20180913-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 15-Family Violence

ISSUE: 20180913- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 15-Family violence
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, what is your view about paid leave regarding family violence?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, as a (male) victim of family violence I personally question it
validity. You need to address the source of family violence and I view that the Family Court of
Australia is one of the causes of family violence. I state CAUSES because if we had better
trained judges a lot of family violence could at least in my view be avoided.
* You state you were a victim but is this just imaginary or have you got hard evidence?
**#** One of my former wife’s ended up (while legally represented) with pleading GUILTY in a
Magistrates Court to assault upon me. She later also pleaded GUILTY (Again having legal
representation) to assault upon one of our children. Medical evidence showed that she nearly
strangled to death one of our sons. The Family Court of Australia had for some 10 years refused
to take appropriate action but in the end the Children Court placed the children into my care
where the Department of Human Services also provided evidence that she had all along bashed
our eldest son with cricket bat (she had broken in the process) pipes, and other implements. She
used items to place on the tong of the children and it was burning like hell but they were not
allowed to use water. She would force them to sit with their knees on a pea for long periods of
time. Neighbours would constantly report the screaming of the children but the police failed to
intervene. She I understood from the school had been banned from any school outings because of
her violence towards other school children. But as the President of the school council teachers
loved her. One day our eldest son was allegedly rude towards his mother at the school and a
teacher, a very good friend of my then ex-wife) checked our son for this. In response he lifted his
shirt and showed his back that this teacher was horrified as to the injuries she saw. She reported
it to the Department of Human services and they took it to the Children Court. The Court then
gave me custody of 3 of the boys while our daughter could remain with her as there was no
evidence she had assaulted her. But the Family Court of Australia refused to grand me custody!
This, even so the Court couldn’t interfere with the orders of the Children Court. My ex-wife had
for some 10 years causing ongoing problems regarding access and well now I was able to
revenge myself upon her. I made clear that she could visit whenever she wanted and stay
overnight albeit my bedroom was off limits. The boys made clear to a counsellor they didn’t
want to have anything to do with their mother and when he was pressurizing them they no longer
wanted to see him either. I however explained to the boys that she would always be and remain
to be their biological mother and she had a certain illness that she was violent and I contemplated
to invite her to stay for week-ends and she would then stay in the bedroom with my other
daughter, their half-sister, and their sister and they didn’t have to talk to their mother if they
didn’t wish to do so. And for years this arrangement was in place! So my revenge was to show
how a custodian parent should conduct himself/herself for the sake of the children.
* So, you hold the Family Court of Australia liable for the suffering of the children for so long?
p1 13-9-2018 © 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
**#** I kept providing evidence but the judges were single minded and simply were ignoring
reality. Those children suffered big time. But the judges couldn’t give a darn. One judge even
using some kind of crystal ball prediction that he didn’t think I could manage to be on a single
parent benefit where I was in management of factories. Well, a year later I gained custody of the
half-sister (she was then 2) and well even the former barrister of my ex-wife years later made
clear that he held that the trail judge had been very unfair towards me not to grand me custody
and using a crystal ball prediction against me. Even so I never knew about Justice Opas who was
I understand murdered, I regretfully have been dealing with many people who could indeed have
done the same. It doesn’t mean I seek to imply Justice Opas wronged someone in law, because it
can be the perception of a person he did so. I once had a woman who unannounced was on my
doorstep having travelled some 350 kilometers and handed me tape recordings of a court case
she had. She made clear the counsellor had been lying under oath, etc. I decided to listen to the
tapes to what she claimed and the next day she came back and I explained that the counsellor had
merely stated his views/opinion and he was legally entitled to do so as her barrister should have
checked an y this that she disagreed with. As her barrister didn’t appear to have done so then the
trail judge was entitled to accept this as unchallenged evidence. She calmed down merely by
having this explanation.
* Didn’t you have a problem with a councilor?
**#** That was with the violent ex-wife. We had to go to a session and well I raised the issue
that the Royal Children Hospital had been given the version that our (eldest son) had fallen from
a cot onto the ground and broken his arm. I explained that the woman of the house my (then)
wife had been visiting made clear there never was a cot in her bedroom and that there was a thick
carpet on the floor. That even if our son had rolled of the double bed he would have had a soft
landing. Well, the councilor then gave evidence that I had accused during the session that my
(then) wife deliberately had broken the child’s arm. This bloke was a fraud! Not because of his
evidence as such but he filed a report about the consensus of experts, etc. I decided to check his
credibility as he claimed to be a Minister of some American religion. I then started to cross-
examine him about his claimed religion (he referred to in his report also) and well he realized I
was ion to him and so suddenly on the second day of his evidence claimed to have changed his
religion to being a humanist. I then questioned him why he then as a humanist didn’t deplore the
wife’s violence. He had absolutely nothing in his report to denounce her violence. The trail judge
then interrupted making clear that I could no further question matters as to his religion. As such,
he was coming to the aid of a fraud. This, as the report was not written as a humanist but on a
religion, and his first day of evidence was based upon this. It was clear that this bloke was
conning the Family court of Australia with his qualifications and when I checked him on this the
trail judge not wanting the court to be embarrassed came to his aid.
* Didn’t you have a problem with the judge not understanding evidence?
**#** I was cross-examining 3 doctors who appeared as witnesses of my then wife. Each of
them had filed an Affidavit with glowing comments in favour of my wife. So, I c ross-examined
each and everyone of them about the feeding of a young baby. The judge interrupted me making
a comment as I recall it: You are not trying to present evidence she was starving the children?
My response was as I recall: Your Honour a young child must be provided appropriate food as I
am seeking to obtain from the doctors who are giving evidence on her behalf what is appropriate
for a child at a certain age, this as she may not starve a child but rather the child could choke to
death. Also feeding a child of a few months old every day with several eggs can cause
considerable kidney and other problem in the long term.
It was clear to me that this judge lacked any proper training in child care and in particular what a
child could eat or not at such a young age. In the end each doctor gave evidence that their
Affidavit was based upon that he was the only family doctor attending to the particular children
and would have concern if there were other doctors at the same time attending to the same
children unbeknown to him. Well the evidence was the same by each doctor in that regard. The
trail judge however had the evidence that all 3 doctors were attending within the same time frame
to the same children.
One doctor reported that the child had no arm injuries. The other doctor however reported that
the child had a upper arm burn. One doctor even stated that (checking his files) the child had a
track urine infection. I however filed with the court an exhibit that St Vincent Hospital had stated
it was actually a foreskin issue they addressed then. I did cross-examine the doctor if he had
actually checked my son physically. He made clear he didn’t hold this was needed as the mother
had stated he had a urine track infection and so he had prescribed medication. As such the doctor
had neglected his job and prescribed medication not needed at all. But the trail judge blasted me
for having taken my son to the hospital! Never mind the suffering of my son unduly and being
fed medication he didn’t need! Nothing of this will be resolved by giving family violence leave
to someone. It is not addressing the cause at all.
As a single father caring for my 2 year old daughter (I may add obtained through the Supreme
Court of Victoria) I used to attend to kindergarten. Well I was the sole male between women.
And well I discovered how women are couching others. For example a woman was raising the
issue that her husband and she were running a business but there were money problems. One of
the women then suggested she was to leave her husband and get another bloke and simply claim
her husband mistreats her so she can have custody of their child. By the time it goes to court she
has a well-established custody and the court unlikely will change this even if she is caught out to
have lied. The woman made clear her husband was doing nothing wrong. But then other women
joined in making clear she was better of to let him have the debts and get the court to award her
whatever value in the business and in the home and get child-support, etc. and this is the reality
of how many marriages end up in court under false claims!
*.Didn’t you once provide evidence to the Australian Federal Police (as they are now known)
and they refused to take action?
**#** My first wife had witnesses and one of the witnesses had claimed she had seen from her
property how my daughter was hiding behind her mother in fear from me while my then wife
was standing on the front porch. I showed the Australian Federal Police a newspaper published
that day showing that from the position the woman claimed to have been was it impossible to
have seen what she claimed to have seen as there was an about 2 metres high fence to prevent
seeing anything. As this fence was a bush it certainly couldn’t have grown 2 meters all along the
fence line within a few hours and clearly she lied. I also produced images of the house and
showed that the evidence that this woman had climbed through a side window on the drive way
was sheer impossible as it was a small window in the roof cavity that didn’t open up and one
would need a ladder to even get to it. The police officer gave me the understanding that it would
be wasting their time as no judge was going to deal with that as it is well known women perjure
themselves in court and judges will not hold them accountable for this.
*. Didn’t your first wife want to get back with you?
**#** She did but I explained that I had always trusted her but as she had lied in court I could
never again trust her.
*. I understand you have been dealing with people in Family Court matters and how would you
address the issues?
**#** I since 1982 commenced to have a special life line service MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS
PREVAIL® (I must make clear FREE OF CHARGE to those who contacted me – a such I
didn’t do it for money, rather it did cost me a lot of money) and not uncommon there would be

people who gave me the understanding wanting to kill judges/lawyers/ex-partners and even their
children.
*. Wow? Did you get any government or business financial assistance for this?
**#** Absolutely not, because I experienced how rotten the Family Court of Australia system is
I decided to assist others to the best of my ability.
*. Did you only assist men?
**#** I assisted anyone regardless of their age, gender, position, etc. Once there was this lawyer
who was giving me the understanding he was going to go for custody of his daughter as he was a
specialist in family law matters. I visited him at home and so to say read him the riot act. I went
through all the legal and other issues and made clear it would be child abuse if he was to have his
child in a pram or other way to be restrained while he was having discussions with his clients as
this was not what a child should be put through, in particular kept in some law office for hours at
length. In the end he decided that he was better not to get a divorce in view what I had stated,
etc. some 15 years later I visited him at his law office and the moment he was made aware I was
there he asked his client to excuse him for a few minutes. He came out and gave me the
understanding that he had now more children with his wife and he really thanked me for my
teaching. He explained that while had been representing many people in family court matter she
really never understood it properly until I so to say read him the riot act. He really thanked me
for having been there when he needed someone to discuss it.
*. You are not a legal practitioner but have represented lawyers?
**#** I am now retired but as a Professional Advocate was able to do a lot. One lawyer I
represented on 4 occasions and well he was so impressed that he offered me to work for him, I
declined that I was retired and didn’t contemplate to go back into litigation unless someone takes
me on personally.
*. Your advice to address matters?
**#** I have for decades made clear that the real problem is that most people, and generally it
are non-custodian fathers, but also in other kinds of litigation a lack of proper support.
Here you have a person who just lost a court case, and to him/her it is likely a major upheaval to
his/her life and yet the person is grieving and no one bothers to be there to assist the person to
overcome the grieving. This is why I was so effective, as I was there for them if they contacted
me. I had a 16 year old boy who called me making known someone recommended he calls me.
He contemplated suicide and didn’t think I could assist him but he was urged by others to call me
nevertheless as I didn’t charge and so he had nothing to lose. I spend some time with him on the
phone and well the next evening he called me back to let me known that he had done what I had
suggested and well everything had been resolved precisely as I had suggested it might be.
*.With the Bourke Street (Mal) killings, didn’t you forewarn the State and Federal Governments?
**#** I did indeed and some 6 months prior to this urged to put in place obstacles such as
bollards in tram tracks, as to avoid vehicles to mow down pedestrians. Copies of my
correspondences are now in the hands of the coroner. None of the politicians bothered to act but
after the killings they were eager for the so to say photo opportunities, not telling the people they
might have been able to have avoided the killings. Because I was dealing with people
contemplating suicide/murder/mass-murder then I often am given indications what location may
be contemplated for a strike. Here you have a grieving person who essentially feels to have lost
everything dear to him/her in life and so such a person might be tempted to go out in a big style

to make known to other that if you do not care about wrecking my life then you shall pay for it.
As such, society as a whole is held accountable.
*. Politicians have indicated that if a priest has a confession about child abuse and doesn’t report
it then he could face year’s imprisonment. What is your view about this?
**#** First of all I am not and never have been a Member of a Catholic faith. Neither do I view
that an ordinary human being can be a priest to give someone a blessing. However, in my view
and considering S116 of the constitution that we have freedom of religion other than when a
person commits a criminal act then I view that the Archbishop of Melbourne, at least as I
understand it from what he stated, is correct that the secrecy of confession cannot be disturbed.
As I understand it the Priest is not even to know who (the identity) is in the confession room with
him. It would be a violation of the confession secrecy to demand from a priest to check his/her
identity. I have written in the past about people who commit crimes, in particular sex-crimes that
they have no one to turn to as to seek assistance/help to overcome a problem because any
doctor/nurse, etc he/she turns to will report him/her.
Pretend you are in a situation where a person talks to you that he/she might commit some kind of
crime. If you run to the authorities then the person might simply say you misunderstood what
he/she stated. You lost by this the very opportunity to assist the person to resolve matters
appropriately.
I had once a man who was grieving badly and one day he called me and briefly stated: I know
what to do! I realized that he might likely kill his wife. My response was, as I recall: Whatever
you do keep in mind that in time you have to tell your son it was in his best interest.
It was weeks later he being aware I was coming to Melbourne he was waiting for me. He thanked
me for what I had stated and gave me the understanding that at the time he called me he had an
alibi and was sitting outside the residence of his wife (they had separated) and was going to kill
his wife with a crowbar. It is just that on the last minute he called me and that what I stated
caused him to abandon the intended murder.
There was this incident with a man who well had lost confidence in the court system and one day
during the night he called me that he was about going to electrocute himself. I hang up. He called
me back that we had been disconnected. I stated I had hung-up and would do so again. This time
he called me again and very furious stated that I was running up his phone bill by hanging up. I
responded that he shouldn’t worry about the phone bill if he is going to kill himself. He then
responded that he wasn’t going to kill himself for my sake. Hours later, during the day he came
over (as he lived nearby) and thanked me for how I had conducted matters. He explained he
really was going to kill himself but that because I was hanging up to him, something he had
never expected, I got him very angry and well it changed his plans. Because I knew him for years
I had some idea how to deal with him but it always remains a very difficult way of dealing with
any person and no one is the same as the other person. As such any tactic has to be different.
To give you another example: A social worker contacted me that a man had admitted in court
that he had violated his daughter but no matter he held that as the father he had the right to do
whatever he wanted. She asked if I could perhaps work with him as he contemplated custody for
this daughter, etc. I accepted, FREE OF CHARGE. So I gave the man a second hand computer
so he could work on it for the case, as I had a file on it with family Court forms, etc. Considering
the distance of more than 200 kilometres the cost to travel constantly was to be as much as
possible to be avoided.
The first thing I do with anyone who contacts me is to avoid criticizing the person. I am not a
judge and juror and leave it up to the courts to decide a person’s guilt or innocence. By this avoid
to deter a person to contact me or stay in contact with me. So this man desired my assistance to
prepare his custody case, etc. And well I repeatedly during visits as well as during telephone
conversations referred to his rights. After about 3 months I went to his place because he had
indicated to be ready to file his case. Upon my arrival his comment was, as I recall it: You
always talk about my rights but never about my daughter’s rights. I violated her rights and it
would be inappropriate for me to file the case. I had achieved precisely what I had contemplated.
By constantly referring to his rights it made him think and well he finally accepted he had
violated his daughters rights, without that I stated this. Later the social worker called me
thanking me for assisting her brother. She made known she didn’t want me to know it was her
brother, but she is pleased I was able to get through to him in my way as she had been unable to
do so.
*. Gee, from the few examples you have given I cannot see how parental leave for domestic
violence can resolve these kind of issues.
**#** Do not get me wrong but many partners are the cause of violence inflicted by the other
person. For example when you have a person who is using verbal abuse, nagging, etc, then in the
end this might just drive a person over the edge. It is in my view wrong to claim violence against
women and children are wrong. It should be violence against any person is wrong. Not
uncommon women claim that the person they killed was for example verbally abusing them. Yet
the same is not used in favour of a man having done the killing. I oppose the killing of any
person in principle but we have that many women claim that to abort a child is OK, as it is their
body. Well, the moment a woman engages in a sexual act then she in my view gave up this right
if she became pregnant. As I stated in principle I am against the killing of any person, born or
unborn. But I can accept that in an emergency, say in an accident, doctors may be faced with a
dilemma that to save the life of the mother the baby might have to be taken out and may not
survive. Also, if a young child is raped then medical advice might be that the pregnancy should
be terminated. However, I do not accept that women who flaunt any safety precaution not to
become pregnant then can use abortion instead. It take 2 persons in general for a woman to
become pregnant and I view that once a woman becomes pregnant then the other person has
equal rights as to the unborn/born child. It is never OK to say a woman can kill and unborn baby
bit if the man does it then it is a crime. You cannot have that a man is responsible for the cost
relating to a pregnancy but the woman can willy nilly kill the unborn baby by abortion, etc. A
man in general has his feelings towards the unborn child and to kill his offspring can rage a
person. Also teaching children it is OK to kill an unborn child will teach the children to not value
human life themselves!
What we need is not giving days off to anyone who claims to be subject to family violence as
this is in my view open to misuse and abuse and not really resolving anything but to add to the
cost of employing in particularly woman. When my wife (to whom I was separated) held a
butcher knife to my throat (in front of 5 small children) to demand I stay the night I didn’t even
report it. I discovered later the children did to the Department of Human Services. Getting time
of may not be applicable to everyone either. After all, many custodian parents are likely not
employed in a daily job. So, they have absolutely no benefit to this paid leave whatsoever.
*. You were at one stage a single parent with up to 5 of your then small children, weren’t you?
**#** Indeed I was. It was in my view the best time of my life, including the home schooling.
Most fathers do not have this opportunity. They are robbed of their children by court orders no
matter they committed no wrongs. It is that loss of their children that can drive many over the
edge. No one there to assist them to get through this ordeal, unless of course they were in contact
with me. But there is a limit to what I can do. After all Michael Alderton was in prison and
ended-up hanging himself as he had no opportunity to stay in contact with me and I understood
his lawyer had lied to him and so being denied to see his children he simply didn’t want to live
on. Others however consider to kill the person they hold responsible and others to just kill the lot.
We just had this mass murder in Western Australia and I for one cannot see how this family
violence leave is going to address this kind of mass-murder. The man may have just been lacking
appropriate support to assist him through any grieving and well ended up doing what he did. In

no way would I ever condone this kind of violence as in general as stated before I view no one
had the right to take the live of another person.
* You are not particularly impressed with the conduct of the Department of Human Services, are
you?
**#** Whatever their name might be in various states, I have in the past taken them on and very
successfully. They go to the Children Court or whatever other court for orders for children to be
placed under their control and yet when a child dies in their care they claim that they are
overburdened. In my view a Court should insist that a particular person of the Department is
nominated and that if this person is unable to perform the required care then this person must
seek amendment of orders as to nominate another person. As such a particular parson in the
Department is to be held legally liable if harm comes to a child in its care. Not the nonsense to
claim they do not have enough staff and yet still applies for more children to be placed in their
care. You don’t place a child in the care of a Department to end up worse than where it was
before. I remember how I was staying over in St Kilda and was using my sewing machine to
mend the young women their clothing. They would stand on the table to have the hems done, etc.
* You were looking after the young women?
**#** We were all staying there overnight and well I was doing the sewing and they were baking
cakes for me, their way to show their appreciation. When I just had my 2 year old daughter I
used to travel a lot and well a young woman would look after my house and the dog. She had a
key to let herself in and even when we were home she would spend many evenings with us. Just
that one day she told me she was pregnant and asked me what my views were about an abortion.
I explained it was not my decision to make but in my view I would respect any woman who kept
a child and give it the same birthright as she had to be born. Soon after that the people in the
town began with threats against me for getting her pregnant, etc. One even stated that they should
break my legs! Getting worried about my safety. The woman than on a visit asked me why I
didn’t tell them I was not the father. I explained it was no once business but hers if she didn’t
want to marry the biological father. As we never held hand, kissed or were intimate we knew it
was not nor could be my child and so I was not concerned about what the town’s people were on
about, even so they threatened to burn down my house, etc. This kind of aggressiveness and
violence surely isn’t going to go away with some family violence paid leave, and no employer
was involved for either one of us. Hence it is a matter of education and providing appropriate
facilities.
* Was she a beautiful woman?
**#** To tell you the truth, we spend many evenings together and had picnics with my 2 year
old daughter, etc, but I really never saw her as a female but as a friend. It was the last time I saw
her on her way to her grandmother’s funeral I for the first time saw her in a dress and then
happen to drop: Gee you are beautiful. There are ample of women who really appreciate it when
a man sees them as a friend and not as a mere sex object.
* So your message to the politicians is you are failing to understand the core problems?
**#** That is right. There is a lot more to it but the Family Court of Australia I view is a major
cause of it all. If it dealt harshly with those who are deliberately committing perjury then I view
likely we may have a lot less murders. I was given the understanding that a woman went in
hospital for an operation and when she came back to her house her husband announced he had
gone to court and obtained interim custody and orders she was not to come near the matrimonial
home. He simply had all along prepared a case using her hospital stay to get ex parte orders on
the basis she had walked out of the home to an unknown address. I was given the understanding
that when finally a year or so later she was able to go to court to prove the facts the court then
held that it was undesirable to change custody after such time. As such effectively the court
rewarded perjury and causing a miscarriage of justice to the man.
With the Department of Human Services I attend the children’s home of my daughter’s twin
half-siblings, which were 13 years old and notice them smoking cigarettes. I made known they
were too young to be smoking. A case worker then made clear to me that I was not their father
and they were entitled to smoke cigarettes. Afterwards the twins gave me the understanding that
the case worker had made known that if they wanted to keep getting cigarettes then they better
tell the court they do not want to go back to their mother but stay in care. Case worker making
promised of presents, etc, to snag the twins as after all the taxpayers are paying the bill. And it
are those kind of caseworkers who then claim they are overworked and no time for the child that
died in their care. When a case worker tells children we give you those things and take you out
but if you were to stay with your mother then she has no money for this, to me this is bribery and
undermining the very legal provisions for which the Department of Human Services is supposed
to be for. What therefore is needed is AFTER COURT HEARING consultation facilities with the
losing party. This, so a competent person can deal with the grievance of the person who lost.
Leave domestic violence in the hands of the states as a criminal matter. I view from decades of
experiences that the Family Court of Australia only adds to the problems. I have for decades
stated that in any family dispute instead of it going to a Family Court it should go before a
Magistrate who is assisted with 3 social workers and the magistrate is there to make any orders
formal. As such the social workers should be experienced to understand what is appropriate.
Avoiding as such involving lawyers may save many relationships. If the social workers hold the
matter should not proceed to a Family Court but remain in initial discussions without lawyers
involved then that should be provided for. Once lawyers are getting involved then it is a lawyer’s
breakfast laughing all the way to the bank while clients end up on the street losing everything
they worked for.
* Don’t you hold that the reference of legislative powers to the Commonwealth is
unconstitutional unless approved by a State referendum?
**#** That is correct. As I stated before there is a lot more to it all but I merely highlighted some
issues. I oppose and also on UNCONSTITUTIONAL grounds (as embedded as a legal principle
in the constitution) any ex-parte orders where the person against whom the orders were made
was denied a fair and proper ability to attend to the hearing. As I referred to above you got judges
reciting the mantra for the interest and wellbeing of the child while they often do precisely the
opposite and do not have a clue what is in the best interest of the child. As I stated when a judge
doesn’t even understand what is appropriate for a tender age child to be fed then this underlines
how incompetent those so called experts in family law really are about. It is a tragedy when any
parent kills a child and we cannot condone thinks in any way but we can and should seek to
avoid it coming to this that a person somehow no longer values the live of a child.
* Did you ever have someone contacting you who indicated a desire to kill his/her child?
**#** I did and this person didn’t in the end not go ahead with it but more important about 15
years later this person contacted me that this person was glad I was there when this person
needed someone as now this person was in a situation this person had condemned 15 years
earlier as to justify the killing of a child. It is a temporary mental perception they are I, albeit it
can last days, weeks, months, even years unless someone like myself who understand the hurting,
etc, who then can assist the grieving person through it. That is why badly needed assistance is
needed to address the real problems and educate judges better in child care, etc.
Judges such as Kay J made clear he didn’t want me to be in his court room, even sitting in the
public gallery, because he didn’t want me to use what he stated in another court case against him.
I made clear that if he didn’t use DOUBLE STANDARDS then I could not do so.

My daughter came into my care after I took the Department of Human services to court
(Supreme Court of Victoria) to neglect my 2 year old daughter. My daughter and her half-
siblings were placed with the Department of Human Services due to the mother’s boyfriend’s
sexual abuse with some of the children, I understood a previous boyfriend was wanted for the
same but the mother refused to reveal his details. The Supreme Court of Victoria granted me the
orders to make my daughter a WARD OF THE COURT (that is not being a ward of the State)
this as I wanted to protect her from the Family Court of Australia claws. The Court also made
clear that if the mother had any male present while my daughter was to go on access I was
entitled to deny access. Then I noticed a boyfriend in the unit where my daughter’s mother was
to have access to my daughter and so I decided not to allow any access. The Department of
Human Services then had a warrant issued via the police against my daughter. Yet, a 2 year old
child was formally arrested! I took it back to the Supreme Court of Victoria and His Honour
O’Brian made clear that contrary to the submission of the Department of Human service it
couldn’t override Supreme Court of Victoria court orders and the warrant was unlawful and I
was granted final custody orders. The mother never relented to pursue for custody. After all it
was always for free on legal aid.
In about mid 1992 I friend advised me that it seemed my daughter was sexual abused. I decided
to tka my daughter to the Department of Human Services in Swan Hill (near where I then
resided) and asked them to investigate. I declined to be present while they questioned my
daughter as to prevent them to claim that I might influence her in her answers. The staff member
came later back making clear my daughter refused to talk. I decided this was not sufficient and so
took my daughter to the royal children Hospital for a doctor to check it out. The medical report
was that my daughter had injuries that appeared to be from sexual abuse and that the healing was
consistent with the time period since her last access to her mother. Her mother had married the
man I referred earlier to. Unbeknown to me ate same time there were legal proceedings before
the children Court relating to my daughters half sibling about 1 year older then her who was
allegedly also sexual abused and the court I understood had ordered the husband (not the father
of an y of the children) to not come near the matrimonial home. As such there were two sisters
who appeared to have been sexual abused while at their mother’s residence.
On 9 October 1992 the court ordered that the mothers custody application was dismissed ( she
was represented by lawyers) and was not permitted to file any further applications without the
leave of the court, as I pursued that order due to certain issues.
However the mother’s lawyers couldn’t give a darn and filed yet another custody application
which came before Strauss J in December 1992. I raised the issue of the previous order and
Strauss made clear he was going to hear the case nevertheless. DOUBLE STANDARDS.
During the hearing he at times commented that there was a need to change custody. Hand when I
desired to cross examine a witness from the Department of Human Service he made clear that I
really couldn’t get anything to show a change of custody was not needed. But I insisted and so
was allowed cross-examination. Something that ordinary was my rights anyhow. During the
cross examination the evidence of the witness totally went against what the judge had been
claiming and so in the end I retained custody. During the case the mothers lawyers (that is when I
learned of the half-sibling sexual abuse litigation earlier) that the Children Court had it wrong
with its orders against the mothers husband. Yet, scandalously at the very least Strauss J
commented that I could not accuse the mother’s husband unless I had actually observed him
abusing my daughter as I could have been the person who had done it.
So, my conduct to not accept the Department of Human Services it had no ability to deal with it,
while in fact (as I afterwards discovered) they knew of proceedings then on foot in the children
Court against the mothers husband for sexual abuse on my daughters half-sibling I persisted to
have doctors checking out my daughter, was Strauss to imply I could have been the perpetrator.
Just that as I had no contact with the half-sibling at that time this was clearly nonsense.
Moreover, despite all this as I set out below when I was imprisoned than the Family Court of
Australia ordered my daughter to stay with her mother and I was not allowed to contact my
daughter at all during that period of time. I was advised by friends that my daughter had crying
phoned them asking for me and that she stated her mother had told her she would never see me
again.
By the orders and the only valid orders of the Supreme Court of Victoria I had the right to deny
access when I had concerns as to the safety of my daughter, but the Family court of Australia
instead forced her to stay with her mother regardless of her husband being for some time
subjected to Children court orders.
To me I was possibly dealing with pedophile judges who pretend to care for the rights of the
child but in real terms use this mantra to achieve the opposite.
Fogarty J found me in 1994 guilty of breaching orders just that he never charged me, didn’t let
me place my case before him and neither to challenge any orders. I did remind Fogarty J twice
on that he had not charged me but he ignored it. He was furious because the opponent lawyer had
read out part of my correspondence to him that I held that even a first year law student would do
better than Fogarty J. Fogarty was one of the most senior judges! I then had to go through the
expense of appeal. This can be very expensive just to obtain the transcript. On appeal opponent
barrister Sweeney submitted to the Full court that Fogarty J didn’t need to charge me because he
held that I was likely more competent in law then any lawyer appearing before the court and so
no need for any formal charges, etc. The full court took about 6 months and on 19 December
1994 upheld my appeal making known that Fogarty J should have followed proper legal
procedures to charge me, let me plea my case, etc. it did however not provide a single cent
compensation to me for the cost of the appeal! Moreover, that same day Hase J commenced a
trail for failure to comply with access orders to the non-custodian mother. But let me go back in
time. I was in Brisbane to assist Mr John Murray Abbott who was the leader of the
BLACKSHIRS in his appeal regarding the Registrar having sold his house well below cost in
violation of court orders. Mr Abbott had complied with the terms of court orders but the
Registrar nevertheless went ahead to sell his property even so not permitted to do so by the terms
of the orders. The Full Court held that the Registrar had acted in violation of the court order but
that this was not within the courts powers. I view this was utter and sheer nonsense, as the court
should have held the registrar in contempt of court and ordered him, if found guilty, to pay
compensation to Mr John Murray Abbott. However, while in Brisbane I made known to Mr John
Murray Abbott that a staff member of the Family court of Australia Melbourne Registry had in
confidence warned me to have overheard judges to collude to make me pay for exposing their rot
and they planned to imprison me to teach me a lesson. Mr John Murray Abbott scoffed on this as
surely the court would never do so. On 5 December 1994 I appeared before Hase J (mind you I
had previously filed an Affidavit questioning the mental competence of Hase J considering his
conduct in a previous hearing) and he ordered me to stand trial on 19 December for violating
access orders. I had a hearing before the High Court of Australia on 8 December 1994
challenging the validity of the Family court of Australia litigation this as my daughter was
subject to Supreme Court of Victoria wardship orders being a Ward of the Supreme Court and
the Family court of Australia had no jurisdiction in that regard. However Dawson J I view played
along with the Family Court of Australia judges claiming that the Cross Vesting Act allowed the
Family Court of Australia to take over Court wardship. This obviously was utter and sheer
nonsense as there was first of all no Cross Vesting Act application in the case to even attempt the
transfer, and the English court are on record that one cannot even by consent invoke jurisdiction
of a ward of a court of another jurisdiction. I had challenged the validity of the application of the
Cross Vesting Act but with Dawson J I got nowhere, even so I made clear the Family Court of
Australia contemplated to imprison me. It must be highlighted that in 1999 Wakim then the High
Court of Australia held the Cross Vesting Act was unconstitutional and as such by hindsight I
proved all along to be correct. It also means that all orders of the Family Court of Australia, the
High Court of Australia, etc, were indeed without legal justification as I all along had
maintained. This as a legislation that is unconstitutional is ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio and as such
any orders are and remain to be NULL AND VOID this in view that I all along challenged the
validity to apply the Cross Vesting Act. So on 19 December 1994 I appeared before Hase J who
essentially was notably giving evidence from the bench that I submitted for him to take the
witness box so I could cross examine him upon what he falsely claimed from the bench. He
refused. The case finished on 22 December 1994 and I was ordered to be imprisoned for 21 days
for violating access orders (I was the custodian father). On 5 January 1995 I appeared before the
Full court of the Family court of Australia as to my appeal against the imprisonment orders but
the Full Court (which included Fogarty J-something I held most inappropriate) upheld the orders.
Notably Nicholson J held I should go back to prison this even so the Child Representative as well
as the mothers lawyers made known they didn’t desire me to be imprisoned further. I submitted
that I had effectively served the 21days because of remissions and as such free to go. However
Nicholson made clear that I was wrong in law and had me returned to the cells under the
Magistrates Court in Melbourne. When I came there I made known to the Sergeant in charge as I
recall: I remind you I 2 weeks ago filed a complaint against your conduct and I request you
contact the Governor of Pentridge to have me immediately released. He responded that he was
required to first book me in but then would immediately contact the governor. To his credit he
did and returned to advise me the governor had directed to release me immediately as I had
served my time due to remissions. I was released and went back to the Family court of Australia
in Bourke Street and notified Registrar Burke personally I was released. The next morning I went
back to the Family Court of Australia to advise the child representative I had been released. I did
so while he was waiting for the full court regarding a non-related case. I sat down in the about
empty court room, there was no court in session, when a person I understood being a Australia
Federal Police officer asked me if I could follow him into the hall way. I did. He then informed
me that he was instructed by the chief Justice to arrest me and bring me back to the cells to serve
the remainder of the sentence. I explained in detail that the Chief Justice was wrong in perception
of what the Family Law Act 1975 was about and I had served the time. I made clear I would
return to the court room. I did. The Full Court was now in session and oh boy it was a pleasure to
see the face of Nicholson J that despite his claims and instructions I was sitting there in front of
him. Later that year the Family law Act 1975 was amended that remission of time was not
applicable to federal prisoners. That I view is in fact unconstitutional this as the State is
responsible for the incarceration of prisoners, state or federal, and you cannot have that when
there is a strike by prison officers and inmates are locked up denied their right to exercise outside
the cell that then federal prisoners are denied remission of time for this while state prisoners are.
I returned home and low and behold found a court order dated 20 December 1994 that I was
sentenced to 21 days imprisonment. Now, this means that Hase J had in fact pre-determined the
21 days imprisonment and issued the orders, this even so the trial was still going until 22
December 1994. As such there were now 2 sets of orders albeit the first one had different issues
also. On 27 January 1995 I appeared before Dawson J and provided copies of the both orders,
that Hase J had pre-determined the orders and as such all orders were invalid. Dawson J
dismissed this, claiming that it was a mere mistake and as my appeal before the full court of the
Family court of Australia was the next day then he was not going to do anything about it. Well
the Full Court basically couldn’t give a damn. It was clear that I had been setup and being also a
critic upon the power abuse of the High Court of Australia Dawson J wasn’t going to bother to
deal with it appropriately, at least that is my view.
When I firstly entered the cells on 22 December 1994 under the Magistrates Court I noticed a
man sitting there on the ground crying. I went to him and asked if perhaps I could assist. He
explained the police had denied him to make a call and his wife and child didn’t know where he
was and he wanted to reverse his plea. I explained that he would do better to tell the magistrate
this as more than likely the magistrate will then ensure he can make a call and can accept a
reversal of a plea. About an hour later he was called to appear before the magistrate and
sometime later he came back and announced to others that I was The Professor. He made known
that the magistrate indeed had ordered he could make a call and also accepted a reversal of the
plea. On 24 December 1994 we were transferred to Pentridge Prison and while waiting there to
be booked in a prisoner came up to me and demanded cigarettes. The man I had previously
assisted went up to this prisoner and made known I should be left alone as I am The Professor. I
had law reports with me and during time in the canteen was showing other prisoners reports.
Some commenting that their lawyers never told them. So they were learning from the reports.
There was a lawyer in prison but he urged me not to reveal this to the other prisoners. I didn’t.
there was an elderly man very upset and so I asked if I could assist. He made known he had been
duped by his lawyers and ended up in the prison hospital where they provided drugs regarding
his illness but then back in the cell he was denied any further visits because of drugs in his
system. I went to the senior prison guard and asked for a copy of the prison rules. I was informed
that there was only one coppy and that he wasn’t to give this to anyone. I made clear that for me
to be able to comply with prison rules I needed to read the rules and failing this I would file a
complaint with the Ombudsman of denial iof my rights. The Senior then relented and gave me
the copy. I took it to the man and showed that by the rules he was wrongly denied family access.
I returned the rukles to the senior prison officer. The next day the access was reinstated for him.
This man then asked if I was willing to work for him as I was better than all his lawyers. I
declined. I understood he had a trucking company. I was well received by the other inmates and
when I came to the canteen I was given more than my fair share of pies, cakes, etc, as they made
clear they had to look after The Professor. One inmate gave me the understanding of an offered
to deal with my daughter’s mother so she never again could bother me. I declined politely. On 4
January 1994 a prisoner made known to me that he overhead some prison guards they were going
to deal with me after lock up and he gave me the understanding that it would mean the next day I
would leave the prison in a pine box feet first. Being warned I went to the doctor and asked him
to inspect my body for any bruises, etc. Back in the cell I decided to hide pencils which had my
name printed on them so if the guards were claiming to do a drug search then they surely could
find the pencils. After all instead of a pencil it could be a straw containing drugs. Well, after lock
up the cell did swing open and a bunch of prison guards where there. I stood next to the door and
I recall stating: officers I was this morning notified you would visit me and so I have been to the
doctor to have my body checked for any injuries, etc. OK, that was what they had not expected.
They told me to strip outside as they were going to search for drugs. The ripped as part my law
reports and other items threw the food out of containers but at no time really searched for any
drugs and didn’t find any of the pencils. The experiences I gained was that at times so called
suicides may be nothing less than prison guards having killed an inmate. The next morning I had
to go to the Family Court of Australia for my appeal (as referred to above) and a prison guard
made clear to me that when I return they would have their kind of fun with me to teach me a
lesson. Just that I never returned.
Not long after I was released from prison and my daughter returned to my care the mother
arrived to return my daughter from access. She was explaining they had a hold up due to a
damaged windscreen. I went to my car took my windscreen protector of and handed it to her
husband.
Now, instead of having me going on to her, I simply was nice and friendly and gave them a
windscreen protector.
It was after that the mother didn’t to my recollection bother to have access again.
After many months I instituted contempt proceedings against the mother for violating court
orders. This was dismissed. On appeal making clear what is good for the Goose is good for the
Gander, Nicholson CJ made clear the mother was not bound to comply with the court orders as
the non-custodian parent if she didn’t want to. Moment, many non-custodian parents are held
legally accountable for violating terms of access orders but this woman is not bound to comply
with orders. That to me is using DOUBLE STANDARDS!
.
My daughter now married with 4 children made clear she still feel some guilt that I ended up in
prison for her protection. As such, the Family Court of Australia caused long term harm and this
in blatant disregard to the terms of the Supreme Court of Victoria court orders. He refused to
consider other Family Court of Australia court orders regarding 4 of my other children,
regardless of the conflict of the orders. No one in his right mind can accept that a single father
can travel with 5 children making a 1,000 round trip and due to the lack of public transport has to
stay over in motels, etc, can do this from a mere $20 a week, that the mother didn’t even pay at
all.
Despite drawn out litigation for child support the mother simply disregarded compliance with the
orders, this even so I was forced to make a 1,000 kilometres round trip to provide my daughter
for access as the judge made clear that the mother would be paying $20 a week for child support.
* Quite frankly I do not know how you were able to keep your sanity by all this!
**#** Again there is a lot more to it all but that is why many a non-custodian parent regretfully
may come to a decision that to kill might be the best in the circumstances. Many a person have
given me the understanding that the reputation of the Family Court of Australia deters them to go
near this court and they rather find their own kind of solution.
* This is horrible!
**#** As I discovered you cannot raise the issue of sexual abuse of your child, as least as a
single father, as you find some idiot of a judge who will accuse you then regardless of the
medical evidence I filed. This is why even so I make clear not to condone any killings I can
UNDERSTAND that a person can be driven in despair to kill.
* Now I can understand why people were eager to contact you as they became aware you were
successfully doing your own representation to keep custody despite the conduct of the judges.
**#** I once assisted a woman (she never had lawyers) to again custody only for her to tell me
afterwards she had fabricate the sexual abuse against the girl’s father, etc. Well not long
thereafter I was able to get the custody to the father! The father represented by lawyers had lost
custody and discovered that I was able to get custody transferred to him by minutes of consent
orders properly signed with witnesses!
* Do you accept that family violence is the start of things?
**#** Not necessary. As I indicated some woman are couched by others to pursue a divorce and
make false allegation and the environment of the Family Court of Australia is such that you got
judges who do not care less about the commit perjury. I understand that in the USA judges
purchase many homes and an investigation found that when the home was paid off by the
lawyers of a defendant then the defendant was cleared of any wrongdoing. Also there was a
Family court judges who was trained by the opponent barrister, so was made clear when he
became a judge, and this judge as I understand it without any formal hearing simply issues orders
for a police officer to provide copies of all my writings to him. The police officer while objecting
did so on a CD as it was a lot of documents. All my writings had been WITHOUT PREJUDICE
but this judge couldn’t care less as he ordered the opponent party to be provided with it all,
without my knowledge when he made the orders. This judge was hoping to get me for
CONTEMPT OF COURT with my writings but failed miserably. I was suddenly called as a
witness for the party I was assisting and the judge then accused me of breaking and entering a
property belonging to the other party. This judge had been dealing for some time with the case. I
made clear that he simply failed to understand what the case was about because on written
request of the party I was assisting to secure the empty property I had installed new locks and
locked the windows to prevent unauthorized access and that the other party never was a
registered owner of the property as the judge claimed. So this judge then simply ordered that the
other party could have full control of the property! To me there was absolutely no legal
justification for any of it, but when the opposing barrister is your former teacher who got you to
become a lawyer then that to me stinks big time.
*. Have you ever heard other lawyers about this?
**#** Not uncommon lawyers would tell me albeit off the record they wish they could speak up
as I did even so I always remain polite, but they would likely have their next client suffering as
result.
*. You indicated that the reference of legislative powers is not constitutional valid, or to that
perception.
**#** I wrote about the Registrar in the courts without supervising judge would be
unconstitutional and sometime later they announced that the Registrar in the Family Court of
Western Australia was without a supervising judge and now a judge was appointed. Also
regardless what any judge may claim otherwise the Letters Patent that was Gazetted on 2 January
1901 regarding the State of Victoria is clear that there must be an impartial administration of
justice. As such, the Parliament cannot refer legislative powers to the
Commonwealth without s123 of the federal constitution state referendum, this as any referral of
legislative powers includes diminish the judicial powers of the State Supreme Court. Parliament
has absolutely no legislative powers to diminish the judicial powers of the Supreme Court of
Victoria as only the State electors by referendum can achieve to do so, by approving a reference
of legislative powers.
*.On that basis all references of legislative powers of any State without a state referendum then is
unconstitutional?
**#** That is correct. Any orders flowing from unconstitutional reference of powers are NULL
AND VOID.
*. Is it constitutionally permissible for the federal government to direct family violence paid
leave?
**#** When it comes to ordinary employment contracts within the limits of a state I view that
the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth cannot interfere with that.
This PRESS RELEASE is already long and so I will avoid quoting the Framers of the
Constitution but rest assure they did make this clear. Regretfully in my view we lack competent
constitutional trained judges and so there will be an ongoing mess out of it all. We lack properly
educated politicians in constitutional matters and their advisors seems to me to be no better. You
can throw good money after bad but will not get any better system when the system at least in
my view is rotten to the core. What I have set out is merely a small part of a lot more but should
be sufficient to indicate there is a lot wrong with the Family Court of Australia/Western
Australia, so with magistrates operating under the same system. When so to say you disfranchise
in general many men from their parental rights not because they wronged but because of
unproven allegations by ex-parte orders then you are in fact ensuring that the killing fields will
remain to exist! I may add that all Family Law court orders relating to non-marriages are
unconstitutional as no reference of legislative powers was ever validly referred to the
Commonwealth, as no State referendum was held to approve this reference of legislative powers.
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!)

20180913-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 15-Family Violence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20180913-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 15-Family Violence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSUE: 20180913- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 15-Family violence

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

p1 13-9-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p3 13-9-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p4 13-9-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p6 13-9-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p8 13-9-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like