ISSUE: 20181001- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 18-Departure restrictions

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

* Gerrit, the departure restrictions is that a good thing in your view as a constitutionalist?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I heard something over a radio news bulletin but have my
concerns. After all on what legal basis are they going to restrict a person to travel overseas? To
put it bluntly if a person has a vagina then the restrictions do not apply? After all I experienced in
the past with the Family court of Australia that it made clear that a non-custodian mother is not
bound to comply with the court orders, when I pursued her to be dealt with for violating time and
time again with access court orders.
* Are you not a bit daring to state this?
**#** Not at all. I was even imprisoned as the custodian parent not to have complied with access
court orders but when then the mother subsequently failed to comply with the terms of the orders
the Full Court held she didn’t have to comply with the orders. And, mind you a judge had held
that as the court had ordered the mother to pay child support of $20 a week then I could afford
the 1,000 kilometres round trip to present my daughter for access. Just that the mother simply
didn’t pay the monies from the date the child support was ordered. But that obviously was not of
concern to the court as a non-custodian mother doesn’t have to comply with the court orders. But
ask how many non-custodian fathers get the same kind of argument from the court. So they talk
about dead-beat fathers but not about the dead-beat mothers.
And let us zero onto this a bit more. In about 1994 I got to know Mr John Murray Abbott
infamous because of leading the BLACKSHIRTS. Well the registrar in violation of court orders
sold his house. This later the Full Court (1994) acknowledged. But they claimed they could do
nothing about the registrar. Well in my view CONTEMPT OF COURT would have been the
issue! Anyhow the child support Agency took him to a Magistrates Court and got orders against
him. On appeal to the Family Court of Australia this was dismissed and his car that was parked
there got impounded. Another appeal failed and so of to the High Court of Australia where his
appeal was dismissed also. After all so to say they were ganging up against him as FACTUAL
issues were not important. Well after the High Court of Australia the Child Support Agency then
refunded the monies as after all there was no debt. So, if the Departure restriction would have
been in force at the time he would have been denied to travel regardless that factually he didn’t
owe any child support but merely a hypothetical debt for so long until the Child Support Agency
admitted there was no debt. And how can a personal debt become a Debt to the Commonwealth
is beyond me. After all, the Child Support Agency contacted me years after the court order
against the non-custodian mother if I accepted that the non-custodian mother didn’t have to pay
any child support, as they claimed they couldn’t force her to do so. After I refused, proving it
clearly was not at all a Debt to the commonwealth as if it was how on earth could I approve not
to proceed with the debt? Anyhow in the end they claimed that she was WILLING to pay $5 a
week of the arrears. That was when my daughter was by then already 21. I worked out I would
have to live to a ripe old age of about 470 years for her to pay the child support she was owning.
* Are you saying the CSA uses DOUBLE STANDARDS?
p1 1-10-2018 © 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: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
**#** Indeed they do. I was told that because she didn’t work for a wages, albeit she did do
voluntary work, they could not force her to pay child support. So, why did I have to go to court
to get child support court orders one may ask? And tell that to a non-custodian father who let say
becomes remarried and then becomes a house husband. The court will simply say that is your
choice but you have to pay the child support. As such again having a vagina appears to entitle
you to DOUBLE STANDARDS.
We hear so much about equality for women and equal pay. Well if women can perform in the
same manner as a male then yes let them be entitled to equal pay. However, when I was in
management they had that the male was to do packing of 25 kilogram boxes whereas women
only were allowed up to 5 kilograms.
There is this video of Tucker Carson a very much respected journalist with his own Fox news
program at http://traffic.outbrain.com/network/redir?p=BTYV0JlHMSr87yj7We-GhwI0LC-
bIMdGAlnPu-pZJcty5XBMjt0FAcTlHeblQXIbtABLfBTsXjubWJH0ZS-
ulQqUZYHMze5UG9sSuc-JfjbdkdfwpfbXv7xjPI4uzj2vom1ivMjD7PQUP0PpAkfMiYLvYsl-
eS1499guGOCxt1YKILrc_nwopTAs2vC-
UctlBlvZD22BvzicN7ilScEBF_htwQYVn_WwIF8SAJdILiYmZNSNC1ZqKVylAiWPpqGdRd
Sh74KWgRB3YcFfN4KuxxYxsm9tbg9lZZVKkXwBAfIKboroMRtgn6G3r2BjoiHpL8Dm6v_lx
37CPw3IhBcGCCEtCJJRc44J7STTFqLqe5ywam4beOytutJIX3SE1jrIfn06glFrfO-
QJ9qk8ZzWG5_4kt_O7xc7y8YPmUfPA0GiCjvoPfKGhlLPW_U87CMygShpLNuWkLrziQ2g
WNS5pu2E1o_5iCrtgBQut_1hrsFigJrzmrmvDZujIS3O3ZvDGhc1xwzwlqKov0lef9yONLWqD
g76kcxdC8tQBIij0p-CLz8NdC7qp5O-
BvQSF7ovAJLPmdc6H_NOEYzjdjh6Z_SuCb2KssDoL1IfijBAMRQcRFCpktxbzkRUUcvXYl
XL65W7LJ_mAoyOM4BSjxrkm_5gJMGX3Ect9RNl3zNlOWa8QLsvxRCxIbNaQjTLH9RCsyx
7PpPDfZ1132Q93DzMHR7TKixkdMXv5Q9fvBERSIuqucEtjiGyRpzWkU5BJpKAAgN4yLZa
nWDT2tzJmWOqsZtKZY5GCBp1Jm2v2BvHrMYPGQ1Com2f7jyBg13U9yuyji2g94EUjKPJg4
q5XyT6l_CCcHad5rUfM-n3Mn5ob0uR0EtZ1Hm6OnX_BzTtgKU40ui1YJUcXUKNJ0b-
DrFk3KJlCW1LugvB4H0RqAMrWdw0iCdZfUvkG3ut05pySAfGhsExKsUF_ssBqk-
3lCNk5KPPOb5ZgFTi0-m59z2Y5U01tdOjJXGl64T6HNWg4pQ1fEf3FsQLpmxgOwDG-
vJOTFYwHaAQLGAIDtLPuzVSrqH-
sPBc7VGfQQQt8L4EWBzp90IQVLCcx7vsAjfseOHC22YsIhAfgacMqduRsffnK7rYhX1BQ8
W0OfDew3FNQtZo&c=76bacde3&v=3
What he sets out is that all the attention is upon equality for woman but what about men?
About 34 out of 4 suicides are men. About 3 out of 4 drug overdoses are men. Women are more
succeeding to become lawyers and doctors then men. What we have is a real epidemic against
men that in the USA white male and Indians outnumber suicides by about 10 to 21 against blacks
and Hispanics. I do not have the figures of the Commonwealth of Australia but I think they are
likely similar when it comes to the sexes.
What we seem to have is a culture to make people feel guilty as to being a male, regardless they
have nothing to be guilty about.
Actually, a former wife had on 2 separate court cases, both times represented by a lawyer, in
which she pleaded GUILTY to assault. One was upon a child. Well each time she was told no
conviction just 6 months’ probation. We have a bloke doing the same and he likely be in prison
immediately. If you want equality then let it be regardless of the sex of the person! And there is
more to it.
* What is that?
**#** Well, we do have a constitution and the legal principle embedded in it is that judicial
decision can only be made AFTER both parties have been heard. Well, if the government
(State/Territory/Federal) claims you owe monies then they stop you to depart but they can be
totally wrong. Again Mr John Murray Abbott is a clear example. And so a woman can owe
thousands upon thousands of dollars in child support and can be free to travel ab road after all
p2 1-10-2018 © 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: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
you cannot force her to pay as required by court order this as she doesn’t have to comply, so the
Full Court of the Family Court of Australia is on record, while a male in similar position can be
denied to travel.
What we get is that the CSA rightly or wrongly claims a person owes monies or for that the
Taxation office or any other government department and you will be denied to travel. It means
you may lose the monies of the place trip you already may have paid, etc. But then when you got
Mr Barnaby Joyce who got paid reportedly millions of dollars while the HCA claimed ineligible
to sit in the parliament and others like him well they are not restricted to travel and neither have
to pay the monies back which I view then are defrauded from the Consolidated Revenue Funds.
It is not that some Minister of Finance can make a ruling they do not have to repay the monies
because as the Framers of the Constitution made clear any special payment should be approved
by a Appropriation bill. As such, without the sanction of an Appropriation Bill having passed the
Parliament the Minister has no legal authority to not force the debt to be repaid. But will he cause
Mr Barnaby Joyce and others like him to be prevented from travelling abroad I do not think so.
DOUBLE STANDARDS again!
And let it also be considered that if the government itself owes a debt then will the government
Ministers be prevented to travel abroad? I doubt it. After all the Victorian Government owes my
wife more than $208 since about 2001 and yet has not refunded this to my wife. The monies had
been wrongly paid to the SRO (State Revenue Office) by a company y who claimed they didn’t
know my wife’s residential address, this even so we were and remained and still are customers.
As such, if departure restrictions can be enforced against anyone with a hypothetical or factual
deb t then this should also include the right of any citizen to do the same against any government
and its ministers/staff.
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

If you place them above the rule of law then they are no longer legitimately representing We, the
People.
* You really have your say, don’t you?
**#** There is more. If any citizen can be denied to travel abroad because of some debt, then
why not the same against say Mr Barnaby Joyce and others in similar position who failed to
disclose on their tax returns the correct taxable income they were receiving. After all, if they
were ineligible to sit in the parliament they were not then entitled to a tax exemption as a
Parliamentarian and the tax office should apply the same kind of fines, etc, as they did say with
the late Mr George Williams.
Here we had the ATO allegedly putting a debt collector against me for allegedly owning more
than $1,600 on fines. So, no court order whatsoever, but the ATO now is so to say judge, jury
and executor.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
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

p3 1-10-2018 © 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: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 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

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:

One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally
immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.

That opens up a matter of very large consideration for this Convention. In the first place, what is the
authority above and beyond the legislatures which is to have the power of changing the law of the
constitution, or of regulating it in any form? The answer, of course, is that it is the people of these colonies
who are to be charged with that important function; and I would, therefore, point out-and I think
several hon. members who have had considerable experience in leading what may be called democratic
parties in these colonies have forgotten for a moment-what the democracy of Australia is to be.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

Mr. OCONNOR.-I think that the reason of the proposal is obvious. So long as each state has to do only
with its own citizens it may make what laws it thinks fit, but we are creating now a new and a larger
citizenship. We are giving new rights of citizenship to the whole of the citizens of the Commonwealth, and
we should take care that no man is deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law.

Mr. GORDON.-Might you not as well say that the states should not legalize murder?

Mr. OCONNOR-That is one of those suppositions that are against the first instincts of humanity.

Mr. GORDON.-So is this.

Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it is not. We need not go far back in history to find cases in which the
community, seized with a sort of madness with regard to particular offences, have set aside all
principles of justice. If a state did behave itself in that way, why should not the citizens of the
Commonwealth who did not belong to that state be protected? Dr. Cockburn suggested in so
contemptuous a way that there could be no reason for this amendment, that I got up to state again
what had been stated before.

Dr. COCKBURN.-Not contemptuous.

Mr. OCONNOR.-I know the honorable member meant nothing personal, but I thought it necessary to state
the reasons of what, had it not been for the honorable member's statement, would have seemed to be a
perfectly obvious proposition. Mr. Clark, of Tasmania, thought the amendment of importance, and pointed
out that it had been put in the United States Constitution. It should also be put in this Constitution, not
necessarily as an imputation on any state or any body of states, but as a guarantee for all time for the citizens
of the Commonwealth that they shall be treated according to what we recognise to be the principles of justice
and of equality.

END QUOTE

p4 1-10-2018 © 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: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
*. What you seem to be on about is that any restrictions must be mutually applied regardless if it
is a private citizen or any entity?
**#** That is correct. And obviously not some hypothetical debt but a real proven debt that is
based on facts. Again Mr John Murray Abbott allegedly had more than $36,000 child support
debt which in the end turned out to be nil!
*. What you are on about is not some government agency or whatever fabricating an alleged debt
but a proven debt before the courts with a judicial finding after both parties were heard!
**#** Again, when the ATO uses a debt collecting agency for a fictional debt where there was
no court hearing let alone a court determination then surely you wouldn’t want this to be used to
stop a person to depart. It would be in my view nothing less than government sponsored
terrorism and extortion circumventing proper legal procedures. The right to travel is an inherited
natural right and no government so its department can interfere with this unless sanctioned in
each case by a proper court order after both parties have been heard.

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

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

*.From this I view you are not opposed to restrict the traveling of any person if it is sanctioned to
do so by a valid court order based upon both parties having been heard!
**#** That in my view is the very principle of natural justice. What if a person is caused to be
prevented to travel for a very important trip and afterwards it shows there is no court order in
place to legally justify doing so. It is not within the powers of the commonwealth to violate the
separation of powers of the judiciary to make its own mind of decisions as the ATO proved to do
with debt collector even so no court had found there was a debt. When the State pursued me for
allegedly speeding by 5 km/hr I challenged the validity of the purported Infringement Act and
well since 2011 they have never gotten to any court to prove the validity of the act. The moment
I challenged the constitutional validity of this it became ULTRA V IRES Ab Initio unless and
until if ever at all a court decide it to be INTRA VIRES. Actually I did the same with the
purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 by filing a form 78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka and by consent the court orders on
4 December 2002 the matter to be heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The
HCA up till now even so aware of the court order nevertheless never did so. It means that
constitutionally the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is and remains to be ULTRA
VIRES. Not just regarding myself but regarding anyone else also. Hence I view it was totally
absurd that the HCA relied upon foreign jurisdictions to decide what CITIZENSHIP is because
our constitution doesn’t allow for this.

p5 1-10-2018 © 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: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
*. Would it be fair to state that you view that the Government or governments are themselves
terrorist against the constitutional rights of citizens?
**#** that is correct. No fair dinkum government would want to go against the constitution. It
derives its powers from the constitution! It is bound to follow and obey the true meaning and
application of the constitution. Any Minister who doesn’t do so is in my view a traitor to the
constitution, the will of the citizens.
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!)

p6 1-10-2018 © 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: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati