ISSUE Senator Culleton, etc & the constitution?

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

constitution.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
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

While Senator Culleton is a party member of Pauline Hanson One Nation his position as a
senator cannot be undermined. His responsibility as a Member of Parliament is to stand up
against anyone who he deems is violating constitutional rights.
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of
everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
END QUOTE

No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:

LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335
QUOTE
But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned,
no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good
faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the
wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper
motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism,
and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a
cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of
ordinary man
END QUOTE

The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
p1
26-11-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVENING NEWS (1880) N.S.W.
LR 211 AT 239.:
QUOTE
The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice of
sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day,
would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be
rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
END QUOTE

As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368

Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31

Considering that Senator Rodney Culleton has exposed that the High Court of Australia Rules
were violating what the true meaning and application stands for then I view he must as a sentry
convey his concerns to the judiciary. If the relevant magistrate were to proceed in my view if
then in the end it is found he too failed to act within constitutional confinements then he could be
held personally liable!
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
R E WAKIM ; E X PARTE M CN ALLY ; R E WAKIM ; E X PARTE D ARVALL ; R E B ROWN ; E X PARTE AMANN ; SPI [1999] HCA 27 (17 JUNE 1999)

QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
1.

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations.
Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter
approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words
that they used in the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional
interpretation, presented at Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in
my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people
dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."

END QUOTE
p2
26-11-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown
and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any
private person would be.
END QUOTE

The court nevertheless ruled:

ALEC KRUGER & ORS V THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA ; GEORGE ERNEST BRAY & ORS V THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA [1997] HCA 27 (31 J ULY 1997)
M ATTER NO M21 OF 1995
QUOTE
"Q.2. Does the Constitution contain any right, guarantee, immunity, freedom or provision as referred to in
paragraph 29 of the Amended Statement of Claim, a breach of which by (a) an officer of the Commonwealth; or
(b) a person acting for and on behalf of the Commonwealth;
gives rise to a right of action (distinct from a right of action in tort or for breach of contract) against the
Commonwealth sounding in damages?"
A. No.
END QUOTE

ALEC KRUGER & ORS V THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA ; GEORGE ERNEST BRAY & ORS V THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA [1997] HCA 27 (31 J ULY 1997)
M ATTER NO M21 OF 1995
QUOTE
Matter No D5 of 1995
1. The questions reserved for the consideration of the Full Court be answered as follows:
"Q.1. Is the legislative power conferred by section 122 of the Constitution or the power to enact the
Ordinances and regulations referred to in paragraphs 4-9 inclusive of the Amended Statement of Claim so
restricted by any and which of the rights, guarantees, immunities, freedoms, or provisions referred to in
paragraph 26 of the Amended Statement of Claim as to invalidate the Acts, Ordinances and regulations
referred to in paragraphs A, B, C and D of the claim to the extent pleaded in those paragraphs?"
A. No.
p3
26-11-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

"Q.2. Does the Constitution contain any right, guarantee, immunity, freedom or provision as referred to in
paragraph 26 of the Amended Statement of Claim, a breach of which by (a) an officer of the Commonwealth; or
(b) a person acting for and on behalf of the Commonwealth;
gives rise to a right of action (distinct from a right of action in tort or for breach of contract) against the
Commonwealth sounding in damages?"
A. No.
END QUOTE

And also consider:

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and
LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE

What appears Senator Rodeny Culleton to have done is to indicate to the Court that is should
follow proper legal procedures. In my view this is not interfering with the course of justice.
Indeed, if the court has a ABN number then it is not in my view a valid Chapter III court. It is not
then operating under separation of powers as it shares likely a business number with the
Queensland Department of Justice.
In my published writings and so in my written submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT
of my very successful appeals on 19 July 2006 I raised the issued about the ABN and none of the
Attorney-Generals who were served with a s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS challenged me on this.
Further, I have published in other writings that for example the 20-10-1901 Letters patent refers
to an impartial administration of justice and clearly this means that State courts (for so far the
Queensland Letters Patent is on the same basis) courts must be both separated in power and
impartial.
If the state courts in Queensland has the same unconstitutional system as the Victorian
Infringement Court then it violates in my view the constitution (Being the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)).
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p4
26-11-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

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

As such if Queensland applies the same Infringement Court system where on basis of allegation
of a complainant without hearing the other party so called Infringement Court orders are issued
then the Magistrates Court having this as part of its court system I view is not acting as a Chapter
III court.
When I as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Profession Advocate represented Mr Francis James
Colosimo on 16 March 2009 before her Honour Harbison J I had filed my written submissions in
the ADDRESS TO THE COURT (Published at my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectiorrikati)
setting out in considerable details why the purported Queensland constitution 2001 in my view
was not a valid constitution at all. Let it therefore be clear that if the Queensland constitution
purportedly enacted in 2001 is invalid than what authority, if any at all, does any Queensland
Court poses?
Because of my extensive knowledge about the true meaning and application of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and how it is perverted by various
governments and judicial officers I succeeded in cases where otherwise an ordinary person
would have lost the cases.
In my view, every court within the Commonwealth of Australia should now so to say take stock
that they are operating within the true meaning and application of the constitution being the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
Ignorance is no excuse and I had judicial officers claiming the constitution doesnt apply to them
and well that just proves how out of line those judicial officers are.
Any criminal charge should be in the name of her majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United
Kingdom as we are under this British constitution.
I will not delve into all other legal technicalities as I have published ample of book in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues, safe to say that
the framers of the constitution stated:
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.p5
26-11-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which
is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution.
Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the
British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the
power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute
freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we
contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from
interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution
he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the
question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution.
There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen.
How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the
critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided
in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of
maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with
all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided,
first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is
the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be
twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to
decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It
is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no
citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the
instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the
masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you,
after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its
provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away
in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in
the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution,
will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any
pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from
usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention
has done well.
END QUOTE

It appears to me that Senator Rodney Culleton is a Member of Parliament who actually is doing
what should be done as a sentry.
Again: 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.
I have personally no issue with the Queensland Police or even the Australian Federal Police to
investigate matters, for so far it is within their powers that is if they will acts fairly and
appropriate and find that if there are judicial officers who are acting in violation of constitutional
requirements then those judicial officers will be charged! Not to do so would make it nothing
more at least in my view some kind of a witch-hunt upon Senator Rodney Culleton for having
dared to expose the failure of the High Court of Australia to act within the provisions of the
p6
26-11-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

constitution. In my view Senator Rodney Culleton did no more but alert the magistrate that he
must act within the rule of law, and considering that he did expose the High Court of Australia
failing to do so I view it was well within his right to notify a magistrate of his concerns. We
should not ignore that thousands upon thousands of people may be denied and have been so in
the past their constitutional rights and it was well overdue that finally a parliamentarian is doing
what he is supposed to do.
As I succeeded in various appeals unchallenged I am entitled to claim I was right, in particular
where none of the Attorney-Generals challenged my written submissions in the ADDRESS TO
THE COURT and as such must be deemed to have conceded that my written submissions were
accepted by them. Otherwise it was well within their ability to challenge my written submissions.
Yes, let have appropriate investigations by those who first of all understand and comprehend the
true meaning and application of the constitution as failing this they will in my view do no more
but misuse their powers for so to say some witch-hunt.
Judicial officers should always keep in mind that if they are conducting purported legal
proceedings in violation to the true meaning and application of the constitution then they did not
invoke any jurisdiction at all, and are sitting as a mere private person not ass a judicial officer at
all. It is only because of the constitution that judicial officers can exercise judicial powers, and
not despite of it.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(

Our name is our motto!)

p7
26-11-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati