Home Page

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

Home Page

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN;

Welcome to the MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® website (still in progress of being set up) and we anticipate you also will be checking out our other websites OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t forget the hyphens!) at Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com and Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com (This one enables you to order books, etc.

Having since 1982 conducted the special lifeline service MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® without any government and/or business funding and now setting up since its launch on 29 May 2009 the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t forget the hyphens!) there is an urgent need for financial support which can be obtained via donations, funding and also the sale of items.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® is also registered as a trademark for clothing and you will see on page 2 for CLOTHING+MAGNETS that this can be ordered or pre-ordered.

The aim is that people purchase T-Shirts, caps, belts, magnets, etc, as to promote MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® with the net profit to be used for funding the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t forget the hyphens!).

After all, where the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN exposes the rot about (radar) speed detection units being certified unconstitutionally then it can make the difference for example for a truck driver to loose his licence and so his income or to keep it and I view more then likely such a driver would be glad to promote MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® and after all a belt is generally used anyhow.

As such, we provide FREE assistance in this manner and look forwards that those who benefit, as well as others who pursue JUSTICE will then support this cause of JUSTICE in purchasing items to display their support.

Magnets for car/truck doors can be purchased with the name of the supporter/sponsor on it.

Likewise with T-shirts, caps, belts, etc.

Do understand that MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® and OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN are not government departments but are to operate for the people by the people.

We welcome assistance by others who perhaps are willing to provide bumper stickers, etc.

We need a voice to stand up and ensure that no longer everyone is left to battle for him/her selves against the might of the governments and their departments but that we will have a voice such as with the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN to pursue our constitutional rights!

We will have MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® as a voice for JUSTICE.

Read up about the case of Mr Francis James Colosimo (Frank) how his constitutional rights were blatantly disregarded being pulled through CONTEMPT hearing after COINTEMPT hearing with Her Honour Harbison J making clear she could imprison Frank. Well, that was until at the 6^th CONTEMPT hearing Frank having obtained the assistance of myself, a CONSTITUTIONALIST, explained to Her Honour Harbison J that she simply had no legal powers against Frank, etc. Her Honour Harbison J then ended up ordering a PERMMANENT STAY for the CONTEMPT proceedings.

Now get this up to about 20 lawyers were involved in this utterly VEXATIOUS case and I come along and expose it all and so also what I view was an elaborate conspiracy to pervert the course of JUSTICE by staff of Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors MADDOCKS LAWYERS.

Sadly, numerous other Frank’s (by whatever other name they may go by) are daily suffering the same kind of INJUSTICES and that is why we need YOUR support to promote us and by this it also results in a financial support where you display your support by items you purchased for this.

I have published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues and they can be ordered from the Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com website also.

I designed and created, in 1985, the ADDRESS TO THE COURT as to make litigation a level playing field for unrepresented defendants/litigants. This was used in Frank’s case also! Yes we try to assist but we need financial assistance to continue this important work!

The examples shown on page 2 CLOTHING+MAGNETS shows YOUR NAME which can be substituted with your own name or a name of a company.

Also, we anticipate to franchise and by this law-firms can use our name and motto but provided they comply with a code of conduct with ethical behaviour. As such, we promote those who specialise in legal issues to conform to a special code of conduct to the benefit of the general public.

Forward your email to us (at the page “Contact us” you can fill it in) so we can get a fair idea as to people interested in purchasing items or otherwise assist. Keep in mind we seek to continue to assist those in need to pursue JUSTICE where possible at no cost to them, we have so far done since 1982.

Limited Honourable Memberships are available as shown below while at a later stage we seek to provide ordinary memberships.

We welcome feedback also!

Gerrit

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

2-6-2009

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

To whom it may concern,

Please do understand that while Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is still on the throne we can safely assume matters will continue with Her Majesty, however were she to abdicate or die then many an agitator or others may seek to use the opportunity to proclaim the REPUBLICAN/MONARCHISTIC views and more then likely to the detriment of the general public.

The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN is seeking to advocate the true position of the constitution and how its applies and it is essential that all people are now concerned about this and not wait until the Queen is no longer at the throne and we are suddenly forced to accept some pretended solution that really does nothing but seeking to install more power for those already abusing and misusing their powers and failing to act where required and the general public suffers as a whole.

My issue isn’t if a republican or a monarchistic view is more desired but that the people are not swindled into voting for some form of system that fraudulently has been presented. We need to be clear as to any future choice and it is so to say no skin of the nose of the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN if the electors were to vote to have a monarchy or republican system rather that any such decision should be an “informed” decision on what is truly applicable and as yet where even a mere 7 judges of the High Court of Australia often are so to say in a fist fight about certain constitutional meanings and application then if we cannot trust them then surely we cannot trust politicians. Hence, support the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN and ensures it’s information is considered so that “YOU” ultimately may be able to make an “informed” decision when asked to do so!

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka , GUARDIAN 8-7-2009

YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO VOTE!

Time and again there are articles by the media about the objection to vote compulsory yet they have ongoing for years on end failed to report the epic legal battle that went on between the Crown and myself concluding in a comprehensive defeat of the Crown in regard of its charges FAILING TO VOTE, on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria.

In my view the media neglected its duty towards the general community to inform it of relevant information at hand.

Despite of the comprehensive defeat I caused upon the Crown, Banyule City Council now seeks nevertheless to pursue me for FAILING TO VOTE.

Obviously, this upsets my 76-year old wife as she views that once I comprehensively defeated the crown after a 5-year epic legal battle then surely this should have been the end of it and Banyule City Council and others should be bound by this decision. In my view, Banyule City Council is committing CONTEMPT OF COURT by disregarding the courts decision and I view the Courts should not tolerate this and deal with the CEO and others for this.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-

I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.

END QUOTE

I view the CEAO and others acting for Banyule City Council having been notified about the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria decision cannot disregard this and continue their harassment and stalking upon me but have an obligation to establish what the 19 July 2006 decision was about first of all so as not to act in blatant defiance of the orders.

It is not relevant if the State government may have in place certain legislative provisions as I proved that even the Commonwealth legislative provisions were ULTRA VIRES as they were unconstitutional and so without legal force.

More over, where neither the Crown in right of the Commonwealth or in rights of the states challenged the 19 July 2006 decision, which was also an elaborate constitutional battle, then they all are bound by it and all and any fines and other cost charged against any elector for allegedly failing to vote in my view was fraudulently pursued as the Crown had an obligation to adhere to the 19 July 2006 decision.

What was before the Court at the time in fact was published on 6-7-2006 in;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI ®& What is the -Australian way of life- really?

A book on CD on Australian political, religious & other rights

ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3

Which in “CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC” had reproduced all relevant material that were before the Court, and a copy of this book was filed as evidence for the 19 July 2006 hearing.

As such, Banyule City Council and so its CEO and those others acting for it, cannot excuse themselves that they are not aware of what was before the Court as first of all it is their business to sort out what the case was about as to avoid to defy a court ruling and secondly having been notified by me they cannot disregard this either but are bound to consider this appropriately.

Let make it very clear I am not opposed to electors voting but I am opposed first of all against unconstitutional COMPULSORY VOTING as the Framers of the Constitution specifically denied this power to compel anyone to vote, as I placed before the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006.

Further, I also then challenged the validity of municipal councils to be “local governments” and as such a municipal council can only hold elections for the purpose of electing councillors for municipality but not to hold elections for councillors for “local government” because constitutionally “local government” is the State government and within Section 106 of the constitution the States are bound by the principles embedded in the constitution.

As such, Banyule City Council and neither any other municipal council has a legal standing in that regard to litigate and any orders it purported to obtain through some crooked legal system would be null and void, because the Crown is bound by the DIRECT and COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL those arose of the 19 July 2006 decision of the County Court of Victoria, which being an order in federal jurisdiction therefore applies THROUGHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH.

Where then municipal councils are not constitutionally recognised as a level of government then by this it would fall in the federal jurisdiction challenging its “LEGAL STANDING” to litigate and as such by this bound also by the 19 July 2006 decision of the County Court of Victoria.

The fact that the Victorian Electoral Commission on behalf of Banyule City Council pursues matters makes not one of iota difference because where Banyule City Council has no constitutional standing to hold elections for “local government” then its purported agents neither can have any legal standing, regardless what the State Parliament may have legislated in that regard.

The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm

37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."

And

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)

As the High Court of Australia in Wakim HCA 27 of 1999 made clear anyone is entitled to disregard a unconstitutional court order.

Therefore, Banyule City Council better be careful they do not persist with the harm they are causing, and so also upon my wife by this, as the CEO may just discover he has no immunity for persistently disregarding the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria decision.

I placed my cases before the court and the Court adjudicated in my favour against the Crown and as such I am entitled to be without ongoing harassment and if the CEO of Banyule city Council has a problem to understand/comprehend this then he should in my view resign and have a more competent person performing the job.

This was an epic legal battle where the might of the Crown was totally and comprehensively defeated on all constitutional issues I raised during the trial and I view every municipal council, state government and also the Commonwealth is bound to accept the decision of the court and not only never again harass any elector about FAILING TO VOTE but also refund all fraudulently obtained fines and other cost.

It should be understood that when one makes a constitutional challenge against the validity of legislation then where a court upholds this then the purported legislation never was and as such all fines and other cost since the purported legislation was enacted are refundable to the persons so fined, etc.

Take for example Derryn Hinch who I understand refuses to vote because of it may compromise his position. I have no issue with his refusal to vote because he is entitled to do so I have however an issue with that he then was fined to vote where he did no more but exercise his constitutional rights! Hence, he should have refunded all fines and other cost levied against him over the years.

The issue isn’t if he care less about getting the monies back but that if it was unconstitutionally obtained from him then it should be paid back, even if he was to have it instead donated to a children hospital or whatever.

The same is with the coco pop unconstitutional taxation that was obtained. The Framers of the constitution made clear that if a tax was levied unconstitutionally then the Commonwealth would be bound to refund it. The Commonwealth therefore cannot legislate otherwise to keep the monies but must refund it. If companies who had paid the tax do not regard being entitled to it because they in turn had charged their customers for it then they can always donate it to a children hospital or other charity organization. It does however also underline that the commonwealth never should levy taxation through an intermedia because it should only levy taxes of which it keeps records. The GST also is unconstitutional and neither does the ATO keep records who paid what, but that is another issue I have extensively published already in my books that were published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues.

Lets make it very clear the Commonwealth cannot raise taxes on behalf of the States because either it has the legislative powers or the States, not both. As such GST is being raised as a Commonwealth power and it is unconstitutional because it refers to more then two different items being taxed.

Getting back however to the issue of VOTING, it should be understood that no elector can be bound to vote in any kind of election! Further, this means no one can ever be fined for failure to vote.

The Australian Electoral Commission who actually instituted at the time the litigation against me and was totally defeated nevertheless disregards the courts ruling and this also underlines that the Australian electoral commission is not impartial to conduct fair and proper elections but are a stooge for the Government to fraudulently conduct elections. After all if people were not unconstitutionally forced to vote then the election results might be differently.

Likewise do I hold that the square above the line (on ballot papers) in elections is unconstitutional, albeit I am well aware of the High Court of Australia decision in the Abbott case, because the High Court of Australia in its decision totally disregarded the principles embedded in the constitution in that regard. This is also why the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (See http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com/ (Don’t forget the hyphens!) is to address this and numerous other constitutional issues.

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!

The rule of law applies as much to the governments and those working for it as it applies to anyone else.

EITHER WE HAVE A RULE OF LAW OR WE DON’T!

It should also be understood that where there is a religious objection to vote provided for then this would be unconstitutional unless it includes secular objections. This too was well canvassed by me before the courts and indeed so successfully.

As such, anyone who objects for whatever reason on that basis also can refuse to vote (apart of not being compelled to do so) because the mere objection to vote is sufficient in that regard without any need to explain the grounds of objection.

Now, lets go to the article;

http://au.news.yahoo.com/opinion/post/-/nickmccallum/33/66

Tuesday June 9, 2009

MAD AS HELL!!!

By Nick McCallum

It's the most un-democratic oddity in our democracy... compulsory voting.

I have just been fined for not voting in our local council election and I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!

It's just plain ludicrous.

Last November I received a pamphlet in the mail introducing council candidates and outlining their policies.

The candidates were drab and uninteresting, their policies the usual motherhood stuff of 'upgrading services' and 'sustainable development.' Boring, meaningless drivel. I followed the campaign in the local paper. None of them appealed to me. None, I thought, deserved my vote.

So on election day, I did not turn up at a polling booth. I did not vote.

I think what I did was democratic, but it was illegal.

My wife turned up to a booth, knowing little about the candidates and cast a donkey vote. She wrote a number beside each name 1 to 8 from top to bottom.

Her vote and those of so many like her who did not even know what the candidates stood for would have affected the result.

I think what she did was undemocratic, but it was legal.

This week I received a 57 dollar fine from the Electoral Commission for not voting.

What a joke!

In a grown-up, modern western-style democracy like Australia there should be a right to vote and a right NOT to vote if you don't support any of the candidates or their policies in any election whether it be Federal, State or Local.

Australia is the only western democracy that has compulsory voting. America doesn't. Britain doesn't. Even New Zealand doesn't! In those countries candidates have to go out on the hustings and court voters, capture their imaginations, and entice them to the polls with good policies. Wouldn't that be nice here?

Some will say... well you don't HAVE to vote in Australia. You can just go into the polling booth, get your name ticked off and leave . The point is in a democracy you shouldn't have to go through that charade.

Some will say... in America voter turnout is often poor. Well, there it's made worse because of a silly tradition of holding elections on Tuesdays, so voting clashes with work. Fortunately we avoid that problem by holding our elections on Saturdays. Much more sensible.

For the record, I did vote in the last Federal election. I supported the Carers' Party because carers are the unsung and unappreciated heroes of our society. Candidates' appearances on TV and in papers about the plight of their families were heart wrenching. They did what political candidates should do... they captured the imagination of a voter and won his vote.

Legal experts say compulsory voting is not enshrined in the constitution, so we don't need a referendum to get rid of it.

It's a matter of one of our political parties having the guts to adopt a policy of dumping compulsory voting and then getting it through parliament.

Now that's a party I WOULD vote for.

Lets make it perfectly clear VOTING IS NOT COMPULSORY and I proved this on 19 July 2006 when the County Court of Victoria ruled against the Crown where it had charged me for FAILING TO VOTE in two federal elections, see also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/ and my blog http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH.

Now Banyule City Council is pursuing me for not voting and I have made clear they cannot overrule the court order. This email doesn’t allow me to set it all out and so see my blog that details it extensively but laws that are unconstitutional are no laws at all and can be ignored. The issue is however who has the stamina and endurance to litigate for 5 years and to defeat the Crown! I did, as I stand up for my constitutional rights! That is the real issue! See also my books published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues.

Do understand that laws that are unconstitutional are not laws at all and have no legal force! Hence laws governing compulsory voting that are unconstitutional are no laws at all!

Again, I defeated the Crown in court previously and yet the media never covered this! Why not?

If you really are mad as hell then I expect you and others finally to expose this and publish it.

Why not follow up my battle with Banyule city council if they are to succeed against me despite of the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria ruling? Then again, a magistrate has no judicial powers to overrule a County Court decision!

The real issue is if one has the stamina and determination to stand up for your constitutional and other legal rights. I have but have you?

Gerrit

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka.

9-60-2009

http://www.3aw.com.au/action/contactUs