20180827-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 12-JUSTICE
Uploaded by
Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka20180827-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 12-JUSTICE
Uploaded by
Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-HlavkaISSUE: 20180827- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 12-JUSTICE
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, you just seemed to have made it clear that not a single person in any state, Territory or
Federal Government is entitled to be a Member of Parliament as I understand it from your
submission supplement 4 to the Royal Commission FSRC
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, you are referring to:
The Royal Commission ought to operate independent and equally deal with any government and
government owned entities as otherwise it is no more, at least in my view, a witch-hunt. All State,
Territory and Federal Members of Parliament are in violation of s44
This document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/387116817/20180827-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Royal-
Commission-FSRC-Supplement-4
I have highlighted below that clearly an “has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any
agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth”. Little wonder Malcolm turnbull
suddenly gave up to be Prime Minister because clearly his usage of the Australian Federal Police
to look after his private residence was clearly a conflict with s44. The same with the
superannuation of any Member of Parliament, this as it is not related to employment with the
Commonwealth as it doesn’t employ any Ministers and non-ministers are only entitled to an
ALLOWANCE. Likewise to Mr Barnaby Joyce accepting not having to pay back the about $3
million dollars that was paid to him or paid in relation to him when unconstitutionally being a
Member of parliament(so the High Court of Australia determined) then is a financial interest that
now place him in violation with s44 of the constitution and hence he again is not entitled to hold
a seat in the parliament. Likewise all and any person who was paid by the AEC (Australian
Electoral Commission) monies regarding an election are violating Section 44 of the constitution
having accepted such payment.
The same with Members of Parliament who are having some sort of agreement that after they
leave Parliament they will still get certain perks, benefits, etc as we know some have reportedly
about $600,000 a year (considering former Governor-General Hollingworth) and we have this
crazy scheme in place that any Member of Parliament being acting Prime Minister for 1 days
then is entitled to the pension of a former Prime Minister.
Constitutionally the speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate are
as being employees of the Parliament entitled to a reasonable pension scheme relevant to the
time they were employed by the Parliament.
HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of
Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are parliamentary
offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent that really the
Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own Estimates, and
those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether untouched by the
p1 27-8-2018 © 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
Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown. I think that
that is the principle that Parliament has always asserted in England and elsewhere. As to the word "person,"
the British Interpretation Act of 1889, which will be largely applied to the construction of this statute by the
Imperial authorities, provides that where the word "person" is used, unless the Act otherwise provides, the
word "corporation" shall be included.
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-If a man agrees to get paid for services done in Parliament, or for the
Commonwealth, and if he does the work, and, having done the work, he resigns, is there no penalty? Is there
no punishment in such a case for a man who guarantees that he will use his position in Parliament in order to
make money, and, having made it, resigns!
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No; and there is a reason for that. If I recollect correctly there was
some provision in the Bill in Adelaide in that respect, but that provision was omitted in the sitting of the
Convention at Sydney as a matter [start page 2449] of policy. Mr. O'Connor suggests that it is quite probable
that in such a case an action would lie at common law. However that may be, the policy of inserting such a
provision was reversed in Sydney, and therefore the Drafting Committee could not frame any proposal to that
effect.
END QUOTE
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
44 Disqualification
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or
a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or
(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any
offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer;
or
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or (iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any
pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or
(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the
Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an
incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons; shall be incapable of being chosen or
of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen’s Ministers of State for the
Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen’s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension,
by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or
member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly
employed by the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
Contrary to the High Court of Australia ruling, as I understand it did, that any legislation voted
upon by people as Members of Parliament not entitled to be Members of Parliament is still valid
in law, I do not agree with this. Here we had reportedly some 15 people as Members of
Parliament. To accept this nonsense means that any Parliament can have legislation passed by
people not qualified to vote on a bill and so where is the validity of the constitutional constrains?
In my view one has to be a Member of Parliament to be able to vote on bills and if you turn out
not to have been so then any legislation must be reconsidered by removing the votes of those
who were found not eligible to vote. Those people in my view essentially were imposters and
you cannot accept such unconstitutional conduct.
* So, Barnaby Joyce is out again, at least in your view?
**#** He made a financial bargain with the Minister that he doesn’t have to pay back about $3
million dollars and tome that is a financial interest not ordinary provided to the general public.
Indeed, they are dragging innocent pensioners to court for any alleged overpayment, this even so
the pensioners may have done nothing wrong but unknown to them were overpaid and yet an
about $3 million is not claimed back because it was a person who unconstitutionally sat in
p2 27-8-2018 © 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
parliament? Those who didn’t return into the Parliament clearly cannot be held now in breach
where the decision not to pursue them for the wrongly paid monies is not affecting their suiting
in Parliament, but those who return to sit in the Parliament do so in violation of s44.
Likewise those who get special financial either directly or indirectly benefits such as mailing out
for political issues which is not ordinary available to say other candidates in an election, such as I
was for many ears, then this too is a financial benefit that invalidate their right to sit in the
Parliament.
Remember when members of the Liberal Party sought to topple John Howard as party leader
they went into a hotel to work out how to do it and so at taxpayers cost which is unconstitutional
as it had nothing to do with their service in the parliament. Now we had the same with getting rid
of Malcolm Turnbull where they were using precious time to work on getting rid of him at
taxpayers cost. I have absolutely no issue with him being ousted but it should have been without
cost to the general public the taxpayers. Any Member of any Parliament in the
Commonwealth of Australia who has a direct or indirect financial benefit/interest with the State
immediately is disqualified to be a Member of Parliament. Hence when Opposition then Leader
Daniel Andrews and his fellow party members got involve with the Redshirt rip off then this
disqualified them from being a Member of Parliament. If those Members of Parliament want to
be greedy then let them suffer the consequences.
We cannot have the rule of Members of Parliament to be above the rule of law. How on
earth can any judicial officer claim to enforce the rule of law because Parliament decided the rule
of law when they themselves violate it big time?
* So, anyone one person whoviolatesS44 then automatically is disqualified?
**#** In my view this has to apply Ab Initio from the time the person claimed to be a Member
of Parliament while in violation of s44.
* Can the government not claim it is part of an ALLOWANCE?
**#** The Government might try this joke but it is not something that can be accepted as some
allowance. Also Ministers are not entitled to any ALLOWANCE as they receive a SALARY for
their work.
Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for
his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other provision is
made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.
Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!
Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those colonies
which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement of expenses,
because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are actually paid a
salary for their work, which they are not.
Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say
that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I
move as an amendment:
p3 27-8-2018 © 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
That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:
That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the
payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not
inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the
salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654]
Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that
kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than
the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament
who was being paid £500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus
his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational manner; and to settle
a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own judgment, and certainly not
to the judgment of the public.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are likely to do well
to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give proper attention to further work to-
night. I should like to say a word or two in reference to what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in
regard to the absence of provision on matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting
committee was concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution
with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the commonwealth in its first
session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great number of other matters of that kind. We have,
therefore, given them power to deal with this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a
payment of members bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual allowance
for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at £500.
Motion agreed to; progress reported.
Convention adjourned at 6.33 p.m.
END QUOTE
* You really are on top of your stuff, aren’t you?
**#** I pursue JUSTICE and it doesn’t matter who the person might be as to their standing or
position as the law as should apply equally to all. This is why I have a registered trademark
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®.
*.Looks like another by-election for at least Barnaby Joyce and if he again accept not to have to
pay back monies then he is again disqualified to be a Member of Parliament.
**#** We have the constitution and lawmakers being the Members of Parliament better learn
about the true meaning and application of the constitution before putting laws into force against
the general public. I have written about this issues for a long time and well they must be held
legally accountable as much as someone fakes a CV and get a job and then ends up in court with
a conviction for falsely obtaining monies by deception. Neither can we accept a Minister to play
Santa Claus with the monies of taxpayers to let perhaps a friend off repaying about $3 million. It
is beyond the powers of the minister to do so! Likewise the Taxation office should pursue
appropriate taxation for undeclared taxable income and relevant fines as applied to members of
the general public in similar circumstances. We must pursue JUSTICE for all
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!)
p4 27-8-2018 © 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
