z3

ISSUE: 20190121- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 28-Yellow vest-2

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

* Gerrit, in your ISSUE: 20181225- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 26-Yellow vest
You did warn about the Yellow Vest that it could hit Australia and it appears to me this is
eventuating.
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, indeed it seems to be so.
QUOTE * Gerrit, in your ISSUE: 20181225- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 26-Yellow vest
*.From this I take it that if the High Court of Australia honoured the legal principle embedded in the
constitution then a lot less of the rorting by politicians likely would follow.

**#** That is how it appears to me to be. And well they may continue their self-enrichment but soon or later
citizens will get fed up and we will have our own kind of Yellow Vest uprising.
END QUOTE * Gerrit, in your ISSUE: 20181225- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 26-Yellow vest

The problem is we have serf serving ignorant self-enriching ego mania politicians who use every
excuse under the horizon to blame whomever. I use the example of the as I understand it vicious
murder of Aiia Maasarwe.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-20/aiia-maasarwe-family-plea-for-body-to-be-
returned/10730050
QUOTE
Aiia Maasarwe's grieving family pleads for her body to be returned home
END QUOTE

* Didn’t Prime Minister Scott Morison make an apology about the murder?
**#** In my view this was honourable but not enough. I view that as she is an international
student he should make clear that all cost in regard of the transport of her body to her family are
to be borne by the Federal Government and also that legislation will be enacted call it the Aiia
law that any person convicted of killing of a foreigner on Australian soil will have to serve a
minimum term for his/her natural life in imprisonment without any option for parole.
While the Victorian state Government should also put in to pay all cost of the funeral so that I
view that is the least we as Australians can do for slain Aiia we also must have the State
Government drastically alter is modus operandi with dealing with criminals in particular also
youth criminals. As I understand it the accused killer already was ion bail. In my view if a person
is say caught red handed with having stolen a motor vehicle or other serious crime then the
courts must not be allowed to provide any bail option.
All State and Federal governments must return to the priority that the immediate issue is to
protect those who reside within our society and their safety and wellbeing and not the
rehabilitation of A CONVICTED PERSON.
It is also utter and sheer nonsense that we have the Victorian State Government giving pizzas,
McDonalds meals, videos and other treat to youth prisoners for behaving. They are incarcerated
because they were in general convicted for committed crimes and that should be a punishment.
p1 21-1-2019 © 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
If however you may it that the State Government is accepting to be dictated by incarcerated
youth criminals, some actually already adults, then they are in charge. In my view the criminal
damages caused to youth detention centres should be borne by the criminals causing this, and not
the community.

It basically is that here you got honest living citizens who work hard during their lifetime to try
to make end meet only for youth criminals to steal their precious motor vehicle that might be the
most expensive item they ever possessed, and then the criminal gets legal aid and the victim is
suffering big time.

We do not have law and order but unlawfulness and disorder.

We have the Victorian Police exposed that they fabricated testing. While it is claimed that they
were not committing a crime, in my view they did. They were on the payroll when doing so and
as such were robbing the taxpayers of value for monies. Reportedly as much as 250,000 of those
test were fabricated. Considering the number of hours this involved I view this was nothing but
plain theft of public monies top pretend having done testing when not doing it all.

QUOTE EMAIL (17-1-2019)

Fw: Yellow Vest venues

 Bev Pattenden <lbpattenden@bordernet.com.au>


 Today at 11:08

Message body

All areas are listed on the link “Australian Yellow Vest Alliance” for this Saturday 19th
January 2019

From: Brent Melville

Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 10:23 AM
To: Brent Melville
Subject: Yellow Vest venues

Attn Gold Coast people the Yellow Vest venue is at Eddie Kornhauser Park on Guinea’s
Creek Road, 11am, Saturday, which is more like a picnic venue.
Perhaps it will move to a more public place?
It appears advance-australia.com and Australian Sovereignty Party are driving the Yellow
Vest Australia movement at the moment.
I hope they are more broad thinking than pushing their own agendas, because a lot of
people certainly don’t support that Advance-Australia policy of regional government (i.e.
UN Agenda 21-style government) instead of states.
We have to think of Yellow Vest in very broad terms but essentially it is anti-globalist,
nationalist, people-accountable government with rule of law.
I did make the comment that the Gold Coast venue is a little bit out of the way.
Nevertheless, perhaps it could be a good introductory meeting.
https://australianyellowvestalliance.info/details-of-
events?fbclid=IwAR1BCNyuIPIqYSf3mVv9S4TNwKSpLRDilCKLUcTsoLc9l38DRwqZFRMivvw

Cheers
Mel
END QUOTE EMAIL (17-1-2019)

p2 21-1-2019 © 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
I warned about this previously and well it is clear that the Yellow Vest issue is spreading from
France around the world.

I had in December a former police officer instructing a person to trespass upon my property
despite of the signs warning against doing so without prior permission and to demolish/damage
my newly so far build slat fence. And this former police officer made clear that neither the Chief
Commissioner of Police or others will do anything against him. I found out that so far he knows
the ropes and any investigation is denied. And I may have to fork out $500 for the cost! And this
is where we have a major problem. The criminal gets away with crimes and the victim suffers.
So, this former police officer in writing admitted liability but it appears to me he couldn’t care
less knowing he is so to say untouchable.

* Did you read about the High Court of Australia decision regarding the ATO, etc?
**#** That to me may include an unconstitutional issue;
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-21/what-is-mine-is-yours-until-taxes-do-us-part/10726020
QUOTE
High Court rules against ATO, finding tax debts can be shifted between spouses
By business reporter Nassim Khadem
Posted about an hour agoMon 21 Jan 2019, 5:33am
END QUOTE

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-21/what-is-mine-is-yours-until-taxes-do-us-part/10726020
QUOTE

The commissioner was given leave to intervene in the proceedings as Mrs Tomaras had failed to pay the amounts owed
after the assessment, without having lodged any objection.

END QUOTE

In Commonwealth v Schorel-Hlavka on 5 August 200-5 the issue was then before the court if
the Commonwealth could rely upon AVERMENT. As such it wouldn’t have to prove anything
but I had the onus to disprove the allegations by the commonwealth against me. I submitted that
it was totally irrelevant if the commonwealth had legislated for AVERMENT this as unless the
State Parliament had done so for each and every specific subject matter, such as the State of
Victoria Parliament had provided legislation that the Commonwealth could rely upon
AVERMENT regarding Bass Strait oil rigs, then the Commonwealth could not pursue
AVERMENT. The Court in the end ordered the Commonwealth to file and serve all material it
sought to rely upon. It failed to do so and a subsequent court then ignored the 5 August 2005
orders and convicted me. I then successfully appealed on 19 July 2006 in the County court of
Victoria and the Court noted that the Commonwealth had not filed any evidence. As such, it is
clear that constitutionally if the Husband is deemed liable for a tax debt then he should be given
the opportunity to be able to challenge the claimed tax debt irrespective if the wife decided not to
do so.
In Wakim (1999) the High Court of Australia upheld his case that the purported Cross Vesting
Act was unconstitutional, this even so in January 1995 it then declined my appeal where I
challenged that the Cross Vesting Act did not apply in regard of the Family Law Act matters I
then had before the court, this even so nop application to invoke the (purported) Cross Vesting
Act ever existed.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue
estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders
p3 21-1-2019 © 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
 made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel
safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying on the
earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
It is therefore clear that one can ignore unconstitutional court orders but if you come
across a judge who lack the competence in constitutional matters, as I discovered most are,
then you could face time in imprisonment no matter your innocence and constitutional
rights.
In my view the transfer of liability cannot be done where the husband (in this case) was denied
any opportunity to challenge the validity of the ATO assessment and/or the court order made in
favour of the ATO. This in fact was also an issue with George William (Estate) there the ATO
used AVER with a total disregard having to prove the debt. It merely claimed it.
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 554, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1876)-proper description of
criminal charges required. Likewise I view the Husband should be entitled to challenge any court
order to which he now is subjected to that was in favour of the ATO.
I once got divorced and discovered that my wife had accumulated debts with a company buying
all kinds of white goods (electrical items) for her mother, unbeknown to me she did so and
pretending to be in a management position claiming my position as being hers. As such she
fraudulently obtained goods on credit and yet more than 35 years ago the Family Court of
Australia nevertheless ordered me to pay the debt. As such in that regard there is in my view
nothing new about this. However when it comes to constitutional matters in this ATO case then I
have my concerns.
* Please explain?
**#** The Framers of the Constitution embedded the legal principle in the constitution that both
sides (parties) are to be heard.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE

Here we have women pursuing all the time to be equal but what about the equal rights of men? If
women desire to be entitled to make decisions in their own right then why should then the
husband face the music of the wife’s debts?
.
The husband might totally oppose the wife’s financial management in business or whatever and
get told to get lost because she has her rights to make her own decisions without him and does so
but then when things go wrong then the husband nevertheless is ending up with the bill. Likewise
the same where the husband is financial incompetent and the wife then could end up facing a bill
to which she may have sought to do everything to prevent it to originate.

The Framers of the constitution had this to say:

HANSARD Constitutional Convention 9 March 1891 [page 151]

p4 21-1-2019 © 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
QUOTE

Mr. RUTLEDGE: I think that in a matter of this kind we should proceed as far as possible by familiar
analogy, and, though perhaps the suggestion of the analogy may, in the minds of some hon. members, be
thought entirely inappropriate to an assemblage of this kind-though the suggestion or the expression of the
analogy may in some quarters create a smile-yet it appears to me that in order to have a perfect system of
federal government, we ought, as far as possible, to preserve an analogy to that form of Government which
prevails in a model family. Now, in the case of a model family we know that the husband represents the entire
household.

An HON. MEMBER: In providing for the expenditure!

An HON. MEMBER: There is no federation there!

Mr. RUTLEDGE: The husband is supposed, in the natural order of things, to be the representative of the
entire household but, though he is a representative of the entire household, we know that the wife also plays a
very important part in the government of that household. The wife comes very near to all those smaller
constituent elements of the family circle, which may, perhaps, by analogy be likened to the great family of
states which will exist in connection with this great federal constitution.

Colonel SMITH: She is the home ruler!

Mr. RUTLEDGE: It is the wife that knows all about the particular interests which affect all the members
of the family group: they come to her with their particular ideas, and they look to her for the expression of
their ideas and for the enforcement of their particular claims.

Mr. MUNRO: Not for finding the income!

Mr. RUTLEDGE: With regard to that interjection, I say that he is a wise man who, being the head of a
household, puts all his financial projects into the crucible of the sagacious mind of his wife, far more
enlightened, far more discriminating than his own.

Colonel SMITH: With the power of veto!

Mr. RUTLEDGE: I say yes, with the power of veto. In this community many a man owes a great deal to
the advice of his wife and the veto which she has put upon his proposals. We know that those strong headed
men who think that all wisdom is embodied in themselves, who do not take their wives into their confidence,
who do not consult their wives as to some particular speculation on which they desire to embark, are the men
who very frequently come to grief. But the men who do take, their wives into their confidence in this way,
and who do permit them to have a considerable voice in the management of family affairs, even to putting a
veto upon their own impulsive tendencies in regard to financial proposals, are the men who go on very safe
lines. No analogy is perfect; every analogy will break down when you come to some particular modes of
applying it; but I do regard a great family of states, governed by a house of representatives and a senate, as
bearing a very considerable analogy to the constitution of a family; and I say the same rule which prevails in
the one ought to prevail in the other.

Sir THOMAS McILWRAITH: The wife initiates most of the money bills there!

Mr. RUTLEDGE: The wives do initiate a great many of the money bills, and I appeal to the experience of
a great many hon. gentlemen to know whether they have not been saved very frequently from financial
mistakes by consulting their wives in regard to important steps which they proposed to take in the very
serious affairs. of life.
END QUOTE
(Writers note; See also 9 March 1891 Page 151 & 152)

HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
The Hon. J.H. HOWE: I will bow to the suggestion of the Chairman.

p5 21-1-2019 © 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
 The Hon. J.H, CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[3.46]: 1 hope the Committee will strike out this sub
clause. It is proposed by the legislative assemblies of New South Wales and South Australia, and by the
Council and Assembly of Tasmania, that the sub-clause should be omitted. I can apply no better arguments
than those which the hon. and learned member, Mr. O'Connor, used just now with reference to lunacy. The
hon. and learned member said that where a permissive power was given there was pressure brought to bear
for the exercise of that power, and that when it was exercised in one direction pressure was brought to bear
that it might be exercised to the fullest extent. Applying that argument to lunacy, if we had this power
exercised at all, we should find strong arguments used for the taking over of our lunatic asylums. If the power
in this sub-clause were exercised at all, a strong argument would be offered for the state taking over the
whole of the benevolent institutions of the various colonies which have to deal with children, and they would
become federal institutions. If you do that you must do what the hon. member, Mr. Howe, proposes. If you
interfere with the children in these institutions you will have to take over the institutions for the infirm and
the old. Now, there is a decided objection in this colony to any federal interference with what the people
conceive to be matters most sacred in the family. We have in this colony a law modelled upon the English
law dealing with the custody of children and with parental rights. That question of parental rights is one
which opens up a very large range of questions. We may have all sorts of interference between parents and
their children under a proposal of this character. The state laws, up to the present, have been perfectly
effective to deal with this question, and I think the argument of hon. members against applying federal action
to lunacy apply equally well against federal action in this matter. I shall apply those arguments now in my
vote.
[start page 1083]
The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[3.48]: This may not be a matter of as great importance as are
some of the other matters in the clause, but I think it is worth consideration. I will put it to my hon. friend that
if the commonwealth are empowered to legislate on the subject of marriage and divorce without having the
power to legislate as to the children, the issue of the marriage, this complication may arise-that the judge,
having to pronounce a decree of divorce or of judicial separation, and having also to deal with the question of
the custody of infants, if the commonwealth cannot legislate in regard to both subjects, will administer one
law with respect to the issue relating to divorce, whilst the consequent portion of the decree dealing with the
custody of the children will have to be under a totally different and varying law.
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: Why not add the words "in relation to divorce"?
The Hon. E. BARTON: If the subclause can be amended in the direction which the hon. and learned
member suggests, my objection will have disappeared, and there will be a reasonable consistency in the law. I
think the difficulty might be overcome by inserting before the words "parental rights" the word "also," and at
the end of the sub-clause the words "in relation thereto."
Mr. SYMON (South Australia)[3.51]: Is it worth while to deal with the matter in that way? If you give the
federal parliament power in relation to marriage generally and divorce generally, then anything that concerns
parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants is connected with either one or the other. It seems
to me that if you intrust the federal authority with the power of dealing with marriage and divorce, which
involves everything relating to the highest earthly ties-that of marriage-it ought, consequent on that, also to
regulate the custody of infants. It does not involve what the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, seems to
think is in the minds of many who see some objection to this-that it might empower the federal
authority to interfere with domestic relations in some mysterious manner so as to reduce children to a
position of slavery. This is a control that seems to me to be consequent upon marriage, and which might
come into operation, perhaps, in relation to all matters of divorce; but it is not confined to matters of divorce,
and might depend simply on marriage when the question of divorce does not arise. It will, perhaps, be better
to leave the sub-clause as it is and consider the matter further later on.
The Hon. E. BARTON: Before the hon. and learned gentleman sits down he will, perhaps, deal with what
I forgot, namely, a suggestion from the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, that if this power were granted it would
involve the probability of the commonwealth having to take over the control of the institutions?
Mr. SYMON: I did not think that the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, seriously meant that.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: That argument was successfully used against me in regard to lunatics!
Mr. SYMON: I am sure that the hon. member will be able to successfully dispose of it when it is next used
against him. It would be just as reasonable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member, Mr. Howe, and say
that the federal authority are to take control of all institutions for the care of the aged and infirm. I think that
hon. members will, on consideration, see that there is no parallel between the cases, and, that as this affects
one part of the relationship of the citizens to the commonwealth, it ought fairly to be under a uniform law
and under federal control.
The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.53]: I think that the words as they [start page 1084] stand,
"custody and guardianship of infants," are rather too wide. It seems to me that these words, without
any qualification, would apply to destitute children. It would be better for the state authorities to
control the custody and guardianship of infants, because they are immediately on the spot. They have
opportunities of inquiring into the relationship of the children and their parents, and into their

p6 21-1-2019 © 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
 condition if they are destitute and neglected. Therefore, I think it is advisable to omit those words, and
allow the sub-clause to remain as proposed to be amended by the leader of the Convention.
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER (South Australia)[3.54]: I think it would be better to leave the sub-
clause as it is. I can understand that it will be a very good thing for each state to make its own laws
with respect to parental rights and the custody and guardianship of children; but supposing that the
children went into another state, and were thus taken away from the law of which the previous state
approved, and came under the law of another state which had altogether a different method of dealing
with such matters, and under which the parent was not able to again get the custody of his child, or the
guardian was not able to again get the custody of an infant, what could he do? He could not proceed
under his own law. His own law might be good enough, but the person that he wanted to proceed
against would be out of the jurisdiction of his state.
Mr. SYMON: And the order would not have any force!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: The order would not have any force. The result would be that, however
good his own law was, he would be unable to enforce it because the law of the other state was of a varying
character.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Sub-clause 26 provides for that!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: That is only an evidence clause, and will not have the slightest effect in
this matter.
Mr. SYMON: The hon. and learned gentleman's point is a point of jurisdiction!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: Yes; and it has nothing whatever to do with that. The order would be good
enough as a record of the action of the court in the first-named state, but it would not be a record of the court
in the other state; nor would it make the law of the other state subsidiary to the law of the state which
contained that record.
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON: Does the hon. and learned member read the word "recognition" as
meaning proof?
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It is no more than recognition; it means what it says. The word is plain
enough.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Look at sub-clause 25, which says:
The service and execution throughout the commonwealth of the civil and criminal process, and
judgments of the courts of the states.
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: But it must be in respect of a matter over which the court has
jurisdiction.
Mr. SYMON: Suppose you change the domicile!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: That will not operate to give jurisdiction. I think that when we have given
the most sacred of all relations-the, relation of marriage-over to the commonwealth, and very properly, it
follows, as a matter of course, that we must do this. Parental rights-that is all we propose to give to the
commonwealth. The commonwealth parliament can make a definition and pass a uniform law.
Mr. SYMON: That is incident to the marriage law!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It comes from the marriage law, and ought to flow as a corollary. It is
a corollary as far as marriage is concerned.
[start page 1085]
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: It would not necessarily follow the law of husband and wife!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: We are only talking about parental rights; that is the right of the
parent over the child!
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: If the hon. and learned member is willing to hand over the rights, why
not the obligations?
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: If the hon. member would like them added I have no objection; but if the
hon. gentleman wants to exclude them, I cannot see that any difficulty need arise. So far as I know, the laws
of all the colonies are exactly the same in respect to the matters mentioned here, and there is very little
probability of their being any different, so far as parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants
are concerned. We want to prevent the possibility of any difference, that is all, and to give the federal
parliament power to legislate on the subject if they please. I can see difficulties that might arise in the
enforcement of state laws through the child or infant being taken away from the custody of its parent
or guardian, and being out of the jurisdiction of the court of the state in which the parent or guardian
resides, and I think it is necessary to have one uniform law on this matter as well as in regard to
marriage and divorce.
The Hon. J.H. GORDON (South Australia)[3.59]: I think we are quarrelling about terms and not
about substance. I believe that the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, agrees with almost everyone of us
that as regards parental rights and the custody and, guardianship of children so far as divorce is
concerned, power should be given to the commonwealth; but this clause goes much further and
includes the whole region of, parental rights and the custody and guardianship of children.
The Hon. E. BARTON: Put in the words "and in relation thereto" before "parental rights "!

p7 21-1-2019 © 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
 The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That will cover the whole ground. All our acts relating to the custody and
guardianship of children have relation to parental rights.
Mr. SYMON: Suppose a child is deserted?
The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That suspends the parental custody; but the parental liability remains. I
think that the amendment suggested by the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, covers the whole
ground.
The Hon. E. BARTON: I move:
That the figures "24" be omitted with a view to the insertion of the words "and in relation thereto."
This will confine the operation of the subclause to the rights and obligations arising out of divorce
suits. The other matters to which attention has been directed will be considered by the Drafting
Committee.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[4.3]: I would point out that if we are going to deal
with the service and process of writs in regard to this matter in one state when the parent resides in another, it
will be just as well for the Drafting Committee to consider the aspect of the case in relation to deserted wives.
If the amendment of the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, is carried, I think we might leave the matter to
the Drafting Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Sub-clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
END QUOTE

We should understand that reference of legislative powers by any state to the Commonwealth is
non-reversible and also can only be done in a constitutional valid manner within the provision of
section 123 of the federal constitution, but I will not now go further into details.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law
that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union,
because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power,
until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue
for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a
state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has any-
and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be
p8 21-1-2019 © 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
 inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should
say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not
be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
END QUOTE

Therefore the judicial powers of the Family Court of Australia regarding children not that of
marriages simply is non-existent, this as the reference of power by the States to the
Commonwealth (other than WA) is and remains to be unconstitutional.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the
subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken
into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the
law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a
common one which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically
infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains
some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack
each other's laws.
END QUOTE

* Do you support the Yellow Vest movement?

**#** I make no claim either way, but do express my concern that politicians are far to ignorant
about law abiding citizens’ rights and Aiia reported vicious murder is just I view an issue to
underline this that if you do not act harshly against offenders then they will end up becoming
hardened criminals. This young woman had a right to life and she was robbed of it. We must
ensure that those who are convicted of serious crimes are not so to say placed in cotton balls and
have a hotel like environment but that we place them in the Russian style Black Dolphin prison
system that they never again want to return to the prison environment. Forget about your Human
rights when you robbed a person of it! Hard labor in a prison system is what you deserve!
Prisons are to enable those convicted of serious crimes to be punished appropriately but it
appears to me that too often prisoners are better off than the senior citizens who build this nation
to what it is now. They get comfort of living conditions that many senior citizens have to do
without. And senior citizens who were robbed of their property by some criminal who might
have ended up in prison in relation to it then the criminal have a better kind of living conditions
then any or all of the victims that were robbed.
In my view rehabilitations will only work if you ensure they fear a return to the prison system
and not look forwards to return to their prison mates and commit further crimes to get back in the
prison system.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/gangland-info-missing-with-vanished-jail-chief-david-prideaux/news-
story/8cad6b93e7c102954eca96afa7c69b2c?sv=35c4e0436797efaf80a32ca125ed9658
QUOTE

Gangland info missing with vanished jail chief David Prideaux

Exclusive: Adam Shand, TheAustralian
March 1, 2013 8:37am
MISSING jail boss David Prideaux had copies of statements made by gangland serial killer Carl Williams
and his father, George, including sensational allegations of police involvement in corruption and murder,
when he disappeared in Victoria's high country during a hunting trip in June 2011.

It is understood that police have been unable to locate the explosive statements, contained on a CD-ROM,
since Mr Prideaux's disappearance.
p9 21-1-2019 © 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
END QUOTE

Constitutionally the States are responsible to incarcerate convicted criminals but as we saw with
the vicious murder of Carl Williams the State of Victoria then avoid liability for its failures. One
has to ask why didn’t the courts hold the State liable and hold them in contempt of court and
imprison the minister for failing to have avoided such vicious murder?
Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908)-Attorney-General liable-prison

I understand that the alleged murderer of Aiia is of Aboriginal descent.

With Kater party Senator Fraser Anning being attacked for his statement (maiden speech)
let me then draws the attention to a Preston WHITE BOY incident. It seem to me reverse
racism is allowed!

This document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/386257327/20180804-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
Victorian-Police

Here we have the Victorian Police using DOUBLE STANDARDS that if you commit a criminal
or other offence but are deemed to be of Aboriginal heritage then well it is not to pursue legal
action if they can avoid it. Constitutionally the States cannot have special courts for indigenous
people who are claiming to be of Aboriginal descent because subsection 51(xxvi) prohibits this
since the 1967 referendum to place Aboriginals under Commonwealth legislative powers.
No more excuses about Aboriginals being disadvantaged because we had a South Australia
Governor in the past of Aboriginal descent and as such this proves that if you pursue an
honourable career you could even obtain the highest position in the State. It is in my view totally
absurd that someone happen to claim being of Aboriginal descent then get a referent treatment.

No use to claim that people regardless of race, colour, etc, all should be equal when the
politicians do not apply this!

HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-

It is not something separate from the other portion, and of this Dr. Burgess says, at page 217 of the first
volume of his work:-

The phrase "equal protection of the laws" has been defined by the court to mean exemption from legal
discrimination on account of race or colour. This provision would probably, therefore, not be held to
cover discriminations in legal standing made for other reasons; as, for example, on account of age or sex,
or mental, or even property qualifications. The court distinctly affirms that the history of the provision
shows it to have been made to meet only the unnatural discriminations springing from race and colour. If
a discrimination should arise from any previous condition of servitude, I think the court would regard this
as falling under the inhibition. The language of the provision implies this certainly, if it does not exactly
express it.

END QUOTE

We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
p10 21-1-2019 © 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