20170916-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Yes or Not Vote Is A Fraud, Etc & The Constitution

ISSUE: 20170916 - Re The yes or no vote is a fraud, etc & the constitution
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

Firstly I wonder why the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) needs to rely upon the
Commonwealth Electoral role? Surely if this is a statistical issue then as otherwise is applicable
anyone should be considered for his/her views? After all it is not some election conducted
through the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission).
It is well known that even with federal elections the security of ballot papers is a miss where such
as reportedly in Western Australia the Senate voting was declared invalid due to missing ballot
papers after the election was held. I understand that with the postal voting of the yes or no
campaign already statements appear on the internet of people having harnessed the mail of others
to vote yes in the current mai8l out to alter the meaning of marriage for so called ssm.
The question posed is; Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?.
This clearly appears to exclude bisexuals, etc. However when the campaign is so much about
love and equality then can it be argued that the love and equality is somehow categorised
pending the views of the judges/politicians at the time?
Who cannot be aware of the hyped up and that was notably a referendum about equality for
Aboriginals with the 1967 Ss51(xxvi)? As I indicated with its 40th anniversary it was a con-job
referendum. It was not at all about equality for Aboriginals, as prior to the referendum as I
understood it the federal government was warned that ss51(xxvi) had too much baggage. After
all the referendum didnt pursue to alter the meaning for all aliens. It did no more but to amend
the constitution to include Aboriginals. As such Aboriginals were in fact delegated to being
alien inferior coulored races and no longer entitled to be amidst other Australians. The
slow process of perversion of the constitution also developed over many decades to instil the
concept that Australian Citizenship was a federal legislative power, where in fact the framers of
the constitution specifically denied such legislative power, such as recorded in the Hansard on 2
and 3 March 1898 (Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)) As I did set out in my book published 30 September 2003!
INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0
The question posed by the ABS about changing the law doesnt mean changing the constitutional
concept and as such cannot be either a justification to allow so called ssm marriages.
It is the same about the ongoing madness about alleged concurrent legislative powers of the
States to legislate in areas the constitution specifically allocated as federal legislative powers. As
the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
p1 16-9-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age pensions if it
be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away from the states. The sub-
section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the meantime until the Federal
Parliament took the matter in hand.
END QUOTE
Are we going to see that nevertheless the States will legislate as to relationships being it
homosexual or bisexual or whatever because the states may not accept the conduct of the
Commonwealth? After all this has been ramped in numerous areas. In todays society the
traitors politicians are wrecking many lives of citizens with their purported legislation about
speed detection cameras using the non-existing concurrent legislative powers and judges appear
to me to pay homage to their political masters rather than to strike down the misuse and abuse of
such purported legislative powers. The federal government doing absolutely nothing to stop this
kind of terrorism by the States. And neither appears to do anything about the social engineering
going on by businesses claiming unconstitutionally expenses of advertisement as a tax deduction.
Reportedly also ample of people also seem to use the mail of deceased people for the yes vote.
One hardly can claim that this is confidential voting system as I did have the form with the
vote in an envelope and could see through the light behind it how she had voted. Moreover it
includes a barcode so that pending how a person voted this can be recorded and then people
targeted for exercising their freedom to express their views. It means that there is absolutely no
security that votes are not manipulated by being interfered with to withhold certain types of
votes. Another point is that a Commonwealth electoral roll really is unconstitutional.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
QUOTE
In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 178, we decided that the Constitution of the United States has not
conferred the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the United States have no voters of their own
creation in the States. In United States v. Reese et al., supra, p. 214, we hold that the fifteenth amendment
has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is, exemption from
discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude. From this it appears that the right of suffrage is not a necessary attribute of national citizenship; but
that exemption from discrimination in the exercise of that right on *556 account of race, &c., is. The right to
vote in the States comes from the States; but the right of exemption from the prohibited discrimination comes
from the United States. The first has not been granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States; but
the last has been.
END QUOTE
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) likewise provides that the right to
vote in federal elections relies upon the possession of the right from the states:
QUOTE
41 Right of electors of States
No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the
Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the
Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
Section 41 clearly limits the rights to vote in political elections for the federal Parliament to those
who have been provided with the right to vote in the state elections.
As the yes or no vote about homosexuality, etc, is not a political election for the parliament then
the electoral roll of the states cannot be limited to usage of who is an adult either.
As the Framers of the constitution already debated in 1890s that baby voters (meaning those not
being considered an adult) could be voting in state elections but not in federal (political)
elections. What we therefore have is that the ABC now seems to limit the right to vote on a
political level for which the constitution doesnt provide as such. We will now have that those
who will be indoctrinated at education facilities are in general silenced by not being allowed to
state their views. In my view this goes outside the scope of the ABC as it should have no ability
to discriminate in any matter other then what was permitted at the time within the now abolished
S127 of the constitution. As such, if the issue is to gauge the views of all Australians then it
should be without any denial to people of certain standing/rights. Obviously there will be those
who will argue that to allow everyone to have a say means that even those who are residing in
Australia either temporary or long term but are not entitled to vote of any age then also could cast
their views. Well that is the way statistical issues are to be obtained.
What really is totally ignored is that the word marriage is confined to what was applicable
when the constitution was given Royal Assent in the United Kingdom in 1900!
As such, if marriage at that time included that a person could marry any type of person of any
age or for that an animal or thing then well so be it and the Parliament would have the right to
legislate freely. However, if marriage at that time was limited by law to be between one man
and one woman then this is the limitation imposed upon the Parliament and then only by way of
a Section 128 referendum can this be altered.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear the High court of Australia can only interpret the
true meaning and application of the constitution as all along was applicable. It cannot do some
fancy footing to bring within its judicial powers something that never was part of the
constitution. It therefore means that contemporary views of judges are totally irrelevant. Either
the constitution all along permitted for homosexual, bisexuals and numerous other forms of
marriages to be lawfully permitted within constitutional context or it was never so. If it was not
part of the constitutional meaning of marriage in 1900 than it cannot be part now.
There is no judicial powers to amend the constitution by backdoor manner by unelected judges.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
"... But in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted,
the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the
historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of the text
in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It
does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best
sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities,
speaking or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion."
END QUOTE
the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by s73 of the Constitution.
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272. Barton J,

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.

QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble,
and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear,
we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass
the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too
much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to
it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
END QUOTE

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I want to know from what point of view this can be called federal? We keep our property; we are left to
the free exercise of our brains and bodies; there is no interference with the individual; state rights are
to be preserved. Surely, collaterally with that, state rights ought to be preserved too.
END QUOTE
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a
person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by
being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the
laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
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 peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. 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 about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can 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 QUOTE
Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:
Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been
no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
END QUOTE
Again: It is a freedom not surpassed in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America. ,
as such any legislation to deny FREEDOM OF SPEECH must be deemed unconstitutional to
the embedded legal principles of the constitution!
It must be clear that any judge/politician who supports the oppression of free thinking citizens is
nothing less but a traitor to the constitution.
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-What relation has this to customs duties? The industrial life of the state is considered by all
of us (subject to this exception, it may be) a thing of purely domestic concern. We do not want to interfere
with the domestic life, or with industrial life, except in the last resort. If you are going to introduce such a
thing as this it must be the Federal Ministry which will have to decide, subject to the Parliament, and you will
introduce the greatest complication and intensity of feeling that was ever seen.
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they
are intimately allied to this question.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. WISE:
The power of the senate to deal with money bills is so clearly defined that I doubt if any ingenuity could
suggest the possibility of dispute arising between the two houses on that question. That at once removes one
of the most prolific sources of dispute between the two chambers in the past. Then as to the second class of
dispute arising from social differences, all through this discussion, not, I admit, in this house but outside, the
controversialists of one party ignore, or seem to ignore, the limitations of federal government. They forget
that this commonwealth can only deal with those matters that are expressly remitted to its jurisdiction;
and excluded from its jurisdiction are all matters that affect civil rights, all matters that affect
property, all matters, in a word, affecting the two great objects which stir the passions and affect the
interests of mankind. I fail entirely and I shall be glad if some alarmist will enlarge my views on this matter-
to perceive in this bill any question on which there is any possibility of a conflict between the states and the
people, except, in one respect, and I will define that in the largest possible way. In legislation affecting
commercial interests, or financial interests, it is possible to imagine that the states will be brought into
conflict as states with the concentrated majority of the populations of the two large states over a question of
trade. It is possible to imagine the same thing arising over a question of commerce, or over a question of
finance.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
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 and secure to him.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
Again, it therefore should be beyond any question that the right of any person to exercise
FREEDOM OF SPEECH cannot be thwarted by judges/politicians in violation to the enshrined
political rights embedded in the constitution.
All Amendments to the US of A constitution up to the time that the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was enacted are embedded in our constitution.
In my view the alleged vote for a yes or no case cannot form any kind of basis as to how the
constitution applied and/or its true meaning. Only a successful Section 128 referendum can
permit to amend the constitution in such manner that such amendment can be used to alter legal
provisions for this.
It would be totally absurd to have some kind of postal vote that lacks any proper security and
where undue interference can occur to manipulate the outcome as to justify some kind of
violation of the narrow meaning of the constitutional term of marriage.
If hypothetically the parliament wended up to legislate for homosexual and other kinds of
marriages and then a successful court challenge eventuates then the harm inflicted to those
purportedly married would be cruel at the very least and perpetrated by the very people now
claiming it is all about love and equality when in fact they couldnt give a darn about it.
What we now have is the kind of Salem situation where an innocent person is branded to be
evil, even by the judges only afterwards, but too late, even the judge admitting it was all wrong.
It is the kind of hysteria we can do well without but regretfully politicians are hyping it up for
their own egoistic selfish interest rather than to ensure that whatever is to eventuate it always
must be within the true meaning and application of the constitution.
Any politicians who seeks to lay claim on that religious rights are protected, etc, is nothing less
than a fraud, as clearly ample evidence is from around the world where people are denied their
religious freedoms. Todays politicians will be gone tomorrow and then other politicians can do
whatever they like.
QUOTE
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and
also an amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices
which would otherwise be strictly prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious
rites is the "suttee," and another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other
barbarous cruelty, to the devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice.
Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites
of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-

But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing
character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
It must be clear that any so called religious rites that are deemed cruel to a human being can be
outlawed not as a religious sanction but because of the human rights aspects. However, to hold
that teaching children without parental consent how to masturbate, how to have same sex
experiences, and a lot more is not a Safe School project rather is the corruption of the youth by
mental retarded politicians sanctioning this. They are morally bankrupt for whatever reasons.
I love my tools but while it might be claimed I am married to them, because of my devotion, it
doesnt mean I am really married to them. In some countries marriage between a human and an
animal is not only sanctioned but also can be as result of a court order.
I am not a person to profess any religious issue because I can do without it but from a realistic
point of view marriage was for that a man and a woman would be seen as a unity and any
offspring born within that unity would have special rights to the exception of others.
The mere fact that judges/politicians are supporting abortion may underline they couldnt give
a darn about love and equality! After all why is it all right for them having been permitted to
be born but they equality and love for others to do so is ignored!
Where is the love and equality of politicians where they are being paid absurd huge amount of
moneys while those who worked whole their lives and paid taxes (including the 7% retirement
tax) have many of them living under bridges and on the streets/parks.? Why are those politicians
not out there making sure none of those citizens have to suffer and endure the bitter cold, etc of
living on the streets?
As I recently wrote
QUOTE
For anyone who desires via public transport one has all one issue with other travelers in common and that is
to safely arrive at the end destination. It makes not one of iota different what your colour of skin might be. It
makes not one iota of difference if you are poor or rich, what language you have as a native language, all that
is important to all is that each traveler can arrive safely at his/her destination. It is not important if we travel
on a bus/train/tram or other mode because we must be able to trust those who we put our lives in their hands
to ensure we arrive safely. Likewise with our general destiny of life we all desire to have a as much safe
journey until the end of our earthly presence. We choose politicians for this and we place our trust in them
but far too often they are too much occupied about their own personal interest than that of those aboard.
When you see those highly paid politicians showing their contempt to their positions by playing computer
games on their Ipads/mobile phones in the parliament rather than to be attentive to what goes on in the
debates then We, the People, suffer in the end. True MULTICULTURALISM is where people of different
origins bring along their customs/traditions and assimilate into the Australian community whereby the
diversity of lifestyle nevertheless blend together as one Australian way of Life, where we celebrate diversity
within a common goal to be united. The MULTICULTURALISM of diversity in language, ways of life, etc
obstructs the very unity any society requires for peaceful assembly to celebrate whatever. We need to accept
that only by a common desire to work together in every possible way is what in the end ensures that each
aboard will as much as possible enjoy the ride along and has a safe journey to his/her destination.
Those who preaches MULTICULTURALISM but in the name of division are the traitors to society at large,
not to forget to their own family and friends and their descendants.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. 13-9-2017
END QUOTE
Marriage equality would mean than those who are bisexual and in love with more than one
partner should also be able to marry. After all why discriminate between the love of one person
versus that of another person? Many an elderly person love their animals because they are
trustworthy on their sides. Why should then a marriage be denied? After all if someone arrives
from a foreign jurisdiction who is married to an animal then why not allow that, or is then love
not equally a right? Then we have the so called non-gender persons. We can have also a man
pretending to be a woman at some times and other times well might be having the view to be an
old pushbike. The other person might be a female but thinking she is at times a male or
genderless and so pending how each feel they need to have a marriage license that facilitates
their various mental views as they may occur to them. She/he/non-gender makes clear you need
to learn on an old pushbike and so why discriminate?
Perhaps we could safely say the inmates are running the asylum, the parliament?
The Australian, Paul Kelly brilliantly articulates 'Why [the] YES case is shoddy'.
No article better explains how politicians are willfully misleading voters when it comes to
changing the Marriage Act.
.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/whats-changed-in-britain-since-same-sex-marriage/
Whats changed in Britain since same-sex marriage? David Sergeant
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/08/14-year-old-boy-changes-mind-two-years-transitioning-woman-
hormones/ 14-year-old Boy Reverses Gender Transition After 2 Years
QUOTE EMAIL
Fw: Gay Marriage. The Yes or No vote.
People
David Rode <rodewinsone@hotmail.com>

13 Sep at 8:53 AM
Message body
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage. The Yes or No vote
to; GEORGE BRANDIS

In care of senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Georgey porgey Brandis,

Are you getting the picture yet?
Oh, and what nastiness have you got going behind our backs?
Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage licence."

"Names?", said the clerk.
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licences to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest !"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other
prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licences to gay and lesbian couples who've claim they'd been denied equal
protection under law.
If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.
But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your licence. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June,
June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me.

All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital
relationship."
"But we've only been granting licences to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.
The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal
protection under the law.
Give us a marriage licence.
"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage licence."
"In what names?"
"David Anderson."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together.
Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit! You people are making a mockery of marriage!"
Don't laugh, it's just a matter of time.

END QUOTE EMAIL
In my view, any responsible politicians would join me in making clear that only a Section 128
successful referendum can lawfully provide Parliament a right to legislate as to marriage what
the referendum permitted and not otherwise.
It has been suggested that people should place aluminium foil in the envelope to make it not
possible to see the persons vote by light. This while the ABS indicates; Put your form (and
nothing else) in the enclosed Reply Paid envelope (no stamp needed. In my view within the
provisions of the FOI Act any person could pursue to trave his/her vote because of the unique
barcode on the form. However it should not need to be a FOI Act request at cost of a requester,
because the requester is well entitled to be advised if a certain form with a bar code was received
by the ABS, without it disclosing the identity of the person.
One has to pose the question; Why is it that the politicians are so obsessed about the issue of
ssm when people are dying in the street being homeless? Surely that should be more of criteria to
address? Why are people sleeping rough in the streets despite being financial) to some extend)
supported with all kinds of benefits? Why are the States allowed unconstitutionally to jack up
prices, etc, when this undermines the commonwealth policy to provide citizens with a basic
financial benefit to live on? It really comes down to that the politicians of the Commonwealth of
Australia are not really the least interested in the common wealth of citizens, but just want to
harness more and more legislative powers by whatever means regardless of it being
unconstitutional when unable to manage its already existing legislative powers. If just the
commonwealth were to spend the amount of input it does to the ssm issue toward returned
veterans then they would unlikely be left to rot and die on the streets. That is my message also!
In the end it is a voluntary questionnaire that in my view lacks any legitimacy to justify any
change of law let alone constitutional meaning.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

20170916-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Yes or Not Vote Is A Fraud, Etc & The Constitution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20170916-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Yes or Not Vote Is A Fraud, Etc & The Constitution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSUE: 20170916 - Re The yes or no vote is a fraud, etc & the constitution

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

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p1 16-9-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p3 16-9-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p4 16-9-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p6 16-9-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

David Rode <rodewinsone@hotmail.com>

to; GEORGE BRANDIS

Georgey porgey Brandis,

Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage licence."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

p8 16-9-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

"All right, all right. Next."

Don't laugh, it's just a matter of time.

You might also like