ISSUE: 20170703 - Re How to resolve the Liberal Party in-fight, etc & the constitution

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

constitution.
Media report suggest that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull made clear that if he were to be
disposed as Prime minister then he would quite Federal Parliament. That I understand means he
would for example go to the polls in the next federal election and if he were not be returned in
Government he would quite. As such, I view he would simply only standing for election to be in
power as Prime minister and nothing else. To me this is a very serious matter because not a
single elector can vote for who shall or shall not be Prime Minister. Electors can only vote for
their local candidates and so who shall be their representatives in the Parliament. It is upon the
Governor-General to exercise prerogative powers to commission who he considers to be the most
competent person to become Prime Minister (First Minister). The Governor-General is empowers
to withdraw at anytime the commission provided to a Prime minister if he holds this is
appropriate in the circumstances. As such what Mr Malcolm Turnbull appears to be on about it
that he couldnt give a darn about what is constitutionally appropriate he must have the job as
Prime Minister or he will resign from parliament regardless this may mean a possible change of
Government altogether and/or a general elections, etc. I understand that Mr Malcolm Turnbull
touted himself to be a constitutional lawyer (an oxymoron like a firebug-firefighter) but far from
this I view he appears to lack either the knowledge or the ability to understand/comprehend the
true meaning and application of the constitution.
More than 8 years ago I sought to joint the Liberal Party, spend 1 1/2 hours waiting at the
Exhibition Street, Melbourne past the appointment time and well then went home. Subsequently
I was advised my application was refused. this where I refused to go back in the evening hours
and risk being locked in the building. I also then exposed the error in the Liberal Party
constitution, and well they couldnt handle that and was told I was not a person able to work with
other. It was however that the Liberal Party didnt understand that if you cannot manage to get
your own party constitution correct then how on earth can you understand the true meaning and
application of the federal constitution? The Liberal Party wanted to know why I stood as an
INDEPENDENT candidate in elections against Liberal Party candidates, this even so I was
actually the first person to nominate and exercising my constitutional right to do so. As such it
seemed clear to me that they never understood it was their candidate that stood against me where
their candidate nominated after I already had nominated.
My wifes application was also refused, as after all she was married to me and that seemed to be
enough to deny her to become a member without any explanation.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/?
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) QUOTE In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 178, we decided
that the Constitution of the United States has not conferred the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the United
States have no voters of their own creation in the States. END QUOTE
What this means for the Commonwealth of Australia that section 412 of the constitution merely
provides the right of voting in federal elections if one has State franchise and not otherwise.
Hence the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to enforce compulsory voting! It cannot
create anyone to have voting rights! The right exist from having State voting rights and the
Commonwealth can only determine the age of an adult.

p1 3-7-2017 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
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would
abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125: The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be
converted into a crime. Miller v. Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well known for my extensive work about constitutional
matters and having comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia on constitutional
grounds on 4 August 2005 as to the usage of averment and on 19 July 2006 in both appeals
that compulsory voting is unconstitutional. The Commonwealth high paid lawyers were
comprehensively defeated by me, where I represented myself being a CONSTITUTIONALIST
and Professional Advocate (now retired). Never mind my self-professed Crummy-English (My
native language being Dutch) at least I have proven in litigation to understand and comprehend
the true meaning and application of the constitution better than the highly paid lawyers the
Commonwealth engaged to represent it in litigation.
As I exposed the Sue v Hill case was a decision beyond the powers of the High Court of
Australia. No need to go into details now. We are under the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and retain our rights as British Subjects no matter what. This was
also part of my successful appeals, and so unchallenged!
Electors have in droves deserted the major political parties as they just have their own infighting
for the top job and do not seem to care less about the ordinary citizens and the struggles they are
making to try to live a decent life.
What is needed is someone to pursue that whatever is to be legislated in the Parliament must first
of all be sub mitted to a proper (well informed) constitutional advisory panel that then provide
its advise to all Members of Parliament as well to the general community. Then we avoid
Members of Parliament voting ill-informed on Bills which can only cause horrendous problems
to citizens. It would take reams of paper to list the numerous legislative enactments that failed to
comply with constitutional provisions/requirements.
Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) Sir JOHN DOWNER.- QUOTE I want to know from what point of view this can be
called federal? We keep our property; we are left to the free exercise of our brains and bodies; there is no
interference with the individual; state rights are to be preserved. Surely, collaterally with that, state rights
ought to be preserved too. END QUOTE
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution,
not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. ISAACS.- QUOTE The right of a citizen of this
great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, END QUOTE
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 those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians. END
QUOTE
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 Mr. CLARK.- QUOTE 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
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. GLYNN.- QUOTE Where the land, or goods, or
money, of a subject have found their way into the possession of the Crown, and the purpose of the petition is to
obtain restitution, or if restitution cannot be obtained, compensation in money; or when a claim arises out of a
contract, as for goods supplied to the Crown or to the public service-the Crown is bound to refer a petition of
right to the courts for decision, because it is provided by Magna Charta that justice cannot be denied, sold, or
delayed.
END QUOTE
The latter quotation makes clear that the legal principles of the Magda Charta is embedded in the
constitution as the Framers of the Constitution relied upon it. Likewise so FREEDOM OF
SPEECH as was then existing in the Amendments of the US constitution which was also a basis
of the draft of the federal constitution.
Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates Mr. GILLIES: QUOTE Surely we are not to be told
that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some secret purpose or object of depriving the
p2 3-7-2017 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
people of their right on any particular occasion when possibly there may be some great difference of opinion
on a great public question. There have been no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most
perfect freedom to express their opinions in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any
public question of importance. There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been
given to every man in this country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has
never been suggested by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On
the contrary, we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not
surpassed in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America. END QUOTE
The Liberal Party is purporting to be conservative but I understand electors view it drifted too
much away from it.
What is needed is a person like myself who places the interest of the general community above
personal (financial) advantages. One who isnt after trying to become a member of a millionaires
club on retirement (I am already a senior citizens for many years and as such not eying to such
membership!) but has but one view and that is to serve the general community within the true
meaning and application of the constitution.
It is this kind of conduct I view is lacking in leaderships (of most political parties) and which I
view I can provide. No more unconstitutional mini-budgets as constitutionally Appropriation
Bills for running Departments and Taxation Bills must be let untouched for the duration of the
entire following financial year. Electors are entitled that political candidates who made election
promises are held accountable to follow through or simply be ousted on application to the courts
for having undermined the fair and proper election procedures and so democracy itself by their
lies/deception.
It is not for parliamentarians to Chery pick what they like to do or not to do in violation of the
true meaning and application of the constitution (so its embedded legal principles). It is you take
your seat on oath/affirmation within constitutional context and if you do not desire to comply
with those terms then leave and let a more competent person take the seat!
And if you claim a partner for whatever then it should be applicable for everything and not as
may suit to rort the system.
One of the things people often commented to me, that for sure they like to win in court but even
if they lose as least if they had their day in court and were able to have their say this makes a
considerable difference. And this is likewise in politicians, they do not want politicians to do
their own thing regardless of what the constituents desire, they want a proper representation so
that their voices through their representative is heard in the Parliament. Regardless of any
references to a political party in the end they vote for the candidate listed on the ballot paper.
This candidate may later change political alignments but at least as long as he doesnt betray the
constituents to his election promises. I view that I could get the Liberal Party back on course to
operate within constitutional confinements. I view anyone who violate what are constitutional
legal principles and places his own egoistic interest above the will of the People should get out of
politics, because he violates in the process his oath of office, and by it places in disrepute the
position of being a Member of Parliament. I am at the moment exposing the gross injustice that
occurred in the Williams/ATO matter and my view the unconstitutional conduct in the process
by the ATO. We need Department to operate within the confines of the constitution and not
despite of it. So much is going wrong and regretfully unconstitutionally but few if any politician
care less about it. In my view the Liberal Party should be re-erected to be a true conservative
party that will not pretend it hears the electors but will ensure that it indeed act for the good of
the general community and not despite of this.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- 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. END QUOTE

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!)
p3 3-7-2017 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