Jessica Rudd 31-8-2010

C/o Kevin Rudd

5 .
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
Jessica,
My wife called me that you were on Q&A and so I only saw a part of the program but in
10 any event I view you may be overlooking certain issues.
.
During the 2007 federal election your father (Kevin Rudd) made clear he was a
“FEDERALIST” and both my wife and I were hoping he would make it. It is just that we both
were very disillusioned over time that your father failed to deliver!
15 .
Now, I am not talking about money but about being a credible person. You cannot have a person
to claim to be a “FEDERALIST” and then basically turns his back to it.
I am a self educated CONSTITUTIONALIST and may have a better understanding as to what
is constitutionally applicable and permissible then most if not anyone else in the commonwealth
20 of Australia. You may consider this to be bragging but the truth is that for example I succeed
where others failed because of my position as a CONSTITUTIONALIST. In 2001 I challenged
the validity of the federal election and while a candidate I refused to vote, this also as
constitutionally the Commonwealth cannot force anyone to register or to vote. There was a
subsequent epic legal battle that lasted some 5 years and in the end on 19 July 2009 the Courts
25 upheld my cases that no one can be compelled to vote.
This was obviously prior to your father becoming Prime Minister but why did he not follow
through to get rid of the unconstitutional s.245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and so
get a lot more people on his side? And, all he would have done was to do what is constitutionally
appropriate.
30 Now, lets take the issue of this pork-barrelling by various federal governments and yet, your
father claiming to be a “FEDERALIST” did absolutely nothing to address this issue. He never
even bothered to ask me for a meeting so at least he may talk to a person who really understood
the constitution rather then the lawyers pretending to be constitutionalist but know next to
nothing about it. Prior to your father so to say being knifed in the back I wrote to him as to
35 consider certain issues but to no avail. As such he was too remote from people and perhaps
allowed his staff to deal with issues that he no longer was in contact with the real people.
Whatever it was he was being paid to do a job but somehow had no time to do it appropriately.
While both my wife and I held your father had to be kicked out of office we do not agree that it
was done as the
40 .
I have for long campaigned for the governments (State and federal) to have an OFFICE-OF-
THE-GUARDIAN so as to deal with constitutional issues without political bias. Your father, the
self proclaimed “FEDERALIST” ignored this totally. With MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS
PREVAIL® I have for some 30 years being dealing with people contemplating suicide, etc, and
45 knows too well how a person can work his entire life to build up a nest egg for retirement and
then government lawyers come around using taxpayers moneys to basically terrorise citizens at
huge cost that people even contemplate to commit suicide.

31-8-2010 Page 1
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
 Ordinary citizen simply are not equipped to fight highly paid lawyers who are making fraudulent
claims at the bar table to make sure the government wins the case against an honest citizen. I
have represented countless people (without fee or reward) as a professional advocate, attorney,
etc, and defeated lawyers time and again exposing their lies. Now, where was your father doing
5 his bit about being a “FEDERALIST” to ensure those constitutional rights gained by the
federation were put into practice? Not wanting to make this correspondence to long I will refrain
from going in great details but you can also find numerous writing of me on the blog
http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti as well as at my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com.
.
10 If you think you understand politics because your father was Prime Minister then think again and
just go to the blog and read what I wrote about who commissions a person to form a government
and in what circumstances. Somehow I gained the impression you were as misguided as others.
.
For sure John Howard had to go but why did your father since 7 December 2007 refuse to
15 authorise a ROYAL COMMISSION as to the unconstitutional invasion into Iraq and
Afghanistan? Constitutionally no Prime Minister can declare war and it is up to the Governor-
General to authorise this by gazetting a DECLARATION OF WAR, this never eventuated. Yet,
your father not only failed to deal with this issue but left troops there as if it was all ok. So what
kind of “FEDERALIST” was he really if he didn’t seem to care about the constitution?
20 The ETS was not constitutionally valid to be implemented but again your father was going to go
on regardless of this. That is not what a Prime Minister should be about!
I could list numerous other matters but the message is your father in my view failed miserably
and the deaths in the insulation program is a matter of history where I view it was
unconstitutional to fund this in the first place. As such, my impression was that rather then your
25 father being a “FEDERALIST” he was acting more like a con-federalist and he can never bring
back to life those people who died in the insulation installation yet he could have avoided it if he
had been and remained to be open minded.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I wrote to him time and time again but while I did get responses
30 through his ministers, albeit Julia Gillard never did, some of it was utter sheer and utter
nonsense, for example to rely upon a 1988 ROYAL COMMISSION to “assume” that the
Commonwealth had legislative powers to legislate as to citizenship. Now that is akin of me
claiming that I assume I own your mothers businesses and so I be now the new owner. Surely
even you should be able to understand it doesn’t work that way.
35 .
Yes, check out my blog and you may just discover your father made considerable errors and this
really was his downfall because people simply lost trust in him.
.
When I am in court I verbally attack my opponent lawyers and judges because I am not afraid to
40 expose the truth. I have the record of having more judges disqualified then anyone else, to the
extend they had to fly in a judge because everyone else was disqualified. I have but one aim and
that is to pursue “JUSTICE”, and that is not trying to win some popularity contest and in the
process have the party i represent loosing the case.
.
45 In my view your father would have done better to have this OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN in
place as then he could have consulted this office as to what was deemed constitutionally
appropriate/permissible. It would have avoided the school fiasco, the insulation scheme fiasco
and many others.
.
50 Where was your father about the s.101 Inter-State Commission that the constitution requires
“shall” be in existence? In my view, your father as a self proclaimed “FEDERALIST” us all
down. It was your father who chose to claim to be a “FEDERALIST” and so he should not have
done so if he was not true to his word.
.

31-8-2010 Page 2
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
 Having stated this do I view your father could make a comeback as Prime Minister? Well, if he
now shows as a Member of Parliament designate (he hasn’t as yet taken up the seat, as this takes
place after the return of the writs) then he could re-build his prospects but this time let him make
sure he does it on a constitutional basis and not merely so to say as some dictator who does as he
5 likes, and the people might just embrace him to be Prime Minister again if they discover he
learned a lesson and he does want to do the right thing to all. Only, rather then to rely upon ALP
faceless policy makers he would do better to ignore them and gain support through the people
for the people to bring about major changes that will ensure a government will operate within the
constitutional framework and not beyond. Again, in my view your father would still be Prime
10 Minister had he bothered to listen to what I had to say because it could have avoided various
debacles and also enhanced his position. The question is if he so to say have the ticker to now do
it properly and willing to campaign for this or not?
.
Did you ever realise that the budget is not to be handed down in may but should be handed down
15 in such manner to allow a vote in the Parliament, and if rejected allows a 3 months interval and
then another vote and then if it is rejected again for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and then allow
for a joint sitting? As such, your father was himself guilty of failing to act appropriately and
while it was his choice to continually ignore my writings in the end his downfall cannot be
blamed upon others. If just he had so to say not been to big for his own boots and been less
20 travelling and spend rather his time to listen for whom he had to govern he could have been in a
total different position then he is now. Still, if he learned a good lesson it is now for him to prove
it and perhaps he might then finally also prove to be a real and not a pretend “FEDERALIST”.
Another issue is the so called Cocopops tax where a Senator overnight approved for it while in
fact there was a failure of a laps of 3 months. Again, this and numerous other failures indicated
25 your father failed to present his credentials as a “FEDERALIST” but more acted like a bully as
a con-federalist. If he learned of his mistakes and want to be a “real” Prime minister or even for
that be a genuine Member of parliament then I expect no less then he will this time make his time
to listen and pursue what is constitutionally appropriate if anything for the people who have
voted for him and trust him.
30 .
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other
power?

35 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal
law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent
of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every
man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency
behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
40 END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8 -3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
45 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
We all make mistakes but did we learn from them, that is the question?
.

50 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

31-8-2010 Page 3
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com