Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ISSUE: 20181206- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 25-Roberta law implications
The irony is that we have a Premier who himself refused to cooperate with a police inquiry and I
view because of the Red shirt issue and other matters should have been disqualified to stand as a
candidate now purportedly is taking the high ground. The same who in 2003 made clear every
Victorian is entitled to Safe Drinking Water when introducing the Act in the Parliament but as
**#** The Royal commission can only make recommendations but cannot override the rule of
law. Meaning it has no way to substitute any legislation. Say that Roberta Williams may have
been told to plea guilty to some crime by this barrister and as result, unbeknown to her at the
time because the so called Roberta law was many years later introduced had really an added
punishment upon her never as such intended by the court at the time. Indeed, the court may have
handed down a different judgment and orders had at the time this future legislation been
considered.
* Is that meaning that Roberta may still now have her conviction overturned and bed eligible to
claim regarding the death of Carl and perhaps also re-instate Carl’s father George claim?
**#** As I understand it Roberta was a joint executor of the estate of George and I view she
could oppose the other executive as I understand she was listed as a solicitor in the will where in
fact I understand she never was. Also I understand she was using her Greensborough address as
her office address while being the de-facto of George at his address. So, in the will it appears to
be 2 different people at 2 different addresses even so it is one and the same person. It is not
uncommon people living together but claiming to reside on different addresses for Centrelink
fraud purposes.
*.Why do you care?
**#** first of all Dhakota was robbed of her further live with her dad. Then she was robbed of
her inheritance of her grandfather because as I view it the ATO swindled the courts, with some
assistance of the Victorian Police and visa versa. The Essendon property is in my view a clear
example.
What we have is the ATO to go to court so to say with dirty hands but pretending otherwise. And
let us not ignore that the very
It was Luke Cornellus APM Assistant Commissioner Ethical Standards Department who on
22 February 2010 I view wrongly claimed about the R v Moti case and by this reneged on the
agreement that existed with Carl. So when you have the Ethical standards Department
unethically conducting matters then you may understand there is something very wrong.
So this barrister Witness 3838at the time before and after being a registered police informer I
understand was also then providing confidential details of their clients over to the Victorian
Police. To me this is a criminal offence to PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.
*. You seem to have some knowledge about the Carl Williams case, how did that come about?
**#** I was asked by a person if I could investigate matters and I discovered serious issues
involving the police and others which I view never were properly investigated. At the time I
understand the Governor of the Prison may have been part in it all. When he disappeared after
Carl’s death I understand they located a CD with Carl’s statements in his abandoned vehicle.
*.Surely a person in such status would not get involved in criminalities?
**#** I understand we had recently a Corrections Victoria person accused of revealing prison
officers personal details to criminals and to allow criminals to bash others, etc.
We should not ignore reality that Dhakota Williams is the innocent child who has been
robbed of her inheritance of her grandfather (the Essendon property) because as I
understand it the OPI and the ATO perverted the course of justice. As such there is more to
it all then the barrister so to say playing her game with her clients adverse to what they
were entitled upon. In my view there were more dirty lawyers involved. As I understand it
this barrister was representing not only Carl Williams but also another person who was
sharing his cell (at the time of his murder) and who I understood had introduced Carl to
then police detective Paul Dale with whom I understand this barrister had a special
relationship. More over the police officer who delivered the CD with Carls statements I
understand never revealed this to the Victorian Ombudsman in his investigation. And low
and behold more copies surfaced after that with other prisoners and (as I understand it he
was) the Governor of Prison who mysteriously later disappeared and a copy of the CD was
located in his abandoned vehicle. I did request the coroner to reopen the inquest that was
previously relied upon that the Victorian Ombudsman had investigated matters but this was
never replied upon. Who can trust the police when they themselves acted in my view in
conspiracy with the ATO to pervert the course of justice to rob Dhakota of her lawful
inheritance? For example I defeated the commonwealth on 5 August 2005 in court
regarding the usage of AVERMENT when the Commonwealth sought to rely upon
AVERMENT not having to produce any evidence. Subsequently in an appeal on 19 July
2006 the County Court of Victoria upheld my appeal as I challenged the validity of
compulsory voting, etc. If therefore the Commonwealth cannot rely upon AVERMENT
then the ATO using AVERMENT when making claims against any person in court clearly
is an unconstitutional and so unlawful matter. And this is what they used in court against
Dhakota entitlements.
In my view the limitations of the royal commission to only investigate matters regarding
informers means that other rotten and corrupt issues involving the courts and lawyers as
well as the police like the OPI itself will remain unattended. Not even the tip of the
proverbial ice berg will be investigated!
For example, as I exposed how judicial officers are issuing orders where there was no
formal application let alone any hearing!
As I often stated someone merely has to sleep with the registrar of the court to get orders
different then what was actually stated by the judicial officer at the time of the hearing.
p3 22-11-2018 © 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
Where police obtain the signing of a warrant by going to an old peoples home as I
understand it to get a former JP suffering from dementia and no longer a JP to sign a
warrant!
And our miserable politicians are no better.
For example I urged on 16 July 2016 the State and federal politicians to install objects such
as bollard in tram tracks as to prevent vehicles to enter (and I specifically mentioned)
Bourke Street Mall) as I understood a gas tanker could be used for mass murder. I repeated
a similar warning in December 2016 but to no avail. Then on 20 January 2017 6 people
were killed in Bourke Street, which could have been in my view prevented. Yet politicians
were so to say falling over each other for photo opportunities to claim they care about the
killings, where in fact none of them did anything to prevent the carnage.
In my view the conduct of the Victorian Police involvement was also in the killing of Carl
Williams.
I as (now retired) Professional Advocate have represented/assisted parties in legal
proceedings, including lawyers, and well aware that when an honest lawyer seeks to expose
the rot he can get his practicing certificate cancelled.
I didn’t read the HCA judgment but I merely checked the records who as a barrister
represented Carl Williams, had IVF and no longer is practicing law and well the identity of
the person is very clear to me. I do not know what, if any, court orders there exist as to
prohibit the disclosure of the identity and so will refrain from naming the person I suspect
it to be.
Over the decades I have been dealing with people who I understood contemplated suicide,
murder and even mass-murder and at times I had to pass on my concerns to relevant
authorities, but I did so in what I view an appropriate manner. Firstly I would always state
that I UNDERSTAND/UNDERSTOOD that an unnamed person might pursue a certain
action without identifying the person’s name. When I did so when Jeff Kennett was
Premier he soon after did act and had metal detectors installed in the courts. I held that
innocent people such as those required to attend to a court should not be part of a carnage
contemplated by certain persons. I never did so for any financial reward or other benefits
and so didn’t violate any person’s ability in litigation as whatever I stated to authorities was
never part of any litigation against any person. I only on very few occasions through the
decades would convey my concerns to authorities and again never with information what I
obtaining this understanding from. And I always made clear to anyone I
represented/assisted that if I were to become aware that they were dishonest I would step
out of their cases.
In my view Witness 3838 perverted the course of justice by her conduct time and time
again. That I view is an unlawful conduct.
To my understanding too often lawyers advice their clients to plea guilty as to get a lesser
sentence then if they exercise their rights to challenge charges. Michael Alderton I view
was a clear example who ended up committing suicide in prison after he found what his
lawyer had stated appeared to be different then what the court did after he pleaded guilty,
even so the previous day he assured me he would plea not guilty.
Wed should never accept that because a person is charged that therefore the person is
guilty. In the USA they discovered that a specialist in DNA was always on the side of the
winning party. He simply was twisting the DNA results to suit the party he was called for
as aN expert witness. Later they discovered his deception but too late for many innocent
persons wrongly convicted and executed.
My position is that the prosecutor has a duty to present all evidence, both in favour and
adverse to the charges before the court. The court is not there to convict anyone but to hear
and determine upon all relevant evidence if the person charges is in fact to be held guilty or
not of the charges.
*. You want to say the police had 7 witnesses and after they closed the case the case was thrown
out of the window by His Honour Wood J?
**#** Well, as I stated from onset there was NO CASE TO ANSWER. Regretfully too often, far
too often I consider judges to be bias in favour of the prosecutor.
*.And judicial officers issuing court orders without any hearings?
**#** I copped it to make the allegation but the opponent lawyers records turned out to prove it
to be so.
*.And Michael Alderton?
**#** the day prior to the hearing he made known he would plea NOT GUILTY but the next day
his lawyer gave me the understanding he would plea guilty to get a lesser sentence. Well Michael
seemed to me to be betrayed and ended up hanging himself in prison.
*. Getting back to this Witness 3838, if she conducted trails for her clients while also informing
the police then could she have deliberately railroaded the cases she represented her client in? Say
not cross examining appropriately, etc?
**#** Well that obviously now should be investigated also. Did she do a proper cross-
examination of prosecuting witnesses. Did she challenge appropriately the Crowns claims? After
all if she was betraying her clients as a Police informer then I doubt she acted in the best interest
of her clients. She was in my view a vigilante undermined the legal processes. And while I
understand she claims not to have been in it for financial gain, somehow when I read her
statement about the $190 payments, and how she had expected the police to include this also, etc,
than it appears to me she may have had a financial interest in the matter also.
*.You have no qualms about a criminal being paid compensation for any crimes done to this
criminal?
**#** I do not, after all any monies a criminal would be paid would have to be paid to the
victims of his own crimes as restitution to the criminals victims. If therefore say a person killed
someone then if this criminal is compensated for any wrongdoings to this criminal then the
appropriate persons of the murdered victim can then be entitled to pursue compensation. What
you now have however is that the state can such as with Carl Williams when able a wrongful
death but not be held liable for compensation because of Roberta’s past. I view that the
compensation should have been allowed and any payment to be made to any monies she may
owe in any bankruptcy adverse to her.
Let be clear about it that no lawyer can be expected to get involved in criminal conduct as that
would be a conspiracy with any client to do so. However, where a lawyer is provided with details