Page 1

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

9-10-2013

The email quoted below was forwarded to Peter regarding his article but it should be understood is merely a kind of introduction to indicate that Dr Mark Hobart had in my view as a 5 CONSTITUTIONALIST every right to exercise his constitutional guarantied political and civil rights regarding the Abortion issue. The man stood clearly as a candidate on this issue (in a political election) and therefore it is beyond question what his political views are. It is totally irrelevant if one may or may not agree with his views, as what is important is that we have a constitution (by which in s106 the states are created subject to this constitution) that has 10 embedded his constitutional rights he now can rely upon. One may also question if the state can legislate at all as to doctors in view that the constitution was amended by referendum to give the Commonwealth legislative powers as to doctors but not as to force them to a conscription. Hence, not even the Commonwealth could force a doctor to act contrary to his political beliefs. therefore the new laws enacted since the amendment of the 15 constitution may be for this also unconstitutional and without legal force. As I proved on 19 July 2006 in the 5 year litigation against me, by the Commonwealth of Australia in the County Court of Victoria, that compulsory registration/voting is unconstitutional. And the Australian Electoral Commission as did the Victorian Electoral Commission in its elections published at the time My How-To-Vote Cards that compulsory registration/voting was 20 unconstitutional. Despite the perception that compulsory voting is legal it is unconstitutional. I have not a shred of doubt that in this case Dr Mark Hobart is entitled to exercise his constitutional rights! Regrettably, most electors, when voting, fail to understand how important my message was 25 about their constitutional rights. And perhaps Dr Mark Hobart himself may at the time the election was held, in which we both were standing as a candidate, not understood how significant it was, until now. It is regrettably often only when people end up in problems that they may realise the importance of their constitutional rights, but in the mean time they can be scarred for life, and incur huge 30 cost to defend themselves, and yet this may have been avoided had they just been more concerned as to try to understand why I stood as a candidate on constitutional issues and voted for me. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT:
35

Apart of the constitutional issues my writings in my published books have made clear that I view that a woman engaging voluntarily in a sex act that result to a pregnancy by this has given up the right to decide about her own body as she willingly accepted to create or risk to create another life and must be bound to this. It is not an issue that the woman has no right over her own body, as that is clearly an irrelevant argument. A simplistic example is: A landlord has ever legal right to conduct his affairs about his property
9-10-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 1

Page 2 as he desires, however if he engage in a lease then he loses certain rights as they will be subject to a verbal/written contract he voluntarily engage in, unless something extra ordinary eventuates that a court may not enforce all or some of the lease conditions. As such, the woman engaging in a sexual act that she reasonably knows she can become pregnant by this has so to say sub-leased 5 her body to the tenant (the child/children) created, and is bound by this, unless a court/doctor were to find that in an emergency situation an abortion was justified.

Where a female becomes pregnant due to a rape then in certain circumstances it may be justified that the victim of the rape was to have an abortion. However, as I understand it, once a police officer of Lalor made known that 9 out of 10 cases he investigated as to alleged rape actually 10 turned out to be consentual sex, and the female concerned made the rape claim (such as married women) to seek to cover up in the event they had fallen pregnant by their so to say one-night stand. Therefore, we need to be careful a woman doesnt use the rape claim to get rid of a foetus when in reality she voluntarily engaged in the sex act. And, as much as the Commonwealth holds the legal principle that a biological father is responsible for the cost (or some of it) during and 15 after the pregnancy then he also must have a right as to the pregnancy, as so to say women cannot have the cake and eat it. Neither should a woman be permitted to challenge the paternity of the man who was held to be the father, once shed had acknowledged him to be the father (being the husband or otherwise) because it makes children nothing more but a financial commodity for women to extract if not 20 blackmail a man for monies she knows or reasonably knows she is not entitled upon. As such commits fraud! As I successfully submitted to Trevaud J in the 1980, a child must have a biological father, and so no woman should be able to challenge the paternity of the husband unless she first prove by proper evidence that there is an alternative biological father.
25

Trevaud J then made orders for the wife to file an affidavit listing all the men with whom she claimed to have had sexual intercourse with at the time of each pregnancy. Well, the wife never filed the affidavit, and the paternity case was because of this at an end.

If a man causing a child to be aborted by violence, etc, can be convicted for this then a woman likewise should face the same legal responsibilities, as again where she voluntarily engaged in 30 sexual intercourse that she reasonably could have been aware may cause her to become pregnant, then she must be deemed to have given up to certain rights, and that she is bound to carry the child until born at the very least.
QUOTE BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) -- CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant, 35 before those who sleep on their rights. "A statute does not trump the Constitution." People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2 Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL, C.A. No. 09-10303, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Opinion filed September 14, 2010), On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of California "A statutory privilege cannot 40 override a defendant's constitutional right." People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr. 139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921], however, "the judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state ...must yield." Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921 Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive 45 persons of constitutional rights. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.] If evidence of a fact is clear, positive, uncontradicted and of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law. Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952) If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers. Thomas Pynchon They will do whatever 50 we let them get away with. Joseph Heller ~*~ END QUOTE 9-10-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 2

Page 3

Wed 9 October 2013 5.53am Re your article about Dr Mark Hobart and the Abortion issue From
5

Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To peter.rolfe@news.com.au

CC inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
10

Peter,

Dr Mark Hobart was a candidate in the Broadmeadows by-election 2011, as I was also as a CONSTITUTIONALIST. I was in my How-To-Vote cards promoting the constitution and the rights of citizens. Let me quote parts relevant to Dr Mark Hobart also:
15 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been 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 all have been the work of 20 Australians. END QUOTE

And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 25 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 the people. END QUOTE . 30 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten, END QUOTE And 35 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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 40 whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE And HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 9-10-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 3

Page 4 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 5 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

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL 10 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
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 15 the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. END QUOTE . HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 20 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, END QUOTE . HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 25 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are. END QUOTE . 30 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 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? 35 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 . 40 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament. END QUOTE . 45 HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 9-10-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 4

Page 5 Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." END QUOTE And Hansard 5 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Re Section 96 of the Constitution) QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. 10 END QUOTE

For the above also I view (considering your article at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/melbourne-doctors-abortion-stance-may-be-punished/storye6frg6n6-1226631128438#sthash.UMwisIPD.dpuf

15 rights as embedded

)that Dr Mark Hobart is constitutionally entitled to refuse to do anything contrary to his political as a legal principle in the constitution. Regretfully, when I promoted the constitution, etc, it was generally not understood how important the constitution is about our rights. See also my blog at www.scrfibd.com/inspectorrikati and my website http://www.schorelhlavka.com/ Gerrit

20 .

Constitutionalist & Consultant MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN (OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
25 107

Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia

Ph (International) 61394577209 . Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au

30 specifically

The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless otherwise stated. If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do is to consider the content appropriately! A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING CONCERNED TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.

35

40

Melbourne doctor's abortion stance may be punished - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/melbourne-doctors-abortion-stance-may-bepunished/story-e6frg6n6-1226631128438#sthash.UMwisIPD.dpuf
9-10-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 5

Page 6 by: Peter Rolfe From: Herald Sun April 28, 2013 9:00PM -

The Perch: Have your say with Wendy Tuohy A MELBOURNE doctor who refused to refer a couple for an abortion because they wanted only a boy has admitted he could face tough sanctions.
5

Dr Mark Hobart, who stood as a candidate for the Democratic Labor Party, which is antiabortion, at a by-election for the Victorian state seat of Broadmeadows in 2011 and remains a member of the party, fears he could be punished for refusing to give the Melbourne couple a referral after discovering they were seeking an abortion because they didn't want to have a girl.

Obstetricians have proposed parents be banned from knowing the sex of unborn babies until it is 10 too late to terminate, to prevent gender-based abortions. By refusing to provide a referral for a patient on moral grounds or refer the matter to another doctor, Dr Hobart admits he has broken the law and could face suspension, conditions on his ability to practice or even be deregistered.
15

But he was willing to risk punishment in pursuit of principles. He said he did not believe any doctor in Victoria would have helped a couple have an abortion just because they wanted a boy. "I've got a conscientious objection to abortion, I've refused to refer in this case a woman for abortion and it appears that I have broken the rules," he said. "But just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right." The Sunday Herald Sun yesterday revealed the couple had asked Dr Hobart to refer them to an abortion clinic after discovering at 19 weeks they were having a girl when they wanted a boy. Victoria's Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 specifies the obligations of registered health practitioners who have a "conscientious objection" to abortion.

20

Under the Act, if a woman requests a doctor to advise on a proposed abortion and the practitioner has a conscientious objection, he or she must refer the woman to a practitioner who does not 25 conscientiously object. "That is the letter of the law," he said. "It leaves me in limbo. "It's never been tested ... it is a very complicated area." Medical Practitioners Board spokeswoman Nicole Newton said doctors were bound by the law and a professional code of conduct.
30

"The board expects practitioners to practise lawfully and to provide safe care and to meet the standards set out in the board's code of conduct," she said. Another doctor who was brought before the Medical Board in January for airing his views against abortion was cautioned and warned he could be deregistered if it happened again. peter.rolfe@news.com.au

35

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/melbourne-doctors-abortion-stance-maybe-punished/story-e6frg6n6-1226631128438#sthash.UMwisIPD.dpuf

http://sbbcnews.com/australia/?p=908
40

OBrien: Abortion bill a violation of hard-won rights - See more at: http://sbbcnews.com/australia/?p=908#sthash.GYAEWo1p.dpuf By Pazis on Apr 29, 2013 with Comments 0
9-10-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 6

Page 7 A Bill designed to curb sex-selection abortion must be seen for what it is: a way for antichoice activists to claw back the hard-fought right for women to terminate a pregnancy, writes Susie OBrien.

Can you imagine aborting a healthy foetus just because you discovered it was the wrong sex?
5

Its almost unimaginable; most of us would be happy with a healthy baby, regardless of whether its a boy or a girl. Over the weekend, Melbourne GP Dr Mark Hobart told the Sunday Mail that he had seen a couple that wanted to abort a female foetus because they wanted a boy. Most doctors agree that this sort of thing does occasionally happen, but it is very, very rare.

10

Another Victorian case from a few years ago involved a couple who terminated twin boys for gender reasons: They had three sons and had previously lost a girl soon after birth, so they desperately wanted another girl. Again, its abhorrent. You would think that any couple that lost a child would be grateful for the gift of twins of any gender.

15

But just because most of us are against abortion on sex-selection grounds, it doesnt automatically follow that we should support a federal Bill to limit access to Medicare for it. The Bill has been moved by Democratic Labor Party Senator John Madigan, who is well known for his pro-life views.

20

What you need to know is that Dr Hobart is also a member of the DLP, and ran for the seat of Broadmeadows as a candidate at the last state election. His views must be analysed with this in mind. Im certainly not suggesting Dr Hobart is not telling the truth. I spoke to him yesterday and he seems like a decent, honourable man. But he is staunchly pro-life and a member of the party seeking to restrict access to abortion on the grounds of sex selection.

25

I also spoke to Senator Madigan yesterday, and he confirmed that Dr Hobart was critical in helping draw his attention to the issue: he is not an innocent bystander. Senator Madigan told me that people think they can bump a child off just because it is a girl: its morally repugnant. I agree with him on this, but I dont agree with his solution.

30

The point is that although it clearly does happen, it is certainly not widespread and there is no evidence to suggest that Medicare funding is involved. I asked Senator Madigan how widespread the occurrence of sex-selection abortion is and he told me it was hard to know because of limited data. They dont want the truth out there, he said conspiratorially. A recent article in the Medical Journal of Australia reviews the reasons women seek an abortion and sex selection is not one of them. In any case, Australia has a perfectly normal and natural balance of males and females born: 105.7 males to every 100 females. Senator Madigan, who calls himself pro-life and pro-people, says anyone concerned about womens rights ought to support this legislation. But I beg to disagree.

35

40

As I stated earlier, I am totally opposed to abortion on the basis of sex selection. But this particular piece of legislation violates the rights of women to access publicly funded abortions and thus should not be supported. Tellingly, this legislation is not supported by either the Australian Medical Association or the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
9-10-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 7

Page 8 But the debate is having an impact. Some doctors are even calling for people not to be told the sex of their child until it is too late to end the pregnancy; again, this is ridiculous. Ninety-six per cent of abortions are performed before 12 weeks, so there is no reason for this to happen.

The point is that, as Senator Madigan points out in his speech to Federal Parliament on the Bill, it 5 is not illegal to have an abortion on the basis of the sex of the foetus. The law does not require women to give a reason for an abortion. If Mr Madigan wants to change the law and make women who want to have abortions give a reason, and then make some reasons (such as sex selection) illegal, then it is his right to do so.
10

There would presumably be a major outcry because such a move would be a gross violation of the rights of women. As many womens health groups are suggesting, this would surely discriminate against some groups of women and jeopardise the health services they receive.

In his speech to Parliament, Senator Madigan talks of an increase in the number of requests for sex-selection IVF for family balancing reasons. He notes that many are concerned that these 15 same couples may be resorting to sex-selection abortion when their requests are denied. This is ludicrous. There is a big difference between couples asking whether it is possible to have a baby of one sex or the other through IVF and aborting a foetus because it is the wrong sex. Senator Madigans Bill must be seen for what it is: a way for anti-choice activists to claw back the hard-fought right for women to have abortions. The same thing is happening in other 20 countries such as Canada and the US. Making the decision to have an abortion is not easy. But in this country it is a free choice and we should not be allowing politicians especially those who will never be in this position personally to limit womens right to publicly funded abortions. source: adelaidenow.com.au
25

SBBCNEWS.COM - See more at: http://sbbcnews.com/australia/?p=908#sthash.GYAEWo1p.dpuf

Awaiting your response,

30

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(

Our name is our motto!)

9-10-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Page 8