Page 1

1
2
3 Hank Jongen, General Manager Centrelink 25-7-2025
4
5 Cc: Service Australian CUSTOMER.COMMENTS <[email protected]>
6 Centrelink Ref 301 602 799V Reply Paid 7800, CANBERRA BC ACT 2610
7
8 Attorney-General Michelle Rowland Email [email protected],
9
10 20250725-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Hank Jongen General Manager Centrelink-
11 COMPLAINT-Supplement 23- EXTREME URGENT
12 (Commonwealth Ombudsman ref: 2025-813880)
13 Robodebt 3
14 Sir,
15 further to my COMPLAINT against Centrelink, I add the following:
16
17 WHY SYSTEMS SUPPOSED TO ASSIST THOSE NEEDING IT OFTEN
18 ARE A COMPLETE FAILURE.
19
20 Perhaps you may have heard about the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
21 but honestly, I doubt you would have a clue what the true meaning and application of this legal
22 principles embedded in this constitution stands for.
23
24 IELTS Australiahttps://ielts.com.au › australia
25 IELTS – The most trusted English test for work, study and visa ...
26 IELTS is the most trusted test for work, study and migration in Australia.
27 Crack IELTS with ease, prepare learn the techniques for English test success.
28
29 Isn’t it great to have such kind of test for people to learn some basic general English? Well, when
30 I migrated from The Netherlands I couldn’t communicate in the English language and actually
31 proud upon my so called “CRUMMY ENGLISH” as after all representing myself in litigation
32 against experienced barristers, I was able to defeat them on the meaning of English meanings!
33 For example, court rules that documents filed must show 6 mm between the lines generally result
34 to lawyers DOUBLE SPACING the written lines, whereas I proved in court that actually it
35 means 6 mm between the basic line upon which words are written, like a 6mm lined page.
36
37 Recently I came across another test which asked various issues regarding the Commonwealth of
38 Australia to which I wrote to the federal Attorney General some are simply nonsense. After all,
39 questions asked must rely upon factual details and not what someone may “assume” to be so.
40 For example, a question about when European settlement commenced in Australia provided
41 option from 1700 and onwards, ignoring that the Dutch already settled in 1656 and claimed as
42 then known New Holland for the Dutch in 1658.
43

25-7-2025 Page 1 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 2

1 I yesterday 24 July 2025 happen to watch part of the Senate hearing, albeit as result of flicking
2 from channel to channel and was amazed that Senators constantly were referring to “Albanese
3 Labor Government” which to me means they haven’t got a clue what the true meaning and
4 application of the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
5 Act 1900 (UK) is about. Even the President of the Senate appeared to me to lack a proper
6 understanding. And this about law makers? How on earth then can they act responsibly in
7 legislating I wonder?
8
9 HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
10 QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
11 The resolutions conclude:
12 An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to
13 time be appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of
14 office shall depend upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives
15 expressed by the support of the majority.
16 What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of
17 the new nation as similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional
18 advisers who shall stand as nearly as possible in the same relation to the representative of
19 the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial advisers stand is relation to the
20 Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to lay down as a
21 foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite
22 other gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in
23 view.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
27 Australasian Convention)
28 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
29 Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it
30 is that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that
31 prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or
32 peace without the advice of a responsible Minister.
33 END QUOTE
34
35 HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
36 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
37 We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
38 Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this
39 case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform
40 to it.
41 END QUOTE
42 .
43 Clearly a “Minister” is a “constitutional advisers” and a “responsible Minister” and as such
44 must be able to explain during question time and otherwise on what legal ground he/she made a
45 decision.
46 The Minister is “personally” accountable to the House of Representatives and cannot have
47 someone else acting on his/her behalf as this would undermine to be being a “responsible
48 Minister”.
49
50 Slowly, governance in Australia has been converted from “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN
51 GUILTY” to citizens forced to be providing evidence against themselves. However, when it
52 comes to a Member of Parliament or a person pretending to be a Member of Parliament then

25-7-2025 Page 2 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 3

1 suddenly the notion of “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY” is what they argue to try to
2 avoid legal accountability.
3 Service Australia/Centrelink it a clear example of this scam.
4 After all, in my own case clearly Service Australia/Centrelink has not produced any factual
5 details against me showing income/assets, etc. Actually, it sidestep the “SEPARATION OF
6 POWERS” and seeks me to provide “incriminating evidence” against myself.
7
8 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
9 QUOTE
10 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
14 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
15 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
16 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
17 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
18 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
19 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 Again:
23
24 and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the
25 righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their
26 officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may
27 do, in the same way as any private person would be.
28
29 Well, generally it is the Minister and his/her Ministers that flaunt the rule of law and then have
30 taxpayer’s foot the bill instead of themselves being held legally accountable.
31
32 Let us look at the management structure and how grossly incompetent all this is regarding issues
33 relating to myself underlining that so to say decorating with flags and balloons some shithole
34 isn’t going to improve the rotten smell coming from it.
35

36
25-7-2025 Page 3 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 4

2
3
4 QUOTE

25-7-2025 Page 4 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 5

1
2 END
3 QUOTE

4
5 QUOITE 20250724-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Hank Jongen General Manager Centrelink-
6 COMPLAINT-Supplement 22- EXTREME URGENT As my age is 78 years old clearly my right to an
7 Age pension cannot be interfered with.
8 While the Federal Attorney General is the first law officer to deal with legal matters despite my
9 extensive writings never any response, likewise so with Centrelink about the issues I raised.
10 Considering that Centrelink paid me:
11
25-7-2025 Page 5 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 6

1 Total Age Pension payments, since 1 July 2024 to 10 April 2025 $23,002.83
2
3 Service Australia/ Centrelink claims ANNUAL income to be $553.49!
4
5 13 Aug 2024 $3,682.26 (assumed Bereavement payment) V
6
7 Total Age Pension + Bereavement income/payments, since 1 July 2024 to 10 April 2025
8 $23,002.83 + $3,682.26 = $ 26,685.09
9
10 Service Australia/ Centrelink claims ANNUAL income to be $553.49!
11
12 This underlines that regardless how often I requested for a “REVIEW” it still has not eventuated
13 and neither have Service Australia/Centrelink provided the entitled information/details! Why
14 should I and likewise likely many thousands of other Australians unduly suffer while the very
15 culprits are never punished for their abuse of power and/or MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE?
16 END QUOITE 20250724-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Hank Jongen General Manager Centrelink-
17 COMPLAINT-Supplement 22- EXTREME URGENT
18
19 No matter how many persons are standing around a latrine, it still remains to be a latrine and the
20 stank is not any lesser merely to have numerous persons standing around it not able to do
21 something about the stank coming from it.
22
23 I requested at various occasions for a “REVIEW”Any person with some basic common sense
24 would have realized that by Service Australia/Centrelink own record of payments the alleged
25 ANNUAL income of $553.49 was utter and sheer nonsense! It underlines that there might be
26 numerous persons cladded with some position of power but to me lack basic skills to manage
27 what they are responsible for.
28
29 Let us consider something else:
30
31 https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaks-braggs-grand-jury-are-crime
32 Authored by Alan Dershowitz via New York Sun,
33 Thomas Jefferson once quipped that for a criminal statute to be valid, it must be so clear
34 that a reasonable person could understand it if he read it “while running.” A nice image!
35
36 https://www.westernjournal.com/state-supreme-court-overrules-hands-big-win-
37 voters/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=newsletter-
38 CT&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=conservative-tribune
39 State Supreme Court Overrules Itself and Hands a Big Win to Voters
40 QUOTE
41 Chief Justice Paul Newby said the court had overstepped the bounds of its authority to rule
42 on alleged gerrymandering.
43 “The will of the people is achieved when each branch of government performs its
44 assigned duties,” Newby wrote in an opinion. “When, however, one branch grasps a
45 task of another, that action violates separation of powers.”
46 Later in the opinion, Newby noted, “Our constitution expressly assigns the redistricting
47 authority to the General Assembly subject to explicit limitations in the text. Those
48 limitations do not address partisan gerrymandering.”
49 “Policy decisions belong to the legislative branch, not the judiciary,” he added.
50 Ultimately, Newby viewed the decision as reining in judicial overreach and ensuring the
51 branches of government operate as intended.

25-7-2025 Page 6 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 7

1 “This case is not about partisan politics but rather about realigning the proper roles
2 of the judicial and legislative branches,” Newby wrote. “Today we begin to correct
3 course, returning the judiciary to its designated lane.”
4 END QUOTE
5
6 Likewise, a government entity cannot deny a citizen his/her constitutional rights merely because
7 it desires to do so as it must petition a competent court of jurisdiction to hear and determine
8 matters in dispute and after hearing both sides determine what, if any, orders are to be issued.
9
10 There ought to be no doubt that “policy” making is a political issue to have decided by the
11 Parliament and executed by the Government of the Day and not the judiciary.
12
13 HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
14 QUOTE
15 Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are
16 offences committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and
17 the only cases to which Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the
18 criminal law of the state was in conflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in
19 any other cases there would be no necessity to change the venue, and select a jury of
20 citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in modern or in ancient
21 times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by an
22 Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal
23 offences, and I do not at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of
24 the honorable member a state of affairs in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict
25 a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive. It might be that a law passed by
26 the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular state, and so
27 calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every
28 citizen to exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to
29 convict persons of offences against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a
30 very striking opportunity of manifesting its condemnation of a law, and a method
31 which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was originally unjust. I think it is a
32 measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which should be
33 preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and
34 prevent the citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow
35 citizens conferred upon it by this Constitution.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 Meaning that while the courts cannot interfere with the policy making of the
39 Parliament/government it can present it opposition by NULLIFICATION and this is why not
40 uncommon a court dismiss charges even so the offences were proven.
41 For example, a speeding motorist may ordinary be summons to court, but if the speeding
42 eventuated because of an emergency the court may hold that the charge(s) should be dismissed.
43 The same if a person enters a property that ordinary may constitute trespassing and break in and
44 entry, if this however was in a situation to seek to rescue humans and/or animals in case of a fire
45 then the courts would unlikely hold the person guilty.
46
47 However, the High Court of Australia went beyond this and commenced to make “policies”
48 beyond its constitutional provided judicial powers such as where a convicted criminal had
49 unlawfully entered the Commonwealth of Australia and was subsequently deported and then re-
50 entered under false identity and when the government rightfully ordered his deportation the High
51 Court of Australia overruled this on the basis of that he had fathered a child (while unlawfully in
52 the Commonwealth of Australia) and allowed him to stay.
25-7-2025 Page 7 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 8

1 Another example is, where the High Court of Australia overruled the government order to deport
2 2 New Zealand born criminals on the basis that if local Aboriginals were to accept them as to
3 belong to their community then they could stay!
4
5 Both cases were not where some emergency eventuated but where the government rightfully
6 exercised its deportation powers as provided for by the Parliament but the High court of
7 Australia blatantly disregarded the “SEPARATION OF POWERS”. Just, that those orders
8 were never legally valid because the High Court of Australia cannot overrule constitutional
9 limitations within the judiciary is limited to act!
10
11 Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
12 QUOTE
13 Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief
14 Justice Latham, "sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of
15 power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to
16 disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, but
17 such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not
18 valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is
19 invalid ab initio.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
23 27 (17 June 1999)
24 QUOTE
25 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue
26 estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the
27 orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he
28 will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying
29 on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
33 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
34 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that
35 people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to
36 day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance
37 into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it
38 must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary
39 that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured.
40 It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse,
41 and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to
42 a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we
43 contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the
44 citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of
45 interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily
46 government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is
47 the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution.
48 There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has
49 sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
50 popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and
51 I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a
52 free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty
25-7-2025 Page 8 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 9

1 of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as
2 the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine
3 questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should
4 be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all
5 courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not
6 provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the
7 will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution
8 shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court
9 appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a
10 perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It
11 is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the
12 Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose
13 of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and
14 the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
15 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
16 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
17 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
18 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it
19 gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
20 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such
21 a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
22 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
23 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided
24 for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
28 Australasian Convention),
29 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
30 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the
31 administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be
32 beyond the possibility of suspicion;
33 END QUOTE
34
35 And getting back to Service Australia/Centrelink, it may have created all kind of rules,
36 regulations, protocols but in the end, they are all without legal force!
37
38 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no
41 special court, but the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs
42 seeks to do is to prevent the question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
43 [start page 2004]
44 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be
45 invalid.
46 END QUOTE
47
48 What also should be understood is that anyone seeking to somehow enforce the alleged better
49 read and understand the matters that were before the courts in August 2005 and 19 July 2006 in
50 AEC v Schorel-Hlavka, this as the 9 Attorney Generals were all served with what was filed by
51 me in the courts and those issues remain forever applicable against the Commonwealth and the
52 States! Ignorance is no excuse!
53
25-7-2025 Page 9 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 10

1 While a government entity may elect to place matters before a court of competent jurisdiction,
2 however this would be subject to whatever the opponent party may pursue. In my case Service
3 Australia/Centrelink would face everything that was litigated in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka and
4 cannot circumvent this merely because it desires to do so.
5
6 County Civil Court: CIVIL PROCEDURE—Dismissal. It is not apparent from the face
7 of the complaint that the issues raised involve the same parties and facts previously
8 litigated and ruled on, and that dismissal was warranted based on the affirmative defense of
9 res judicata. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Joseph John Libertino v.
10 Mario Vavoulis and Rock Bottom Auto Sales, Inc., No. 13-AP-0017-WS (Fla. 6th Cir. App.
11 Ct. June 15, 2015).
12
13 However, with AEC v Schorel-Hlavka the very basic issues then litigated and upheld now are
14 the core issues of any court being unable to invoke jurisdiction and as such then “res judicata”
15 does apply! Not even the High Court of Australia can ignore/override the res judicata” legal
16 principle!
17
18 As I already exposed that the State of Victoria and likely all States never actually published in
19 the respective State Constitutions as amended (see Section 106 of the constitution “subject to
20 this constitution”) then such purported State constitutions are “ULTRA VIRES” and any
21 purported subsequent amendments approved by State referendum would not be able to validate
22 the unconstitutional State constitutions. If one steals a motor vehicle and make amendments to it
23 such as spraying it in a different vehicle that doesn’t mean one by this obtain legal ownership!
24
25 Without a valid State constitution any purported laws allegedly enacted within the alleged
26 powers of the relevant State parliament remains “ULTRA VIRES”, this then also places the
27 question as to any purported (Subsections 51(xxxvii) and (Subsection 51(xxxviii) “reference of
28 power” from any state to the Commonwealth to be “ULTRA VIRES” where not approved by
29 State referendum!
30
31 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
32 Convention)
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his
35 mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the
36 states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according
37 to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign
38 will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I do not care much
39 about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
40 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains
41 some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either
42 side to attack each other's laws.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 Service Australia/Centrelink indicates (Hank Jongen) that ATO & Centrelink appears to work
46 together. Well, why would anyone in their right mind provide ATO with details/information that
47 could be used/misused by Centrelink? Remember “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”!
48
49 One could apply the same to when a person has to do road side testing for alcohol, drugs, etc. As
50 a person would then be obligated to provide details/information that may be used against the
51 persons and so be self-incriminating evidence! “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”!
52
25-7-2025 Page 10 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 11

1 The issue is not that a person might be deemed to be hiding something merely because of
2 pursuing his/her constitutional rights of “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”!
3 It is an issue that all kinds of systems have been invoked to side step the legal principle of
4 “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”!
5 A clear example is the “infringement system” where States have adapted that some police officer
6 or other so called law enforcement agency/officer can have a purported INFRINGMENT
7 COURT convicting an accused, without the accused person even knowing what the alleged
8 charges is about, or the informant having without the knowledge of the accused altered the
9 details against the accused. Also, that the so-called Infringement Court is in conflict to the legal
10 principle embedded in the constitution that a judicial decision can only be made after the court
11 hears “both sides”!
12 Meaning, Ex-Parte hearings are in general unconstitutional, with the exception where the
13 accused willingly declines to attend to a hearing!
14
15 It should be clear that government entities cannot even impose any fines upon anyone as it can
16 only “propose” to a court of competent jurisdiction to impose a “penalty” if the court finds the
17 accused acted in violation of a law that is constitutionally valid. As such, Centrelink
18 “invalidating” my Pension concession card”, “suspending” my Age Pension payments and
19 subsequently “cancelling” my Age Pension altogether violates the very legal, doctrine of
20 “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”!
21 It is not for me to prove I am “INNOCENT” as now Service Australia/Centrelink appears to
22 unconstitutionally apply, but that the onus was and remains to be for Service
23 Australia/Centrelink to have petitioned a court of competent jurisdiction and file and serve the
24 relevant details (as ruled in August 20025 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka!
25
26 HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
27 Australasian Convention)
28 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
29 And then there is this proviso:
30 Provided that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in the High Court
31 than according to the rules of the common law.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 Hansard 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
35 QUOTE
36 Mr. BARTON: At first I thought it would be necessary to have some provision of this
37 sort, but now I think it is unnecessary. In the clause it is prescribed that [start page 1183]
38 an elector "shall have only one vote"; as to the Senate and as to the House of
39 Representatives I intend to move, on the recommittal of the clause, that the matter shall be
40 turned into a direct prohibition; that is, that "no elector shall vote more than once." A
41 breach will be a Statutory misdemeanor, and the offender can be punished, this being an
42 Imperial Statute, in the same way as he would be for a breach of any other Imperial Statute
43 applying to the colonies, such as the merchant shipping laws. Lest there should be any
44 doubt in connection with the giving of a vote, when there is a distinct law against it, there
45 is a passage in Russell on "Crimes," which the legal members of the Convention will be
46 satisfied with. It is in the fifth edition, page 192:
47 Where an offence is not so at common law, but made an offence by Act of Parliament, an
48 indictment will lie where there is a substantive prohibitory clause in such Statute, though
49 there be afterward a particular provision and a particular remedy given. Thus, an
50 unqualified person may be indicted for acting as an attorney contrary to the 6 and 7 Vict.,
51 c. 73, a. 2, although sec. 35 and sec. 36 enact that in case any person shall so act he shall be

25-7-2025 Page 11 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 12

1 incapable of recovering his fees, and such offence shall be deemed a contempt of court,
2 and punishable accordingly.
3 That is to say, although the Statute provides a distinct means of punishment, yet if by the
4 disregard of the prohibition a misdemeanor is committed, a court can convict the offender
5 of that misdemeanor and may fine or imprison him. The passage continues:
6 And it is stated as an established principle that when a new offence is created by an Act of
7 Parliament and a penalty is annexed to it by a separate and substantive clause, it is not
8 necessary for the prosecutor to sue for the penalty, but he may proceed on the prior clause
9 on the ground of its being a misdemeanor; and wherever a Statute forbids the doing of a
10 thing, the doing of it wilfully, although without any corrupt motive, is indictable.
11 Wherever the Statute, as I intend to ask the House to make it in this case, says that no
12 elector shall vote more than once, there is a distinct prohibition, and voting more than once
13 wilfully will be a crime and misdemeanor, and the courts will be able to punish by fine or
14 imprisonment. They will have the distinct power. There is in all of these colonies an
15 electoral law, and power to alter it, until Parliament otherwise provides, and if there are not
16 distinct provisions for punishment for such offences, it is still in the power of the State law
17 to subject the offenders to such punishment as it prescribes. But even if that were not done,
18 the case is distinctly met by the Statutory prohibition, which will be imposed by the form
19 in which we propose to put it, and, I think, my hon. friend will agree that his new clause
20 will not be necessary.
21 Mr. ISAACS: I suppose you propose to put in words to make it a misdemeanor.
22 Mr. BARTON: If necessary; but where the statute expressly forbids it is a misdemeanor
23 without further words.
24 Dr. QUICK: Without any corrupt motive is it indictable?
25 Mr. BARTON: Although there may be no corruption in the doing of the act, if it is done
26 intentionally it is indictable.
27 Mr. HIGGINS: What words do you propose to put in?
28 Mr. BARTON: I propose to alter the words "each elector shall have only one vote" to "no
29 elector shall vote more than once," and that being a distinct statutory prohibition will meet
30 the case.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
34 QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
35 That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position
36 which Mr. Barton has described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the
37 common law of England. This Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to
38 be handed over not to a Convention similar to this, not to a small select body of
39 legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or rejection. It is
40 the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it,
41 and it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people,
42 who have to understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for
43 weal or woe during the whole time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot
44 have on the platform, when this Constitution is commended to the people, lawyers on
45 both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be appreciated by the
46 people.
47 END QUOTE
48
49 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
50 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
51 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able
52 to understand.
25-7-2025 Page 12 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 13

1 END QUOTE
2 .
3 Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
4 QUOTE
5 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting
6 Committee will not fail to exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which
7 they do not understand, and that they will put in words which can be understood by
8 persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
12 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
13 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 So much more to add but it should be clear that if Service Australia/Centrelink lacks any basic
17 understanding how to ensure that rules, regulations, protocols, etc, are within the confinements
18 of the legal principles embedded in the constitution then with the lack of valid state constitutions
19 (as pretended State constitution is no constitution at all, and so no judiciary in that regard either)
20 it enables me without restraint also to invoke my “common law” rights for compensation as I
21 have clearly set out in past writings to the federal Attorney General, Service Australia/Centrelink
22 and in that regard the longer Service Australia/Centrelink protracts this denial of my
23 constitutional and other legal rights the more the common law compensation increases.
24
25 Obviously, if Service Australia/Centrelink had any reliable evidence against me that may have
26 indicated that I may have concealed relevant details to unlawfully achieve monies not entitled
27 upon then well it could pursue litigation, subject to any legal objection I may have, but it appears
28 to me to be very clear that Service Australia/Centrelink has no such details/information and
29 really seeks to blackmail/terrorise me to perhaps provide details/information it may or may not
30 be able to use against me.
31 I understand that is what Service Australia/Centrelink modus operandi has been for a long time
32 and generally victims will concede, often unable to resit the aggressive conduct by Service
33 Australia/Centrelink, however I will stand my ground. By this, others may be encouraged to also
34 pursue JUSTICE!
35 The Commonwealth put in place its constitutional powers to provide for Age Pensions and yet
36 we now have that Service Australia/Centrelink misuses/abuse these powers rather than to accept
37 a person is “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”! In the process has inflicted
38 considerable harm upon me in various ways (and so also while during my recent stay in a
39 hospital I was given the understanding I could die any moment) and well cutting me of my Age
40 pension payments to prevent me by this also to use the Age Pension payment to purchase food,
41 pay for medical care, pay for medication, pay for ordinary household expenses, etc, in itself
42 violates governments doctrine to provide monies for basic living expenses! If Service
43 Australia/Centrelink really had any reliable “evidence” against me I view it would have litigated
44 long ago against me, and not having done so may underline it uses terrorism/extortion instead!
45
46 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
47
48 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
49 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

50 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

51 (Our name is our motto!)
25-7-2025 Page 13 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati