Page 1

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
5

(Zachary),

14-10-2013

I might nominate to be immediately the alternative Governor-General, albeit I am aware that politicians unlikely would support this, as they neither did in regard of the Inter-State Commission which the constitution (s101) dictates "shall be" and as such is mandatory to exist. It is true people are financially struggling, and indeed this is also one of the reasons I have been 10 campaigning for so long. To try to get the message out that the rorting must stop. While most people may see the current Governor-General as a good example, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have however reservations. For example, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that when the Governor-General leaves the Commonwealth of Australia then she must have appointed someone to act on her behalf, and it will be out of her pay packet to pay for that person acting 15 during her absenteeism.
Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:

20

I do not see the necessity for considering the hon. member's proposal at the present time. I am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to be proud of that position. I have no desire to weaken a single link binding us to that empire, whether as regards the appointment of a governor-general or anything else. END QUOTE

The Governor-General has no official role outside the Commonwealth of Australia. She 25 represents the Queen only within the confines of the Commonwealth of Australia, and not beyond it. Hence, her travelling cost outside the Commonwealth of Australia is to be funded out of her own pocket. Likewise so her overnight accommodation, etc. If then you check her expenditure you will find a huge cost claim in regard of past overseas travel at cost of taxpayers and therefore she 30 is rorting the system.
QUOTE

66 Salaries of Ministers
35

There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a year.
END QUOTE

The same with Ministers of the Crown
QUOTE

3 Salary of Governor-General
14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 1

Page 2

There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds. The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office.
5 END QUOTE

Therefore, any Governor-General/Minister receiving payments directly from Consolidated Revenue Funds is defrauding the Commonwealth of Australia, which means us taxpayers! As the States are created within s106 of the constitution then the same legal principle applies to the States. So to say if I were in Geoff Shaws shoes I would hit them hard with this that any State 10 Minister receiving monies directly from Consolidated Revenue Funds would be unconstitutionally drawing monies. After all when the Commonwealth hit me with charges of FAILING TO VOTE I went all the way against it and on 19 July 2006 comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth in both cases. My submissions based on about 50 constitutional issues, including that the Framers of the Constitution specifically refused to give legislative 15 powers to the Commonwealth to make registration/voting compulsory.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON. If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament." END QUOTE 25 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which 30 those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians. END QUOTE HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE And 40 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole 14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 2

20

35

Page 3 history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves. END QUOTE 5 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten, END QUOTE

10

And the last quotation makes it very clear, that if you don’t research extensively what the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution was then you will likely never understand your constitutional rights. and the judges of the High Court of Australia are on record that if they feel that the Parliament didn’t legislate then they will make up in their judgment for it. This, even so this is not their function nor their authority. They claim to be the third arm of government, even so they are not. They are the third part of the constitution and the Inter-State Commission is the fourth part. Each depending on each other and yet each being independent.

15

No matter the highly paid so to say legal eagles of the Commonwealth in the end they were nothing to me when I comprehensively defeated them on 19 July 2006. Then again, I wasn’t sitting back let the rot go over me, instead I took them as no one did before and I spend countless 20 hours researching. Ample of people contact me asking me just to write some statement, so they can win their case, as they do not want to sit down and spend 3 hours or so reading. Well my message is don’t bother me because if you are too lazy to do your research then you are not worth to be assisted.
HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 25 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. END QUOTE 30 . . HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament. 35 END QUOTE

As I recently published on my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati the compilation of David Woods regarding the issue I canvassed for years why the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is unconstitutional and so any legislation enacted within it, then for this Geoff Shaw may just get ahead in his case, but his lawyers may have a conflict of interest as they are OFFICERS OF 40 THE COURT and by this may be willing to betray their client to serve the court purpose.
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate) QUOTE As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he 14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 3

Page 4 honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly 5 conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court. END QUOTE 10 .

Then again he may just get lawyers who will regard the constitution above all and adhere to the true meaning and application of the constitution no matter what.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 15 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 25

20

And as I in my past published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues have set out extensively (so no need to repeat the same) that Ministers leaving their positions no longer have any further entitlements.

For this the new laws N.S.W. and other States are using may just haunt the politicians as the so called CAR Act (Lee v NSW Crime Commission [2013] HCA 39 (9 October 2013)) to 30 confiscate everything if suspected being the proceeds of crime could be used against the very politicians who passed the legislation! More over, when she retires from holding office then that is the end of any payments. No after office freebees or perks, but if you look at past Governor-Generals they all are richly rewarded for what? Constitutionally the salary for the Governor-General is payable to the Queen. Hence 35 the Governor-General is in the employment of the Queen. If therefore the Queen desires to pay a retired Governor-General Her Majesty can do so from her own pocket, but it cannot be done from Consolidated Revenue Funds, as there is no constitutional provision for this. Therefore, every former Governor-General who still is somehow receiving financial or other rewards for past services as a Governor-General would in my view be defrauding the Commonwealth of 40 Australia as do former Prime Ministers and other Ministers and former Members of Parliament.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-11/cassidy-abbott-cant-simply-ride-out-the-expenses-furore/5014310

QUOTE

Abbott can't simply ride out the expenses furore
By ABC's Barrie Cassidy
45

Updated Fri 11 Oct 2013, 2:09pm AEDT END QUOTE
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-11/cassidy-abbott-cant-simply-ride-out-the-expenses-furore/5014310 QUOTE 14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 4

Page 5 And as for Peter Reith's contribution on Network Ten's The Project, he argued the case as only an expolitician would. Asked about politicians billing the taxpayer for attending weddings, he said: Politicians need to go to social functions. All this talk about weddings, for heaven's sake, it's a social function. 5 Quite frankly as far as I'm concerned it's work and there shouldn't be petty pickling over what's a wedding you can go to and what's a wedding you can't go to. But, Dave Hughes protested, "I've never claimed any of the weddings I've been to." Reith replied, "Yeah, but you're not a politician." 10 Reith went on to argue that any politician who knocked back an invitation from a "shock jock" to attend his wedding is a mug, because if you show up, you'll probably get on his program. END QUOTE

Former Member of Parliament and Minister Peter Reith reportedly justified the claiming of monies for going on ”social outings”, but the reality is that constitutionally a Member of Parliament can only receive an “allowance”, and that includes a certain compensation towards 15 any travelling and other cost associated with attending to the Parliament but no further.
QUOTE 48 Allowance to members Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat. END QUOTE

20

The term “Until the Parliament otherwise provides” was intended that all Members of Parliament irrespective of where they resided would receive the same amount as the Framers of the 25 Constitution made clear they would generally have free transport to and from the Parliament. As such, the “allowance” was to be a payment that could be increased for all equally to cover all and any cost as well as loss of income where they were away from their ordinary daily work. Much was argued and still is about Geoff Shaw in Victoria going back to work when Parliament wasn’t sitting but the man did precisely what the Framers of the Constitution expected a Member 30 of Parliament to do. it is and remains essential that Members of Parliament remain as ordinary as possible and still work for a living. also so they stay in touch with ordinary citizens and not just rort of them. Politicians these days have been given motor vehicles for personal usage and many drive around their families, etc., at cost of taxpayers. I understand that Geoff Shaw used his vehicle for his 35 business, and now the Police seem to be after him. While legislation may exist to provide for prosecution, the question is if the legislation can in fact interfere with his parliamentarian privileges. This as unless Parliament itself has first held that there is an justified case to call in the police any police action may be without constitutional powers.
40

We must protect the sanctity of the Parliament against any inroads, as not doing so would soon or later undermine the independence of the Parliament. It is not sufficient if for example the Premier may have requested the police to investigate, because the Premier is actually nothing more but another Member of Parliament. Likewise the Prime Minister is nothing more but a Member of Parliament (if validly elected that is) and holds no authority whatsoever. It is the Speaker or the President of the House who have certain powers on behalf of its Members.

45 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power? 14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 5

Page 6 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. 5 END QUOTE Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on terms that are just to both. 10 Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause. Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is required at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and, without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at. END QUOTE And 20 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HOLDER.Surely there would be at least one representative out of the whole Senate and one member of the House of Representatives, who would have individuality enough, and strength enough, to get up and challenge the order of any particular measure which might be disorderly under this clause of the Constitution. 25 Mr. ISAACS.-They would not all sit on the same side of the House.

15

Mr. HOLDER.-I should think not. They would not all be Ministerialists, or all members of the Opposition, or all members of any particular party; and I cannot believe that any Bill which contained anything objectionable at all could pass through both Houses of the Federal Legislature without finding some one member of either of the two Houses who would rise to a point of order, and have such a Bill laid aside of 30 necessity as being out of order under this provision. END QUOTE And Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 35 Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-It is worth while considering the stages that a proposed law has to go through, and the opportunity afforded to a member of either House or a member of the Executive to call attention to any infraction or infringement of the Constitution. It does not require a majority of the members of the House of Representatives to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed in the matter of procedure; it only requires one solitary member to rise to a point of order, and the Speaker has to give a legal interpretation of the rules of procedure. It only requires one member of the Senate to call the attention of the President to the fact that a Bill is introduced contrary to the Constitution for that proposed law to be ruled out of order. It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the Constitution. Neither House could pass the standing order which would give the majority power to dissent from the Speaker's or President's ruling. The standing orders only confer certain explicit power. They give no power to either House to pass an order which would enable its members to amend the Constitution. END QUOTE 14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 6

40

45

Page 7 To give an example: the Prime Minister or Premier may introduce a Bill into the Parliament but a Member of the House objects that it is unconstitutional. The moment the Member makes this objection the bill cannot proceed. The Prime Minister/Premier cannot overrule the speaker nor dictate the speaker what to do.

The Speaker then must determine if in the circumstances the Bill appears to be unconstitutional or not. The speaker can place the matter then before the High Court of Australia as to determine the matter. Even if the High Court of Australia holds it is constitutionally valid for it to be enacted, if passed by the Parliament that is, then afterwards any citizen can still challenge its validity and the High Court of Australia may then verify well find the Act to be unconstitutional. 10 In Wakim it found subsequently the Cross Vesting Act to be unconstitutional HCA 27 of 1999, but Dawson J of the High Court of Australia in December 1994/January 1995 then simply held it was applicable at the time disregarding any proper consideration to its constitutional validity, when I raised the matter that the Cross Vesting Act was not applicable.
5 15 QUOTE Duncan v Queensland (1916) 22 CLR 556, 582 (per Griffith C.J.) That case (a previous decision of the High Court, Foggit, Jones & Co v NSW (1915) 21 CLR 357) was very briefly, and I regret to say, insufficiently argued and considered on the last day of the Sydney sitting..... The arguments which now commend themselves to me as conclusive did not find entrance to my mind. In my judgment that case was wrongly decided, and should be overruled. END QUOTE

20

As such, you have pot luck if the judges happen to be aware what is constitutionally applicable or not. As I did set out in “076-Chapter 022A -failure of the case-etc” in INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)

25

the High Court of Australia had taken out of context what the Framers of the Constitution was recorded in the Hansard to have stated as the WorkChoices legislation I maintain is and was unconstitutional.

People now struggling to make end meet may just discover that a government (of whichever colour) suddenly reintroduces legislation that cost them their job and then it will be too late for 30 them. that is why I view people should seek to avoid this but very few people will actually do something to support me in achieving that the true meaning of the constitution is applied. The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t forget the hyphens!) a constitutional council that Advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts, on on the true meaning and application of the constitution, which is what is basically long overdue, and needed, to avoid 35 catastrophe to many people. Currently the government can do what it likes using taxpayers monies and if you are aggrieved you risk everything you posses if you seek legal action to pursue your rights,. surely this is what needs to be stopped?
40

The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t forget the hyphens!) should pursue constitutional matters, as the Framers of the Constitution stated;
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:

I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets. 45 END QUOTE 14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 7

Page 8 I for one cannot see there being any difference as if a Member of Parliament is permitted to use a government owned vehicle for whatever, say, to even drive around Australia, even so not related to pure travelling from home to Parliament, and visa versa, then why pick on Geoff Shaw. I do not know his arguments but say he were to claim that because he was attending to his 5 parliamentarian duties, which clearly has a priority, he held it appropriate then to have someone else instead using the vehicle for what otherwise he would himself have done.

If that was his argument, and again I do not know, then considering how others are using their government owned vehicles and using petrol at cost of taxpayers then I see no difference in usage. Why would it be all right for another Member of Parliament so to say ferry people to and 10 from a wedding venue using his government vehicle, and have taxpayers pay the petrol bill (to ferry the wedding guest), and Geoff Shaw is held liable to use his vehicle for his purposes? You see, the root of evil is the failure to have appropriate provisions. Very few, if anyone, ever may have considered constitutional issues as I do. Hence, the rorting has gone on by what could be held all parliamentarians, even those never intending to do so. A clear example is that when an election is called all seats in a State and/or federal election are declared vacant (other then the Senate - albeit also with a Double Dissolution) and then those standing for re-election are not MP’s (Member of Parliament) but still use their government email as such and refer to themselves as such. they still use MP expenditure claims and still bill us for whatever as to them they are entitled to it even so they are not. None then disclosed this 20 direct or indirect financial benefit for electoral purposes!
15

Political parties has used their muscles to provide for unconstitutional legislation that they have certain benefits from elections (most favourable to them), such as square above the line, deposit, number of signatures to nominate, payment per vote, etc. As a INDEPENDENT candidate I fought ongoing against this but this year gave up to stand as a candidate albeit I do not view I 25 wasted my time, money and efforts. I learned that the system is too corrupt and, so to say, unless we can get people voting with their feet nothing will change. The poor will get poorer and the suppressed will get more suppressed. Those in power will wield the axe until one day those people now refusing to vote with their feet will find the axe is hitting them like a guillotine and then it will be too late to change it.
30

Now would be the time for people to mount a campaign that I be appointed as Governor-General as a matter of urgency. then as Governor-General I can take appropriate action within the prerogative powers available to me to pursue to address unconstitutional matters. It would in my view be foolish for Tony Abbott to assume he is safe being Prime Minister because tomorrow he may be no more. We then may have Bill Shorten as Prime Minister.

In my view, the 2010 debacle was a clear exposure how corrupted the system has become. Had I been Governor-General then I would have held that Tony Abbott having the majority of votes for his party and so most confidence of the electors ought to have been commissioned to form a government. That is what I view constitutionally was appropriate for a Governor-General to do to consider the wishes of the electorate. Indeed, the deals between Julia Gillard and the 40 independents in my view was unconstitutional and the Governor-General never should have conceded to this. It was a betrayal of her prerogative powers and duties.
35

Members of Parliament do not decide who shall be commissioned to form a Government. It is ultimately the Governor-General and in the States the Governor. The Governor-General is deemed to be the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) acting ion behalf of the Crown. Because the 45 Crown cannot be held liable, the Governor-General (Governor in the states) appoint “advisors” which are called Ministers of the Crown, who will be held liable for any wrongdoing they do on behalf of the Governor-General (the Crown ). However, you find that Ministers generally now
14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 8

Page 9 blame public servants and we no longer have therefore a “responsible Minister”. HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).5 Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a responsible Minister. END QUOTE 10 HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE 15 Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace! END QUOTE

When John Howard authorised the armed invasion into Iraq the Governor-General ought to have immediately withdrawn his commission (as constitutionallty John Howard had no authority to authorise this) and that of all other ministers supporting his unconstitutional conduct, and have 20 them charged within s24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth) etc, as constitutionally only the GovernorGeneral can authorise an act of war against a friendly nation by publishing in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR against a friendly nation. It is totally immaterial if the Queen authorise the UK Government to invade Iraq, because within our constitution the Governor-General is the commander in chief!
25 QUOTE 68 Command of naval and military forces The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative. 30 END QUOTE

Do note it is not the Queen but the Governor-General who is the commander in chief. It would have been different if it had stated that the Queen was the commander in chief. As I understand it Robert Menzies held that because Great Britain had declared war then Australians were also, but that was untrue. Before Australia had its own armed forces Australians were serving within the 35 British forces as being part of it and that was correct. They were correctly deemed to be British soldiers, even so being Australians. Any war we participated in with Australian forces without being actually under direct attack (as the Framers of the Constitution referred to the “Booming of the guns”) without on each occasion the Governor-General first publishing in then gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR then such armed conflict was unconstitutional.
40

No DECLARATION OF WAR is required when Australia itself was under attack, because the attack by another nation constituted a DECLARATION OF WAR. Hence, the Minister of Defence at the time was entitled to address this kind of violation against Australia’s sovereignty immediately. However, the armed invasion such as into Iraq, to me constituted criminal offences by John Howard and other Ministers such as War Crimes, Crimes against humanity, treason, etc.

Constitutionally John Howard was not a Prime Minister at the time (as I canvassed successfully before the courts on 19 July 2006), neither can it be deemed that Tony Abbott will be constitutionally a Prime Minister 3 months after he has been appointed, as I have recently also explained where the same problem existed in the recent election as eventuated with the 2001 federal election. Hence, the Governor-General need to do no more but wait until the 3 month 50 period has passed and then Tony Abbott is constitutionally no more a Prime Minister and that
45 14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 9

Page 10 opens the way for the Governor-General to constitutionally validly commission her son-in-law Bill Shorten as Prime Minister. QUOTE 5 64 Ministers of State The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth. Ministers to sit in Parliament After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. END QUOTE

10

15

Again;
QUOTE 20 After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. END QUOTE

A proper examination will show that as with the 2001 federal election again in the 2013 federal election the election time table was 1 day short. The election should have been held a week later 25 to comply with legislative requirement. As I successfully submitted in court (using Authorities) one has to calculate days from midnight to midnight and then the time table shows that the first possible election day was the Sunday (after the election was held) but because the legislation requires a poll to be held on a Saturday then it should have been the following Saturday. My blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati has the time table explained in detail and also the 30 authorities relied upon. And I did notify Tony Abbott about this. While legislation appears to be on foot that the cabinet can decide to go to war, the truth is, the cabinet cannot overrule the Minister of Defence as he is ultimately the “responsible Minister”, as it is so to say his neck that is on the line to go to war, without due and proper valid constitutional authority. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, the Minister of Defence can 35 recommend to the Governor-General to authorise and act of war against a friendly nation by publishing in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR. The Governor-General then has to decide if it is in the interest of Australians to authorise such a contemplated armed invasion and publish in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR or that this is merely a warmongering government down in the polls it is to face in a short time and so it would be irresponsible to 40 authorise any warmongering. It must be clear, as I exposed in my complaint against the PUP party that Clive Palmer was misleadingly advertising that electors could vote for him to be Prime Minister, when immediately this add was subsequently withdrawn, there is no such thinking as electing a Prime Minister. Yet, the same counts for electing or not electing a Premier. It is just that electors are used to be 45 brainwashed by nonsense and so make their decisions accordingly. Perhaps Tony Abbott may just wake up quick smart, but I doubt as after all I notified him about the writs defects and he did nothing about it. it opens the way for anyone, as I did on 19 July 2006, to argue that the Commonwealth has no valid government nor any validly elected members to the House of Representatives in any legal battle they may be subjected to.
14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 10

Page 11 I did not fear to go all the way on nunmerous issues, and the fact I succeeded underlines that it was worth doing it. See also for details of the case in “CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC” INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really? 5 A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3

ALSO SOME OTHER PUBLICATIONS:
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & There is no Government to go to war 10 A book on CD About Legal Issues Confronting Australia (ISBN 0-9580569-5-1 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-5-3 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and the BANANA REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA 15 Dictatorship & deaths by stealth- Preliminary book edition on CD ISBN 978-0-9580569-3-9 (ISBN 0-9580569-3-5 prior to 1-1-2007)

I expect that the Governor-General may likely be very well aware about my writings and may have already in mind to commission Bill Shorten to form a government and become Prime 20 Minister, as soon as an opportunity arises she may deem good enough as an excuse, as no majority in the Parliament is required for this! He is after all the father of her grandchild, so why not used her powers if it can be done constitutionally validly because once 3 months has passed it would be constitutionally rightly for her to commission Bill Shorten to call for an election, as the recent federal election was not valid as the writs were incorrect in time table.
25

If Tony Abbott was too arrogant to try to get the election date corrected then he deserve whatever is coming to him, as he was warned about it by me well in time to address the issue.

Malcolm Turnbull email to me, prior to the election, that he was looking into the Inter-State Commission issue also leave me wondering what is his credibility, having heard nothing since, as after all as a Member of the Federal Executive he is bound to ensure s101 is complied with. 30 No such thing as to pick and choose what part of the constitution one uses. Take it all or leave it and get out, and leave someone else more competent doing the job. When one consider the huge amount of monies reportedly used by Federal Members of Parliament such as referred to below then consider the savings for taxpayers if this was stopped!:
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-defends-claiming-travel-expenses-for35 ironman-event-20131008-2v58a.html QUOTE

Tony Abbott defends claiming travel expenses for Ironman event
Date October 8, 2013 - 1:58PM 40 13 reading now Comments 570 Read later Jonathan Swan, Daniel Hurst 45 PM defends expense claims 14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 11

Page 12 Tony Abbott comes under further pressure over his expenses claims as one of his own MPs calls for more transparency. Prime Minister Tony Abbott says he is entitled to bill taxpayers more than $1000 in travel and accommodation costs to compete in the Port Macquarie Ironman, as he also attended other community events in the marginal electorate during the 2011 visit. The revelation adds to the expenses controversy, days after Mr Abbott refunded taxpayers for attending the weddings of former Coalition MPs Sophie Mirabella and Peter Slipper. Tony Abbott in the Ironman event in Port Macquarie in 2011. Photo: Port Macquarie News 10 Mr Abbott, who vowed to lead a government that would "live within its means", also confirmed claiming travel allowances to cycle in the Pollie Pedal charity fund-raiser, saying it was a ''serious act of community engagement'' rather than a ''frolic''. Advertisement 15 An examination of parliamentary entitlements shows Mr Abbott, who was opposition leader at the time, claimed $941 for return flights from Sydney to Port Macquarie and $349 for an overnight stay in Port Macquarie in November 2011. Mr Abbott's parliamentary expenses report describes the overnight stay as "official business". Speaking at the APEC Summit in Bali on Tuesday, Mr Abbott said that he believed all his claims had been within entitlement. 20 ''Let's not forget that Port Macquarie was a marginal seat effectively and I want to assure you that I don't go to marginal seats simply for sporting events, although the sporting event in question was a community event,'' he said. ''I think you'll find there were quite a few other community events involved in those visits.'' 25 The Port Macquarie Ironman is promoted as ''one of the Asia-Pacific region's leading and most enduring triathlon events''. Mr Abbott said the Pollie Pedal event took him ''to towns, communities, sometimes hamlets that rarely see a politician'' and he would continue to participate as Prime Minister. ''It is a perfectly legitimate thing for a member of Parliament to do. Yes, to the extent it involves being away from home, I will claim travel allowance,'' he said. 30 ''Ask yourself the question – is this a frolic or is this a very serious act of community engagement?'' Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus says the Department of Finance should investigate politicians' entitlements across the Parliament, in the wake of the expenses scandals. "There seems to be a pattern of behaviour by Coalition MPs that may warrant further investigation," Mr Dreyfus told Fairfax Media. 35 "Coalition MPs, including the Prime Minister, don't understand that a private wedding is not official business. "And I think most Australians would have a lot of difficulty with the idea that a private wedding was official business." 40 But Mr Dreyfus did not agree with the Greens' suggestion to appoint an independent National Integrity Commissioner to oversee entitlements and parliamentary corruption. "I'm not convinced that there is a need for yet another integrity officer," he said. "The Auditor General is already able to look at entitlement claims." It was now up to the Abbott government to "come up with a proposal" to examine the abuse of entitlements, Mr Dreyfus said. 45 Mr Abbott and other Pollie Pedal riders cycled from Adelaide to Geelong during the eight-day event in late April and early May this year. He fronted the media to speak about the issues of the day, attended community forums and visited local businesses along the way. 50 Mr Abbott recently said the Pollie Pedal event had raised more than $3 million for charity since it was started in 1998, including this year’s earnings of $750,000 for Carers Australia and $140,000 for the Manly Women’s Shelter. He said he met dedicated carers and spoke of the importance of the National Disability Page 12 14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

5

Page 13 Insurance Scheme. The Prime Minister dismissed calls for reform of the entitlements system, saying: ''It doesn't matter what the rules are. There is always going to be an argument at the margins.'' 5 Last week Mr Abbott repaid $1095 for attending Mrs Mirabella's wedding in 2006 and $609 for Mr Slipper's event the same year. Mr Abbott had previously used the elevation of Mr Slipper to the role of Speaker to attack then prime minister Julia Gillard's ethics – even invoking the spectre of misuse of entitlements. 10 In October 2012 Mr Abbott accused Ms Gillard of cooking up a "squalid deal" that "involved placing in the chair of this Parliament someone whom her own government was investigating for misuse of entitlements". Fairfax Media revealed a week ago that taxpayers met the costs for Attorney-General George Brandis and Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce to attend shock jock Michael Smith's wedding. Fairfax also revealed that Coalition MPs Julie Bishop, Teresa Gambaro and Mr Joyce together claimed more than $12,000 in "overseas study" payments to return from an Indian wedding they attended at guests of billionaire Gina Rinehart. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-defends-claiming-travelexpenses-for-ironman-event-20131008-2v58a.html#ixzz2h8FzT42q END QUOTE 20 http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/expenses-critic-mark-dreyfus-embarrassed-over-taxpayerski-trip-to-perisher-20131008-2v5sc.html QUOTE

15

Expenses critic Mark Dreyfus embarrassed over taxpayer ski trip to Perisher
25 Date October 8, 2013 - 6:21PM 101 reading now Read later Jonathan Swan and Daniel Hurst 30 Hours after demanding an investigation into Coalition travel expenses, Labor frontbencher Mark Dreyfus has admitted to billing taxpayers for a ski trip to Perisher. The shadow attorney-general said he will repay $466 for two nights' accommodation he claimed in August 2011, on the weekend between two parliamentary sitting weeks, after incorrectly claiming travel expenses. ''I am sorry for the mistake,'' Mr Dreyfus told Fairfax Media. 35 Advertisement "I submitted a claim for travel allowance for 10 days, which was my office process," he said. "We should not have claimed for the two nights, Friday and Saturday, because I went to Perisher to ski." He said his staff were not aware he had left Canberra for those two nights. 40 The shadow minister's office said the expenses claim on the ski trip came to light after enquiries from News Corp journalists. Just two hours earlier Mr Dreyfus told Fairfax Media there was a “pattern of behaviour by Coalition MPs” who were claiming inappropriate entitlements such as weddings, after Tony Abbott faced fresh controversy over expenses claims from his participation in an Ironman event and his Pollie Pedal charity bike ride. Mr Dreyfus had called for the Department of Finance to investigate MPs’ entitlements across the Parliament. 45 "Coalition MPs, including the Prime Minister, don't understand that a private wedding is not official business. "And I think most Australians would have a lot of difficulty with the idea that a private wedding was official 14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 13

Page 14 business." But Mr Dreyfus did not agree with a suggestion from the Greens to appoint an independent National Integrity Commissioner to oversee entitlements and parliamentary corruption. 5 “I’m not convinced that there is a need for yet another integrity officer,” he said. “The Auditor General is already able to look at entitlement claims”. It was up to the Abbott government to “come up with a proposal” to examine the abuse of entitlements, Mr Dreyfus said. Asked whether the investigation might backfire and reveal that Labor MPs as well as Coalition MPs were rorting the entitlements system, Mr Dreyfus declined to comment on his own party. "Well I'm not going to give a comment that’s generally across the board," he said. Mr Dreyfus then listed Mr Abbott, Attorney-General George Brandis and Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce as senior members of government who appeared to be unaware that a private wedding should not be charged to taxpayers. 15 “I certainly think there’s a case for looking at some more prescriptive guidelines," said Mr Dreyfus, before his own expenses controversy broke. Earlier on Tuesday, acting Labor leader Chris Bowen attacked Mr Abbott, Attorney-General George Brandis and "others" for billing taxpayers for private events. Mr Bowen said the guidelines were broad and required MPs to declare they were on official business. He accused the Coalition of displaying "a pattern of poor judgment which is exploiting any ambiguity, any grey areas". Mr Bowen said Mr Abbott should consider repaying the money for his Ironman participation as it appeared to be a private sporting event that should not have been on the public purse. Mr Bowen said the opposition would consider any proposal to restore public confidence in the system but played down suggestions he may have his own entitlement skeletons in the closet. 25 "Whenever I've had any doubt I've not claimed travel allowance," Mr Bowen said. END QUOTE

10

20

14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Page 14

Page 15

We must not overlook that the above figures relate to a period when the ALP was in power and 5 many of those listed were Ministers of the Crown. What we therefore should do is divide the one listed in those who were Minister and those who were not. Those who were not in my view should not and could not have made any claims for expenditure because they already are provided with an “allowance” as to attend to the Parliament.
10

Those who were Ministers of the Crown should then be listed for the period they were so and as such break up their expenditure claims accordingly. It would be grossly unfair to a Minister of the Crown if official business expenses were mixed with n on official business expenses.

Tony Abbott clearly was not a Minister and the constitution doesn’t provide for a “shadow Minister”, and so his about $3 million dollars expenditure claim I view is unconstitutional, and 15 he should have to pay back and failing this the CAR Act equivalent should be used to reposes property to return the monies to the taxpayers. While he might claim to have incurred expenditure as the leader in the House or whatever, this is just a self created position not recognised by the constitution. Julie Bishop is another about $2 million spender and as I understand it she was not a Minister of 20 the Crown then let use the CAR Act equivalent against her also. Back down Barnaby Joyce (the one who would stand up against the sale of Telstra but I view didn’t!) was to my knowledge neither a Minister of the Crown and yet claimed about $2 million on expenditure. In fact it seems more then some Ministers.
14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 15

Page 16

14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Page 16

Page 17

5

And then we have of course Peter Slipper. His expenditure was just below Peter Garrett who was a Minister of the Crown. But in all fairness, Peter Slipper was the Speaker of the House of Representative for a certain period, and so expenses relating to that period I view should have been listed in his official duties Malcolm Turnbull still claimed about $1.5 million even so to my knowledge neither then a minister of the Crown.

10

But let us not forget Kevin07, who was disposed off by Julia Gillard & Co in a coup in 2010, and still managed to rake up an expenditure bill nearly close to that of Julia Gillard. If we however take out the legitimate travel expenditure as Foreign Affairs Minister, and reduce the time period accordingly and so its usage then the question is how much did he claim as a backbencher on expenditure?

We also should consider how much each claimed outside the expenditure as a Minister of the Crown, compared to his/her electorate being from the Parliament. Not that constitutionally this should make any difference as the Framers of the Constitution held that Members of Parliament would get free travel to and from the Parliament. But then what the heck, do you really expect a Member of Parliament to travel for free with their ordinary constituents? Come on, they are far to 20 superior to having to deal with that, and so why not squander millions and millions on special arrangements more suitable to their status. How can ordinary folks even dare to consider that Members of Parliament are ordinary humans like them?
15

So, when we then consider the travel charges of a person like Malcolm Turnbull in regard of his
14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 17

Page 18 Wentworth electorate not that far from Canberra versus Members of Parliament who may have to travel long distances, such as from Tasmania, South Australia Western electorates and the same for Western Australia, then one may wonder why on earth his travel expenditure can be justified.

Ok, I now did it, and can be assured Malcolm Turnbull isn’t going to support me to be appointed 5 Inter-State Commissioner, after I just wrote this, but realistically, I couldn’t expect that he would bother what is constitutionally appropriate, as otherwise he would have already supported me way back in 2009, when he was as I recall it Leader of the Opposition. He might just wonder if he way back then had supported me if he then still could have been Leader of the Opposition and then in the 2010 federal election had become Prime Minister, because electors would have then 10 seen a real leader appearing, and not just a showman, who I understand others claimed is too arrogant. If he had supported the constitutional principle that no one can be forced to register and/or to vote, in view that I succeeded against the Australian Electoral Commission, then likely electors have voted in droves for him. Now he might be so to say licking on the heels of Tony Abbott to take over, but he may likely never make it, because he appears to me to be indecisive 15 and not able to show leadership when needed. Just consider that had I been appointed Inter-State Commissioner then not only could I have prevented a huge blow out on the deficit because a lot of the spending would have fallen within the portfolio of the Inter-State Commissioner, but also I wouldn’t have been able to write as I do now, because I would have been required to be and remain political neutral.
20

Did anyone ever consider who decides who is the leader of the opposition? It is not mentioned nor provided for in the constitution. Why indeed should the leader of a political party be deemed to be the leader of the opposition if independent Members didn’t agree with that? There might be people claiming this is a “convention” but conventions do not override the constitution! Nor does any legislation!

25 QUOTE BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) -- CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights. "A statute does not trump the Constitution." People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2 Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL, C.A. No. 09-10303, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Opinion filed September 14, 2010), On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of California "A statutory privilege cannot override a defendant's constitutional right." People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr. 139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921], however, "the judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state ...must yield." Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921 Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.] If evidence of a fact is clear, positive, un-contradicted and of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law. Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952) If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers. Thomas Pynchon They will do whatever we let them get away with. Joseph Heller ~*~ END QUOTE 45

30

35

40

Again;
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 14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 18

50

5

Page 19 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

So, why should an independent Member of Parliament have to address the Speaker/President from his/her chair, whereas the Leader of the Opposition can stand at the so called dispatch box. Every Member of Parliament should be deemed equal to any other Member of Parliament as 10 political party affiliation should make not one of iota difference. Come to this, and we are back to the expenditure. Clive Palmer would not particularly like it if the workers in his companies were to claim not just travel expenditure to and from work but also to phone around for union business, and how to get rid of one union member for the other. Yet, if we look at the expenditure of Kevin Rudd then you may just find that he made ample of phone 15 calls at taxpayers expenses, and so did others, both in the ALP and the Coalition and the Greens about their political issues. Would Clive Palmer accept he be paying for his workers to attend to a journalist wedding or whatever? I do not think so. Ministers of the Crown may belong to a political party but their commission is to advise the Governor-General on behalf of all Australians, not just their political party members. As such, as 20 Ministers their political party business has no place, and neither any phoning, travelling and staying in hotels at taxpayers cost. And the same was when they were trying to dump John Howard in 2007, when they were gathering to do so in hotels, etc, charging taxpayers for their rot. Bring in the CAR Act equivalent and charge them all for the cost they claimed, and then on top as the ATO (Australian Taxation Commission) does a penalty and other cost. I am given the understanding that in Czechoslovakia they had Mr P. Havel writing about the communist regime, and abuses, and then they had the VELVET REVOLUTION and got rid of the communist regime, and Mr P. Havel became President, way back in 1989. And in recent times I understand they simply arrested all Members of Parliament and imprisoned them, and confiscated their properties, as they too were found rorting. So, lets use that example, and 30 imprison the lot, as I have absolutely no doubt they all are rorting the system.
25

Those who do not support to reclaim our constitutional and other legal rights must be considered weasels, and deserve to suffer the rot put upon them. so to say, their refusal to vote with their feet simply endorses the rot to continue and one cannot then feel sorry for them and their complaints.
35

It should be clear that besides the travel rorts, and the phoning rorts, there are numerous other rorts, including printing rorts, accommodation rorts, etc. As I understood it Julia Gillard had at expense of taxpayers placed bollards on her Altona property only then to put it for sale on the market. We should reclaim the cost for so far paid for by the taxpayers. Fools are those who think the travel rort is all there is.

What about when an election is called and Members of the House of Representatives then stop to be Members of the House of Representative and as such are then from then on “former Member of the House of Representative” even if re-elected unless and until the writs are returned and they are sworn in for the seat. So for about 3 months they are not Members of Parliament, and yet still used their parliamentarian perks and “salary” (the unconstitutional substitution for “allowance”) but heaven forbid some poor pensioner was beyond his fault overpaid by Centrelink and failed to 45 repay this then court action no matter what cost (as taxpayers are paying for this) and every possible punishment sought.
40

And let us be clear this rorting is also in overdrive in State governments.
14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 19

Page 20 I am not claiming nor seek to make out that Geoff Shaw is some saint, as after all I do not know any specific details about his case, AND I VIEW HE IS ENTITLED TO BE DEEMED INNOCENT UNTIL, UIF AST ALL, PROVEN GUILTY IN A COMPETENT COURT OF LAW, but as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have grave concern that the real so to say Mr Big’s 5 in fraudulent conducts will be ignored to be pursued because of the political cloud they have. so much for JUSTICE.

And Tony Abbott, Mark Dreyfus, George Brandis in my view are clear examples that you need to look closer at accusers first, as they may seek to reflect away from their own fraudulent or other rorting conduct. As with the Inter-State Commissioner appointment those supporting for me to be appointed Governor-General do provide me with a copy of your correspondence in that regard, but I will not hold my breath for it as I know too well there are far too many weasels, and gutless wonders, who like to be armchair commentators but have nothing to show for. And this is why we continue to suffer under this ever escalating rot because those in power know too well how week 15 electors really are.
10

The above is in reply to the comments provided by Zachary C Casper & Mary Sakara as shown in the quoted email below. So what I went in to more details. Just praise yourself lucky I am still around to expose this rot, after having been severely ill in the last two weeks. Having been confined to bed seems to have allowed me to think a bit more about the elaborate rot perpetrated 20 by politicians against those they are supposed to served!
QUOTE 131014 EMAIL

Re: re Bill Shorten and the conflict of interest with the Governor-General Zachary C. Casper & Mary Sakara Today at 11:26 AM
25

To healthachievers Gerrit Gerrit "Inspector Rikati" is, as usual, absolutely correct in his comments..... Shorten's election as Leader of the Opposition has created a definite conflict of interest possibility, given that he is married to current Governor-General Quentin Bryce's daughter. Thus I am fully in agreement with Gerrit that Bryce should immediately resign from her position. But the practical question to ask here, is who really cares?? Not the mainstream media, as all they are interested in is the continuing analysis of Abbott's policies and proposed legislation, as well as the never-ending opinion polls regarding his popularity rating. Of course Shorten could care less, as the possible conflict of interest might favour his chances of becoming PM one fine day, if Abbott makes too many mistakes during the next year or two (which I expect he probably will!). And Quentin Bryce - who does strike me as a decent sort of person - is obviously attached to her position and the publicity and public profile that goes with it. Not to mention her fortnightly paycheque from the Commonwealth, also her free residence in Canberra (I assume she has such, atlhough please correct me if that is not the case). So although Gerrit is a real fountain of knowledge about constitutional issues (he has phenomenal knowledge of the debates and discussions in the various constitutional conventions that led to the writing of the Aussie Constitution), in practical terms the "powers that be" can simply ignore him.
14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 20

30

35

40

45

5

Page 21 So in the end, it is really only those concerned about the integrity of the Australian government - namely the Gerrits, the Margs, and a few other assorted believers in the Commonwealth Constitution, such as myself - that will consider the issue and its ramifications. As for the common person, the average Aussie, they are simply stressed to the max and practically out of their minds with worry about how they will be able to pay the next bill, and whether they will have any money left over to afford some Christmas presents for their rellies, to spend even a few seconds to consider such issues.

10

And that's just the situation that the wealthy predators in this nation - the owners of the mainstream media, the politicians at federal and state levels, and the judges and magistrates in the various courts - want to perpetuate! It makes their job of manipulating and controlling the masses all that much easier. Zachary Casper Daylesford

15

----- Original Message ----From: healthachievers Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 12:31 AM Subject: FW: re Bill Shorten and the conflict of interest with the Governor-General

20

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 05:28:48 -0700 From: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au Subject: Re: re Bill Shorten and the conflict of interest with the Governor-General
25

30

35

Alan, as I published on my blog WWW.SCRIBD.COM/INSPECTORRIKATI some time ago, I held that the Governor-General ought to have abstained in 2010 from the debacle in view that Bill Shorten was her son-in-law. she ought to have left the Commonwealth, and have left someone else to act on her behalf albeit impartially. Now that Bill Shorten became Leader of the ALP I view she should forthwith resign as there is a implied conflict of interest. After all if there was a certain crisis tomorrow, either created by herself or not, then she clearly has an implied bias. she could very well within her powers withdrew her commission to Tony Abbott and appoint Bill Shorten as Prime Minister as electors do not decide who shall be Prime Minister as the Governor-General decides who shall be her advisors. Constitutionally the Governor-General must be a person from the UK representing the Queen on recommendation of the Home Office as to avoid any problems that we now may faced. Again, my blog has a complete set out of this already, for some time. Gerrit Constitutionalist & Consultant

40

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN (OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN) 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia Ph (International) 61394577209
14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 21

Page 22

. Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless specifically otherwise stated.
5

If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do is to consider the content appropriately! A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING CONCERNED TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.

10

From: Alan Riley <ariley59@bigpond.com> To: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au Cc: 'Mykel Ruth' <dazedconfused883@yahoo.com.au>; 'David' <Davidkilife@gmx.com> Sent: Sunday, 13 October 2013 7:47 PM Subject: re Bill Shorten and the conflict of interest with the Governor-General

13 October 2013
15

Hello there, Bill Shorten has been chosen as the “Leader of the Opposition”. Tony Abbott has been quoted on the tv news as saying that the Governor-General can stay in her role until March 2014 given the conflict of interest that has arisen upon Her.

20

What are your thoughts on this? Regards Alan

25 END QUOTE 131014 EMAIL

I had my say! Those who have a backbone won’t be offended, and those who haven’t are not worth to worry about!
30

“Gerrit for Governor-General” is the motto!

Awaiting your response,
35

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
(

Our name is our motto!)

14-10-2013 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Page 22

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful