20180804-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 2

ISSUE: 20180804- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 2
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, is this Senator Sarah Hanson-Young the same person I understand is referred to as Sharia
Hanson-Young?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, to my understanding that is her nickname.

* And she is suing Senator David Leyonhjelm?
**#** As I understand it this Sarah Hanson-Young is misusing the rape and murder of Eurydice
Dixon as a way to promote her own goals. I find this utterly deplorable but expect nothing else
from her considering how I understand she was mouthing of about what they refer to as unlawful
citizens. They are not citizens in a constitutional term but nevertheless it seems to me that Sarah
Hanson-Young lacks any proper understanding as to constitutional issues, much as I view the
same applies to Senator Darryn Hinch about taxation, but I will come back to this later.
As I understand it Sarah Hanson-Young stated on 18 June 2018 in the Parliament:
“I think that women around this country are sick and tired of being made to feel responsible for
the fact that men cannot control themselves and deal with their own issues. It’s not women’s
fault that men behave like morons and like pigs.”
With this she appears to me to generalise all men. I understand that Sarah Hanson-young is
sleeping around with men and so is this indicative one may wonder that she is shagging up with
pigs and morons? The saying is it takes one to know one and well it is for everyone to judge for
themselves about Sarah.
QUOTE a 12-7-2018 email I received:
At various points during the speech, Senator Hanson-Young interjects. The video confirms her
saying “that’s right” and “hear hear” at various points. It is available here (the motion begins at
12:06:15).
Just after Senator Rice’s speech, Senator Hanson-Young calls out something like “women
wouldn’t need pepper spray if men weren’t rapists”.
I responded, “Well you should stop shagging men then, Sarah”.
Following this, Hanson-Young approached my desk and asked me what I’d just said. When I
confirmed my comment she called me a creep and I told her to “f… off”. None of this was
captured by the microphones or reported in Hansard.
Later that day Hanson-Young made a statement to the Senate (shown below). I wasn’t in the
chamber at the time.
END QUOTE a 12-7-2018 email I received:
p1 4-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
* And for Senator David Leyonhjelm to have made his statement she is suing him?
**#** that appears to be my understanding but because our constitution is providing for 4
branches being the Parliament (legislature), the Executive (Government) the Judiciary (Courts)
and the Section 1010 Inter-State Commission ordinary laws do not apply in every sense albeit the
constitution does to them all. The Framers of the Constitution made clear that Parliament must
provide for its own in house rules and in Victoria they had a Mr Glass apparently throwing
something in the Colony of Victoria Parliament and it was held that he could only be dealt with
within the House rules and not ordinary laws. It means that the sanctity of the Parliament (each
House) cannot be interfered with by a Government of the Day or by special laws that applies
outside the Parliament.
* Is this meaning Sarah cannot sue David?
**#** If the relevant House has no orders on foot to allow a Member of Parliament to be sued
relevant within the confines of the House then as I did in the van Rooy case very successfully
there is no case to answer.
* What was that case about?
**#** Police were claiming that van Rooy had injured a police officer with her motor vehicle
and the prosecutor had 5 police officers a Clerk of Court and a deputy Clerk of Court as
witnesses and in addition they had produced an audio recording about the alleged incident.
On 19 July 2006 the day I was in court comprehensively defeating the Commonwealth on
numerous constitutional issues in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka when I walked out van Rooy asked if I
could take up her case. After she explained what it was about I accepted and did so. I then
submitted to the DPP that there was NO CASE TO ANSWER and it responded to withdraw 3
out of 2 charges. The DPP proceeded with the 1 remaining charge before His Honour Wood (in a
5 day trial in 2008) who at conclusion of the prosecutors case directed the Jury to return a verdict
NOT GUILTY as the Prosecutor had failed to make out its case. In my view Senator David
Leyonhjelm could simply object to the jurisdiction of any court as it cannot deal with internal
House matters unless the House itself, not even the Parliament, authorised for this to be heard
and determined by a court of law according to internal House rules. Meaning those Members of
the House could make themselves liable to be sued if they end up in such situation and that I
view would undermine democracy.
* What about the rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon?
**#** To me this is a very tragic incident as is that of the law student Laa Chol who was I
understand knifed to death by those invading a party where she stood up to protect another
female. Laa in my view is a clear example of what one would refer to as being a hero, regretfully
she paid for it with her life. I am too well aware of the dangers associated with someone violently
rampaging in public. After all even on Friday 3 August 2018 I intervened in a violent attack by
what appeared to be a woman of Aboriginal descent upon a man of Aboriginal descent using a
Solder Iron. I was well aware that I took a risk being personally attacked but someone needed to
try to restore order and so I undertook doing so. After she left the building the police arrived and
well then took over but let us be honest about it we have too often those accused of murders even
mass murders claiming mental inability to stand trial. There is in my view no such thing as a
mental illness, as I am reading a book written by a psychiatrist who makes clear it is non-existing
as such. You cannot do a blood test or whatever to establish some mental illness as it depends
upon the psychiatrist what he/she assesses and other psychiatrist may conclude opposite to this.
* What would you recommend to happen?
**#** Any person who is willing to unlawfully take the life of another person I hold should be
caused to face a trial. If then the Court finds the person GUILTY AS CHARGED then the court
can determine if this should result to a sentencing of imprisonment in a prison or into some
mental institution.
* So with the Bourke Street 20 January 2017 killings you would prefer to see the accused to face
a trail and if convicted then any mental issues be dealt with during the sentencing?
**#** I on 15 July 2006 specifically warned all State/Territory and federal politicians about
putting up bollards, etc, naming Bourke Street mall specifically to avoid mass murder using a
motor vehicle. I repeated the same in December 2016 but not a single politicians bothered to deal
with this issue. Those writings are now before the coroner. Now, to claim a person had a mental
illness when doing the killings to avoid a conviction to me is totally absurd. Remember Alan
Bond medical claims to get out of jail only that I understand he was doing multi-million deals in
the UK. As such his mental illness, etc, seemed to me to be fabricated. Consider Erin Shi who
nearly died because of the Bourke Street rampage and well she surely is entitled to JUSTICE that
the person responsible is held legally accountable. If the person is held to be mentally
incompetent then sent the person for life in some mental institution but to let the person in a
sense walk free makes an utter mockery of what JUSTICE is about. What if they now send a
accused for being held in a mental institution without having faced a trial if the accused is guilty
or not guilty? Surely the system must protect both the accused and the victims/aggrieved.
* Earlier you made known that the Parliament is not subjected to the same rules as ordinary
citizen albeit well subject to the provisions of a governing constitution, is this meaning that
Premier Daniel Andrews And his fellow Members of Parliament can get away with what appears
to me to be a theft of Government in fraudulently using taxpayers funds for election purposes?
**#** I on 21-3-2018 PUBLISHED:
When an election is stolen by inappropriate/unlawful conduct then this denies
democracy and those involved should I view face years of imprisonment. Not just
paying after caught with the hand in the till. Where is the legal accountability?
This document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/374499303/20180321-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-
Hlavka-O-W-B-ISSUE-Re-I-Wonder-Did-the-Victorian-Ombudsman-Do-a-Cover-Up-Re-2014-
Vic-Election-Etc-the-C
It ought to be obvious that where I had written about Ethics Orientation for State Officials
Misuse of Public Funds http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php and provided Mr Daniel
Andrews with copies prior to the 1014 November State election then this was relevant to your
investigation. And to ensure that you may not railroad my submission as such I lodged this as
both a complaint & submission. It therefore was that Mr Daniel Andrews knew or could have
known from my repeated correspondences to him that one cannot use public monies (not even a
telephone call) for election purposes.
In my view it would be prudent for me to await your investigation regarding my complaint &
submission., and what, if any, recommendations you may make as to those involved in this
elaborate fraud to be charged, before I decide if I ought to pursue charges myself, or the
Victorian electoral commission and the Victorian Police and others may instead pursue
appropriate charges.
We do drag people to court for any alleged theft even if only a few dollars then I view this
gigantic fraud of public monies must not and cannot be seen to be tolerated.
As I quoted the statement of Mr Daniel Andrews from the Hansard of and my comment in my
21-3-2018 PRESS RELEASE then surely Mr Daniel Andrews and his fellow partners in crime
should learn what legal accountability is about.
As quoted below:
Again we should apply this mantra by Mr Daniel Andrews Leader of the Opposition to himself and others
(including premier Denis Napthine) and ensure that before the week is out appropriate independent
investigations are conducted in these matters so that Mr Daniel Andrews statements “If decency, fairness,
accountability, the public trust, the public good, and saying no to the abuse of the public purse were
motivations for the Premier, then he would not have waited” and “It is not a strategy about
representation; it is a strategy about apologising for rorting. That is what it is.” Must be applied as he
pursued then let he and others be used as examples.
No excuses about what he may have expected as to the holding of a by-election in Frankston but
“accountability” for what I view his “rorting’ of public monies.
QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS

This is transparent, and it is central to the reason why the people of this great state have such low
regard for us as parliamentarians and politicians.
END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
QUOTE
Auditor General 4-9-2015
Level24, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000 comments@audit.vic.gov.au
Cc: Michelle Ainsworth michelle.ainsworth@news.com.au,

Victorian Electoral Commissioner Email: complaints@vec.vic.gov.au,
Hon. Bruce Atkinson, MLC President of the Legislative Council bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au,
Telmo Languiller (Speaker since 23 December 2014) telmo.languiller@parliament.vic.gov.au,
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au,
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au,
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au,
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com,
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au,
Mr Tony Abbott PM C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au,
Herald Sun Andrew Bolt news@heraldsun.com.au, readerfeedback@heraldsun.com.au,
Mark Robinson mark.robinson@news.com.au, jay.clark@news.com.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Ref: 20150904-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General-PRESS RELEASE-COMPLAINT

Sir/Madam,
END QUOTE
When politicians themselves shows an example to thief and rob taxpayers then surely there is a
loss of respect for the rule of law and citizens then may face to do the same.
* Did you hear about the issue of transgender women being born men?
**#** Actually I red about it at https://activistmommy.com/michigan-court-rules-transgender-
women-really-men-trans-activists-call-baffling/. It is very obvious that you cannot be transgender
if you claim to be a type of person you always were. As such the connotation of being
transgender means to acknowledge you were born a different sex then you now claim to be. As
such, how on earth can you by a process of the mind claim to be of a different genetic sexual
being then you were born as? For sure a baby might not have proper functional reproduction
systems and so may be incorrectly assigned a different type of sexual attributes then genetically
is applicable. That is in my view not being a transgender to have this corrected. It is merely a
restoration of who the person really is. In Canada you got the story
https://activistmommy.com/canadian-man-saves-thousands-car-insurance-switching-gender-
identity/ where it appears men are discriminated against when it comes to insurance policies.
Well, all you need to do is to claim you are a woman and get the vehicle insured as a woman and
then revert back to being a man. Why is it not discriminatory to have a $1.100 difference in
insurance premium pending being a man or a woman. At least when you claim to be so.

* What about this $444million so to say gift by Malcolm Turnbull to some tiny reef
organization?
**#** I assume you refer to https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/malcolm-turnbull-defends-

surprise-dollar444-million-government-donation-to-tiny-reef-body/ar-BBLqYbd?ocid=spartanntp
* I do indeed.
**#** As I quoted in the past:
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an
annual service.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from
special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which
we are accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.
Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place
expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a
service.
END QUOTE
Therefore if the $444 was not part of ordinary returnable service charges then it must be
approved by a special Appropriation Bill. Failing that the payment cannot proceed. If it was
made or any part of it then it would be unconstitutional and have to be returned to the
consolidated Revenue Funds.
* What about Senbator Derryn Hinch issue about tax cuts not for banks?
**#** This bloke needs to consider what he did in the past versus what he himself now is doing.
Easy to attack politicians for their alleged wrongdoing but then when you become a politician
then apply double standards.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
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
.
Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
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
As I indicated in my submission to the Royal Commission that AMP had blocked my

appointment as a director, etc. Well the days after I made the submission about 5 AMP directors
resigned. But Malcolm Turnbull then at the time leader of the Opposition and provided with a
copy of my request for an investigation simply ignored it.
The issue is that no matter what a bank might do wrong, the shareholders really have little to do
about it unless the Parliament provides for the required legislation that directors who deliberately
are abusing/misusing their positions can be personally prosecuted and facing terms of
imprisonment of 10 years or more and have their earthly goods confiscated. Punishing
shareholders isn’t going to deter directors from violating the law! My wife holds share in a bank
and she certainly doesn’t want the bank concerned to violate applicable laws. I on the other hand
have my own life investment which is not taxable.
* Moment, you say you can invest tax free into something?
**#** Correct!
* What secret is that?
**#**No secret at all. When I was a teenager and went to a trade school the director called in my
parents explaining I should instead go to university. I refused making clear that one of my uncles
was a civil engineer and a lecturer at a university but that reportedly he didn’t know how to use
his hands to repair things. So I invested in learning how to do repair things. When I was
representing what is now my wife and her (then but now late) husband she made known that
obviously I knew a loit about law but was not particular competent in using my hands. She had
given me some toy small screwdriver to cut into timber a slot for a security door. Well, she came
back from that as she now knows there is nothing in home renovations I cannot do. Ample opf
people are complaining about the pension but to me is not about what the level is but how this is
undermined in many ways. For example the Federal government set the pensions in 2009 in line
with the CPI. However the states had municipal councils spending wildly and well they increased
the rates (itself unconstitutional) by up to 7% or more. As such in violation to Section 109 of the
constitution. This is where the real problem is. I find that the pension is generous and well I can
live within the means of it because of my investment more than 55 years ago to attend to a trade
school. For example I am currently putting up a steel fence which in parts I may have purchased
over the years for a total of $60.00. I now made gauges from plastic boxes to drill holes for each
part identically. Some years ago I build a 25 mm thick timber fence across the front of property
costing me about $1200 in total which fence is about 2 metres high. I also build another fence
some 2.4 metres high that cost my neighbor and myself about $620 each. My neighbor then
couldn’t believe how cheap this turned out to be when a much lower fence of about 1 metre with
another neighbor was costing him more than $4,000. This I explained is when you invest in your
ability to do things yourself. And I always go around businesses to pursue bargains. One was
selling jackhammer for $198. So I offered to buy all 3 for $40 each. I got it for a total of $120.
And this means I saved about $80 plus can give 2 away to my kids. As a

CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that the Federal Government is looking after us very well, far
beyond what the Framers of the constitution actually intended. But as with everything else if you
cannot bother to work to your own prosperity then you will never make it no matter how much
you are being provided with.
* Well, you do not smoke, drink, gamble, watch television or read newspapers, etc, so you really
are limiting your spending. Don’t you? OK I am aware you do things for the disabled free of
charge but surely not everyone has this ability?
**#** Look, the Federal Government is seeking to provide a basic support for people to live
upon in their held entitlements. It means that if a person desires to spend outside their financial
means provided for by the Federal Government then they should ensure to earn some extra
income. In my view if the States drastically reduced any charges to be within the CPI then many
pensioners and welfare recipients would be a lot better off. For sure the Federal Governments
having robbed pensioners paid 7% pension funds has an impact but more to that there Federal
Government cannot complain having to pay out pensions to those who previously paid the 7%
pension tax. It should cut the funding of all kind of nonsense such as free housing and phones,
etc, for aliens who never paid a single cent towards such purported entitlements. Likewise no
such thing as a Prime Minister for the day to be entitled to some absurd lifelong pension. If I
were in the position of leading a government I would take drastic action to cut off the
unconstitutional payments!
* Don’t you need parliamental approval?
**#** As I quoted before:
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
And also consider:
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE
* I got the impression if electors were to pursue the Governor-General to commission you to
form a government they would be a lot better off.
**#** Time will tell if they are alert and willing enough to have matters appropriately addressed.
Here we have politicians who tome appear to be more interested in each others sex lives, etc,
then to ensure proper governing.
I understood that Malcolm Turnbull became communication Minister albeit some years ago
because it was held he was the right person for it. Well when I got in the mail a notification for
the NBN that workers would entermy propertyunless I objected within 24 hours, it self as gross
absurdity, I nevertheless objected immediately, as I did with this medical record to be put on the
internet when I made clear in my previous PRESS RELEASE a that it would allow any so called
law enforcement entity to access your medical details. I understand that some millions of people
working in so called law enforcement all had the right to access your medical details without a
warrant. So much for privacy. Well the Minister now seemed to have claimed to close the
loophole. He also seems to seek the states to cooperate to agree with the system. Just that the
States cannot do so without a state referendum to approve to refer its legislative powers to the
commonwealth. It is totally immaterial if the states may agree on some Premiers conference as it
doesn’t override constitutional restrictions.

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of
the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute
majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed
amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions
in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the
constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this
provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers
of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to
occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE
As French J as he then was (later French CJ of the High Court of Australia) made clear that
Section 51(xxxvii) was only permitting the Commonwealth to accept reference of State
legislative powers but the States cannot rely upon this section to authorize it to do so. Within
Section 123 the states cannot give away not only its legislative powers but so included the
judicial power without approval of a State referendum.
Getting back to the telecommunication issues, We have a Telecommunication Ombudsman I
often held seemed to be more interested to protect the wrongdoers being the telecommunication
corporations then to take appropriate action. It was at times because of my persistency that I
finally succeeded where earlier the Ombudsman had rejected my complaint without proper
consideration of the issues I outlined with supportive evidence to prove my complaint.
Well, let’s see what kind of privacy we have when organizations are scamming people using the
internet and phone and mobile calls.
My wife is this year going to be 86 and she is scared like hell to touch the mobile or use the
internet. Let me explain. I a few years ago started to show her how to use the Internet and well
warned her about the dangers of answering any scam claims. She had a phone call from a person
claiming to be from Microsoft and well followed the instructions of that person to provide
remote access to her computer. When I returned I threw the laptop in the garbage bin. As she had
no details ion her computer to any personal details other than her emailing relatives it couldn’t
cause any harm otherwise. I never allowed her computer to access my computer and so it was all
safe. But it really scared the living daylight out of her to answer any calls. Now she is pestered
on her mobile with numerous calls and VoiceMail Messages.
Because my wife’s mobile number changes at least once a month but often twice a month and it
is not recorded it means that generally automatic calls are causing this where companies are
using computers to automatically make such calls. Within the provisions of the Victorian Crimes
Act I understand this can be considered STALKING. And by using a telecommunication carrier
then I view the Federal Government should have the Australian Federal Police dealing with this
as a criminal offence.
19 numbers 58 calls 57 VoiceMail Messages
Calls from 0295068100 Origin? -15
17 Complaints for (02) 9506 8100 in Australia 0295068100 1/2
https://www.reverseaustralia.com/lookup/0295068100/
17 complaints about 0295068100. Free Australia missed call identifcation. Below are the search
results for phone number (02) 9506 8100 / 0295068100 ...
0295068100: Sydney – Number of ratings: 6× Neutral …
https://www.numberlookup.com.au/number/0295068100
Reviews to the phone number 0295068100: Origin Energy / hot water - (prompt to pay your bill!)
Over them calling me never been with origin It is Origin…
Calls from 0352169944-6

0352169944: Geelong – Number of ratings: 28× Nuisance…
https://www.numberlookup.com.au/number/0352169944
Read reviews to the phone number 0352169944: Called this number back from private, it rings
constantly for 5-6 rings, then diverts to another ring tone…
Calls from 0385796771-2

Calls from 0385601690-1

0385601690 who called from (03) 8560 1690? - Reverse Australia
Sep 1, 2016 - Below are the search results for phone number (03) 8560 1690 / 0385601690
including name and address. Find out who called you.
Calls from 0284071816-3

15-5-2018 18.31 VoiceMail Message

Calls from Private number -17

The VoiceMail messages can relate back to the callers reasons of calling
Calls from 0402858367-1

20 Complaints for 0402 858 367 in Australia 0402858367 1/2
Feb 7, 2018 - Below are the search results for phone number 0402 858 367 / 0402858367
Calls from 0402582790 -1

32 Complaints for 0402 582 790 in Australia 0402582790 1/2
Free Australia missed call identifcation. Below are the search results for phone number 0402 582
790 / 0402582790 including name and address. Find out who ...
Calls from 0476857784-1

0476857784 who called from 0476 857 784? - Reverse Australia
May 4, 2018 - Below are the search results for phone number 0476 857 784 / 0476857784
And those numbers are merely part of a list of other calls leaving Voicemail Messages. This even
so my wife doesn’t answer the calls as it not being listed and her mobile number constantly is
changes it means that random automatically calls are causing her to be harassed and being
stalked by the callers.
Because the number is used by her often at most for 2 weeks so she can make doctors’
appointments then this ongoing harassment of phone calls and notifications about Voice Mail
messengers is something the Federal Parliament should have legislated against that corporations
using this kind of tactic can be fined millions of dollars if there is evidence of them doing so.
Likewise those who are acting for those corporations can be individually fined more than
$100.000 per offence. Ample of people are falling dfor call s cams and email scams and in my
view the federal government instead of pursuing more privacy details to be accessible on the
internet should rather stop this harassing and stalking.
Let it be clear that neither my wife or myself ever give out any mobile numbers she temporary
used to make a call within a 2 week window of using a new mobile number. As such there can be
no doubt that the calls are unwanted, undesirable and are a manner of electronic stalking and
harassment.
My wife’s doctors officer neither use any temporary mobile numbers as they have my own
mobile number as the official number to text to.
To me this obsession about sex should stop with the parliamentarians and they should, albeit long
overdue, attend to the real issues confronting the electorate.
* As I said just before I got the impression if electors were to pursue the Governor-General to
commission you to form a government they would be a lot better off.
**#** Well we should make it compulsory for any aspirant and current politician to do a course
in constitutional matters, etc.
* Going by how you explained that the Section 101 Inter-State Commission is a constitutional
authority which I doubt most if any politician really understood to be so then you might be the
right person to start educating them in a course about the constitution.
**#** This can be applied to also State/Territory politicians! They too seem to ignore
constitutional constrains. What my concern is we have ordinary citizens who worked most of
their lives to be comfortable in retirement only to be subjected to all kinds of scams and the very
politicians who are to represent their interest are more concerned about bickering about their sex
lives. This to me is the theft of democracy where We, the People, are denied the very
representation we elect Members of Parliament for.
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!)


20180804-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 2

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

20180804-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 2

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ISSUE: 20180804- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 2

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

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, to my understanding that is her nickname.

I responded, “Well you should stop shagging men then, Sarah”.

END QUOTE a 12-7-2018 email I received:

p1 4-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

This document can be downloaded from:

QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS

Cc: Michelle Ainsworth michelle.ainsworth@news.com.au,

Ref: 20150904-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General-PRESS RELEASE-COMPLAINT

p4 4-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

**#** I assume you refer to https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/malcolm-turnbull-defends-

Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?

Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.

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

p5 4-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

As I indicated in my submission to the Royal Commission that AMP had blocked my

p6 4-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Calls from 0352169944-6

Calls from 0385796771-2

Calls from 0385601690-1

Calls from 0284071816-3

53 Complaints for (02) 8407 1816 in Australia 0284071816 1/3

Calls from Private number -17

Calls from 0402858367-1

Calls from 0402582790 -1

Calls from 0476857784-1

p11 4-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Вам также может понравиться

# INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, to my understanding that is her nickname.

# I assume you refer to https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/malcolm-turnbull-defends-