7-9-2011

Page 1

Family Law issues . As a CONSTITUTIONALIST it is to me the first issue as to consider if the Family Court of Australia operated within our constitutional framework and only after that one addresses other issues. Most people refer top Family Law Court but it is in fact Family Court of Australia as the word law would be in my view offensive to be deemed applicable to the Family Court of Australia. . The Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealths legislative powers as to custody and guardianship was limited to divorce and so it has no constitutional legislative powers to deal with inter matrimonial issues that are not specifically relating to a divorce. As such if there is no divorce in progress then there is no jurisdiction by the court to deal with matters of custody and/or guardianship, let alone of a child should be sterilized or not. . As for children born out of a marriage they are not and cannot be constitutionally be dealt with by the Family Court of Australia as I have extensively published in the past in my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on constitutional and other legal issues the purported 1986 legislations by the States to refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth is and remains to be ULTRA VIRES. . Likewise so the purported Debt to the Commonwealth regarding Child Support payments is utter constitutional crap! . I was imprisoned by the Family Court in 1994, being a custodian parent, to which the Court never had any constitutional powers to do so but what the hell the judges couldnt care less. . So, I know too well that Family Court of Australia is too often conducting KANGAROO COURT like proceedings and operates too often as a STAR CHAMBER COURT, where JUSTICE itself is the loser! . There was this file I obtained in which the instructing lawyers advised the barrister to seek an adjournment and use the excuse that the father was accused of abusing his daughter. A further note was with it advising the counsel to be careful because tan investigation failed to produce any evidence that the father had actually abused his daughter. As such the lawyers proved to misuse and abuse false/misleading/unproven allegations for the sake of getting an adjournment! . A man sought my assistance in his case where he claimed to be wrongly accused of break-in and robbery of her jewelry, etc. (Later the jewelry was located in a bank deposit safe upon the former wife having died from cancer). I discovered that she had previously reported the same jewelry being stolen and another insurance company had paid out for the sum insured. Nice business to accuse a (former) husband! She also had accused him of violence while he visited, just that I discovered later (when asked to assist) that he was allegedly assaulting her on the same day and the same time while she was at his residence while he was across town riobbing her place of the jewelry. Coppers somehow never realized that he couldnt be at the two locations at the same time. . The wife had her lawyer filing an affidavit and so I recommended the man to get a copy of the court file of her affidavit and compare it with the affidavit he was served with. They turned out to be
7-9-2011 Page 1 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- PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-394577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free downloading of document at blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

7-9-2011

Page 2

identical and the man argued I had wasted his time to do so. He filed his response and weeks later I asked him to again obtain a copy of his wife affidavit, which he under objections did and then it was discovered it no longer was identical but had unauthorized alterations made to it. Say paragraph 3 stated: My husband was never violent and the Husband in his Affidavit stated in response: I agree with the content of paragraph 3. The wifes lawyers then later crossed through the word never and so it became My husband was never violent. You see while unrepresented litigants are carefully watched when they access the court files it is another story with lawyers as they generally have free access and tamper with affidavit material. In one hearing I requested the copy of the trial judge of an affidavit and comparing it I exposed numerous alterations made in the affidavit the trial judge had but not shown in the copy that was served. None of the alterations had been initialed by the deponent. This is a practice used by many lawyers to tamper with affidavit material without the other party knowing about it and so when a person has lost a case he unlikely realizes that the judge may have been entitled to make the judgment as he did (Ignoring the affidavit no longer is valid because any affidavit not re-sworn after any alteration is made no longer constitute to be an affidavit) albeit the judge blatant ignorance to check why alterations were not initialed and so indicates tampering obviously also is an issue. . Also, most people may not be aware that judges use often signature stamps which are used by the clerk and typist, etc, and so the trial judge may not even be aware what the terms of the orders are that were issued. I one received 5 different versions of the same set of orders where one was each week-end and another showed each alternative week-end and upon questioning this the clerk made clear that he was entitled to make alterations to have a better grammatical reading. Well to me it had nothing to do with correct grammatical reading but siding with another party! . In one case a father was imprisoned for having kidnapped his son. I was summonsed by the wife to give evidence and filed an affidavit including a sound recording where the son had left a message on the fathers answering machine that he had escaped through the bathroom window while his mother stood at the other side of the bathroom door and he was hiding at the railway station and wanted his father to collect. The father wasnt aware of this call until much later and never did collect his son by then when the son already had run away. As such, it was not a kidnapping at all. In fact when the father received the message his son had run away he contacted me and I then took him to the police station to report the son having run away. The police advised that if the son did turn up then he could keep his son and the police would take it from there to make suitable arrangement. I asked the police to contact the mother just in case she was unaware of her son having run away and on the way to travel to his father by train and the police officer later returned to make known the mother had not been aware her son was missing. Well whatever her story was the tape recording proved the child had run away and well the mother summonsing me to court obviously picked the worst kind of witness. The trial judge realizing his little scheme to imprison the father for kidnapping had backfired to some extent. He ordered my Affidavit and the tape recording to be removed from the court file but the father was released from prison.
.

This is the kind of dirt and a lot more is that goes on in the Family Court of Australia!
.

Gerrit . Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka . 7-9-2011

7-9-2011 Page 2 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- PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-394577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Free downloading of document at blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati