WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Senior Member Ms Preuss [email protected] 28-1-2010

5 Cc; * Mr & Mrs Colosimo, 72 Shuter Avenue, Greendale, Vic 3341 [email protected]
* Mr Lindsay M Vowels Phd FAPS MAPA [email protected]
* Maddocks (for Moorabool Shire Council) (Ref MYM:KJM:5285015
Email [email protected]
* Deputy Registrar Ashe Whitaker VCAT – Guardian List) [email protected]
10 * Mr Brendan Hoysted [email protected]
* Mr. Peter Sier, [email protected]
* Moorabool Shire Council Councillors [email protected]
Cr Michael Tudball [email protected]
Cr Allan Comrie Cr Pat Griffin Cr Pat Toohey (mayor) Cr Tom Sullivan
15 Cr Russell Hendry Cr Philip Flack and/or any other councillor

Ref; G54449/00 (including V2/2007 & P194/2007 and other related proceedings) Mr Francis James Colosimo Re
Ms Preuss – Re cap 27-1-2-10 Hearing - etc.
.
20 . Ms Preuss – Re cap 27-1-2-10 Hearing - etc
Madam,
in regard of the 27 Direction Hearing I recap some of the events.
When I raised the issue that VCAT had not formally notified Mr Francis James Colosimo of the
hearing you, as I understood it, made clear (to the effect) that I was representing him and as
25 VCAT didn’t have the phone number of Mr Colosimo it didn’t contact him. Upon which Mr
Francis James Colosimo pointed out his phone number was located on various documents that
were on file.
You asked me if I was attending as a friend (assisting) or representing him and I explained I was
assisting him. Subsequently you asked Mr Francis James Colosimo if I was assisting him or
30 representing him and when Mr Francis James Colosimo responded that I was assisting as a
McKenzie Friend and also as his “Attorney” you may clear to the effect as I recall “He is not a
lawyer and cannot represent you.” The truth of the matter is that I am recorded as an interested
party and that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST no legislation can deny me to assist Mr Francis
James Colosimo in regard of constitutional matters. To me you were just playing some childish
35 game to try to have a go at me which appears to me to even more to underline you are
incompetent to be an impartial adjudicator. And, more over despite medical evidence having
been provided by the Office of the Public Advocate that Mr Francis James Colosimo is
competent to appoint an Enduring Power of Attorney, you have continued to maintain your ill
conceived (unconstitutional) order of 27 January 2009 that Mr Francis James Colosimo is not
40 permitted to appoint an Enduring Power of Attorney. And yet, this despite that you are well
aware that the only person who Mr Francis James Colosimo trust is my person because unlike
some lawyer I dare to speak up for the rights of Mr Francis James Colosimo. Also, the meaning
of “Attorney” is not that as in the USA of being a lawyer, but can be any person requested by a
person to assist/act on his behalf. The 27 January 2009 orders are ULTRA VIRES and as such I
45 am entitled to assist Mr Francis James Colosimo as his Attorney irrespective if you can
understand this or not!
.

p1 28-1-20 10
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE 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
 QUOTE vcaata1998428
62 Representation of parties
(1) In any proceeding a party—
(a) may appear personally; or
5 (b) may be represented by a professional advocate if—
s. 105
(i) the party is a person referred to in subsection (2); or
(ii) another party to the proceeding is a professional advocate; or
(iii) another party to the proceeding who is permitted under this section to be
represented by a professional advocate is so represented; or
10 (iv) all the parties to the proceeding agree; or
(c) may be represented by any person (including a professional advocate)
permitted or specified by the Tribunal.
END QUOTE vcaata1998428
As I recall it since 27-1-2009 I was accepted as such and listed as such also on VCAT records!
15 .
When you asked Mr Francis James Colosimo if he was capable to prepare a statement regarding
his financial situation Mr Francis James Colosimo pointed out why ask this when you have the
State Trustees and the office of the Public Advocate there on the basis he is not able to do so.
.
20 QUOTE vcaata1998428
105Rule against self-incrimination does not apply
(1) A person is not excused from answering a question or producing a document in a
proceeding on the ground that the answer or document might tend to incriminate
the person.
25 (2) If the person claims, before answering a question or producing a document, that
the answer or document might tend to incriminate them, the answer or document is
not admissible in evidence in any criminal proceedings, other than in proceedings
in respect of the falsity of the answer.
106 Other claims of privilege
30 (1) Except as provided by section 80(3) or 105, a person is excused from answering a
question or producing a document in a proceeding if the person could not be
compelled to answer the question or produce the document in proceedings in the
Supreme Court.
END QUOTE vcaata1998428
35 .
16. Powers and duties of the Public Advocate
QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
(1A)It is a reasonable excuse for a person to refuse or fail to provide information that the
person would otherwise be required under sub-section (1)(ha) to provide if
40 providing the information would tend to incriminate the person.
END QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
.
It seems to me extraordinary of the conflict of provisions and more over that you made clear that
the Office of the Public Advocate could be authorise to obtain financial details if Mr Francis

p2 28-1-20 10
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE 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
 James Colosimo refused to do so as by this it becomes a kind of the outlawed STAR
CHAMBER COURT rather then appropriate legal proceeding.
.
18A. Powers of inspection
5 QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
(2)Sub-section (1)(d) does not authorise the Public Advocate to inspect—
(a) a person's medical records unless that person consents; or s. 18A

(b) personnel records unless the person to whom they relate consents.
END QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
10 .
As the Office of the Public Advocate for example without the consent of the person cannot
obtain employment details then I for one cannot accept that VCAT can disregard this and still
order the Office of the Public Advocate to ascertain those details.
.
15 What appears to me is that the powers of the Public Advocate is rather very limited such as “to
enter any premises on which an institution is situated” and not at all some general powers to
interfere for collection of confidential date from other records merely because VCAT is seeking
to try to build a case against Mr Francis James Colosimo and nothing to do with any care
facilities.
20 .
QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
18A.Powers of inspection
(1) The Public Advocate is entitled to enter any premises on which an institution is
situated and—
25 (a) inspect those premises; and
(b) see any person who is a resident of those premises or who is receiving any
service from the institution; and
(c) make enquiries relating to the admission, care, detention, treatment or control
of any such person; and
30 (d) inspect any document relating to any such person or any record required to be
kept under this Act, the Disability Services Act 1991, the Health Services
Act 1988, the Intellectually Disabled Persons' Services Act 1986, or the
Mental Health Act 1986.
(2) Sub-section (1)(d) does not authorise the Public Advocate to inspect—
35 (a) a person's medical records unless that person consents; or
(b) personnel records unless the person to whom they relate consents.
(3) The person in charge and the members of staff or management of the institution
must provide the Public Advocate with any reasonable assistance that the Public
Advocate requires to perform or exercise any power, duty or function under this
40 section effectively.
(4) A person in charge or a member of the staff or management of an institution must
not—
(a) unreasonably refuse or neglect to give assistance when required to do so
under sub-section (3); or

p3 28-1-20 10
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE 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
 (b) refuse or fail to give full and true answers to the best of that person's
knowledge to any questions asked by the Public Advocate in the performance
or exercise of any power, duty or function under this section; or
(c) assault, obstruct or threaten the Public Advocate in the performance or
5 exercise of any power, duty or function under this section.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(5) In this section "institution" means any of the following—
(a) a residential service provider within the meaning of the Disability Services
Act 1991;
10 (b) a designated public hospital or supported residential service within the
meaning of the Health Services Act 1988;
(c) a residential institution, residential program, contracted service provider or
registered service within the meaning of the Intellectually Disabled Persons'
Services Act 1986;
15 (d) a mental health service within the meaning of Division 5 of Part 6 of the
Mental Health Act 1986.
END QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
.
You also indicated that you were not concerned about my writings, even so Mr Francis James
20 Colosimo had already provided his 3-page handwritten statement that in fact he relied upon the
material I had already provided. After I pointed this out to you then you claimed that you didn’t
have those documents. Well, it seems to get worse with the day that you now are presiding over a
case and reveals not even to have all relevant documentation at hand. As I subsequently pointed
out to you I received confirmation from VCAT each time I forwarded correspondence that they
25 had received the same and as such VCAT had the documents. As I provide the G54449 file
number on each correspondence then clearly there can be no issue that a registrar may not be
aware to which file the documentation belong.
.
As a matter of fact the registrar acknowledged also having noted the content of the 11 January
30 2010 correspondence. Hence if you do not even know what is on file then it appears to me you
ought to learn housekeeping. In the about 30 years I have assisted people in their cases I can state
you appear to me to top the list of incompetence to appropriately deal with a hearing.
Surely at commencement of a hearing you could at least check with the parties what documents
they have filed or are to be on file? Then again this should be only a last resort because good
35 housekeeping means an adjudicator ensures that staff does provide a complete file before a
hearing is due.
.
QUOTE vcaata1998428
107 Dealing with questions of law
40 (1) A question of law arising in a proceeding must be decided by a judicial member or
a member who is a legal practitioner.
(2) If the Tribunal is constituted in a proceeding by more than one judicial member or
legal practitioner (or both), a question of law arising in the proceeding must be
decided by the presiding member.
45 (3) If a question of law arises in a proceeding where the Tribunal is constituted by a
member or members who are not judicial members or legal practitioners—
p4 28-1-20 10
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE 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
 (a) the question must be decided by another member who is a judicial member or
legal practitioner; and
(b) for that purpose only, the Tribunal in the proceeding is to be reconstituted to
include that other member.
5 (4) In this section, question of law includes a question of mixed law and fact.
END QUOTE vcaata1998428
.
As to the position of Mr Brendan Hoysted, Duty Officer of the Office of the Public Advocate it
appears to me you seem to use him as some policeman or slave rather then that he exercises his
10 independence from VCAT. This was very clearly demonstrated where I pointed out that the
Office of the Public Advocate as the Applicant/Prosecutor had to prove JURISDICTION in
regard of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION that was before you on 27 January 2009 and
that he had not provide any evidence in that regard and that would you not stop this litigation and
set aside the Administration orders then Mr Francis James Colosimo intended to file a NOTICE
15 OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and it then was for the Office of the Public Advocate as
the Applicant/Prosecutor to take the matter before the High Court of Australia as to prove
jurisdiction! You commented, as I recall, upon this that the Office of the Public Advocate no
longer was involved. Yet soon after you were willing to order for the Office of the Public
Advocate to obtain confidential records of Mr Francis James Colosimo if Mr Francis James
20 Colosimo didn’t provide any. Also I pointed out that the office of the Public Advocate had
deceived expert witnesses as to claim that Mr Francis James Colosimo was in contempt even so
he had never been formally charged in regard of this. Further that Her Honour Harbison J had no
position to request the office of the Public Advocate to investigate if Mr Francis James Colosimo
was mentally competent to stand trial as Her Honour Harbison J never had any jurisdiction, had
25 never formally charged Mr Francis James Colosimo, despite the 6 CONTEMPT hearings, etc.
Just that I all along expected you would come up with this rot to try to shield Mr Francis James
Colosimo and you will find that the (partial) DRAFT NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS actually listed you as a party. And as I indicated any orders of 27 January 2009 and
subsequent orders are without jurisdiction and not legally enforceable.
30 .
To me, you actually have put your foot into it to have made clear that the Office of the Public
Advocate is merely doing what you instruct it to do and that you have taken up to pursue the case
yourself.
.
35 There clearly was a failure to hold a reassessment within 12 months and no excuses about the
review in progress as the legislation doesn’t provide for this as an excuse.
.
QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
61. Reassessment
40
(1) The Tribunal must conduct a reassessment of a guardianship order or an
administration order—
(a) within 12 months after making the order, unless the Tribunal orders
otherwise; and
45 END QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
.
QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
63. Order after reassessment

p5 28-1-20 10
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE 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
 (1) Upon completing a reassessment the Tribunal may by order amend, vary,
continue or replace the order subject to any conditions or requirements it
considers necessary or revoke the order
END QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
5
I recall that you raised the issue of the review applied for against the original administration
orders and a re-assessment due by June 2009. And that you asked Mr Francis James Colosimo if
perhaps he wanted to discontinue his review application as such, upon which I made clear that
Mr Francis James Colosimo didn’t understand the legal implications and there should be a
10 temporary adjournment so I could discuss matters with him, this you ignored.
.
QUOTE Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court)
A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the
burden of endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by
15 their own advocacy
END QUOTE
.
What appears to me is that so to say you are trying your best to sideline me and in the process try
to deceive Mr Francis James Colosimo by trying to have him making a decision concealing the
20 legal implications.
.
One a judge made clear he wasn’t going to read the extensive material I had filed as ADDRESS
TO THE COURT, and made his orders. The Court of Appeal agreed that His Honour didn’t
have to read the material but he had to consider the content and his failure to do so in the
25 reason of judgment was fatal and the orders were set aside.
.
As such, I couldn’t care less if you do not desire to read anything just as long as you consider it.,
but that obviously you didn’t or are not able to do and as such you are not competent to
adjudicate.
30 .
You also went on about the evidence of what Maddocks Lawyers had filed for Moorabool Shire
Council in regard of the CONTEMPT hearings. First of all on 27 January 2009 you made a
ruling upon my submission that they had no legal standing and as such had to leave the bar table
and in fact the hearing. Now, what on earth possesses you to pursue concocted evidence that Her
35 Honour Harbison J on 16 March 2009 ordered the proceedings to be PERMANENTLY
STAYED because I exposed the gross deception in the evidence.
.
What on earth possesses you to pursue Mr Francis James Colosimo so to say to the bitter end to
seek to elicit wall kinds of so called evidence just to try to justify your orders?
40 .
Again, as Mr Francis James Colosimo yet again made clear that because of the proceedings he
was unable to normally work and so his income and so his ability to pay bills was severely
compromised. Now, can’t you understand that litigation so protracted that a review commenced
on 27 January 2009 by now on 27 January 2010 still is pending Direction hearings that this itself
45 is a gross denial of JUSTICE? Can’t you understand that to prevent Mr Francis James Colosimo
to go back to normal work by the protracted VEXATIOUS litigation you are effectively causing
added financial problems and somehow then try to use this to justify orders you desire to make?
Come on.
.
50 As I tried to explain to you once Mr Francis James Colosimo has filed a NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS then you will find that there is no legal jurisdiction for you
p6 28-1-20 10
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE 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
 to do anything! It will be for the Applicant/Prosecutor or if you wish for yourself to pursue a
judicial decision from the High court of Australia to allow you to proceed and to seek to defeat
the issues of the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS albeit keep in mind already
did I defeat the Commonwealth of Australia previously on 19 July 2006, after a 5-year epic legal
5 battle and so rest assure this will not be some walk over!
.
Also, do keep in mind that the moment the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS is
filed then all and any legislation/orders relating to VCAT are ULTRA VIRES and so without
legal force, and this covers all litigation before VCAT, not just the case relating to Mr Francis
10 James Colosimo, because a constitutional matter is not limited to be applicable to one case only
but applies to all cases that have the same or simular issues.
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
15 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be
invalid.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
20 QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law which is ultra vires.

Mr. GORDON.-The honorable member will see that I am not declaring that any law
which is ultra vires is not ultra vires. I am simply limiting the area of attack.
Mr. SYMON.-The man who is ruined by it is not to take that point.
25 Mr. GORDON.-We must postulate of all our Parliaments that they will not pass
laws which are ethically indefensible.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
30 QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law if it is ultra vires.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
35 QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-But if it be passed by Parliament it is the will of the Parliament.

Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power?

Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to

enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right.
40 END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it
45 leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised.
p7 28-1-20 10
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE 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
 END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
5 Mr. WISE.-If the honorable member had only moved this amendment when we first met in Adelaide,
and had carried it we should have been saved many months of discussion. All that would have been
necessary then would have been to frame a Constitution in about six clauses, declaring that there
should be a Commonwealth Parliament, that the states Parliaments should remain, that the powers of
the Commonwealth Parliament should be whatever the states Parliaments allowed them to be, and that
10 the powers of the states Parliaments should be whatever the Federal Parliament allowed them to be.
That would have been our Constitution. The amendment, as it stands, provides that whatever law may be
passed, taking the first branch [start page 1686] of it, by the Commonwealth, it is not to be declared ultra
vires if the five Attorneys-General of the several states agree that for any reasons of state they will wink at
any violation of the law, and allow any person affected injuriously by it to suffer.

15 Mr. TRENWITH.-That is not fair-the five Attorneys-General.

Mr. WISE.-Yes. We have been striving all through to erect an independent Commonwealth with certain
clearly-defined subjects of legislation, and to provide very strictly that the rights of a state should not be
impinged upon by the undue exercise of the powers of the Federal Parliament. In order to prevent that, we
have constituted a Supreme Court to interpret the laws of the Parliament. But the honorable member now
20 comes forward and says that the Parliament is to make the laws, and that the Ministers of the day are to
interpret them. The Parliament may make what laws it pleases. It may make laws altogether outside the
subject of the matters referred to it by clause 52, but unless in each state there is a majority sufficiently strong
to sway the Ministers in power for the time being, those laws will not be declared to be ultra vires.

Mr. TRENWITH.-If there is a majority strong enough in any one state that will be sufficient.

25 Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
30 provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this
provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers
of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to
occupy a few minutes in discussing it. Not that I believe that it will be carried, but I think it is an echo of a
35 widespread misapprehension which prevails outside as to the duties and functions of the Supreme Court. It
very often seems hard to a layman that that which has been enacted by Parliament should be declared to be
illegal by a Supreme Court when the statute is called into question during litigation between two citizens. It is
hard, but like everything else in politics, it is a choice of evils. The question is: Whether it would not be of
much greater disadvantage to the whole community to bring in the Supreme Court as an interpreter of the
40 Constitution before any precise case was taken before it, than it is to leave the individual to suffer the
hardship of finding that the Act upon which he relied was really invalid? I will not use my own language in
explaining the position, but, to have it put upon record, I should like to quote a passage which occurs on pages
154 and 155 of Dicey's Law of the Constitution. After pointing out that the American Supreme Court exists to
interpret the Constitution, and to see that effect is given to its provisions, the writer goes on to say that-

45 The power, moreover, of the courts, which maintains the Articles of the Constitution as the law of the
land, and thereby keeps each authority within its proper sphere, is exerted with an ease and a
regularity which has astonished and perplexed continental critics. The explanation is that the Judges of
the United States control the action of the Constitution, but they perform merely judicial functions,
since they never decide anything but the cases before them. It is natural to say that the Supreme Court
50 pronounces Acts of Congress invalid, but in fact this is not so. The court never directly pronounces any
opinion whatever upon an Act of Congress.

[start page 1687]

p8 28-1-20 10
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE 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
 What the court does do is simply to determine A. is or is not entitled to recover judgment against X.;
but in determining that case the court may decide that any Act of Congress is not to be taken into
account, since it is an Act beyond the constitutional powers of Congress.

If any one thinks this is a distinction without a difference he shows some ignorance of politics, and does not
5 understand how much the authority of a court is increased by confining its action to purely judicial business.

In a book prepared by you, sir, entitled A Manual of Reference for the use of Members of the National
Australasian Convention, to which frequent reference has been made, the matter is further dealt with. You
say, at page 126, in words that I would like to adopt as part of my argument:-

No doubt the power given is very great, but it is exercised in a manner and by a body which affords
10 the least possible chance of friction and quarrels between the central and the provincial governments.
A veto by the central authority has to be exercised at a time when the public attention of the provincial
electors is directed to the matter; at a time when, perhaps, party spirit runs high, when angry passions
pervade both factions, and when the subject-matter is invested with an importance which is not
intrinsic, whereas a declaration by a court that the statute is invalid is withdrawn from the sphere of
15 politics. Each individual and each state looks upon it that such declaration is given only in pursuance of
the Constitution. Public attention is probably directed to other matters, and the question has, in many
cases, shrunk into its native insignificance; and "it is to the interest of every man who wishes the
Federal Constitution to be observed that the judgments of the federal tribunals should be respected,
and they take it that the courts are the protectors of the federal compact, and that the federal compact
20 is, in the long run, the guarantee of the rights of the separate state."

If the proposal of the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) was carried into effect-though of that, I think, there is
not the slightest chance-it would follow that any person who was aggrieved by an unconstitutional enactment
would have to persuade the Attorney-General of the state or of the Commonwealth, as the case might be, to in
some way set the law in motion to ascertain the legality of the enactment, If the enactment was one which
25 affected a matter exciting strong party feeling, the result would be that the abstract question of its
validity would have to be argued before the court at a time when public feeling was excited, although it
would be of the utmost importance that the decision of the court should be entirely free from all
suspicion of political bias. Then, too, the enactment might be valid in parts and invalid in other parts,
or it might be impossible to interpret it in the abstract. It is impossible to foresee the bearing of a
30 statute upon all possible cases, and it is only when a case comes for determination before a court that
the court is able to say that in that particular case the statute does or does not afford protection to the
citizen who has relied upon it. The honorable member's proposal would remove at once the greatest of all
safeguards to the impartiality and usefulness of the Federal Court, by taking away from it its right to deal with
matters which are brought, as lawyers term it, to a distinct issue, and with precise and definite points, in
35 regard to which the full bearing of every word of the judgment could be appreciated? Instead of the court
being able to determine the legality of an enactment in its bearing upon any particular case, there
would be considerations introduced which were utterly foreign to the atmosphere of the tribunal, and
that would seriously impair the public confidence in a court which, with us, as in America, will, I
believe, prove to be the ultimate protector of the liberties of the people. Then, too, the amendment is in its
40 form so complicated that its practical working will be impossible. The honorable member said truly that the
Attorney-General constantly intervenes now. But he intervenes at the expense of the individual. The
individual presents his case, and gives a guarantee for costs. Under this proposal all that would happen would
be that the individual who wanted to assert [start page 1688] his right would have a barrier placed between
him and the obtaining of justice. He would have to satisfy the Attorney-General for the time being that he
45 would be able to pay the costs of any action, and he would have to bring sufficient political pressure to bear
upon that officer to get him to move in the case, and finally he would be left to contest the matter in his own
interests and in his own name. The result would be that the rights and liberties of every citizen in the
community would be placed at the mercy of a chance parliamentary majority.

Mr. GORDON.-That is the position now-the rights and liberties of every individual are at the mercy of a
50 parliamentary majority.

Mr. WISE.-The honorable member is now speaking of rights in respect to legislation. If the Parliament of
South Australia were to pass a law contravening the Merchant Shipping Act

Mr. GORDON.-I am not speaking of Imperial legislation.

p9 28-1-20 10
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE 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
 Mr. WISE.-Suppose the Parliament of South Australia wanted to get rid of the Plimsoll Mark Act-even
though there were a majority it would be invalid, but according to the honorable member, when, we have here
a case exactly analogous, if the Constitution limits the power of the state, and enacts that certain powers shall
belong exclusively to the Commonwealth Parliament, and that if the state deals with them it invades the
5 authority of the Commonwealth Parliament, the individual is to have no rights unless he can persuade the
Government of the day to take up his case. It is in the interests of the poorer and uninfluential classes of
the community, it is. in the interests of the minority, that this amendment should be rejected, because it
places an obstacle in the way of obtaining that justice which ought to be free to every individual in the
community.

10 Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I should like to add my protest against this new clause. I am bound to say
something, because the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) says it is only the conservative and timid lawyers
who would venture to oppose this proposal.

Mr. GORDON.-I did not say that. I said as a rule the legal profession is, according to Herbert Spencer, a
timid and conservative class.

15 Mr. HIGGINS.-That may be so, and if the honorable member says he did not make that statement it is all
right. Anyhow, I thought he said that only conservative and timid lawyers would oppose this clause. There is
no doubt the intention of the honorable member is excellent. He wants to diminish litigation. If he can show
that this will diminish litigation to any material extent, and, at the same time, will not involve us in a great
many dangers to our liberties, I will go with him, but he has not shown anything of the sort. As Mr. Wise has
20 shown, it will throw an unpopular minority into the power of a chance Ministry of the day. We must see to-
day that the rights of individuals, even unpopular individuals, are preserved in the Constitution. I think
Sir John Forrest said that I personally had not got sufficient respect for the rights of individuals.

Sir JOHN FORREST.-No.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Do I understand him to refer merely to private property?

25 Sir JOHN FORREST.-Not the same respect as I have.

Mr. HIGGINS.-I understood the honorable member to put himself on the very highest pedestal, and by
contrast to put me on the very lowest. At all events, I feel that if this were carried, an unpopular individual, to
obtain his rights and liberties, would have to go cap in hand to and be at the mercy of the Government of the
day. I was thinking of the pig-tail case which occurred in California, and which I alluded to some time
30 ago, where an abominably unjust law was passed against Chinamen. It was passed to persecute them in
regard to their pig-tails, which they [start page 1689] regard with exceptional reverence. That law was
declared to be unconstitutional as a law passed by a state. I ask honorable members to consider the great
difficulty there would be in getting the Federal Congress or Federal Executive to interfere in the case of
Chinamen, so as to enforce their rights in such a case. There was an exceptional law which should never have
35 been passed. It was distinctly a persecuting law. Any practical politician would see the great difficulty there
would be in appealing to a Federal Executive, especially if there was an election approaching, to enforce the
just rights of Chinamen in such a case. The same thing might happen supposing a federal law were passed
which was outside the Constitution. Supposing that a majority of the state concerned happened to regard the
man as unpopular supposing a law were passed that no one bearing the name of Jones should be admitted into
40 the state of Virginia, the law might be directed against a certain person named Jones, and it would be
unconstitutional, and Jones could not enforce his rights to go into that state. I ask, is he to be compelled to go
cap in hand to the Attorney-General of the state of Virginia to enforce his rights? I feel that, with the very best
intentions my honorable friend is making the gravest of mistakes. So far as regards the main purport of the
amendment, it would mean this: That you could only get a point of this sort decided by having a state or
45 Commonwealth intervening as a party. You would turn judicial questions into political questions. You would
proclaim-"Here is a question between the state and the Commonwealth; here is a political question";
and you would make the Judges partisans. It is one of the great advantages of private persons being
able to raise these points, and not the states or the Commonwealth, that you keep the judicial bench
free from the taint of political partisanship. I feel that the more you look at this thing all round, the more
50 inconsistent it is with the very first principles of justice. It may be said-Even supposing the law does go
beyond the Constitution in some degree, surely it ought not to be left to a private person to upset it." I say it
ought to be upset at once and at the very earliest point. As soon as ever you find it has gone beyond the
bounds you ought to say-"This thing is illegal." Otherwise you will leave to the Ministry of the day
these powers of which you are so careful, giving them to a majority of the states and to a majority of the
55 people. You would allow the Ministry of the day to exercise a suspending power as to whether it would
p10 28-1-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE 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
 enforce a law or not, which is most dangerous. It is one thing to induce a Government or Parliament to pass
an unjust law, and it is quite another thing to induce a Government for one excuse or another to hold its hand
from acting. What I fear is that you would often induce the Government to withhold its hand from acting, for
fear it would incur opprobrium or unpopularity. I sincerely hope the amendment will not be carried.

5 Mr. GORDON (South Australia).-Of course the objections raised are those I expected, only I think they
might have been put with even greater force. And there is a great deal more to be said in favour of my motion
than I have been able to say. I agree at once with the interpretation of Mr. Wise that this measure is a simple
method of amending the Constitution by acquiescence. I intended it to be so, and that is not a demerit-it is a
merit-of the proposal. As for the argument that you might as well have no Constitution at all if you allow
10 amendment by acquiescence, that seems rather wide of the mark. People going into a partnership lay down
the general terms of that partnership, but they may be qualified by consent. But you must have in your
partnership general rules laid down. There are the general lines laid down in the Constitution, which within
certain limits may [start page 1690] be modified as agreed, so that the honorable and learned gentleman's
argument in that view, I think, fell to the ground. Mr. Higgins enforced the argument as to the rights of the
15 individual. Now, I have already said that I think those individual rights should be subordinated to the general
rights of the community, and to their interests as expressed in the law for the time being. I object altogether to
the objection that party faction would govern. What would govern it would be the sense of the community for
the time being. However, as there appears to be no hope of carrying the proposal, I must content myself by
submitting it to the committee.

20 Mr. Gordon's proposed new clause was negatived.

END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
25 Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the
rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are.

[start page 1685]

END QUOTE
.
30 Considering that the States are created out of the colonies within s. 106 of The Commonwealth
of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then they too are bound to accept that it cannot
interfere with the civil rights of any person.
What VCAT effectively is doing is far worse as not only does VCAT seek to oust the judiciary
but also goes about as a STAR CHAMBER COURT which is for long outlawed in the State of
35 Victoria also.
.
QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
63G. Reciprocal arrangements under the State Trustees (State Owned Company)
Act 1994
40 Nothing in this Part affects the operation of section 12 of the State Trustees (State Owned
Company) Act 1994
END QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
.
How absurd can it be that Moorabool Shire Council an organ of the State government has its case
45 heard before VCAT another organ of the State government and then has State Trustees Limited
another organ of the State government and the Office of the Public Advocate also an organ of the
State government all ganging up against Mr Francis James Colosimo despite that the matters all
arose out of VEXATIOUS litigation and notably instituted in VCAT even so the Infringement
Act 2006 only allows jurisdiction for a Magistrates Court, and all this based despite that
50 Moorabool Shire Council itself long ago acknowledged that the “shed” (outbuilding) Mr Francis

p11 28-1-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE 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
 James Colosimo build wis within the relevant provisions of the Building Act and the Building
Regulations.
Quite frankly, it is my view that, those who are desperately needing to be admitted to an asylum
are those litigating against Mr Francis James Colosimo.
5 .
While you can pretend, despite repeatedly advised that your failure to deal from onset on 27
January 2009 with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION you never invoked any legal
jurisdiction and so all orders are without legal force, that you still can continue with hearings and
enforcing orders let me make it very clear Mr Francis James Colosimo has suffered enough and
10 again all and any litigation and orders against him should be aborted so finally he can go on with
his life as he all along should have been entitled upon.
.
Let common sense prevail as you will find that you will be on the losing end as while you might
be a lawyer, it doesn’t mean you are a CONSTITUTIONALIST and so lacking this kind of
15 competence you would do wiser to perhaps consult a CONSTITUTIONALIST who may just
get you to realise that you are all along in the wrong.
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
20 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people
and the states on terms that are just to both.

Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no
Constitution is required at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen
25 shall be elected, and meet together, and, without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not
agree to that.
END QUOTE
.
See also previous correspondences, and again Mr Francis James Colosimo made clear he relied
30 upon the content of my correspondences!
.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant matters!
.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

35 .

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

p12 28-1-2010
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE 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