ISSUE: 20190730- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-

Supplement 60-Barnaby

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

*. Gerrit, what is your view about Barnaby Joyce financial claims?

**#** I was once a custodian parent, a single father and the discrimination is terrible. That I
view should be stated from onset. Because I was a single male parent then certain assistance
provided to single female parents are not provided to a single male parent. Somehow being
masculine is where the difference is, this even so the financial situation is not any different. I
became a single father for a 2 year old daughter and years later had up to 4 of my other children
in my care. I was paying of a house and while the mother of the 2 year old was ordered to pay
$20 a week child support she simply by the time my daughter was 18 never paid a single cent.
*. Isn’t there a child support system?
**#** That is in my view the worst system to exist. I intend to address this. Allegedly the Child
Support Registrar is the Deputy Commissioner for Taxation and he then using both heads can use
the information of your taxation returns to assess your child support obligations. With Barnaby
being a politician his taxation records should be off limit, as they are to my understanding not
taxable. Even considering his self claimed about $211,000 income if ordinary 18% child support
is calculated then he could be up to about $37,980 child support for the first child. That is about
$730.38 a week. Close to what a age pension pays for a married age couple. That is right for 2
people on an age pension. It is in my view totally absurd that anyone has to pay this amount of
child support for just one child. If the Commonwealth is fair dinkum that this is what is needed
for one child then why not provide the same for every other child? What we now have is a
system that a child of a rich parent, well purportedly rich, can have such or more exorbitant
financial support whereas children of a non-custodian parent who has no such financial income
could be left without any child support at all. In my view, and I have stated this for many years,
child support should be drawn from ordinary taxation. As such a tax level for all as if you are
joining some child support insurance.
*. $37,980 would be more then a single parent would receive as a payment for himself/herself as
a carer.
**#** How on earth can you justify this kind of monies to be payable. I wonder. Then Barnaby
is also liable to pay for other items such as for the child of his former wife/partner to attend a
private school, etc. What we therefore have is that his current children are deprived of a
reasonable life because the child of a former marriage is to be hugely financially supported.
*. How then was it that the mother of your then 2 year old daughter didn’t pay child support?
**#** This is because it was claimed, despite of the court orders, that she wasn’t working for an
income, albeit was working as a volunteer, so the child support agency made clear that therefore
she could not be forced to pay a cent.
p1 30-7-2019 © 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
*. Surely this is absurd?
**#** Well, I took it too court and in the end the judge ordered $20 a week to be paid but she
ignored that. But it was worse. The judge ordered me to now having the $20 a week child support
I was to make an about 1,000 kilometre return trip to bring the child to her mother living in
Gipsland for access purposes.
*. Surely an about 1,000 return trip would cost more than $20.00?
**#** Actually it was worse, because my car was broken down and the V/Line buss would leave
on Friday morning about 7 am and no return trip could be made to Berriwillock until Sunday
evening. Meaning I would to spend days in hotels. And when I raised the issue that I had court
orders of 4 of my other children being in my care it was meaning I had to travel the 1,000
kilometres with 5 small children and stay overnight in hotel accommodation and this all because
I had been provided with a court order for $20 a week child support, even so the mother failed to
make any payments.
*. Surely you couldn’t afford this financially?
**#** I couldn’t and made an application to have this altered but the judge made clear he was
not concerned as to whatever other court orders were on foot and I simply had to do it. Well I
was financially unable to do so and ended up being sentenced by final orders, 2 days prior to the
hearing finished to 21 days imprisonment.
*. Are you saying this was pre-determined?
**#** I took it to the High Court of Australia that this pre-determined decision was invalidating
both that order and the same order issued days later but the High Court of Australia held that the
judge simply made an error to issue orders 2 days prior to the completion of the trial.
*. So you were 21 days in prison?
**#** Actually with remission it was 14 days but Chief Justice Nicholson claimed I had to go
back to prison to serve the 21 days. However when I was returned to the prison cells I indicated
to the sergeant he better calls the Governor of Prison. He did and was ordered to release me.
Months later Nicholson CJ some how succeeded that the legislation was amended to deny a
commonwealth prisoner to have any remission of time. This I view is unconstitutional. In any
event he was wrong but the judgment was never corrected about this.
*. What happened then?
**#** Well after the prison time the mother came with her then husband and he complained
having had a broken car window due to a stone. So I took my windscreen protector of my car and
gave it to him.
*. You want to say that you were nice to them despite the prison issue?
**#** Well, after that she didn’t come again for any access. When I traveled to Gippsland to
facilitate access she simply refused to have my daughter for access. After there was an incident
in which it appeared to me her husband was sexual abusing my daughter. Her barrister claimed
that the Children Court had been wrong to issue orders against her husband regarding my
daughters half sibling living with them to have been allegedly sexual abused by him.
*. So both girls were allegedly sexual abused by him?

p2 30-7-2019 © 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
**#** That is my understanding. Anyhow I took it to court that she was breaching the court
orders. The Full Court held that she was not bound to comply with the court orders if she didn’t
want to do so.
*. Moment, they imprison you for non-compliance but she doesn’t have to comply?
**#** There is a lot more to this as I had days earlier succeeded in an appeal against a senior
judge that even a first year law student could do better then Fogarty J and well revenge in my
view was what it was about.
*. So the mother didn’t pay child support and yet the court targeted you rather then the mother
violating court orders and by this in any event preventing you to travel?
**#** That is some of it. She for years used to turn up in a wheelchair to court hearings but I
knew she was faking it. In the end I made this clear in court. Guess J then warned me that this
could go against me as a custodian father if she came with a medical certificate proving she
needed to use a wheelchair. Well her barrister filed a medical certificate that she needed a
wheelchair and some 11 Affidavits in support.
*. Did you lose custody?
**#** Well Guess J warned me that he had warned me. So I merely asked Guess J a question, as
I recall it: Your Honour I was born in The Netherlands and never had formal education in the
English language so can you perhaps explain to me what the word VET on top of the medical
certificate means? Is it Veterinarian?
*. Oh boy that is something!
**#** Guess J then asked the barrister if this was a veterinarian and the barrister responded that
her doctor refused to issue a medical certificate so the vet did one. But that he withdrew the
medical certificate and the 11 Affidavits.
*. That would be costly to her, in financial cost I mean.
**#** Well, one affidavit alone was 36 pages but she was getting Legal Aid for it all.
*. She was getting legal Aid and you were not?
**#** How could I having a court order for $20 a week child support that she wasn’t paying.
Basically in my view this whole child support system is essentially making women to be
prostitutes. They just can con a man in a sex act and then if they fell pregnant the man has to pay
child support which is a cozy financial secure income. There was a man who had in fact paid a
prostitute for sex and well she claimed he was the father of her child and the Family Court of
Australia ordered him to pay child support.
If the system was covered by an insurance type of financial support then I doubt this extortion of
so called child support would be that successful as the insurance company would have its
lawyers to oppose the blatant financial rip off. It has in my view nothing to do with proper
financial support of a child, this as if you can justify about $37,980 as child support plus other
payments then the Federal Government should provide this for all children. As Barnaby correctly
points out those on New Start certainly do not get a lot of monies, so why are those people’s
children not supported by about $37.980 each? And let us consider also that if Barnaby were to
say earn double what he earns now then he would pay double the child support. As such it would
be about $80,000 a year just on child support. At least that was as I understand the system. So,
this is the absurdity. If the Federal Government views that this kind of huge amounts is justified
in child support then why are those who are single parents but do not have a former partner
earning such monies not provided the same level of child support? And why should a person on
p3 30-7-2019 © 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
new start looking for work but having say 4 children have to manage with somewhere of say
$500 a week rather then having additionally say $40,000 per child on child support.
Why is it that the second child and more children may not attract the same percentage on child
support?
And when say the non-custodian parent is not working then I understand some time ago a $5 a
week child support is applicable.
What the child support system is about is that some custodian parents can life a life of luxury
regardless that little if anything of the paid child support is actually used for the child(ren).
I knew about women who would have children of different men so that this provides the
maximum of each child in child support.

Barnaby has 2 other children and why should they be less then his children of a previous
marriage? In my view this is a gross (financial) discrimination against his 2 youngest children.
As like the about 7% pension taxation that every person still pays as part of their income taxation
irrespective they may never draw against it at old age, I view this kind of scheme should exist
with child support. All children are to be provided with the same taxation funded child support.

From having since 1982 a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS
PREVAIL® I am too aware that killing a child or children of a previous relationship may be to
some the only best outcome. It might be strange to state this, but some non-custodian parents are
down in the gutter as their monies are all going to a former wife and so ending up in prison at
least they have a roof above their heads and also sleeping accommodation. This is why it is long
overdue to stop this rot of a system.

I was last Saturday at a meeting (third in 4 decades – so I am not overdoing it) where a lawyer-
doctor was explaining how she as a councilor (for a council) used information to pursue FOI
request and well they held this as an issue. Well as the Federal Government itself uses the
Deputy Taxation Commissioner as the Child Support Registrar so as to be able to access taxation
files and use this then for child support issues then this lawyer-doctor did no more that which the
government has been doing for decades and with approval of the High Court of Australia.
I do not accept that the Deputy Taxation Commissioner should be doing this but for that the
Grantor cannot give a greater power to the agent. Hence if the Commonwealth exercises child
support on behalf of the custodian parent then the parent not having access to taxation files the
Child Support Registrar neither should have this power. There is however another issue to it all.
While the Federal government claims that child support debt is a Debt to the Commonwealth, in
reality this is sheer and utter nonsense. When my daughters mother had not even once made a
$20 payment of the ordered child support then the Child Support Agency contacted me (when
my child was an adult) asking me to cancel the debt. How on earth could I possibly cancel a debt
that was supposed to be a Debt to the Commonwealth, I wonder. The Child Support Registrar
making clear it couldn’t force the mother to pay the arrears.
*. You really got the knowledge and experiences about child support issues, don’t you?
**#** Well, let us consider Mr John Abbott. The Family Court of Australia garnished/
impounded his motor vehicle as the Child Support Agency claimed an about $4,000 child
support debt. Mr John Abbott went to the High Court of Australia which upheld the Family
Court of Australia court orders. And by a twist the Child Support Agency refunded the about
$4,000 plus parking cost because after all he didn’t have the alleged child support debt at all.
What an utter and sheer nonsense for the High Court of Australia to rely upon some Crystal Ball
alleged debt!
*. Why is it that women can often get away with paying child support?

p4 30-7-2019 © 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
**#** If a woman decides to remarry and not have a income as such, regardless if she is a multi
millionaire then so I understand from the Child Support Agency they cannot demand any child
support from her. So, women who say desert their child(ren) and decide to remarry and then not
bother to earn an income they then do not have to pay child support, whereas a man who stop
working when remarried is forced to pay child support as to the level of income he used to have.
It is therefore some scheme that to me promotes to wreck the family unit. After all making
divorce/separation attractive for the custodian parent to have ample of monies while the non-
custodian parent has so to say his eyes gauged out hardly is to support the family unit.

*. You also have an issue with the purported referral of legislative powers by the States to the
Commonwealth regarding children of non-marriages?

**#** Indeed, I have, This as I stated in the most recent PRESS RELEASE about
municipal/shire councils that the States constitutions derived from the colonial constitutions are
subject to Section 106 of the federal constitution and any referral of legislative powers by a state
can only be done validly if it has been approved by State referendum. As such the 1986
purported reference of legislative powers are all ULTRA VIRES. As French J of WA later
French CJ of the HCA made clear Subsection 51(xxxvii) of the federal constitution does no more
but to allow the Commonwealth to accept a reference of State legislative powers however the
powers of the States to do so must be found elsewhere. And that is Section 123 of the
constitution this as when a State parliament refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth it
actually remove the judicial powers of the Supreme Court and that it cannot do due to separation
of powers and hence a State referendum is needed to permit this.

*. Your last PRESS RELEASE had a lot of times that instead of “is” it showed “I”, how is that?

**#** I am using a very old laptop that is missing various keys such as the “s” and the :”b”, and
so while afterwards I try to correct this but at times miss out on some being corrected. This is the
result of assisting people for free for decades and refusing to accept monies that I am on so to say
a shoe string budget doing the work. Then again I do not regret this as monies make to many
becoming vultures and I didn’t desire to go down that path.
*. I gather your view about Barnaby Joyce hardship is not critical upon him?
**#** Regardless that his income might appear to be a lot, I am not going to criticize him
because I can understand what he is seeking to convey. Moreover, I applaud him to translate this
also to show that New Start is by far insufficient. Being on an age pension and never having had
any superannuation to fall back upon I can manage within my means, but let us not ignore those
who are more financially struggling then we might do. In my view Barnaby is a better politician
for coming out whereas likely many politicians would so to say be scared to death to admit to
their personal hardship. There is a lot more to it all and I tried to be very brief but safe to say I
hold the Family Court of Australia to be some club where lawyers who are friends of a judge can
get orders they desire regardless what the evidence might be before the court. And the same in
other courts. As such this claim about the interest and wellbeing of the children is a statement
like politicians use health, education, etc for political purposes, while in real to my understanding
the judges are acting precisely opposite to the interest and wellbeing of the child.
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!)
p5 30-7-2019 © 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