WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Ted Baillieu Premier 2-4-2011

ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au
5 . Re: Working with children, etc supplement-01
Ted,
In my 25 March 2011 correspondence I stated:
QUOTE.
People do at time get involved in criminal conduct, and become convicted even so this might be a technical
10 conviction. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, for example, a person may become bankrupt
because of the conduct of an employee and surely it then couldn’t be held against him to ban him from life
from being a Member of Parliament.
Let’s use another example; A man and a woman engage in a relationship and produce offspring and later they
discover that they are actually brother and sister but never knew of this. Now, while technically this could be
15 deemed a crime, as to incest but if both were unaware of it (say one was adopted out) then a technical
conviction would not advance the protection of any child and certainly not having this plastered then all over
the Internet.
.
I am personally horrified how absurd the NSW system has gone as I for one cannot envisage one of iota
20 protection for a single child to have a Working With Children statement plastered all over the Internet for
every candidate even so most will never get elected!
One has to consider what is the real purpose of such statement and what is it to be used for!
END QUOTE
.
25 The following day I became aware of this publication of 26 March 2011;
http://au.news.yahoo.com/odd/a/-/odd/9080737/woman-s-blind-date-with-long-lost-brother/
QUOTE

WOMAN’S BLIND DATE WITHLONGLOST BROTHER

Yahoo! Lifestyle UK March 26, 2011, 6:22 pm
30
Sarah Kemp, 42, from Edinburgh met London-based George Bentley, 47 on UK dating website,
ForgetDinner.co.uk. After swapping photos and emails the pair met up at a pub near George’s
home in East Ham.

After talking for an hour about shared childhood experiences, she realised he was her brother. It
35 was the first time they had seen each other in 35 years.

According to UK bookies William Hill the odds of such a meeting are 500million-to-one.

Cleaner Sarah (speaking to The Daily Record) said: “We had so much in common and we really
enjoyed each other's company. It was as if we'd known each other all our lives.

"To meet your long-lost brother, in a bar, after over 30 years would be something by itself.

40 "But to meet him in those circumstances - on a date, for crying out loud - really is something else.”

George and Sarah were born in Ashford, Kent but were separated in 1975 when their parents,
David and Felicity divorced.

Six-year old Sarah joined her mum in Edinburgh, while David, nine, joined his dad in London. From
then on, the families stopped speaking.

p1 2-4-2011 Supplement-01 to 25-3-2011 correspondence

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
st
A 1 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
 When they grew up the pair did try and make contact, but without success. The search was made
more difficult after Sarah got married in 1989. She got divorced years later but kept the name
‘Kemp’.

George, a builder, said: “After a while, I think both Sarah and I gave up looking."

5 When the pair made the discovery they felt embarrassed, but were soon celebrating the happy
news by drinking champagne all evening.
They have since met up several times and George said: "This was the meeting of a lifetime and we
are now planning to see each other as often as possible to catch up on the time spent apart."
END QUOTE
10 .
If they had not discover the kinship until after a sexual relationship had eventuated it
nevertheless would so to say in the eyes of the law have been incest, even so they both would
have acted without mens rea.
In my view it is therefore important that people are not having their lives/status jeopardised by
15 disclosure of details that may in the end never have been needed for being a candidate for an
election. Again, only if the relevant candidate is elected and is placed in a position to have
contact with children or for that disabled persons where a Working With children permit were to
be required then I view it must be the governor of the State who was to then deal with this issue.
The reason it must be the Governor and no one else is because the Governor is to be above
20 politics and any other person may otherwise disclose details regardless if aware that it is merely
to cause undue problems. For example, a fellow party member who might be well aware that an
issue arose but had no real legal meaning may nevertheless spread rumours about this and then
cause a person not to be nominated for the party because of fear that this may undermine the
person to be elected. Hence, the kind of information that might be used or better to state misused
25 is to be kept with absolute confidentiality and we have seen that even police files have been
repeatedly leaked to criminals and so not even that can be deemed to be secret.
.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear no person, regardless how disqualified the person
may turn out to be to take up a seat in the parliament can be prohibited from being a candidate. It
30 is relevant only when a candidate is successful in an election and is elected by the
Governor/Governor-General to take up the seat for which the person was elected that then and
only then his eligibility comes into place.
To prevent any person to stand for election otherwise would be unconstitutional. And, as
you very much did campaign on Law & Order I then expect you to show an example and
35 repudiate any legislation that purports otherwise because either we have a constitution or we
don’t and you cannot pick and choose what you like or not. It is therefore not relevant if you may
like the idea of a candidate standing for an election who might turn out to be disqualified from
taking up a seat because even a person who might be qualified at the time of the election could
later become disqualified. Take for example Senators who can be elected up to about 1 year prior
40 to taking up a seat and so in that year period could find to become bankrupt or be convicted for a
crime that may disqualify them from taking up the seat when elected by the Governor-General to
do so. We have a constitution and are bound by this and no artificial obstacle course should ever
be permitted to exist to prevent an elector to stand as a candidate but what can be legislated for is
that if a person stands as a candidate and later is found to have been aware or have reasonably
45 been aware not being able to take the seat elected for then this person shall be financially liable
for part or whole of cost of a by-election, as may be determine by a jury of 12 citizens of that
electorate.
.
Because one desires to avoid a deluge of applications for Working With Children permit it is
50 then essential that the State government provides for a system that enables those who were
previously a candidate or who intend to be a candidate to enable to make such application free of
p2 2-4-2011 Supplement-01 to 25-3-2011 correspondence
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
st
A 1 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
 charge. Even if the State Government doesn’t want to abolish any fees, it then still can facilitate
that if a person applies for reason of becoming a candidate and has the fees for this remission of
fees provided for but afterwards proved not to have been nominated then such candidate can by
hind-sight still be charged the application fee, as to avoid a misuse of the system.
5 .
Again, I view there shouldn’t be any application fee whatsoever and also the fact that a person
has made an application and was granted or not a permit should remain confidential and no legal
requirement exist to reveal the details other then when a person actually will be involved with
children/disabled persons.
10 .
We never should use elections as a way to manipulate it for ulterior purposes such as to try to get
to know a persons background not at all relevant to the issues. After all, as the Framers of the
Constitution made clear that many may arrive from other countries by which their criminal
history may not be known and then it would be absurd that one were to hold it against an
15 Australia born person for certain issues that may have eventuated say during child hood while an
naturalised person who may have had an extensive criminal history may flaunt the requirements
by merely adopting a new identity. We must also keep in mind that in some countries they still
do stone women to death for issues which in Australia would be without any legal sanction. It
would be therefore absurd if a person convicted under certain religious doctrine which would be
20 totally different then which prevails in the Commonwealth of Australia could nevertheless then
be banned albeit unconstitutionally from participating in a democracy like the Commonwealth of
Australia (so its States and Territories). I have seen photo’s of where a tender age boy had a truck
run over his arm and then the arm was amputated all this because of having been accused of
stealing a piece of bread. Surely this kind of barbaric conduct and any conviction as such should
25 never find any support in the commonwealth of Australia as to have any conviction as such on
record. The same where a woman can be merely convicted in some countries for not wearing a
particular type of clothing and then be portrayed as some sex deviant and be convicted and at
times even executed. If a woman makes it to escape we wouldn’t want this woman then to be
made known as a sex criminal where the same kind of conduct in the Commonwealth of
30 Australia would be without legal sanction?
Because I am without criminal convictions I can speak up without being tainted of that I have
a personal interest in it whereas many others may be denied their rights provided for and
embedded in the constitution because we have people elected to the Parliament who lack any
understanding as to what really is or isn’t constitutionally applicable. We often have a mere
35 lawyer, and it might be one who may have had little practice in law, to advise the Parliament
about the constitutional validity of certain Bills regardless that it might be completely
unconstitutional. Having a law degree doesn’t mean a thing when it comes to the constitution as
rather the Framers of the Constitution themselves made clear, and they included many eminent
lawyers, that being a lawyer may be adverse to understanding the true meaning and application
40 of the constitution. Let’s ensure the Working With Children system is not misused/abused!
.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

.
( Our name is our motto!)
45 .

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

p3 2-4-2011 Supplement-01 to 25-3-2011 correspondence

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
st
A 1 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