z3

ISSUE: 20190321- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-
Supplement 38-The Lord’s Prayer

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

* Gerrit, Is this the Fiona Patten (Member of the Victorian Parliament) who formally was of the
Sex Party who seeks to have abolished the Lord’s Prayer?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I understand she is. I did briefly talk to her while we were both
a candidate in a state election. My view is that she was approachable and showed no arrogance.
* What is your view about getting rid of the Lord’s Prayer?
**#** Let me put it in brief;
Politicians should be informed about religious issues such as the Lord’s Prayer.

Those who are interested to read about the issue of using a Lord’s Prayer in Parliament, and other
religious issued can download the document from my blog!

This is a 100 pages set out about oaths and other religious issues, etc. Become informed by
reading it.

I often have written about religious issues, the Lord’s Prayer and educational funding and
this 100 page 20170702-Religious issues, etc ought to give you some indication what it is
about. See also my 9-3-2018 extensive writings about it all.

The document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/402501866/20170702-Religious-Issues-Etc

20170702-Religious issues, etc----

See also:
Does Bill Shorten supposing being an alternative Prime Minister really understand what
education funding is permitted and what not when it comes to secular and religious
education facilities?

This document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/373371942/20180309-g-h-Schorel-hlavka-o-w-b-to-Mr-
Malcolm-Turnbull-Re-Education-Funding-Secular-religious-Etc

* That is a lot to read, about 162 pages in total.

**#** The problem with politicians and judges is that they want everything short and sweet and
never mind the Officer of the Court using this to railroad an opponent’s case. We need the
judiciary as well as the politicians to take their time to understand and comprehend matters
p1 21-3-2019 © 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
appropriately. We now have the New Zealand Prime Minister calling for a worldwide action
against white supremacist, and by this in my view this is a very stupid conduct because Antifa
and others will use this to cause more problems and then white supremacist will further escalate
their actions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47634132
Christchurch shootings: Jacinda Ardern calls for global anti-racism fight
I on 20-3-2019 posted my response
QUOTE
How terrible is the mass killing and here we have a Prime Minister who seems to me to
aggravate the issues. Those extremist are killing because of the ongoing onslaught already
existing while the left such as Antifa can pursue violence unchecked. We do not need to
escalate this problem. Extremist of whatever group they may belong to are acting because
of how certain sections of the community I pushing them more and more. what is needed is
everyone to back off and accept religion is a personal issue and not seek to dominate others
with it. the last thing we need is an escalation of problems by politicians who may just seek
to enlist citizens for their personal political cause then t try to resolve it. No one at least in
my view, has the right to take the life f another human being and that is the message that
should go out!
END QUOTE

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47593693?xtor=ES-208[21670][20190320]-
[bbcnews_nzvictims_newsworld_nzvictims]
Christchurch mosque shootings victims: The people killed as they prayed
QUOTE
Let us remember he victims as human beings and not what their particular religious customs
were. They were ordinary human beings to us while special human beings to their family,
friends and colleagues. Stop the religious divide and let us all live in peace regardless of what
if any religious views another person might hold.
Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
"religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious tests
hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world."
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
That is what our Framers of the Constitution (Australia) held and we do better to not only
accept this doctrine but also to live accordingly.
Do not refer to having an Atheist friend but having a friend, who happens to be an Atheist.
Do not refer to having Jewish friend but a friend, who happen to be Jewish.
Do not refer o having a Muslim friend but a friend, who happen to be a Muslim.
As such do not classify a person as a friend using his/her religious practices/beliefs but see the
person as a friend regardless of what, if any, religious practice this person may be involved in.
Stop the rot about showing down the throat special religions issue and accept we are in the
first place human being and no one has the right to deny another human being his/her right to
life.
p2 21-3-2019 © 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
END QUOTE

Now we have too many issues about religion and that is what we need to get rid of. I can
understand that Members of Parliament who are atheist or have a religion which doesn’t include
the Lord’s Prayer might be uncomfortable when they are basically subjected to this kind of
religious modus operandi. As such if this is what Fiona Patten is on about then I for one can
agree with her views.

* What about this is some Christian country?

**#** I have written extensively about this in my published books and so I am not going to delve
in this now, safe to say that Afghans were residing here before federation, even a train maned
after them. They had a Mosque in Adelaide before federation, etc.

HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-
If under a Constitution in which no such words as these appear such legislation has been carried, what
further danger will arise from inserting the words in our Constitution? I do not see, speaking in
ordinary language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is
necessarily a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of
Almighty God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews,
Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and are not necessarily applicable
only to Christians.
END QUOTE

* How would you resolve the issue?

**#** Well, they could hold a religious ceremony that combines all religions, so that no religion
is offended and Atheist can refrain from attending. Obviously such a ceremony should be outside
the Parliament. Another way is to hold a ceremony that is not religious.
While members of parliament are not ordinary employed as they only become employed if they
are a Minister of the Crown but nevertheless presuming ordinary workplace conditions any
religious issues should be avoided.
*. So you do not view this as a religious persecution against Christians?
**#** If you read my extensive set out also quoting authorities, etc, you will find I am neutral in
that regard. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I really cannot afford to take sides because that could
be seen as to undermine my credibility to explain constitutional matters.

When the commonwealth charged me FOR FAILING TO VOTE I ended appealing both
convictions and I successfully raised (and so unchallenged by any of the Attorney-Generals who
were served with a Section 78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

ADDRESS TO THE COURT

County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
I take the position that Subsection 245(14) of the Constitution is not and cannot be regarded
to limit the right of a objection to be only a (theistic belief ) “religious objection” but includes
also any secular belief objection.

If Subsection 245(14) was limited to being “theistic belief” then it would be unconstitutional.

QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
p3 21-3-2019 © 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
 C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
T01567737 & Q01897630
AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)
offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.

Madam,
As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate
that while using the “religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of the
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an
objection only to an “theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in fact it also includes
any secular belief based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses
as grounds for an “objection”. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the
Commonwealth of Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only “theistic belief”
based “religious objections”. Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or
philosophical source of “religious objection” have a valid objection.
Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state his/her
religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious objection” as the
mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a
“religious objection”. Therefore, the wording “religious objection” is to be taken as
“objection” without the word “religion” having any special meaning in that regard.
If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA

END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006

QUOTE 7-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 7-6-2006

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 7-6-2006
C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
T01567737 & Q01897630
AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Re; Charges, etc
Madam,
With proceedings due next month, I view it would be more appropriate if you were to
make some effort as to communicate with myself regarding matters relating to the charges and
indeed the legal justification of them. After all, the Commonwealth Director of Public
Prosecutions may be litigating against many people allegedly failing to vote, besides myself,
and it may be born out by my material that none of such litigation could be constitutionally
valid. In my view, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions must consider ALL
RELEVANT MATERIAL as to ensure it is not pursuing vexatious charges.
I assume that while you are a lawyer, more then likely you are not a “constitutionalist”, and
as such may lack the experiences and competence to understand and comprehend the material
I am relying upon, and for this you may do better to perhaps seek to consult a
p4 21-3-2019 © 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
 “constitutionalist” who is appropriately trained in these matters. After all, if a
“constitutionalist” were to conclude that indeed I am on the right track that the charges have
no constitutional validity then you could surely save the Courts time to hear and determine
vexatious charges or even to try to attempt to do so.
Albeit, I am still working on the DRAFT version of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT, it
nevertheless is already comprehensive and would indicate to a “constitutionalist” that the
charges are ill conceived and without any constitutional bases to proceed with, and as such I
am willing to provide an electronic copy to you of the DRAFT, albeit not completed, version
so you may perhaps seek advise of a “constitutionalist”.

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA

END QUOTE 7-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 7-6-2006
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT

I raised in my submissions also

QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
As shown below in greater extend the question of the Defendants religion itself would be an
invasion as to his rights. Further, there is no requirement to state any particular religion as the
matter in U.S. Supreme Court.

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth.

WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED
STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970

1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra,
and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who
in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual
analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training
and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized
worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that
provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by
exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief
while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with
that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from
a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the
longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than
nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who
have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.

And;

http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml

p5 21-3-2019 © 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
 Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious
exemption letter and support materials provided in the following link:

Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation

Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and
practices of a recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member.
However, the law does not require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing
your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged.

And
Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than
required by law. You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or
daycare. The law allows you to submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet
the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to describe your
religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
And
Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely
unfamiliar with the law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by
deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are betting on the fact that you don't know
your rights.

What appears to be clear is that a “religious objection” is not qualified to a specific religion
and neither can be as this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it
be associated with any particular religion as this would also interfere with Section 116 of the
Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the “religious objection” Subsection
245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious
person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH
v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the “religious
objection” applies as much to non religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone
objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is entitled to do so regardless of having
any specific religion mentioned.
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT

The then Attorney-General fort the State of Victoria Robert Hulls made clear that the State of
Victoria would abide by the courts decision. As such where I succeeded in both appeals and so
not being compelled to vote then where none of the Attorney-Generals, including the
Commonwealth, didn’t challenge my extensive submissions then they are bound by that decision
by the court upholding unchallenged my appeals.
*. So, I assume that the Parliament is bound by the decision when it comes to its legislative
powers but does this apply to the Parliament itself as an internal rule?
**#** The Parliament is a sovereign entity and sets its own internal rules. Hence Fiona Patten as
I assume is seeking to change the internal rules for the Parliament to avoid people being forced to
attend some Lord’s Prayer ceremony that may offend them.
*.Cant they just leave for the time?
**#** I see no justification for this. Hold the ceremony wherever else but not in the Parliament
itself where it may offend others. As I understand it the Lord’s Prayer is not a matter that all
religious prescribe to.

p6 21-3-2019 © 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
*. What about an oath on the bible?
**#** I one had a Dutch language book in my hand and made an oath on this in an Australian
Court and the trial judge accepted this was my right. This, as for all the court is concerned about
is that the person who makes an oath is bound by it as much as a person does who makes an
Affirmation and it is totally irrelevant of the book contains blank pages or some religious
scriptures in whatever language.

OMYCHUND v BARKER (1744) Chancery 1 Atk, 21; Willes 538; 1 Wils K>B> 84; 26 E. R. 15
QUOTE PARKER C.B.
It is plain that the policy of all countries, s are to be administered to all persons according to their own
opinion, and as it most effects their conscience, and laying the hand was originally borrowed from the
Pagans.
It is said by the defendant’s counsel, that no new oath can be imposed without an Act of Parliament, and for
this purpose several cases were cited.
My answer is: This is no new oath…
END QUOTE
And
OMYCHUND v BARKER (1744) Chancery 1 Atk, 21; Willes 538; 1 Wils K>B> 84; 26 E. R. 15
QUOTE Willis C.J.
There can be no evidence admitted without oath, it would be absurd for him to swear according to the
Christian oath, which he does not believe; and therefore, out of necessity, he must be allowed to swear
according to his own notion an oath…
I cannot say I lay a great stress upon the authors which give am account of the Gentoo religion, because it
must depend upon their veracity and private judgment; but I found my opinion upon the certificate which
says, the Gentoos believe in a God as the Creator of the universe, and that he is rewarder of those who do
well, and an avenger of those who do ill
END QUOTE
And
OMYCHUND v BARKER (1744) Chancery 1 Atk, 21; Willes 538; 1 Wils K>B> 84; 26 E. R. 15
QUOTE Lee C.J.
I agree entirely with the opinions of Lord Chief Baron Parker and Lord Chief Willes; that where it is returned
by the certificate the witness is of a religion, it is sufficient; for the foundation of all religion is the belief in
god. Through difficult to have a distinct idea of an infinite and incomprehensible Being as god is; yet
mankind may have a relative idea of the being of a God, as dependent creatures upon Him.An oath is a
religious function that mankind have universally established…
END QUOTE
And
OMYCHUND v BARKER (1744) Chancery 1 Atk, 21; Willes 538; 1 Wils K>B> 84; 26 E. R. 15
QUOTE LORD Hardwickle L.C.
Suppose a Heathen, not an alien enemy, should bring an action at common law, and the defendant should
bring for an injunction, would anybody say that the plaintiff at law should not be admitted to put in an answer
according to his own form of an oath? If otherwise, the injunction must be perpetual, and this would manifest
denial of justice…
This falls in exactly with what Lord Strair, Puffendorf, etc say, that it has been the wisdom of all nations to
administer such oaths, as are agreeable to the notion of the person taking, and does not at all effect the
conscience of the person administering, nor does it in any respect adopt such religion: it is not near so much a
breaking in upon the rule of law, as admitting a person to be an evidence in his own cause……
Upon the special circumstances of this case, I concur in opinion with my Lords the Judges, that the
depositions of those witnesses ought to be read as evidence in this cause, and do not therefore order that the
objection be overruled, and the depositions read.
END QUOTE
See also; Phipson 482, 483; Nokes 392 as to various modes to administer oaths to non-Christians.
R. v. Moore (1892) 61 L.J.M.C. 80 (C.C.R.), Nash v Ali Khan (1892) 8 T.L.R. 444 (C.A.), R.
v.Clark[1962] 1 W.L.R. 180 (C.C.A.)

R. v Butterwasser Court of Appeal 1947 , 1K.B. 4; 63 T.L.R., 463; 111 J.P. 527; 91 S.J. 586; 32
Cr. App. R. 81; [1947] 2 All E.R. 415
QUOTE
There is no obligation on a court to hear evidence after verdict. One small point which shows the distinction
between evidence after the verdict and evidence before the verdict is the different oath which use to be
p7 21-3-2019 © 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
 administered to the witness. The form of the oath which was formerly administered to the witnesses during
the trial is well known; The evidence you shall give to the court and the jury sworn between the Sovereign
Lord, the King, and the prisoner at the Bar, shall be the truth,” and so forth. After verdict, the witness who
came into the box to give evidence was sworn on what was called the voire dire, that is to say; “You shall
true answer make to all such questions as the court shall demand of you.” The court could then demand any
information it saw fit to ask for..
END QUOTE

Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and
common reason are null and void”. Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point --
that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the
people? Other cases are even more straight forward: “The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and
reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of practice.”
Davis v. Wechsler , 263 US 22, 24. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted
into a crime.”
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489. “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise
of constitutional rights.”
Sherer v. Cullen , 481 F 946. We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, the
Constitution itself answers our question � Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the
American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them."
Norton v. Shelby County , 118 U.S. 425 p. 442
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates
no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Sherar v. Cullen , 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of
constitutional rights."
Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would
be a denial of due process of law".
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that
Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of
treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war
against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200
(188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6
Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).

As such any religious conduct regardless of which form of religion it might be would be
oppressive and un constitutional if this violates Section 116 of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) where the States within Section 106 are created SUBJECT TO
THIS CONSTITUTION!

The religious tyranny that currently is pursued by various religions against each other and/or
against Atheist needs to be stopped. Regretfully politicians and judges far too often are so to say
aiding and abetting to the conflicts with their mantra instead of avoiding any conflicts as much as
possible. I can only urge all parliamentarians to read my writings and understand and
comprehend that Fiona Patten may be on the right track to reduced religious tensions. And this is
considered in all State and Federal Parliaments.
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!)
p8 21-3-2019 © 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