Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Supplement 60-Barnaby
Barnaby has 2 other children and why should they be less then his children of a previous
marriage? In my view this is a gross (financial) discrimination against his 2 youngest children.
As like the about 7% pension taxation that every person still pays as part of their income taxation
irrespective they may never draw against it at old age, I view this kind of scheme should exist
with child support. All children are to be provided with the same taxation funded child support.
From having since 1982 a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS
PREVAIL® I am too aware that killing a child or children of a previous relationship may be to
some the only best outcome. It might be strange to state this, but some non-custodian parents are
down in the gutter as their monies are all going to a former wife and so ending up in prison at
least they have a roof above their heads and also sleeping accommodation. This is why it is long
overdue to stop this rot of a system.
I was last Saturday at a meeting (third in 4 decades – so I am not overdoing it) where a lawyer-
doctor was explaining how she as a councilor (for a council) used information to pursue FOI
request and well they held this as an issue. Well as the Federal Government itself uses the
Deputy Taxation Commissioner as the Child Support Registrar so as to be able to access taxation
files and use this then for child support issues then this lawyer-doctor did no more that which the
government has been doing for decades and with approval of the High Court of Australia.
I do not accept that the Deputy Taxation Commissioner should be doing this but for that the
Grantor cannot give a greater power to the agent. Hence if the Commonwealth exercises child
support on behalf of the custodian parent then the parent not having access to taxation files the
Child Support Registrar neither should have this power. There is however another issue to it all.
While the Federal government claims that child support debt is a Debt to the Commonwealth, in
reality this is sheer and utter nonsense. When my daughters mother had not even once made a
$20 payment of the ordered child support then the Child Support Agency contacted me (when
my child was an adult) asking me to cancel the debt. How on earth could I possibly cancel a debt
that was supposed to be a Debt to the Commonwealth, I wonder. The Child Support Registrar
making clear it couldn’t force the mother to pay the arrears.
*. You really got the knowledge and experiences about child support issues, don’t you?
**#** Well, let us consider Mr John Abbott. The Family Court of Australia garnished/
impounded his motor vehicle as the Child Support Agency claimed an about $4,000 child
support debt. Mr John Abbott went to the High Court of Australia which upheld the Family
Court of Australia court orders. And by a twist the Child Support Agency refunded the about
$4,000 plus parking cost because after all he didn’t have the alleged child support debt at all.
What an utter and sheer nonsense for the High Court of Australia to rely upon some Crystal Ball
alleged debt!
*. Why is it that women can often get away with paying child support?
*. You also have an issue with the purported referral of legislative powers by the States to the
Commonwealth regarding children of non-marriages?
**#** Indeed, I have, This as I stated in the most recent PRESS RELEASE about
municipal/shire councils that the States constitutions derived from the colonial constitutions are
subject to Section 106 of the federal constitution and any referral of legislative powers by a state
can only be done validly if it has been approved by State referendum. As such the 1986
purported reference of legislative powers are all ULTRA VIRES. As French J of WA later
French CJ of the HCA made clear Subsection 51(xxxvii) of the federal constitution does no more
but to allow the Commonwealth to accept a reference of State legislative powers however the
powers of the States to do so must be found elsewhere. And that is Section 123 of the
constitution this as when a State parliament refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth it
actually remove the judicial powers of the Supreme Court and that it cannot do due to separation
of powers and hence a State referendum is needed to permit this.
*. Your last PRESS RELEASE had a lot of times that instead of “is” it showed “I”, how is that?
**#** I am using a very old laptop that is missing various keys such as the “s” and the :”b”, and
so while afterwards I try to correct this but at times miss out on some being corrected. This is the
result of assisting people for free for decades and refusing to accept monies that I am on so to say
a shoe string budget doing the work. Then again I do not regret this as monies make to many
becoming vultures and I didn’t desire to go down that path.
*. I gather your view about Barnaby Joyce hardship is not critical upon him?
**#** Regardless that his income might appear to be a lot, I am not going to criticize him
because I can understand what he is seeking to convey. Moreover, I applaud him to translate this
also to show that New Start is by far insufficient. Being on an age pension and never having had
any superannuation to fall back upon I can manage within my means, but let us not ignore those
who are more financially struggling then we might do. In my view Barnaby is a better politician
for coming out whereas likely many politicians would so to say be scared to death to admit to
their personal hardship. There is a lot more to it all and I tried to be very brief but safe to say I
hold the Family Court of Australia to be some club where lawyers who are friends of a judge can
get orders they desire regardless what the evidence might be before the court. And the same in
other courts. As such this claim about the interest and wellbeing of the children is a statement
like politicians use health, education, etc for political purposes, while in real to my understanding
the judges are acting precisely opposite to the interest and wellbeing of the child.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
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!)
p5 30-7-2019 © 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