ISSUE: 20171224- Re: Barnaby Joyce, UNIFORM TAXATION, etc & the constitution

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

Well, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull seems to be pleased that the danger to the government
has gone, but really? While both by-elections were won they are both likely to be due to be held
again! This is because of s44 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
the constitution of so to say a ‘foreign power’. Well it is the High Court of Australia that
somehow had DOUBLE STANDARDS in that regard, at least to my understanding.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE

Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an
annual service.

Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?

Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.

Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from
special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which
we are accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.

Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place
expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a
service.

END QUOTE

This means that any person who was purportedly a Member of Parliament but was held by the
High Court of Australia not to be so, such as Barnaby Joyce then never was a Member of
Parliament and all monies (other then what I did set out in my correspondence ‘20171224-G. H.
Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re ATO stalking & harassment, etc’
quoted below are taxable income. Not having declared this means that the ATO should pursue re-
assessments and pursue penalties and, etc, against each such a person who were not validly
elected. Neve r mind I view as a self-educated constitutionalist they were validly elected (as that
is another extensive story) the point is that they were deemed not to be and so all any financial
benefit, including the rorting of ‘ALLOWANCE’ when being a Minister, and all and any other
financial benefit (directly and/or indirectly) should be subject to ordinary taxation laws.
We hear often that the relevant Minister can determine that monies paid to such a person is not
required to be repaid into Consolidated Revenue funds, well, let us consider the constitutional
implications.
Because it was not part of the ordinary expenses of the Commonwealth, where by hindsight those
persons were deemed not validly elected, then the Minister would require a special Appropriation
Bill for each case. And if the Minister were somehow get this through the Parliament then the
person, if since elected in a by-election, etc, then automatically within s44 of the constitution is
gaining financial benefits and as such automatically loses his/her seat again.
p1 24-12-2017 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Even if the Parliament were to pass some kind of special Appropriation Bill it could not affect
ordinary taxation laws that all taxation shall be UNIFORM and so back taxes and penalties,
interest, etc, would be applicable
When the CITIZENSHIP mess regarding Barnaby Joyce and others was before the High Court of
Australia I then wrote to the Registrar of the High Court of Australia about the 4 December 2004
(by consent) court order in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka regarding my then Section 78b NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS which included the CITIZENSHIP issue and also provided a
copy of this correspondence ‘20170824-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
ISSUE - Re s44 citizenship nothing to do with nationality, etc & the constitution’ to every
Federal Member of Parliament, regarding ‘LEAVE TO INTERVENE’. Well the Registrar
ignored this and so everyone else. It does mean however that the High Court of Australia having
a legal challenge had no legal authority to proceed hearing matters where I had challenged the
validity of the citizenship legislation. As I have pointed out in various writings that the High
Court of Australia cannot directly or via backdoor manner such as when it was sitting as a
political court in Sue v Hill amend the constitution to be applied differently to what the true
meaning and application of the constitution is.
Any legislation or other purported Ministerial decision that Barnaby Joyce (so anyone else in
that situation) not having to repay all and any financial benefits during the time deemed not
validly elected to the Parliament would automatically invoke s44 and cause the seat to be vacant.
In my view, other than within a 3 month period that a person was a Minister but not a Member of
Parliament or not deemed to be a Member of parliament then any decision made purportedly as a
Minister is unconstitutional and NULL AND VOID (ULTRA VIRES). Such as decision is as if
it never eventuated. After all only the Executive can advise the Governor-General to give Royal
Assent and/or to make a certain decision (such as to declare war) and if therefore the person by
hindsight never was validly then a Minister at the time of advising the Governor-General then
the Governor-Generals decision is no longer valid in law. After all in Woods and other many
cases such as Sykes v Cleary, Sue v Hill, etc, the Governor-Generals swearing in of persons
turned out to be NULL AND VOID where it was deemed the persons were not validly elected.
It should be understood that when the High Court of Australia sits as a Court of Disputed Returns
it is not sitting ordinary as the High Court of Australia but loses this legal/constitutional position
as it does no more but sit as a political court for and on behalf of the Parliamentarians. It also
means that the High Court of Australia sitting as an ordinary court then cannot rely upon
decisions as Sue v Hill but is bound to consider matters on basis of law, and that would so to say
throw out the entire Sue v Hill decision.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/politicians-not-only-get-paid-to-come-to-work-they-get-paid-to-live-
somewhere-and-to-have-dinner/news-story/27e1f78d5b1164fd31e32ba3a3991566
QUOTE
Politicians not only get paid to come to work, they get paid to live somewhere, and to have dinner
WE NOW know one thing for certain: Australia’s federal politicians are in no danger whatsoever of
starving to death any time soon.
Malcolm Farr@farrm51
END QUOTE

Well Barnaby Joyce and others may very well now have to repay the lot!
QUOTE 20171224-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re ATO stalking & harassment,
etc
Mr Malcolm Turnbull 24-12-2017
[email protected]

Cc: Bill Shorten [email protected]

Barnaby Joyce [email protected]
Scott Morrison [email protected]
Robert Ravenello Deputy Commissioner of Taxation C/o [email protected]

p2 24-12-2017 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 Re: 20171224-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re ATO stalking & harassment,-etc
Malcolm,
despite my previous 2-10-2016 and 16 October 2016 correspondence of which a copy
was also forwarded to the ATO via “dun&bradstreet DEBT COLLECTOR SERVICE” I nevertheless
have not received any correspondence regarding the same.
.
As you are aware Mr Barnaby Joyce was for about 10 years in the parliament drawing both an
ALLOWANCE as well as a ‘salary’’ for most of the times as a Minister, in addition to numerous
other financial benefits. I understand that the High court of Australia held that Mr Barnaby Joyce
was not validly elected due what it held DUEAL CITIZENSHIP and recently a by-election was
held in which Mr Barnaby Joyce was the successful candidate. It means in my view that for the
period prior to him being recently sworn in he was not entitled to any tax free income as ordinary
politicians are entitled upon. It means in my view that the ATO ought to have retrospective
assessed him for all monies and financial benefits he had over the about 10 years and included
penalties it applies such as the issue I canvassed about the late George Williams.
The exception is that Section 64 of the constitution does allow a person to be a Minister for up to
3 months. As such while not then entitled to claim allowances he was in my view entitled to
draw a salary as a Minister for 3 months after being commissioned as a Minister.
Because the Commonwealth is bound to apply taxation in a UNIFORM manner then I view the
ATO should have equally dealt with Mr Barnaby Joyce as like also with others who resigned or
were held by the court to be ineligible to hold a seat in the Parliament to be re-assessed and be
ordered to pay not only taxes on all income as a taxable income, including the ability to use cars
of the Commonwealth as is applicable with a private employer and employee, including any
monies paid by the Australian Electoral Commission regarding election funding, the
Commonwealth payments for political and other printing/postage, the overseas trips at taxpayers
expenses, etc, as well as apply penalties regarding past unpaid taxes, etc.
I received a 15 December 2017 correspondence purporting to be from the Australian Taxation
Commission unsigned from a Mr Robert Ravanello Deputy Commissioner of taxation which I
do not accept as a valid notification over an allege income tax debt ‘You still have a tax debt’
claiming to be $1,770.00. When my 85 year old wife read the purported letter dated 15
December 2017 she indicated being in fear about it. I do not accept that the Commonwealth
despite my writings ignored and failed to stop this form of terrorism, extortion, fraud, etc. I view
that a $100 million penalty is appropriate to be applied for this kind of terrorism, extortion, fraud,
etc.
My wife and I are senior citizens and I for one am not aware any court made any court order as
to that I had a tax debt. As a matter of fact there is no income tax debt because my so called net
income is below the threshold of taxation. As such, I could not have incurred an income tax debt
on that alone. What however the ATO seems to do is to unconstitutionally apply it claimed
penalties as an income tax debt, without any court order to do so. As the Framers of the
Constitution made clear that a judicial decision can only be made after both sides have been
heard, and to my knowledge no court case was ever hearing the matter then I cannot accept that
there was any valid court order. What appears to me to be that the ATO has set itself up as some
KANGAROO COURT to determine that I have a income tax debt where none existed.
.
On 4 August 2005 the Magistrates Court of Victoria held in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka (in which
matter I represented myself) that averment does not apply and ordered for the AEC to file and
serve all relevant material that it sought to rely upon. This overruling counsel appearing for the
Commonwealth who pursued averment to be applied.
As such it also means that the ATO cannot rely upon ‘averment’ but should have produced all
and any relevant details it relies upon that I somehow had an income tax debt.
Because the High Court of Australia in Sydney City Council v Commonwealth 1904 held that
council rates are a State delegated land taxation power and considering that the Framers of the
p3 24-12-2017 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Constitution made clear all taxation must be UNIFORM and that once the Commonwealth
commences to legislate regarding any subject matter within Section 51 of the constitution then
the States must retire from this as the concurrent legislative powers then become an exclusive
legislative power it means that the council rates I have been ongoing charges is unconstitutional.
Because I did previously notify the commonwealth about this and it nevertheless allows this
unconstitutional tax to continue in an UN-UNIFORM manner then it is party to this extortion and
fraud and where the ATO claims to be entitled to claim 8.70% interest then likewise I am entitled
to not only have all council raters unconstitutionally charged and extorted to be refunded but also
entitled to the 8.70% additional charge. On top of that I am entitled to consider a fine I view at
least $10 million for each and every time the ATO on behalf of the Commonwealth had pursued
this extortion/fraud record against me.
.
Obviously another problem is that the purported 1936 tax act was enacted by Members of
parliament who were all ‘British subjects’ and within the alleged provisions of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as British Parliament Act which the
High Court of Australia in sue v Hill and recent decision held is a ‘foreign power’. As such
without any Constitution Amendment Act by the British Parliament to amend the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) I take the position that a ‘foreign law
such as the purported 1936 taxation laws cannot be enforced. I am not aware that any referendum
was held to directly and/or indirectly amend the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK) in such manner to hold that the British Parliament is a foreign power’ but as I have an
outstanding 4 December 2002 court order (by consent in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka as to my
Section 78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS which includes the issue of
‘CITIZENSHIP’ then before the ATO pursues any litigation against me it better makes sure
those outstanding orders have been appropriately dealt with,. This also considering that I
representing myself comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth on 19 July 2006 as to
compulsory voting, etc. This included the CITIZENSHIP issue.
As I indicated in 2002 already that the High Court of Australia cannot hear and determine itself
the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS this is because of the implied bias by
the judges concerned. After all judges who are employed by an alleged foreign power had right
to make a decision such as in Sue v Hill as it could amount to TREASON. Judges who were
arguable not British subjects (even so born as such) but claimed to have an AUSTRALIAN
CITIZENSHIP as a NATIONALITY then could not adjudicate within the provisions of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as no such nationality is derived nor
possible within the true meaning and application of the constitution.
It is totally irrelevant if the Commonwealth by so to say a convention does matters as if such
convention is in violation of the constitution then no legal force can be derived from any
application of unconstitutional law. The High Court of Australia judicial or purported judicial
decisions are NULL AND VOID (ULTRA VIRES) for so far it relies upon
UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation and/or are itself the product of judicial decisions that are
beyond the courts constitutional judicial powers.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999) QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue
estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders
made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel
safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying on the
earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould. END QUOTE
As I have set out in the past the Judicature is part of the constitution as is the section 101 Inter-
State Commission and the Executive and legislators and as such none of them can go beyond the
power provided by the constitution. The High Court of Australia is not and cannot be the third
arm of government as judges claim, this because it would make it inherent bias and would
p4 24-12-2017 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
operate outside the context of the constitution where the Framers of the Constitution held that it
was part of the constitution.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that one could only obtain ‘COMMONWEALTH
CITIZENSHIP’ by having ‘STATE CITIZENSHIP’ and where as I placed before the court on
19 July 2006 the Victorian Government had made known it has no CITIZENSHIP laws then
clearly there neither can be any AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP! The Commonwealth nor any of
the State Attorney-General’s then challenged this and the court having upheld both appeals
without any reservation clearly provided me with the undisputed right to rely upon this. It means
that the judges who are pretending to be dealing with AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP issues
themselves may lack this and not aware as to what their own constitutional position of nationality
is. Hence, as the Framers of the constitution made clear the Privy Council would decide upon
legal issues considering the Hansard records, etc.
Obviously, the notion that the Commonwealth denies any appeals to the Privy Council itself
then is unconstitutional, as it would be well within the scope of the Privy Council to determine
legal matters of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
No matter my self-professed Crummy English in the end I rely upon the true meaning and
application of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and have done so
very successfully on 19 July 2006. A decision that none of the Commonwealth/State/Territory
Attorney-Generals appealed, and neither did they even attempt to challenge my filed extensive
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS in my ADDRESS TO THE COURT!
Considering that SINCE 4 December 2002 there was a court order on foot then it neither can be
claimed that none of the Attorney-Generals were given insufficient time to prepare for matters
where also my WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS in my ADDRESS TO THE COURT gave ample of
opportunity to present counter arguments in court, they didn’t bother to do.
Because the Judicature is part of the constitution and the Commonwealth can only provide for
additional judicial powers then it cannot somehow without constitutional powers legislate as to
tax the courts. After all the commonwealth neither can tax parliamentarians, as this could
influence parliamentarians as to how they vote. Likewise the GST being an unconstitutional
taxation in itself also cannot be used against the Courts. Neither can the Court have an
ABN/CAN (Australian Business Number/Australian Company Number) because they are
organically beyond such legislative powers of the Commonwealth.
It ought to be obvious that the judicature provided for in the constitution really doesn’t exist as
such and neither the courts operate within the context of the constitution.
As such the ATO (Commonwealth) would have no legal standing to litigate against me.
Neither can it pursue to enforce some alleged debt it created itself without any court order.
Previously dun&bradstreet DEBT COLLECTOR SERVICE [email protected] were engaged by
the ATO to pursue me for the same. As such, it in violation of the constitution decided it as a KANGAROO
COURT could determine I had an income tax debt and fine me and then sell it to dun&bradstreet DEBT
COLLECTOR SERVICE which then pursued me for this. The question then is for how much did it sell
this purported debt to dun&bradstreet DEBT COLLECTOR SERVICE?
The legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur action” denies any remedy to a litigant
(including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands.
If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with “Dirty Hands”
best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!
What this means is that the ATO if it held to have a legitimate right to pursue me should in the
first instance have placed the matter before a competent court of jurisdiction (OK that in itself is
a problem) and then provided the court with relevant details why the court (not the ATO) ought

p5 24-12-2017 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
to apply a penalty, etc. By the ATO so to say having taken the law into its own hands it has no
legal position to now seek the court to enforce its unconstitutional and illegal conduct.
.
QUOTE In R v Hall (Warwick & Asizes, 1-4-1845. Maule J.) (1845)
Be it so; yet you had no right to take the law into your own hands, I will tell you what you
ought to have done, and if you did know, I will tell you that the law conclusively presumes
that you did.
END QUOTE

Our constitution cannot be interfered with by any Commonwealth legislation!

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE

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.

END QUOTE

Which debt collection agency really would want to spend perhaps tens of thousands of dollars to
litigate regarding constitutional matters out of their own pocket where it cannot claim any cost
against me? As such I was not surprised dun&bradstreet DEBT COLLECTOR SERVICE dropped any
action against me.
.
However the unsigned 15 December 2017 purported ATO correspondence claims:
QUOTE
Dear GERRIT,
Your deb t hasn’t gone away, but we have put the collection action on hold for now.
END QUOTE

Again I have my self-professed Crummy English but surely I do know that after a comma the
word ‘Your’ ought to be ‘your’, and one does not then use ‘GERRIT’ but ‘Gerrit’.
QUOTE
How much you owe
Tax type Amount owning
Income Tax $1,770.00
END QUOTE

It appears to me that the ATO converted it’s kind of ‘penalty’ into an Income Tax debt. Well
why have courts if you can terrorize and extort monies without using the courts?
The meaning of penalty, ‘infringement’, etc, should also be considered.
As the ATO itself acknowledged that council rates are a tax and the States do not have any land
taxation legislative powers since 11 November 1910 then clearly the question is where did all the
monies go if it was collected for and on behalf of the Commonwealth since then, and so
unconstitutionally in various ways, as I understand it never went into Consolidated Revenue
Funds to which all monies should be paid?
The Commonwealth having been aware of this and permitting this nevertheless to continue then I
view is part of the crime committed against all taxpayers charged unconstitutional State land
taxation/council rates.

p6 24-12-2017 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
http://business/business-spectator
QUOTE
BUSINESS SPECTATOR
Power companies owe $750m in unpaid taxes: ATO

 Business Spectator
 3:14PM June 28, 2013

The two firms, Cheung Kong Infrastructure and Power Asset Holdings, own 51 per cent
of networks in South Australia and Victoria and have been accused of failing to pay
taxes going back to 1999.
The ATO lodged documents in Federal Court in Melbourne accusing Cheung Kong of
owing $372,380,301 in taxes, penalties and interest, while Power Asset Holdings has
been accused of owing $387,425,569 in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest.
The remainder of both electricity distribution networks are owned by ASX-listed Spark
Infrastructure, which earlier this year disclosed tax disputes with the ATO over SA
Power Networks and Victoria Power Networks.
The SA Power Networks dispute involves rent installments under land lease, labour
and motor vehicle costs, among other issues, while the Victoria Power Networks
dispute revolves around tax assessments for 2006 and 2007, the AFR added.
END QUOTE

Here the ATO pursues a litigation in the court and as such well aware it cannot take the law into
its own hands to engage to have a debt collection agency to pursue a purported debt not at all
authorise within the true meaning and application of the constitution,.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 20171224-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Re ATO stalking &
harassment, etc

It must be clear that neither Barnaby Joyce or any other person in his situation filed appropriate
tax returns and let not ignore my writings about the George Lesl.ie Williams case where the ATO
re-assessed his income with using avert as to avoid having to prove anything, this even so
averment cannot be relied upon (4-8-2005 court ruling in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka). Actually it
means any conviction obtained by the AEC against a voter for FAILING TO VOTE relying
upon averment also are NULL AND VOID! Politicians may ignore my writings but cannot
ignore the legal consequences.
I wonder if George Brandis got out as to a reported CITIZENSHIP issue, so he doesn’t have to
repay monies and be slugged a reassessment in taxation, etc?
As with the bollard issue I warned specifically about referring to BOURKE STREET MALL
on 15 July 2006 and on 21 December 2016 but both ignored by State and Federal governments
resulting that on 20 January 2017 some 6 innocent people were killed, politicians should realise
they may ignore my writings but then they have to cop the legal consequences for having done
so. Hence, one better not ignore it because Barnaby Joyce, and others, could likely have avoid
the citizenship issue had my 4 December 2002 court order been complied with.
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 24-12-2017 © 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: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati