.4.1.1 - Bench Notes: Criminal Damage - Judicial College of Victoria
41 www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/CCB/5189.htm
42 Criminal damage is an offence under Crimes Act 1958 s197(1). A number of related but discrete offences have also
43 been created by s197 and the surrounding ...
44
45 Malicious damage | Australian Institute of Criminology
46 https://aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp120/malicious-damage
47 Common forms of malicious damage include vandalism, such as breaking windows and knocking over ... Further,
48 the commission of a malicious damage act may involve some risk for the vandals themselves. ..... Target location—
49 Geelong, Vic.
50
51 Malicious Damage of Property - Armstrong Legal
52 https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/.../malicious-damage-to-property
53 WILL I GET A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FROM A MALICIOUS DAMAGE ... for an malicious damage to
54 property charge: As a result of amended legislation this ...
55
56 Malicious Damage Act 1861 - Wikipedia
57 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Damage_Act_1861
58 Offence under section 35 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861. ... Obstructing railway, contrary to section 36 of the
59 Malicious Damage Act, 1861.

Page 10
1
2 It should be clear that the courts never accepted that destruction of another’s property without
3 lawful excuse can permitted.
4
5 And the former police officer made clear in his writings:
6
7 QUOTE 6-12-2018 19.31 email received
8 It is not a Police matter so any further action taken as suggested by you would be by way of civil
9 proceedings. I don't know what you expect to achieve or gain by pursuing the matter any further. To
10 do so is a waste of time for all concerned.
11 END QUOTE 6-12-2018 19.31 email received
12 And
13 QUOTE Mon 21:16 (31-12-2018) email received
14 I have no idea what you expect to gain from writing to the CCP. I have been out of the Police Force
15 for over 10 years so this whole situation has absolutely nothing to do with Victoria Police and I can
16 guarantee that your letter will go straight in the shredding machine. I think the CCP has more
17 important issues to deal with than your delirious and petty ranting.
18 QUOTE Mon 21:16 (31-12-2018) email received
19
20 It appears to be clear that a criminal conduct (as also outlined below) somehow is not going to be
21 investigated as this former police officer makes clear it has nothing to do with the Victorian
22 Police. As such this is the mentality that a former police officer makes clear regardless what
23 legal provisions provide for otherwise.
24 And, so far Chief Commissioner of Police instead of delegating the matter to a relevant local
25 division commander to ensure there be an independent without bias investigation I was notified I
26 should go through the local police. As I in the past filed a complaint against the local police for
27 unlawful arrest and I view this too was covered up I hardly could trust them to do the same.
28 .
29 As I view it I was targeted specifically and I am concerned
30 that witnesses who may appear before this Royal
31 Commission and/or otherwise provide information could
32 end up being targeted and even end up death.
33 .
34 Why is it that when an accused is held by the court to have made false/misleading statements
35 under oath then this is time and time again used by the police in any subsequent legal
36 proceedings against this person but when a police officer deliberately makes false statements
37 under oath then somehow there is no system in place that this goes on record and whenever the
38 police officer is to be a witness the cour thas this on file and the accused is notified of the same.
39 .
40 I will use an example:
41
42 Some4 decades ago a police officer issued me with a notice of speeding doing 75 kilometres in a 60
43 kilometre zone. . It was later that I discovered having been convicted in court. So I pursued a re-hearing. This
44 was granted albeit I was told I had to prove the police officer had not notified me about the hearing. In
45 Evidence in Chief the police officer made known that he had in December attended to my flat in Coburg and
46 my wife had invited him and it was all in a friendly nature and he then had served me with the documents. I
47 then was entitled to cross examine the police officer but asked the court if I could file my gas and electricity
48 bills first. The court asked what I was doing as obviously I didn’t seem to understand legal provision and the
49 case could be adjourned for me to engage a lawyers. I declined any adjournment and persisted to file my gas
50 and electricity bills. The court then agreed making clear I was making a fool of myself doing so. One I had
51 filed them as exhibits I then asked the judge to look at the dates of the bills. They were all prior to December
52 and they showed my residential address to be in West Meadows where I had in July purchased a house. As
53 such the police officer evidence that he had served documents in December in Coburg flat where I moved out
54 some 5months earlier hardly could be correct. The judge then admitted that indeed the gas and electricity
Page 11
1 bills were relevant and accepted that the police officer did not serve the documents as he had claimed under
2 oath. However, I still had to prove I was not speeding. I responded that while I knew I was merely traveling
3 about 50 km/for this case without admitting any guilt I would admit doing 85 kilometres an hour. The judge
4 then asked if this was opleading guilty,. I made clear I was doing no such thing and would prove the police
5 officer made it up. I then presented about a dozen photos of the road and the police officer identified them to
6 be nearly all 60 kilometres signs. The judge interrupted me if I really wanted to pursue further as I was so to
7 say putting a noose around my neck (my interpretation of what the judge stated). I asked in cross-
8 examination the police officer if on one particular photo He had stopped me right next to the 60 kilometre
9 sign. And he confirmed this. Now the judge was really wondering what on earth I was doing. I then requested
10 the police to identify the service station pictured in a photo he earlier had acknowledged was of that road.
11 And he gave evidence that it was when I was driving past that service station he held I was travelling at 75
12 kilometres an hour. I asked if he was sure it was 75 and not 74 or 76. The judge interrupting that surely it
13 would make no difference. Anyhow the police officer made clear it was exactly 75 kilometres an hour. I then
14 produced another photo not previously filed and filed this then also as evidence. The judge accepted this to
15 be filed. I then asked the police officer if he still recognized the service station and he made known it was the
16 same service station as he had identified earlier in evidence. I then asked him to look at the speed sign in
17 front of the service station and his response was 75 kilometres an hour. . the judge ended up berating the
18 police officer that he had lied about service of the documents and clearly he now accepted that I was merely
19 doing 50 kilometres an hour but even if I had been doing 75 kilometres an hour I still would not have been
20 speeding as by the evidence of the police officer I was stopped next to the 60 kilometres sign and as such
21 could not have entered that speed zone doing 75 kilometres an hour.
22 Yet, a police officer who perverted the course of justice previously to obtain an ex parte
23 conviction and subsequently gave in the following proceedings false/misleading evidence
24 nevertheless is let off without any sanction and is not recorded for his perjury etc.
25 While I time and time again exposed police officers to fabricate evidence nevertheless the courts
26 generally will take that a police officer has no reason toile and so his word is taken as being the
27 truth.
28
29 Innocent people at times can lose their license and so their employment when their license is
30 needed to be employed.
31 If a Bikie did this kind of thing and perhaps involved in rape, extortion, murder and whatever
32 else police officers at times are involved in then they are outlawed but with the police we now
33 have that they will carry semiautomatic weapons.
34
35 We have this absurd issue that the State Government cancelled the issue of registration noticed to
36 be placed on a windscreen and now people who otherwise were aware of this label when
37 registration is due are denied this opportunity. The motorist didn’t save a cent on the labels being
38 cancelled and police officers too often fine a person for driving an unregistered vehicle when in
39 fact the motorist did pay the registration fee. How can this be possible? Well I discovered that
40 VicRoads has thousands upon thousands of payments which they didn’t allocate for whatever
41 reason. I discovered this when I had paid the extension of one of my sons driving license and
42 VicRoad (many months later when I attended to their office to ask about it) denied I had done so.
43 I was told I must be mistaken as VicRoad never received any payment from me. I insisted that
44 my bank record showed the payment was made. After several staff members involved and my
45 insistence that the payment was made it was finally located in a file. The staff member gave me
46 the understanding they had thousands of payments in that file which had not been allocated and
47 it was in this file they located the payment I had made.
48 The problem with it all is that people genuinely belief having made a payments and have bank
49 records to prove it but for whatever reason VicRoads didn’t process it and then a motorist is
50 charged for driving unlicensed and/or driving an unregistered vehicle, etc.
51 As has been reported police officers fabricate their testing (see below) and other evidence and so
52 I view they lack credibility. If the system is defective then it should not be a innocent motorist
53 who has to fork out monies for legal representation to fight charges which never should have
54 been laid in the first place if the system was working appropriately. And with lawyers as I

Page 12
1 experienced (see below) advising their client to plea guilty regardless of the client being innocent
2 then what kind of IMPARTIAL administration of justice do we really have?
3 .
4 When it was still called the Perin Court a Registrar then gave me the understanding that 95% of
5 people paid regardless if they were innocent because it was cheaper then to lose a day’s pay, and
6 still risk to lose the case regardless of being innocent in real.. This is what I deem the corrupt
7 legal system.
8 .
9 In one case the police officer alleged I had been speeding. He allegedly had measured my speed
10 while I was travelling on a highway flanked by trees in a bend. During cross examination I asked
11 him twice to explain the operation of the camera and each time he failed to refer to switching on
12 and off the camera. I asked him about the number of signage and he explained several. When
13 then I produced a report from VicRoads there only had been one sign the judge refused to allow
14 it to be used upon the basis I didn’t have this at the time of the offence occurring. So, the court
15 sided with the lair of a police officer.
16
17 What is needed is to have a proper system that when a police officer is outed by the court to have
18 lied then this goes on court record and whenever this police officer is to give evidence in court
19 this is then made known to the presiding judicial officer as well as the accused.
20
21 It is my understanding that Chief Commission Graham Ashton made false misleading statements
22 regarding why EF/Informant 38438/Lawyer X became an informer in 2005. She herself also I
23 view made false/misleading statements.
24
25 The Office of Public Prosecutions and the Government Solicitors Office I understand were
26 involved to conceal this rot of EF/Informant 38438/Lawyer X and others like her from the
27 courts. And those are now who somehow exonerate the Red shit persons who I view defrauded
28 Consolidated Revenue Funds? Come on. How can anyone trust any of those people who
29 willingly were perverting the course of justice?
30 Let it be clear that this gangland murders never really stopped because the police and others were
31 in my view thick inn it and the 2016 murder of a lawyer who allegedly was an informer may
32 underlines that the police, the DDP, the Solicitors office and others do not mind people getting
33 killed when it suits their purposes.
34 According to the Herald Sun February 16 NEWS 07 in an article about Lawyer X and Tony
35 Mokbel it states:
36 QUOTE
37 “EF (Lawyer X), when speaking to her handlers, said of Mokbel: ’Well, one of the
38 many ironies of all this is I have so many conflicts with the bloke but what does he
39 know? He doesn’t know about any of them They’ll stay hidden’.”
40 END QUOTE
41
42 It is reasonable to expect she did the same with other clients, as Carl Williams seemed to
43 underline.
44
45 What kind of credibility would the Victorian Police have where not just one but for decades they
46 went along to pervert the course of justice by unlawfully/unethically using Officers of the Courts
47 as informants in violation to what they had to do for their clients?
48
49 In my view those police officers, lawyers of the Solicitors Office/DPP, etc, who were all
50 involved should face criminal charges of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

Page 13
1 As this SUBMISSION sets out I filed formal complaints with the DPP and others regarding the
2 Red shirt issue and it is the same DPP that allegedly exonerate the persons involved despite my
3 complaint not being completed.
4
5 It then begs to ask will the Royal Commission follow suit and turn this into some WHITE
6 ELIPHANT where the very people who perverted the course of justice will in the end not be
7 recommended for charges?
8 .
9 I am no friend of any drug dealer/pusher and when i some decades ago suspected one of my
10 adult sons to be a drug user I so to say read him so to say the riot act that he better not involve
11 any of the siblings. To his credit he never did so. However, I do not accept that a person
12 suspected of being a drug dealer can be convicted by having his lawyer being a police informer
13 in violation of her being an Officer of the Court. In my view the courts themselves should have
14 immediately set aside all convictions involving those kind of informers and leave it to the
15 authorities to try to pursue the alleged offenders by a FAIR and PROPER trial and the prosecutor
16 to prove the evidence is not tainted and is admissible.
17
18 In my view as long as the courts fails to set aside each and every questionable conviction
19 involving such kind of an informer then the Court are accepting that its Officers of the Court can
20 violate their obligations/duties, etc, and as such place its own credibility in disrepute.
21
22 It in my view would be lunacy and total idiotic if because some informer may have a child or
23 children then the legal consequences are somehow not to be pursued. We have this equality
24 movement and well let all people be equal also in how they are pursued for offences and
25 sentenced.
26
27 We cannot have our democracy undermined by those kind of traitors to our constitution. Our
28 governor is to provide for an IMPARTIAL administration of justice and the Supreme Court of
29 Victoria and other courts involved clearly fasil to deliver where they place the onus upon those
30 convicted rather than upon its own failure to ensure its officers of the Court are acting
31 honourable and appropriate.
32 .
33 It to me is totally irrelevant what Tony Mokbel or whomever may be accused of violating laws
34 unless they are convicted by a FAIR and PROPER hearing and an IMPARTIAL administration
35 of justice. Clearly the courts themselves failed to provide for this where its own Officers of the
36 Court were undermining the IMPARTIALITY of the administration of justice.
37
38 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
39 Australasian Convention),
40 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
41 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
42 justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
43 END QUOTE
44
45 When any court is willing to let people convicted as result of their lawyers being Officers of the
46 Court having betrayed their positions then the courts themselves are no more within the term of
47 IMPARTIAL administration of justice and I view could be deemed KANGAROO COURTS
48 and STAR CHAMBER COURTS (OUTLAWED in the 1980 Act Interpretation Act) as the
49 courts cannot command jurisdiction where they themselves are allowing its Officers to pervert
50 the course of justice.
51
52 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
53 QUOTE
Page 14
1 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
2
3 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
4 state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
5 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
6 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
7 END QUOTE
8
9 Therefore we as citizens must all accept that we have an obligation to hold those who defy the
10 rule of law regardless if they are in high or powerful positions are also prosecutor in a fair and
11 proper manner. We must also protect any accused against a trial by media as then no matter how
12 innocent a person might be a person will be or might be convicted not on evidence but on what
13 the media might purport to be the issues.
14
16 Australasian Convention)
17 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
18 So that any citizen of any portion of the Commonwealth would have the guarantee of liberty and safety in
19 regard to the processes of law, and also would have a guarantee of the equal administration of the law as it
20 exists. I think Mr. Isaacs will bear me out, that in the United States it has been decided that the title to equal
21 treatment under the law does not mean that you cannot make a law which differentiates one class of the
22 community from another; but, as has been decided, it means that in the administration of the laws you have
23 made, all the citizens shall be treated equally. And that should be so. Whatever privilege we give to our
24 citizens, the administration of the law should be equal to all, whatever their colour. The case I refer to is
25 one of the Chinese cases-I forget the name of it.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 What really is absurd is that the courts essentially decide who can or cannot represent a party. I
29 being self-educated in legal issues including constitutional matters assisted/represented parties
30 as a Professional Advocate and not being an Officer of the Court never was by this corrupted to
31 serve the court for unethical or other unlawful conduct. To me this is an important issue as we
32 now have witnessed that regardless that the supreme Court of Victoria in December 2018
33 acknowledged in a judgment (as I understand from media reports) the wrongdoings of
34 EF/Informer 3838/Lawyer X it didn’t at all bother to ensure she was held legally accountable for
35 placing the administration of justice in disrepute. After all being an Officer of the Court means
36 she is part of the administration of justice and should therefore have been made an example that
37 her conduct is unacceptable. Indeed I view the trial judge failed in his duties to have her charged
38 for CONTEMPT OF COURT and CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT. After all
39 while she could be deemed in CONTEMPT OF COURT when acting in violation of her
40 position as an Officer of the court she would in my view also be in CONTEMPT IN THE
41 FACE OF THE COURT where she was participating before the court at the bar or involved in
42 legal issues regarding a client she was betraying and willingly undermined the clients rights to a
43 FAIR and PROPER hearing.
44 .
45 We should never set up a deceptive administration of justice where the accused should prove his
46 innocence and/or having been denied a FAIR and PROPER trial as the onus lies upon the Court
47 to ensure any accused is provided with a FAIR and PROPER trial and the moment the court
48 becomes aware that this might not have eventuated the duty lies upon the courts and not the
49 accused to make this public and the court MUST set aside any such conviction.
50 .
51 Doncaster v Day (1810) Common Pleas 3 Taunt, 262; 128 E.R. 104 Sir Mansfield CJ.
52 QUOTE
53 You do not want a rule of court for what purpose. What a witness, since dead, has sworn
54 upon a trial between the same parties, may, without any order of the court, be given in
Page 15
1 evidence, either from the judge’s notes, or from notes that have been taken by any other
2 person, who will swear to their accuracy; or the former evidence may be proven by any
3 person who will swear from his memory to its having been given.
4 END QUOTE
5 See also; Morgan v Nicholl Common Pleas 1866 L.R. 2 C.P. 117
6 Llanover v Homfray Court of Appeal 1881 19 Ch. D. 224; 30 W.R. 557
7
8 How on earth can we expect a person murdered in prison such as Carl Williams to petition the
9 courts to set aside questionable convictions?
10
11 Any judge who presides over a trial under the colour of administration of justice but find
12 afterwards this was not or not likely provided must then upon his./her own initiative set aside
13 the judgments being it for fraud or otherwise.
14
15 International Finance Trust Company Limited v New South Wales Crime Commission [2009] HCA 49 (12
16 November 2009)
17 QUOTE
18 In 1864 the Supreme Court of the United States said: "Parties whose rights are to be
19 affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they
20 must first be notified."[193] Under Pt 2 of the Act, there is notification only after the
21 defendant's rights are affected, and no provision for any opportunity for defendants to
22 argue that orders affecting them should be dissolved. In 1965 the Supreme Court of the
23 United States said that the opportunity to be heard "must be granted at a meaningful
24 time and in a meaningful manner."[194]
25 END QUOTE
26
27 In my view a party was denied to be heard appropriately where his/her lawyer sided with the
28 prosecution.
29
30 County Criminal Court: CRIMINAL LAW – Statute of Limitations – Criminal conviction reversed because
31 prosecution was not commenced within the time allowed by applicable statute of limitations, regardless of whether or not
32 the crime was considered to be a continuing offense. Conviction reversed; case remanded with directions to enter
33 judgment of acquittal and to vacate and set aside conviction and sentence. Csulloghne v. State, No. 11-00070APANO
34 (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. January 30, 2013).
35
36 In my view any order convicting a person obtained by fraud/concealment, etc must be set aside.
37
38 The book "Law Made Simple" by Colin F. Padfield, LL.B.,D.P.A.(Lond.) on page 55:
39 QUOTE
40 "The Rule against Bias. A true judicial decision can be reached only if the judge himself
41 is impartial. This is an obvious requirement in a court of law or a tribunal. In R. v Rand
42 (1866) it was held that a judge is disqualified where (i) he has a direct pecuniary interest,
43 however small, in the subject-matter in dispute; or (ii) there is real likelihood that the judge
44 would have a bias in favour of one of the parties.
45
46 For example, if a judge is related to, or is a friend of, one of the parties to a dispute there
47 would be real likelihood of bias. It is immaterial whether a judicial decision was in fact
48 biased, for as was said by Lord Chief Justice Heward in R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte
49 McCarthy (1924): 'Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly
50 be seen to be done.'
51
52 As an example of pecuniary bias we may quote:
Page 16
1
2 Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852). Lord Chancellor Cottenham made decrees in a
3 Chancery suit in favour of a canal company. Lord Cottenham held several shares in the
4 company. Held: (by the House of Lords): that the decrees be set aside on the ground of
5 pecuniary interest. No bias was proved in fact, nor could it be shown that Lord Cottenham
6 was in any way influenced by his shareholding.
7
8 As an example of likelihood of bias we may quote:
9
10 R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924). A was summoned before magistrates for
11 a motoring offence. The acting clerk to the justices was a member of a firm of solicitors
12 representing A in civil proceedings arising out of the same accident. The acting clerk did
13 not advise the magistrates, but he retired with them to consider their decision. Held: that as
14 the acting clerk was connected with the case in the civil action he ought not to advise the
15 magistrates in the criminal prosecution. Conviction accordingly quashed, despite the fact
16 that the acting clerk took no part in the decision to convict and had not been asked by the
17 justices to give his opinion or advice. "
18 END QUOTE
19
20 It is clear that where an Officer of the Court acted in violation of her/his client then this is
21 sufficient ground to have the orders set aside.
22
23 * So far as material to this case s. 79A (1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides that
24 "When, on application by a person affected by an order made by a court under section 79, the
25 court is satisfied that the order was obtained by fraud, by duress, by the giving of false evidence
26 or by the suppression of evidence, the court may, in its discretion, set aside the order . . .".
27 Section 83 provides, inter alia, that "in proceedings with respect to the maintenance of a party to
28 a marriage . . . if there is in force an order with respect to the maintenance of that party . . . the
29 Court may . . . (c) discharge the order. . . ."
30 HEARING
31 Sydney, 1978, October 31, November 1. 1979, August 22. 22:8:1979
32 APPEAL from the Family Court of Australia.
33
34 In my view this applies to the police/prosecutor as well as to the lawyers when they conceal
35 relevant details relating to a miscarriage of justice/perverting the course of justice.
36
37 R.v Baines King’s Bench Division 1908 [1909] 1 K.B. 258
38 Regarding that any party to legal proceedings may subpoena any person as a witness.
39 Without the leave of the court. If the Court is satisfied that the process is being abused, the
40 Court has the jurisdiction to set aside the subpoena.
41 See also; McKinley v. McKinley [1960] 1 W.L.R. 120
42 In this case an unnecessary subpoena was set aside, however an application to set aside the
43 subpoena may be refused, when the grounds of the application is privileged, which the
44 witness may claim after he has attended in pursuance of the subpoena.
45 See also Broome v Broome (195
46
47 In my view this is not restricted to subpoena but also to any order fraudulently obtained being it
48 by concealment or otherwise.
49

Page 17
1 Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF
2 AUSTRALIA.
3 QUOTE
4 Although the Family Court is a court created by statute, it never the less possesses an
5 inherent jurisdiction to set aside a judgement obtained by default - there is no indication
6 in the Family Law Act of an intention to displace this inherent jurisdiction.
7 END QUOTE
8 And
9 Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF
10 AUSTRALIA
11 QUOTE
12 In my opinion, the words 'false evidence' in s79A(1) do not mean evidence which is
13 wilfully false. The sub-section should be read according to its terms. To say that 'false
14 evidence should be read as 'wilful false evidence' is to introduce a provision not
15 expressed by the provision; cf s6H of the Royal Commission Act 1902 which speaks of a
16 witness 'who knowingly gives false testimony'. This interpretation is reinforced by
17 reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and suppression of
18 evidence which would comprehend cases of wilful false evidence. At common law, a
19 judgment will be set aside if it has been obtained by fraud. In the exercise of this
20 jurisdiction, it has been held that an applicant must show something more than perjury,
21 ie. new facts (Baker v. Wadsworth [1898] 67 LJQB 301; Everett V. Ribbands [1946] 175
22 LT 143). This tends to suggest that the words 'false evidence' should be given their literal
23 meaning
24 END QUOTE
25
26 QUOTE R.V. Crimmins (1959) VR 270
27 Suppression of relevant evidence
28 END QUOTE
29 .
30 QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343
31 Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is
32 true.
33 END QUOTE
34
35 QUOTE Schorel v Elms (1994) Unreported M2944X of 1989 SA27 of 1993 Page 16 and 17: -
36
37 Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done
38 END QUOTE
39
40 QUOTE Magna Carta Charter (Chapter 29)(1115)
41 No free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or be diseased of his freehold, or Liberties, or
42 from custom, or be outlawed, or exiled, or otherwise destroy & deny will we not pass upon
43 him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgement of his peers, or by law of the land, We will
44 sell to no man, We will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or right.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION, NO 70007 of 1991, R -v- CHEUNG
48 .

Page 18
1 QUOTE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION, NO 70007 of 1991, R -v- CHEUNG
2 RELEVANT LAW: JAGO v. THE DISTRICT COURT

3 Jago was a case in which a stay was sought because of the long delay between the offences and
4 the charges, and between the laying of charges and the trial. The stay was refused by the trial
5 judge and his decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal and by the High Court. The High
6 Court held, in effect, that proceedings may be stayed where the right to a fair trial is so
7 much impaired that the further prosecution of the proceedings will be an abuse of process.
8 In the words of Mason, CJ.:
9 "The continuation of process which will culminate in an unfair trial can be seen as a
10 misuse of the court process which will constitute an abuse of process because the public
11 interest in holding a trial does not warrant the holding of an unfair trial."
12 The Chief Justice pointed out that the appropriate remedy for unfairness, specifically because of
13 undue delay but not limited to that, was not necessarily a stay of the proceedings.
14 "There is no reason to confine the discretionary power of the courts by arbitrarily
15 stipulating that a stay is the only proper remedy for undue delay."
16 Mason, CJ. went on to make a second and related point:
17 "In appropriate cases, orders may be made to prevent injustice notwithstanding that there
18 is no reason to suspect that the actual trial, when held, will not be fair. Thus orders may
19 be directed to ensuring fairness in pre- trial procedures."
20 His Honour instanced an order for expedition where delay was becoming prejudicial. His
21 Honour gave other instances of orders which might be made, short of a permanent stay, to meet
22 the exigencies of the particular case - the grant of a limited or conditional stay, or the making of
23 an order that a proceedings be stayed and not proceeded with further without specific order of
24 the court.
25 There are two other important points which emerge from the judgment of Mason, CJ. in Jago.
26 First, the power to grant a stay or to make any other order to prevent the use of court processes in
27 a manner which gives rise to injustice is discretionary, to be exercised in a principled way.
28 Second, the power will be used only in most exceptional circumstances to order that a criminal
29 prosecution be stayed. The touchstone for the exercise of discretion is in every case fairness. As
30 to that, Mason, CJ. said:
31 "The test of fairness which must be applied involves a balancing process, for the interests
32 of the accused cannot be considered in isolation without regard to the community's right to
33 expect that persons charged with criminal offences are brought to trial. ... At the same time
34 it should not be overlooked that the community expects trials to be fair and to take place
35 within a reasonable time after a person has been charged."
36 It was his Honour's view that:
37 "A permanent stay should be ordered only in an extreme case and the making of such an
38 order on the basis of delay alone will accordingly be very rare." (p.34).
39 Speaking more generally, rather than in the context of delay alone, his Honour said:
40 "To justify a permanent stay of criminal proceedings, there must be a fundamental
41 defect which goes to the root of the trial 'of such a nature that nothing that a trial
42 judge can do in the conduct of the trial can relieve against its unfair consequences':
43 Barton (1980) 147 CLR at 111 per Wilson, J."
44 Brennan, J. maintained the distinction between a power to prevent an abuse of process and a
45 power to ensure a fair trial. His Honour said:-\

Page 19
1 "A power to ensure a fair trial is not a power to stop a trial before it starts. It is a power to
2 mould the procedures of the trial to avoid or minimize prejudice to either party."
3 His Honour pointed out that obstacles in the way of a fair trial are often encountered in
4 administering criminal justice, but do not ordinarily cause the proceedings to be permanently
5 stayed:
6 "Unfairness occasioned by circumstances outside the court's control does not make
7 the trial a source of unfairness. When an obstacle to a fair trial is encountered, the
8 responsibility cast on a trial judge to avoid unfairness to either party but particularly to
9 the accused is burdensome, but the responsibility is not discharged by refusing to
10 exercise the jurisdiction to hear and to determine the issues. The responsibility is
11 discharged by controlling the procedures of the trial by adjournments or other
12 interlocutory orders, by rulings on evidence and, especially, by directions to the jury
13 designed to counteract any prejudice which the accused might other suffer."
14 On the other hand:-
15 "More radical remedies may be needed to prevent an abuse of process. An abuse of
16 process occurs when the process of the law is put in motion for a purpose which in the
17 eye of the law it is not intended to serve or when the process is incapable of serving the
18 purpose it is intended to serve. The purpose of criminal proceedings generally speaking
19 is to hear and determine finally whether the accused has engaged in conduct which
20 amounts to an offence and, on that account, is deserving of punishment. When criminal
21 process is used only for that purpose and is capable of serving that purpose, there is no
22 abuse of process. Although it is not possible to state exhaustively all the categories of
23 abuse of process, it will generally be found in the use of criminal process inconsistently
24 with some aspect of its true purpose. ... When process is abused, the unfairness against
25 which a litigant is entitled to protection is his subjection to process which is not intended
26 to serve or which is not capable of serving its true purpose. But it cannot be said that a
27 trial is not capable of serving its true purpose when some unfairness has been
28 occasioned by circumstances outside the court's control unless it be said that an
29 accused person's liability to conviction is discharged by such unfairness. ..."
30 Brennan, J. pointed out that:
31 "When serious delay is attributable to the prosecution and an accused has been prejudiced
32 thereby, the courts are tempted to offer the remedy of a permanent stay. ..."
33 "It avoids the possibility that a person may be convicted after a trial and which he
34 may suffer some prejudice in his defence."
35 His Honour emphasized, however, that:-
36 "However understandable the granting of a permanent stay for delay causing prejudice
37 might be, the remedy cannot be supported unless it would truly be an abuse of
38 process to try the case. In determining what does amount to an abuse of process the
39 considerations which favour the expansion of that notion so that it will support the
40 remedy of permanent stay for delay causing prejudice to an accused must be set against
41 countervailing considerations which have particular force in the criminal jurisdiction.
42 Before this court sanctions such an expansion of the notion, it is appropriate to consider
43 the need for such a radical discretionary power to refuse to try a criminal case and the
44 effects of vesting such a power in a trial judge."
45 His Honour continued (p.49):-
46 "By the flexible use of the power to control the procedure and by the giving of forthright
47 directions to a jury, a judge can eliminate or virtually eliminate unfairness. The judge's
Page 20
1 responsibilities are heavy but that are not discharged by abdication of the court's duty to
2 try the case. If it be said that judicial measures cannot always secure perfect justice to an
3 accused, we should ask whether the ideal of perfect justice has not sounded in rhetoric
4 rather than in law and whether the legal right of an accused, truly stated, is a right to a
5 trial as fair as the courts can make it. Were it otherwise, trials would be prevented and
6 convictions would be set aside when circumstances outside judicial control impair
7 absolute fairness. To take an obvious example, the administration of the criminal law in
8 notorious cases brought to a halt be adverse media publicity. To admit a power to stay a
9 case permanently for delay causing prejudice seems wrongly to undervalue the advocacy
10 of the orders, rulings and directions of a trial judge removing unfairness to an accused
11 caused by delay or other misconduct by the prosecution.
12 Moreover, although our system of litigation adopts the adversary method in both the
13 criminal and civil jurisdiction, interests other than those of the litigants are involved in
14 litigation especially criminal litigation. The community has an immediate interest in the
15 administration of criminal justice to guarantee peace and order in society..."
16 At p.53 his Honour expressed disapproval of cases in this court and other State Supreme Courts
17 where "these courts have asserted that the categories of cases in which the power to grant a
18 permanent stay should be exercised are not closed and the power is available whenever it would
19 be unfair to the accused to permit the prosecution to proceed ... in practice so broad a power does
20 not fall far short of a power which is incompatible with the rule of law".
21 Deane, J. held that the power of a court to control proceedings before it includes the power to
22 ensure that the court's process is not abused by the proceedings being made an instrument of
23 unfair oppression. The reference commonly made to an accused's right to a fair trial was in his
24 Honour's view not sufficiently precise:
25 "Strictly speaking, however, there is no such directly enforceable right since no person
26 has the right to insist upon being prosecuted or tried by the state. What is involved is
27 more accurately expressed in negative terms as a right not to be tried unfairly or as an
28 immunity against conviction otherwise than after a fair trial."
29 His Honour acknowledged that as a general proposition it can be said: -
30 "That the fault or impropriety on the part of the prosecution in pre trial procedures can,
31 depending on the circumstances, be so prejudicial to an accused that the trial itself is
32 made an unfair one."
33 His Honour proceeded to offer examples:
34 "One example is where particulars supplied to an accused have been so inadequate and
35 misleading that an accused has been denied a proper opportunity of preparing is defence.
36 Another is where impropriety on the part of the prosecution has concealed from an
37 accused important evidence which would have assisted him in his defence. In each of
38 those examples, the effect of the default or impropriety could ordinarily be dealt with by
39 orders (eg. adjournment, further particulars or new trial) which would avoid unfairness in
40 a subsequent trial or re-trial. It is however possible to formulate examples of cases in
41 which the effect of default or impropriety on the part of the prosecution would
42 necessarily be that any subsequent trial was unfair to the accused. Thus one can envisage
43 circumstances which calculate an unreasonable delay on the part of the prosecution in
44 bringing proceedings to trial that so unfairly and permanently prejudice the ability of an
45 accused to defend himself that no subsequent trial could be a fair one."
46 His Honour was disposed, as was the Chief Justice, to adopt a broad view of abuse of process so
47 that the prosecution of an accused in circumstances where the trial could not be fair might
48 amount to such. He said:
Page 21
1 "An unfair trial represents a miscarriage of the curial process. If circumstances

2 exist in which it can be seen in advance that the effect of prolonged and unjustifiable
3 delay is that any trial must necessarily be an unfair one, the continuation of the
4 proceedings to the stage of trial against the wishes of the accused will constitute an
5 abuse of that curial process. In such a case, the continuation of proceedings to the stage
6 of trial will inevitably infringe the right not to be tried unfairly and a court which possess
7 jurisdiction to prevent abuse of its process, possesses jurisdiction at the suit of the
8 accused to stay the proceedings pursuant to that power."
9 Toohey, J. also declined to treat the principles of abuse of process and the tight to a fair trial as
10 separate and distinct. He said:
11 "It is consistent with authority in principle to regard each notion as part of the responsibility of
12 the courts to see that justice is done for the parties and the wider community, ensuring that the
13 appropriate remedy s applied in the particular case. Where proceedings have been instituted for
14 an improper purpose (abuse of process), no remedy is likely to be appropriate other than a stay of
15 the proceedings. No directions given by the judge at trial can protect the accused in that
16 situation. On the other hand, where an accused has suffered some prejudice in his defence by
17 reason of delay in bringing his case to trial (a fair trial), it will often be possible to cure that
18 prejudice by evidentiary rulings and by directions to the jury regarding the way they
19 should approach the evidence adduced. But it is conceivable that delay has been so great and
20 consequent prejudice to an accused so manifest that directions cannot ensure a fair trial. In that
21 situation a stay of proceedings is the only remedy that meets the situation. Uncommon as that
22 situation may be, it cannot be excluded. To treat abuse of process and fair trial as entirely distinct
23 concepts carries the risk that the remedies in each case will be seen as necessarily different. That
24 will not always be the case. Greater flexibility and in the end greater justice will be achieved if
25 the two notions are understood as bearing on each other."
26 Gaudron, J. acknowledged the existence of a discretionary power to grant a permanent stay of
27 proceedings founded not on any narrow view of abuse of process but a power exercisable if the
28 administration of justice so demands. The power was to serve the general purpose of controlling
29 the court's process and proceedings and accordingly:
30 "The limited scope of the power to grant a permanent stay necessarily directs an enquiry
31 whether there are other means by which the defect attending the proceedings can be
32 eliminated or remedied. And the purpose directs attention to the legal propriety of the
33 process or proceeding, as distinct from any broad consideration of the general merits of
34 the case ... Another feature attending criminal proceedings and relevant to the grant of a
35 permanent stay thereof is that a trial judge, by reason of the duty to ensure the fairness of
36 a trial, has a number of discretionary powers which may be exercised in the course of a
37 trial, including the power to reject evidence which is technically admissible but which
38 would operate unfairly against the accused ... The exercise of the power to reject
39 evidence, either alone or in combination with a trial judge's other powers to control
40 criminal proceedings, will often suffice to remedy any feature of the proceedings which
41 might otherwise render them unjust or unfair. The existence and availability of these
42 powers, when considered in the light of the necessary limited scope of the power to grant
43 a permanent stay, serve to indicate that a court should have regard to the existence of
44 all its various powers, and should only grant a permanent stay if satisfied that no
45 other means is available to remedy that feature which, if unremedied, would render
46 the proceedings so seriously defective, whether by reason of unfairness, injustice or
47 otherwise as to demand the grant of a permanent stay."
48 In all of the passages quoted, the emphasis has been added by me.
49 I take from that case the following propositions which govern the way in which I should
50 approach the present matter.
Page 22
1 1. There is a power in this court to stay proceedings either permanently or conditionally.

2 2. It is a power to be exercised in exceptional circumstances only, where the making of
3 any other order would be ineffectual to secure the object of the exercise of the power.
4 3. The object of the exercise of the power is to protect an accused person from being
5 exposed to a trial which in the circumstances must be unfair.
6 4. The exercise of the power is discretionary and involves a balancing of the interests of
7 the accused on the one hand with, on the other, the community's right to expect that
8 persons charged with criminal offences are brought to trial.
9 5. The conditions for the exercise of the power look not only to the fact of unfair
10 treatment of the accused but also to its source. Distinctions are to be drawn between
11 situations of unfairness attributable to the conduct of the accused, the conduct of the
12 prosecutor, or the conduct of some person or body outside the court's control.
13 6. The conditions for the exercise of the power are not satisfied merely by demonstrating
14 that the accused has been or is being in some respect treated unfairly, whether or not
15 there is a means available to the court to remedy such unfairness at the time when it was
16 brought to notice. The condition of the exercise of the power is that the trial itself will be
17 an unfair trial.
18
19 END QUOTE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION, NO 70007 of 1991, R -v- CHEUNG
20
21 .The following should be considered also:
22 QUOTE RELEVANT LAW - REGINA v. JUDITH WARD
23 "(i) 'Where the prosecution have taken a statement from a person whom they know
24 can give material evidence but decide not to call that person as a witness, they are
25 under a duty to make that person available as a witness for the defence ...' Archbold,
26 44th edition, paragraph 4-726.
27 END QUOTE RELEVANT LAW - REGINA v. JUDITH WARD
28 If therefore the Prosecutor failed to notify the accused that his/her own lawyer had given
29 statements against him/her then I view the Prosecutor concealment of this was to cause a
30 miscarriage of justice and perverting the course of justice.
31
32 QUOTE RELEVANT LAW - REGINA v. JUDITH WARD
33 RELEVANT LAW - REGINA v. JUDITH WARD
34 On 4 November 1974 Judith Ward was convicted in the Crown Court of 12 charges of murder
35 and other offences arising out of her alleged involvement in a number of IRA bombings. On 17
36 September 1991, the Home Secretary referred her case to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Appeal
37 Division) acting under s.17(l)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. On 4 June 1992, that court
38 quashed the convictions on all counts. One of the substantial matters that led to that outcome was
39 the failure of the DPP to disclose before or during the trial certain evidence not used at the trial,
40 some in the possession of the police, some in the possession of forensic scientists engaged on
41 behalf of the prosecution and some in the possession of the DPP itself. The judgment of the court
42 delivered by Glidewell, LJ. makes a close examination of the obligation cast upon the
43 prosecution to make disclosure of material in its possession but not proposed to be used at the
44 trial. The obligation to disclose arises in relation to evidence which is or may be material in
Page 23
1 relation to the issues. Before trial, the measure of the obligation to disclose relates to the issues
2 which are reasonably expected to arise in the course of the trial. During the trial, the obligation
3 may be extended, insofar as issues unexpectedly arise in the course of the trial which were not
4 reasonably foreseeable beforehand. The obligation is to disclose only such evidence as is or may
5 be material - which means something less than crucial but admits of the possibility that there
6 may be material in the possession of the prosecution, the nature of which is such that it is
7 relatively so insignificant in the context of the case viewed as a whole that non-disclosure may
8 be excused. The court emphasized however that the scope of the application of the proposition
9 that there may be evidence the disclosure of which is not required because it is not material is
10 limited to matters which at the end of the day can be seen to have been of no real significance.
11 "The possibility that this view will ultimately be taken of any particular piece of
12 disclosable evidence should be wholly excluded from the minds of the prosecution when
13 the question of disclosure is being considered. Non- disclosure is a potent source of
14 injustice and even with the benefit of hindsight, it will often be difficult to say whether or
15 not an undisclosed item of evidence might have shifted the balance or opened up a new
16 line of defence."
17 The court held that the extent of the prosecution's duty of disclosure was not adequately to be
18 measured in terms of the Attorney-General's Guidelines (1982) 74 Cr. App. R. 302. The
19 accused is entitled to be supplied with "all relevant evidence of help to the accused" which is not
20 to be led at the trial. The court emphasized that "all relevant evidence of help to the accused" is
21 "not limited to evidence which will obviously advance the accused's case". It is of help to the
22 accused to have the opportunity of considering all the material evidence which the prosecution
23 have gathered, and from which the prosecution have made their selection of evidence to be led.
24 The court recognized the existence of public interest immunity and the possibility that material
25 might ultimately be withheld from the accused by reason of the public interest. It emphasized,
26 however, that it was no part of the duty of the prosecuting authority to make a decision that
27 certain material should be withheld on such grounds. The decision whether evidence otherwise
28 disclosable should be withheld from disclosure on the grounds of public interest immunity was
29 one to be made only by the court.
30 In Ward, there was no issue about the fact of non-disclosure, and the major matter argued was
31 whether in the circumstances of the particular case the failure to disclose particular evidence
32 amounted to a material irregularity in the trial. Consequently, a great deal of the very lengthy
33 judgment is concerned with an analysis of the significance of particular items of evidence in
34 relation to the issues at the trial, and needs no further comment. Shortly, the materials not
35 disclosed comprised a number of statements made by the accused at different stages of the police
36 investigation; the statements of a number of other witnesses whom the police had interviewed;
37 and material in the possession of the forensic scientists, which was relevant to the evaluation of
38 the results of certain tests earned out by the scientists, upon which the Crown case heavily relied.
39 At pp.60-61 of the judgment, the court summarized the principles of law and practice which in
40 its view at the present time govern the disclosure of evidence by the prosecution before trial.
41 "(i) 'Where the prosecution have taken a statement from a person whom they know
42 can give material evidence but decide not to call that person as a witness, they are
43 under a duty to make that person available as a witness for the defence ...' Archbold,
44 44th edition, paragraph 4-726. It is part of the same passage as is quoted with approval in
45 this court in Lawson (1990) 90 Cr. App. R. 107 at 114 from the preceding edition.
46 'Material evidence' means evidence which tends either to weaken the prosecution
47 case or to strengthen the defence case.
48 (ii) Unless there are good reasons for not doing so, the duty should normally be
49 performed by supplying copies of the witness statements to the defence or allowing them
Page 24
1 to inspect the statements and make copies: Lawson. Where there are good reasons for not
2 supplying copies of the statements, the duty to disclose can be performed by supplying
3 the name and address of the witness to the defence.
4 (iii) In relation to statements recording relevant interviews with the accused, as we have
5 already said, subject to the possibility of public interest immunity, the defence are
6 entitled to be supplied with copies of all such statements.
7 (iv) In relation to the evidence of expert witnesses, both for the prosecution and the
8 defence, the Crown Court (Advance Notice of Expert Evidence) Rules 1987 now require
9 that any party to the proceedings in the Crown Court who proposes to adduce expert
10 evidence must, as soon after committal as possible, furnish the other party with a written
11 statement of any finding or opinion of which he proposes to give evidence, and where a
12 request in writing is made by that other party, either supply copies of, or allow the other
13 party to examine, the record of any observation, test, calculation or other procedure on
14 which such finding or opinion is based. There is an exception to rule 4 which is not here
15 relevant. What the rules do not say in terms is that if an expert witness has carried out
16 experiments or tests which tend to disprove or cast doubt upon the opinion he is
17 expressing, or if such experiments or tests have been carried out in his laboratory and are
18 known to him, the party calling him must also disclose the record of such experiments or
19 tests. In our view the rules do not state this in terms because they can only be read as
20 requiring the record of all relevant experiments and tests to be disclosed. It follows that
21 an expert witness who has carried out or knows of experiments or tests which tend to
22 case doubt on the opinion he is expressing is in our view under a clear obligation to bring
23 the records of such experiments and tests to the attention of the solicitor who is
24 instructing him so that it may be disclosed to the other party. No doubt this process can
25 often be simplified by the expert for one party (usually the prosecution) supplying his
26 results, and any necessary working papers, to the expert advising the other party (the
27 defence) directly.
28 (v) It is true that public interest immunity provides an exception to the general duty of
29 disclosure. For present purposes it is not necessary to attempt to analyse the requirements
30 of public interest immunity. But in argument the question arose whether, if in a criminal
31 case the prosecution wished to claim public interest immunity for documents helpful to
32 the defence, the prosecution is in law obliged to give notice to the defence of the asserted
33 right to withhold the documents so that, if necessary, the court can be asked to rule on the
34 legitimacy of the prosecution's asserted claim. Mr. Mansfield's position was simple and
35 readily comprehensible. He submitted that there was such a duty, and that it admitted of
36 no qualification or exception. Moreover, he contended that it would be incompatible with
37 a defendant's absolute right to a fair trial to allow the prosecution, who occupy an
38 adversarial position in criminal proceedings, to be judge in their own cause on the
39 asserted claim to immunity. Unfortunately, and despite repeated questions by the court,
40 the Crown's position on this vital issue remained opaque to the end. We are fully
41 persuaded by Mr. Mansfield's reasoning on this point. It seems to us that he was right to
42 remind us that when the prosecution acted as judge in their own cause on the issue of
43 public interest immunity in this case they committed a significant number of errors which
44 affected the fairness of the proceedings. Police (sic; presumably an erroneous substitution
45 for 'these') considerations therefore powerfully reinforce the view that it would be wrong
46 to allow the prosecution to withhold material documents without giving any notice of that
47 fact to the defence. If, in a wholly exceptional case, the prosecution are not prepared
48 to have the issue of public interest immunity determined by a court, the result must
49 inevitably be that the prosecution will have to be abandoned. (emphasis added)
Page 25
1 (vi) For the avoidance of doubt we make it clear that we have not overlooked the
2 Attorney General's Guidelines for the disclosure of 'unused' material to the defence in
3 cases to be heard on indictment: see (1982) 74 Cr. App. R. 302. It is sufficient to say that
4 nothing in those guidelines can derogate in any way from the legal rules which we have
5 stated. It is therefore unnecessary for us to consider to what extent the Attorney General's
6 guidelines relating to 'sensitive material' (the phrase used in those guidelines) are in
7 conformity with the law as we have expounded it in the judgment."
8 END QUOTE
9 .
10 QUOTE
11 Ward deals and purports to deal only with the obligation of disclosure that falls upon the
12 prosecuting party. The analogy that Mr. Nicholson seeks to advance is not valid. Where the
13 prosecutor wrongly refuses to produce documents, that of itself might justify a stay, without
14 enquiry except as to whether any of the material withheld is "relevant material of help to the
15 accused" - that phrase being understood in the expansive sense explained in the judgment. The
16 obligation of disclosure that rests on the Crown is an obligation of voluntary or spontaneous
17 disclosure, not a matter merely of responding to a request or complying with a subpoena.
18 But where an accused person seeks access to information contained in documents which are in
19 the hands of a person or body which is not the prosecutor, no such obligation of disclosure can
20 arise. The only obligation of such a person or body is to comply with the requirements of a
21 subpoena validly issued.
22 If, because there is a valid claim of privilege or public interest immunity, or because (as here) the
23 party concerned is not amenable to subpoena, the documents are not made available, the ground
24 (if any) of complaint on the part of the accused is not that there is a breach of an obligation of
25 disclosure, but that because he has not access to the documents in question, his trial cannot be a
26 fair trial. In other words, the relevant principles are to be found not in Ward but in Jago.
27 END QUOTE
28 .
29 QUOTE
30 The prosecution is a prosecution in Australia for an alleged offence against the law of Australia
31 and it is conducted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The obligation of
32 disclosure does not fall on those who, whether in Australia or elsewhere, investigated the matter
33 - it is not an obligation cast on the Australian Federal Police for example. It is an obligation
34 that falls upon the prosecutor but the extent of it is such as to require disclosure of
35 materials in the possession of those by whom the investigation was carried out so far as the
36 DPP is in a position to compel production. Thus the DPP is obliged to disclose all material
37 able to assist the accused which is in the possession of Australian authorities and all
38 material which has come into the DPP's possession from the Royal Hong Kong Police, the
39 Royal Hong Kong Customs or any other source. It is true that in Ward it was made clear
40 that the obligation of disclosure extended to materials in the possession not only of the DPP
41 and the police but also forensic scientists independent of both who had been engaged to
42 carry out investigations: but it would seem that the DPP was in a position to compel
43 production of materials supplied to it by its consultants or held by the consultants on its
44 behalf - hence the obligation of disclosure extended so far.
45 END QUOTE
46 .
47 QUOTE
48 RELEVANT LAW - INTERNATIONAL COVENANT
49 By the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, the Commonwealth established the
50 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission as a body corporate with perpetual succession, with
51 functions including "to promote an understanding and acceptance, and the public discussion, of

Page 26
1 human rights in Australia" and "where the Commission considers it appropriate to do so, with the
2 leave of the court hearing the proceedings and subject to any conditions imposed by the court, to
3 intervene in proceedings that involve human rights issues". "Human rights" is defined in s.3(1)
4 of the Act to mean "the rights and freedoms and recognized in the Covenant, declared by the
5 declarations or recognized or declared by any relevant international instrument".
6 By "the Covenant" is meant "the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights", a copy of
7 the English text of which is set out in Schedule 2 of the Act.
8 Paragraph 3 of Article 14 provides:
9 "In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the
10 following minimum guarantees, in full equality;
11 …
12 (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to
13 communicate with counsel of his own choosing;
14 (e) to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance
15 and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses
16 against him."
17 The Commission resolved to seek leave to intervene in this stay application (not the trial itself, if
18 it proceeds) for the purpose of assisting the court in relation to the human rights issues said to be
19 involved in the proceedings. I have determined that the Commission should have leave to
20 intervene for that purpose and that it is proper that I should receive submissions on his behalf in
21 view of recent authority emphasising the relevance of the content of the Covenant to the
22 common law of Australia. See for example Mabo v. Queensland (1992) 66 ALJR 408 at 417,
23 422, per Brennan, J. and per Kirby, P. in Regina v. Greer (Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported
24 14 August 1992). In Mabo, Brennan, J. said (at 417):-
25 "The peace and order of Australian society is built on the legal system. It can be
26 modified to bring it into conformity with contemporary notions of justice and
27 human rights, but it cannot be destroyed. It is not possible, a priori, to distinguish
28 between cases that express a skeletal principle and those which do not, but no case can
29 command unquestioning adherence if the rule it expresses seriously offends the values of
30 justice and human rights (especially equality before the law) which are aspirations of the
31 contemporary Australian legal system. If a postulated rule of the common law expressed
32 in earlier cases seriously offends those contemporary values, the question arises whether
33 the rule should be maintained and applied. Whenever such a question arises, it is
34 necessary to assess whether the particular rule is an essential rule of our legal system and
35 whether, if the rule were to be overturned, the disturbance to be apprehended would be
36 disproportionate to the benefit flowing from the overturning."
37 I have no difficulty with that. It seems to me abundantly clear that the rule of the common law
38 expressed by the majority in Jago (ironically, not altogether commanding the assent of Brennan,
39 J.) does not offend but is on the other hand entirely consonant with "contemporary values",
40 including those expressed in the Covenant. In Greer, the learned President observed that those
41 basic rights expressed in the Covenant are rights which the common law in Australia will
42 ordinarily respect.
43 It appears to me that the relevance of the Covenant to the present matter is this and no more than
44 this, that it puts the court on notice that a trial conducted in circumstances where the accused has
45 not been accorded fully the rights referred to in paragraphs (b) and (e) of paragraph 3 of Article
46 14 of the Covenant may be an unfair trial within the meaning of the principles established by
47 Jago.
48 I would have welcomed some assistance from counsel for all parties as to the meaning of the
49 phrase "in full equality" in the opening paragraph of clause 3 of Article 14 of the Covenant. It

Page 27
1 may refer to equality with all other persons facing trial in this country - paragraph (b) is perhaps
2 more compatible with that reading - or, equality with the prosecutor.
3 END QUOTE
4 .
5 QUOTE
6 I have said, that in my view the effect of the Covenant is that it draws to the attention of the
7 court that a trial, which takes place in circumstances where the so called "minimum
8 guarantees" are not afforded to the accused, may be unfair within the Jago principle. It
9 does not in my view follow that it must be unfair. It is necessary to examine the circumstances
10 and see to what extent in the particular case the fact that the accused is deprived in whole or in
11 part of one of the rights purported to be guaranteed by the Covenant in fact prejudices him, and
12 whether it does so to such an extent that the trial is to be seen as unfair.
13 "UNFAIR TRIAL"
14 It is clear from the judgments in Jago that a stay of proceedings may be the appropriate
15 remedy where the prosecution is an abuse of process in the traditional and narrowest sense
16 (and, per Brennan, J., only then) - that is, where the prosecution is brought for an
17 improper purpose, or is oppressive (eg. successive prosecutions for the same act) etc.; but
18 also where the continuance of the prosecution will be in a broader sense an abuse because,
19 whether on account of delay or for some other reason, the outcome will be a trial which, no
20 matter how the trial judge may utilize his many powers and discretions, will be unfair. It is
21 clear that it is not the possibility of unfairness to the accused which calls for the drastic
22 remedy of a permanent stay, for such may well be mitigated, or obviated, by other
23 remedies within the discretion of a judge pre-trial or within the discretion of the judge at
24 the trial. Absent abuse of process in the narrowest sense, a stay is justified if it appears, at
25 the time when the stay is sought, that no other exercise of the court's discretion at that
26 stage or during the trial is likely to avoid a trial which, after the trial, will be seen to be
27 unfair.
28 It is perhaps worth pausing for a moment to ask what is meant by a "fair trial" or an "unfair
29 trial". Jago and other relevant authorities from various jurisdictions were discussed by Professor
30 David Paciocco, The Stay of Proceedings as a Remedy in Criminal Cases: Abusing the Abuse of
31 Process Concept (1991) 15 Crim. L.i 315. At p.332-333 the learned author said:
32 "The 'fair trial' rationale has been challenged on the basis of its uncertainty. It has been
33 said that the invocation of such a broad discretionary power would be 'unacceptable in a
34 country acknowledging the rule of law.' DPP v. Humphrys (1977) AC 1 at 24. and its
35 dangers have been lamented as 'too obvious to need stating'. Connelly (1963) 3 All E.R.
36 510 per Lord Edmund Davies at 519. Discretionary powers are not, of course, unknown
37 in the law. They can be exercised on a more or less principled basis, and this is
38 particularly true, I would suggest, of a discretion to ensure that a trial is fair. There is a
39 significant difference between saying that judges have the power to stay proceedings to
40 achieve a fair result (which might arguably be a subjectively exercised power not in
41 keeping with the rule of law) and saying that judges have the power to stay proceedings
42 to ensure a fair trial. This is because the fairness of a trial can be tested by its
43 conformity with those principles underlying the accusatorial system of justice ..A
44 fair trial is a public hearing in which the Crown makes a specific allegation, for
45 which the accused has never before been convicted or acquitted, that the accused
46 has violated a pre-existing rule of law, during which trial the Crown bears the
47 burden of establishing that allegation with evidence before an independent and
48 neutral trier of law and fact, without compelling the accused in any way to
49 participate in establishing the allegation against him until a case to meet has been
50 established, and in which the accused is provided with a reasonable opportunity to
Page 28
1 make full answer and defence. It is only where the conduct of those responsible for
2 the prosecution of an offence has jeopardized one or more of these accusatorial
3 principles that the power to act to ensure a fair trial should arise."
4 The remedy of stay is available to prevent the occurrence of an unfair trial: to prevent injustice.
5 It is a remedy not to be resorted to wherever and whenever there is a risk of procedural injustice
6 but only where if, if the trial is permitted to proceed, the outcome (if a conviction results) would
7 be such that a court of criminal appeal after the event would be unable to say that no miscarriage
8 of justice had occurred. The equation of the concept of an unfair trial with the concept of
9 miscarriage of justice is implicit in the judgment of Mahoney, JA. in Gill v. Walton (1991-92)
10 25 NSWLR 190 at 210-211. It may, as his Honour pointed out, include the situation where there
11 is a denial of natural justice; but I would with respect include his Honour's use of the term
12 "unacceptable injustice" which extends beyond the traditional concept of a denial of natural
13 justice to embrace the "procedural or evidentiary fairness of a particular trial"; but does not
14 extend so far as to give rise to the power to stay a prosecution "whenever there will be less than
15 perfect justice". (His Honour dissented in respect of the outcome of that particular case, but the
16 approach of the other members of the court was entirely different and did not, as I understand the
17 matter, involve any dissent from the principles which Mahoney, JA. expressed). Mahoney, JA.
18 went on to say:
19 "It is settled that, if a party to a proceeding cannot or will not have a fair trial of the
20 matters involved, the supervisory jurisdiction of this court may be invoked. I do not mean
21 by this that this power may be exercised whenever there will be less than perfect justice.
22 This power is exercisable when the trial of the issue will depart so far from perfect justice
23 that the result is unacceptable. The mere fact that a defendant in a proceeding, criminal or
24 civil, suffers from disadvantages which, in a perfect system operating perfectly, he would
25 not suffer, is not sufficient to warrant intervention by this court. I made reference to this
26 in, for example, the Barron case" (Barron v. Attorney General for New South Wales
27 (1987) 10 NSWLR 215 at 226-22 7) "and in the Cooke case" (Cooke v. Purcell (1988) 14
28 NSWLR 51 at 65-67). In Jago, the members of the High Court made reference to this
29 matter (at 33, 48 et. seq., 55-56, 71, 76-78). No doubt in each case the court will have
30 regard to what, in other cases which have been decided by it, it has seen to be an
31 unacceptable disadvantage. But in the end the court will make a decision, more or less
32 normative, in respect of the particular disadvantages in question."
33 A court of criminal appeal asked to set aside a conviction upon the grounds of some
34 demonstrated procedural defect or error of law or discretion does not intervene merely upon
35 demonstration of the error; but only if the court finds itself unable to say that no actual
36 miscarriage of justice has resulted. Where the case is able to be seen in advance as of that nature,
37 the fact that the accused if convicted might confidently expect to be successful on appeal is not a
38 sufficient reason to refuse a stay: Barton v. The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75 at 96-97. However,
39 the existence of a right of appeal is not irrelevant: the grant of a stay is reserved for the case
40 where "no other means is available" to avoid injustice, and unless so much is established at the
41 time of the stay application, the case for stay is not made out. It is necessary to bear in mind the
42 community's interest in having a trial (Jago per Mason, CJ. at p.34., Brennan, J. at p.4.9,
43 Toohey, J. at p.72) and unless there is seen in advance to be a "fundamental defect which goes to
44 the root of the trial of such a nature that nothing the trial judge can do in the conduct of the trial
45 can relieve against its unfair consequences", the proper course is to refuse the stay, leaving the
46 accused to his right of appeal, when with the benefit of hindsight, the question whether the
47 conviction was a miscarriage of justice may better be able to be determined.
48 As it seems to me, when it is said that a stay must be granted to prevent an unfair trial, what is
49 referred to is a trial so affected by the events that have happened that it can fairly be said in
50 advance that a guilty verdict would be set aside after the event as a miscarriage of justice.
Page 29
1 It is not enough that there be a risk of miscarriage - indeed there is a risk of such in every trial. It
2 is to be recognized that much that appears, in advance of the trial, to present such a risk can be
3 (and in the ordinary trial is) nullified by the appropriate exercise of the trial judge's powers and
4 discretions. An "unfair trial" in the relevant sense is only a trial of which it can be said in
5 advance, that notwithstanding all that the trial judge may do, a miscarriage of justice will be the
6 outcome. The degree of probability of miscarriage of justice that must be shown is a high one:
7 not a mere possibility that the trial will be unfair; not that such an outcome is "on the cards", or
8 just probable, or very probable; "there must be a fundamental defect" (per Mason, CJ.), it must
9 be seen in advance that "any trial must necessarily be an unfair one" (per Deane, J.).
10 It follows that a trial may be permitted to proceed even after gross delay or even where the
11 accused has not had the benefit of the "minimum guarantees" mandated by the international
12 Covenant, where he has no legal representation or has been unable to locate or summon
13 witnesses whom he would have wished to call, or to have access to documents which he would
14 wish to have used, unless it can be seen in advance that the situation is such that should a
15 conviction result it would represent a miscarriage.
16 The test therefore that has to be applied is a demanding one. It is a test which has not been
17 addressed by the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant. Counsel has been content to
18 demonstrate what materials have been withheld from the accused and to what forensic purpose
19 such materials may have been put; but has not gone the necessary further step, to show how the
20 lack of any such material so relates to the issues in the case that a trial in the absence of access to
21 such material will necessarily be in the relevant sense unfair. Notwithstanding the lack of
22 assistance from counsel in that regard, this is a matter that lies at the heart of the application and
23 which I must consider in due course.
24 END QUOTE
25 .
26 QUOTE
27 Undoubtedly, the fact that the accused cannot compel the production of documents before this
28 court, and cannot have the issues which arise in respect of such production determined by this
29 court after proper arguments, inspection of the documents by the trial judge, if appropriate, and
30 subject to a right of appeal, are circumstances which are of great relevance in determining
31 whether the trial which may follow must be an unfair one. But it seems to me that it is not
32 possible to reach a conclusion that the trial, even in those circumstances, must necessarily be
33 unfair, without regard to what it is that is withheld from the accused, what is the nature of the
34 forensic purpose that it would serve if produced, and what is the extent of the prejudice that the
35 accused will suffer. For example, if there is evidence available to the accused to support his case
36 on a particular issue, it may be very difficult for him to show that he is in any way or
37 significantly prejudiced because he cannot get access to other evidence upon the same issue,
38 because a party in possession of other evidence upon that issue fails or refuses to produce it,
39 because he is unable to ask the trial court to rule on the propriety of the objection that is taken,
40 and because he cannot invoke the coercive powers of the trial court to have that material brought
41 before it. In short, the question whether the trial will be an unfair one because the accused is
42 unable to compel the production of documents before the court, and unable to have the benefit of
43 a ruling by the court upon such objections to production as may be taken, must depend upon an
44 evaluation of the forensic purpose to which the documents would be put and the significance of
45 each particular item in the context of the case as a whole.
46 THE PAPER CHASE
47 The resolution of the stay application would have been assisted had the applicant's counsel
48 provided a single definitive statement of the documents which, it is asserted, were at the time of
49 the hearing still withheld from the accused, and the lack of which is asserted to produce (in

Page 30
1 conjunction with the asserted lack of access to relevant witnesses) the consequence that the trial
2 of the accused must be unfair.
3 END QUOTE
4 .
5 QUOTE
6 FORENSIC PURPOSE
7 Upon the approach derived from Jago v. District Court, whether a stay should be ordered
8 requires consideration of the question whether the fact that the accused cannot get access before
9 the trial to the documents he lists nor make use of them at the trial will (alone or in conjunction
10 with other circumstances) cause any trial that ensues to be unfair. That compels an enquiry as to
11 whether any document to which he points in fact exists, and (if it does) as to the use to which the
12 accused would put such document or class of document at the trial or in the course of
13 preparation, that is to say, for what forensic purpose is access sought.
14 It is no basis for objection to a subpoena that the party who served it does not know whether or
15 not documents exist meeting the description in the subpoena; although if he is not able to prove
16 that documents exist he will not be in a position to invite the court to deal with the subpoenaed
17 party for disobedience to the subpoena. So, it is no objection to the accused's case merely that he
18 has asked for the production of documents some of which he does not know to exist in fact.
19 However, the want of such documents cannot be shown to lead to an unfair trial unless it is
20 shown that such documents do exist (or, perhaps, having at some former time existed, have since
21 been destroyed: indeed the destruction of evidence which would otherwise have been available
22 has been a major consideration in many cases where a stay of proceedings has been granted on
23 the basis of delay). The question whether each particular document to which the accused points
24 has been shown to exist is something to be dealt with as a matter of fact in respect of each
25 document as I come to it.
26 The enquiry into forensic purpose is similar to that which arises where, upon the return of a
27 subpoena for the production of documents by a stranger to the litigation, the party producing
28 objects to the documents being made available for inspection by the parties (but after any
29 objection to the subpoena itself or claim for privilege or public interest immunity has been
30 disposed of adversely to the party producing): in terms of the analysis undertaken by Moffitt, P.
31 in Waind v. Hill & National Employers' Mutual General Association Limited (1978) 1
32 NSWLR 372, the second step. His Honour pointed out that there are three steps in the procedure
33 of having a third party bring documents to court, and in their use thereafter:
34 "The first is obeying the subpoena, by the witness bringing the documents to the court
35 and handing them to the judge. This step involves the determination of any objections of
36 the witness to the subpoena, or to the production of the documents to the court pursuant
37 to the subpoena. The second step is the decision of the judge concerning the preliminary
38 use of the documents, which includes whether or not permission should be given to a
39 party or parties to inspect the documents. The third step is the admission into evidence of
40 the document in whole or in part; or the use of it in the process of evidence being put
41 before the court by cross- examination or otherwise. It is the third step which alone
42 provides material upon which ultimate decision in the case rests. In these three steps the
43 stranger and the parties have different rights, and the function of the judge differs."
44 In relation to the second step, the learned President posed the question, "Does he" (ie the trial
45 judge) "have a judicial discretion to permit the use of the documents in any such way as he
46 considers will aid a proper decision of the issues between the parties, by facilitating the
47 elucidation of the truth in respect of relevant facts ...?" (p.383) and in the course of the following
48 pages, gave a firm affirmative answer. His Honour at p.384 observed:

Page 31
1 "It is true that in the exercise of the power in relation to the subpoena, the invasion of the
2 rights of a third party have been jealously guarded (sic). It is accepted that the documents
3 should not go beyond the judge against objection of the owner, unless there is valid
4 reason to do so. It is clear that it can only be legitimate to do so, so far as is necessary
5 in the proper conduct of the litigation. It is difficult to see why to do that which is
6 'requisite for the purpose of justice' should be restricted by some arbitrary limit ... If a
7 subpoena for production is properly issued and not set aside, and, if there is ruled to be no
8 valid objection to the production of the documents to the court, then the documents are in
9 the control of the judge who is invested with jurisdiction to take all steps necessary for
10 the proper trial of the issues before him, subject to the due observance of any relevant
11 rules and procedures of the court. So far as factual matters are concerned, the proper
12 conduct of the litigation can only be that which fairly leads to the introduction of all
13 such evidence as is material to the issues to be tried, and the testing of that evidence
14 by the accepted procedures of the court. The only legitimate purpose of requiring
15 the production, and permitted the inspection of a stranger's documents can be to
16 add, in the end, to the relevant evidence in the case."
17 At p.385 his Honour stated the practice to be as follows:
18 "Where however objection is raised by the owner of the documents, the judge examines
19 the documents with some care to ensure there is no abuse of the subpoena, and to
20 determine whether the documents appear relevant in the sense that they relate to the
21 subject matter of the proceedings in which event he will permit inspection by one or
22 both parties at an appropriate time. The question of their admissibility without more, in
23 accordance with the rules of evidence, does not then arise because, if relevant, they may
24 be admitted in a variety of ways, as by first establishing facts or adopting procedures
25 which make them admissible or by their being admitted by consent. If apparently
26 relevant, I do not see how the objections of the stranger could prevent their
27 admission in evidence, by consent or otherwise, or the inspection which may lead to
28 this occurring."
29 His Honour's statement at p.384 that "the only legitimate purpose of requiring the production and
30 permitting the inspection of a stranger's documents can be to add in the end to the relevant
31 evidence in the case" is not to be understood as meaning that there is no right to inspect
32 documents except such as would themselves be admissible. That is made abundantly clear by the
33 sentence immediately preceding; and by the passage on p.385 that I have quoted also. Indeed, it
34 was established in Madison v. Goldrick (1976) 1 NSWLR 651 that an accused is prima facie
35 entitled to inspect any document which may give him the opportunity to pursue a proper and
36 fruitful course in cross-examination, in the latter case Samuels, JA. pointed out that:
37 "Unless some means is available of obtaining access to documents such as witness's
38 statements, a defendant ... may be quite unable to establish vital discrepancies where they
39 do in fact occur."
40 In Regina v. Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14, the Court of Criminal Appeal adapted to the
41 question of the right of access to subpoenaed documents the test expressed by Gibbs, CJ. in
42 Alister v. The Queen with regard to the question whether a judge required to rule upon a claim
43 for public interest immunity should inspect documents. Hunt, J. (as he then was) said:
44 "In my view when a trial judge is faced with a subpoena of this kind, he should require
45 counsel for the accused to identify expressly and with precision the legitimate forensic
46 purpose for which he seeks access to the documents, and the judge should refuse access
47 to the documents until such an identification has been made ... In my view the criterion
48 finally suggested by Gibbs, CJ. in Mister v. The Queen" (Alister v. The Queen (1984)
49 154 CLR 404) "as that which had to be satisfied before a court should inspect documents
Page 32
1 in relation to which a claim for public interest immunity had been made is appropriate to
2 be applied also when the trial judge has to determine whether access should be granted to
3 documents subpoenaed from the police in relation to which objection has been taken that
4 no legitimate forensic purpose exists for their production. He must be satisfied that it is
5 'on the cards' that the documents would materially assist the accused in his defence.
6 Before granting access when such an objection has been taken the judge should usually
7 inspect the documents (or those which the Crown may suggest are sufficiently
8 representative) for himself, as it is unfortunately not unknown for the objection taken to
9 be misconceived ... If no public interest immunity or other privilege is claimed (and
10 upheld), and if a legitimate forensic purpose for their production has been demonstrated,
11 the judge should not withhold access to the documents simply on the basis that in his
12 view that purpose would not be satisfied in that particular case because he can see
13 nothing in the documents which will in fact assist the accused in his defence. Provided
14 that a legitimate forensic purpose has been demonstrated, it should be for the accused (or,
15 in appropriate cases, for his legal advisers only) to satisfy himself on that score after his
16 own inspection of the documents."
17 In summary, therefore, the accused will have shown a legitimate forensic purpose for which he
18 seeks access to the documents in question if he shows that they have apparent relevance to the
19 subject matter of the trial, meaning thereby the issues to be tried. If they have no apparent
20 relevance, there is no legitimate forensic purpose attaching to them; if they have apparent
21 relevance, and hence are capable of being used to add to the relevant evidence, either directly by
22 tender or indirectly by facilitating the testing of other evidence, it is for the accused and his
23 counsel to determine whether they can in fact be used, and it would be wrong to conclude that
24 they have no legitimate forensic purpose, merely because it does not appear to the judge that the
25 documents in question can in fact be used to the advantage of the accused.
26 END QUOTE
27 .
28 QUOTE
29 Were the question in fact one of granting or withholding access to documents in fact produced
30 on subpoena, the Crown's submission that the documents were not capable of serving the
31 suggested forensic purpose would not arise: R. v. Saleam (supra). It will, however, be a matter of
32 significance in determining whether the fact that the accused is deprived of access to documents
33 in respect of which a legitimate forensic purpose has been identified is likely to cause the trial to
34 be unfair.
35 END QUOTE
36 .
37 QUOTE
38 The proposed investigation of the adequacy, competence or thoroughness of the investigation,
39 implicit in paragraph 5 and expressed in paragraph 10(c) appears on the face of it to be no more
40 than a fishing expedition in the sense specifically deprecated in Associated Dominions
41 Assurance Society Pty. Limited v. John Fairfax & Sons Pty. Limited:-
42 "A 'fishing expedition' in the sense in which the phrase has been used in the law means as
43 I understand it that a person who has no evidence that fish of a particular kind are in a
44 pool desires to be at liberty to drag it for the purpose of finding out whether there are any
45 there or not."
46 To show that police did not investigate as thoroughly as might have been done (paragraph 10(b))
47 is a matter of no relevance or significance unless there is some reason to believe that a better
48 investigation would have revealed matters of assistance to the accused; not merely matters
49 implicating others. The existence of any such matter would have to be shown, or at least reason
50 to believe in its existence. One would have thought that the accused was best placed to know of
Page 33
1 the existence of any exculpatory material upon which he wished to rely, but he has given no
2 evidence of the existence of any such.
3 The forensic purpose expressed in paragraph 10(a) amounts to fishing, in the sense that there is
4 no evidence that informers had been coached to expand or embroider their stories to the
5 detriment of the accused; although there was some cross-examination at the first trial along those
6 lines. Can it nevertheless be justified? Just as it may be a legitimate forensic purpose to seek
7 access to statements of witnesses in advance of their giving evidence, so that discrepancies may
8 be detected, it may also, as was the case in Madison v. Goldrick, be a legitimate forensic
9 purpose to seek access to statements in the possession of a police officer in order to show that he
10 had the wherewithal to construct what was alleged to have been a false confessional statement.
11 That, however, falls short of showing the validity of the forensic purpose stated in paragraph
12 10(a). It would be one thing to obtain access to successive statements made by the same witness
13 in order to show how his story had developed or varied from time to time. In such a case,
14 however, the relevant material would be what appeared in the witness's statements, not what was
15 within the knowledge of police officers conducting the investigation - if indeed, the witness's
16 story had been expanded at the instigation of the police, the source was as likely to be in the
17 imagination as in the knowledge of the police officer.
18 With these preliminary comments, I now turn to a consideration of the accused's claim in respect
19 of each group of documents he has sought.
20 DOCUMENTS DENIED TO THE ACCUSED
21 It appears to me that the onus which rests upon the accused to establish the factual basis of his
22 claim to a stay requires him to show, as to each document or class of documents of the
23 withholding of which he complains:
24 1. Some prima facie reason to believe in the existence of the document.
25 2. That the documents are not available despite reasonable efforts on the part of the
26 accused to procure them.
27 3. A legitimate forensic purpose.
28 4. In what way the lack of access to the document will render the trial unfair.
29 As I pointed out in the course of the argument, this last is not so much a matter of fact to be
30 proved by evidence, but a matter to be demonstrated by legal argument, on which basis I cut
31 short the oral evidence of Mr. Bilinsky and invited Mr. Nicholson to tell me from the bar table in
32 what way lack of access to each document would prejudice the accused.
33 END QUOTE
34 .
35 QUOTE
36 DISCRETION
37 The power to order a stay of proceedings is said to be discretionary. In a sense that is so:
38 "The expression 'discretionary power' generally signifies a power exercisable by
39 reference to considerations no one of which and no combination of which is necessarily
40 determinative of the result. In other words it is a power which 'involves a considerable
41 latitude of individual choice of a conclusion.': Russo v. Russo (1953) VLR 57 per Sholl,
42 J. at 62. See also Pattenden, The Judge, Discretion and the Criminal Trial (1982), p.
43 Notwithstanding this latitude, a discretionary power is necessarily confined by general
44 principle. It is also confined by the matters which may be taken into account and by the
45 matters, if any, which must be taken into account in its exercise.": per Gauldron, J., Jago
46 (supra) at 75-76.

Page 34
1 In another sense, the power is not truly discretionary. It is rather a matter not of discretion but of
2 judgment. Once the court concludes that the circumstances are such that any trial that would
3 ensue must necessarily be unfair, notwithstanding anything that may be done by way of
4 interlocutory orders or rulings and directions at the trial, there is no option but to stay the
5 proceedings. On the other hand, once the court is satisfied that the circumstances, taking into
6 account all interlocutory orders that may be made and all rulings and directions that may be
7 given at the trial, are such that the trial will not inevitably be an unfair trial, there is no option but
8 to refuse to stay the proceedings.
9 END QUOTE
10
11
12
13 R v Butterwasser, Court of Criminal Appeal (947)(1948) 1 K.B. 4;63 T.L.R. 463;111J.P.
14 527;91 S.J. 586;32 Cr App R. 81(1947)ALL E.R. 415
15 QUOTE
16 But it is admitted that there is no authority, and I do not see on what principal it could be
17 said, That if a man does not go into the witness box and put his own character in issue, he
18 can have evidence given against him of previous bad character when all he has done is to
19 attack the witness for the prosecution. The reason is that by attacking the witnesses for the
20 prosecution and suggesting they are unreliable, he is not putting his character in issue; he is
21 putting their character in issue
22 END QUOTE
23
24 In my view there can be no excuses as to the Victorian Police, DPP and Solicitors Office and
25 others having used Officers of the Court in violation to their positions to be informers of their
26 own clients because it undermines the credibility of the administration of justice and if anything
27 I view Chief Commissioner of Police Graham Ashton by what I consider false/misleading claims
28 about why EF/Informer 3838/Lawyer X in 2005 commenced to be a registered informer I view
29 underlines that despite past warning the Victoria Police high ranking officers still will refuse to
30 be honest about matters.
31
32 Government Ministers, the police and others in such positions must be held to be model citizens
33 who will for sure uphold the law and not thwart the rule of law themselves for whatever purpose
34 they may deem it to justify.
35
36 The following may also indicate that criminal conduct far too often is ignored by the Victorian
37 Police. Perhaps by doing so they can achieve special treatment when certain people are elected
38 and gain certain political status as result to provide certain benefits, never mind it undermines
39 out democratic system.
40
41 I was a candidate in the Victorian State election for the seat of Ivanhoe when I discovered that
42 then Banyule City councilor Anthony Carbine (Later implicated with the Red Shirt issue) was
43 using staff of Banyule /City Council to harass me. In fact the Victorian Police did do a so called
44 investigation in my posters and banners many on pallets for display were slashed with knives and
45 dumped in my drive way. Somehow the Victorian Police never gave any proper feedback about
46 this complaint and its investigation.
47
48 I then refused to file a statement of expenditure regarding the election due to that I requested
49 Banyule City Council to compensate for the damages that were caused. I was then charged with
50 failing to provide a statement and I made clear I didn’t want to file a statement and afterwards
51 be claimed against me that I made a false statement not having disclosed any monies Banyule
Page 35
1 City council might have paid to compensate me for the damages of my political material. It is in
2 fact an offence to interfere with political material of a candidate.
3 But as usual nothing came from anything against Anthony Carbines misuse of council staff.
4 However, when I filed my complaint about the Red Shirt fraud and that in my view those
5 involved having filed expense statement not disclosing the amounts of monies that were
6 defrauded from Consolidated Revenue Funds by the Red Shirt issue and as such each and every
7 such statement is a criminal act to conceal relevant details then nothing is done about this. As
8 such, if you are in Government you can ensure to have the Victorian Police and others who are
9 responsible to enforce the rule of law to do precisely the opposite.
10 .
11 QUOTE 3-9-2015 correspondence
12 Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria 3-9-2015
13 daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
14 Cc: Michelle Ainsworth michelle.ainsworth@news.com.au,
15 Victorian Electoral Commissioner Email: complaints@vec.vic.gov.au,
16 Hon. Bruce Atkinson, MLC President of the Legislative Council bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au,
17 Telmo Languiller (Speaker since 23 December 2014) telmo.languiller@parliament.vic.gov.au,
18 Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au,
19 Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au,
20 George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au,
21 Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com,
22 Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au,
23 Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au,
24 Herald Sun Andrew Bolt news@heraldsun.com.au, readerfeedback@heraldsun.com.au,
25 Mark Robinson mark.robinson@news.com.au, jay.clark@news.com.au
26 Auditor General Level24, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000 comments@audit.vic.gov.au
27
28 Ref; 20150903-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andrews & VEC-
29 PRESS RELEASE-Re COMPLAINT-Electoral matters -etc
30 Daniel,
31 As you may recall I wrote extensively to yourself, the VEC (Victorian electoral
32 Commission) the Auditor-General, (then) Premier Dennis Napthine, Hon. Bruce Atkinson,
33 MLC President of the Legislative Council and former Speaker Christine Fyffe, about using
34 Consolidated Revenue Funds for “public purposes” and not for office staff to use it for
35 elect ion campaigns.
36
37 The following was quoted in various correspondences such as:
38
39 20141203-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Electoral Commission-COMPLAINT
40 20140328-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General
41 20140604-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier D Napthine-Re Geoff Shaw MP-etc-
42 20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc
43 20140613-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Louise Asher Re Mr Geoff Shaw-
44 REQUEST for DETAILS and INFORMATION-etc
45 20140615-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Bruce Atkinson MLC -Re Geoff Shaw saga-etc
46
47 END QUOTE 3-9-2015 correspondence
48
49 I state below:
50 QUOTE
51 I in about middle of 2017 was asked to investigate the matters surrounding the vicious
52 murder of police informer Carl Williams (Who also was represented by Lawyer X) and
53 other related matters because of the litigation against Dhakota Williams the daughter of
54 Carl Williams with Roberta Williams and the grandchild of the late George Williams
55 which I understood was also a police informer.
56 END QUOTE
57
Page 36
1 And despite that I wrote extensively about the vicious murder of Carl Williams that the relevant
2 authorities failed to comply with the terms of the court order to have him incarcerated – NOT
3 KILLED for some reason the courts did absolutely nothing at all to hold the State legally
4 accountable for his killing.
5 QUOTE Saturday, February 16, 2009 Herald Sun
6 YOU’VE GOT TO WATCH YOUR BACK
7 END QUOTE Saturday, February 16, 2009 Herald Sun
8 And
10 Prison gangs are a fact of life, with loyalties divided roughly along ’tribal’ ethnic lines
11 complicated by connections with outlaw motorcycle gangs.
12
14 And
16 HITMAN: FEAR OF GANG WAR
18
20 The prison code of silence means jail attacks are often hard to prosecute
22
23 Instead of perhaps use the Black Dolphin Prison System that inmates desire never to return to
24 we have a prison system that often is claimed to be better than senior citizens after a lifetime of
25 positive contribution to society ends up having.
26
27 Courts should hold prison authorities and their staff more legally accountable as we have now
28 seen with Tony Mokbel being attacked which I view in the Black Dolphin Prison System never
29 could have eventuated. Indeed so with the murder of Carl Williams. For the Government to let
30 the taxpayers end up paying for any legal cost and compensation in my view does nothing to
31 deter the government from having prisoners harmed and even killed.
32 Why would hardened criminals in the position of political offices ever want to act within the rule
33 of law if they in the end are not held legally accountable, as we have experienced so far.
34 .
35 It essentially is the same whenever Department of Human Services has a child in its care ending
36 up dead the Children Court to my knowledge at no time ever held the State accountable for
37 CONTEMPT OF COURT failing to ensure that the person subject to its orders was
38 appropriately cared for.
39 .
40 We now have media reports that Tony Mokbel was allegedly bashed and stabbed and his life is
41 in question. We have now Premier Daniel Andrews making known it is a matter of
42 investigations. Oh boy, do I know this about the vicious murder of Carl Williams! It likely will
43 be incompetent investigations where relevant details will be concealed.
44 Tony Mokbel (for the record to my knowledge I never had any contact with him) is another
45 victim of Lawyer X and well one way to silence witnesses would be to have them departing from
46 the living.
47 It in my view would as I also state below undermine the integrity of this Royal Commission if it
48 ignored such relevant issues.
49 When a person is committed by the court to a term of imprisonment then the Courts must hold
50 those in charge of the prison legally liable if a prisoner suffers any harm while incarcerated. As
51 far as I understand it in Australia the death penalty was abolished long ago and therefore I view
52 that the courts would fail in its IMPARTIAL administration of justice if it is willing to order the

Page 37
1 incarceration of any person without making anyone legally liable to face CONTEMPT OF
2 COURT and other relevant charges if the incarcerated person is harmed during incarceration.
3
4 It is a legal principle embedded in our constitution that the state is responsible for the detention
5 and/or punishment of a person.
6
7 Hansard 2-8-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
8 Convention)
9 QUOTE
10 Clause 113.-Every state shall make provision for the detention and punishment in its prisons of persons
11 accused or convicted of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth and the Parliament of the
12 Commonwealth, may make laws to give effect to this provision.
13 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I think the words "or detention" should be inserted after "the detention."
14 At present the clause reads-"The state shall make-provision for the detention and punishment in its prisons of
15 persons accused or convicted," &c. We do not want to punish "persons accused." I beg to move-
16 That the words "or detention" be inserted after "detention."
17 The clause will then read-"For the detention or detention and punishment," &c.
18 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I do not think that amendment would quite do. I could understand the
19 clause being amended so as to make it read-"detention or punishment of persons accused or convicted." The
20 object of the clause, as it stands, is to keep together the terms "accused or convicted," so, that the relation,
21 both of accusation and conviction, to the laws of the Commonwealth may be made clear. The clause only
22 applies to accusations or convictions in respect of laws of the Commonwealth, and, therefore, these words
23 "accused or convicted" are kept together just before the words "offences against the laws of the
24 Commonwealth." I think that if my honorable [start page 693] friend (Mr. Glynn) would alter his amendment
25 so as to make it read "detention or punishment," there can be no misreading of the clause.
26 Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I think the words should stand as they are. You have to make
27 provision for both things.
28 Mr. GLYNN.-Not for the punishment of accused persons.
29 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Provision has to be made both for detention and punishment. I think the clause is
30 clear enough as it stands at present.
31 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I believe that my honorable friend's (Mr. Glynn's) feeling is that, by
32 leaving the words as they are, the clause might be interpreted to enable the federal authorities to demand
33 from the state the detention and punishment of persons who were not convicted, but I do not apprehend
34 that there is the slightest difficulty on that score. I do not think any court would interpret the words to
35 mean the punishment of a person accused and not convicted.
36 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-My contention is that, as the clause stands, the words are to be read
37 conjunctively in relation to the word "accused." The clause says that each state shall make provision for the
38 detention and punishment of persons accused or convicted. You must read the word "punishment" in relation
39 to "accused," as well as to "convicted." The clause should read-"For the detention, or detention and
40 punishment, as the case may be, of persons accused or convicted," &c.
41 Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I think the clause might be amended to get out of the difficulty
42 which has been pointed out. As it stands at present, it provides that the state shall make provision for the
43 detention and punishment in its prisons of persons accused or convicted. Now, evidently, the detention is for
44 those who have not yet been convicted, and the punishment is for those who have been convicted, and I
45 think that those two classes ought to be separated.
46 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have an amendment which I think will meet the case, and enable us
47 to get on. I beg to move-

Page 38
1 That the clause be amended by striking out the words after "detention" down to "Commonwealth," and
2 substituting in lieu thereof the words "in its prisons of persons accused of offences against the laws of the
3 Commonwealth, and the punishment of persons convicted of such offences."
4 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I would point out that, under the clause as now proposed to be
5 amended, a state might make provision for whipping persons convicted, but not for detaining them in
6 prison.
7 Mr. ISAACS.-Detention may be part of the punishment.
8 Mr. GLYNN.-But the punishment may not be detention, it may be flagellation. Are you going to allow a
9 state to make provision for the character of the punishment for an offence against the Commonwealth?
10 Mr. Barton's amendment was agreed to.

11 END QUOTE
12
13 Because the Victorian Gazette of 2-1-1901 published the Letters Patent that there be an
14 IMPARTIAL administration of justice, then in my view the State cannot directly and/or
15 indirectly inflict the death penalty upon a prisoner either intended or not.
16 The credibility of the administration of justice is therefore clearly in question where not only an
17 Officer of the Court violates her/his position but also where then a victim is killed no one seem
18 to be held liable by the courts for having allowed/permitted such a killing to eventuate.
19 While with Carl Williams the actual killer was convicted to the best of mjy knowledge not a
20 single person of the prison system was actually charged and held liable before the courts for this
21 killing to have been able to take place.
22 As such with now this stabbing/bashing of another prisoner it is clear that we lack any proper
23 prison system.
24 In my view a Minister of the Crown is ultimately responsible and also should have been charged
25 for the unlawful killing of Carl Williams. Likewise now the Minister should be immediately held
26 liable before the Courts for CONTEMPT OF COURT with the latest bashing/stabbing of tony
27 Mokbel. After all that is why we have a RESPONSIBLE MINISTER. Delegating powers to
28 other officials cannot and never must so to say take the RESPONSIBLE Minister of the hook.
29 .
31 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
32 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
33 the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
34 that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
35 Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
36 any private person would be.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 Are we now going to wonder if any victim of Lawyer X and others like her going to have those
40 victims dispensed from the living and this Royal Commission will show a total disregard to the
41 victims?
42 Will we now have that ultimately the State decides if a person who is incarcerated will be killed
43 or not regardless what a judge may have ordered?
44
45 If the Terms of References for this Royal commission purportedly wouldn’t allow the
46 Royal Commission to investigate related issues then I view the onus is upon the
47 Commissioner to request the Terms of References to be amended/extended to enable
48 relevant issues to be investigated also.
49 .
50 It might be difficult but not impossible to assess when any lawyer did or didn’t appropriately
51 represent a client in litigation. As I have set out below I was able to check transcripts to discover
Page 39
1 where previously a barrister had failed proper representation. Because Lawyer X and others like
2 her who acted in conflict with their positions as being an Officer of the Court it is therefore that
3 the credibility of the administration of justice itself is in question. The failure of the Legal
4 Service Commission to take appropriate action when matters were reported also underlines this.
5 In essence lawyers being Officers of the Court when admitted to the bar then are deemed not to
6 do anything wrong no matter the lawyer did so and as such any complaint usually, at least to my
7 understanding is railroaded. As I recall it my complaint to the Legal Service Commission in
8 2017 (Re Carl Williams and his father George) also so to say went nowhere. Likewise so with
9 (as she then was) Chief Justice Warren of the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Victorian Police,
10 the coroner, etc.
11
12 While I am not and never was a legal practitioner not uncommon opposing parties after litigation
13 would give me the understanding that their lawyers feared my involvement with a party I
14 assisted/represented as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and (now retired) Professional Advocate. Not
15 uncommon a Counsel would seek to have hearing adjourned because my kind of strategy was
16 what they had a problem to deal with albeit no judge ever conceded to do so, making clear that
17 as long as I was within the rules of the court conducting my cross-examination then I am
18 permitted to continue unrestricted.
19 .
20 With nearly 40 years of experiences at the bar table in various capacities I have often exposed
21 the rot that eventuates in the courts. Far too often in my view judges have allowed
22 unlawful/deceptive conduct by prosecutors, their witnesses and the lawyers themselves and
23 denied a party a FAIR and PROPER trial. Hence that this submission is of some length.
24
25 Anyone who were to hold that Lawyer X scandal is exceptional simply in my view doesn’t
26 understand/comprehend how rotten to the core the legal system, if one can call it that, is like an
27 ever growing cancer.
28
29 Lawyer X conduct and those like her might be compared to being like pavers in a paved road
30 where underneath is hiding a gigantic sink hole. The moment one start to replace some of the
31 pavers one loosen the structure and the gigantic sinkhole is then taking over. This is how I view
32 this issue with lawyer X and others like her is developing that it now will expose not just the
33 unlawful/illegal conduct of lawyer X, the police and others but that the entire legal system in real
34 terms is not a proper legal system at all. It has a cancerous growth within it like a sink hole. Like
35 a house of card the entire purported administration of justice turns out to be no more but merely
36 a form of gangster operating a KANGAROO COURT/STAR CHAMBER COURT system
37 purporting to be an IMPARTIAL administration of justice. That is my evaluation after spending
38 nearly 40 years at the bar tab le exposing often the rot within the administration of justice.
39
40 I quote below a publication of a recent media article that very much appears to underline as to
41 what I have set out below.
42 .
43 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/10/deeper-wider-longer-lawyer-x-inquiry-
44 reveals-corruption-of-justice-system
45 Deeper, wider, longer: Lawyer X inquiry reveals corruption of justice system
46
47 On 20 June 1994 a person suggested for me to visit Mr John Abbott at his Dane Centre. I did so.
48 When I attended to mr John Abbott he was raving on about how he was robbed of his house, etc.
49 I commented that in my view the Registrar had acted unlawfully and he should follow legal
50 procedures to seek a review, etc. Well the court so to say threw out his case on basis of being
51 beyond the time limit provided for in the legislation. I urged Mr John Abbott to appeal this as I
Page 40
1 view a Registrars decision cannot be subjected to any time limit for review as a Registrar is not
2 an Officer of the court when acting as a Registrar and hence no valid judicial decision was made.
3 Mr John Abbott appealed the decision and in October 1994 His Honour Kay J then the senior
4 judge of the full court made clear that there can never be a time limit on a review of a Registrars
5 decision. I can state His Honour in other cases ruled likewise where a person purportedly had
6 exceeded to time period allowed for a review. However His Honour Kay J also made clear that
7 the Registrar having acted on court orders therefore was not subject to the appeal process and
8 could not be held accountable. To me this was utter and sheer nonsense, as where a Registrar
9 purportedly acts like anyone else, to execute court orders but does in fact violate the very court
10 orders as His Honour Kay J acknowledged the Registrar had done, then the Registrar should
11 have been held accountable for CONTEMPT OF COURT, etc. And this is where we have the
12 problem the courts often uses DOUBLE STANDARDS that not uncommon I was exposing to
13 the extent that His Honour Kay J in other proceedings even asked me to leave the court room,
14 which I refused to do as I was entitled to be in the court room, on the basis that I would use in
15 other litigation what His Honour stated in a hearing. I commented that if His Honour didn’t use
16 DOUBLE STANDARDS then I couldn’t use it as such.
17 Despite the time limits not applying to a review one find judges nevertheless enforcing this to
18 unsuspected litigants in person. As such, the judges themselves are a problem within the legal
19 system.
20 While Mr John Abbott did not succeed to get his house back despite that the Registrar had acted
21 in violation of court orders at least he became more conscious that seeking to follow the legal
22 processes was in many ways better then as the leader of the then notorious BLACKSHIRT to
23 promote issues that I held should not have been promoted. What however is clear is that many a
24 citizen has to incur huge cost to try to pursue JUSTICE and this where I view any competent
25 judicial officer should have avoided any drawn out litigation course if just the judicial officer
26 was competent in what was the issues before the court/tribunal.
27
28 This underlines that whole a lawyer may attain a law degree and practice and is appointed to be a
29 judge in the end where such a person lacks any proper understanding/comprehension about
30 relevant constitutional issues relating to the issues before the court then this already undermines
31 any proper administration of justice to eventuate.
32
33 Where I was attending to the Registry on behalf of a law firm for their client, I discovered with a
34 search of the files that an about 86 page Affidavit was on file of the other party but never served
35 upon the party I attended for. So I copied the Affidavit. I then asked the Registrar if any decision
36 had been made in regard of this Affidavit as it never had been served and the Registrar checking
37 the file or purporting to do so announced that no decision had been made. So the party I attended
38 for then filed an appeal. But when the appeal was heard it turned out that the Registrar had
39 wrongly claimed that no decision had been made and because it had the appeal was thrown out.
40 The trial judge having a go at the lawyer for having filed an appeal when the decision was on
41 record. The fact that the Affidavit band other documents never had been served and the Registrar
42 had denied any decision had been made was ignored by the trial judge as after all his mentor was
43 the opposing barrister.
44 I may also add that while I was checking the court files I noticed how a lawyer (to which I didn’t
45 know his identity) was writing in a court file. A female was pulling apart the documents in
46 another file that she ended up with one pile of exhibits and another pile with loose pages of an
47 Affidavit. I also noticed how lawyers would dump the files back on the counter with no one in
48 attendance to secure the files, and this allowing anyone to remove unlawfully the files.
49 And with other issues it was clear to me that there is no proper supervision upon lawyers
50 accessing court files, as they are trusted as Officers of the Court to do the right thing, well
51 Lawyer X proved how trust worthy such a lawyer can be. And I had a habit to ask the trial judge
Page 41
1 in litigation to check the relevant documents if they existed on court file. Not uncommon a trial
2 judge would announce he had no particular document I referred to on court file. I would then
3 provide a sealed copy to the court, as I was always expecting that opponent lawyers may have
4 removed originals from the court filed. It should however be very obvious that where I came
5 across so much rot within what is supposed to be an administration of justice then it really was
6 an administration of Injustice!
7
8 To me lawyer X is merely one deteriorating paver in a street where most pavers are deteriorating
9 and to replace just one or some more isn’t going to do it. After all to loosen some pavers may
10 like a house of cards causes the collapse of the road and a gigantic sink hole then appears.
11 As I over the years have published in my books various incidents with the identity of judicial
12 officers concerned it is not something I need to fabricate as the judicial officers and lawyers
13 concern so far never even attempted to litigate against me for publishing the accounts.
14
15 This submission is extensive to some degree as to make clear that even if Lawyer X was to be
16 charged, convicted and perhaps imprisoned it still wouldn’t solve the cancerous growth within
17 the legal system. It doesn’t mean she should not be held legally accountable but that unless and
18 until the entire legal processes and so the administration of justice is held subject to a proper
19 investigation all this Royal Commission may appear to do in view of ordinary citizens is to do
20 another cover up by shielding other culprits.
21
22 When I was asked to represent Mr Colosimo and in the lobby was approached by the Public
23 advocate telling me that Mr Colosimo didn’t understand the law, my response was that he didn’t
24 understand the law. And eventually I succeeded in the appeal and also against the CONTEMPT
25 OF COURT proceedings against Mr Colosimo. However in the process we had VCAT member
26 during a hearing when Mr Colosimo stated that matters were affecting his health, she then
27 commented that it was self-inflicted as he was convicted of CONTEMPT OF COURT. This,
28 even so Her Honour Harbison J was on record in a previous hearing, when I had put this to Her
29 Honour, that in fact Mr Colosimo was not at all convicted. Then during a hearing Mr Colosimo
30 collapsed and the tribunal member ordered to clear the room leaving me with Mr Colosimo
31 alone. Absolutely no assistance at all. I then had to run around the building to find a first aid
32 person who then attended and called for an ambulance and Mr Colosimo then ended up in
33 hospital suspected of a heart attack. Again, in the end I succeeded in both cases but it underlines
34 how an innocent person can be subjected to inhumane treatment by judicial officers and can be
35 denied justice.
36
37 When then I was asked, as set out below, to investigate the vicious murder of Carl Williams and
38 other related matters, and ordinary not watching any television or buying newspapers and so
39 unaware of the TV series underbelly what that presented, I was unbias and open minded. Soon I
40 came across the writings by the Victorian Police ethical Standards Department to Carl Williams
41 lawyers about the Moti case and immediately I checked on the internet the decision of the High
42 Court of Australia in regard of this case and well I concluded that the Victorian Police Ethical
43 Standards Department wasn’t in my view particularly acting ethical at all but rather
44 deceiving/defrauding Carl Williams so his lawyers. After reading more documentation I
45 discovered that in fact Carl Williams father George Williams also had raised the High Court of
46 Australia Moti case decision but it appeared to me that the ATO (Australian Taxation Office)
47 lawyer had deceived George Williams and also so the courts in sub sequent litigation. Both are
48 no longer amongst the living but I view their story should be told. They were wronged and as I
49 did with the Colosimo case when representing him as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and
50 Professional Advocate (albeit free of any financial charges) I am not afraid to call a spade a
51 spade.
Page 42
1 I did raise my various concerns with the Victorian Ombudsman, the Coroner, Victorian Police
2 and also with Chief Justice Warren of the Supreme Court of Victoria but to no avail. This in my
3 view shows the extend of the cover-up. I raised in my various writings how I questioned the
4 conduct of lawyers who represented the Williams.
5 In my view there never was any proper investigation encompassing all relevant details merely so
6 to say ad hoc investigations and the coroner relied upon such ad hoc investigations refusing to do
7 a proper investigation.
8 In my view as I questioned then already in 2017 there was more to it all and I suspected that
9 someone with extensive knowledge of details was deliberately giving information to the media
10 as to perhaps set up the murder of Carl Williams as happened hours after the Herald Sun
11 published details.
12 If lawyer X was so rotten to the core to violate her position as an Officer of the Court and was
13 informing the Victorian Policed then what might have prevented her to do the same with the
14 media. After all Carl Williams suspected she was what he deemed to be a dog and she may very
15 well have, I assume, held that having Carl Williams ending up being killed was better than that
16 she was exposed. And the Victorian Police had also to gain to have Carl Williams murdered as
17 then they could ensure to reclaim the monies from the ATO, as they proved to do.
18 .
19 Currently it is unbeknown to most people to the extent that Lawyer X may have fabricated
20 matters at times when acting as a police informer. I understand there was a dispute between Carl
21 Williams and the Victorian Police that somehow he knew more then what he had stated, etc, and
22 as such if for example lawyer X had added stories she herself fabricated but unbeknown to Carl
23 Williams she had done so then obviously the Victorian Police accepting the rot coming from
24 lawyer X then were pursuing details Carl Williams simply never knew about.
25 In my view the murder of Carl Williams should be part of the Royal Commission (If the royal
26 commission in fact has the position to investigate as a Royal Commission as I refer to further
27 below) as I view Lawyer X involvement cannot be separated from this vicious murder
28 subsequently.
29 In essence the Williams were a gold mine for lawyers as the billing was ongoing and yet it
30 appears to me that lawyer X may have billed for attending to the Williams for ulterior purposes
31 such as fact finding and whatever else for the Victorian Police and not for the sake of the clients.
32 The issue of the prison boss to disappear weeks after the vicious murder of Carl Williams and
33 reportedly having also a copy of the CD with carl Williams confidential statements to the Police
34 further place in question the conduct of the Victorian Police the missing boss of the prison and
35 lawyer X.
36 We also had a police officer as I understood it concealing from the Ombudsman investigation
37 that he was the person who delivered a CD to Carl Williams in prison. And one then has to ask
38 were the copies later located burned at the same time of the CD that was provided to Carl
39 Williams and so the police officer spread unlawfully further copies to the prison boss and other
40 inmates in the prison as to setup the killing of Carl Williams?
41 There are numerous other issues that I questioned but to no avail.
42
43 When a court orders the incarceration of a person then the state is responsible for the prisoner’s
44 wellbeing, etc. Yet, to my knowledge at no time the court has ordered that the State is held
45 legally liable and demanded the State (so the relevant authorities) to account for the vicious
46 murder of Carl Williams. As such the courts are part of the elaborate cover up. Essentially I
47 view it was a C ONTEMOPT OF COURT for the authorities to have Carl Williams in their care
48 to be viciously murdered and yet as so often is occurring the courts cant bother to deal with the
49 authorities for this. The same often eventuates with children placed in care of the Department of
50 Human Services who then end up death. The children Court simply doesn’t then hold contempt
51 proceedings against DHS! Yet when an ordinary citizen is deemed to be in contempt of court
Page 43
1 then litigation is pursued. This is because too often indeed far too often the judges consider
2 themselves to be part of the government, even so they are not and never can be as to comply with
3 the requirements of the Letters patent to be an IMPARTIAL administration of justice.
4 Despite what I consider the elaborate deception by the ATO lawyers, as set out further below
5 also, they have nevertheless continued to do so to the extent that the child Dhakota was robbed
6 of her inheritance.
7 When I visited Roberta Williams in 2017 I indicated to Dhakota that she was at the age of one of
8 my granddaughters and I would seek to do for her what I would do for my granddaughter. Well,
9 a man’s worth is his word and I have every intention to keep my word. It should be made clear
10 that at no time was there any financial arrangements made between myself and the Williams as I
11 made clear from onset I provide my services free of charge. As I have done in the Colosimo case
12 and numerous others.
13
14 It in my view would be utter and sheer nonsense to limit any investigation to merely lawyer X
15 and ignoring the hotbed of unconstitutional/unlawful conduct involving the courts (including
16 tribunals) other lawyers, etc, as this is rather like drift sand that once you are getting sucked in
17 the vulture of lawyers who are corrupt and the judges involved will do whatever to such you out
18 of your finances, etc, and no humane consideration at all. The Colosimo case was in that regard a
19 clear example.
20 .
21 Having since my exposure of the Williams issues since 2017 now found a former police officer
22 having targeted me for malicious destruction of my private property and making clear the Chief
23 Commissioner of Police will do nothing about it, as so far he proved to do, then this further adds
24 to it all. However this does not deter me to pursue JUSTICE for Dhakota. After all her father is
25 no longer able to fight for her rights.
26
27 This submission will be of some extent as to set out that it is not just lawyer X but the entire
28 legal system that is in question. Why on earth did former Chief Justice Warren not have matters
29 investigated where I made known that there was deception by lawyers in court proceedings? It is
30 that the integrity of the court was to be protected no matter any wrongdoing and ignore the undue
31 suffering of accused persons? Is it that at all cost there has to be a cover up regardless how
32 unlawful this conduct might be?
33 .
34 With the colosimo case I requested transcripts of previous hearings without cost as I explained I
35 didn’t charge for my representation and to the credit of Her Honour Harbison J she did order the
36 transcript to be provided, having also confirmed my submission that an application for
37 CONTEMPT OF COURT could not be withdrawn by the party filing it because once filed it
38 becomes the property of the court/tribunal. After reading through the transcripts it was evidently
39 clear that Mr Colosimo had been (while then represented by a barrister) through at least 5
40 hearing for CONTEMPT OF COURT but no one ever seemed to have realized that Mr Colosimo
41 was never formally charged with CONTEMPT OF COURT As such neither could have been
42 convicted as a VCAT member subsequently albeit wrongly claimed he was.
43 It makes me wonder if I were to read the various transcript of court cases where a person was
44 convicted by a jury or pleaded guilty if those transcript may reveal a total failure by lawyers to
45 appropriately represent a client in each case. After all if lawyer X was a registered or otherwise
46 police informer against her own client in violation to being an Officer of the Court then I suspect
47 more than likely this might have borne out in representation.
48 Because Lawyer X was acting as an Officer of the Court then this clearly implicate the Court
49 also.
50 Because in my view the publication of the details in the Herald Sun was likely deliberate to set
51 up the murder of Carl Williams then I view that the Herald Sun was part of a murder plot even if
Page 44
1 without intending to do so, and should be held legally accountable for this and the details of the
2 person who provided the information to the Herald Sun be revealed.
3 No one in my view can be excused to hide details of a murder plot as they by their publication
4 might be deemed to be an accessory of the murder that subsequently eventuated within hours of
5 the publication. If therefore Lawyer X was the person leaking details to the herald sun and/or the
6 Victorian Police then this I view is very relevant.
7 Again I maintain a reopening of the coroner’s inquest should be required to investigate all
8 relevant aspects. To discover the dates when the various CDs were burned may also expose the
9 culprit behind the setup of the murder of Carl Williams.
10 .
11 Albeit I never read the order of any court regarding prohibiting publication of the identity of
12 Lawyer X, if there is any, to prohibit the identification of Informer 3838 also known as Lawyer
13 X I view that the courts are bound to provide judgments which are in principle to serve the
14 general community. Any prohibition which is to prevent identification of a particular person but
15 in the process places in jeopardy innocent persons, in this case lawyers I view is contrary to the
16 public interest where the particular person can change the identity at will to prevent knowledge
17 as to her whereabouts.
18 .
19 I will give an example:
20 Some years ago when assisting a legal firm as a CONSTITUTIONAL advisor I was asked to drive a visiting
21 legal practitioner, with who I had a meeting, to his daughter. I was introduced to her and then advised she
22 was a barrister and a single mother. That in itself was not an issue to me. Years later when then I was in
23 2017 investigating matters regarding the Williams and so the vicious murder of Carl Williams I came across
24 this barrister bill to the Williams. From media reports on the Internet I understood that Lawyer X was an
25 unmarried mother. As such it was obvious that I considered the possibility that this was lawyer X. I also
26 came across the name of Sarah Garden-Wilson also a barrister who billed as well as another barrister again a
27 single mother who also had litigation about billing for a client (Williams) with Sarah Garden-Wilson. So I
28 had to check which was the real Lawyer X or who I could assume might be. I held that where the barristers
29 were still practicing then they obviously couldn’t be Lawyer X. But surely this is utter and sheer nonsense to
30 have to go through this where all that is needed to reveal the true identity of lawyer X when she was acting
31 for certain persons.
32
33 In my view to have allegedly a court order to prevent the identification of lawyer X but then
34 placing in jeopardy the credibility of other barristers is not at all to the credibility of the courts.
35 In my view any ban should be deemed unconstitutional and invalid as it denies a proper
36 identification of the person who was Lawyer X. Indeed, there may be some or many citizens who
37 might be able to reveal critical details about this person if they are made aware of the name of
38 Lawyer X. It then is the question iof the courts approved to conceal the identity of lawyer X for
39 no other purpose but to seek to cover up for the involvement and the extent of the involvement of
40 the courts themselves and any politicians.
41 .
42 In particular where many a convicted criminal may have been subjected to the unlawful and I
43 view treasonous conduct of any lawyer then the courts must not pursue any method to cover yup
44 matters. There must be a frank and open acknowledgement of the identity of Lawyer X as she
45 was at the times when she I view treasonously acted against her being an Officer of the Court.
46 No matter what this Royal Commission might pursue and come up with in the end it will always
47 be under a stain that it was nothing more but a tool to hide the offender(s) against the interest of
48 the general community.
49
50 With reportedly more lawyers involved having been informers contrary to their duties and
51 obligations as an Officer of the Court then surely it makes no sense to prevent citizens to be
52 aware of the identities of all those lawyers involved.

Page 45
1 Surely it is a gross injustice to allow people convicted in such circumstances to be kept in

2 imprisonment for a further time where their conviction is in question.
3 It in my view is essential for the credibility of any Royal Commission that citizens can
4 make submissions knowing the identity of those informers. Not to reveal the identities of
5 those informers rather I view undermine the credibility of the Royal Commission. As such
6 the court should be petitioned to immediately set aside/withdraw any orders which may in
7 part or in whole prevent publication/naming the identity of any informer to which the
8 Royal Commission is required to investigate.
9
11 Convention)
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
18 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
19 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
20 END QUOTE
21
22 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
23 QUOTE
24 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
25 the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
26 Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
27 are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
28 END QUOTE
29
31 QUOTE
32 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
33 terms that are just to both.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 It is clear that the Government of the Day cannot provide any system that some Royal
37 Commission serve the very lawyer at possible harm of innocent lawyers nor that the courts can
38 do so where they must b e and remain to be IMPARTIAL administration of justice.
39 .
40 As the High Court of Australia itself appeared to conclude that lawyer X herself refused any
41 witness protection service e and so placed herself and her children at risk.
42 .
43 If the courts and the government is going to operate outside the legal principles embedded in the
44 constitution that a constitution is between the State and its people and not between the state and
45 just one person then we have no democratic system at all but a pretended democratic system.
46
47 In my view any orders to prohibit the identification of lawyer X is contrary to PUBLIC
48 INTEREST and indeed harmful to many honest hardworking decent lawyers.
49
50 As I set out below I question the vazlidity of this Royal commission as to matters I have set out.
51
52 While Roberta Williams the former wife of slain Carl Williams did not herself ask me to
53 investigate the vicious death of Carl Williams she did however provide to me subsequently some
54 documentation which I carefully scanned and documented in various formats to make it easy to
55 refer back to and then returned the documentation and copies of the scanned material to her.
Page 46
1 Regretfully when finally she did give me a hard drive formally of Carl Williams she within 2
2 days demanded I return it. I didn’t then b other to copy it as I held this to be inappropriate.
3 However I do view that by her doing so she became her own worst enemy as now from details
4 released on the internet by the media it is clear that important details were kept from me. Indeed,
5 I view that by this she also acted against the interest of the child Dhakota. After all had those
6 details been within my knowledge I could have exposed it more appropriately then just the media
7 providing so to say bread crumbs. Indeed, I view that more than likely the ATO (Australian
8 Taxation Office) would never have succeeded against the Estate of the late George Williams.
9 .
10 I did in fact also question the conduct of some lawyers who had acted for Carl Williams as to me
11 there simply was no valid explanation why they had failed to act appropriately for Carl Williams,
12 at least that is how it appeared to me. Likewise I questioned the conduct of lawyers who had
13 acted for George Williams and my writings were clear that I held that the lawyers of the ATO
14 were deceiving/misleading the courts to obtain orders adverse to George Williams and later
15 against his estate.
16
17 Soon or later. If not already eventuating, innocent persons who are working in the administration
18 of justice and other bystanders may end up being killed because someone or some persons
19 simply are sick and tired of the rot that goes on within the administration of justice, the lies and
20 deception that involved so called law enforcement agencies, etc.
21 .
22 For any Chief Commissioner of Police to as I understand it to claim that desperate times justify
23 desperate conduct (including unlawful conduct) in my view shows the extent how perverted the
24 system is. We lack democracy if a person like a Chief Commissioner of Police is willing to
25 justify treasonous and other unlawful conduct to suit his means.
26
27 Law enforcement can only exist if the law enforcement authorities and the administration of
28 justice are conducting matters within the framework of the law and not beyond.
29
30 As the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
31
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
35
36 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
37 state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
38 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
39 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 It is therefore a PUBLIC INTEREST issue when a person, such as I am doing, seek to act as a
43 Sentry to hold those legally accountable who in my view violated constitutional and other legal
44 issues
45
46 I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and (now retired) Professional Advocate spending decades in
47 courtrooms, including assisting/representing lawyers.
48
49 In the matter of Legal Service Commission v Johnson (a barrister for 22 years) I was asked to
50 represent Mr Johnson. The problem was that the only details he provided was what he had
51 submitted to the tribunal. Smithers J in his final judgment noted that I did not place certain
52 information before him. But my position as a Professional advocate was not to deceive the
53 tribunal with fabricated arguments. As Mr Johnson didn’t disclose to me any other relevant
Page 47
1 information and neither so his financial circumstances then it was not for me to fabricate some
2 just to pretend there are issues to consider. I was limited indeed severely limited by what
3 barrister Johnson provided me with and again that was only the material he himself had emailed
4 to the tribunal. Still after the 4 hearings Mr Johnson gave me the understanding he was very
5 disappointed that instead of a lifelong disqualification to act as a legal representatives it was
6 reduced to a mere 2 ½ years. In his view as I understood it to be from what he stated was I had
7 been far too good in representing him as he had actually hoped to be banned for life As he
8 couldn’t accept how some lawyers and judges were conducting matters.
9
10 As I understand it Dixon CJ was once stating that lawyer’s better keep ahead of their
11 professional conduct as otherwise even aliens from outer space might prove to do better. Albeit I
12 was not an alien from outer space but from The Netherlands I view that I often proved this to be
13 true.
14
15 Unless there is a major clean up within the legal system and the Legal Service Commission
16 rather than to pursue lawyers daring to criticize their fellow lawyers being pursued should
17 concentrate upon the lawyers like lawyer X who undermine the IMPARTIAL administration of
18 justice.
19
20 It is claimed, albeit I am unaware of the precise terms of any court order about Lawyer X
21 (Informant 3838) as to her true identity. In fact when I was trying to find out who really was the
22 person I did some limited research and then held it likely to be Sarah Garden-Wilson. Just then it
23 then was that my wife explained she still is a practicing lawyer. As such this utter and sheer
24 nonsense not to identify the alleged lawyer means that another lawyer might be wrongly
25 assumed to be the Lawyer X person.
26 .
27 We have a federal constitution which was in part build upon the provisions such as the first 14
28 Amendments of the USA constitution. Regrettably most lawyers/judges/politicians do not grasp
29 this as they either couldn’t bother to research the true intentions of the Framers of the
30 Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) or simply were unable
31 to understand/comprehend its application. Because the states were created within section 106 of
32 this constitution then any Royal Commission of a State is bound by the legal principles
33 embedded in this constitution.
34 .
35 And political freedom is one that is clearly enshrined in the constitution as was (finally) also
36 made known by Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013,
37 S172/2012 & S179/2012
38
39 As such as this is a political issue where the Government of the Day via its law enforcement
40 agencies and others wrongly influenced the (IMPARTIAL) administration of justice then the
41 suspicion of the true dispense of justice by the courts is and remains in question, this in particular
42 where the courts continue to leave judgements in question on foot.
43 In my view the courts themselves should immediately set aside all questionable
44 judgments/orders, this even without the need for any person to appeal. If the courts fails to do so
45 than clearly it is not a proper administration of justice at all.
46
47 As I indicated the ATO has in my view ongoing perverted the course of justice whenever in any
48 litigation it relied upon AVER (AVERMENT) where I on 5 August 2006 defeated the
49 Commonwealth as to the usage of AVERMENT.
50 As such there are numerous lawyers, including those in the ATO) who are willing to pervert the
51 course of justice to suit their own goals.
Page 48
1 Regretfully, as I discovered former Chief Justice Warren was ignoring this all.
2 .
3 In my view Chief Commissioner of Police Mr Graham Ashton should stand aside if not
4 resign because I view his statements about why the police used Lawyer X was false and
5 misleading and somehow seems to try to justify the police themselves violating the
6 separation of powers and to place themselves above the rule of law.
7
8 The police and other law enforcement authorities should understand that their aim is not and
9 should not to try to score convictions but rather to present all relevant details before a competent
10 court of law and then let the court make the decision of the accused is innocent or guilty.
11 The Josepha van Rooy case in my view was a clear example how some 5 police officers, a clerk
12 of court and a deputy clerk of court were seeking to pervert the course of justice. As I had about
13 2 years prior to the trial submitted to the prosecutor there was NO CASE TO ANSWER upon
14 which they then withdrew 2 of the 3 criminal charges. After a 5 days presentation by the
15 Prosecutor His Honour Wood J at the conclusion of the prosecutors submissions then directed
16 the jury to return a verdict NOT GUILTY as the prosecutor had not made out his case. Yet I
17 understood Josepha van Rooy had previous legal advice to plea guilty because of the
18 overwhelming evidence and witnesses of the police against her. Well, it turned out the police had
19 filed an audio tape that purportedly was of what eventuated. Just that unbeknown to the police
20 Josepha van Rooy had also recorded the same incident and it was by an expert established the
21 police had cut and paste on 112 occasions the tape. While the police sought to claim that this was
22 due to inadvertly switching on and off the tape recorded the expert statement was that there were
23 no sounds on the tape showing that the recorded had been switched on and off during the
24 recording process.
25 It is therefore clear that the police are perjuring themselves to make claims to try to score
26 convictions as well as conspire to pervert the course of justice.
27
28 What kind of law enforcement can this be deemed other than promotional enforcement nothing
29 to do with enforcing the rule of law.
30
31 What we should not ignore is what then eventuate also to the family members of those who were
32 wrongly convicted.
33 .
34 Was it Lawyer X who perhaps with the police set up the murder of Carl Williams in view that he
35 was suspecting if not knew she was a police informer against her own clients in violation to her
36 oath as an OFFICER OF THE Court?
37
38 Was she the person who gave confidential details to the media to ensure the Herald Sun
39 published details hours before Carl Williams was murdered?
40 .
41 It appears to me to be clear that the Victorian Police didn’t want to stick to the agreement to pay
42 the purported ATO debt of George Williams and so it ensured that the payment was in a holding
43 account and well have Carl Williams murdered and get the monies back might have been a
44 solution.
45
46 It appears to me that so to say Lawyer X was as I understand it playing the field sleeping with
47 police, some clients she represented, charging them for representation while using details as a
48 police informer and then the general community is prohibited to know her identity supposing to
49 protect her and her children where she could simply use a different identity. What kind of
50 JUSTICE is this when people unbeknown to her and other treasonous lawyers are hiding behind
51 a screen and so their victims may never know they too were duped?
Page 49
1
2 And lawyer X may have defrauded clients by billing them for consultations/representations
3 where her real motives were against her client(s).
4
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
8 saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
9 they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 Likewise I hold that if a lawyer attends to a client for ulterior purposes then strictly in the interest
13 of the client then the lawyer cannot charge the client for this and to do so I view constitutes
14 fraud.
15
16 Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
17 QUOTE
18 In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual
19 injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is
20 of the essence of the conspiracy.”
21 END QUOTE
22
23 Hence, where a lawyer contrary to being an Officer of the Court acts as an informer against her
24 clients interest then I view this is in essence a conspiracy.
25
27 QUOTE
28 Mr. BARTON: At first I thought it would be necessary to have some provision of this sort, but now I think
29 it is unnecessary. In the clause it is prescribed that [start page 1183] an elector "shall have only one vote"; as
30 to the Senate and as to the House of Representatives I intend to move, on the recommittal of the clause, that
31 the matter shall be turned into a direct prohibition; that is, that "no elector shall vote more than once." A
32 breach will be a Statutory misdemeanor, and the offender can be punished, this being an Imperial Statute, in
33 the same way as he would be for a breach of any other Imperial Statute applying to the colonies, such as the
34 merchant shipping laws. Lest there should be any doubt in connection with the giving of a vote, when there is
35 a distinct law against it, there is a passage in Russell on "Crimes," which the legal members of the
36 Convention will be satisfied with. It is in the fifth edition, page 192:
37 Where an offence is not so at common law, but made an offence by Act of Parliament, an indictment
38 will lie where there is a substantive prohibitory clause in such Statute, though there be afterward a
39 particular provision and a particular remedy given. Thus, an unqualified person may be indicted for
40 acting as an attorney contrary to the 6 and 7 Vict., c. 73, a. 2, although sec. 35 and sec. 36 enact that in
41 case any person shall so act he shall be incapable of recovering his fees, and such offence shall be
42 deemed a contempt of court, and punishable accordingly.
43 That is to say, although the Statute provides a distinct means of punishment, yet if by the disregard of the
44 prohibition a misdemeanor is committed, a court can convict the offender of that misdemeanor and may fine
45 or imprison him. The passage continues:
46 And it is stated as an established principle that when a new offence is created by an Act of Parliament
47 and a penalty is annexed to it by a separate and substantive clause, it is not necessary for the
48 prosecutor to sue for the penalty, but he may proceed on the prior clause on the ground of its being a
49 misdemeanor; and wherever a Statute forbids the doing of a thing, the doing of it wilfully, although
50 without any corrupt motive, is indictable.
51 Wherever the Statute, as I intend to ask the House to make it in this case, says that no elector shall vote
52 more than once, there is a distinct prohibition, and voting more than once wilfully will be a crime and
53 misdemeanor, and the courts will be able to punish by fine or imprisonment. They will have the distinct
54 power. There is in all of these colonies an electoral law, and power to alter it, until Parliament otherwise
Page 50
1 provides, and if there are not distinct provisions for punishment for such offences, it is still in the power of
2 the State law to subject the offenders to such punishment as it prescribes. But even if that were not done, the
3 case is distinctly met by the Statutory prohibition, which will be imposed by the form in which we propose to
4 put it, and, I think, my hon. friend will agree that his new clause will not be necessary.
5 Mr. ISAACS: I suppose you propose to put in words to make it a misdemeanor.
6 Mr. BARTON: If necessary; but where the statute expressly forbids it is a misdemeanor without further
7 words.
8 Dr. QUICK: Without any corrupt motive is it indictable?
9 Mr. BARTON: Although there may be no corruption in the doing of the act, if it is done intentionally it is
10 indictable.
11 Mr. HIGGINS: What words do you propose to put in?
12 Mr. BARTON: I propose to alter the words "each elector shall have only one vote" to "no elector
13 shall vote more than once," and that being a distinct statutory prohibition will meet the case.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 https://insidestory.org.au/dont-mention-the-law/
17 Don’t mention the law
18 QUOTE
19 If judges don’t have a clear idea of how police should behave, where does that leave
20 everyone else?
21 END QUOTE
22
23 https://insidestory.org.au/dont-mention-the-law/
24 Don’t mention the law
25 QUOTE
26 The courts’ rulings sometimes vary. Late in 2011, the High Court stopped the prosecution
27 of the Solomon Islands attorney-general for alleged child sex offences because Australian
28 officials connived in his illegal deportation. A few weeks earlier, Victoria’s Court of
29 Appeal permitted the state’s trial judges to toss out evidence because of Victoria Police’s
30 widespread practice of obtaining search warrants without actually swearing (that is, orally
31 declaring) the truth of the affidavits they presented to magistrates. But when Tony Mokbel
32 responded by seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas to drug offences because the evidence
33 against him was founded on illegal warrants obtained by anti-drug and anti-gangland
34 taskforce officers, Victoria’s parliament hurriedly stepped in. Within hours of a Supreme
35 Court ruling on Mokbel’s application — which justice Simon Whelan said that he would
36 have rejected anyway — parliament rushed through retrospective legislation validating
37 over a decade’s worth of invalid search warrants.
38 Attorney-general Robert Clark said parliament wasn’t excusing the police’s failings, only
39 remedying all their “grave” consequences. Victoria Police could scarcely have missed the
40 lesson: the courts or, failing them, parliament could be counted on to make good any and
41 all of their mistakes and misdeeds on the way to ending the gangland war. It was during
42 this period that Victoria Police first acknowledged that its handling of Lawyer X may have
43 been an error.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 In my view laws are only valid if they are within constitutional provisions and not in violation of
47 it and the moment any person formally object to the application of any legal provision it is not
Page 51
1 for the court to provide lip service to the legislation in challenge but to appropriately establish if
2 such legal provision under challenge is within constitutional limitations and not in violation of it.
3 A clear example is the compulsory voting which after a 5 year litigation I successfully defeated,
4 yet despite this judges are ordinary nevertheless enforcing compulsory voting. This may
5 underline how extensive throughout the Commonwealth those exercising their powers in the seat
6 of justice are ruling on their misconceptions without having any true understanding and
7 comprehension about the relevant constitutional provisions.
8
9 In my view if the police used information obtained from an informer in violation to his/her
10 obligations toward the accused then the police should have disclosed this to the court and failing
11 to do so the police themselves must be deemed to have concealed relevant details from the
12 court. It is therefore clear that the police and other laws enforcement authorities are manipulating
13 the legal processes not to pursue justice but to perhaps advance their own future positions.
14 .
15 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-07/informer-3838-not-only-lawyer-to-turn-victoria-police-
16 informer/10789844
17 Lawyers were used as informants last year,

18 prominent gangland barrister claims
19
20 QUOTE
21 The scandal embroiling the Victorian criminal justice system widened yesterday with revelations the newly formed royal
22 commission into potentially tainted gangland convictions will broaden its scope after police disclosed "further informants
23 who held obligations of confidentiality" — including other lawyers.
24 The state's Attorney-General, Jill Hennessy, refused to say whether they were still acting lawyers, but the ABC
25 understands a further six lawyers were also police informers.
26 Ms Garde-Wilson said she had known for a while that informer 3838 — a gangland lawyer, also known as Lawyer X,
27 who covertly informed on her clients — was not the only one.
28 "We got information about 12 months ago that current lawyers were registered," Ms Garde-Wilson said.
29 "Given the High Court decision, wouldn't you deregister them as a matter of course?"
30 In a searing judgement released to the public in December last year, the High Court described the police's use of informer
31 3838 as "reprehensible conduct" which involved sanctioning "atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police
32 officer."
33 The court also stated it was greatly "hoped that it will never be repeated".
34 The High Court's criticism came after several investigations into the use of Lawyer X, including the Kellam inquiry,
35 which found negligence of a high order in the management of human source information by Victoria Police.
36 The Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) investigation was led by former Supreme Court
37 judge Murray Kellam and noted Victoria Police failings when it came to the use of human sources had the potential to
38 have adversely affected the administration of justice in Victoria.
39 Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton has previously used Melbourne's gangland wars to justify the use of
40 informer 3838, saying "desperate times called for desperate measures".
41 However, the use of lawyers as human sources now appears to have been occurring for two decades, after it was also
42 revealed informer 3838 had been on the books since 1995, a decade earlier than first disclosed by police.
43 The number of criminal convictions that could be tainted is set to balloon as a result.
44 "This is the worst legal scandal in Australian history," Ms Garde-Wilson said.
45 "Hundreds of cases could have been compromised."

Page 52
1 END QUOTE
2
3 While I understood from comments of Mr Graham Ashton Chief commissioner of police that the
4 conduct to use lawyers as informers against their own clients was stopped years ago, this
5 appears to be an elaborate lie if Sarah Garden-Wilson is telling the truth.
6 In my view our political rights are to know the truth.
7
8 https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-revelation-that-has-made-certain-melbourne-lawyers-very-nervous-
9 20190206-p50w3u.html
10
11 The revelation that has made certain Melbourne lawyers very nervous
12
13 By John Silvester
14 February 6, 2019 — 7.24pm
15 QUOTE
16 The experienced detective was surprised when a barrister rang out of the blue to say a judge
17 wanted to meet him for an off-the-record chat.
18 The judge and the cop had known each other for some time as they rose to prominence in their
19 respective professions, but this meeting was not about reminiscing about the old days. The judge
20 wanted to pass on a tip about an unsolved crime.
21 On Wednesday, the royal commission into police use of a lawyer as an informer known as 3838
22 was hit by two bombshells that exploded simultaneously. One was that she was first registered as
23 a police informer in 1995, not 2005 as initially claimed, and the second was that an undisclosed
24 number of lawyers had acted as informers.
25 This led to commissioner Mal Hyde resigning on Wednesday due to a perceived conflict of
26 interest because he was part of Victoria Police command in 1995 – although he had no dealings or
27 knowledge of 3838. It is also likely to blow out the December deadline set for the commission’s
28 final report.
29 It is now entirely possible the commission will end up examining the ethics and practices of both
30 police and lawyers and it also explains why the use of information from 3838 wasn’t seen by
31 detectives as breaking a perceived immovable line.
32 END QUOTE
33 I for one do not have an issue with a judge to report what the judge perceive to have been a
34 criminal offence where this was obtained as a citizen or having been stated in open court under
35 evidence. In my view while a judge is an Officer of the Court he doesn’t have the same
36 confidentiality applicable as there is between a lawyer and a client. Hence a judge becoming
37 aware of a criminal offence having been committed, even if it relates to an unsolved criminal
38 case is well entitled and indeed obligated to report the details he/she became aware of. If the
39 judge however knowingly concealed information for a long time and merely reports matters for
40 ulterior purposes then I view the conduct is to some extend unlawful and may amount to a
41 conspiracy.
42 .
43 To use a hypothetical incident;
44 A police officer is standing on the footpath talking to a person when he notice that there is a motorist
45 unlawfully parking. He tells the person to whom he is in conversation: You see this motorist, he last week
46 defeated me in court and I will now pay him back to charge him for illegal parking. It is clear that the police
47 officer is not pursuing the motorist purely for violation of road regulations/laws but to do a pay back and so
48 misuses his powers for purposes not acceptable. Hence, the police officer MOTIVE is unlawful.
49
50 Likewise if the police pursues criminal charges by employing a person being it an Officer of the
51 Court or otherwise to violate the person’s duties and obligations to score or seek to score a
Page 53
1 conviction then I view the conviction cannot stand and must be set aside as well as the person
2 doing so and the official (police or otherwise) should be charged accordingly. The conviction
3 would be the product of a conspiracy and unlawful conduct and no fair minded person could
4 accept such a conviction to remain standing. If this means to release prisoners who were
5 convicted as such then so be it. One can only blame those who were involved in the scams.
6 .
7 When police officers make statements but have not signed them then I view there was affectively
8 no valid warrant and I view the backdating by the Parliament undermines the IMPARTIAL
9 administration of justice and cannot be deemed valid in laws. You cannot pursue JUSTICE by
10 allowing criminal conduct by those who were to claim to pursue JUSTICE.
11 In my view any amendment of legislation to be backdates is precisely what the Framers of the
12 constitution held inappropriate.
13 .
14 Hansard 19-4--1897 Constitution Convention Debates
15 QUOTE
16 Mr. BARTON: I will look into these matters. Notwithstanding the able draughtsmanship of the 1891 Bill,
17 there are several clauses not quite in their right place in it, and it would be well to alter their order. The
18 Drafting Committee will look into that matter, and at the end of the proceedings will ask hon. members to
19 give their attention to such alterations as they may suggest. It will be better to transpose some of the clauses.
20 With reference to Sir Edward Braddon's amendment, which is put in a better form than that suggested
21 by Mr. Symon, I do not think there is any actual necessity for it. I find in Maxwell on "Interpretation
22 of Statutes," 1st edition, page 192, this passage:
23 It is where the enactment would prejudicially affect vested rights, or the legal character of past Acts,
24 that the presumption against a retrospective operation is strongest. Every Statute which takes away or
25 impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or create a new obligation, or imposes a new duty,
26 or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past, must be
27 presumed, out of respect to the Legislature, to be intended not to have a retrospective operation. Thus
28 the provision of the Statute of Frauds, that no action should be brought to charge any person on any
29 agreement made in consideration of marriage, unless the agreement were in writing, was held not to
30 apply to an agreement which had been made before the Act was passed. The Mortmain Act, in the
31 same way, was held not to apply to a devise made before it was enacted. So it was held that the Act of 8
32 & 9 Vict., c. 106, which made all wagers void, and enacted that no action should be brought or
33 maintained for a wager, applied only to wagers made after the Act was passed.
34 Sir GEORGE TURNER: There is no doubt about those cases, I should say.
35 Mr. BARTON: In subsequent editions these examples are multiplied. The principle underlying the
36 matter is this: that a court in construing an Act assumes that Parliament never intended to do a thing
37 which is unjust. I am quite sure that Mr. Symon will agree that the provision is not necessary.
38 Mr. SYMON: Hear, hear.

39 END QUOTE
40
41 In my view where the police blatantly disrespected the rule of law, perhaps so if they unlawfully
42 can obtain a warrant and afterwards then file a substitute statement having then knowledge of
43 what eventuated after the warrant issue is precisely what turned out now to be the conduct of the
44 Victorian Police to have backdated statement sworn by police officers.
45
46 In my view each and every time a police officer engaged in signing a backdated statement then
47 the police officer and anyone involved in preparing such backdated statement must be considered
48 to have conspired to pervert the course of justice and should be charged accordingly. After all the
49 making of a false/misleading statement in itself is a criminal offence to have this sworn/affirmed.
50 The lax of the courts to not uphold the rule of law as existed on each occasion is in my view
51 precisely why police officers are taking the mickey out of legal requirements and manipulate
52 matters to suit themselves.
Page 54
1
2 This is where the ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE itself is on trial for its failure to act as an
3 IMPARTIAL administration of justice.
4 In my view every court should have rejected the backdated legislation as being unconstitutional
5 as it flies against the right of any person to be provided with a FAIR and PROPER trail.
6 .
7 As I set out below my daughter at age 2 (yes age 2) was the subject to a warrant issue which the
8 Supreme Court of Victoria about 5 days later set aside, it being in violation to earlier supreme
9 Court of Victoria orders. As such I know too well how the police and other authorities are not
10 just b ending the rules but in fact are disregarding the rule of law even to the extent of going to
11 an old peoples home to have a former JP signing warrants that she was no longer permitted to
12 sign nor with her age declining mental understanding could possibly be aware what shed signed.
13
14 The mentality that the courts can ignore violations by lawyers is also well known to me. In 2016
15 in Buloke Shire v Schorel-Hlavka I provided a list of violations by the lawyers to court rules,
16 court orders, etc, and the judge simply announced he was not going to deal with that, albeit
17 acknowledged that had I made one of those violations I would have lost my case.
18 It is long overdue that lawyers and judges as well as others like police officers are held legally
19 accountable and no longer the Parliament misuses its legislative powers to circumvent legal
20 breaches by them.
21 .
22 And there is a lot more to this. It is not just utter disgraceful but a clear treasonous conduct by
23 those involved. As I exposed that in violation of constitutional requirement that any legislation is
24 published in the Gazette the Parliaments have gone about to merely register legislation. As such
25 courts are enforcing purported legislation which are not legislation at all. Also legislation is
26 purportedly passed through both Houses of Parliament where they are in fact violating
27 constitutional provisions/requirements/prohibitions.
28
29 Because we have a system of having lawyers appointed to the High court of Australia who may
30 know next to nothing if anything at all about the constitution and its embedded legal principles
31 wed end up as once eventuated that a judge sitting at the High Court of Australia refused to hand
32 down a judgment in an appeal because the judge made known he didn’t know the constitutional
33 aspects. Now how on earth can any lawyer not understanding/comprehend the legal principles of
34 the constitution being appointed to the High Court of Australia and then refusing to hand down a
35 judgment the Appellant lost his case where there was a split of 3 for and 3 against to uphold the
36 appeal.
37
38 As I view it we could appoint 3 year olds who haven’t got a clue about the constitution and we
39 might get more sense from them as they simply will likely not utter a word which is better then
40 what I consider the utter and sheer nonsense we now get from the High Court of Australia.
41 .
42 I have personally no doubt that if I were to put a test before each and every judge of the High
43 Court of Australia then each and every one likely would fail such test, this because in my view
44 they have been so to say brainwashed and no longer are able to understand/comprehend the legal
45 meanings of the constitution and its embedded legal principles.
46
47 How on earth can the High Court of Australia legitimately make a ruling as to politicians being
48 in violation of s44 of the constitution when they do not appear to me to have a clue what the
49 constitutional meaning of citizenship stands for? Safe to say it so far ignored my s78B NOTICE
50 OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS, and while I reminded the Registrar about this and so the

Page 55
1 court order dated 4 December 2002 nevertheless the High Court of Australia continues to deal
2 with matters as if the purported Australian citizenship Act is valid.
3 .
4 As such the judges are conducting the courts as if they are KANGAROO COURTS/STAR
5 CHAMBER COURTS rather than to operate within the provisions of the constitution and
6 letters Patent that are applicable.
7 As one judge in 2012 made clear to me the constitution didn’t apply to her. Such baloney to me
8 underlines that we no longer have any IMPARTIAL administration of justice but that the judges
9 are conducting KANGAROO COURTS/STAR CHAMBER COURTS instead.
10
11 In my view every person, including any commissioner in a Royal Commission and any lawyer
12 (that is if they are actually validly legal practitioners) should without hesitation direct that those
13 police officers/lawyers/judges who placed the administration of justice in disrepute by their
14 unlawful conduct to undermine the rights of accused persons should be charged accordingly
15 without undue delay. The administration of justice is no more unless and until if ever at all
16 wed simply rebuild the entire administration of justice and never again a court so to say
17 closes its eyes to violations of rules and legislation by prosecutors and others.
18 .
19 8i had in one case, which I was in contact by the telephone to the court where the opponent
20 counsel went through the motion of proving that sworn documents had been served upon me as
21 per court orders to do so. I then interrupted the Barrister making known to the trail judge that no
22 such service had eventuated. His Honour then commented that he had before him u Affidavit of a
23 process server who stated he had served the Affidavit and other documents. I disputed this and in
24 the end the Barrister then admitted that the process server had actually provided unsworn
25 documents not sworn Affidavits as had been ordered by this particular judge. I submitted that the
26 other party and its lawyers should be restricted to file and serve any further documents without
27 first obtaining the leave of the court. His Honour to his credit then issued this order making clear
28 that he had to enforce court rules against them as much as he had done previously against me.
29 .
30 However weeks later the opponent party filed applications without first obtaining the leave of the
31 court and the then trial judge made clear he wasn’t bothered about the violation against the
32 earlier court orders. Worst was the gross denial by the trial judge as he even tried to prevent me
33 to cross-examine an expert witness on the basis that any cross-examination would be a waste of
34 time as clearly he had to change custody orders. Well, I insisted to cross-examine and exposed
35 that what the opponent barrister had made out to be was in fact totally different. In the end I
36 retained custody. I had absolutely no doubt that the trial judge was bias and had already prepared
37 to make orders to change custody was it not for my skills to cross-examine to show that what the
38 witness had been stating was in fact misstated by the opposing barrister as well as by the trial
39 judge himself.
40 .
41 The problem is we got lawyers in the parliament, in the courts and representing parties and so if
42 you are in the group then the rule of laws can and often is ignored and unrepresented parties as
43 result can be on a losing end regardless that on basis of evidence they should have succeeded.
44 .
45 Here I was in a case where the trial judge opposed for me to file photos proving my submission.
46 He made clear he refused to allow me to file them. Ordinary this then is the end of it however I
47 had anticipated this even before any litigation commenced as I had included the photos in a
48 correspondence to an official who was now in the witness box. So I cross-examined this witness
49 if he had received this particular letter and he acknowledged he had. I then filed this as an exhibit
50 and pointed out to the court that this letter contained the photos His Honour had previously
51 refused to allow me to file as an exhibit.
Page 56
1
2 Far too often judges refuse an unrepresented litigant appropriate time to present his/her case and
3 so in 1985 I designed the ADDRESS TO THE COURT which is a written statement that can
4 vary from a mere 3 pages or hundreds of pages. In one Appeal where I claimed that a senior trial
5 judge had failed to appropriately conduct a hearing I had in fact filed and served an 11 part
6 ADDRESS TO THE COURT that was hundreds of pages.
7 When I appeared before the full Court and invited to present my appeal I stated: Your Honours I
8 notice you all have a copy of my ADDRESS TO THE COURT and rely upon the content therein
9 and have nothing further to add. The opposing barrister was then invited to present his
10 opposition to the appeal and his submission was that the Court should dismiss my appeal as I had
11 failed to present my appeal. The senior judge then responded that he wish all lawyers would
12 follow my example in presenting my legal arguments so well documented and set out in the
13 ADDRESS TO THE COURT as the judges now had no need to make notes and perhaps
14 misunderstand what I was saying because it was all written before them including appropriate
15 quotations as to relevant Authorities. The barrister then sought an adjournment on the basis he
16 had not read the ADDRESS TO THE COURT. His Honour asked the barrister if he was being
17 paid to represent his client. He confirmed he was and His Honour then made clear he better
18 presents his client’s case. The barrister than started to attack me on that I was wrong about a
19 certain authority. His Honour then made clear that had the barrister read my address to the court
20 as they had done then he would have been aware that I quite correctly had set out the relevant
21 parts of the authority, etc. After about 6 months the Full Court handed down its decision
22 upholding my appeal. This however is so to say a once in a life time that judges are actually
23 willing to enforce the rule of law and the rules of the courts.
24
25 Another issue is that at times I would assist with Affidavits only to discover that the lawyer of
26 that party then slugged the cl;i9ent for the Affidavit. I would then object to this as after all I
27 consider it fraud for a lawyer to do so.
28 .
29 Likewise the nonsense of DOUBLE SPACING in an Affidavit. When an opposing barrister
30 made an issue that my documentation should be struck out for failing to be DOUBLE SPACED
31 to have 6 mm between the lines I defeated this sub mission comprehensively as 6 mm between
32 the lines is like a 6 mm lined paper. The trial judge having considered my submissions to this in
33 the end ruled in my favour.
34
35 We have this absurdity that not only private companies but also even the ATO involved Debt
36 collectors this even so there is no judgment outstanding by any competent court of jurisdiction
37 that such debt exist. I have been the subject to various such debt collectors claims but so far
38 rejected each and every one without further litigation ensuring. It is a scam most people fall for
39 and regretfully most judges will go to so to say sing the tune of the debt collectors rather than to
40 enforce the rule of law.
41
42 Debt collector’s agencies employ lawyers willing to deceive the courts and get away with it.
43 As such one hardly claim that Lawyer X is the tip of the iceberg because it is far worse
44 throughout the legal fraternity and this includes the courts. Hence as I often set out the reason
45 why a person finding his life destroyed by orders of a court then seek to find some way of a
46 revenge even if this means to harm innocent people. To them if they are going to leave the world
47 of the living then they might as well make a statement in trying to kill as many innocent people
48 as possible to draw the attention about what they suffered about. This is why since 1982 within
49 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® I have pursued to get people aggrieved to employ
50 peaceful solutions, this even so I did so without government of private business financial
51 support.
Page 57
1
2 And when then I forewarned in my own way about a possible Bourke Street Mall (yes
3 specifically named this) to all State and federal politicians it was blatantly ignored in July 2016
4 and again in December 2016. Well subsequently on 20 January 2017 some 6 people were
5 murdered, besides the many injured. This is what it comes to that we lost the rule of law long ago
6 and people are now turning to taking the law into their own hands because the police and other
7 authorities are already doing so and acting outside the rule of law.
8 For sure the politicians were so to say falling over each other to claim they cared but in reality
9 they allowed it to eventuate.
10 Actually to my understanding absolutely nothing was done to what I wrote about as the
11 placement of bollards around the city never actually addressed what I wrote about. Likewise this
12 Royal Commission may and perhaps will simply ignore my submission but then it will be the
13 one so to say with blood on its hands where people utterly frustrated then decide to take the law
14 into their own hands because they cannot trust lawyers or the courts let alone politicians.
15
16 It is a political issue also because the police are part of Government enforcement.
17
18 As I have made clear I oppose any form of violence but can UNDERSTAND why people end up
19 killing one or more other persons no matter their victims are innocent of any wrongdoing,
20 because they just are utterly frustrated being unable to obtain JUSTICE through the courts.
21
22 Because the Letters Patent establishing the Office of the Governor for the State of Victoria as
23 published in the Victorian Gazette on 2-1-1901 refers to an IMPARTIAL administration of
24 justice then this implies there is a separation of powers between the judicature (courts) the
25 executives (Government) and the Legislators (Parliament). As such, when then a lawyer being an
26 Officer of the Court is used as an informer in violation of obligations and duties being an Officer
27 of the court to serve the Government of the Day (via the police or other Government authorities)
28 then this goes to the very foundation of our democracy of having separation of powers.
29
35 END QUOTE
36
37 It means that any court order that denies to acknowledge the true identity of the lawyer and/or
38 lawyers involved is unconstitutional as it denies any citizen who might have been affected by the
39 treasonous conduct of such lawyers to be aware if he/she was/is affected by this treasonous
40 conduct.
41 In my view this Royal Commission itself has its integrity in question where it would fail to
42 acknowledge the identities of any lawyer who were registered or otherwise informers in violation
43 to being an Officer of the Court.
44
45 It should be understood that when a citizen seeks legal advice/representation of a lawyer then
46 this citizen is entitled that such communication is in confidence. While no one could hold that a
47 lawyer could participated by silence into a planned criminal action such as murder, as then
48 lawyer-client privileges cannot be deemed to be maintained, it is another matter where a client
49 details any past events.
50 .
51 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
52 27 (17 June 1999)
53 QUOTE
Page 58
1 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue
2 estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the
3 orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he
4 will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying
5 on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 It is clear that the High Court of Australia itself acknowledged that a citizen can act in violation
9 to any court order which was/is unconstitutional.
10 .
11 We have and let us not ignore this issue, many persons in prison who may have upon legal
12 advice of their lawyers pleaded GUILTY where the lawyer did made such recommendations to
13 the client because the lawyer may have had some deal with police or other government
14 authorities.
15 No FAIR MINDED PERSON could possibly sanction this kind of conviction of a person.
16 In my view each and every court conviction involving any lawyer who was also an informer in
17 violation of being an Officer of the Court must be set aside, even if it was a conviction by a jury,
18 this because we may never know if the lawyer concerned had failed to do a proper cross-
19 examination or failed to make proper recommendations or objections as to ensure a client was
20 convicted.
21 .
22 It should be clear that any lawyer who in violation of his/her oath as an Officer of the Court
23 became an informer then should be publicly named so that every citizen can then check if such a
24 lawyer was in/is involved in certain litigation.
25 If such a lawyer refuses any witness protection program then this in my view cannot override the
26 rights of the victims/possible victims. They are entitled to know the names of the lawyers
27 involved.
28 .
29 It is much like the crazy system that pedophiles may not be named where it could identify the
30 victims. However those who raped strangers might be named. This means that the so called
31 public listing of offenders will be limited to those who say raped adults and not children. It
32 simply doesn’t make sense to me. As such any public register must be deemed inappropriate as it
33 would only deal with a selected criminal and not necessarily with those who are real threats to
34 children as those in favour of a public register are seeking to claim.
35
36 We now have a Royal Commission asking for submissions but failing to disclose the identity of
37 the lawyer(s) concerned to whom the Royal Commission seeks submissions. To me this
38 undermines the integrity of the Royal Commission. Let those treasonous lawyers change their
39 identity if they wish to do so but they should be publicly named as JUSTICE demand that any
40 possibly victim is entitled to pursue justice.
41 .
42 Our legal system provides for appeals but that is limited in numerous ways, for example if you
43 are a person of limited financial resources then you may not have the finances to fund any
44 appeal. And if you burden, if this is possible, to get a loan to engage a lawyer who then
45 unbeknown to the appellant is a treasonous lawyer who is acting against the appellant interest to
46 undermine the appeal then JUSTICE DOESN’T EXIST.
47
48 IT MUST BE CLEAR THAT MANY WHO HAD A FAILED APPEAL IN THE PAST
49 BEING REPRESENTED BY A LAWYER WHO WAS A POLICE INFORMER MAY
50 LIKELY HAVE LOST THEIR APPEALS BECAUSE THE LAWYER MAY HAVE
51 ACTED IN REALITY CONTRARY TO THE CLIENTS INTEREST.
Page 59
1 .
2 As such any appeals that were dismissed or partly dismissed now also are in question.
3 .
4 Unless we can ensure that JUSTICE ALWAYS WILL PREVAIL we lack an IMPARTIAL
5 administration of justice!
6
7 As the mass murderer of Bourke Street, Melbourne made clear frustration was an issue. It
8 doesn’t in my view excuse his conduct whatsoever but I have often written this to be a core
9 issue in murders. Now it is well overdue to act!
10
12 https://www.scribd.com/document/398987513/20190206-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-
13 Hlavka-O-W-B-ISSUE-Re-the-Theft-of-Our-Democracy-Etc-the-Constitution-Supplement-29-
14 MANIFESTO-etc
15
16 See 20190206-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The theft
17 of our democracy, etc, & the constitution-Supplement 29-MANIFESTO-etc
18
19 It appears from media reports that Carl Williams himself made complaints. What happened to
20 those complaints and his subpoenas?
21
22 As the media reported that he found that there was no proper investigations in his complaints,
23 such as the legal Service commission and again this very much underlines what I have written
24 about in the past that it seeks to protects its own rather than enforce the Rule of law.
25 .
26 One has to question why was any lawyer being an police informer in violation of being a Officer
27 of the Court not subjected to having to explain/to show cause why their position as an Officer of
28 the Court should not be terminated?
29 .
30 As I discovered with former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria that when I raised
31 issues about the misuse of legal processes she simply blocked my emails. As such there was/is in
32 my view a gigantic cover up by the court(s) itself (themselves).
33
34 I for one have exposed how when one pursues to object to the jurisdiction of the court then far
35 too often judges will ignore this. By this they do not dismiss the objection to jurisdiction and as
36 such do not invoke jurisdiction and any orders they purportedly make/hand down are without
37 any legal force. Just that others may nevertheless pursue enforcement.
38
39 In the matter of Buloke Shire v Schorel-Hlavka I then objected to the jurisdiction of the court
40 regarding my own filed appeal. The trial judge instead of holding a jurisdictional hearing simply
41 stated that as I had filed my appeal then this gave the court jurisdiction. He made however no
42 formal orders required for this to invoke jurisdiction. At the end of the hearing when the issue of
43 cost arose and I asked if he was going to order cost against me his response was: You are not
44 going to suck me in!
45 .
46 No doubt His Honour was well aware that any order of cost would give the legal basis for a
47 judicial review, etc. What His Honour did was to circumvent also technical issues such as that a
48 nature strip is not one within the provisions of the Country Fire authority act and as such no
49 municipal/shire council can validly issue any Infringement Notice to enforce a property holder to
50 mow or otherwise attend to a nature strip. Also the country Fire Authority Act also specifically
51 excludes buildings from any Infringement Notice and so also any warning as while it might be
Page 60
1 exist of combustible materials no one in his right mind can insist that a property owner would
2 during a declared fire danger season remove the buildings and including the residence for being
3 of combustible materials for perhaps 6 months of the year.
4 What we therefore have it that judges do not care less about the real rule of law or are simply
5 grossly incompetent and/or alternatively seek to portray themselves, albeit unconstitutionally, as
6 part of the government and so willing to ignore the rights of any accused to benefit the
7 government and those exercising delegated powers.
8 .
9 In my view the so called Roberta Law is a clear example where the Parliament legislated in
10 violation to the legal principles embedded in our federal constitution:
11
12 .
14 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
15 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
16 the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
17 that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
18 Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
19 any private person would be.
20 END QUOTE
21 .
22 It is clear that any legislation by the Parliament cannot in any manner favour those in
23 government and/or acting by delegated powers. As such I view that the so called Roberta Law
24 is unconstitutional.
25 .
26 Again, this is very relevant to this Royal Commission in view that many persons wrongly
27 convicted by involvement of their lawyers as informers in violation to them being Officers of the
28 Court could be wrongly denied to sue for damages.
29 .
30 I shall clarify that there is absolutely nothing wrong with an Officer of the Court being a witness
31 to a crime, even if the offender is his/her client to give evidence in regard of this event., albeit
32 where this were to cause a conflict of interest then the Officer of the Court should terminate
33 representation for this client.
34
35 Another problem is that so called judges/lawyers indeed politicians may not be legally entitled to
36 hold such positions. On 4 December 2002 the magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg in
37 AEC v Schorel-Hlavka then ordered, by consent, that the S78B constitutional issues I raised
38 which included to dispute the constitutional validity of the purported Australian citizenship Act
39 1948 to be heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. So far the High Court of
40 Australia failed to do so. This means that legally there is no such thing as a Australian
41 citizenship Act 1948 ass once challenged it becomes ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio unless and until if
42 ever at all the Court declares it INTRA V IRES.
43
44 As such where the High Court of Australia so far failed to deal with this, despite of an existing
45 court order, then any decision involving the purported Australian Citizenship Act is and remains
46 without legal validity.
47
50 QUOTE
51 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
52 may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
53 declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed

Page 61
1 beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
2 interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
3 END QUOTE
4
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
8 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
9 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
10 [start page 2004]
11 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 This is also relevant to the current Royal commission as well as to others as if the commissioner
15 and any lawyer acting for the commission or appearing before the commission fails to have a
16 LEGAL STANDING then it is a sheer waste of time to hold any Royal Commission hearings.
17 .
18 Lawyers are required to hold Australian nationality which constitutionally means being a Subject
19 of the British Crown. No amendment to our federal constitution was ever made in this regard by
20 way of s128 referendum and as such no ordinary legislation purporting to do otherwise is NULL
21 AND VOID.
22 .
23 Because my objection was part of litigation and the court accepted this was a valid issue and
24 made its order (by consent) accordingly then unless and until if ever at all a court of competent
25 jurisdiction were to declare otherwise the purported Australian Citizenship Act is and remains to
26 be ULTRA VIRES. It means that those who swore an oath to the courts or otherwise are not
27 validly Officers of the Court where they lack to have the nationality of being a Subject of the
28 British Crown.
29 .
30 Judges who made an oath without acknowledging being a Subject of the British Crown neither
31 are then able to exercise judicial functions.
32 .
33 Because the Section 78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS is and remains to be a
34 live issue due to the 4 December 2002 court order no one can therefore claim to be by nationality
35 an Australian citizen as it would defy the legal application of that when a legislation or part
36 thereof is legally challenged it is and remains to be Ab Initio ULTRA VIRES to all people and
37 not just to the objector alone.
38
39 There is a lot more to it as detailed in my Section 78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
40 MATTERS and so no need to set it all out in this submission, safe to state it places in question
41 the validity of any lawyer/judge/commissioner dealing with any Royal commission also.
42 .
43 There are those who when aggrieved may resort to violence and aggressiveness and while I can
44 UNDERSTAND this to be done out of sheer frustration or otherwise I do not condone this nor
45 approve of this. I hold that by challenging those who one hold to be wrong in their doings upon
46 their own grounds is the better way. Hence, when I came to Australia in 1971 and held the legal
47 system to be appalling I then refused to naturalize until 1994. Albeit it is claimed that I then
48 became an Australian citizens reality is that the only constitutional powers the Commonwealth
49 possessed was to declare me to be a Subject of the British Crown by nationality. I held that my
50 peaceful manner to use the courts to challenge legislative provisions I held were unconstitutional
51 would be a far better manner to do so. Regretfully, doing so means having from time to time
52 being targeted by so called law enforcement officers and/or former law enforcement officers

Page 62
1 including by a strange manner having even a newly created retaining wall positioned within the
2 boundaries of my property in a lawful manner unlawfully destroyed.
3 .
4 From when I commenced to investigate (without charge) the vicious murder of Carl Williams it
5 appeared to me that his murder was pre-planned and organised by those who likely had a
6 problem with Carl Williams even so he then was already in prison, after all I personally
7 experienced how I was targeted because of exposing matters.
8 .
9 Where Lawyer X was clearly as I understand it in conflict of her duties and obligations as an
10 Officer of the Court and deceived her clients then considering that Carl Williams was to so to say
11 blow the whistle about her I view she too might have had an interest in having him killed and so
12 might very well have been the informer to the media.
13 .
14 While I accept the right of the media to ordinary conceal who was an informant, however where
15 the Herald Sun published an article hours before Carl Williams was murdered then I view such
16 confidentiality of holding an identity of the informer secret cannot be applied as much as a
17 lawyer cannot keep secret any (future) murder plot a client reveals to him/her.
18
19 As such I view that those who were participating in publishing this article (and the newspaper is
20 ordinary printed before midnight) then must be deemed to have been part of the murder plot even
21 if unwillingly. After all, a FAIR MINDED PERSON would accept that the reporters/journalist
22 or whatever title they take reasonably could and/or should have known that the article may place
23 the life of Carl Williams in jeopardy, considering he was an inmate in a prison.
24
25 Indeed if lawyer X was the informant to the media she I view should be charged appropriately
26 with matters relating to his murder.
27
28 It obviously is now an issue how many other lawyers/judges were part of this treasonous conduct
29 to deny a person of his constitutional rights.
30 .
31 One has to wonder if the original conviction of Carl Williams when found guilty also was tainted
32 by some lawyer being in violation of being an Officer of the Court undermined his defense.
33 .
34 When I first appeared at the bench in the Colosimo matter my first submission was that certain
35 lawyers had NO LEGAL STANDING to be there involved in the litigation. In the end despite
36 their objections they were ordered to leave. While I am not a legal practitioner I as a Professional
37 Advocate studied by self-education and even as early as 1985 His Honour Justice Walsh asked
38 me how I knew so much about the law.
39 I find that the rules of law are in a sense very simply and make common sense provided you are
40 a fair minded person and not indoctrinated with nonsense of a formal law education.
41
42 Not being an Officer of the Court means I am not obligated to the court to maintain its integrity
43 where it doesn’t deserve it and so I could validly challenge the court whenever I deemed it
44 appropriate to do so. And this is what I view necessarily for a robust IMPARTIAL
45 administration of justice. Judged should rather welcome Officers of the Court to challenge its
46 jurisdiction however I understand from ample of legal practitioners that to challenge the court
47 might result in being denied proper consideration by the court and then their subsequent clients
48 will suffer besides they themselves may not be provided with court ordered legal representation.
49
50 I had one judge, when being a witness, in the witness box, going extra ordinary out of his way to
51 assist his former tutor the opposing barrister by claiming I had been guilty of breaking and entry
Page 63
1 into a property owned by the opposing barristers client. This judges had previously been dealing
2 with this case for some time and could have been expected to know property issues but alas he
3 was in my view a complete idiot to take me on. As I responded that in fact the opposing party
4 never was either partly or in whole the owner of the property. Further, this person in fact had
5 done the breaking and entering. Further that I had been requested IN WIRITING by the true
6 registered owners of the property if I could secure the property by fitting locks, etc. I did so and
7 the police who attended at the time accepted I acted lawfully. Ok this judge so to say was caught
8 with his pants down.
9
10 And regretfully to say to my understanding many judges collude with lawyers if perhaps out of
11 friendship to hand down orders well in advance of any trial being held. In essence the trail is
12 merely so the judge might be able to take out of context to suit what he/she already planned to
13 make as orders. The entire hearing is a farce to serve the pre-planned orders. Again, albeit
14 without going in details in this sub mission, I have proved this in the past and extensively
15 exposed this with evidence.
16
17 QUOTE ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.
18 A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law
19 provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments,
20 and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their
21 judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to
22 or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 Well, when a judge pre-empty the court decision by issuing orders days before a trial is
26 completed then surely this underlines how corrupt the courts is and we lack any real
27 IMPARTIAL administration of justice.
28
29 Getting back to the objection to jurisdiction issue:
30
31 QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
32 Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed
33 and must be decided.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
37 Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 QUOTE Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.
41 Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the
42 legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 QUOTE Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27
46 Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it
47 assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. .
48 END QUOTE
49
50 QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,
51 Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
52 END QUOTE
53
Page 64
1 QUOTE HALSBURY’S LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460):

2 Consent to summary jurisdiction The consent to be tried summarily must be clear and
3 unequivocal and a failure to carry out the procedures for obtaining the consent will deprive
4 the court of jurisdiction to determine the matters summarily.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 QUOTE Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA
8 1985)
9 Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even
10 on appeal.
11 END QUOTE
12 QUOTE In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
13 Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have
14 jurisdiction to hear is void, ab initio.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 QUOTE (Jagens v. Lavine, 415 S.Ct.768).
18 Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.
19 END QUOTE
20
21 QUOTE Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
22 There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.

23 END QUOTE
24
25 QUOTE Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.
26 Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction
27 asserted.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
31 The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.
32 END QUOTE
33 QUOTE Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
34 Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that
35 the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather,
36 should dismiss the action.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 QUOTE Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
40 Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of

41 law, court is deprived of juris.
42 END QUOTE
Page 65
1
2 QUOTE Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
3 A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without

4 jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or
5 property.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 QUOTE Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
9 The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction."

10 END QUOTE
11
12 QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,
13 No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 QUOTE Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
17 Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 QUOTE Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.
21 When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the
22 municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in
23 administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially.
24 END QUOTE
25 .
26 QUOTE Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.
27 Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are
28 a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may
29 be rejected upon direct collateral attack.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 This then also means that this Royal Commission must first establish in light of what I submit it
33 has any jurisdiction to act as a ROYAL COMMISSION and to what extend if any.
34
36 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
37 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important questions of constitutional law
38 decided out of their own pockets.
39 END QUOTE
40 .
41 The truth is that the filing of an appeal in itself doesn’t provide the court with jurisdiction
42 regardless if the objector is the appellant. The court once faced with an objection to jurisdiction,
43 albeit it perhaps strange an appellant doing so, the court can only determine jurisdiction with
44 holding a jurisdictional hearing and upon this hand down a reason of judgment with orders which
45 either uphold or dismisses the objection to jurisdiction.
46 In my case by objection to the jurisdiction of the court, even so I filed the appeal, was so the
47 court would have to consider if there were any valid orders or orders that should or could have
48 been made by the court below.
49 As I had objected to the jurisdiction of the court below and it had failed to deal with this
50 objection to jurisdiction then obviously my filing of the appeal was a legal requirement merely to
51 ensure I was able to legally challenge the decision of the court below being without jurisdiction
52 and hence the appeal would fail in that respect as if the court below never invoked jurisdiction
53 then its orders were purported orders without legal force, however, as was made clear about mr
54 Gould it would be better to have a judicial decision and as such my filing of the appeal would be
Page 66
1 successful if the court indeed found that there were no enforceable orders to appeal against but
2 upheld the appeal that the court below should have issued orders as to the dismissal or upholding
3 the objection of jurisdiction then before the court below.
4 It is not an ordinary kind of litigation process lawyers may follow but because they do not do so
5 doesn’t mean that it cannot be done as in the past I successfully appealed orders in my favour
6 where I held the court erred in its judgment.
7 .
8 My principle always has been to litigate to obtain JUSTICE regardless if this means I may end
9 up with orders adverse to me. Whenever I was assisting/representing a party I sought to give
10 them also this understanding. Not uncommon a person would give me the understanding that
11 even so they had lost their case at least they had their day in court and held the judge provided a
12 FAIR and PROPER hearing. They might not have agreed with the findings of the court but
13 accepted that the judge based upon evaluating the evidence may have accepted the evidence of
14 an opposing party more and so was entitled to conclude what the judge did even if the other
15 party lied in the process, albeit unbeknown to the judge.
16
17 QUOTE Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns [1999] FamCA 64
18 (2) The Court always has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for the
19 purpose of and up to the point of deciding whether it has jurisdiction to
20 make the orders sought in the proceedings.
21 (3) In carrying out that limited exercise of jurisdiction, the Court is required to
22 determine any essential facts upon which the existence of its jurisdiction to make
23 the orders sought ultimately depends (“the jurisdictional facts”). That
24 determination is a function which is incidental to the exercise of the jurisdiction
25 referred to in (2) above.
26 END QUOTE
27 And
28 QUOTE Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns [1999] FamCA 64
29 (6) Once a respondent challenges the Court’s jurisdiction to make the orders
30 sought, the Court, before considering the adjudicational facts, must find the
31 existence of the jurisdictional facts, on the balance of probabilities.
32 END QUOTE
33 QUOTE.
34 FAMILY LAW RULES 20042003 No. 375 - RULE 3.05
35 Objection to jurisdiction
36 (1)
37 If, in a Form 3A, a respondent objects to the jurisdiction of the court, the
38 respondent will not be taken to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court
39 by also seeking an order that the application be dismissed on another ground.
40 (2)
41 The objection to the jurisdiction must be determined before any other orders
42 sought in the Form 3A.
43 END QUOTE
44 .
45
46 Director General, Department of Commerce v Cianfrano and Anor [2008] NSWADTAP 56
47 (24 July 2008) NEW SOUTH WALES ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL
48 QUOTE
49 3 The Tribunal decided, contrary to the Department’s submission, that it did have
50 jurisdiction to determine the adequacy of search question: Director-General, Department
Page 67
1 of Commerce and anor (No 2) [2006] NSW ADT 195. The matter was listed for further
2 directions. The Tribunal’s orders were as follows:
3 1. First Respondent’s objection to jurisdiction dismissed.
4 2. Tribunal to reconvene to make further directions as appropriate.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 Watson v Director-General, Department of Services, Technology and Administration [2010]
8 NSWADT 44 (12 February 2010)
9 QUOTE
10 He also stated that, if the Tribunal agreed this view, he would seek an order that the
11 Respondent pay the Applicants’ costs occasioned by the objection to jurisdiction on an
12 indemnity basis.
13 END QUOTE
14 And
15 QUOTE
16 The orders to be made
17
18 64 For the foregoing reasons, each of the applications constituting these proceedings is
19 dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
20
21 65 In consequence, the Tribunal’s orders made on 6 January 2010 are discharged.
22
23 66 In addition, the directions hearing set down for 15 February 2010 is vacated.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 It is clear that unless formal orders are handed down that either disposes of the objection to
27 jurisdiction and find the court has jurisdiction or upholds the objection to jurisdiction gthe court
28 has no powers to deal with anything else. It cannot merely ignore an objection to jurisdiction and
29 neither assume jurisdiction this as it must be proven that jurisdiction exist.
30 .
31 Then we have as I exposed in the past where there are dealings between lawyers and the courts
32 (including tribunals) where orders are issued days before the trail is completed and/or where
33 without any hearing the court/tribunal issue orders without the other party given any prior
34 opportunity to oppose/challenge such orders to be made.
35 Indeed, I was subjected to court orders, even so not being a party in proceedings that a person
36 had to file to a party all my writings this even so they were written WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
37 as it was so that a party could explore if I might have sought to undermine court orders. The
38 amount of my writings was so extensive that the person decided to provide it all on a CD. Safe to
39 say that nothing came from this. However, the barrister (counsel) for the other party (then to
40 which I was an advisor) concern was known to have been the mentor of the judge when he was
41 still a Registrar of a Magistrates Court. So, it appears to me over many decades involved in
42 litigation, including representing/assisting lawyers that we do not have any IMPARTIAL
43 administration of justice! As I have written/exposed in the past government barristers are making
44 false/misleading statements to the court as to defeat the other party and get away with it. What
45 kind of JUSTICE is this?
46 I am known for my comments that all a lawyer needs to do is to sleep with a Registrar and well
47 the terms of the court orders then likely will be changed. In fact I once had 5 different versions
48 of the one court order where the word each week-end changed to each alternative weekend. I was
49 upon my complaint advised that staff in the registry would correct orders to be more appropriate
50 in the English language. Hence the 5 different versions. Reality is that the change from each
Page 68
1 weekend to each alternative weekend had nothing to do with proper English grammar but to do
2 with lawyers afterwards getting someone in the registry amending the court orders to what they
3 desire.
4 .
5 Another matter is where as I exposed during a trial that lawyers go to the registry and then alter
6 unlawfully the original Affidavit of their client on file as to change the meanings.
7 Let give you a hypothetical example.
8 A lawyer files an Affidavit for his/her client stating in paragraph 4:
9  My husband was never violent during the marriage.
10 Upon this the unrepresented Husband responds:
11  I confirm the accurately of paragraph 4.
12 However now subsequently the lawyer for the wife goes to the registry and alter paragraph 4 as
13 follows:
14  My husband was never violent during the marriage.
15 Just that the husband is unknown to this unlawful change and the wife might also be unawarfe of
16 this.
17 I in one case exposed up to 8 such alterations on just one page.
18 It was when I was cross-examining an expert witness and I was reading from her Affidavit
19 during cross-examination that the trail judge warned me that I was misleading the witness as I
20 read it out different then what he had before him. After checking the original I exposed that the
21 original on file had been altered on numerous occasions without the Affidavit being re-sworn.
22 The trial judge then commented upon my submission that this was not a valid Affidavit; Well
23 you now know it (And refused to strike out this purported affidavit).
24 I even had during a trial a judge albeit falsely making statements from the bench but refused to
25 be cross-examined by me about this.
26
27 We seem to have a huge corruption problem within the judiciary where those accused often are
28 on the losing end.
29 .
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on
33 the point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must
34 be heard.
35 Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
36 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything the
37 state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person accused will
38 have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in
39 criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 I have also on constitutional grounds questioned the constitutional validity of the Infringement
43 Courts because it is not a proper court at all and is one sided. As I proved in one case that the
44 police officer having issued a Infringement Notice exceeding a speed limit of 100 Km an hour
45 then filed with the Infringement Court an amended Infringement Notice of exceeding 80
46 kilometres an hour, albeit unbeknown to me. This kind of KANGAROO COURT/STAR
47 CHAMBER COURT system should be stopped without delay!
48
49 Regretfully a person like me who exposes this kind of a rot then is targeted such as I explain
50 below having a former police officer causing even a new retaining wall albeit unlawfully to be
51 destroyed!
52

Page 69
1 Having since 1982 conducted A Special Lifeline Service under the motto MAY JUSTICE
2 ALWEAYS PREVAIL® I am too well aware how to my understanding some persons desire to
3 kill lawyers/judges. Hence the killing of Registrar Corryn Rayney in my view likely was what I
4 understand eventuated with Justice Opas.
5
6 This Royal Commission can obviously ignore my writings and do as it likes and well we may
7 just end up with a lot of dead lawyers/judges in the end as citizens who do not accept this
8 treasonous conduct to undermine their democratic rights failing to have any IMPARTIAL
9 administration of justice may then pursue to take the Rule of law into their own hands.
10
11 In my view lawyers such as I understand the wife of former Attorney General rob Hulls who I
12 understood concealed relevant evidence from the court as to the innocence of a accused and
13 caused by this the accused to be convicted and serve time in prison would be ordered to serve the
14 term of imprisonment they wrongly inflicted. After all here we had a man the prosecutor knew
15 was innocent but nevertheless caused to be wrongly convicted and spend some 18 months in
16 prison and it was only by this person engaging another lawyer that the deception was exposed.
17
18 The function of litigation is:
19 The Prosecutor is not there to pursue a conviction but to present all relevant details
20 before the Court
21
22 The Court is not there to convict an accused but to hand down a decision showing a
23 proper consideration of all relevant matters which may or may not include a
24 conviction.
25
26 I understand that Chief Commissioner of Police Mr Graham Ashton sought to excuse the use of
27 Lawyer X (albeit it turns out she was an informer since about 1995 and not since 2005 as was
28 claimed) to putt in in my own words that desperate times requires desperate solutions. Well I do
29 not buy this. If we have a purported law enforcement that is willing to act unlawfully indeed
30 treasonous to the legal principles embedded in the constitution as well as in the relevant letters
31 Patent then we have no law enforcement at all. Wed merely have people using and misusing their
32 positions to likely advance their own careers and future disregarding what JUSTICE is about.
33 .
34 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-05/silk-miller-murders-ibac-hearing-told-statement-
35 was-backdated/10782146
36
37 Silk-Miller murders IBAC hearing told signing backdated statements was common
38 practice
39
40 It is clear that as I haved written about over decades that the police were perverting the course of
41 justice as a modus operandi and anyone who deems this kind of conduct law enforcement in my view
42 should not be in any law enforcement agency.
43
44 Any police officer who is willing to sign a back dated altered statement I view commits perjury
45 and conspire to pervert the course of justice. I can accept that a police officer or other law
46 enforcement person may desire to provide further details in a statement/Affidavit but then this
47 should be dated on the day so made and should not be used to replace an original
48 statement/Affidavit.
49
50 As I have set out in my quoted material below I refused to sign a witness statement where the
51 police officer was changing words to so she stated would secure a conviction. As such this is a
Page 70
1 practice by the police for many decades. However most people who are witnesses will accept the
2 rot some police officer may claim to justify changing the actual statement of the witness.
3
4 I for one would detect such changes in an Affidavit when cross-examining a witness and noticing
5 that the manner of usage of the English language is different than that which the witness had
6 sworn as an Affidavit.
7
8 In a case, not long ago, we had Counsel submitting that the allegation that staff of his client had
9 been tress passing were without foundation because there were GPS records to prove where each
10 photo was taken and proved none of the photos were shown to have been made within the
11 property boundaries. The witness then under oath confirmed this in examination in chief. I then
12 commence my cross-examination asking the witness: I put it to you that you are not telling
13 the truth are you? Upon this the witness insisted telling the truth. I then drew his attention to
14 one of the photos and how this was in conflict of other photos and the witness then admitted it
15 was not of the property and he neither knew where the picture was taken of which property. As
16 such the nonsense about proving by GPS there was no trespassing and proved where each picture
17 was taken was precisely that nonsense. The witness clearly conspiring to pervert the course of
18 justice as the next witness likewise identified the photos as being of the property but then
19 recanted this later.
20
21 What we have to my experiences is that it is common for barristers to deceive the court with all
22 kinds of deceptive comments and generally they get away with it. It means that unsuspected
23 parties are often left in the cold and end up with court orders adverse to them.
24 Never mind claiming there is an azpeal system because if you cannot afford to appeal then the
25 appeal system means nothing.
26 .
27 Justice Joske in about 1986 in the Zabenah case wrongly interpreted a section of the Family Law
28 Act 1975 and as result any party appealing now has to pay for transcripts, which can be very
29 expensive and beyond his/her financial means. Subsequent judges rely upon the Joske J decision
30 ignoring to consider it afresh. When then you have a party aggrieved by a decision and denied
31 any appeal then this person may end up deciding to do some killings.
32
33 We have this purported legislation that denied anyone who is convicted of certain crimes to sue
34 for compensation. This is generally known as the Roberta Law. So, a person wrongly convicted
35 due to a treasonous lawyer is then robbed of the right to sue the state regardless the State being
36 the wrongdoer. Here we have as I understand it Lawyer X recommending a client to plea
37 GUILTY, in plea bargaining, only then the person having made a plea bargain to be hit by the
38 ATO (Australian Taxation Commission) with an about $750,000 tax bill. Surely this undermines
39 the basis of the plea bargaining? This in particular where this was not part of the plea bargain
40 and so it so to say an added punishment which might be far worse then had the accused simply
41 pleaded not guilty and then defeated the charges.
42 .
43 We now have that being Tony Mokbel or others who were wrongly convicted may nevertheless
44 due to the Roberta Law not entitled to sue the State for wrongful conviction and the harm
45 flowing from that. This to me is not JUSTICE!
46
47 I in about middle of 2017 was asked to investigate the matters surrounding the vicious murder of
48 police informer Carl Williams (Who also was represented by Lawyer X) and other related
49 matters because of the litigation against Dhakota Williams the daughter of Carl Williams with
50 Roberta Williams and the grandchild of the late George Williams which I understood was also a
51 police informer.
Page 71
1
2 Since I did a limited investigation I have been unable to have the coroner to reopen the inquest,
3 as in my view no proper inquest was ever held. The coroner seemed to rely upon the Victorian
4 Ombudsman investigation which I view failed to deal with critical issues, and the Police
5 investigation, etc. The fact that I view Ethical standards Department of the Victorian Police itself
6 was involved in railroading police informer Carl Williams, his father and so Dhakota Williams
7 aided by the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) I view is a very serious matter.
8 .
9 Acritical issue in the matter is that for example the Victorian Police as I understand it didn’t
10 disclose to the Victorian Ombudsman for his investigation that the Victorian Police had
11 requested and obtained and did so deliver a CD to Carl Williams (not long before his violent
12 death) containing copies of Carl’s statements as a police informer.
13 .
14 Somehow not long after Carl was violently murdered the Governor of the prison disappeared and
15 I understand a copy of the CD was located in his abandoned vehicle. The issue is what was the
16 date this CD was created? This is important as if it was created at about the same time the police
17 created the CD for Carl Willman’s then the Victorian Police was involved in spreading copies in
18 the prison system. This also as I understand Lawyer X also was representing another prisoner
19 who I understand shared a cell with Carl Williams and who had introduced Carl Williams to
20 former Police officer Paul Dale with whom I understand Lawyer X had a sexual relationship
21 with, and to which Car Williams statements as a police informer related. If therefore the CD
22 located in this prisoners belongings also was created/burned at the time of the CD for Carl
23 Williams then obviously it would have been done by the Victorian Police.
24 .
25 When I commenced to investigate Roberta Williams did give permission for me to have access
26 to a box of paperwork. I scanned them into a computer and later returned the documents and also
27 provided Roberta electronic copies of the same in 3 different folders so she could check them by
28 date, by image and date, date and image and in order they were located by me. Regretfully she
29 didn’t provide all relevant documents and I therefore find the media publishing documentation
30 that I view should also have been provided to me.
31
32 A point of issue was the Moti case. The Victorian Police claimed that because of the Moti case it
33 could no longer abide by the agreement with police informer Carl Williams.
34 As soon as I came across the correspondence of the Moti case I immediately checked what the
35 case was about and discovered that it was not at all what the Victorian Ethical Standards
36 Department had made it out to be.
37
38 The files (not even all) I like to provide to the Royal Commission is about 350MB (which also
39 include copies of my writings to the various persons) and hence I view it would be better to
40 provide this on CD.
41
42 It should be understood that I did the investigation without any financial arrangements being
43 made between me and Roberta Williams.
44
45 I heard about the Williams over the years but never had any personal contact with any of them
46 until about the middle of 2017 when requested to investigate matters.
47 .
48 I understand that Lawyer X made a gross error of judgment as to have a correspondence
49 published by the media in which she refers to IVF and also to the termination of her career as a
50 lawyer. It is in my view then very easy to establish who at the time the particular barrister was.
51
Page 72
1 As the media reported “Carl Williams first to suspect his lawyer was an informer”.
2 Roberta Williams also was recently quoted in the media that Lawyer X (informer 3838) also
3 known as EF had made known to Carl Williams to move away as he could be imprisoned.
4
5 This means that Lawyer X was involved before Carl Williams ended up in prison.
6 .
7 Hypothetically then Carl Williams suspecting Lawyer X was betraying him to Paul Dale and to
8 others including to the Victorian Police and others became a liability to Lawyer X. With as I
9 understand it having a cell mate as a client Lawyer X in my view may have been instrumental to
10 the leaking of information to the media also as to set up a possible killing. Obviously the police
11 officer who delivered the CD with the statements to the prison as I understand it concealing this
12 from the Victorian Ombudsman investigation may have been also instrumental to this. I
13 understand he had also other connections with prisoners held in the same prison.
14 The Victorian Police may have learned from lawyer X that her client Carl Williams had no
15 further information that could be use ful (after all she may have obtained information from Carl
16 Williams and conveyed this herself to the Victorian Police, and hence the Victorian Police
17 Ethical Standards Department saw the Moti issue as a way to renege on the deal they had made
18 with Carl by twisting the true meaning of this Moti case to suit itself.
19
20 One has to question why the lawyers didn’t bother to check the case themselves as I did!
21 .
22 Obviously where Lawyer X was a police informer against her own client, then I view this was
23 TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.
24
25 In my experiences over the decades I found it not uncommon for lawyers so to say sell out their
26 clients. As some lawyers made clear they cannot speak up because then they may not get the
27 needed referrals of Legal Aid clients.
28 .
29 Also I experienced that judges are so to say in cahoots with lawyers. Even issuing pre-
30 determined court order days before the case is completed.
31
32 In one case I discovered that the CD that was as an exhibit of an opponent Affidavit actually had
33 been created a day after the Affidavit was worn. I happen to read the Affidavit and discovered
34 that it referred to the CD content that actually didn’t exist as such. I also discovered that the CD
35 on file was also created a day after the Affidavit was filed. I exposed this rot and that therefore
36 there was no CD existing on file or otherwise at the time the Affidavit was sworn and as such the
37 Affidavit was altered after being sworn and was therefore not admissible. The judicial officer
38 responded to have me investigated by the Legal Service Commission. That investigation was a
39 big failure as it turned up nothing against me.
40 Subsequently I represented a barrister on 4 occasions with the Legal Service Commissioner
41 being the opposing party!
42
43 I experienced that a lawyer daring to question the conduct of judges/lawyers can be dealt with
44 whereas they had no powers over me! As such I can speak up but then still can cop rubbish from
45 them. I have however conducted since 1982 a special lifeline service under the motto MAY
46 JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® and so without government or business financial support and
47 dealing with people contemplating suicide, murder and even mass murder.
48
49 As a matter of fact I warned all state and federal politicians on 16 July 2016 as to the possibility
50 of a mass murder in Bourke Street mall. They ignored it. I repeated the same in December
51 2016and again it was ignored. On 20 January 2017 some 6 people ended up being killed in
Page 73
1 Bourke Street. I have warned about the ability of using a gas tanker to blow up in Bourke Street
2 mall and while recently it was a mere gas bottle the authorities simply ignore it. While I
3 understand Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton addressed a convention on 10 December 2018
4 as to train police regarding lone criminal acts it is all useless if the system continues to operate as
5 it is. As my elaborate writing may underline not a single individual in any department was
6 willing to attend to what I exposed. And this is merely by me to seek to assist others. I am used
7 to this blatant ignorance but others may then decide that if they are going to terminate their lives
8 then well why not make a statement to kill as many others as they possibly can as then it may
9 draw attention.
10 .
11 I in 1984 visited Michael Alderton who drove a motor vehicle through the glass plated window
12 of 500 Bourke Street, Melbourne and this the day before he attended court, via a special
13 arrangement through the Governor of the Prison. Michael Alderton gave me the understanding
14 he would plea not guilty, that he simply didn’t know what happened after he left the court
15 building. He used a borrowed car and never intended any damage to it. Well the next day his
16 lawyer gave me the understanding that Michel would plea guilty as then the court may just
17 release him having already served some time. The court did the contrary that it appeared to me
18 Michael Alderton didn’t even want to speak to his lawyer afterwards and sometime later hanged
19 himself in prison.
20 I understand that there are many prisoners who held that their lawyers talked them into pleading
21 guilty to get a lesser sentence than if they didn’t plea guilty and regardless of their innocence
22 then could face a hefty term of imprisonment.
23 .
24 I understand that Carl Williams pleaded guilty and the documentation I red was that he was
25 furious that afterwards the term of added imprisonment was not adhered to and also the Victorian
26 Police refused to honour their arrangement as to pay Dhakotas school fees and the debt to the
27 ATO.
28 .
29 https://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/a2ijnq/ab_a_pseudonym_v_cd_a_pseudonym_secret
30 _squirrel/
31
32 AB (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym) - Secret squirrel case has finally been published.
33 (eresources.hcourt.gov.au)
34 QUOTE
35 MOD ANNOUNCEMENT
36 Anyone speculating as to the name of EF will have their post removed and will get a time out.
37 I don’t care if you’re clever enough to work it out on your own, doxxing is against Reddit’s rules, and I’m
38 not about to let this sub become a story on news.com.au because someone decided to demonstrate how clever
39 they were - or worse, named the wrong person.
40 Regardless of the practical efficacy of the pseudonym given to EF by the Courts, the fact of the matter is that
41 the name has been suppressed. For those who are members of the profession, you would do well to remember
42 your duty to the Court.
43 This is your first and only warning

44
45 A bunch of consequential judgments will flow from this - stay tuned!
46 Edit: Judgment below has now been published: https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-

47 bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2017/350.html
48 Among the most remarkable opening couple of paragraphs you’ll ever read:

Page 74
1 Early in February 2015, the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission provided to the
2 Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police ("AB"), and AB in turn provided to the Victorian Director of Public
3 Prosecutions ("CD"), a copy of a report ("the IBAC Report") concerning the way in which Victoria Police
4 had deployed EF, a police informer, in obtaining criminal convictions against Antonios ("Tony") Mokbel and
5 six of his criminal associates ("the Convicted Persons"). The Report concluded among other things that EF,
6 while purporting to act as counsel for the Convicted Persons, provided information to Victoria Police that had
7 the potential to undermine the Convicted Persons' defences to criminal charges of which they were later
8 convicted and that EF also provided information to Victoria Police about other persons for whom EF had
9 acted as counsel and who later made statements against Mokbel and various of the other Convicted Persons.
10 Following a review of the prosecutions of the Convicted Persons, CD concluded that he was under a duty as
11 Director of Public Prosecutions to disclose some of the information from the IBAC Report ("the
12 information") to the Convicted Persons.
13 In the months which followed, Victoria Police undertook an assessment of the risk to EF if CD were to
14 disclose the information to the Convicted Persons. The conclusion reached was that, if the information were
15 disclosed, the risk of death to EF would become "almost certain". On 10 June 2016, AB instituted
16 proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking declarations that the information that CD proposed to
17 disclose and other information in the IBAC Report was subject to public interest immunity and thus that CD
18 is not permitted by law to make the proposed disclosures. On 11 November 2016, EF was added as a plaintiff
19 to the proceeding. On 15 November 2016, EF instituted a separate proceeding in the Supreme Court of
20 Victoria seeking similar relief on the basis of an equitable obligation of confidence.
21 It gets more brutal:
22 EF's actions in purporting to act as counsel for the Convicted Persons while covertly informing against them
23 were fundamental and appalling breaches of EF's obligations as counsel to her clients and of EF's duties to
24 the court. Likewise, Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging EF to do
25 as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to
26 discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or affection, malice or
27 ill-will. As a result, the prosecution of each Convicted Person was corrupted in a manner which debased
28 fundamental premises of the criminal justice system.
29 ...
30 If EF chooses to expose herself to consequent risk by declining to enter into the witness protection program,
31 she will be bound by the consequences. If she chooses to expose her children to similar risks, the State is
32 empowered to take action to protect them from harm.
33 END QUOTE
34
35 Again;
36
37 QUOTE
38 EF's actions in purporting to act as counsel for the Convicted Persons while covertly
39 informing against them were fundamental and appalling breaches of EF's obligations as
40 counsel to her clients and of EF's duties to the court.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 It therefore is obvious that if she was informing against her own client than more than likely her
44 manner of representation can be questioned. Did she for example avoid questioning witnesses for
45 the prosecution where it could assist her clients? Did she omit to put forwards submissions in
46 favour of her clients? Did she avoid making submissions in favour of her clients to ensure a
47 conviction could eventuate?
48
49 What I view we have is a lawyer who perverted the course of justice numerous times and as
50 such was not at all serving the public interest but rather her own as I view it twisted version of
51 justice.
52 .

Page 75
1 Did she have contact with her clients and billed them for it when in reality her contact was to
2 obtain information for her to pass on to the Victorian Police? As such she might be deemed to
3 have defrauded her clients.
4
5 I challenged the constitutional validity of compulsory voting and did so successfully on 19 July
6 2006. However part of my written submission was:
7
8 ADDRESS TO THE COURT
9 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 (19-7-2006)
10 QUOTE
11 Defendant then is faced with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions being for
12 warned as to what the Defendant intends to do in most issues and as such may seek to
13 counteract those arguments. It is not the counter argument itself that the Defendant is worried
14 about, but the deceptive conduct employed in the past by the lawyers acting for the Australian
15 Electoral Commission in their litigation to the extend as to deliberately replace words in what
16 is claimed to be an Authority being quoted as to pretend to the Court that a judge made a
17 certain ruling even so the ruling is a fraudulent version to deceive the Court. Such as Mr Peter
18 Hanks QC did before the Federal Court of Australia and later again made a deceptive
19 statement to the High Court of Australia.
20
21 For example, checking the transcript of the hearing, it is noted that Mr Peter Hanks QC in his
22 argument in point 22 and 22.1 of the OUTLINE stated the following;
23
24 QUOTE
25 22 In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred
26 to the general rule that “not less than” so many days refers to clear days – “unless the
27 context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention”.
28 END QUOTE
29 His quotation is again false and misleading!
30
31 Mr Peter Hanks QC quoted of the judgment the following;
32 QUOTE
33 “unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention”
34 END QUOTE
35 This ought to be;
36 QUOTE
37 “unless the context or the subject matter reveals a contrary intention”
38 END QUOTE
39
40 Clearly, that is a gross deception. In legal terms there can be a significant difference in a case
41 for the Court to deal with a “statutory intention” versus “subject matter”.
42
43 Mr Peter Hanks QC stated to the Court (7 November 2001);
44
45 The researches of counsel have been unable to find provisions using simular language (“not
46 less that” or “at least” a number of days) where the language is as clear and specific as
47 found in ss156(1) and 157.
48
49 Thousands upon thousands of Internet references can be found upon a search “shall not be
50 less than” or “shall not be less that”. As such this statement by Mr. Peter Hanks QC for the

Page 76
1 Australian Electoral Commission was a fraudulent statement. Likewise other statement were
2 found by the defendant to be deceptive and/or misleading.
3
4 We also have the fact that Counsel Mr peter Hanks QC argued the authority of the
5
6 ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD
7 (1950) 81 CLR 161
8
9 What counsel did however was to make a false and misleading presentation of what the case
10 really was on about.
11 As the authority stated:
12
13 The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which
14 was too short by one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position.
15
16 Mr Peter Hank QC didn’t argue that the authority wasn’t relevant, to the contrary he argued
17 its relevance only by misrepresenting how it applied and what the authority really was on
18 about. As such, it had nothing to do with “within” as Mr Peter Hanks QC argued as clearly the
19 usage “within” was in a different context and not at all as Mr Hanks sought to imply and did
20 imply.
21
22 It ought to be considered a serious matter that a barrister employs these kind of tactics, indeed
23 deceptive tactics, but it seems the Australian Electoral Commissioner does not seem to worry
24 about the means as long as it achieves his end results.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 I also understand that the then Attorney-General Rob Hulls had his wife as a prosecutor who
28 concealed from the Defendant and the court evidence that seemed to prove the accused was
29 innocent. The Defendant was convicted and spend about 18 months in prison when he had
30 engaged a new lawyer who discovered this and the defendant was then set free and given a
31 financial compensation. I view the prosecutor who lies undermines the very administration of
32 justice they are to serve and should at the very least be given the punishment inflicted upon an
33 innocent accused.
34
35 Regretfully the system ignores real justice.
36 .
37 It is useless to claim that a person may appeal when the person lacks the funds to obtain
38 competent legal service. Joske J in the Zabena case in about 1985 incorrectly referred to Section
39 13 of the Family Law Act 1975 that because of this a litigant had to pay for the transcript. I
40 urged then Mr Zabena to appeal but he was as I understood it in ill health and unable to afford
41 the transcript. Since then people whom cannot afford the cost of the transcript have no way to
42 appeal. Lawyers will obtain transcripts as their clients are paying for it.
43
44 The exception was when I very successfully represented Mr Francis James Colosimo before her
45 Honour Harbison J of the County Court of Victoria regarding a contempt application against Mr
46 Colosimo. Her Honour agreed with my submission that the contempt application of the
47 opponents couldn’t be withdrawn because once filed it become the property of the court/tribunal.
48 Her Honour also on my submission stayed the contempt application permanently and on my
49 submission ordered I be provided with the 5 transcripts of past proceedings when Mr Colosimo
50 was represent by a barrister.

Page 77
1 I did covered from the transcript that Mr Colosimo actually never even had been formally
2 charged! Yet, Ms Preuss of VCAT had claimed that Mr Colosimo had been convicted for
3 CONTEMPT OF COURT and was placed under administration.
4 I successfully appealed that order for administration also.
5 I did not charge for my services as a Professional Advocate!
6
7 In the Jsepha van Rooy case the DPP had issued 3 criminal charges against her. When Josepha
8 van rooy approached me on 19 July 2006 to assist her I provided my services free of charge.
9 Ordinary one submit a NO CASE TO ANSWER to the court at the conclusion of the Prosecutors
10 presentation however I wrote to the DPP nearly 2 years earlier There is NO CASE TO
11 ANSWER. The Prosecutor replied that it withdrew 2 of the 3 charges. The Prosecutor had 5
12 police officers, a clerk of clout and a deputy clerk of court as witnesses. While I assisted in van
13 Rooy to present her written submission I explained that I held there was no need for me to come
14 with her to court. After the prosecutor over a period of 5 years presented all evidence His
15 Honour Wood J of the County Court of Victoria directed the jury to return a verdict NOT
16 GUILTY as the prosecutor had failed to make out the charge. The truth is the Victorian Police
17 had cut 11 times into a tape they claimed was a recording of what eventuated to cause the
18 evidence to be different. Also the police officers were providing contradictory evidence, etc. van
19 Rooy didn’t need to present her case as again His Honour directed the jury at conclusion of the
20 Prosecutors case.
21 .
22 Prior to my 19 July 2006 successful appeal against compulsory voting, etc, I had on 5 August
23 2005 in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg another success against the
24 Commonwealth in that the Prosecutor sought to rely upon legal provisions of AVERMENT and
25 I challenged the constitutional validity of this. The court in the end ruled that the Prosecutor had
26 to file and serve all material it relied upon. It may be noted that the court decision of 19 July
27 2006 noted that the DPP had not provided any evidence. As such, it is clear that AVERMENT
28 cannot apply regardless of Commonwealth legislation otherwise unless the State Parliament
29 specifically provided for it as it did regarding Bass Strait.
30
31 Yet, despite my writings to the ATO it nevertheless continued to litigate against Roberta
32 Williams (also for Dhakota Williams) and as an executor of the estate of George Williams this
33 even so the ATO relied upon AVERT (Averment) even so I had alerted them to it being
34 unconstitutional.
35 .
36 When I succeeded against the Commonwealth then this means it is applicable for all people.
37 Hence compulsory voting is unconstitutional. Hence, the Commonwealth cannot use
38 AVERT/AVERMENT unless the relevant State parliament has legislated for it.
39 .
40 When I opposed the validity of legislative provisions then the legislation becomes ULTRA
41 VIRES Ab Initio unless and until if ever at all a competent court of jurisdiction decides against
42 it and declared the legislation to be INTRA VIRES. As this never eventuated then
43 AVERT/AVERMENT is unconstitutional to be used in the circumstances. Yet I understand tens
44 of thousands of times the AO uses it. It means they have placed themselves above the rule of
45 law. And with police informer George Williams they have used this to obtain judgments against
46 the late George Williams and his executives.
47
48 Carl Williams as I understand it made known that it was to kill or be killed. I suspect that
49 Lawyer X may have likewise argued that it might have been better for her to kill or have killed
50 Carl Williams then herself being killed.

Page 78
1 Just that in Carl’s case it was different as others had actually tried to kill him whereas with
2 Lawyer X he had not harmed her instead she as I understand it had undermined his case.
3 .
4 While it may be argued that Carl Williams was a criminal I do not accept this kind of argument
5 to justify any murder. To me when a person requested my assistance/representation then I must
6 act in the best interest of that person, albeit must avoid any conflict as a citizen in society. As
7 such when I was assisting a person in legal proceedings and I discovered he was concealing
8 evidence relevant to the issues before the court I made clear I had from onset stated I would not
9 undermine the courts ability to provide justice and so got out of the case altogether. In my view
10 if lawyer X had a moral issue to represent people she held were criminals then she should have
11 applied leave from the court to withdraw.
12 There is nothing wrong to be an informer to authorities as long as it doesn’t undermine the
13 administration of justice and neither the obligations a person has towards a client. Albeit I held
14 persons I assisted/represented were not clients but referred to them as friends I still had my set of
15 morals.
16 When a person gave me the understanding to wanting to do mass killing in the courts, I simply
17 then informed the then Premier Jeff Kennett and urged to have metal detectors installed in the
18 courts. Premier Jeff Kennett soon after that had them installed.
19
20 I generally refer to “I understand” or to that nature as then I am not talking about what someone
21 actually stated but what my perception rightly or wrongly was about what someone had stated to
22 me. Those who do not trust lawyers and had certain intentions then still trusted me this is
23 because they were well aware I would never seek to identify any person about whatever they
24 stated. It is because of that I was able to learn why people would go through extremes to not only
25 commit suicide but also murder/mass murder if they were to execute their plans.
26
27 I on Tuesday 11-12-2018 woke up at about7.30am and decided as an open minded person to
28 write for this submission about the possibility that Lawyer X was sleeping around not only
29 reportedly with former police officer Paul Dale but also with some of her clients. After all the
30 Wednesday, December 5, 2018 headline “Roberta Williams says female barrister urged her
31 husband to flee overseas to evade murder charges SHE TOLD CARL TO RUN” doesn’t
32 appear to me to be something lawyer X would have done for the pursue of justice. As such, I
33 suspected she may at the time have been romantically involved with Carl Williams. Considering
34 that the pursued IVF as I understand it sometime afterwards then it may very well have been that
35 she wanted to fall pregnant and slept around and then wanting to prevent being caught up with a
36 client she then turned against such a criminal to try to have the person locked away. Hence,
37 despite the IVF claims I view there should be paternity testing if any former/current police
38 officer/client are the biological father of one of more of her children.
39 .
40 It was remarkable that at about 8am on Tuesday 11-12-2018 Jennifer Hanson for 91.5 FM –
41 Smooth then reported during the news that the IBSAC report revealed that lawyer X had been
42 sleeping with some of her client. This precisely seemed to confirm my suspicion.
43 This may mean that Lawyer X was not perhaps originally informing the police on her clients
44 because of a sense of justice, but rather that so to say once they had done the sexual service she
45 preferred to try them locked up as for them not to be aware that they may have fathered a child
46 with her. After all it had come out that she was impregnated by one of her clients it could have
47 ruined her career then already. As such, the desire to become pregnant became an extreme
48 vicious issue to get pregnant by whomever and then inform against such client as to try to get rid
49 of the person for many years to come.
50 While no doubt the desire to become pregnant but not having the ability to do so can be for a
51 female horrendous and I am not a person who seeks to make judgment over any women who in
Page 79
1 desperation also aware her biological clock is ticking and with time pregnancy may be more an
2 illusion then to pursue pregnancy by whomever, as with my Special Lifeline Service I am too
3 well aware how desperate some woman can be to become pregnant, however, this cannot
4 condone the fact that Lawyer X so to say turned against her clients and reportedly made about
5 5,500 informant reports against about 386 persons or more. The issue that lawyer X was sleeping
6 around as I understand it with her client cannot be accepted. Neither that she was informing the
7 Victorian Police and perhaps also others about her clients.
8 When she as a lawyer had a trusted position to represent her clients she was bound to not get
9 emotional/sexual involved with either them of the Victorian Police so any of its members or
10 former members. In particular where this included issues of murder.
11
12 The desire to become pregnant at all cost and to then turn against those she inappropriately had a
13 sexual relationship with and by this undermining the administration of justice cannot be excused.
14 Again, let us not condone any woman desperate to become pregnant and for this engage in
15 sexual acts for this provided it is not unethical in the circumstance to violate the rule of law.
16 As I understood it some 20 years ago it was then reported that more than 20% of children born in
17 a marriage were not that of the husbands. As such, ample of women despite being married have
18 extramarital relationships without the knowledge of their husbands. And, as not every woman
19 becomes pregnant when engaging in an extramarital relationship this may indicate that a lot
20 more women are so to say sleeping around. .
21 This is not about the rights of women to have a freedom as the rights of the biological father
22 should never be undermined. I am well aware in view of the Special Lifeline Service and as a
23 Professional Advocate how it can be a crushing blow to a person and indeed devastating when a
24 man is told that the child or children he cared for so many years torn out not to be his biological
25 children but the wife by deception pretended to be so until she wants a divorce or other break up
26 and then uses the paternity issue to prevent the husband from further contact.
27 Sadly indeed it is a too common practice with women and the harm and destruction upon the
28 children is also not to be ignored. When then a former wife made this claim against me I was
29 able to have Trevaud J to issue orders for the wife to file an Affidavit setting out the names of
30 the men she had sexual relationships with at the time of each conception of pregnancy. She,
31 aided by her lawyers, refused to do so and the paternity claims by her went nowhere.
32 In my view a parent is one who is there for a child when the child grows up, etc. because a man
33 may impregnate a woman in itself may make him the biological father but may not be the father
34 figure of the child. If due to circumstances the biological father is unable to have contact with the
35 biological child beyond his own fault then this cannot mean he must be disregarded as to his
36 rights to the biological child and visa versa.
37 .
38 However, we should never place a women in charge that she can unilaterally/willy nilly deny a
39 child contact with the biological father
40
41 In my view Lawyer X conduct to inform against her clients may very well have had its origin
42 that she wanted after a sexual escape to have the client put away in prison. I understand from a
43 report that was published as to why she was an informer she seemed to me to indicate that she
44 was paying some client about $190 at times. That she indicated the police should have included
45 that as a compensation, etc.
46 Yet, I understand she also indicated as I understand it that she wasn’t in it for the monies. Well,
47 if she was paying a client at times $190 being it for sexual services or otherwise and then expect
48 the police to refund this expenses then I view her story line to do it for justice because the police
49 failed to pursue certain matters cannot be accepted for this also.
50 .

Page 80
1 It seems to me that Lawyer X may have had a sexual relationship with Carl Williams and as such
2 may have urged him to make a run for it and after he was imprisoned and was reportedly
3 exposing certain matters he became a danger to her and so she might have used her position and
4 influence as to have Carl Williams permanently silenced.
5
6 Once Carl Williams was permanently silenced this might have also been why she then no longer
7 remained a registered police informer, as the message may be out that if you try to expose
8 something about her you may end up dead.
9
10 I am not aware that the Victorian Ombudsman whatsoever investigated this aspect regarding the
11 vicious murder of Carl Williams.
12
13 QUOTE Matter No M732018 -Informer 3838- EF-58
14 As Ginnane J and the Court of Appeal held, there is a clear public interest in maintaining the anonymity of a
15 police informer, and so, where a question of disclosure of a police informer's identity arises before the trial of
16 an accused, and the Crown is not prepared to disclose the identity of the informer, as is sometimes the case,
17 the Crown may choose not to proceed with the prosecution or the trial may be stayed.
18 10 Here the situation is very different, if not unique, and it is greatly to be hoped that it will never be
19 repeated. EF's actions in purporting to act as counsel for the Convicted Persons while covertly informing
20 against them were fundamental and appalling breaches of EF's obligations as counsel to her clients and of
21 EF's duties to the court. Likewise, Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly
22 encouraging EF to do as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of
23 every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or
24 affection, malice or ill-will2. As a result, the prosecution of each Convicted Person was corrupted in a
25 manner which debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system. It follows, as Ginnane J and the
26 Court of Appeal held, that the public interest favouring disclosure is compelling: the maintenance of the
27 integrity of the criminal justice system demands that the information be disclosed and that the propriety of
28 each Convicted Person's conviction be re-examined in light of the information. The public interest in
29 preserving EF's anonymity must be subordinated to the integrity of the criminal justice system.
30 END QUOTE Matter No M732018 -Informer 3838- EF-58
31
32
34 It is further not without significance that Victoria Police may bear a large measure of responsibility for
35 putting EF in the position in which she now finds herself by encouraging her to inform against her clients as
36 she did. But large though those considerations may be, they do not detract from the conclusion that it is
37 essential in the public interest for the information to be disclosed.
39
41 Generally speaking, it is of the utmost importance that assurances of anonymity of the kind that were given to
42 EF are honoured. If they were not, informers could not be protected and persons would be unwilling to
43 provide information to the police which may assist in the prosecution of offenders. That is why police
44 informer anonymity is ordinarily protected by public interest immunity. But where, as here, the agency of
45 police informer has been so abused as to corrupt the criminal justice system, there arises a greater public
46 interest in disclosure to which the public interest in informer anonymity must yield.
48
49 This quotation clearly underlines that the failure by the Victorian Police to conceal Carl
50 Williams to be a police informer was what really likely was why he was so viciously murdered.
51 .
52 Because the media (Herald Sun) published the article in the morning of his murder then I view
53 the Herald Sun could be deemed complicit to the murder and should be questioned as to how it
54 obtained the information.
55
Page 81
1 We now have to consider also some constitutional issues because of the so called Roberta Law,
2 which was an amendment of the Wrongs Act to deprive Roberta Williams and George Williams
3 to sue the State of Victoria for damages in regard of the unlawful killing of police informer Carl
4 Williams.:
5
6 As constitutionalist it is my view that the amendment of the Wrongs Act to deprive Roberta
7 Williams and George Williams of ability to sue for the wrongful death of Carl Williams was
8 unconstitutional and ULTRA VIRES. In view that now those convicted as result of Lawyer X
9 may likewise be denied to sue for damages if they had certain past convictions then it is essential
10 this amendment to the Wrongs Act is considered upon constitutional grounds such as I set out
11 below!
12
13 The States are created within section 106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
14 1900 (UK) “subject to this constitution” and as such the States are bound by the legal
15 principles embedded in this constitution.
16 .
17 Re Wakim [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
18 KIRBY J. : “ A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitution power
19 where none exists. ”
20
21 ":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
22 makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
23
24 "... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
25 remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
26 borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
27 "
28 Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
29
30
31 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
32 27 (17 June 1999)
33 QUOTE
34 Constitutional interpretation
35 1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
36 intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs,
37 hopes or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of
38 those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention
39 of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context
40 in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
41 Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my
42 opinion[53]:
43 "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence
44 available - the authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an
45 exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not
46 mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means
47 trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a
48 social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
49 particular way on a particular occasion."
50 END QUOTE

Page 82
1 Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by
2 s73 of the Constitution.
3 Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
4
5 https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=61502
6 QUOTE H. L. D’EMDEN v F. PEDDER – High Court of Australia
7
8 The Commonwealth and the States are, with respect to the matters which under the Constitution are within
9 the ambit of their respective legislative or executive authority, sovereign States, subject only to the
10 restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or
11 implied. Where, therefore, the Constitution makes a grant of legislative or executive power to the
12 Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is entitled to exercise that power in absolute freedom, and without any
13 interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.
14 END QUOTE
15
17 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
18 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
19 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
20 END QUOTE
21
23 QUOTE
24 Mr. CARRUTHERS:
25 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
26 END QUOTE
27 .
30 QUOTE
31 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
32 exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
33 in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
34 END QUOTE
35
37 Convention)
38 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
39 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
40 END QUOTE
41
42
44 QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
45 That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has
46 described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This
47 Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to
48 this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or
49 rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and
50 it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to
51 understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole
52 time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is
53 commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be
54 appreciated by the people.

Page 83
1 END QUOTE
2
4 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
5 The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for
6 the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
7 whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
8 constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
9 several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the
10 royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be
11 practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
12 full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
13 that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
14 assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
15 again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority
16 conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
17 such authority.
18 END QUOTE
19
21 QUOTE
22 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
23 sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
24 parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present
25 are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the
26 power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
27 sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
28 power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
29 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
30 one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
31 with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
32 which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
33 of the constitution.
34 END QUOTE
35
38 QUOTE
39 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
40 will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
41 the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
42 be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one
43 which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
44 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
45 parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
46 END QUOTE
47
50 QUOTE
51 Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
52 Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
53 of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
54 Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
55 own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
56 that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
57 END QUOTE
58
60 QUOTE

Page 84
1 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Will you briefly restate the point?
2 Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive
3 at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working
4 of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole
5 of the Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will
6 have no power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the
7 necessary revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question
8 whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes
9 place on it, it has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the
10 question? I should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and
11 should be settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of
12 Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference. It appears to me that
13 this sub-section, which is certainly one of the very valuable sub-sections of this clause, affording, as it does,
14 means by which the colonies may by common agreement bring about federal action, without amending the
15 Constitution, needs to be rendered more explicit. One point more especially which needs to be rendered clear
16 is whether, when we have this federal action, there shall not be a federal means of providing for the necessary
17 revenue that may be required or for imposing the necessary charges under such legislation.
18 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Is that not implied?
19 Mr. DEAKIN.-If it is implied, would it not be best to make it explicit? The parentage of this clause, as I
20 have shown-originating as it does in a body with practically no financial power-casts a certain suspicion on
21 that reading of it, although, of course, the provision when embodied in this Act would have a different effect.
22 Still, why not make it clear whether we mean that, when the Federal Parliament has passed federal
23 legislation for some of the colonies, we shall allow that same legislation to deal with any necessary
24 raising of revenue from those colonies which may be required to give effect to the legislation?
25 Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-I think the point taken by my honorable friend (Mr. Deakin) is one well worthy of
26 the consideration of the Drafting Committee, and probably the difficulty to which he has drawn attention
27 could be obviated by some such provision as that which he suggested. But this matter has struck me also
28 from another point of view, and it seems to me that the provision affords an easy method of amending
29 the Federal Constitution, without referring such amendments to the people of the various states for
30 their assent. Now, either when the state Parliaments have referred these matters to the Federal Parliament,
31 and the Federal Parliament has dealt with such matters, that becomes a federal law, and cannot afterwards be
32 repealed or revoked by the State Parliaments-that is one position, and in that case, of course, the reference
33 once made [start page 218] is a reference for all time, and cannot be revoked, so that to that extent it
34 becomes an amendment of the states' Constitution, incorporated in and engrafted on the Federal
35 Constitution without the consent of the people of the various states. On the other hand, if that be not so,
36 and the states can, after making such reference, repeal such reference, what is the result? You have a
37 constant state of change-no guarantee for continuity or permanence-in this class of laws, and this might lead
38 to a great deal of confusion and a most unsatisfactory state of things. My principal objection to the provision
39 is that it affords a free and easy method of amending the Federal Constitution without such amendments
40 being carried into effect in the manner provided by this Constitution.
41 Mr. BARTON.-I cannot understand how it gives an opportunity of amending the Federal
42 Constitution.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 While the Victorian Parliament purportedly amended the colonial constitution by section 123 of
46 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) it in fact can only do so by State
47 referendum. Hence the colonial Constitution act was and remained in force, albeit subject to the
48 provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and as such as the
49 purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 was never submitted to the electors of the State of
50 Victoria and so not approved then the purported constitution is ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio.
51
52 More over as the Federal constitution provides for a fair compensation by acquisition then this
53 legal principle also applies to the states.
54 .
Page 85
1 Moreover the State constitution is not one belonging to the state Parliament but is between the
2 state and its citizens. The state parliament cannot willy nilly amend the state constitution without
3 the consent of the State electors in a State referendum.
4
5 More over the State Supreme Court is not part of the government but part of the constitution and
6 cannot be interfered with by any state government with purported legislation. It means that any
7 reference of state powers, which obviously would affect the judicial powers of the state supreme
8 court, would have to be submitted to the state electors if certain legislative powers of the state
9 Parliament can be referred to the Commonwealth.
10 .
11 The state parliament amending the Wrongs Act to deny the existing right of Roberta Williams
12 and George Williams at the time of the wrongful death of police informer Carl Williams is
13 therefore ULTRA VIRES.
14 While the amendment seeks to hold that a person convicted of a certain crime cannot sue, this is
15 absurd where the State itself is the wrongdoer.
16 The state itself engaged lawyer X to report about police informer Carl Williams and was
17 responsible to the Courts for the safety and wellbeing of prisoner Carl Williams.
18 It is clear that the Victorian Police were undermining the safety and wellbeing of police informer
19 Carl Williams and so to say aided and abetted to have him viciously murdered.
20
21 As shown below the states (with the approval of State electors in a referendum) can then transfer
22 legislative powers from the state to the commonwealth but because such transfer cuts down the
23 state judicial powers of the State Supreme Court then a state referendum is required and not that
24 some political hothead as a premier may willy nilly refer powers having the majority of both
25 Houses of Parliament without the consent of the State electors. Such hot head premier could
26 effectively destroy state hood.
27
29 QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
30 The intention of the framers of the constitution has been to make the constitution as
31 flexible as possible, so that arrangements can be made between the various states and
32 the commonwealth when the time comes to make them.
33 END QUOTE
34 .
36 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
37 When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
38 that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time,
39 trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions
40 clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will
41 harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that
42 too much care has not been exercised.
43 END QUOTE
44
46 QUOTE
47 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
48 in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
49 make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
50 Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
51 the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
52 great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
53 for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
54 States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
Page 86
1 Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
2 have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
3 come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given
4 to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
5 direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
6 there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
7 END QUOTE
8
9 It is therefore clear that the judiciary as the 2-1-1901 proclamation made clear is not part of the
10 government put is to be an impartial administration of justice!
11
12 HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
14 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
15 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
16 shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
17 believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
18 invest with federal jurisdiction.
19 END QUOTE
20
26 END QUOTE
27
30 QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-
31 We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just
32 interpretation of the Constitution:
33 END QUOTE
34
35 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
37 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
38 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
39 through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
40 of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
41 act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
42 Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
43 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
44 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way
45 of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive
46 than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to
47 protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of
48 interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the
49 country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There
50 is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought
51 to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not
52 providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain,
53 and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free
54 Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the
55 provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have
56 provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all
57 other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
58 Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not
59 provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the
60 people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of
Page 87
1 its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but
2 acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in
3 the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to
4 be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose
5 of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament
6 of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to
7 serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any
8 Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have
9 that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
10 which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
11 creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
12 preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
13 action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
14 Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 I again do not have all relevant details and as such cannot determine if Roberta Williams was
18 talked into any guilty plea or otherwise.
19
20 I do not know to what extend Lawyer X betray her clients but while she allegedly was a
21 registered police informer from about 2004 till 2009 it may have been that prior to that and
22 afterwards she may still had further involvement.
23
24 While Carl Williams is not deceased nevertheless justice should not be denied to him and if
25 lawyer X was a police informer against her client Carl Williams then any GUILTY plea I view
26 should be set aside.
27
28 I suspected all along that the Victorian Police likely were involved in the vicious murder of Carl
29 Williams, as it appeared to me that the disclosure about their police informer Carl Williams was
30 too extensive. Also that the concealment from the Victorian Ombudsman investigation about the
31 CD containing Carl Williams statements to the police may have been to cover up that other
32 copies were spread out to criminals in the same prison. The documentation that I read indicates
33 that there were other copies and clearly the date that those CDs were burned (created) would
34 likely expose who did so. If they were made prior to the day the copy was delivered to Carl
35 Williams then the Victorian Police likely had a hand in it.
36 .
37 In my view: A persons worth is his word.
38 .
39 As such, when the Victorian Police made a deal with police informer Carl Williams to pay his
40 daughters school expenses and his father’s claimed ATO debt then I view this should have been
41 honoured.
42
43 Obviously, if the ATO as I hold had no right to AVERT any details/claims in legal provisions
44 lacking state government specific authority then the harm it inflicted upon police informer
45 George Williams also cannot be ignored.
46 .
47 It is totally irrelevant, at least to me, if Carl Williams and/or his father had a criminal past. Each
48 time either one were represented and were subject to litigation in court they were entitled to the
49 best kind of administration.
50 I always held the view and still does that the prosecutor is there to provide all relevant details to
51 the court and the defendant, meaning both adverse as well as to the benefit of the accused.
52 The Courts are not there to convict a person but to adjudicate upon evidence before it and if this
53 includes a conviction then so be it.
54 .
Page 88
1 The Court have the powers to nullify any legislative provision where it is deemed against the
2 interest of the general community!
3
5 QUOTE
6 Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are offences
7 committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and the only cases to
8 which Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the criminal law of the state was in
9 conflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in any other cases there would be no necessity to
10 change the venue, and select a jury of citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in
11 modern or in ancient times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by
12 an Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal offences, and I do
13 not at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of the honorable member a state of affairs
14 in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive.
15 It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular
16 state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to
17 exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences
18 against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its
19 condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was
20 originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which
21 should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the
22 citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by
23 this Constitution.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 When the state can manipulate legislative powers to avoid legal accountability then democracy is
27 out of the window.
28 .
29 In my view, the State of Victoria had a legal obligation to ensure the safety and wellbeing of
30 prisoner Carl Williams and miserably failed to do so and in fact it appears to me caused/
31 contributed to the vicious murder of prisoner and police informer Carl Williams. It cannot claim
32 to be right by manipulating the legal provisions by hindsight to deny a person rights which
33 existed at the time of the vicious murder. In my view the State of Victoria is culpable to the
34 vicious murder of Carl Williams and the trauma is caused upon other family members such as
35 Roberta Williams, George Williams and in particular Dhakota Williams and should be liable for
36 that also.
37
38 As the mass murderer of Bourke Street, Melbourne made clear frustration was an issue. It
39 doesn’t in my view excuse his conduct whatsoever but I have often written this to be a core
40 issue in murders. Now it is well overdue to act!
41
43 https://www.scribd.com/document/398987513/20190206-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-
44 Hlavka-O-W-B-ISSUE-Re-the-Theft-of-Our-Democracy-Etc-the-Constitution-Supplement-29-
45 MANIFESTO-etc
46
47 I now will quote the correspondence to Chief Commissioner of Police Mr Graham ashton.
48 QUOTE 20190208-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Graham Ashton AM Chief Commissioner Victorian Police-Re
49 resignation-standing aside-COMPLAINT
50 Graham Ashton AM Chief Commissioner Victorian Police 8-2-2019
51 Tower 1 637 Flinders Street Docklands Victoria 3008
52 psc-policeconductunitcomplaintsandcompliments@police.vic.gov.au
53
54 20190208-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Graham Ashton AM Chief Commissioner Victorian Police
55 -Re resignation-standing aside-COMPLAINT

Page 89
1 Sir,
2 when I previously contacted you with complaints I had expected that as Chief
3 Commissioner of police you would delegate relevant issues to a local police district
4 commander who then in turn would ensure that any investigation would be conducted
5 without bias. However this turned out not to be the case with my complaints.
6 When then Mr Adrian Hillman a former police officer was claiming you would be
7 shredding my correspondences to you then I suspected that he might have something that
8 might indicate you to be some crooked cop and as such would pursue to obstruct any
9 investigation against Mr Adrian Hillman.
10 I for many years do ordinary not watch television and neither purchase newspapers and
11 well decided on 6 February 2019 to use the internet to discover some issues.
12 From this it appears you were since 2004 in the Victorian Police force and were part of an
13 Integrity police department which I understand was aware about Lawyer X (Informer
14 3838) being a register police informer. As it turns out as I understand it since 1995.
15 Obviously I noticed also that Lawyer X is the niece of former Governor of Victoria J
16 Gobbo.
17 It appears that Lawyer X, prior to becoming a lawyer was charged and pleaded guilty to
18 drug charges and was since then a police informer.
19 Obviously this question the integrity and honesty of you as a Commissioner of Police not
20 having revealed this immediately to the relevant persons such as the Minister for Police
21 and the Royal Commission. While it may be argued that you didn’t know about the issues
22 since 1995 as you then were not part of the Victorian Police, nevertheless I view you
23 concealed knowingly or unknowingly relevant details. It also must be questioned if you did
24 so in legal proceedings before the courts. After all reportedly you caused to incur millions
25 of dollars in cost to try to avoid the matter to become public, essentially like Mr Daniel
26 Andrews did with seeking to oppose the investigation by the Victorian Ombudsman in
27 regard of what is known as the Red Shirt issue.
28 As Chief Commissioner of Police I view there can be no excuse to mislead the courts, the
29 Minister for Police and others.
30 I wrote in the past about the vicious Carl Williams murder and that I understand the police
31 was involved in setting up his murder. Since then the very lawyer who I understand urged
32 Carl Williams to skip Australia to avoid ending up in prison since then claimed she was an
33 informer not for the monies but becaused of justice.
34 As I understand it from media reports (they can be downloaded from the internet) lawyer X
35 before she was a lawyer but a law student then was pleading guilty to possession of drugs.
36 Two other persons were convicted but somehow (as she now is) Lawyer X did not get
37 some conviction. I wonder then was this because her uncle was then a Judge of the
38 Supreme Court of Victoria? Was it that the police used this so to say as a weapon to get her
39 to become a police informer as otherwise it could harm the position of J. Gobbo J?
40
41 I have been a Professional Advocate and represented/assisted parties and for example when
42 a party I was assisting made known not willing to make a proper disclosure in a financial
43 statement I then made clear I would no longer stay involved in the matter. After the
44 proceedings were over I then informed the other party, when this party contacted me, as to
45 the details concealed from this party and the courts. I held that not to disclose this could
46 question my integrity. Indeed at times when I was given the understanding of some persons
47 to contemplate mass murder I then without revealing the identities did notify authorities.
48
49 When it comes to Lawyer-Client confidentiality a lawyer must maintain the integrity of the
50 IMPARTIALITY administration of justice. As such, a lawyer who has a conflict of interest

Page 90
1 cannot become a police informer to reveal details of a lawyer-client confidentiality

2 communication
3 When I investigated the vicious murder of Carl Williams I did not consider that he was a
4 killer or involved in killings as I am not to be his judge and jury. I held he was a person
5 who was wronged by being viciously murdered and it appears to me that the Victorian
6 Police was involved in setting up his murder. I have previously extensively written about
7 this.
8 .
9 Where reportedly you were part of a committee overseeing Lawyer X being a police
10 informer against her own clients then I view you overstepped the boundary of separation of
11 powers.
12 Again the 2-1-1901 Victorian Gazette published letters Patent refers to an IMPARTIAL
13 administration of justice. This means that you cannot have any lawyer who is acting as an
14 OFFICER OF THE COURT to then undermine DUE PROCESS such as a FAIR and
15 PROPER hearing of any accused. Where then a lawyer becomes a police informer against
16 her own client(s) then I view this is perverting the course of justice and conspiring to
17 pervert the course of justice. Those who then were involved as police officers, being it
18 directly and/or indirectly as a supervisional body must I view all be charged for perverting
19 the course of justice, conspiring to pervert the course of justice and for bringing the
20 administration of justice in disrepute, etc.
21 .
22 https://www.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/a2sj3q/ashton_oversaw_corruption_investi
23 gations_using/
24 Ashton oversaw corruption investigations using Informer 3838
25 QUOTE
26 Informer 3838 had been used to try to elicit information from one of the officers under investigation, David
27 "Docket" Waters.
28 Then Deputy Commissioner Overland asked Briars investigator Ron Iddles to take a formal statement from
29 the informer, who was then living in Southeast Asia.
30 But Detective Iddles refused to allow the statement to be formally signed, fearing the use of the informer was
31 so unethical it could lead to a royal commission.
32 Informer 3838 was also deployed during Taskforce Petra, sent to covertly record a conversation with
33 Detective Dale who police believed was involved in the murders of the Hodsons in 2004.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 https://www.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/a2sj3q/ashton_oversaw_corruption_investi
37 gations_using/
38 Ashton oversaw corruption investigations using Informer 3838
39 QUOTE
40 The operation of the registered informant was managed by officers from Victoria Police’s
41 human source unit, which was disbanded in 2013 amid concerns about serious misconduct.
42 But the overall investigations – code-named Taskforce Briars and Taskforce Petra – were
43 overseen by a “steering committee” that included Mr Ashton, who was then deputy
44 director of the Office of Police Integrity, current Victoria Police assistant commissioner
45 Luke Cornelius and then-deputy commissioner Simon Overland. Mr Overland is now chief
46 executive of the Whittlesea council.
47 Sources said there was “no way” Mr Ashton would not have known about the use of the
48 barrister given his senior position at the OPI and on the steering committee.
Page 91
1 END QUOTE
2
3 In my view the refusal of Ron Iddles to accept a signed statement surely ought to have
4 already been a warning to others not to use such unlawful kind of litigation against those
5 charged.
6 Surely the then committee overseeing this conduct of lawyer X should have questioned
7 why Ron Iddles refused to accept any sworn statement from lawyer X and also why Ron
8 Iddles did not file a formal complaint against such conduct, if that is if he didn’t do so.
9
10 The herald sun appears to have also an article about a police officer who was instructed to
11 sign a doctored statement. This in fact is what I also often in the past wrote about going on.
12 And indeed In Silk/Miller it appears to be a major issue that one or more police officers
13 made sworn statements some 2 years but backdated with a doctored content even so they
14 already had initially made a statement.
15 It means to me that as I pointed out in my 6—2-2019 PRESS RELEASE titled:
16 20190206-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The theft
17 of our democracy, etc, & the constitution-Supplement 29-crooked cops-etc
18 That there is no law enforcement but rather c rooked police which use the administration of
19 justice for ulterior purposes to have innocent people convicted and by this have the real
20 criminals being able to go free and continue their crime spree.
21
22 As the mass murderer of Bourke Street, Melbourne made clear frustration was an
23 issue. It doesn’t in my view excuse his conduct whatsoever but I have often written
24 this to be a core issue in murders. Now it is well overdue to act!
25
27 https://www.scribd.com/document/398987513/20190206-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-
28 Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-ISSUE-Re-the-Theft-of-Our-Democracy-Etc-the-Constitution-
29 Supplement-29-MANIFESTO-etc
30
31 The late George Williams PLEADED GUILTY about drugs and then was later faced with
32 a $750,000 tax bill. This clearly was in my view never part of the plea bargaining.
33 When people plea guilty they do so on the basis what then is taken as a compromise
34 between accused and law enforcement authorities and I view it is to undermine the
35 impartial administration of justice to then add a tax bill that was never part at the time of
36 the plea bargaining issues considered.
37 Neither that a person then later could be robbed of a right to sue the State for its
38 wrongdoing in a murder case.
39
40 An IMPARTIAL administration of justice in my view means that any interference by
41 government and its authorities is a violation of separation of powers. It means that a lawyer
42 acting as an OFFICER OF THE COURT cannot be a police informer in regard of anything
43 that was in confidence conveyed to the lawyer.
44 Here we had Lawyer X making claims that she became a police informer to pursue justice
45 when in reality she was about a decade prior to that already a police informer. It means to
46 me that she and the police concealed this from the courts and ought to be charged with
47 perjury, etc.
48
49 One now also have to ask how much of the information Lawyer X provided to the police
50 might not just have been fabricated against her own clients? After all she proved not to be
51 trustworthy as an OFFICER OF THE COURT and hence I view that all convictions

Page 92
1 involving Lawyer X and other lawyers who were police informers should all be
2 squashed/set aside.
3 The courts cannot stand by and have people incarcerated where the due process regarding
4 the administration of justice was compromised.
5 Little wonder to me that we have police officers involved in other crimes because it seems
6 to be the modus operandi for policed to be themselves involved in criminal activities.
7
8 Where were you when the Police Ethical Department misled Carl Williams and his lawyers
9 about the Moti case?
10 .
11 What did you do when the police as I understand it concealed from the Victorian
12 Ombudsman details about who delivered the CDs to the prison containing Carl Williams’s
13 statements?
14 Why was there no investigation as to determine when the CDs were burned as to establish
15 when they were made and by whom?
16 .
17 Why did you not then notify the coroner to reopen the inquest as relevant details were not
18 properly investigated either by the police or by the Victorian Ombudsman?
19
20 The fact that reportedly you spend millions of dollars to prevent matters to be exposed, and
21 that is taxpayers monies, I view that you can no longer be trusted and certainly not as Chief
22 Commissioner of Police and should forthwith resign. You may hold that to stand aside
23 might perhaps in the interim be a solution so that the Royal Commission can do its own
24 fact finding.
25
26 As I indicated in my past writings Mr Adrian Hillman is a former police officer and yet
27 despite my signage of warning not to enter he nevertheless authorized someone to even
28 demolish my retaining wall, albeit without any lawful authority, and then makes clear that
29 you as Chief Commissioner of Police will not act against him but shred my
30 correspondence. To me this might just underline that there is a lot more to be uncovered
31 about your person as a police officer. After all, no police officer let alone a Chief
32 Commissioner of Police would accept a criminal conduct to be left without investigation.
33 As Mr Adrian Hillman is a former police officer it must be clear that I cannot trust the
34 local police of an unbiased investigation and hence expected you to delegate to a local
35 district commander to ensure an unbiased investigation was to be conducted.
36 .
37 I make it very clear that prior to 2017 to my knowledge I never had any form of
38 communication with Carl Williams, his father George Williams or Roberta Williams. I was
39 simply asked by someone if I could investigate matters and well decided to do so free of
40 charge.
41
42 The guilty pleas of Carl Williams before Justice Betty King in my view should be set aside
43 and so the conviction because it is unsafe to rely upon this. One may ask how many other
44 lawyers Carl Williams, his father George Williams and/or Roberta Williams were policed
45 informers?
46 .
47 In my view the convictions of George Williams and Roberta Williams are unsafe for this
48 also and should be set aside.
49 .
50 I might add that former Chief Justice Warren refused to deal with matters I raised at the
51 time in my writings to her and this is regrettable as now it underlines that Chief Justice
52 Warren may have acted prior to the High court of Australia casting its views about what
53 went on involving Lawyer X.
Page 93
1 .
2 Obviously the decisions by the courts in ATO versus George Williams now also must be
3 set aside, this as if the guilty pleas were obtained by lawyers perverting the course of
4 justice then the SUBSEQUENT court decisions all must so to say fall by the wayside.
5
6 I for one for many years have stated that the policed were manufacturing versions of
7 affidavits as to achieve a conviction where I even refused to sign an affidavit in the
8 doctored version until it was corrected back to what I had stated. As such it is in my view a
9 modus operandi that exist for decades.
10
11 Let’s us not forget that when I on 9 January 2009 went into the police vehicle to cooperate
12 with the police I then found to be arrested. The arrest simply could not advance anything
13 because I was already in the unmarked police car to assist. In fact I at no time refused to
14 answer any questions as in fact I corrected the police about the questions being asked.
15 This, even so I could have invoked my legal right to answer any questions. As I then made
16 clear I would publish a book about it all and did so. About 2 weeks after providing a copy
17 of the book to then then Chief Commissioner of Police I was then informed that I was no
18 longer a suspect. In my view the arrest was without legal justification in the circumstances
19 then existing but despite my subsequent complaint the OPI didn’t agree with that. I
20 understand now that the OPI itself being involved either directly and/or indirectly with
21 criminal activities was not particularly interested in enforcement of the law.
22
23 Do not ignore that you as I understand it advanced yourself upon the harm inflicted upon
24 accused persons.
25 It is to me not relevant if any person was or was not Guilty of any crime in real facts as
26 unless we have an IMPARTIAL administration of justice all we end up with is some
27 STAR CHAMBER COURT (Outlawed within Victorian state laws) or some KANGAROO
28 COURT kind of litigation.
29
30 Let me make it very clear that I find there is nothing wrong with any person becoming a
31 police informer provided that person is not in conflict with his/her sworn duties and
32 obligations towards the person in regard of whom they are informing the police about. If
33 for example a person disclose to the lawyer to contemplate to commit a murder then the
34 lawyer cannot ignore this as to do so could implicate the lawyer in the commission of a
35 crime, if only by his/her silence.
36 Ample of persons as I understand it are wondering why on earth you have not pursued
37 some time ago charges against those involved in the Red Shirt issue and well it appears to
38 me know that you are not particular credible in your conduct and as such this may answer
39 also why you failed to act some time ago, in particular with the Red Shirt issues. After all,
40 if it was good enough to arrest me while I was already on my way to the police station and
41 so the arrest in that regard could not achieve anything, then why not have arrested those
42 who defrauded the Consolidated Revenue Funds and with it their conspiracy to do so?
43
44 So here we had the niece of Justice Gobbo charged about drug offences and remarkably
45 she is without conviction but not the other 2 persons. To me that seems to indicate the
46 Victorian Police all along was undermining the administration of justice to get her to
47 become a police informer knowing that she would become a lawyer. One has to question
48 how many more current and past lawyers were involved as a police informer against their
49 own clients.
50 .
51 How did all those lawyers appropriately represent their clients? I wonder if the transcripts
52 might show that the relevant lawyer(s) at the time may have skipped certain line of cross-
Page 94
1 examination of witnesses as to ensure the client would be convicted in some deal with the
2 police.
3 .
4 I recall that the Legal service Board albeit without success investigating me for some time
5 and yet it so to say was asleep at the wheel while lawyers were police informers against
6 their own clients inappropriately and unlawfully.
7 Fiona McLeay, the Legal Services Board chief executive and commissioner surely should
8 immediately investigate all lawyer (past and present) who might have been police
9 informers against their clients.
10
11 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-05/silk-miller-murders-ibac-hearing-told-statement-was-
12 backdated/10782146
13 Silk-Miller murders IBAC hearing told signing backdated statements was common practice
14 QUOTE
15 The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) is examining the conduct of police investigating the
16 1998 killings of Sergeant Gary Silk and Senior Constable Rodney Miller and whether the statements of officers who were
17 there on the night were doctored.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 I rec all an incident in Punt road and Toorak Road where I became a Police witness and
21 refused to sign a doctored statement but insisted it to be corrected. The police officer then
22 was explaining to me that in her way it was better to get a conviction. As such, long before
23 the Silk/Miller murders the police then already was tampering with statements. That was in
24 about 1986, as such more than 3 decades!
25
26 I recall that not long ago a woman was charged with hitting the father of her child with a
27 steel pole. I understood the duty legal aid lawyer was trying to get her to plea guilty. I had
28 indicated to her that in my view it was self-defense. The matter came before a magistrate
29 who happen to have been dealing with the couple before and so to say she threw out of the
30 window the charges as she understood it was self-defense. After all the man had already
31 smashed the mother’s car window. Here we had police pursuing charges where in my view
32 it was very obvious it was self-defense.
33 In my view the police should spend less attention of trying to score a conviction and more
34 about presenting the true facts before the courts, without concealing or otherwise
35 doctoring it and without infringing upon a person’s legal rights and then leaved it up to the
36 courts to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused.
37 When we have one or more lawyers inciting or otherwise influencing their clients to make
38 a plea bargain to ensure a conviction then we have lost DEMOCRACY and having an
39 IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Those lawyers and other officials
40 involved should in my view be charged for placing the administration of justice in
41 disrepute.
42 From what I understand of various reports you directly/indirectly perverted the
43 course of justice and as such should at the very least stand aside but I view more
44 appropriately should resign, and face appropriate charges also.
45
46 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all
47 issues.
48 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
49 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

50 (Our name is our motto!)
Page 95
1
2 END QUOTE 20190208-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Graham Ashton AM Chief Commissioner Victorian
3 Police-Re resignation-standing aside-COMPLAINT
4
5 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/10/deeper-wider-longer-lawyer-x-inquiry-
6 reveals-corruption-of-justice-system
8 QUOTE
10 As the identity of Informer 3838 remains under wraps, the royal commission into police
11 informants exposes a scandal that worsens by the day
12 Richard Ackland
13 @JustinianNews
14 Sun 10 Feb 2019 12.06 AEDT Last modified on Sun 10 Feb 2019 12.08 AEDT
15 The Victorian police informer scandal will betray a justice system supposedly designed to give
16 every advantage to the citizen against the state. Photograph: Alexander Kirch/Getty
17 Images/EyeEm
18 It’s a matter of pride for lawyers that they are free and able to work both sides of the street. In
19 particular the cab-rank rule for barristers dictates as much. One day as a prosecutor, next for an
20 accused; for the state and against it. And in the civil sphere there’s much swapping of hats while
21 working for plaintiffs and alternatively for defendants.
22 Now we have the Victorian police informer and former barrister known variously as Lawyer X,
23 Informer 3838 or in judicial proceedings as EF, working “both sides of the street” to new and
24 previously unexplored levels. She was shopping her clients to the police who were prosecuting
25 them, notably when she acted as counsel for Melbourne crime figure Tony Mokbel and his
26 associates while simultaneously providing information to the police about her clients. About
27 eight years ago Victoria police paid her almost $2.9m in compensation for her troubles.
28 In November last year the high court lifted suppression orders that had kept the story under
29 wraps for years, while imposing other orders to protect the identity of EF.
30 As is often the case with suppression orders in an era of porous information, the story got out.
31 There’s hardly a Melbourne lawyer, judge or convicted criminal who doesn’t know the identity
32 of Informer 3838.
33 On 4 February, the Victorian court of appeal extended the suppression orders and to be sure
34 there’ll be more of them emerging from the inquiry now under way, which has the benign name
35 of “royal commission into management of police informants”.
36 More appropriately, it might be called royal commission into the corruption of the criminal
37 justice system. The terms of reference already have to be tweaked because Victoria police has
38 discovered that Informer 3838, aka Lawyer X, aka EF was informing from 1995, 10 years earlier
39 than first suspected.
40 Royal commissioner Malcolm Hyde fell on his sword because of a perceived conflict of interest,
41 having been a senior Victorian police officer during this earlier period. The commission soldiers
42 on with the former president of the Queensland court of appeal, Margaret McMurdo, at the helm.
43 It is now apparent that this perversion of justice runs deeper, wider and longer than was first
44 imagined. Other lawyers are said to be involved in dishing-up their clients to the police, and not

Page 96
1 just in Victoria. How far it has spread is for now a matter of conjecture. Are any judges in on the
2 racket? Perish the thought.
3 This will continue to unravel painfully, damaging the so-called independence of the legal
4 profession, and betraying a criminal justice system supposedly designed to give every advantage
5 to the citizen against the state. The Victorian Bar has been quick to quarantine the fallout, saying
6 there is nothing to suggest other barristers are involved and that what has been uncovered so far
7 is “wholly aberrant”.
8 At its heart this is a story about secrets, and the struggle in the courts over the past four years to
9 keep the lid on them.
10 In 2014 Victoria’s independent broad-based anti corruption commission (IBAC) had former
11 supreme court judge Murray Kellam conduct an investigation into Victoria police’s
12 “management of human sources and in particular the issue of whether or not such management
13 has complied with appropriate ethical and legal obligations”. This was Operation Leven.
14 By February 2015, Kellam had completed the report examining how Lawyer X came to work as
15 defence counsel for Mokbel and six of his criminal associates in the drug trade, while
16 simultaneously working with the police to secure their convictions. This had the potential to
17 undermine the defences of the accused, quite apart from keeping relevant information from the
18 prosecutors.
19 In July 2012 Mokbel had been was sentenced in the Victorian supreme court to 30 years in
20 prison, to serve a minimum of 22 years.
21 The IBAC report was not made public, but it went to the Victorian police who then sent it to the
22 DPP. Ever since those two agencies have been engaged in lengthy and expensive litigation. The
23 DPP believes he had a duty to disclose the report’s findings to the convicted clients of Lawyer X,
24 while the police have strenuously opposed the release of the information, saying it would result
25 in the “almost certain” death of their informant.
26 The police commissioner started proceedings in the supreme court on 10 June 2016 seeking a
27 declaration that disclosure of the information was against the public interest – known to lawyers
28 as public interest immunity.
29 On 11 November 2016, Lawyer X was added as a plaintiff and she also started separate
30 proceedings on the grounds that she was owed an obligation of confidence.
31 The case was heard in secret with publication suppressed.
32 In June the following year, Justice Timothy Ginnane dismissed the proceedings, finding that
33 while there was a public interest in preserving the anonymity of EF’s identity, there was a
34 stronger public interest in favour to disclosure of the information in the anti-corruption
35 commission report.
36 Confidence in the criminal justice system demanded no less.
37 On 21 November 2017 the appeals were dismissed and in May last year the police and Lawyer X
38 went to the high court where in November their case was thrown out to the accompaniment of
39 scathing comments.
40 The lawyer’s breach of professional duty was “appalling”; the Victoria police were guilty of
41 “reprehensible conduct”; the prosecution outcomes had been “corrupted in a manner which
42 debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system”.
Page 97
1 It follows that the convictions be re-examined by the DPP. It was only then that the world at
2 large became aware of the deeds of Informer 3838 and the inevitable fallout followed in quick
3 order.
4 Throughout, the courts expressed concern for the informant’s safety, yet she has refused to go
5 into a witness-protection program with her children. Indeed, there are reports she has been seen
6 around Melbourne and delivering her children to school. She is a member of a prominent
7 Victorian family and is widely known.
8 In a dark twist, the high court noted that she is anxious to avoid witness protection because she
9 believes the “Victoria police cannot be trusted to maintain confidentiality”.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 The following article might also underline the sheer misuse and abuse of taxpayer’s monies. The
13 police should in the first place not have engaged lawyers in violation to their position as an
14 Officer of the Court.
15
16 One has to consider the harm inflicted to persons who were jeopardized in their representation by
17 Lawyer XC and others like her. It would be absurd to hold that lawyer X so called safety is more
18 important than the rights of those she harmed, as after all where she refused police protection
19 then it is self-inflicted and should not be used by her or any other lawyer like her to deny proper
20 scrutiny and the reveals of her identity. After all there are ample of media reports already on the
21 internet about her suing the Victorian Police that were reported using her name as shown above.
22
23 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-08/victoria-polices-lawyer-x-legal-battle-cost-over-$4.5m/10596904
24 QUOTE
25 Victoria Police's legal fight to keep Lawyer X

26 gangland informer secret cost $4.52 million
27 Updated 8 Dec 2018, 12:38pmSat 8 Dec 2018, 12:38pm
28 Photo: Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton may be called to give evidence to the royal commission. (AAP: Ellen Smith)
29 RELATED STORY: I've done nothing wrong in gangland lawyer scandal, says Victoria's police chief
30 RELATED STORY: Melbourne gangland lawyer explains why she became a police informant
31 RELATED STORY: Police handling gangland informant 'saw risks' but were told to keep going: former officer
32 Victoria Police has revealed it spent $4.52 million on a legal fight to keep the use of a criminal defence barrister as an informer
33 during Melbourne's gangland war a secret due to fears she and her family "would be murdered".
34 Key points:
35 Victoria Police feared the lives of the lawyer and her family were at risk if identifying information was made public
36 A royal commission will investigate the arrangement, which the High Court described as "reprehensible conduct"
37 The police chief said he was aware of the use of the barrister but is "very confident" he has done nothing wrong
38 The arrangement will be the focus of a royal commission next year, which will investigate whether the scandal could taint the
39 convictions of senior gangland criminals such as Tony Mokbel, drug trafficker Rob Karam and convicted killer Faruk Orman.
40 On Monday, the High Court lifted suppression orders to reveal the barrister, who cannot be identified, represented Mokbel and
41 other underworld figures while informing against her clients between 2005 and 2009.
42 The High Court described police's use of the lawyer, known as Informer 3838 or Lawyer X, as "reprehensible conduct" which
43 involved sanctioning "atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer".
44 The court also found the defence lawyer had engaged in a "fundamental and appalling breach" of her obligations as a barrister.
45 Victoria's Director of Public Prosecutions wrote to 20 criminals after the suppression orders were lifted, to let them know their
46 convictions were potentially tainted by the arrangement.

Page 98
1 In a statement today, Victoria Police confirmed it had spent a total of $4.52 million in legal costs in a bid to keep the arrangement
2 secret.
3 "Our priority throughout has been the safety of the lawyer and her family
4 who we feared would be murdered if identifying information was released,"
5 the statement said.
6 "We are duty bound to do all we can to keep people safe."
7 Defence lawyer David Galbally QC, who has several clients affected by the scandal, said the sum was "extraordinary".
8 "It is a lot of money … for a government agency, a police department. It's extraordinary. I mean, the whole thing is
9 extraordinary," he said.
10 Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton said on Thursday that he was aware of the use of the barrister as an informer during his
11 time at the Office of Police Integrity or OPI.
12 But he said he had done nothing wrong and would not stand down from the top job.
13 "I am very confident in my own knowledge and role that I've done nothing wrong in this," he said.
14 Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume
15 Video: Graham Ashton speaks to ABC Radio Melbourne's Jon Faine (ABC News)
16 Former homicide squad detective Ron Iddles said on Tuesday that up to 15 senior police officers turned a "blind eye" to the
17 consequences of using the barrister as an informant and he had raised concerns with a superintendent at the time.
18 "I said, 'you don't get this. I can tell you now, this will cause a royal commission'," Mr Iddles said.
19 "I just couldn't get that they didn't understand the ramifications of deploying, employing and registering a solicitor."
20 The Victorian Government is yet to appoint two royal commissioners to lead an investigation into the use of the lawyer-turned-
21 informant.
22 On Thursday Premier Daniel Andrews said both appointments would be made from interstate to create "appropriate distance"
23 from the Victorian criminal justice system.
24 Topics: police, crime, law-crime-and-justice, government-and-politics, state-parliament, states-and-territories, courts-and-trials,
25 melbourne-3000, vic
26 First posted 8 Dec 2018, 11:19amSat 8 Dec 2018, 11:19am
27 END QUOTE
28
29 QUOTE 28-3-2018 COMPLAINT
30 Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office 28-3-2018
31
32 C/o Marlo Baragwanath
33 enquiries@vgso.vic.gov.au
34
35 Sir/Madam,
36 as you may recall in Re: Parvakis v Schorel-Hlavka (ex MCV No.C11666860)
37 Her Honour Gaynor made known that anyone could institute proceedings. In that case the issue
38 was that I had not filed a candidate’s expense form, this even so I had no expenses and there was
39 a dispute with Banyule City Council.
40
41 You may be aware that the Victorian Ombudsman on 21 March 2018 handed down a report
42 regarding the misuse/abuse of public monies. It appears to me that about 21 or more Members of
43 Parliament now exposed to have used public monies for their Victorian State election campaign
44 Failed to disclose such monies in their candidate election expenses. Further that they conspired
45 to defraud Consolidated Revenue Funds in the process. I understand that former Mr Landers was
46 involved in this also.
Page 99
1 At the time Parvakis pursued the proceedings in her own name and nevertheless the Victorian
2 Government Solicitor’s Office funded the litigation and provided lawyers for this also. It is my
3 view that on that basis the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office likewise should provide the
4 same services for me to lay charges against all those involved in defrauding the Consolidated
5 Revenue funds and to conspire to defraud the Consolidated Revenue Funds as well as to conceal
6 relevant details on their candidate election expenditure.
7 It ought to be noted that I did file a formal complaint with the Victorian Ombudsman on 17 May
8 2017 which included the relevant authority in which it was made clear that public monies cannot
9 be used for election purposes of which I provided Mr Daniel Andrews also a copy thereof.
10
11 Will the Victorian Ombudsman recommend that those violating electoral laws misusing
12 public monies are charged?
13
15 https://www.scribd.com/document/348615829/20170517-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-Re-SUBMISSION-to-
16 Ombudsman-Victoria-Re-Victorian-Election-Issues
17
18 We should apply this mantra by Mr Daniel Andrews Leader of the Opposition to himself and others (including
19 premier Denis Napthine) and ensure that before the week is out appropriate independent investigations are
20 conducted in these matters so that Mr Daniel Andrews statements
21 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
22 “If decency, fairness, accountability, the public trust, the public good, and saying no to the abuse of the
23 public purse were motivations for the Premier, then he would not have waited” and “It is not a strategy about
24 representation; it is a strategy about apologising for rorting. That is what it is.”
25 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
26 Must be applied as he pursued then let he and others be used as examples.
27 No excuses about what he may have expected as to the holding of a by-election in Frankston but “accountability”
28 for what I view his “rorting’ of public monies.
29
30 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
31 This is transparent, and it is central to the reason why the people of this great state have such low
32 regard for us as parliamentarians and politicians.
33 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
34
35 It ought to be obvious that where I had written about Ethics Orientation for State Officials
36 Misuse of Public Funds http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php on 4-6-2014 to the then
37 Premier Mr Napthine with a copy to Mr Daniel Andrewes which was about 5 months prior to the
38 Victorian 2014 State election and provided thereafter further copies of this Authority then Mr
39 Daniel Andrews knew or ought to have known that he couldn’t use public monies for electoral
40 purposes.
41 END QUOTE 20140616-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Christine Fyffe, Speaker Re EXPULSION Daniel
42 Andrews + James Merlino required-etc
43 QUOTE 20140615-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Bruce Atkinson MLC -Re Geoff Shaw saga-etc
44 http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
45 QUOTE
46 Ethics Orientation for State Officials

47 Misuse of Public Funds
48 Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
49 The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the
50 principle that public funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An
51 expenditure is made for a public purpose when its purpose is to benefit the public interest
52 rather than private individuals or private purposes.
53 Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public
54 official possesses only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or
55 impliedly.
Page 100
1 The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds
2 may not be expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are
3 neither for a public purpose nor are they authorized.
4 The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no
5 personal benefit may result from an expenditure of public funds.
6 For example, the payment of a public employee’s salary confers a personal benefit on the
7 employee, but it is an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the
8 services of the employee for public purposes.
9 The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure
10 is not merely incidental. The term “public funds” is not limited to money, but includes anything of
11 value belonging to a public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and
12 use of telephones, computers, and fax machines and other equipment and resources.
13
14 Examples of Misuse of Public Funds
15 1. In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to
16 purchase items for himself and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even though
17 those receiving the discount paid for the items with personal funds.
18 2. In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county vehicle
19 to transport a political candidate, his staff and family.
20 3. In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to work on
21 his political campaign for Lieutenant Governor.
22 4. In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in
23 connection with official business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great
24 Falls, Montana and back.
25 Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and
26 civil sanctions.
27 These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 Wed have that the Victorian Government under the leadership of Premier Denis Napthine provided
31 reportedly $1.5 million to a friend for meat works. And I understand that Premier Denis Napthine may
32 have agreed to fund cost for having Gay Waterhouse a horse trainer to attend to Warnabool races. Such
33 expenditures are not in my view that of ordinary services of a Department and therefore should be subject
34 to special Appropriation Bills to be authorised by the Parliament. Failure of this the public monies cannot
35 be used for this.
36 END QUOTE 20140615-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Bruce Atkinson MLC -Re Geoff Shaw saga-etc
37 END QUOTE 20140616-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Christine Fyffe, Speaker Re EXPULSION Daniel
38 Andrews + James Merlino required-etc
39
40 It is a very serious matter to rob electors of a fair and proper election and by this so to say steal
41 an election victory as it undermine DEMOCRACY. In the circumstances I view it appropriate
42 for the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office to provide the same manner of support as it did
43 at the time with Parvakis, which may also then show that it not merely targeted me for my
44 exposure of politician’s wrongdoings but will likewise do so with politicians themselves.
45
46 In my view as the issue related to the ALP and not the State Government then the spending of a
47 reported $1 million to seek to prevent an Ombudsman inquiry ought to be held an attempt to
48 pervert the course of justice and a further misuse and abuse of public funding. It is irrelevant that
49 Mr Daniel Andrews then was Premier as it related to a non-government issue.
50
51 .Thiscorrespondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all issues or
52 contain all relevant details and neither refers to matters in any order of importance.
53
Page 101
1 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2
3
4
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
5 Our name is our motto!
6
7 END QUOTE 28-3-2018 COMPLAINT
8
9 In my view Lawyer X and others like her should face criminal sanctions as she undermined
10 the administration considerably and so should the members of the Victorian Police who
11 colluded in this.
12
13 Despite of my self-acknowledged Crummy English, because I had no former education in the
14 English language and being born in the Netherlands at least I care more about the true meaning
15 and application of the constitution then many if not most lawyers seem to do.
16
17 Again:
18 QUOTE Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
19 The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable
20 right of everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 For those unaware of it the Framers of the Constitution aware of the 14 amendments of the USA
24 constitution nevertheless held that our (federal) constitution in which the States are created
25 within Section 106 SUBJECT TO THIS CONSTITUTION contained liberties equal at least to
26 that of the USA. Hence, our freedom of speech cannot be denied merely because some court
27 may seek to hide its own failure to provide FAIR and PROPER trials, indeed it is of public
28 importance and so in the interest of the public that matters are exposed. You cannot have that a
29 informant is in her own capacity pursing publications and is reported about in the media but
30 somehow a Royal Commission cannot reveal the identity and so thwart the ability of citizens to
31 be aware as to the true identities of those officers of the Court who were registered informers or
32 otherwise betraying their oath and their clients. In my view the Royal
33 Commission should request the court to set aside any court orders which would undermine the
34 purpose of the Royal Commission and the ability of citizens to be aware what precisely is being
35 investigated.
36
37 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
38 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
39 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®
40 (Our name is our motto!)


20190218-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, AC Re SUBMISSION

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

20190218-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commissioner Margaret McMurdo, AC Re SUBMISSION

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Page 1

19 Mr Ken Smith, Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly Victoria, ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au

20 Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

24 Ethics Orientation for State Officials

18-2-2019 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5 More than forty had made this conspiracy Acts 23:13.

8 3. A concurrence; a general tendency of two or more causes to one event.

18-2-2019 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

11 Reports suggested Ms Gobbo had sought millions in compensation.

16 Originally published as Gobbo settles case against police

18-2-2019 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr Daniel ANDREWS

18-2-2019 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 17 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2 RELEVANT LAW: JAGO v. THE DISTRICT COURT

18-2-2019 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 "An unfair trial represents a miscarriage of the curial process. If circumstances

1 1. There is a power in this court to stay proceedings either permanently or conditionally.

18-2-2019 Page 25 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 26 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 29 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 30 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 33 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 36 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

16 That the words "or detention" be inserted after "detention."

28 Mr. GLYNN.-Not for the punishment of accused persons.

18-2-2019 Page 37 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

7 Mr. ISAACS.-Detention may be part of the punishment.

10 Mr. Barton's amendment was agreed to.

18-2-2019 Page 44 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Surely it is a gross injustice to allow people convicted in such circumstances to be kept in

5 Mr. ISAACS: I suppose you propose to put in words to make it a misdemeanor.

8 Dr. QUICK: Without any corrupt motive is it indictable?

11 Mr. HIGGINS: What words do you propose to put in?

17 Lawyers were used as informants last year,

44 "This is the worst legal scandal in Australian history," Ms Garde-Wilson said.

45 "Hundreds of cases could have been compromised."

38 Mr. SYMON: Hear, hear.

18-2-2019 Page 54 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 60 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 61 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 QUOTE HALSBURY’S LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460):

22 There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.

40 Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of

3 A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without

9 The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction."

18-2-2019 Page 68 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

43 This is your first and only warning

46 Edit: Judgment below has now been published: https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-

18-2-2019 Page 73 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

21 It gets more brutal:

18-2-2019 Page 74 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 75 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 76 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 77 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 79 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 81 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 82 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 83 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Will you briefly restate the point?

18 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Is that not implied?

18-2-2019 Page 88 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18-2-2019 Page 89 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.