20090131 submission

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

1/23

p1 x-x-2009INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax

0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail [email protected] See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

WITH OUT PREJUDI CE National Human Rights Consultation Secretariat 31-1-2009

Attorney-General's DepartmentCentral Office, Robert Garran Offices5

National Circuit, BARTON ACT 2600

1800 086 134

email at [email protected]

.

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN10.

Re; SUBMISSION

My submission is also about:Access to justice, Age discrimination, Australian Human Rights Commission (HREOC),Children and young people’s rights, Disability discrimination, Economic, Social and15

Cultural Rights, Education, Freedom of assembly and association, Freedom of expression,

Health, Homelessness and poverty, Housing, Human rights in rural Australia, Immigration

and refugees, Indigenous rights, Charter of rights/human rights act/human rights legislation,

National security and terrorism, Privacy, Race discrimination, Religion, Sexdiscrimination/gender equality, Sexuality discrimination, Treatment of people who are20

arrested or detained, Other

However, this is a very limited SUBMISSION and therefore I refer to my already published

books for more extensive set out regarding all issues.

.PLEASE NOTE:25This submission is for publication purposes provided and as such not confidential!

.

Sir/Madam,

I am one who does not fear to speak up for the truth and that may also explain why I30

can succeed where others fail. Since 1982, I have conducted a special lifeline service under the

motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Albeit I am not a lawyer (legal practitioner) I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and an Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues and

for decades have assisted people as an Attorney in their litigation (FREE OF CHARGE).35

Now, before embarking upon the Human Rights issue lets give an example albeit for reasons that

a trial is in progress I will refrain from any identification to a particular case, so this submission

can be published..

A few weeks ago a man contacted me that he was about to be sentenced to prison as he was40

convicted in regard of CONTEMPT OF COURT and has been trying to get a hold on me

for some time (I am very busy) and if I could assist him.

So, a few days ago I attend to the Court hearing to assist this man and immediately objectedto the lawyers who had been prosecuting the case against this man to be present as I made

clear they lacked any legal standing in the case. Well counsel for the lawyers obviously45

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

2/23




was going on about all kinds of legal issues, legislative provisions, etc. but in the end the

judge made clear that as I had objected against their presence there was no alternative but

they had to leave. And under objections they finally did.

This obviously may underline that albeit I am not a lawyer I just know more about legal provisions then those lawyers did of one of the largest law firms of Australia.5

Next I requested the Court to order that I be provided with all files FREE OF CHARGE

held by the Court regarding the case so I could fully investigate further the entire case as I

submitted I aimed to prove that for the last two years every court decision was without

jurisdiction and also that in any event this man had done no wrong in law. The trial judgethen ordered that I would be provided with a copy of the entire file, FREE OF CHARGE10

.

Now you may hold that this extra ordinary conduct that albeit I am not a lawyer I could achieve

immediately what normally lawyers cannot do but that is because I pursue the RULE OF LAW!

I am not particularly a person who talks about human rights because I am well aware too manylawyers are talking about this but so that they keep themselves so to say in a job earning a lot of 15

money rather then any genuine intention to pursue Human Rights.

Because I provide my services FREE OF CHARGE at least no one can therefore accuse me of

prostituting myself to the highest bidder to win a case.

.And let’s get back for a moment to the case referred to above.20

In Victoria they have this legislation of Human Rights Act but in reality I found it is entirely

worthless when you are facing , so to say, a pack of vultures that are then to make mince meat of

you and disregard what your Human Rights and other fundamental rights are.In this case the person in question had cleared part of his yard in 1973 as to build a shed. Je just

couldn’t afford then to build one and not until 2004 when he had a shed donated that previously25

was registered as a shed by a College could he finally build the shed. Being it that it formally

belonged to a college where students used it the shape and size was considerable with large

windows, etc. But to this person it would function for him in his religious practices to have himdistributing food to the needy. Council had a different view and began to hit him with legislative

provisions of 1993, 1987, 2004 and 2006 where they began to pursue this even so every30legislation had been implemented long after the clearance had been done.

Subsequently the Court held that it was not a shed but a dwelling because it had large windows

and no access for a motor vehicle, etc.Whatever could go wrong did go wrong (but no one had enough intelligence to realise this

then) and this man refusing to demolish the shed and return the area back into condition35

the council would dictate ended up with a conviction for contempt of court.

Now you may ask where were all this man’s Human Rights? It seems that his human rights

bestowed upon him would be to end up in prison and kicked of the property and hear about allthose people talking about Human Rights but not being there to ensure he just got his legal rights.

The Office of the Public Advocaat was one of which were involved but I quickly realised the40

man was better without this kind of help where the Office of the Public Advocaat seemed toconsider matters as the Court held it to be regardless how legally wrong it was. Likewise so other

lawyers.The day I stepped in it was the crucial moment that council was going to move in and bulldoze

the shed and then it was expected to sell up the property and so the man and his wife would be on45

the street and he still be facing a term of imprisonment. And, where were all those lawyers who

are so busy about human rights? They were not around.

They talk a lot and get a lot paid and even can be awarded medals from the Human RightsCommission but in the end it is a person like myself who albeit may never be recognised by the

Human Rights Commission is the one who really provides the required assistance needed.50

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

3/23




So, when ever I hear about Human Rights Commissions then I wonder how much more nonsense

we are going to face. Another lot who pretend more then likely to know what they are doing but

more then likely are the same or worse as others.

With this man and his shed, I submitted in writing, in more then 100 pages a detailed report whythis man had absolutely done no legal wrong. How the lawyers and the council had pursued5

frivolous and vexatious litigation and abused the legal processes and in fact conspired to pervert

the course of justice over the past two years to deliberate harm this man uncalled for.

Now any lawyer may know that for me to make such strong statement and then a judge to make

known having read the material and being extremely concerned as to what had eventuated previously and wanting to appropriately deal with the case now then clearly the Court began to10

show real concerns as to what had been happening to this man.

I have absolutely no doubt that at the end the Court will set aside all past orders and declare them

all having been without JURISDICTION, but it doesn’t serve to explain this all in this

submission, merely that since I made my attendance the Court immediately seeks to fullycooperate with me to establish what really was appropriate.15

Still the fact nevertheless is that with all the human rights provisions, legislation, etc, in the end

was it not for my intervention this man could have ended up on the street and in prison.

.

Therefore it is essential that those who scream about human rights, etc, do realise you aresimply wasting your time if you do not follow through and have vultures still tearing apart20

the people who are subjected to them.

.

It must be made clear that I did not at all rely upon any so called human rights and as Author of many books I seldom ever do refer to human rights because I see no need to do so.

.25

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am too aware that the agenda of any government is not to

promote human rights (fools are those who take that position to belief their gospel) as all

Governments want is to get legislative powers so they can legislate to control human rights..

I understand that the Federal Attorney-General is about recognising “SOVEREIGN30PARLIAMENTS” which is beyond the constitutional ability of anyone to do. fool those who

lack to understand this. When the colonies were to federate, the colonial Parliaments were in fact

“sovereign Parliaments” meaning that they could amend their constitutions art their will,however when they decided to federate it was accepted that neither the Commonwealth or the

now newly created States would have any powers to amend their own Constitutions. As such a35

State only could amend its constitution by a proposed amendment of the State Constitution and

the State electors then by way of VETO or approval decided the State Referendum. In the

commonwealth it is the same, see Section 128 of the Constitution. As such constitutionally theParliaments are all “CONSTITUTIONAL PARLIAMENTS” and have no status as being

“SOVEREIGN PARLIAMENTS”. If therefore the Federal Attorney-General pursues to get this40

Committee to recognise directly and/or indirectly a “SOVEREIGN PARLIAMENT” then forgetit as it cannot be done.

.

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T.45

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of

the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. CLARK .-for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual

citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and50

secure to him.

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

4/23




END QUOTE

.

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of

the National Australasian Convention)5

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its

Constitution,

END QUOTE.10

Did you notice that it is embedded in the constitution that there are “for the protection of

certain fundamental rights and liberties”provisions?

.

As such, the Framers of the constitution embedded in the constitution basis human rights butwere smart enough not to spell it ou in the Constitution itself so lawyers could not play with the15

meaning of the words to try to change it and neither could Parliament then seek to corrupt it

either.

.

I will now quote my correspondence of 24-11-2005, and the issue of Human Rights is alsomentioned in that regard relating to the Commonwealth of Australia and despite the obligation of 20

the Commonwealth as the Framers of the constitution stated ;

QUOTE

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individualcitizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and

secure to him.25

END QUOTE

This was I view neglected by the Commonwealth.

.QUOTE 24-11-2005 CORRESPONDENCE

WITH OUT PREJUDI CE 30President S. R Nathan, Singapore [email protected]

Cc;Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister [email protected] Soon Juan, secretary-general Democratic party. [email protected] Lex Lasry QC, Chairman of Victoria Criminal Bar Association [email protected]

Nigel Moore High commissioner to SingaporeRudd, Mr Kevin, Member for Griffith [email protected]

Robert Hull Attorney-General [email protected] John Howard [email protected] Mark Vaile (Nationals) [email protected] Kim Beezley, Leader of Her Majesty (Federal) Opposition, [email protected] Hon Malcolm Fraser [email protected] Mr Michael Jefferey, [email protected]

Mirko Bagaric [email protected] Luke Howie [email protected] John Stanhope [email protected] Solicitor-General of Victoria [email protected]

Christoph Pyne [email protected] Mr Bob Brown, Senator (Greens) [email protected] Cobb [email protected] Senator Lyn Allison (AD) [email protected]

The Honourable Clare Martin MLA [email protected] HON DR GEOFF I GALLOP BEc MA MPhil DPhil MLA [email protected]

Premier The Hon. Morris IEMMA, MP [email protected] Beattie MP, Premier [email protected] Mr Paul Lennon [email protected] MIKE RANN MP [email protected]

Terry O’Gorman Australian Council for Civil Liberties [email protected] Peter Webb, secretary-general The Law Council of Australia [email protected]

Mr Richard Faulks, President, Australian Lawyers Alliance [email protected]

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

5/23




James McConvill, Lecturer at Deakin University law School, Melbourne [email protected]

Mr Lex Lasry QC, Chairman of Victoria Criminal Bar Association [email protected] Downer (Foreign Affairs & Peter Costello, treasurer, [email protected]

Prof Andrew Fraser, [email protected] Steven Ciobo [email protected] Lawrence [email protected] Tony Jones [email protected],5Chris Ellison Minister of Justice [email protected] P Ruddock , Attorney General [email protected]

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] George Brandis, [email protected] Senator Barnaby Joyce [email protected]

Hotham Mission (Asylum Seekers Project) [email protected] [email protected] Salvation Army [email protected] Anne McNevin Australian national Univeristy [email protected]

Mr John Von Doussa QC, President, HREOC [email protected]

Mr VadakethDr Christopher Ward Marcus Einfeld QC15Bill Shorten (Union leader)

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

EXTREMEURGENTRe: Constitutional issues, Implied Abolition of Death penalty & Nguyan Tuong Van, etc.20

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Sir,It is my view that unlikely the execution of Nguyan Tuong Van has been given proper

consideration as to the implications of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, as set out

some of it below. Hence, I urge you immediate attention to this matter, and so the Government of 25

Singapore.

Nguyan Tuong Van as like any citizen of Singapore by the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore has the same rights to obtain the benefits of treaties/laws of other

Commonwealth countries, including the abolition of the death penalty, as is in fact implied toSingapore, just that the Government of Singapore my not have been aware of this.30

I urge you to at the very least postpone any execution as to enable to have appropriately verified

what I am writing about, as to ensure that Nguyan Tuong Van is not executed and then it isconfirmed that indeed the execution might have been unconstitutional (by implication) and or

otherwise he was entitled to have the benefits of treaties made by the Government with other

nations. After all, if the Singaporean Government were to disregard those issues, it may not only35

act contrary to the spirit of the relevant treaties, the British law and other provisions

“EMBEDDED ” in the Constitution, but also may undermine the rights of citizens of Singaporewhen they might be facing problems within Commonwealth nations.

I do not seek to under estimate the sever consequences of any drug smuggling, and do have the

view that a person must be appropriately punished, but a death sentence in my view is and40remains barbaric. It is what causes children to grow up becoming adults and have a disregard of

the value of human life and then may use the killing of another human being when ever theyconsider it justified, because they have been taught by their government it is all right to execute a

person if you can apply the right justification. Every one, including terrorist, have their

justification for killing other human beings. And, if the attempt of Nguyan Tuong Van was to45

import drugs out from Singapore into the Commonwealth of Australia, ironically he might have

been doing Singapore a service as to take drugs from the country, and the real crime might bedeemed to have been intended against the Commonwealth of Australia, if that was his intended

target. Hence, by a treaty I view it would be appropriate for the Singaporean government to hand

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

6/23




over Nguyan Tuong Van and so as to enable him to face the consequences of his actions within

the Australian legal system.

QUOTE

WITH OUT PREJUDI CE

Downer, The Hon Alexander, Member for Mayo [email protected] 21-11-20055

Cc Mr Lex Lasry QC, Chairman of Victoria Criminal Bar Association [email protected]

Rudd, Mr Kevin, Member for Griffith [email protected]

Ref; Tuong Van Nguyen10

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Sir,

At the very least, I have great respect for the effort Mr Lex Lasry QC is giving to try tosave the life of his client, irrespective of what his crime might have been.

15

I urge you to be open minded, and consider the following as a man’s life (and that of others later)

might depend on it.

The Commonwealth of Australi a Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as suchconsidering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English 20

Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark

(Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment

IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168

It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is25

complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution

Act 1900 (UK) is. I am really unknown what the background of Singaporean constitutional law

might be, but assuming this is British (constitutional) law also, then the same would be

applicable to Singapore.Regardless if you initially may not agree with my views, at least have it checked out, as it turns30

out I am right then Tuong Van Nguyen’s life might be saved from the gallows! Surely the life of

an Australia is worth it to check it out?

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA

END QUOTE35

QUOTE

PART I

PRELIMINARY

Citation.

1. This Constitution may be cited as the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.40

Amendment of Constitution.

5.(1) Subject to this Article and Article 8, the provisions of this Constitution may be

amended by a law enacted by the Legislature.45

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

7/23




(2) A Bill seeking to amend any provision in this Constitution shall not be passed by

Parliament unless it has been supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not

less than two-thirds of the total number of the elected Members of Parliament referred to in

Article 39 (1) (a).16/84.5

Act 17/94 wef 1.10.94 vide S 367/94

PART III

PROTECTION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE REPUBLIC OFSINGAPORE

No surrender of sovereignty by merger or in any other manner, nor relinquishment of 10

control over the Police Force or the Armed Forces unless supported by not less than

two-thirds of total votes cast by electors at a referendum.

No amendment to this Part unless supported by not less than two-thirds of total votescast by electors at a referendum.15

8. --(1) A Bill for making an amendment to this Part shall not be passed by Parliament

unless it has been supported, at a national referendum, by not less than two-thirds of thetotal number of votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary Elections Act.

END QUOTE

QUOTE20

Part VA;

"existing law" means any law having effect as part of the law of Singapore immediately before the commencement of this Constitution;

END QUOTE25

QUOTE

"law" includes written law and any legislation of the United Kingdom or other enactment

or instrument whatsoever which is in operation in Singapore and the common law in so far as it is in operation in Singapore and any custom or usage having the force of law in30

Singapore;

END QUOTE

Legislation therefore includes all laws inhired from the United kingdom, including the magna

Carta, the Bill of Rights and other legislation. More over, it includes also that the legal provisionthat the British Parliament can always amend its own laws remains applicable. Therefore the35

United kingdom by signing the European Union treaty and so its acceptance of its Constitution,

in effect has ensured that the right of the British parliament to compliment the Constitution of

Singapore was never extinguished.Again:

"law" includes written law and any legislation of the United Kingdom or other enactment40

or instrument whatsoever which is in operation in Singapore

the right of any parliament to amend its own legislation, including a constitution can only be

limited by the provisions of the Constitution, but the right to provide complimentary legislation,such as the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

8/23




Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) is clearly not avoided, as any legislation applicable to

British law automatically applies to all British law, with the exeption that constiotutional law

cannot be interfered with by implied amendments.

The purpose of the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) is not to undermine the THE REPUBLIC AND THE5

CONSTITUTION but rather is complimentary to the provisions of the Constitution.

QUOTE

Equality.12. --(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

QUOTE10

In this regard, it makes not one of iota difference if Nguyen Tuong Van is an Singaporeannational or not. His rights remains t he same. However, where the government has entered a

treaty, such as with the Commonwealth of Australia, then this can be honoured and Nguyen

Tuong Van be extradited for purpose of such treaty, as shown below the government of 15

Singapore is entitled to make a treaty;

(b) entering into any treaty, agreement, contract, pact or other arrangement with any other

sovereign state or with any Federation, Confederation, country or countries or anyassociation, body or organisation therein, where such treaty, agreement, contract, pact or 20

arrangement provides for mutual or collective security or any other object or purpose

whatsoever which is, or appears to be, beneficial or advantageous to Singapore in any way.

If therefore the Singaporean government did enter a treaty for the “beneficial or advantageous to

Singapore in any way” then it must be held that in those circumstances the extradition of Nguyen25

Tuong Van is in the interest of Singapore. To do otherwise would in effect implied anullification of the treaties which provide for the extradition of Nguyen Tuong Van!

QUOTE

PART II

THE REPUBLIC AND THE CONSTITUTION30

Republic of Singapore.

3.Singapore shall be a sovereign republic to be known as the Republic of Singapore.

Supremacy of Constitution.

4. This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted35

by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent withthis Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

END QUOTE

In my view any laws regarding the death penalty therefore is void.40

QUOTE

Participation in co-operative international schemes which are beneficial to Singapore.

7. Without in any way derogating from the force and effect of Article 6, nothing in that

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

9/23




Article shall be construed as precluding Singapore or any association, body or organisation

therein from —

(a) participating or co-operating in, or contributing towards, any scheme, venture, project,

enterprise or undertaking of whatsoever nature, in conjunction or in concert with any other sovereign state or with any Federation, Confederation, country or countries or any5

association, body or organisation therein, where such scheme, venture, project, enterprise

or undertaking confers, has the effect of conferring or is intended to confer, on Singapore

or any association, body or organisation therein, any economic, financial, industrial, social,

cultural, educational or other benefit of any kind or is, or appears to be, advantageous inany way to Singapore or any association, body or organisation therein; or 10

(b) entering into any treaty, agreement, contract, pact or other arrangement with any other

sovereign state or with any Federation, Confederation, country or countries or any

association, body or organisation therein, where such treaty, agreement, contract, pact or

arrangement provides for mutual or collective security or any other object or purposewhatsoever which is, or appears to be, beneficial or advantageous to Singapore in any way.15

END QUOTE

QUOTE

Liberty of the person.9. --(1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with

law.20

(2) Where a complaint is made to the High Court or any Judge thereof that a person is

being unlawfully detained, the Court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfiedthat the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the Court and release

him.

(3) Where a person is arrested he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his25

arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

(4) Where a person is arrested and not released, he shall, without unreasonable delay, and

in any case within 48 hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey), be produced before a magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the magistrate’s

authority.30

16/84.

(5) Clauses (3) and (4) shall not apply to an enemy alien or to any person arrested for contempt of Parliament pursuant to a warrant issued under the hand of the Speaker.

[M5

28/86.35

(6) Nothing in this Article shall invalidate any law —

(a) in force before 16th September 1963 which authorises the arrest and detention of any person in the interests of public safety, peace and good order; or

(b) relating to the misuse of drugs or intoxicating substances which authorises the arrestand detention of any person for the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation,40

by reason of such law being inconsistent with clauses (3) and (4), and, in particular,

nothing in this Article shall affect the validity or operation of any such law before 10thMarch 1978.

END QUOTE

45This part does not refer to the imposition of a death penalty, but relates to “arrest” and

“detention”, and as such must be deemed to be an implied prohibition to use a death penalty!

QUOTE

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

10/23




PART V

THE GOVERNMENT

C H A P T E R 1

T h e P r e s i d e n t

The President.517. --(1) There shall be a President of Singapore who shall be the Head of State and shallexercise and perform such powers and functions as are conferred on the President by this

Constitution and any other written law.END QUOTE

QUOTE10Discharge and performance of functions of President.

21. --(1) Except as provided by this Constitution, the President shall, in the exercise of his

functions under this Constitution or any other written law, act in accordance with the

advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet.(2) The President may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions:15

(a) the appointment of the Prime Minister in accordance with Article 25;(b) the withholding of consent to a request for a dissolution of Parliament;

(c) the withholding of assent to any Bill under Article 22E, 22H, 144 (2) or 148A;(d) the withholding of concurrence under Article 144 to any guarantee or loan to be given

or raised by the Government;20

(e) the withholding of concurrence and approval to the appointments and budgets of the

statutory boards and Government companies to which Articles 22A and 22C, respectively,

apply;(f) the disapproval of transactions referred to in Article 22B (7), 22D (6) or 148G;

(g) the withholding of concurrence under Article 151 (4) in relation to the detention or 25

further detention of any person under any law or ordinance made or promulgated in

pursuance of Part XII;

(h) the exercise of his functions under section 12 of the Maintenance of Religious HarmonyAct; and

Cap. 167A.30

(i) any other function the performance of which the President is authorised by this

Constitution to act in his discretion.

(3) The President shall consult the Council of Presidential Advisors before performing anyof his functions under Articles 22, 22A (1), 22B (2) and (7), 22C (1), 22D (2) and (6), 144,

148A, 148B and 148G.35

(4) Except as otherwise provided in clause (3), the President may, in his discretion, consult

the Council of Presidential Advisors before performing any of his functions referred to inclause (2) (c) to (i).(5) The Legislature may be law make provision to require the President to act after

consultation with, or on the recommendation of, any person or body of persons other than40

the Cabinet in the exercise of his functions other than ——

(a) functions exercisable in his discretion; and

(b) functions with respect to the exercise of which provision is made in any other provisionof this Constitution.

END QUOTE45THEREFORE, I VIEW THE PRESIDENT IS OBLIGATED TO ENSURE THAT THE

CONSTITUTION IS APPROPRIATELY COMPLIED WITH AND SO ANY LAWS

VALIDLY ENACTED WITHIN THIS CONSTITUTION. MEANING, THAT ANY LAWS

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

11/23




PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY ARE ULTRA VIRES

AND PROHIBITED FROM BEING ENFORCED.QUOTE

C H A P T E R 2

T h e E x e c u t i v e 5

Executive authority of Singapore.23. --(1) The executive authority of Singapore shall be vested in the President and

exercisable subject to the provisions of this Constitution by him or by the Cabinet or any

Minister authorised by the Cabinet.END QUOTE10

The constitution using the wording “by him or the Cabinet” thereby allows the president to

exercise Executive powers without the Cabinet, subject to the Constitution.

QUOTE15

Cabinet.24. --(1) There shall be in and for Singapore a Cabinet which shall consist of the Prime

Minister and such other Ministers as may be appointed in accordance with Article 25.(2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Cabinet shall have the generaldirection and control of the Government and shall be collectively responsible to20

Parliament.END QUOTE

While this entitles the Cabinet to control the Government it does not rule out the President fromexercising powers in regard of enforcement of law and/or treaties enacted subject to the

Constitution, and as such to honour any treaty which Singapore made with the Commonwealth of 25

Australia.

The very issue is that a treaty was made at the time for the good of Singapore, and as such the

president therefore is entitled to ensure that provisions of such treaty are adhered too and

Nguyen Tuong Van is therefore extradited to the Commonwealth of Australia.30QUOTE

Commonwealth citizenship.

139. --(1) In accordance with the position of Singapore within the Commonwealth, every person who is a citizen of Singapore enjoys by virtue of that citizenship the status of a

Commonwealth citizen in common with the citizens of other Commonwealth countries.35

(2) Any existing law shall, except so far as Parliament otherwise provides, apply in relation

to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who is not also a Commonwealth citizen as it applies

in relation to a Commonwealth citizen.END QUOTE

40

In my view, this also enshrines that Nguyen Tuong Van is in effect entitled as a citizen of Singapore to the rights as like Singaporeans are to the rights of being a Commonwealth citizen.

Meaning that laws of the Commonwealth countries and implied laws can be applied to any

commonwealth citizen, irrespective if they are Singaporean nations or not. where then there is atreaty, then Nguyen Tuong Van is entitled to the benefit of any relevant treaty, such as a45

narcotics convention. As implied by this Constitution.QUOTE

Application of Third Schedule.140. Until the Legislature otherwise provides by law, the supplementary provisions

contained in the Third Schedule shall have effect for the purposes of this Part.50END QUOTE

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

12/23




QUOTE

Restrictions on preventive detention.151. --(1) Where any law or ordinance made or promulgated in pursuance of this Part

provides for preventive detention —

(a) the authority on whose order any person is detained under that law or ordinance shall as5

soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for his detention and, subject to clause (3), the

allegations of fact on which the order is based, and shall give him the opportunity of making representations against the order as soon as may be; and

(b) no citizen of Singapore shall be detained under that law or ordinance for a periodexceeding 3 months unless an advisory board constituted as mentioned in clause (2) has10

considered any representations made by him under paragraph (a ) and made

recommendations thereon to the President.(2) An advisory board constituted for the purposes of this Article shall consist of a

chairman, who shall be appointed by the President and who shall be or have been, or be

qualified to be, a Judge of the Supreme Court, and two other members, who shall be15

appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice.

(3) This Article does not require any authority to disclose facts the disclosure of whichwould, in its opinion, be against the national interest.

[M 151

(4) Where an advisory board constituted for the purposes of this Article recommends the20

release of any person under any law or ordinance made or promulgated in pursuance of this

Part, the person shall not be detained or further detained without the concurrence of thePresident if the recommendations of the advisory board are not accepted by the authority

on whose advice or order the person is detained.

END QUOTE25

In my view, a person sentenced to death (if this is not in itself ULTRA

VIRES/UNCONSTITUTIONAL), but has not been specifically ordered to serve a term of

imprisonment until the execution of this person, then must be released after the passing of 3months. While this part relates to “no citizen of Singapore” it is already shown above that30

Commonwealth citizenship provided equality to any other person who is a citizen of the

Commonwealth with that of a citizen of Singapore.

The issue of commuting a death sentence into life imprisonment may underline that a death

sentence is not the same as sending a person to imprisonment. Therefore any omission tosentence a person to a term of imprisonment until the execution itself ought to be accepted as a35

legal floor that prevents any person being held beyond 3 months to be executed. It also ought to

be understood that otherwise a prisoner could be kept in imprisonment for the about the rest of

his natural life and then be executed, having served perhaps already 40 years imprisonment,

causing a double jeopardy to serve two different sentences, this, where as had the Court consider this, then it might have order a life sentence in the first place without any death penalty.40

QUOTE

Date of coming into operation of Constitution.156. Subject to the provisions of Part XIV, this Constitution shall come into operation

immediately before 16th September 1963.END QUOTE45

QUOTE

Rights, liabilities and obligations.

161. --(1) All rights, liabilities and obligations of Her Majesty in respect of the

Government shall on and after the commencement of this Constitution be rights, liabilitiesand obligations of the State of Singapore.50

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

13/23




(2) In this Article, rights, liabilities and obligations include rights, liabilities and

obligations arising from contract or otherwise, other than rights to which Article 160

applies.

[104

Existing laws.5162. Subject to this Article, all existing laws shall continue in force on and after the

commencement of this Constitution and all laws which have not been brought into force by

the date of the commencement of this Constitution may, subject as aforesaid, be brought

into force on or after its commencement, but all such laws shall, subject to this Article, beconstrued as from the commencement of this Constitution with such modifications,10

adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into

conformity with this Constitution.END QUOTE

Again;

and all laws which have not been brought into force by the date of the commencement of 15

this Constitution may, subject as aforesaid, be brought into force on or after its

commencement, but all such laws shall, subject to this Article, be construed as from thecommencement of this Constitution with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications

and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with this Constitution.20

This clearly does provide for the application of the The European Convention for the

protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”)!

Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002]

EWH C 908 (Admin) (24th Apr il , 2002) 25

53. In support of his submission that, for Article 6(1) to be engaged, it was necessary for therelevant proceedings to be “directly decisive” of the civil rights in question, Mr Sales

referred to and relied upon what he described as the “consistent” body of European

jurisprudence on this point over the last thirty years (see paragraph 41 of Mr Sales’

written skeleton argument) in cases such as Ringeisen -v- Austria (No. 1) (1971) 130

EHRR 455 at paragraph. 94, Albert & Le Compte -v- Belgium (1983) 18 EHRR 533 at paragraph 28, Benthem -v- Netherlands (1986) 8 EHRR 1, Boden -v- Sweden (1987)

10 EHRR 367 at paragraph 30, H -v- France (1989) 12 EHRR 74 at paragraphs 46-47

and Barmer-Schafroth -v- Switzerland (1997) 25 EHRR 598 at paragraph 32. In the

course of his submissions, Mr Sales referred to the following passage in the judgment of 35

the European Court of Human Rights (“the ECtHR”) in the case of Enzi -v- Austria(Application no. 29268/95) as a convenient and succinct statement of the relevant

principles of law upon which he relied:

“The applicability of Article 6 depends on whether there was a dispute

over “rights and obligations” which can be said, at least on arguable40grounds, to be recognised under domestic law and, if so, whether this

“right” was of a “civil” character within the meaning of Article 6(1) (see

the Oerlemans -v- the Netherlands judgment of 27 November 1991 …

paragraphs 45-49). Article 6(1) only applies if the right is civil in character

(see the Benthem -v- the Netherlands judgment of 23 October 1985 …45 paragraph 32). The “dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not

only to the existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its

exercise. The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the

right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not

being sufficient to bring Article 6(1) into play (see the Allan Jacobson -v-50

Sweden judgment of 25 October 1989 … paragraphs 66-67, and the

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

14/23




Masson and Van Zon -v- the Netherlands judgment of 28 September 1995

… at paragraph 44).”

While you may have difficulties in following my reasoning of argument, in view that Iunderstand no one so far may have even raised this kind of argument regarding Nguyan Tuong

Van, I urge you to at least order a postponement of any execution as to ensure that the issues5

raised by me are appropriately considered.

If by implication or otherwise the death penalty must be considered abolished, and/or that

Nguyan Tuong Van has the rights of benefits of the government having entered in treaties withother countries for the good of Singapore then such rights be catered for, and if needed Mr

Nguyan Tuong Van is deported to the Commonwealth of Australia subject to the10

Commonwealth of Australia instituting proceedings against Nguyan Tuong Van in regard of his

involvement in drug smuggling.

Albeit, I have absolutely no knowledge as to the conduct of the proceedings in relation to

Nguyan Tuong Van when he was subsequently convicted, I doubt if in fact matters I raise above15ever were considered at the time Nguyan Tuong Van had been apprehended.

Because, as I can filter from media reports that albeit Nguyan Tuong Van has been sentenced to

death but not sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and the 3 month period already has been

passed, then the Singaporean government would be well entitled to deport Nguyan Tuong Vanimmediately, even if this means the death sentence scheduled for 2 December 2005 cannot20

proceed.

Because I have no knowledge of Singaporean legislations in existing, etc, I make my

submissions based upon the limited knowledge I have, but please feel free to use any other

constitutional and/or legislative powers to deport Nguyan Tuong Van from Singapore as a

matter of extreme urgency.25

For the record, I am utterly despised by many judges/lawyers/politicians for exposing what theyoverlooked, and my nick name by judges is TRAPDOOR spider. As such, if anyone feel

awkward about my writings that I raised relevant issues everyone else overlooked then do not be

embarrassed as I have this ongoing happening. Just feel lucky I am not residing in Singapore and30 do this on a daily basis. And, to me, when a persons’ life is at steak, I view, I have the duty and

obligation to pursue this persons right to life, regardless who may dislike me for exposing thetrue facts.

I look forwards to your most urgent response to confirm that Nguyan Tuong Van is being

deported to the Commonwealth of Australia and now is our problem to deal with.35

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKAEND QUOTE 24-11-2005 CORRESPONDENCE

.

I WONDER WHAT DID THE Human Rights lawyers do?40

.Here we had a man executed by hanging despite that I view proper representation by thecommonwealth could have avoided this.

.

What we have is that a Government of the Day couldn’t care less about human rights if it doesn’t45

suit their particular political agenda.

No Huaman rights commission can give the Parliament legislative powers that doesn’t exist inthe Constitution and lets be clear about this.

.

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

15/23




I have already extensively published my views about the con-job referendum of 1967 about

Aboriginals and again if Aboriginals and others had known the truth I would have no doubt they

would never have voted for the Referendum to succeed.

.Firstly the referendum was pursued somehow to give Aboriginal equal rights, this was sheer and5

utter nonsense by brainwashed lawyers, etc, pursuing their political propaganda as since

Federation for constitutional purposes Aboriginals were protected as like other Australians and

were specifically so protected not to be considered to be an “inferior coloured race”. I will not

repeat my extensive writings but anyone who argues that Aboriginals prior to the Referendumhad no equality as to franchise, etc simply doesn’t know what he/she is talking about.10

Constitutionally any race subjected to special legislation within Subsection 51(xxvi) (as

Aboriginals are since 1967) have no citizenship status and have no rights to vote in elections.

Fools those who argue otherwise.

During a criminal trial lasting about 5-years I did extensively present this to the Court and on 1915

July 2006 the County Court of Victoria, by consent, ruled in my favour and as such I have a

ruling of the court to prove that I am correct. More over despite it having been a constitutional

issue before the court neither the Crown in right of the commonwealth or any Attorney General

did seek to challenge my submissions. As such each and every one was upheld unchallenged..20

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?

A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights

ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3.

This book was published on 6 July 2006 and subsequently filed as evidence in the trial and it25

contains all documents that at the time were before the Court. As such it can be checked in every

detail what the case was about.

.A major problem is that so many people in power and in decision making capacity are so

unintelligent that they do not even realise the harm they are causing to others.30.

This Human rights commission may have also members who are so limited by their tunnel vision

that they cannot grasp what I am writing about and more then likely will fail by this to do whatthey are supposed to do and that is to be open minded and appropriately consider every

submission.35

.

When I can walk into a court room and have lawyers, so to say, kicked out no matter how much

they protest, and make clear that the court did it wrong for some 2 years, etc, then surely anyonewho has a bit of brains should realise that the Court would never have gone along with this

unless it realised that I was a person to be reckon with and who, so to say, had done his home40

work..

So what I am not a lawyer but in the end the person suffering at the hands of all those highlyeducated lawyers is no better of when being kicked of his property and imprisoned as for him he

prefers to retain his property and not be imprisoned and now to sue the pants of the lawyers who45

harmed him even so I may not be a legal practitioner and do not desire any financial reward for

assisting him.

So, I stand out not to be a vulture!.

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

16/23




H A N S A R D 2-3-1898 C o n s t i t u t i o n C o n v e n t i o n D eb a t es

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that

we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.END QUOTE5

.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsiblegovernment10

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of thisConstitution is responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any15

way that guarantee.

END QUOTE

And

QUOTEMr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been20

made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but

not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it

embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will allhave been the work of Australians.

END QUOTE25

And

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have

provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the

provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the30people.

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE35

Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains

unwritten,

END QUOTEAnd

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-40

What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious

liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can

reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also

a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peopleswhom it will embrace and unite.45

END QUOTE

And

QUOTEMr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about

to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about50

to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

17/23




conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the

world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to

vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This

new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.END QUOTE5

And

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed

as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for

no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that10those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the

Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the

Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making

a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or

infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not15altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which

it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you

are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a

tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the20

states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE25

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 30amending 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 coordinatebodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all35

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.QUOTE40

.Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to

refutation if I am wrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but,45

indisputably, the great bulk of them, are subjects on which no question of state rights and

state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is, as the right hon. gentleman

admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be left for alltime to be determined in a purely states house, or by a state referendum, when those

questions are not state questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on50

national lines, and by a national referendum.

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

18/23




END QUOTE

.

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE5

Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a

judge under a Federal Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for

from Parliament or Government.

Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the10

interpreter of the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the

same sense as a federal judge is, the same circumstances remain in part; but where you

will have a tribunal constantly charged with the maintenance of the Constitution against theinroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by Parliament, then it is essential that

no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected weakness-for we do not15

know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether consciously or

not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which

might be dangerous to the Constitution itself.END QUOTE

.20

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the educationquestion-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, because25

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 theConstitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies30

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 QUOTE35

.

As I made clear earlier and now also underlines by the above quiotations no commonwealth

and/or State parliament can amend its own Constitution!

.Also civil liberty, etc are all embedded in the constitution.40

.

We have for example that there are States who seek to get rid of the jury system byut what

people seem to overlook is that Section 80 in fact requires the States to maintain a jury system..

Again, my books are setting out issues like that in a far more comprehensive manner.45

.

Now lets take another issue.

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

19/23




Many unrepresented Defendants/litigants haven’t got the money in the first place to pay for a

lawyer and then are an easy target for the vultures and then often end up having to pay for the

opponents lawyers.

Also, Government of all colour are using taxpayers monies to defeat a citizen no matter howwrong the Government may be and it is all a matter of power play.5

.

Therefore I decided way back in 1985 that this had to be changed.

.

Yes, I am not a lawyer and darn proud of it because at least my sanity cannot be questioned if Iam brainwashed during legal studies.10

.

So, how to get those judges to consider what a unrepresented person desires to say when the

judges are far too often ill tempered and not interested what some unrepresented Defendant may

have to say. Indeed it might be totally boring to them to listen to an unrepresented Defendantwho also may lack proper skills in the English language and may have an accent that make it15

even more troublesome to understand what the unrepresented Defendant has to say.

.

And, in particular where the lawyers present are mates of the judicial officer then the likely hood

of the unrepresented person to get a FAIR and PROPER trial is basically zero. And you canforget about all those lawyers talking about Human Rights and also the politicians because none20

of them will be there to assisted the unrepresented Defendant/litigant.

.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & ADDRESS TO THE COURT

A book on CD, making litigation a more level playing fieldISBN 0-9580569-7-8 (After 1-1-2007; ISBN 978-0-9580569-7-725

.

This is a book I published way back in 2003 setting out how this document ADDRESS TO THE

COURT can be used to counteract the injustice. Since 1985 it has been used in civil and criminaltrials and so in VCAT, Magistrates Court, County Court of Victoria, District court, Supreme

Court and even the High Court of Australia.30.

So what I might not be a legal practitioner but by golly I accomplished something that not a

single human rights lawyer was able to achieve in all those years. Many a person walked freefrom court because all they did was simply file the “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” and by this

had charged dismissed.35

.

The didn’t have to engage highly paid lawyers, they didn’t need those Human Rights lawyers and

didn’t need so called Human Rights legislative provisions as all they needed was a fellow namedMr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka who not being a lawyer uses his brain how to get across to judicial

officers what the real case is about rather then the fabricates version of lawyers, etc.40

.That is also why when I walked into the court room and objected to the lawyers present for the

council the judge was well aware I knew what I was talking about because she had read myextensive set out in the “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” I had filed via email in different parts

in the days leading up to the trial.45

.

Do you really thing that a judicial officer could care about human rights when the unrepresented

Defendant has no way of knowing if it applies and how?.

What we now had however was that the lawyers who were reciting all kinds of legislated50

provisions, and rest assure they had plenty, still could not overcome the simple issue that they

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

20/23




had no legal standing. Then no matter the amount of knowledge they have about legislative

provisions, so to say, if they cannot even touch first base then they are a goner.

.

As I had set out in my “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” the council had no legal standing and sotheir lawyers neither had any legal standing and the Court accepted this.5

.

As Dixon CJ (High Court of Australia) made clear that if lawyers do not keep up with how

provisions apply then even an alien from outer space could do better.

.The fact that the Court is well aware that I am not a lawyer as I state this in every correspondence10

to make sure they are not going to insult me as to that I am a lawyer, and yet ordered for the

entire file to be handed over to me may also underline that the Court realised I was a person who

knew what he was doing.

.After all if the Court refuses to cooperate they would be part of the whole conspiracy theory.15

.

Over the decades judicial officers actually requested me to come down to the bar table and assist

unrepresented Defendants/litigants because I am well known about my skills.

.In a recent case a woman was accused some years ago having driven her motor vehicle into a20

police officer and the witnesses were 4 police officers, a clerk of court and a deputy clerk of

court. So we filed for NO CASE TO ANSWER about 2 years before the trial even commenced.

. Normally lawyers wait until the prosecutor complete his presentation and witnesses before

claiming NO CASE TO ANSWER but I took the view that by filing it so long beforehand then25

if the prosecution would still proceed and be defeated then the woman could sue for cost, which

otherwise normally is not provided for.

.Well after 5 days of the prosecutor presenting the witnesses etc and concluding his case the trial judge instructed the jury to return a verdict of NOT GUILTY because there was no case to

answer. He also allowed in the circumstances for the woman to apply for cost because of the30unusual circumstances.

It must be stated that as her Attorney I never even entered the court room during any trials as I

simply was working on the many “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” for each hearing. It was tothe annoyance of judicial officers but to me I can use my time better then hanging around court

rooms and in the end the “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” system worked very well.35

.

And so likewise in numerous other cases I deal with people often contemplating suicide/murder

and then assist them in their cases in the best manner I can and that is the “ ADDRESS TO THECOURT” which then sets out in detailed manner all relevant legislative provisions, etc.

.40

Now, rather then so to say screaming blue murder about Human Rights I can provide their rightsand dignity in a more appropriate manner.

.And whenever they succeed in their case they always know they never get a bill from me

because I provided assistance FREE OF CHARGE and any monies they receive has nothing to45

do with me.

.

What should be understood is that if the Human Rights Committee that is to consider whatshould or shouldn’t be recommended do not even have the basic knowledge what is

constitutionally applicable then I view you are wasting your time and taxpayers monies.50

.

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

21/23




Sure, you may hold it below your dignity to talk to me as after all I am not a lawyer, but only

fools would assert such position.

.

My 48-year old daughter (from my wife’s first marriage) with her legal qualifications stillrecognises that when she was an opponent in court (prior to my marriage to her mother), so to5

say, I wiped the floor with her. But at least she accepts I acted appropriate in presenting the case

for those I appeared for.

.

Just ask yourself how many of the Human Rights Commission ever considered that the Humanrights provisions of the European Union could be applicable to the Commonwealth of Australia10

and the States and Territories?

.

Again, this was submitted in the very successful court case that ended up on 19 July 2006 in my

favour without being challenged by the Crown (state and/or federal).15

I understood that the lawyer who was working (being paid) to try to prevent the hanging of

Nguyan Tuong Van was given recognition for his work where as a person like myself not being

paid a cent as I do it because I pursue JUSTICE and presented this correspondence in a series of

correspondences as to seek to save the life of the person are never recognized because it is notwhat you do but who you know.20

.

As such, I decided it isn’t even worth my time to deal with human rights issues with the Human

Rights commission because they are seemingly polarized and have their concepts dictates andlack any ability to be open minded to consider what really is the better way to follow, it was

however that someone encouraged me to just make a submission, as without it I could not bother 25

as I am busy enough trying to safe lives of those who are left down by those Human Rights

campaigners as they often are not where they are needed.

.In my view the Human Rights Commission if it just promoted the usage of the “ ADDRESS TO

THE COURT” it could perhaps achieve a lot more then just having all those people running30around about Human Rights but in the meantime are not there were needed and so people still

end up subject to INJUSTICE.

.So much of the injustice results from a judicial officer not considering what an unrepresented

person has to state and the unrepresented person not knowing what is to be stated and also who35

wants to listen to as person trying to mumble all kinds of numbers and details that is boring like

hell. So, the “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” set it all out in detail and so avoid this denial of

justice in that regard..

AND OBVIOUSLY Human rights are not just isolated with courts as the refugees are another 40

issue and again those in Human Rights activities had done better to support what I pursued way back in 2002 when the Commonwealth Ombudsman refused to investigate the issues I raised and

then finally did so in 2005 by direction of the federal government and found hundreds of peoplewrongly detained where he could have acted way back in 2002 upon my complaint but then

refused to do so.45

Where then were all those Human Rights lawyers and other?

.

Cornelia Rau’s incident never would have eventuated..

Quite frankly I find it sickening how so many claim to pursue human rights where all they need50

is to get rid of their tunnel vision and be aware that they didn’t need to raise any Human rights

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

22/23




issue at all governing the refugees, as I never did in that regard as the Constitution that was

provided since federation itself is more then sufficient for this. But try to tell that to the people

screaming blue murder about human rights. They are not interested in wanting to do the right

thing, at least so it appears to me because they make a lot of noise while I am the quite achiever..5

All those Human Rights protesters and lawyers had to do was to simply pursue the proper

application of the (federal) constitution and I can assure you not a single refugee would have

remained in the so called Nazi styled concentration camps Commonwealth Detention Centres!

.As such, my submission is also that if you really do mean business about Human Rights and not10

merely pretend as to have a cosy income, then you will make it a priority to at least have a

meeting with me, albeit I do have a 76 year old wife who has her health problems and so it would

have to be in Melbourne.

If I do not hear from the Human Rights Commission (in an appropriate response) then it will be perceived by me that the lot of yours are not really interested in Human Rights at all.15

.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS

For the quest of JUSTICE, in different ways. Book on CD.

(ISBN 0-9580569-4-3 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-4-6.20

This book sets out the battle between myself and the BLACKSHIRT a notorious group then as

to how they were dealing with women, etc

.It also set out what I did to get them to understand that if you desire others to recognise your

rights then you must also recognise the rights of others.25

.

And this is in the where it comes to.

.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP & Why not voting

A book on CD about ELECTORAL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS30ISBN 0-9751760-1-3 prior 1 -1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-1-6

.

This book was published on 30 September 2003 and did set out why legally Pauline hanson andDavid Attridge were wrongly convicted.

.35

Subsequently, in November 2003, the Queensland Criminal Court of Appeal used this legal

argument to overturn the convictions!

.Using Human Rights arguments ought to be complimentary with what is the RULE OF LAW

but if the RULE OF LAW itself provide for a remedy then why make an issue of Human rights40

when perhaps you may just deal with a single case where as to uphold the RULE OF LAW youcan actually achieve a lot more because then it will be applicable to all potential victims.

.As such, don’t be narrow minded about Human Rights.

.45

And quite frankly tell me is it common sense that no matter what is applicable the Federal

government not only accepts but even allow participation to have people executed and/or

murdered? But that is another long story..

Getting back to the lead in example of this man about to be imprisoned, no human right provision50

would have so to say have saved his neck. It would have been argued that it is nothing more but

8/20/2019 20090131 Submission

23/23


A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

application of the law, even so as I am now showing to the Court it was fabricated and a

conspiracy involving the lawyers also and the man after all had done no legal wrong. Now, how

on earth is it going to help any person in such situation what the Human Rights Commission is

doing? He is still robbed and was so for a considerable time of his Human Rights and yet none of yours were there to stand up for him. For all your lot are about he could have ended up in prison5

and his wife on the streets also and the Human Rights Commission would not even have

bothered to attend to his case and more then likely numerous other likewise situations.

.

If you people really desire to have some credibility then get of your backside and take the time tohave a frank conversation with me and you might just learn a hell of a lot.10

If you are going to recommend changes that more then likely may in fact result in more harm

then good to those in need then what are you really achieving?

Your lot be then responsible for having given the very tools of continued inhumane treatment

rather then having resolved anything..15

In regard of the Bali-9 of which some are on death row, again I wrote about this as I view it is in

conflict of the Indonesian constitution but again I have yet to experience a single Human Rights

lawyer/activist to bother to take up the issue. Seems to me they may desire the killing of a fellow

human being to advance their own cause rather then to prevent the killing of another human being.20

.

Whatever the opinion might be of the Human Rights Commission about my writings, keep in

mind I could not care less never being recognised by the Human Rights commission as after allat least many who would have otherwise have committed suicide and or have been killed at the

hands of those contemplating murder now are still alive because the difference is that unlike your 25

lot living in some fantasy world I am actually, so to say, getting my hands dirty to deal with the

real issues and seek to address the real problems.

.Lets say it this way if the Human Rights Commission and so any activist were to spend more

time to pursue the appropriate application of constitutional provisions then much of their 30campaigns would not be needed!

.

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!.

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA35

20090131 submission

Documents