Page 1

POLITICAL STATEMENT 5
As an INDEPENDENT candidate in the Melbourne district by-election I am concerned as to the deterioration of the judicial processes and yet again being in an election I have been called upon to assist in litigation due to my considerable experiences in constitutional matters as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, as a retired Professional Advocate, and also as Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues. . Last year I was given the Order of the Wattle Blossom: QUOTE For upholding the civil rights, and political liberties of Australians, inherent in the Commonwealth Constitution. END QUOTE Because I have been caused to be very limited in the current by-election I hold it appropriate to inform my constituents as to why I have been so much absent in recent weeks.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I respect too much the legal processes as not to claim that His Honour Strickland J was smirking very often during the proceedings nor about his conduct that I held was scandalous because anyone who were to watch a video, if this existed, may make up his (this includes the female also) mind as to if this judicial officer acted fair and proper., just to state I was disappointed and disillusioned as to how the hearing proceed and how a fine and outstanding OFFICER OF THE COURT Mr Kevin Foley was in my view belittled totally uncalled for. At one stage he addressed Mr Kevin Foley of FOLEYS LAWYERS: Yes Mr Schorel you can proceed and then followed with I mean Mr Foley. Now, in my view a competent judge would not make an error of misstating a persons name, in particular where he in previous hearing pronounced my surname as Schorel-Hlavka and neither would address an OFFICER OF THE COURT by the incorrect surname. Then again His Honour was for a considerable time claiming that the issue of jurisdiction in the 9 June 2011 proceedings before His Honour Cronin J had nothing to do with the case then decided but finally when Mr Damian Harriss for the opposing (male) party began to refer to the jurisdictional issue then before the Court His Honour Strickland J then somehow finally started to get it that in fact it was all about jurisdiction. What really was I view the issue of the male party was that they wanted to get the title to be handed over and Mr Kevin Foley of FOLEYS LAWYERS simply had no instructions in regard of this and with his client being a Dutch national who has her domicile in The Netherlands it is obviously a bit difficult for Mr Foley to contact his client. So, His Honour Strickland J adjourned the matter for Mr Kevin Foley to contact his (female) client the sole registered property owner. Well, Mr Foley had no way of contacting her and my observation was that he was close to an heart attack because of how I perceived the court was getting stuck into him and he didnt have his heart tablets with him. Anyhow back into the Court Mr Foley made known he didnt have a phone number of his client at hand and so was unable to contact her because his office was closed., but he had just be handed the phone number by the other party. So, the court adjourned again. Later, Mr Foley returned indicating he had left a message for his client to contact him back. Well, I had in that time opened my laptop and gone onto the internet but had to leave for toilet facilities. After returning to the courtroom I understood that Ms Nola Betsy Balas has contacted Mr Kevin Foley that his services were terminated and I stood up (to the dismay of His Honour Strickland J) to announce that Mr Foleys services had been terminated.
p1 15-7-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT candidate for the seat of Melbourne District by-election INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Email: Kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 2

Mr Kevin Foley, as His Honour Strickland was aware of from previous hearings, had been ill and it is my understanding that when Ms Nola Betsy Balas heard the distresses from the voice of Mr Foley she simply didnt want to risk his life and may have held to terminate his services was the best to avoid this. As Ms Nola Betsy Balas was made aware in the past about a party I represented having collapsed with a suspected heart attack during proceedings and was taken by ambulance to the hospital she may have not wished to have this risked to Mr Foley. I am known, as a lawyers gave me that label, as the Police officer against lawyers, and this may just make clear that I am very critical upon lawyers misconduct. When it comes to FOLEYS LAWYERS and in particular Mr Kevin Foley I can state that I have never met a lawyer who was so honest about matters and constantly referring that he is an OFFICER OF THE COURT and for example cannot therefore engage in attacking a fellow OFFICER OF THE COURT without having all evidence. To me Mr Kevin Foley is a fine example of how lawyers should be and he has been in the practice for about 49 years. . Mills Oakley lawyers have a conduct which may be indicated also by that they contacted Mr Foley to indicate that Mr Torsten Kasper Managing Director of Chisholm & Gamon had seen me at about 7.50 am (on 22 June 2012) at the property of Ms Nola Betsy Balas (the subject of purported sale against her will). In fact I understand he even phone the male tenant (who was on holidays) if I had been at his residence that morning. Now, what do you think this may seem to be where his wife and child still might be at home? Well, it happens to be that I left home at that time, an estimated 40 kilometres away from where I allegedly was surveillanced) and went to Officeworks photo copying material and paid for this using my Mastercard (as such a record) as well as obtained receipts proving I could never have been at that time at that location Mr Torsten Kasper Managing Director of Chisholm & Gamon claimed he

10

15

20

25

had seen me. After all even if I had been there, not that this is conceded, then it was none of the business of Mr Damian Harriss nor do I view it appropriate for him to contact the male tenant about me and to then also contact FOLEYS LAWYERS about my doing. In my view the conduct of Mr Damian Harriss is tantamount to STALKING! I have represented numerous parties as Professional Advocate but never had that any opponent party was what appears to me having surveillance against my person. I used to refer to such party as being my friend as no one ever paid me for my services, nor were required to do so, as it was always under the understanding of a Pro Bono basis, as such but for the same I could have referred to them as my client as I will now do in regard of the female party. Why on earth would anyone make such claim against me you may ask. Well I view this is about character assassination and trying so to say cause a split in the defence. I will now set out why this character assassination really is so important.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I assisted in the preparation of the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS Supplement 1 which deals extensively with constitutional matters and so in particular with the invalidity of numerous Family court of Australia court orders and as these proceedings are before the Family Court of Australia then clearly my involvement is well so to say not particularly wanted. Now, it is normal that when a party OBJECTES to the jurisdiction of the court/tribunal then the court has no further judicial powers other then to determine the jurisdiction of the court but it can make STATUS QUO orders such as injunctions, etc, as to preserve each party position and so rights and entitlements and orders for cost combined with procedural orders to dispose of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. In the Family Court of Australia it is now that His Honour Cronin J on 25 June 2012 simply made no orders as to dispose of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and issued orders, such as that I cannot contact the purported purchasers solicitors as I had cc an email to them and later on their request formally served a copy of the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS onto their law office and it seems this is not permissible. As I wrote to Mr Damian Harriss:
p2 15-7-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT candidate for the seat of Melbourne District by-election INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Email: Kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

30

35

40

45

50

Page 3 QUOTE As for your comment that I am not a qualified nor practising legal practitioner, I am wondering what on earth possesses people about this legal practitioners issue as your claim that you will no longer accept service of documents will only undermine your own client, In case you didnt know this one doesnt have to be a qualified or practising legal practitioner to serve documents. Any adult person, other than those who may be incapacitated, may serve documents upon a party. END QUOTE

10

Mr Damian Harriss (Mills Oakley Lawyers) has as I understood it, indicated to refuse service by me because I was not a qualified and registered legal practitioner. Well, I am engaged as a Professional Advocate he is entitled to refuse whatever he desires to refuse, but it doesnt mean he can use this as an excuse that he was not served. It will just be detrimental to his (male) client that he refused service. Basically what it is about is that my client and their client lived in cohabitation in the Netherlands (the country I was born) and well as many people do they ended up separating. Under Dutch legal system you can live with a person without being in a registered relationship (basically meaning de facto relationship) or without being married. A cohabitation as I understand it to be means that you then are financially independent towards each other unless you make a specific contact such as a property purchase. So, they finished with their cohabitation and the matter was settled in the Dutch courts but then the male travelled back to Australia and started litigation there as a De facto relationship even so having been registered as a resident as a single person up to after the time he already had departed from The Netherlands. Because the legislation came into force, well so it was supposed to be on 1 March 2009 for the Family Court of Australia to deal with de facto financial matters then His Honour Cronin J finding that their (now referred to as) de facto relationship ended on 2 March 2009 the Court therefore did have jurisdiction to deal with the application of the male. Just that in was not until 11 February 2012 that the Family Court of Australia gained jurisdiction, so even if the relationship had been ending on 2 March 2009 it still was without the Family Court of Australia having jurisdiction. It means my client was all along right. However the male with his lawyers persisted in enforcing the invalid orders to be applied. Now I am not an OFFICER OF THE COURT but can assure you I would never have advised let alone supported any client to deliberately act in violation of another persons legal rights. My client opposed from onset the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia, and clearly she was right all along and this shovelling of technicalities to claim that the invalid orders are still enforceable unless they are set aside because they are orders of a Court of Records or orders of a Superior Court of Records is of grave concern to me, because they are not and never were orders of any Court of Record. They were issued by a Court that albeit at the time may considered to have been con ducting matters legitimately in the end was not, and therefore none of the orders issued within legal provisions of jurisdiction which never existed then can be relied upon. What we therefore have is, as I view it, that the Court seems to be siding with the male rather than to hold that a court of Records must act within the applicable provisions of the law, including the constitution and as such it should instead have issued such orders as to maintain the STATUS QUO as to prevent any harm to either party while the jurisdictional issue is sorted out. . His Honour Strickland J as I understood it was arguing that my client had no constitutional issue before His Honour Cronin J on 9 June 2009. Well, I may not be a lawyer let alone a qualified and registered practitioner but I am well aware that when a party OBJECTS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT then that is all the party has to do and as my client did so she is not required but may in the aid of her objection raise further matters, it is for the applicant (the male) to prove jurisdiction! Effectively my client by objection to the jurisdiction questions the validity of the legislation also, without needing to prove this because again and I wish lawyers understood this, all she had to do was to state something like I object to the jurisdiction of the Court and then the male has to provide that the Court has jurisdiction, including the validity of any legislation he relies upon for the court to be able to invoke jurisdiction. And then and only then the court determines upon the evidence presented by both parties if there is or isnt jurisdiction. It is not for the Court to take the side of the male and determine jurisdictional issues without that the male has to provide any evidence for this.
p3 15-7-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT candidate for the seat of Melbourne District by-election INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Email: Kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Page 4

10

. At no time, that I am aware off, did His Honour Cronin J demand from the male he provide evidence that there was valid legislation applicable to give the Court jurisdiction. The fact that it was later discovered that in fact there never was any proclamation and so there was no jurisdiction means that His Honour Cronin J never could have appropriately disposed of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION he had before him. In fact the orders themselves do not show that the objection to jurisdiction was dismissed but merely indicate that there was jurisdiction within s90Rd. Still as most lawyers are aware the court can find jurisdiction in certain parts of legislation but may in the overall find that there is no jurisdiction. As such the narrow basis of s90RD cannot override an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. What I view now has eventuated is what I consider is tantamount to terrorism and stalking that I am under surveillance for seeking to assist my client in the best legal manner I am entitled upon! So legitimately providing copies of documents result in an order by the court but what I view unlawful conduct by the other party may be sanctioned by the court. As an INDEPENDENT candidate I spoke as recent as yesterday at a public meeting that I pursue our constitutional rights which includes civil liberties and political liberties.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution: END QUOTE . Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; 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. 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 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 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. p4 15-7-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT candidate for the seat of Melbourne District by-election INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Email: Kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Page 5 END QUOTE

What we have also is a statement by Attorney-General the Honourable Nicola Roxon regarding the Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Act 2012 such

as: EXPLANATORY STATEMENT Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Act 2012

10

Proclamation
QUOTE Human rights implications The Proclamation engages but does not limit the right to a fair trial. The right to a fair trial is protected in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 14 is aimed at ensuring the proper administration of justice, which includes the right to equality before the courts and tribunals and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. END QUOTE FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT (VALIDATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2012 EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM (Circulated by the authority of the Attorney-General, the Honourable Nicola Roxon MP) QUOTE The Bill engages the following human rights: Right to a fair trial The right to a fair trial is protected in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 14 is aimed at ensuring the proper administration of justice, which includes the right to equality before the courts and tribunals and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The right to a fair trial will not be prejudiced by the amendments in this Bill. The Bill provides that the new rights and liabilities created by the Bill will be able to be relied upon, in exactly the same way as if the orders had been validly made. The Bill also preserves the right to appeal against, or to apply for the review of an affected order and the right to vary affected orders in later court proceedings. In addition, if an order has been found to be invalid prior to the commencement of the Bill, the Bill preserves the findings of invalidity of any order. END QUOTE

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

So, now we get it that the Family Court of Australia is even objecting to me attending to the bar table because I am not a legal practitioner. I do not know where in the Article 134 it is stated that members of the legal profession are an excluded special rights species but to me this is precisely what our constitution is about. We have civil rights and political liberties and for the Courts to close the courts of to be limited to legal practitioners in my view was/is a scandalous conduct. Lets be clear about it that as Dixon CJ (of the High Court of Australia, at that time) made clear that even an alien of outer space could do better than lawyers if they didnt keep abreast of legal matters. Well, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I provided details as to why the Family Court of Australia still has no jurisdiction about financial de facto matters and in fact there is a lot nm ore going on that is unconstitutional and instead of the court so to say seeking to ban me they rather should receive me so to say with open arms because after all which judge wants to make a fool of himself to adjudicate upon matters in which there is no jurisdiction, I may well ask? It must therefore be very clear that if the Court desired to act honourably it should not oppose my representation because my client is entitled to the best kind of representation she views she can obtain and this should not be restricted to members of the legal profession. Indeed, considering that if there are 100 disputed cases before the court where both parties are legally represented by hordes of lawyers then at the end of the day any dispute will be resolved by a judicial decision where 100 parties had their lawyers found on the successful side and q00 parties had their
p5 15-7-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT candidate for the seat of Melbourne District by-election INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Email: Kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 6

lawyers found at the losing side. As such the best you can get is a 50% chance your legal advisors are worth their monies. If we were to apply this to doctors operating on patients to have a 50% rate of death then they may be quickly referred to as charlatans.

This case has blown out to a constitutional issue where the Court rather then immediately seeking to attend to what is constitutionally permissible now is bogged down in attempts to prevent this as the male with his lawyers applied for a stay of proceedings of all applications/appeals before the Court including therefore the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as to enforce orders. Again, I am not a lawyer but to me it appears a legal nonsense to try to enforce an invalid order contrary to an objection to jurisdiction. The Federal Court of Australia within Order 78, rule 42A provides for an Application (Form 166) for leave to be represented by a person who is not a barrister or solicitor. Therefore one has to ask if lawyers are not registered with the Commonwealth but only with a State then what lawful authority can they claim to represent a party in another state or on a federal level? Why should a Federal Court like the Family Court of Australia deny me to represent my client? Is it because I do not charge it may cause the demise of the legal profession? Is it because of being a CONSTITUTIONALIST I can expose how little lawyers really have as knowledge what is constitutionally appropriate? It is because I am not so to say willing to sell myself out to the highest bidder to protect a practicing certificate at the detriment of my clients rights and interest? Why indeed are lawyers OFFICERS OF THE COURT where their duties towards their clients are placed second place? Should we ban lawyers to be Officers of the court so that we may achieve an impartial court as the Framers of the Constitution all along desired to have existing? Are lawyers really entitled to charge cost representing parties in the Federal Courts if ordinary persons are not? Isnt that bias? Are they registered in the Federal courts or just it is assumed they can represent a party without needing to file an application and so the Court is bias towards lawyers? A lawyer, when admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of a State, makes an oath to uphold the laws of that particular State and not making an oath to uphold the laws of another State, which could be in conflict. Why should a lawyer having a duty and obligation to one State be allowed to practice law that may have conflicting interest? Why indeed should a lawyer be bound to any court at all and so act in jeopardy of his/her client!
. 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 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 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

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

What we have therefore is that the Family Court of Australia is not concerned about the competence of who represent a party but so to say is an exclusive boys (read also girls) club of lawyers seeking to rob ordinary citizens their rights to have an impartial court to adjudicate in. So here we have it that the court can control the representative lawyers but cannot control me, and so this appears to be the real issue. With a lawyer the can pull the practicing certificate but with me they cannot. . So, I wonder is the surveillance now done upon me part of a need bread of litigation lawyers that when they are faced with constitutional issues by a person like myself being a CONSTITUTIONALIST then they will seek to scandalize the character of such a person rather than to remain within the rule of law? .
p6 15-7-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT candidate for the seat of Melbourne District by-election INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Email: Kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 7

10

My readers are well aware of my decades of battles for those who called my special lifeline service MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL when they were troubles that many contemplated suicide, etc, and despite the huge associated cost I never charged for my services, not any private business or any government gave me financial support for this. Judges may utterly dislike my exposures of, what I view, their inappropriate conduct and surely ample of lawyers resent this but in the end I am about saving lives. I am about defending our constitutional rights. . We, the people, must not fail as otherwise the tyranny will be of unlimited scale. . We have seen how we are subjected to an unconstitutional GST. An unconstitutional Land Tax. We are subjected to an unconstitutional; CARBON TAX. Let me make it very clear, I am not against persevering the environment but doing so it must be within the framework of the constitution. As the Framers of the Constitution stated:
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive. END QUOTE . HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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

15

20

25

. 30
The question now is will you stand by and waste your very precious vote and vote for a political party that may likely provide more of the same rot as is now going on or are you making clear enough is enough and vote for me as an INDEPENDENT candidate and make sure you finally get a voice in the parliament to deal with matters appropriately. It is wrong to assume you need the majority in the Parliament to achieve something because as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware that as one Member of Parliament I can stop any bill from being debated let alone becoming law where it is to achieve an unconstitutional end. You and fellow electors can achieve this greatest moment in Victorian history to have a CONSTITUTIONALIST in Parliament who will finally be able to start cleaning up the mess. You and I all are aware about the huge price increases inflicted upon us all but were you aware that States and councils should not increase their charges, rates, etc. in regard of pensioners and other welfare recipients above the CPI (Consumer Price Index) because of the Commonwealth overriding policy to limit those increases to the CPI? .
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?

35

40

45

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. END QUOTE

50
So, while politicians are inflicting ongoing cost rises upon us their pay packet is increasing well beyond what ought to be because as the Framers of the Constitution intended they ought to receive about average weekly earning through their allowances.
p7 15-7-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT candidate for the seat of Melbourne District by-election INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Email: Kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 8

So, why not get them to cut down their payments and limit the monies they receive. No more Gold Card or other perks like after payments for former Members of Parliament because once they leave the Parliament that is the end of their pay! Yes, you and I can work together and I know when I was in management of factories that once you show to your fellow man/woman that you are fair dinkum then you will succeed.
.

10

For those who may not be aware of it for every one you give a number 1 as a vote the candidate can be paid a certain amount of monies which may be now near the $2.00 mark, or something like that. So, if many people vote for a political party candidate they receive a lot of monies, where as the candidate who receives less than 4% gets absolutely nothing. This is how our elections have been hijacked that political parties can spend up big in an election because they know they will get a lot of money coming in to cover if not all then most of it, while I am as a candidate left to so far always have to pay out of my own pocket unless someone at rare occasions may give some financial support to my election campaign.
.

15

Lets ensure we take back our powers and politicians do what they are supposed to do and that is to represent the constituents interest.
.

20

25

We desire also an impartial court that will not be so to say a boys club for lawyers only costing litigants an arm and a leg and still getting often (a possible 50% chance) legal representation that will place the obligation to the court above that of the client. What obligation if the client doesnt know what this means? Is this a sell out? So, you can engage a lawyer who may cause you to lose your case because of his duties to the Court? Come on this is not an impartial court system where JUSTICE now is government to what is more important the upholding of the integrity of the court regardless if this may be a gross injustice to a client? My obligation always has been and will remain to the constitution. This is our ultimate rule of law, and we must all aspire to maintain these rights and privileges as much as our duties and obligations enshrined within
.

30

Those who desire to wear T-Shirts of MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL or other T-shirts or even mugs, banners, etc, they are available from me FREE OF CHARGE even if you are not a elector at this time to vote. You may download my How-To-Vote card at www.vec@vic.gov.au and forward them around as a political campaign as we must not fail. You can also download them from my website www.schorel-hlavka.com. You can also at my website go to my UTube recorded radio speeches about the constitution.
Again, we can achieve together the maintenance of our political liberties and civil rights but that is if you do support me. We are all sentries as gate keepers for the protection and endurance of our constitution so that those living when we are long gone can enjoy the same rights and liberties and also duties and obligations as was bestowed upon us.

35

40

If anyone like to emend the constitution to reflect the changes of the general community perceptions and standards then so be it but we all must accept that whatever shape or form and so the true meaning of the constitution may be we are to hold it sacred and to be our destiny to protect it from any inroads of abuse by the politicians, the authorities and so also the courts.

45
A VOTE FOR ME IS A VOTE FOR YOUR FUTURE!

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

50 Awaiting your response,

(Our name is our motto!)

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
p8 15-7-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT candidate for the seat of Melbourne District by-election INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) to; FOLEYS LAWYERS, Email: Kevin@foleyslawyers.com.au 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati