1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott PM

Cc:

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

11-3-2015

C/o [email protected]
Bill Shorten [email protected]
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria [email protected]
Senator George Brandis [email protected]
Mr Clive Palmer [email protected]
Jessica Marszalek [email protected]
Jacqui Lambie [email protected]
Frank Chung [email protected]
Joe Hockey [email protected]
Ref; 20150311-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Port Arthur ROYAL COMMISSION- etc

Tony,
Somehow we seem to hold ROYAL COMMISSIONS of all kind, and the 4 deaths in the
insulation bat disaster is a clear indication and yet where so many died in the Port Arthur
murders somehow then no ROYAL COMMISSION was established to investigate matters.
.

I request that a ROYAL COMMISSION is established as to investigate all facets regarding the
Port Arthur murders. One of the issues that needs to be considered is that the Commonwealth of
Australia had allegedly classified Martin Bryant, the alleged killer, to be suffering a mental
disability to place him on a disability pension. As such unless there is contradictory evidence to
prove otherwise I view that for all intend Martin Bryant was or must be deemed to have been
mentally in competent to understand the legal issues regarding a guilty plea his second lawyer
allegedly had made to the court on his behalf.
I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and a retired Professional Advocate (and used to represent
solicitors and barristers) and while I had no access to any primary evidence and so rely upon
secondary or even further degrees of evidence, nevertheless there are issues of concern to me.
If Martin Bryant was deranged to go on a shooting spree at Port Arthur, then was he mentally
competent to instruct an y lawyer and was he competent to understand the legal consequences of
allegedly instructing his lawyer to plea guilty on his behalf or doing so himself?
I recall that Mr Francis James Colosimo represented by a barrister was advised by Victoria legal
Aid to purge his contempt. His barrister arranged for him to be assessed with the assistance of the
Office of the Public advocate and then 2 specialist provided evidence upon which Mr Francis
James Colosimo was subjected to an order of ADMINISTRATION. After this Mr Francis James
Colosimo got rid of his lawyer and requested me to take over the case as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST and Professional Advocate, this I did without charge.
I appeared before Her Honour Harbison J (representing Mr Francis James Colosimo) and
opposed for the CONTEMPT application to be withdrawn by the other party, and pursued the
application be stayed. In the end Her Honour Harbison J conceded to my submission that once
the CONTEMPT application was filed it couldnt be withdrawn as it became the property of the
court to dispose of it as it deemed fit and proper. Her Honour Harbison J ordered a permanent
stay of the CONTEMPT application. It was this CONTEMPT application that Mr Francis James
Colosimo held would be better aborted by having Mr Francis James Colosimo placed under
ADMINISTRATION. I however held that the medical specialists (experts witnesses) didnt have
p1
11-3-2015
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 E-mail [email protected] See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

2
a clue what they were talking about, and had in fact provided their statements as to Mr Francis
James Colosimo mental condition upon how they had been deceived by the Office of the Public
Advocate that Mr James Francis Colosimo refused to accept having been convicted for
CONTEMPT OF COURT, this even so Her Honour Harbison J herself acknowledged no such
conviction had occurred. As I also discovered from the transcript of the 5 previous CONTEMPT
hearings that Her Honour Harbison J never had formally charged Mr Colosimo.
In any event, I also showed to her Honour Harbison J that documentation of file proved that Mr
Francis James Colosimo at no time had been in breach of laws and that the applicant of the
CONTEMPT application prior to instigating the litigation some 3 years earlier had provided for a
statement as such. Not only was I successful to have the contempt hearings aborted but also
subsequently had the orders for ADMINISTRATION set aside.
I refer to this to indicate that one has to be very careful to rely upon expert witnesses as their
opinions may be ill conceived pending what nonsense they were given in the first place.
And as with Mr Francis James Colosimo even Victoria Legal Aid wrote to him to purge his
CONTEMPT. One has to ask; How can you purge a non-existing CONTEMPT and not even
having been formally charged with it. Yet for years hearings were held and Mr Francis James
Colosimo former barrister somehow never understood basic legal principles, even so he was a
lecturer in legal studies at a university! As I showed to the court there never was any legal basis
in the first place to litigate against Mr Fran cis James Colosimo.
.

25

30

35

40

45

50

When then I am provided with what is generally referred to as second hand material and other
related details then I question not only the validity of those details but also if this like the
Colosimo case where the lawyers and the courts had it all wrong. If indeed Martin Bryan was
wrongly convicted then it doesnt serve the general community to have him imprisoned for
something others may have been involved in. Therefore the first issue is was Martin Bryant
mentally competent to instruct a lawyer and to understand what his lawyer conveyed to him?
Let me use another example:
I used to sit in where a person would attend to his/her solicitor. I would be so to say b e a
translator. For example I was sitting in when a man and his solicitor were agreeing when I
asked both to better listen to what I had to say before finalising their agreement. I then asked the
man if what he understood of the agreement was what I understood he perceived and he
confirmed I was right. I then asked the lawyer if he had the understanding that the agreement had
a certain meaning and I explained to him what I understood he agreed to. He confirmed I was
right. What I exposed was that the client and the lawyer agreed to something of which there was
no mental consensus to what the agreement stood for but both had a different mental perception.
This is to my understanding very common, and why clients complaint about their former
lawyers, because their perception of the agreement may be different then what the lawyer
understands.
In another case a grandmother called me in to assist her with explaining to her lawyer her case,
as she sought custody of her disabled granddaughter but the lawyer had allegedly told her she
had so to say no hope in the world to gain custody, from the parents (her daughter). So I went
along with this grandmother and the lawyer explained to me why the grandmother couldnt get
custody and no case ever had existed for a grandmother to gain custody of a grandchild. After he
finished talking I then handed to him DRAFT Affidavits and asked him why this couldnt be
provided for. The lawyer commented that the DRAFT Affidavit related to a different case. I
asked him to look at the name of the potential deponents being his client and another adult
daughter. He explained that the details in the DRAFT affidavit were different then what he
understood the case was about. In any event even on these details the problem was no
grandmother ever had been granted custody. It would be a first off. I then asked him to check a
certain case in the Family Law Reports where clearly a grandmother had been granted custody of
p2
11-3-2015
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 E-mail [email protected] See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

3
a grandchild. OK the lawyer asked me how on earth I knew all this. Anyhow, the next morning
he phoned the grandmother informing her that by consent she now was to be granted custody, as
the other party had realised that there was a precedent and overwhelming evidence for her to be
granted custody by the court. What therefore should be clear is that not just clients but their
lawyers also do get matters wrong and may not be aware of legal authorities applicable, etc.
Therefore, the question is that if the Commonwealth of Australia had accepted that martin Bryant
was suffering of a mental disability then why was he not assessed for this prior to a trail being
held and placed under ADMINISTRATION if the court held this to be appropriate? Indeed, if
Martin Bryant was mentally incompetent to appropriately instruct his lawyer and/or understand
the legal issues of a guilty plea, etc, then I view the judgement against him must be set aside.
I will give yet another example:
I in 1994 by special permission of the Governor of Pentridge visited Mr Michael Alderton who
had been charged with criminal property damage having driven a motor vehicle into the glass
windows of 570 Bourke Street, Melbourne then housing the Family Court of Australia.
At the time I visited him in the conduct of a special lifeline service under the motto MAY
JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL. Michel made known to me that he had become very upset
that yet again having travelled to Melbourne for the access counselling his estranged wife had
again failed to turn up with the children. He had left the building to drive him in the motor
vehicle he had borrowed from a friend and the next thing he knows is that he was in the car into
the glass plated window with police aiming firearms upon him. Michael assured me that he
intended the next day to plea NOT GUILTY as he had no mens rea as he didnt even know
how he ended up in the glass plate windows. The next morning, as I recall) his lawyer advised
me that Michael would plea GUILTY as then the magistrate may likely sentence him to the 6
weeks already served whereas if he pleaded NOT GUILTY the Magistrate may throw the book at
him and sentence him for a at least 6 months imprisonment. The Magistrate asked Michael if he
plea GUILTY as submitted by his lawyer and Michael confirmed this. The magistrate then so to
say threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment. As I recall it Michael
then referred to his lawyer to be a lair and refused to have anything to do with him. Michael at a
later time then allegedly committed suicide while still in prison.
In my view Michael was coerced by his lawyer to plea GUILTY and basically swindled into this.
Obviously I then question if likewise Martin Bryant may have been coerced to plea guilty
without Martin understanding the legal consequences of doing so.
The murder of so many innocent people at Port Arthur cannot be ignored nor be explained away
by a GUILTY plea without the general public being aware what was behind it all. In particular
where this was to be used as to a weapon buyback program after allegedly previously a Premier
had referred that what was needed was a Port Arthur killing.
There also was alleged that prior to the murders the local authorities had ordered a truck capable
of carrying 22 bodies and that after the killing spree at Port Arthur the truck was sold. As such, it
appears to me the purchase indicated a premeditated murder event.
Having during my army service about 50 years ago succeed in first place in a shooting event on
various weapons I have a general understanding what is required to be excelling in shooting as
such. I scored 39 out of 40 points whereas the second place was 29 out of 40 and this may
indicate the considerable difference. Hence, the alleged shooting of victims by a single shot must
be held to have been likely by an expert marksman. People ordinary do not stand still like an
target on a shooting range, but are moving about and as such it appears to me that from the
secondary details made known to me Martin Bryant unlikely could have managed to shoot all
those victims as claimed against him.
If this was a so called FALSE FLAG event then any government refusing to have a proper
investigation into this matter may be considered an assessor to the murders.
p3
11-3-2015
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 E-mail [email protected] See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

4
The victims who died, and those who survived have a right that the real culprit(s) is/are held
legally accountable and not that a possible innocent person is deprived of his freedom, etc, as
perhaps some cover-up to shield the real perpetrators.
If holding a ROYAL COMMISSION for union issues is so important then surely holding a
ROYAL COMMISSION for so many innocent people having lost their lives should be a greater
priority? After all if Marin Bryant was so deranged to go on such a killing spree then surely it is
in the interest of the general community that this is appropriately explored as to possibly prevent
other to copycat the same or other being in a state of mental delusion doing the same, perhaps
even at the Federal Parliament! If however Martin Bryant was conned into pleading guilty in
some way or another and he actually was innocent of any killings then it is essential that the
general public is made aware of this.
We have all this about terrorism, and yet ignoring the alleged killing spree Martin Bryant is
claimed to have been involved in is precisely why would be jihads are now emerging.
If this was a FALSE FLAG event, as also appears to be indicated from second hand details
emerging, then it is essential that the real culprits are held legally accountable.
As a Prime Minister it is important that you consider the right of the general community to have
the real culprits held legally accountable. If there were others involved on their own or otherwise
then silencing Martin Bryant cannot serve JUSTICE.
As the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia you have not only the moral and other
l political obligation to act appropriately but also the legal responsibilities to ensure that you do
not deny the victims of JUSTICE. While it may be that you or others then in government may
have been accomplices in setting up a FALSE FLAG event, but that cannot avoid your
obligation to act responsible as a Prime Minister and ensure a ROYAL COMMISSION
investigates the Port Arthur massacre and all relevant issues.

30

Investigating by ROYAL COMMISSION the death of 4 installers but not the death of so many
innocent victims of the Port Arthur massacre rather appear to me to be a deliberate cover-up to
prevent the truth to come out. I urge you to without further delay ensure that a ROYAL
COMMISSION investigate the Port Arthur massacre, also as to honour the death that their
deaths will not be in vain.

35

I have above reflected to some of my personal experiences to give a better understanding that
what may appear to be proper in law may actually be highly inappropriate, such as the Colosimo
case proved to be! I also understand that both with the death of martin Bryants father as well as
the Port Arthur massacre the same police officer was on the scene. Coincidental I wonder?
I look forwards to your detailed positive response.

40

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(
Awaiting your response,

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

p4
11-3-2015
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 E-mail [email protected] See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati