20190306-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 34-$10,000 Family Violence-Etc

z3
ISSUE: 20190306- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-
Supplement 34- $10,000 family violence-etc
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, do you agree with Bill Shorten the opposition leader that $10,000 should be given to
women who have to flee their homes due to domestic violence?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, as a (male) victim of domestic violence I am well aware of
the horrendous issues associated with it but I for one cannot accept that the stealing of monies
from the banks to give to ALLEGED domestic violence victims is going to resolve it, instead
we might get far more cases reported.
* Would that not be great to have more speaking out?
**#** Regretfully it will be hoax cases rather than real cases. Let me give you an example of a
case I assisted in I will use assumed names.
I as a constitutionalist and Professional Advocate was assisting some members of the
BLACKSHIRTS (in Melbourne) albeit free of charge with certain Family Court of Australia
issues. Over the decades I discovered many judges to not even training in child care and so not
understanding the evidence before the court. A Judge using a crystal ball prediction in direct
conflict to the evidence before the court to deny the husband custody, etc.
I will now refer to a factual case;
I will refer to the husband in the example John and the wife as Anna. They were actually cousins
but married in Iran (with the Dowry system) they moved to Australia. John was conducting an
import business and while they lived in Melbourne, he his wife and 3 children temporary moved
to the UK (United Kingdom) for business.
Then one day the wife suddenly with the 3 children moved back to Australia and the next day
with her lawyers were in the Family Court of Australia. The wife with her eye injury she could
show of in court claimed that John had bashed her. John had taken the credit card of her. John
had taken the plane tickets of her and so she had to borrow money from her father to pay for
plane tickets to get back to Australia, etc, etc. John was still in England and so the ex parte
proceedings clearly denied him any opportunity to defend himself. Finally when John was back
in Australia it was too late as Family court of Australia had already issued court orders. Then
Anna claimed John had broken into her place and stolen her jewelry, etc. and she claimed this
also against an insurance company, who paid her out. And Anna some years later again now
with a different insurance company claimed John had robbed her and again the insurance
company paid her out. And well the police invaded again Johns work to look for the stolen
jewelry which they never located. This caused John unable to return to his work as he was
branded a thief. Anna also went to court that John had robbed the monies of the children bank
account. Albeit John had lawyers he wasn’t getting anywhere. John then heard about the
BLACKSHIRT a group of men who all claimed to have been the real victims of their wives,
rather than the wives having been the victim.
John was recommended to ask my assistance as I would not charge and so John did.
p1 6-3-2019 © 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
After John made known his version of events I decided to contact the police in the UK and
requested them to explain their findings. The UK police confirmed that they had attended to a
violent dispute between a man and a woman in a bedroom and the woman had an eye injury and
they then took her home but they had to wake up her husband as he with the children were
asleep at home.
Point 1: The husband clearly was not the offender but the wife’s lover was.
John showed me his bank records and that Anna just prior to leaving the UK to Australia had
withdrawn monies from the business account.
Point 2: Anna had stolen the monies from the business account to pay for tickets to return to
Australia. Not that her father having provided monies.
John provided me with the bankcard statements which showed Anna had commenced to
purchase clothing at Katies, gym, etc immediately after arrival in Melbourne while John was still
in the UK.
Point 3: John clearly had not taken the credit card of Anna.
John also provided me with documentation from KLM that Anna upon her return to Melbourne
had cashed in the flight tickets she had claimed to the Family court of Australia John had taken
of her at the same time with allegedly taking the credit card from her.
Point 4: With Anna cashing in the flight tickets while John was still in the UK then clearly that
was also a lie, indeed perjury in her affidavit, etc. She simply had set this up elaborately to blame
John
Years later the Victorian Police contacted John that someone had found a suitcase full with his
personal documents at a certain address next to a rubbish bin.
Point 5: Anna had previously denied having John’s personal documents but the suitcase years
later found was outside her residence!
As a former insurance consultant I decided to check in to the alleged theft of the jewelry as it
seemed strange to me that a person could twice steal the identical jewelry. After the now ex-wife
Anna died of cancer the jewelry were located in a safety deposit box with the bank.
Point 6: Anna had fabricated the theft of the jewelry and it was so easy that she did it again.
As for the theft of monies from the children’s bank account John showed documentation that on
the day of the alleged withdrawals he in fact was in Iran. I contacted the bank and well they
established that it were fraudulent signatures and demanded that Anna repaid the monies. It had
been Anna’s father who had been the imposter pretending to be John and who in fact had signed
for the withdrawals.
Point7: Anna had once again successfully blamed John who was innocent of any wrongdoing but
the Family court of Australia simply do not provide a litigation system based upon the truth.
Indeed his own lawyers failed miserably to assist John.
After the Family Court of Australia had made its decision as to property settlement Anna
instituted litigation in Iran for the dowry. John consulted a former judge of the Family Court of
Australia who made clear I was wrong that the Family court of Australia should not have made
orders as to property settlement without considering the dowry issue.
Point 8: Bell J subsequently made clear that the dowry issue should have been an issue in regard
of any property litigation as John was entitled to the benefit of the dowry agreement.

I will not go into numerous other details save to say that this so called victim of domestic
violence was not at all as such.
Well Bill Shorten is eager (for what I assume election purposes) to rob the banks to give their
monies away, even so unconstitutionally.
The case of John and Anna is not a once of as those who were joining the BLACKSHIRT were
all subjected to similar deceptive litigation where judges were not interested in dealing with the
truth as the wives were funded by legal aid and those lawyers would present anything to the court
to succeed for their clients and the hell with the truth. As with John they often were burned by
their own lawyers (much like Informer 3838-Lawyer X Nicola Gobbo was going about against
her own clients)
Here you had John totally innocent of any wrong doing but once the Family Court of Australia
made its initial ex parte orders then forget about what is the truth. You have hope in hell to get
justice.
* What kind of domestic violence were you subjected to?

**#** It actually were the children who reported the horrible experiences that they saw their
mother putting a knife to their fathers throat to force him to stay the night.
* Did you retaliate?
**#** Absolutely not, because the moment a man does he is the abuser, never mind what the
wife might have done prior to that.
To me Bill Shorten is a creep who with other of his kind are always blaming men whereas far too
often it are the females who start the domestic violence. I oppose violence and will not condone
it but I can UNDERSTAND that there are men who simply no longer can stand it and then well
snap. As long as the politicians continue to blame men only for family violence it is not going to
resolve it a bit rather it will likely cause more harm than good.
I will use another example:

I was a single parent and took my daughter to a pre-school. There I overheard a woman stating to
other women that she and her husband had financial difficulties with their business. Some of the
women then urged her to go to the Family court of Australia and fabricate her husband was
violent so then the court would grand her half of the business and her husband would have to
pay her out as well as pay outstanding debt, while she could get herself a boyfriend. When the
complaining woman objected that she loved her husband and he never was violent the women
made clear love had nothing to do with it rather her financial situation, etc.
*.Oh boy, this is really a scam.
**#** And well Bill shorten is eager to rob the banks to pay $10,000 for women like that.
*. What about men like you who were the victims of domestic violence?
**#** Just consider how often Bill Shorten talks about male victims!
*.Is that the same guy who was alleged to have sexual abused or raped a young female?
**#** I didn’t follow what eventuated but if he did then perhaps his guilt feeling may see him to
pursue this line of conduct. After all George Pell purported to look after victims of sexual abuse
and had his kind of Melbourne Response which I understand was under his control. Well he is
now convicted of serious charges and this may underline that his Melbourne Response might
have been no more but to ensure he could control those who claimed to be his victims, just that
the one who didn’t make a claim for financial compensation at the time suddenly was outside the
control of the Melbourne Response and so resulted to a conviction on all charges.
*.You indicated that it would be stealing from the banks. Why that?
**#** As the Framers of the Constitution made clear all should be taxed equally albeit on a
sliding scale. This means you cannot put a special tax onto the banks for domestic violence. This
is it in a nut shell. He is supposed to be a constitutionalist as any Minister is to b e a
constitutional advisor to the Governor-General. Well he was at times a Minister and yet doesn’t
even appear to have the basic understanding/comprehension what is constitutionally applicable.
In my view if by now after all those years he still cannot get it then he hardly can be an
alternative Prime Minister.
HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
The resolutions conclude:
An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.
What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE
So forget about a Shorten government as it is a Governor-Generals government. And if Bill

Shorten had not learned over the years that he is to be a CONSTITUTIONAL ADVISOR as a
Minister then I view he is incompetent to ever become a Prime Minister.
.
The dynamics of being a leader in a federal government is to know what is to be federal issues
and what is to be state issues. So we get his utter and sheer nonsense about wages.

QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-
We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That
would be an absolute impossibility in the different states.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place
where the contract was made.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they
are intimately allied to this question.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Nothing should be too easy. We have the power to alter the Constitution, but it is a
power that can only be exercised with great difficulty.
END QUOTE
As I often wrote about it in the past any purported reference of state legislative powers to the
Commonwealth can only be valid if it is approved by Section 123 State referendum. Therefore
any purported legislation to refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth is beyond the State
legislative powers. As French J (later French CJ of the High Court of Australia) made clear
Ss51(xxxvii) is no more but a provision to for the Commonwealth to accept legislative powers
from a state but it is not something that allowed the State to refer legislative powers as that is
elsewhere to be found. Hence, any so called national wage policy is utter and sheer nonsense.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE
And as to taxing the banks to pay for the $10,000 to pay for alleged domestic violence incidents:

QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE

Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
END QUOTE
In my view Bill Shorten is brain dead because even when he was in the Government as a
Minister he to me seemed not to grasp that the legal principles embedded in the constitution
requires that any appropriation and Taxation Bill be presented to the Parliament to allow for
twice presentation to the Senate with an interval not less than 3 months and then if the Bills do
not pass for a DOUBLE DISDSOLUTION. As such you can say at least 6 months before the
new financial year the Appropriation and taxation Bills need to be placed before the Parliament,
not in May less than 2 months before the new financial year commences.
Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?
Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!
Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the
expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services and powers
given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States to the Commonwealth.
Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?
Mr. BARTON: Yes.

END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the
funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
[start page 1773]
END QUOTE
It should be clear that we lack leadership of any Governor-General to ensure that the Parliament
doesn’t burden citizens with unconstitutional; legislative provisions. Moreover that we lack a
Governor-General leadership to reject any Bill which defies the legal principles embedded in the
constitution.
So to say the inmates are running the asylum.

.
This nonsense about not for profit is unconstitutional as no one can be outside the tax system.
Any business or other entity claiming to do welfare work, etc, can always claim for deductions
associated with it if so provided for by legislation but not otherwise.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/big-drama-in-little-italy-20130426-2ikng.html
Big drama in little Italy
QUOTE
The Lygon Street precinct, home of Italian culture in Melbourne.Credit:Pat Scala
With the dignitaries who are the mainstays of his board, including former
governor Sir James Gobbo and former Supreme Court judge Bernard Bongiorno,
Martini-Piovano has spent more than $145million of taxpayer funds on Italo-
Australian welfare in the past 20 years.
But for some in Melbourne's Italian-Australian community, that door on Faraday

Street has come to symbolise their concerns.
CoAsIt board member Giancarlo Martini-Piovano.
How the employee of a community-run charity came to occupy a private penthouse atop
the organisation's headquarters is one of many questions about CoAsIt that, until now, have
been quietly canvassed within the Italian community.
For the first time, such discussions are being aired more widely, the result of a bitter
dispute over the management of CoAsIt, and mounting criticism that it is losing its way
and the trust of the community it is meant to serve.
At stake is the future of millions of dollars, the nurturing of Italian culture, some big
reputations, and CoAsIt itself.
This is no minor community spat. Of Victorians born overseas, Italians are the single
largest group after those from Britain; their impact on the shape, taste and smell of
Melbourne, in particular, is profound. CoAsIt is the umbrella body for that community; its
Carlton properties have been dubbed the "jewels" of Italian Melbourne by Franco Vaccari,
whose mother co-founded CoAsIt in 1967.
CoAsIt board member Rhonda Barro.Credit:James Davies
Until last year, it was widely believed across the community that these "jewels" – which
include two properties in Drummond Street, three on Faraday Street and two on University
Street – belonged to CoAsIt. In fact, most of the titles belong to a little known and secretive
parallel organisation called the Italian Services Institute (ISI), run by a coterie of CoAsIt
elders, including Martini-Piovano, Gobbo and Bongiorno, lawyers Vince Volpe and
Guiseppe Sala, and architect Vito Cassisi.
As Fairfax reveals today, CoAsIt elders have funnelled almost $17million in cash, profit-
making welfare activities, rent and property improvements into ISI, an organisation whose
principal purpose for many years – according to annual financial reports – was to provide
"social facilities" for its 11 members. The precise nature of the "social facilities" is not
clear; neither CoAsIt nor ISI leaders will elaborate.
Bernard Bongiorno.

The little-known ISI is separate from CoAsIt but most of its committee members also sit on
the CoAsIt board. It is now in control of $12million in cash reserves and property without a
clear plan for its use.
CoAsIt was established to care for the thousands of often poor post-World War II
immigrants who arrived here without English. The integration of younger generations with
the wider community raises questions about the charity's future role and, therefore, about
what is to be done with millions of dollars in cash and property squirrelled away by ISI.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
The row over CoAsIt is, in part, the continuation of decades of tension among Italian community leaders.
Already-established Italo-Australians founded CoAsIt to care for post-World War II migrants. The
established Italian migrants came to Australia in small numbers from the late 1800s. Among them was
Gualtiero Vaccari, who built a small empire importing products such as oil, fabric and cars from the old
country.
Other early arrivals included the family of Gobbo, the former Supreme Court judge and Liberal-appointed
Victorian governor. He was born in Melbourne in 1931. Vaccari's charitable bequests were used to establish
CoAsIt. His wife, Elda, became its first president.
From its earliest days CoAsIt faced criticism from younger community activists, first for the Catholic
Church-influenced handout mentality under Elda Vaccari, and then for the patrician-style of the men who
came to dominate the organisation since they replaced her in the 1970s.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
With 45,000 people of Italian descent in Victoria over 65, the community is the largest ethnic group within
the state's elderly cohort. Yet leaders of some senior citizens and social groups have little idea what CoAsIt is
doing. "A lot of money is given to CoAsIt from the government to help people in need – old people and
seniors – but what they do with it I have no idea," says Antonio Telera, the head of the Dromana Italian
Seniors Social Club. "It's time [someone] investigates what CoAsIt is doing."
Italcare is a profit-making aged care business established by CoAsIt but transferred to ISI in 2010. It was
transferred, it appears, for nothing. CoAsIt's 2011 annual report notes case management programs for aged
Italians were at capacity. "Funding constraints" meant others seeking help would have to wait at least a year.
Such comments have riled critics who say that while elderly Italians are struggling without care, Italcare
profits are being used to build up multimillion-dollar cash reserves for ISI. An analysis by Fairfax Media
shows that Italcare is highly profitable, generating average annual profits of more than 30 per cent over the
past three years, including through government-funded aged care services such as the Home and Community
Care program.
The rules for such programs do not specifically preclude agencies from making profits. But such profit levels
are unusual in the sector.
A key question for ISI and CoAsIt centres on the stockpiling of money. ISI now has millions of dollars in
cash and property, but what does it plan to do with it?
In a written statement to Fairfax Media in December, CoAsIt president Rhonda Barro and chief executive
Martini-Piovano said money was donated to ISI for "aged care accommodation" and "in accordance with the
express powers of CoAsIt's constitution". The same statement later pointed to the increasing need for at-home
care.
As far as Fairfax Media is aware, the statement is the first public explanation for the transfer of funds to ISI.
Yet, after 20 years of ISI's existence, no accommodation has been built nor plans finalised for an aged care
centre.
END QUOTE

What appears to me is that not just Nicola Gobbo was into rot but that her uncle Sir Gobbo
appears to me to be involved in a rot, that despite as I understand it there was an influx of $145
million dollars from taxpayers not a single accommodation centre was built for aging Italians.
What I view is needed is to scrap the not-for-profit system and to ensure that any organization, in
particular those claiming to provide welfare services are held accountable to prove this.
*. Are other reporting home-care issues?
**#** What about The Age 6 March 2019 on the front page Its disgusting: Anger over aged
home-care package where Mr Roxburg stated that a $100 toilet frame would have costed about
$600. As such it appears to me to be an elaborate scam/fraud. That is why it should be clamped
down and let them prove what actually was spend towards assisting the elderly and not allowing
any claims that the directors funded to buy for themselves villas etc. Here we have Bill Shorten
dancing to the tunes of the Greens about aliens rather than to consider that elderly Australians
should have his priority. If he and the Greens want to do something about the environment then
cut out the travel by plane because that alone is a carbon footprint. Cut out using mobiles, cars
and restore paper bags at shopping center’s. I have for more than 60 years, since a teenager,
actually before that been recycling without claiming to be a Green. It is part of my modus
operandi since I was a child. I give you an example how I recycle that unlikely anyone else ever
did. I obtained permission from a council to have the white broken road signs that cars damage.
OK I had them stored for more than 20 years but now decided to cut them into the size of a
bricks. Great to store anything on it as it doesn’t rot. Now that is recycling with a benefit and it
cost nothing. And this is how through my life I have been recycling items and surely do not need
some bloke who is wasting his space with hot air to tell me how to look after the environment.
*.Can I ask are you making a political speech to be a candidate in the coming election?
**#** I have no intention to waste my monies on any deposit that I hold is unconstitutional in
any event. And I have no intention to vote in the coming federal election either. As I defeated the
Commonwealth on 19 July 2006 in both appeals on FAILING TO VOTE on constitutional
ground then as laws are not just against me but for all then I view no one can be compelled to
compulsory vote.
*.Is this meaning you never vote?
**#** I only vote if I deem there is a worthy candidate to vote for. I am not against voting but
against unconstitutional compulsory voting.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
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!)


20190306-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 34-$10,000 Family Violence-Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

20190306-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 34-$10,000 Family Violence-Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

z3

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

p1 6-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p2 6-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

* What kind of domestic violence were you subjected to?

I will use another example:

HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

The resolutions conclude:

So forget about a Shorten government as it is a Governor-Generals government. And if Bill

HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p4 6-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.

p5 6-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?

Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!

Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?

Mr. BARTON: Yes.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

[start page 1773]

So to say the inmates are running the asylum.

The Lygon Street precinct, home of Italian culture in Melbourne.Credit:Pat Scala

But for some in Melbourne's Italian-Australian community, that door on Faraday

CoAsIt board member Giancarlo Martini-Piovano.

CoAsIt board member Rhonda Barro.Credit:James Davies

p7 6-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Big drama in little Italy

Big drama in little Italy

p8 6-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p9 6-3-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like