1

Mr Daniel Andrews Premier

5

12-4-2016

daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc; Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au, attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Mr Richard Schorel CRN 103731 St Pauls, P.O.Box 376, Laverton, Victoria 3028

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Re: 20160412-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel Andrews Premier of VictoriaCOMPLAINT

Sir,
As I understand it the State of Victoria has outsourced the supervision of prisoners and as
such a private company is operating the prison services.
I understand from recent correspondence with Australian Post that it is UNLAWFUL to open an
envelope and then return it to sender without duly franking (meaning putting the required amount
of stamps) on the envelop.
I am a senior citizen and as such use pensioners stamps. I wrote to my son Richard held at her
majesties accommodation and understand it would be unlawful for me to send him pensioners
stamps to be use. Hence, I didnt do so. Indeed I have asked him if I can sent him stamps
purchased from Australian Post at (S1.00) as to abide by Commonwealth legislative provisions.
Recently I wrote to my son Richard about his drivers license, and he requested me to pay this as
it is due to run out. Also Richard forwarded me photos of my great grandson with my
granddaughter (black & white photo) and others asking me to return the photos.
I scanned the photos and then had them printed out in 6 by 4 format and with a reply from
VicRoads regarding Richards driving license forwarded this to Richard on 6-4-2016 only to
receive it returned on 11-4-2016. Likewise on a previous occasion correspondence to Richard
was returned also then with the envelope being opened and then some sticker plated over the
opening, albeit anyone could then see the content in the envelope.
I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and as such first of all consider matters upon a constitution
basis. Hence I will now quote from Hansard records and then delve further into matters.
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: The question then arises whether articles imported by the States Governments are to
come in free, but this section has nothing to do with that. Under this Bill and in the measure of 1891 I
believe duties would have been collectable upon imports by any State, and after the consultation which
I had with the hon. member and his colleagues on the Finance Committee the Constitutional
Committee decided not to make any exemption in the case of any State.
END QUOTE

I below quote it more extensive.

45

What must be clear is that the state cannot avoid Commonwealth requirements, not even duties
upon importing goods, such as rails for the railways.
We then have to look at the envelope returned to me, so far twice. This indicates that those
dealing with mail are in my view defrauding the Commonwealth, but are not acting either as
State employees, as it is a private organization.
p1
12-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

2
.

Mail that ordinary is sent to the wrong address or that is sent to an address where the person to
whom it is addressed no longer resides can be sent RETURN TO SENDER provided the
envelope has not been opened. Once the envelope has been opened then appropriate stamp value
to the required postal charges are needed to frank the envelope to send it back. Hence the sending
back of opened mail using my previous pensioners stamps is fraud upon its own. Further not
franking
It at all is also a crime, as my paid postage (as a pensioner) has been used up the moment
the envelope had been opened.
It now appears that those dealing with prisoners are reading the mail and then if they for
whatever reason dont like the content of the writing or what else they return the envelope albeit
not paying the appropriate postal charges to do so.
Further, no information is provided to the identity of the person involved neither as to why the
envelope with content is sent back to me.
In my view this is unduly interfering with mail delivery and also unduly obstructing with legal
requirements as to my sons driver license to be renewed/extended, as well as to deprive my son
of the photos he is ordinary entitled upon to receive.
What we appear to have is that someone is making a unilateral decision to interfere with my
sons legal rights (and I suspect this is a general conduct to most if not all prisoners) totally
unjustified and in the process committing fraud against the Commonwealth.
Indeed, reports have been in the media that Australia Post is losing monies with postal deliveries,
and obviously if this practice of sending mail using expired postage and so under franked also is
going on in a grand scale conduct than this is an elaborate fraud.
It obviously also causes or may cause undue disturbance to prisoners where they are frustrated
not receiving mail that is very important to them.
There can be no doubt that any person forwarding to a prisoner contraband, being it drugs or
whatever can be charged with criminal offences. And surely that is not what I am on about by
sending mail to my son regarding his driver license and returning to him photos.
Forwarding mail without the appropriate required value of stamps (printed or otherwise on the
envelope) I understand is also a criminal offence.
QUOTE EMAIL confirmation from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull Re 11-4-2016 email

Your message to the Prime Minister

85

From

Prime Minister of Australia

Sender

Prime Minister of Australia

To

admin@inspector-rikati.com

Date

Today 15:09

Thank you for your message to the Prime Minister at www.pm.gov.au.

Below is a copy for your records.

90

95

Responses prepared to your message will generally be emailed to you. If you have
supplied a postal address, a response may be sent to you via Australia Post. In
some cases, your message may be forwarded to other Federal Ministers for their
consideration.
This is an automatically generated email. Please do not reply to this email as
this address is not monitored.
If you have any problems with this service please contact the Web Administrator
through the site feedback service at http://www.pm.gov.au/site-feedback

100

Submitted on Monday, 11 April 2016 - 11:09pm

Title: Mr

p2
12-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

3
First name: Gerrit
Family name: Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Email address: admin@inspector-rikati.com
Your address: 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, VIC, 3084
Subject: defrauding Australia Post
Comment:
Malcolm, recently I contacted Australia Post as to legislative provisions where a
person/entity opens mail and then send it back without franking (meaning not
putting any stamps on it). I was advised by Australian Post that it was an
offence but upon my request to provide the relevant legislative details had no
response. I have today again received an envelope which was opened and then
returned without being provided with post stamps for this. It appears to me that
this entity is doing this on a grand scale and so undermining the financial
position of Australian Post.
there is obviously nothing wrong with anyone sending return any mail that is
wrongly forwarded however I view that if mail is correctly addressed (and I use
special printed address labels for this) but then selectively after mail is
opened then some are returned without stamps provided for this, then I view this
is defrauding the Commonwealth. I have of course made images of the mail items
concerned and also left it in as was returned with a sticker over the opened
envelope. This can then be used as evidence, if needed. No doubt if I did this I
could face charges of fraud, and do view that there ought to be no DOUBLE
STANDARDS, where this entity does appear to do this on a grand scale and nothing
appears to be done to stop this.
I look forwards to your positive response.
Gerrit

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

END QUOTE EMAIL confirmation from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull Re 11-4-2016 email

Even if this was done by an employee (public servant) of the State it would still be a federal
offence.
Now however it seems to me being done by a company operating the prison system and as such
as I would be if I did the same, the company and those working for it perpetrating criminal
offences should be charged accordingly.
We cannot have a State Government making clear to enforce the rule of law and then itself
(being by those acting under contract for the State) to commit federal and other offenses.
Even if so to say any kind of contraband was contained in an envelope than the prison authorities
would still be required to pay appropriate stampage for the sending back (if it decided to do so)
of the envelope with its content.
We now appear to have that those who are supposed to ensure that the rule of law is enforced
themselves are acting in a criminal manner and at it appears to me on a grand scale defrauding
also the Commonwealth.
I have on 11-4-2016 written to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull about this issue also. As I view
that this is a very serious matter.
How can any State Government have any credibility if it through its agents is committing on a
grand scale fraud?
.

150

155

160

While my son as with other prisoners may be incarcerated for what the courts held appropriate it
doesnt mean that it then is an offence for him to have photos of family members. And that is the
kind of photos we are talking about, such as my parents, Richards paternal grandparents.
It seems to me totally absurd that no proper regulations appears to be applied (being it that they
do not exist or those involved do not care about themselves violating rules and regulations) and
not even a decent explanation is provided as to why the envelope with content is send back to
me.
Obviously, my son might be frustrated not to have his valuable photos returned to him and not
knowing why not. Also the frustration that his driver license now may expire because of the
nonsense and unlawful activities that are going on by those under contract to manage prisoners.
I view these are very serious matters and hold that the relevant persons involved as well as the
company managing the prison system should be charged as like any other person would. If the
p3
12-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

215

4
government fails to ensure this eventuates then it applied so to say DOUBLE STANDARDS
that underlines it really isnt concerned about the rule of law but merely a political mantra
without any real substance.
One may also place in question why VicRoads (ETS500923347) refused to provide me with a
special reference number and BillPay number so I could pay my sons driver license
extension/renewal, as after all I was not requesting any details. Perhaps they may not desire to
disclose that I am on the birth certificate shown as his biological father (where he was born
during my marriage to his mother)? Any such kind of nonsense may do but to me cannot justify
this as anyone should be able to pay the cost of renewal. Obviously, with VicRoads requiring my
son to authorize me but those running the prison system intercepting this correspondence to
Richard then effectively undermine for my son to comply with the rule of law to have his driving
license renewed within the appropriate time to do so. It appears to me that those running the
prison system couldnt give a hood as to legal requirements and so the rule of law as they now
are a law upon themselves.
Is this enforcing the rule of law I wonder, as urged by the police and the State Government?
A copy of this correspondence will also be forwarded to my son Richard but quite frankly I
doubt he will receive it as likely it will also be intercepted and returned to me.
Lets consider the following, when my son is released he needs to travel about 350 kilometers to
my property where he was previously residing, and so if he unduly is denied to have his driver
license renewed then how on earth do you think he can drive without a valid driver license?
It should be made clear that not all mail I forwarded to my son has been send back and so it is
selective mail but without an y explanation as to why, albeit the mail send back to me on both
occasions had my request for my son to appoint me to act on his behalf, as his attorney, and
perhaps this is the real reason why the mail is being returned as to prevent my son to have me
acting as his attorney. As however my son has requested me to pay his renewal of his driving
license then ion that regard clearly he must by this have indicated that he seeks me to act As his
attorney for that purpose.
My wife and I desire for Richard to have a computer and I have written to Richard as to make
known if he desires a computer, etc. Obviously if this also will be intercepted then what on earth
is going on? My wife is 83 and desires to be in contact with him via email if possible, not
wanting to have some stranger to put his/her hands on her to frisk her, and surely that should be
provided for?
Let me not overlook that according to the brief I have why Richard was incarcerated was that a
police officer did a routine stoppage of motor vehicle and then discovered hiding in the fuse box
allegedly 1 gram of cannabis. From reading the brief it appears to me it was an illegal search in
the first place, as the legislation doesnt provide for any search merely based upon opinion as
the police officer indicated the search was based upon. I have since December 2015 been unable
to get personal access to Richard As while I requested Richard to put me on the visitors list this
mail was returned to me.
As such is this a way to prevent me that Richard might have been wrongfully convicted, and by
delaying my ability to investigate matters it is perhaps anticipated that eventually it be too late
for Richard to appeal a sentence?
As his father I hold that it is my right to pursue that any conviction is justified and if the
conviction rest upon unlawful conduct by the police then this should be exposed. It doesnt serve
society if people are wrongly convicted and incarcerated merely as to boost prison population so
prisoners might be a form of cheap labour for those running the prison system.
One also has to ask has there been any record keeping as to any mail denied to a prisoner and with reasons
setting out the legitimate grounds of doing so?

I now will quote more extensive the Hansard regarding the above quotation.
p4
12-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

5
.

220

225

230

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HENRY: I would like to ask Mr. Barton what effect this would have on several Marine Boards and
Harbor Trusts of the colonies which are dependent for their revenues on tonnage rates. This clause, I see,
provides that no tonnage duty should be imposed except by Commonwealth. What position, I would like to
know, would the various Harbor Trusts and Marine Boards, which are dependent for a portion of their
revenue on these tonnage dues, occupy till the Federal Commonwealth has had time to legislate upon this
matter.
Mr. BARTON: If the tonnage dues are not an infringement upon the principles of intercolonial freetrade, I
take it that they would remain in force after the establishment of the Commonwealth; but if the State
proposed to take in hand legislation on the subject, it would not be permitted to legislate on that subject
without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
Mr. HIGGINS: If it were only an amendment?

235

Mr. BARTON: Possibly the only trouble there would be, that a period of six months would elapse before
the Commonwealth Parliament was called together after it is established. So far as the tonnage dues,
mentioned by Mr. Henry, did not infringe upon the principles of intercolonial freedom of trade, there would
be no difficulty.
Mr. GLYNN: I think the last few words of this clause are too comprehensive in their meaning. In South
Australia there is a lot of land which is leased with the right of purchase, and I can see that under the latter
portion of this clause there is considerable danger of defeating the effect of direct taxation.

240

Mr. O'CONNOR: In a case of that kind the reversion which is in the Crown would not be taxed, but
the letting value would be taxed.
Mr. BARTON: I might mention that the property of the Commonwealth in that land is the reversion upon
the lease. The reversion upon the lease would not be [start page 1002] taxable, but the interest of the lessee in
the property would be taxable.
Mr. GLYNN: I am only pointing out a difficulty that might arise.

245

250

Mr. HENRY: I would like to raise a question as to the right of the Commonwealth to tax materials
for State purposes. In the event of a colony importing rails, machinery, engines, &c., for State
purposes, I would like to know whether such exports are to be free from Customs duties. Will the
Federal Parliament have a right to levy duties on materials imported for State purposes?
Mr. BARTON: This is a matter that was discussed very fully in the Constitutional Committee, and I think
my hon. friend Sir George Turner will remember that I consulted the members of the Finance Committee
upon it, intimating to them the opinion of the Constitutional Committee on the point. The words:
Impose any tax on property

255

do not refer to the importation of goods at all, and any amendment to except the Customs would be
unnecessary. This clause states that a State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the
Commonwealth, impose taxation on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, meaning by that
property of any kind which is in hand, such as land within the Commonwealth. That has no reference to
Customs duties.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Will articles imported by the States Governments come in free?

260

Mr. BARTON: The question then arises whether articles imported by the States Governments are to
come in free, but this section has nothing to do with that. Under this Bill and in the measure of 1891 I
believe duties would have been collectable upon imports by any State, and after the consultation which
I had with the hon. member and his colleagues on the Finance Committee the Constitutional
Committee decided not to make any exemption in the case of any State.
The CHAIRMAN: I would ask hon. members to confine themselves to the discussion of this clause.

265

Sir GEORGE TURNER: I propose to carry out your desire, Sir, to restrict my remarks to this particular
clause. In Victoria, as I mentioned the other day, we have an independent body called a Harbor Trust, which
p5
12-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

6
collects a large amount of money and, as far as I can recollect, does it in the way of tonnage dues. If we pass
this clause, and we deprive this body of its revenue, they will simply have to fall back upon the Government
of the State. What is the meaning of the phrase:

270

Impose tonnage dues?

According to the way I read the clause it means that it is not to pass any law which would put on any fresh
dues.
Mr. MCMILLAN: I suppose the States gave these rights to the harbor trust.

275

280

Sir GEORGE TURNER: The State passes a law constituting a Harbor Trust and gives over to them the
right to collect these various revenues. What I desire is to preserve that right, whatever it may be. I am in
great difficulty as how this particular clause will affect that body, as well as similar bodies in other colonies
which collect small sums. I would be glad if my hon. friend Mr. Barton can give me any assistance with
regard to this matter, and tell us if this clause will or will not interfere with this existing body. If that be so I
shall be prepared to let the clause pass, and then, before the adjourned Convention is held, we shall have an
opportunity in the different colonies of ascertaining how these dues and rates are collected, and how this
clause will affect them, and whether we should make this amendment. In the meantime I should like Mr.
Barton to give me the real meaning of the clause.
Mr. BARTON: As far as I can gather from this clause and the clause of 1891, it seems to me to refer to
any future legislation on the subject:

285

The State shall not impose tonnage dues.

[start page 1003]

290

295

300

The question of whether existing legislation would be invalidated would depend, first, upon whether
the dues were an infringement of the equality of trade throughout the Commonwealth, and next upon
whether the Commonwealth passed a law which-if it were in the province of the Commonwealth to past; itwas in conflict with the law of the State, in which case, to the extent of the difference between the laws, the
law of the Commonwealth would prevail if section 98 were passed. It deals only with future legislation, I
think. but these tonnage dues may incur a prohibition if we find that they are a system of taxation,
because the Parliament of the Commonwealth has power to raise funds by any method of taxation. If
the method of carrying out that power were found to be in conflict with the law of the State, the law of
the Commonwealth would prevail. We have no provision for the Commonwealth taking over harbors or
harbor works, and it may be a question for consideration whether the Commonwealth, as it has power to
legislate on other subjects relating to the regulation of commerce and trade and so on, should not take over
harbor works too. That is what, on the face of it, seems to me to be the effect of the clause.
Mr. MCMILLAN: I think these tonnage dues must be excepted if the Parliament is to take over harbors.
Tonnage dues are simply payment for services rendered, and they do not practically come under the system
of taxation at all. They are levied for something done. If they are not excepted great trouble will ensue,
especially in regard to corporations. Is that System referred to by Sir George Turner administered by a
Minister of the Crown?
Sir GEORGE TURNER: No.

305

Mr. MCMILLAN: Does it apply then? These. are dues paid by the State as a State, but the case mentioned
is one of a corporation, in which there is a payment for services rendered. Tolls are exacted for the services,
call them dues or wharfage rates or whatever you like; they are the same in essence.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: If we do not guard against it corporate bodies may evade the Act, and the State
may appoint corporations to do work so as to evade it.

310

Mr. MCMILLAN: Something will have to be done or great trouble may ensue.
Mr. BARTON: With reference to the question of wharfage rates, members will recollect that the United
States Constitution contains a prohibition against the State levying tonnage duties without the consent of
Congress. It has been decided in the case of the Packet Company v. Catlettsburg, 105 U.S., 559:

315

A city or town on a navigable river may exact a reasonable compensation for the use of the wharf which it
owns without infringing the constitutional provisions concerning tonnage taxes or regulations of commerce.
p6
12-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

7
That would appear to be rather in favor of the exemption of the harbor trust.
Mr. HENRY: It is within my own knowledge that there are Marine Boards in Australia, at all events in
Tasmania, worked as State departments. They are nominee bodies with a Minister practically at their head.
Mr. HIGGINS: Who gets the money?

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

Mr. HENRY: The Customs officers collect the wharfage and tonnage dues, and they pass into the hands of
the Government. I would like to ask Mr. Barton how it would operate in cases where the tonnage rates vary at
different ports in Australia? We might have one harbor with a particular rate and another with double or
treble that rate, so that we would not have an equality of trade. This is one of the difficulties which Mr.
Barton. and others, in considering this matter, should have placed before them. In this clause we are going to
hand to the Federal Government the right to legislate with regard to tonnage dues, and it is desirable that we
should know precisely what we [start page 1004] are doing and how it is going to affect the various harbor
trusts and marine boards.
Mr. BARTON: On considering the matter, I think that the tonnage dues mentioned here-we have altered
the word "duties" into "dues," and they seem to me like the word "tonnage dues" that used to prevail in the
the old country, such as tonnage dues on wines. We find the word referred to in Acts 9 Anne, and 10 George
IV. They were tonnage dues granted to the Queen, and I think those referred to here were the same in the
United States Constitution. Whether that be so or not, the tonnage dues referred to in the clause seem to be
charges for services performed. For instance, a Harbor Trust is formed and carries out improvements and as a
means of recouping themselves the harbor authorities charge dues. Wharfage dues are for the use of a
wharf and have they not a similar meaning in the modern acceptation of the term? One is an impost
for the use of a wharf, the other for the use of a harbor on which money has been spent for the purpose
of rendering it more adapted for shipping. If that is so the words may be left out, and if they are left
out any tonnage due which is not a charge for services performed would be an impost interfering with
the freedom of trade and intercourse, and would come under section 86; that is to say, as soon as
uniform duties have been imposed, trade and intercourse shall be absolutely free, If they interfere they
could only do so so far as they are of the nature of taxes. If they are only charges for services
performed, as I explained in connection with clause 83, then there can be no objection to them. because
charges for use of a wharf are much in the same position as charges of the post office authorities for the
carriage of letters; they are payments for services. If that view is taken I shall offer no objection to it.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Why not for post and telegraphs?
Mr. BARTON: Any mere service that the Commonwealth does not take over is still in the hands of the
State. Clause 86 can only be infringed by something which means an interference with the freedom of trade
and intercourse. Anything that is fairly construable as a payment for services performed is not handed overthe mere service can be charged for as before, because it is not an interference with trade and intercourse. In
such cases as that, mere service can be charged for as before, because it is not an interference with trade or
intercourse. I think we may well accept that view and leave out the words:
Impose tonnage dues or.
I move that they be left out.

355

360

END QUOTE

It is essential that this matter is appropriately investigated and I am provided with appropriate notification
of the same.
Society at large has a right to expect that the State Government and the Federal Government for so far
each is involved will enforce the rule of law equally against those offending against the rule of law
without bias. No government can afford to allow any agent to act in violation of the rule of law as it loses
its credibility by this also. Hence, I expect appropriate charges to be laid and pursued before the courts.
No cop outs.
Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

365

(Our

name is our motto!)

p7
12-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati