Mr John Brumby, Premier 4-7-2009

Cc; * Alexandra Axford, General Manager Corporation Relations State Trustees Ltd.

.

. AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Re Need for appropriate action - etc

.

John,

I direct myself to you regarding the need to provide appropriate legislative provisions to protect the elderly, the ill and the vulnerable from being exploited as appears to me having occurred such as in matters like Maria Mirabella and the Waddingham cases.

.

It is my view that for example legislation is needed to canvass (see below for further explaination):

· Legal exclusion of those employed by State Trustees Limited to become trustees in person in their own right (not acting for State Trustees Limited) as to prevent abuse misuse of their position and/or knowledge.

· Mandatory reporting by State Trustees Limited or others as to any possible and/or perceived conflict of interest of any person acting as a Trustee

· Requirement of disclosure of transfer of all and any properties in a period of ten years in regard of the person of whom the application is filed when filing for probate/guardianship/administration (including any Codicil).

· Requirement of disclosure of medical records regarding the use of medicines in a period of ten years in regard of the person of whom the application is filed when filing for probate/guardianship/administration (including any Codicil).

· Requirement of disclosure of number of Wills/Codicils in a period of ten years in regard of the person of whom the application is filed when filing for probate/guardianship/administration (including any Codicil).

· Requirement of disclosure of Enduring Power of Attorney/Power of Attorney or other such instruments of a period ten years in regard of the person of whom the application is filed when filing for probate/guardianship/administration (including any Codicil).

· Requirement of disclosure of position of the Trustee versus the persons who’s will is filed for probate (including any Codicil), including if the trustee was a carer or in any other manner had basically control over the person making the Will/Codicil that could have been used to influence the content of the Will/Codicil in a period of ten years when filing for probate/guardianship/administration

· Mandatory reporting by lawyers and others where they suspect or reasonably can suspect that a Will/Codicil is questionable in its validity and/or might expose an pattern of misuse of powers and/or inappropriate use of position, etc.

· Requirement of disclosure of all and any other special circumstances, (including bank transfers, share transfers, etc in a period of ten years in regard of the person of whom the application is filed when filing for probate/guardianship/administration which are unusual or are not ordinary for the expenses of living conditions, etc.

· Requirement that where a person (Testatrix) doesn’t have full and proper command of the English language then any Will/Codicil must also be accompanied in the language and any dialect that might be applicable so the Testatrix can read the version in his/her own native language and both versions are to be filed for probate as being one Will. This, so any discrepancies in translation will be known to the court.

· The creation of an OMBUDSMAN OF THE AGE specifically dealing with probate and other age related matters (such as in the Waddingham case).

· Such further and other legislative provisions that may be deemed to prevent exploitation and abuse and misuse of the frail/elderly/sick and the vulnerable.

.

Since 1982 I have conducted a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® and in 1985 created the document “ADDRESS TO THE COURT/TRIBUNAL” as to make litigation a level playing field, and this documents has since been used in all levels of courts, including the High Court of Australia in both civil and criminal matters.

.

Also as Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues I am often requested to assist people where they hold the legal system has failed them or is failing them. By providing my services FREE OF CHARGE it means people ordinary unable to have any kind of support because they cannot afford the cost usually associated with engaging people in particular fields now have an opportunity to have a person willing to listen to what their case really is about.

.

During 2008 I was contacted by a Mr Francis James Colosimo who was facing a 6^th CONTEMPT hearing and in which over the years up to about 20 lawyers had been involved, including the Victorian legal Aid and the OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE and STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED when I discovered it was all horribly wrong and we were dealing with a man who was not only innocent of any wrong doing but who had never even been formally charged let alone explained his legal rights yet was from onset told by the trail judge she could imprison him. On 16 March 2009 Her Honour Harbison J having listened to my extensive submissions about the conspiracy to pervert the course of JUSTICE by lawyers and Council involved then ordered a PERMANENT STAY of the CONTEMPT proceedings.

.

In the process of litigation I became aware of a 21 January 2009 correspondence of a Mr Peter Desmond Sier ACTING FOR State Trustees Limited as Administrator. His letter was seemingly merely as to point out I wasn’t a lawyer. However, to me the correspondence appeared to be rather some writing as some power struggle that he wanted to deter me from perhaps preventing him to exercise powers as a administrator in the manner he contemplated to do, which appeared to me against the interest of Mr Francis James Colosimo.

.

During the hearing before Senior VCAT Member Ms Preuss I stated my concerns about Mr Peter Sier and that I sought specific orders, as such not just to take his word for it, that Mr Peter Sier could not take any action. Ms Preuss provided certain orders, albeit the sealed orders do not reflect them all, but they included Mr Peter Sier not to take any action other then what was stipulated in the orders. Well, to no surprise to me Mr Peter Sier basically disregarded this and did his own thing.

I pointed this also out before Her Honour Harbison J on 16 March 2009 that Mr Peter Sier had not fully disclosed to her honour the truth of matters, as such concealing certain details.

.

Obviously my concern was then already that Mr Peter Sier seemed to be a person who lacked respect for authority and being in a position to exercise authority as an Administrator for State Trustees then may have not taken it easy to be restrained by Senior VCAT member Ms Preuss.

.

Obviously I am as an Author in the process of publishing a book about it and with this do publish parts. As result I receive many request of others in what they claim to be similar problems they experienced. Two cases are for example the Maria Mirabella and the Waddingham cases which seems to underline a total failure to protect the elderly, vulnerable, the sick and the frail, etc.

.

In regard of the Maria Mirabella case it appears to me that this elderly woman was subject to morphine that the medical records shows also;

A 19 April 2002 report indicates “

QUOTE

Her morphine dose was reduced slightly due to drowsiness

END QUOTE

.

Yet she was making numerous Wills and codicils and in the process as I view it stripped in excess of a million dollars on properties. Sure they didn’t go to Mr Peter Sier personally but it appears to me they did go mainly to his children! As the Trustee and parent of the children he basically had by this unfettered control over the estate matters of Maria Mirabella., while married to her daughter Stella who also had obtained Enduring powers of Attorney and herself in her written statement to VCAT for support of an application of guardianship/administration (once about all properties was already stripped from her mother) indicating that her mother had problems for years. Some shown below.

.

In view that Mr Peter Desmond Sier is employed with State Trustees Limited and as such has a considerable experiences and working knowledge in dealing with the elderly etc, I seek to draw your attention to the Will that was dated 2^nd day of October 2002, and urge you to pursue a full criminal investigation into matters concerning the Mirabella issues.

The 22 October 2002 Will notes a CERTIFICATE in it which states;

QUOTE

Due to the Testatrix’ apparent imperfect knowledge of the English language and her apparent knowledge of the Italian language, before the Testatix executed the Will.

(a) the Will and this certificate were distinctly and audibly read over to her by PETER ZABLUD in the English language and simultaneously translated into the Italian language by ROSA RUSSO ESTORAI who is a professional interpreter and who had first sworn that:

(i) she well understood the English language and the Italian language; and

(ii) to the best of her skill and ability, she would well and truly interpret the content of the Will to the Testatrix from the English language to the Italian language; and

(b) through the interpretation of Rosa Russo Estorai, the Testatrix said that she understood and approved the content of the Will and that she understood and confirmed the content of this certificate.

END QUOTE

.

I understand that PETER ZABLUD subsequently filed for probate for Mr Peter Desmond Sier and is currently the lawyer for Mr Peter Desmond Sier.

.

As I understood it shortly after signing the Will the late Maria Mirabella did a mental test in the English language and scored allegedly 3 out of 30 but when the same test was repeated but in not the Italian language as such but in Sicilian dialect which was the only Italian kind of language she used and understood then her score was 6 out of 30. As such, Maria Mirabella had a distinct problem with the ordinary English language and she was limited, as I understood it to understanding the Sicilian dialect was existed prior to 1950 when she resided in Sicily.

As such it appears to me that an Italian interpreter translating English into the ordinary plain Italian language. While Mr PETER ZABLUD states he read out the Will to Maria Mirabella “while simultaneously translated into the Italian language” this appears to me also have been very confusing for Maria Mirabella having to hear English which she by the statement of Mr PETER ZABLUD “Due to the Testatrix’ apparent imperfect knowledge of the English language” clearly could not understood appropriately.

While Mr PETER ZABLUD stated “and her apparent knowledge of the Italian language” it is my understanding, as referred to above, that in fact Maria Mirabella was only accustomed to the prior 1950 Sicilian dialect and not the generally spoken Italian which I understand came about after the 1950’s when the Italian government began to insist that over Italy the ordinary Italian language was to be standardised throughout Italy.

More over, for a woman who a few months later was found to have mental incapacity it would be extremely difficult for her to have been able to follow two different languages spoken “simultaneously”. Of which neither she apparently had mastered.

.

Besides this point of Sicilian dialect and Italian dialect, even for a person as myself having been around courts for decades and assisted many with their estate planning I find the Will to be extremely complex and difficult to follow and need to re-read it various time to just try to grasp the extend of power granted to the Trustees as well as that apparently moneys paid to a beneficiary and or its parents cannot be r4eclaimed no matter what. Indeed the extra ordinary exclusions for the Trustees to be accountable and the extraordinary large powers for the Trustees to do as if he deals with his own money in my view is a total absurdity.

When I assist anyone with a Will ( FREE OF CHARGE) I urge people to keep the powers of a Trustee as limited as possible as to avoid any potential abuse and misuse. As I point out that today’s relatives/friends that might be very trustworthy can turn as evil doers when they get into power as a Trustee, and for this also recommended people to have a so called independent umpire such as the State Trustees Limited as a Trustee. Well by the terms of this Will involving Mr Peter Sier I would never again advise anyone to involve State Trustees Limited as if this reflect the kind of Wills that a person with 25 years experiences with State Trustees Limited produced (through a lawyer) then I am rather extremely concerned about what else there might be. Lets be very clear about this even a person who has no mental disabilities but who would have to listen to a translator would have extreme difficulties to understand let alone comprehend the terms of the Will and indeed its complex nature.

Actually I would invite you to talk to an ordinary person who has full faculties of the English language and then read out the terms of such a Will and ask the person then to explain the overall terms of the Will. I have no doubt that if you were to ask one hundred people to subject to this test that not a single one could after reading it all out present precisely what the overall terms of the Will is about. It simply is too complicated to comprehend just from being told. Therefore, if it would be beyond the scope of an ordinary person to comprehend the total meaning of the Will even if they were familiar with the English language then how on earth could Maria Mirabella do any better while having to listen to “simultaneously” the Will being read in both English and Italian of which neither she properly understood.

.

As such even any statement of

QUOTE

through the interpretation of Rosa Russo Estorai, the Testatrix said that she understood and approved the content of the Will and that she understood and confirmed the content of this certificate.

END QUOTE

.

Is rather indicating that Maria Mirabella purported to understand even so she didn’t at all. After all 9 pages are hard to fathom for an ordinary average person and let alone for a woman at her age and of which Stella Sier stated in her 20 November 2003 deposition in VCAT in regard of an 11 November 2003 Guardianship and administration litigation referring to that her mother had problems over a period of 2½ years stated for example

QUOTE

We took her from the property. We took this action because of her inability to care for herself, as demonstrated to us over the past two and a half years when she has been living with my family and me. She is not capable of cooking for herself, showering herself nor is she capable to properly administer her medication.

END QUOTE

And under Medical Reports:

QUOTE

I have been told by Box Hill Hospital that medical assessments have recently been undertaken. Mum was given the mini-mental test twice in recent weeks and I understand that she scored 3 out of 30 and 5 out of 30.

END QUOTE

.

QUOTE

As I have indicated earlier in this report, mum lived with my family and me from June 2001 until her admission to Box Hill Hospital on 27^th October 2003. She was unable to care for herself following the death of my sister, and I gladly took responsibility of caring for her. She did not return to her home after the death of my sister.

END QUOTE

.

Transfer of property on 19 September 2002

Title Volume 8575 Folio 832 to;

QUOTE

To MICHAEL ALLEYNE SIER, CHRISTOPHER NICOLO SIER both of 16 Springfield Avenue, Croydon, 3136 as tenants in common in equal shares.

END QUOTE

.

Title Volume B071 Folio 915 to;

QUOTE

MICHAEL QALLEYNE SIER, CHRISTOPHER NICOLO SIER, NOCOLE MARIA SIER and ELISE ANTONIA SIER all of 16 Springfield Avenue, Croydon, 3136 as tenants in common in equal shares.

END QUOTE

Transfer of property on 21 May 2003

There is however a problem.

The following titles were not actually transferred until 23 May 2003 to Maria Mirabella and as such I view the 19 September 2002 transfers could not be deemed valid.

Transfer of property on 21 May 2003

Title Volume 74381 Folio 555

Title Volume 8071 Folio 915

While a 2 July 2002 medical report indicates Maria Mirabella being largely confined to bed (Dr Sharp’s notes)

An April 2002 medical record states “daughter describes her mother as a “sad person”.”.

A 7 June 2002 report of Box Hill Hospital states:

QUOTE

Seems depressed and wants to go back living at her own house

END QUOTE

.

A 29/10/2002 Box Hill Hospital report indicates the daughter primary carer and Maria Mirabella not being able to care for herself.

A 19 April 2002 report indicates “We have advised that she requires 24 hour care”

And

QUOTE

Her morphine dose was reduced slightly due to drowsiness

END QUOTE

A 5^th March 2002 report from Maroondah Hospital indicates that Maria Mirabella was using MS Contin and also it stated;

“She feels very lonely at the moment and often spends the whole night crying.”

Also that Maria Mirabella was on anti depressants

.

Form a purported transcript of a 4^th November 2001 phone calls by Maria Mirabella to Stella in Italy (not being Stella Sier) it seems that Maria Mirabella was a very unhappy woman living with Stella and Peter Sier and the medical notes do indicate this also.

While Maria Mirabella required 24 hours care and Stella was her primary care taker I understand that in fact Stella was running a cleaning business and so not home for considerable parts of the day with Maria Mirabella left on her own. I understand that despite the medical reports indicating Maria Mirabella not to be left alone when mobile it was the police who ended up presenting Maria Mirabella to the hospital when they apparently found her not even having underwear.

From this and other details I understand that basically Maria Mirabella was exploited by Stella and Peter Siers that she was to sign over her properties and then she basically could fend for herself. When one consider the changes from the 22 September 2002 Will to the 2 October 2002 Will then it is about the same other then for paragraph being deleted, Paragraph 6 becoming 5 being changed and paragraph 8 becoming 7 being altered also and a new paragraph 9 being added. Considering the dispute between Leo and his sister Stella and her husband Peter, at least as I understood there was, then the changes in the Will to me underlines they were using or better to state abusing their powers over Maria Mirabella to change the Will so quickly after the previous Will having been made. Considering the cost of a Will, the cost of the lawyer and translator one may question if these changes could be considered warranted.

.

The 10 July 1996 dated Will it states at 14

QUOTE

Is that my daughter ANTONINA MARIA MIRABELLA has cared for myself and my late husband for approximately thirty (30) years without reward. My other three (3) children gave my late husband and myself only problems and heartaches.

END QUOTE

.

Why then would Maria Mirabella want to give Peter Sier total control of her estate when his wife Stella seemed to have given nothing but problems and heartaches?

When we go back over the numerous medical reports it seems clear that Maria Mirabella was under numerous drugs for pain relief and otherwise and was even “drowsy” that her medication had to be reduced to some extend.

The overall picture appear to me to be that Maria Mirabella was only in care with Peter and Stella Sier so as I view it they could plunder her of her assets. Obviously where the transfer of the properties on 19 September 2002 were conducted even so the properties had not been properly transferred to Maria Mirabella until 23 May 2003 then I view where the properties were not listed in the 19 September 2002 and 10 October 2002 Wills then the Trustee Mr Peter Sier ought to have declared the properties as part of the Estate, which I understand was not on basis of the purported 19 September 2002 transfer as a “GIFTS” to his children.

.

THE TRUSTEES POWER TO PURCHASE THE SHARES, ETC.

.

Peter Sier’s a so called 25 years veteran working for State Trustees Limited in my view showed that the kind of powers granted to him as a trustee is precisely the kind of sole powers I warned people about as to not trust anyone but to involve State Trustees Limited because they would be the independent umpire in how monies would be disbursed. To provide that the trustees can pay out the equivalent of the shares rather then to sell the shares means the trustee can manipulate it and can transfer the shares to himself. Likewise with other clauses.

I do recognise that Nina as a legal secretary also knew how to deal with Wills as to maximise her powers but when she died it was very clear that Maria Mirabella already having been cared for by Nina for some 30 years had no capacity to care for herself and so Stella was the alternative.

As such the manipulation over the Wills of Maria Mirabella as I view it spanned since Nicolo Mirabella died in 1995 and when Nina died it appears to me Peter Sier’s and his wife Stella continued the same.

In my view, Maria Mirabella should at the very least have been provided with a written Will in her Sicilian language as being a true and proper translation and should have been required to sign the same and this translation copy having been annexed to the English version.

Further, it is my view that only a lawyer who can communicate in the language of the person who makes the Will should be allowed to have a Will read to the person. After all, the person who requested to sign a Will may have questions about the content of a Will which one cannot expect a translator can really deal with as such.

It is my understanding that Maria Mirabella was very unhappy residing in the care of Peter and Stella Sier and it therefore doesn’t bring out that she then would want to enrich them while allegedly stating they were robbing her (at least to what I consider it comes to) and therefore I view that since the death of her husband Maria Mirabella was being manipulated to sign all kinds of Wills and Codicil and so while also under medication that obviously made her drowsy and so couldn’t even be deemed to have her left in a mental capacity to understand let alone comprehend such a complicated document merely by being told in both in English and Italian

In my view, and I must make clear I haven’t even read all of the material this was a systematic abuse of powers and I would estimate the removal of properties in excess of one million dollars over a period of time basically leaving Maria Mirabella as a pauper that Box Hill Hospital had to pay for her accommodation and this I view should require no less but a full criminal investigation.

While on the face of it the various Wills may provide for properties to be provided to the grandchildren, albeit to some grandchildren and not others, I view that what should be looked at is the overall picture and if in fact this brings out a clear manipulation and Wills were structured for that purpose and a woman depending on her daughters having no other choice but signing as she really was without alternative, at least so it appeared to her.

Again the various reports and the purported transcript of the telephone conversation points out a very unhappy Maria Mirabella who was under drugs and I view her first Will made at age 54 may just be the only Will one can rely upon to reflect her true intentions. Comparing the subsequent Wills and Codicil to me seem to be more what was dictated for her to sign and not one she would have made to her own free will to what she really desired.

.

One may perhaps check the bank holdings, etc, of Mr Peter Sier his wife Stella and children to discover how they enriched themselves in a period of a few years other then by ordinary employment. It is not for me to do a so called ATO examination but surely considering the concerns I have expressed above it appears to me reasonable to do so as to ascertain if Mr Peter Sier’s employment has given him the ability if not the opportunity to enrich himself in a manner not normally applicable. As I indicated in previous correspondence I exposed in the past a person doing so (albeit not related to State Trustees Limited) and it was apparently his modus operandi to do so. My concern is that Peter Sier likewise might be engaged in conduct unbecoming to State Trustees Limited services it provides. In particular where I held Peter Sier to disregard orders issued by VCAT on 27 January 2009 I for one have grave concerns about his representation of State Trustees Limited and as a good citizen hold it my duty to make this known to you while providing some details relating to my concerns.

It appears obvious that there need to be a drastic improvement how wills are signed and that those who are requested to sign a Will must also disclose any and all medications they are using, as well as that the will must have a formal translation, if required, in the language the person who signs the will to bequest items can feel comfortable with and can not only understand but also comprehend the content thereof. Also that exclusions of Trustees are limited and not as the Wills of Maria Mirabella showed they are giving about unfettered power to a trustee, which itself may underline the Will isn’t fair dinkum. And considering the numerous Wills and codicil made it also place in question for who’s sake the Wills and codicil really were! After all where medical records indicates “Her morphine dose was reduced slightly due to drowsiness” then surely one must ask oneself how long and what period was Maria Mirabella medicated as such and how did this also affect her mental ability to execute Wills and Codicil in a proper frame of mind?

.

It appears to me that even so the same lawyer was used to draft various Wills, and so shortly after each other no issue seemed to have raised as to any concern as to it being appropriate even so medical reports of 1996 then reveals that a solicitor had concerns as to the validity of the will then having been made, as the medical report shows. Then I view mandatory reporting is required. Also Wills that were made while Maria Mirabella was clearly under drugs such as morphine must be deemed to render her incapable of having a mental ability to understand and/or comprehend the very complex nature of the various Wills/Codicil placed before her.

.

With the Waddingham case we have a 93 year old man engaging in a $200.000.00 or thereabout without his legal advisors ensuring that there are appropriate protection provisions in place, such as a income identity insurance to cover his son for whom the monies is used to purchase a truck and other items, and a registered interest in the truck and other items. As such there appeared to be no CONSIDERATION for this Ivan Waddingham Snr. After he died, at age 98, his widow is now left to pick up the pieces, so to say and clearly facing huge litigation cost as those involved in this kind of conduct often have ample of money to litigate against the widow. In my view there must be legislation in place (albeit this will be a federal matter) that corporate accountability is required. And while the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal was to seek to provide an alternative dispute resolution instead of huge legal cost though the courts I understand that by Section 12 of the VCAT-Act 1998 in fact lawyers can play a game and still charge in tens of thousands if not over a hundred thousand dollars in a case. As such VCAT is only exemplifying the problems and cost increasing and not at all being a cheaper way out. More over, people are being robbed of their ordinary legal rights and lawyers are having a time of their life because they can basically disregard normally legal requirements as the onus to prove matters is unlike that in a court of law and so they have it much easier to succeed and by this inflict a grave INJUSTICE upon an innocent person. This if anything was clearly demonstrated in the Mr Francis James Colosimo case.

In the Ivan Waddingham case he did pursue legal advise but which I view lacked considerably as I have also set out in my correspondence of 1 July 2009 to the “Chapter CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITIES - ETC” of which copies were already provided to various persons such as the Office of the Public Advocaat and State Trustees Limited.

.

As pointed out in the Chapter, Mr Ivan Waddingham had no income protection insurance as to protect himself against his son falling ill, becoming disabled or even had died and as such when his son did have an injury preventing him to work it was Mr Ivan Waddingham who was faced without money to pay the instalments of the repayments. And as he neither had a registered interest in the truck it means he had nothing to show for the moneys he borrowed. In my view any competent solicitor would have made clear that those were two basic requirements for him to pursue and also I view that the financial institution lending the money should have insisted on this kind of protection being in place.

.

Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997

(1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson

Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration) “Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have

obviously given a bona fide and painstaking consideration to the complaints addressed to

him; the question is whether the consideration was sufficient in law.”

.

In my view AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES LTD should have been well aware that the loan application for a 93-year old man to borrow such huge amount of moneys to purchase a truck and other items without any kind of indemnity insurance to cover repayments in the event his son would fall ill or becomes disabled or even dies and without registering any ownership (for the life of the loan) in the truck, etc, that then the loan application could not be accepted.

.

6t5he problem we are faced with is that when matters go to VCAT then we have a kind of some disorganised litigation where the lawyers can do whatever and the elderly generally uunable to afford a lawyer are bullied into submission because they are told they will loose anyhow. I view this was in fact also the kind of tactic used by Middeltons Lawyers in their correspondence re the Waddingham case.

.

Indeed making clear that VDCAT would rule in their favour, as I understood it from their writing. This to me indicates that the lawyers dictate VCAT what to do and this is very much shown in the Mr Francis James Colosimo case where even Victorian legal Aid lawyers pursued for Mr Francis James Colosimo to acknowledge he was in breach of orders, etc. Yet, in law Mr Francis James Colosimo had not committed any legal wrong! And this was what I submitted to her honour Harbison J on 16 march 2009 upon which Her Honour ordered a PERMANENT STAY of the CONTEMPT proceedings

So here we had a Judge of the County Court of Victoria ignoring the rule of law from onset as to ensure that Mr Francis James Colosimo was first formally charged with whatever offence he was claimed to have been accused of and neither to explain his legal rights threatening him on the first hearing that she could send him to imprisonment for up to 5-years and she continued this kind of litigation for a further 5 hearings until I stepped in. And as records show Mr Francis James Colosimo ended up attending to a hospital with heart complaints!

.

As such, what we appear to have a disorganised VCAT where the rule of law has absolutely no meaning, at least in the Mr Francis James Colosimo case!

.

With the Waddingham case one has to question why a judge of the supreme Court of Victoria didn’t step in to deal with the litigation that this was a bit of utter and sheer nonsense to provide about $200,000.00 to a 93-year old man without any proper security or protection other then that his property belonging to both to his wife and himself (by provisions of Family Law Act 1975 regardless that it might have been registered in his name only) and it was contrary to federal government policy to place in jeopardy the family home!

.

When we then look at the Maria Mirabella case where this poor woman was subject not just to pains, etc, but also to medication to try to relieve her of the pains and also to the loneliness caused by the death of her eldest daughter and then end , as the medical reports show, being very unhappy and wanting to return to her home, somehow gifting all or about all assets to certain grandchildren being the children of the Trustee Mr Peter Sier who is a Senior Personal Financial Consultant with state Trustees Limited and as such had the knowledge and the experiences how to deal with estates within the law. In my view, it appears he grossly abused and misused this knowledge and experiences and placed himself in an untenable position that he was an employee of State Trustees Limited excluding State Trustees Limited to deal with the estate matters as an impartial body. In my view the powers assigned in the will and a bequest made not to Peter Sier in name but to the Trustee, being Peter Sier, also place in question, at least in my view, what validity was in the Will that it was a product of what the true intentions were of Maria Mirabella.

.

While obviously I do not have access to government records if Stella Sier was being paid a carers payments to care for her mother, it would for any inquiry be interesting to discover what reasons may have been stated as to why she was to be her mothers carer. After all might it as did the 20 November 20023 Statement to VCAT reveal that she claimed that her mother had for years problems?

If it were to eventuate in any investigation that Stella Sier had made known problems as to her mother Maria Mirabella being able to manage her own affairs then surely the ability of Maria Mirabella to gist properties of considerable value and to authorise wills and Enduring Power of Attorney also may be placed in question.

.

In my view Stella Sier should have made a formal application to VCAT under the Guardianship and Administration Act to be appointed as her guardian and be provided with relevant powers so that it would correspondent with what her mothers condition was about. In my view we cannot have that somehow Maria Mirabella was competent enough to gift properties to Stella and Peter Sier’s children and to grant Enduring Power of Attorney as well as make numerous Wills and Codicil but on the other hand by the medical reports was drowsy by the use of morphine, was lonely, etc, and also as other statements, including that of Stella indicates her mother needed to be cared for.

.

In my view, had Stella Sier made known to VCAT about the ongoing care previously provided by her late sister Nina to her mother Nina Mirabella and that her mother gifted properties to her children then perhaps someone may just have become altered but unlikely the Office of the Public Advocate as I have not particular a respect for it what I learned about it and how it somehow is not aware of whatever goes wrong. As such, there must be appropriate legislation in place that ensures that when the mental capability of a person is placed in question then the Court/Tribunal that deals with it must be provided with all relevant details over the previous 10-years so it can become aware of the full situation and not that for example the Supreme Court of Victoria merely issues orders for probate disregarding totally if the Will was actually obtained in a proper manner.

.

I have no financial interest in the Maria Mirabella estate and as such no one can therefore accuse me that somehow I seek to pursue matters just to be able to lay my hands on any monies. MY issue is that Maria Mirabella had a right to common decency that her life in her older days were not so to say subject to tyranny, as I perceive it was, so she would under the pretext of “gifts” hand over her properties but that she could have enjoyed a peaceful and enjoyable life. Instead of being found by the police and her son having to provide underwear for his mother and other items when she was delivered to Box Hill Hospital she should have been in a proper care facility rather then having been left at Peter and Stella’s residence having to look her herself and being as such lonely and very unhappy.

.

When Nocolo Mirabella died he left sufficient estate to his wife Maria Mirabella that in principle she had no need to be funded by the Commonwealth for a pension because I estimate she would have had in excess of one million dollars in properties. Yet, in the end her son was contacted to purchase a gown and underwear because his mother Maria Mirabella needed this. Where then was the primary carer Stella?

How many other Maria Mirabella’s, by whatever other name they may go, are ending up in the streets or even die because there really is no system in place to make sure that there are proper checks on such elderly person and that their properties or other belongings are not by misuse and abuse taken from them, being purportedly “gifted” or otherwise.

.

Here we had that people who contributed throughout their life towards what Australia is today, and having cared for themselves that they would not be depending upon society for a pension, in the end society failed them to protect them and to ensure that such kind of abuse cannot flourish.

With Mr Ivan Waddingham the fact that the Federal government provided him with a pension, as I understand the situation was, then surely where the Federal Government excludes the family home rather then to subject the family home as a collateral to repay later the pension payments then financial companies must be held not entitled to lay a claim upon a family home unless the Federal Government has certified for them to do so? After all, why would the Federal Government have declared Mr Ivan Waddingham to be in need of financial support by society but not removing the dignity to let him loose his family home only then for a finance company to take the home in any event? In particular where the loan had really nothing to do with improving the life style of Mr Ivan Waddingham and/or his wife but was to assist their son to purchase a truck then surely the circumstances surround the need of the loan were in total contradiction with the financial support provided by the Federal government to ensure they had a decent living standard. We are not talking about Mr Ivan Waddingham borrowing monies to repair the family home or otherwise assist in their own personal lives, but rather that Mr Waddingham and his wife were financial supported by the Federal Government in their needs to have a reasonable living standard and as such Mr Ivan Waddingham was in no position to then borrow monies for anyone else, including their son. As such I view that the lawyer having provided advise to Mr Ivan Waddington, the finance broker, the finance company and others facilitating the loan all need to be held accountable. How on earth an accountant, as I understand it was, could have claimed that Mr Waddingham understood the contract he was entering into is beyond me.

.

On a greater scale I am indeed also very disturb by the fact that people who’s only source of income is a pension or other kind of payment by the Federal government then somehow can borrow monies from financial institutions which only compromise their financial situation further. In my view, when a person is the beneficiary of a Government financial support payment then any lender, etc, must be compelled to first obtain a certificate from the Federal Government that the prospective borrower is suitable for this. The Federal Government provides payments that it considers is appropriate for a near the breadline living and as such if then a person borrows moneys and by this is financial worse of then clearly the lending facilitator is acting in contradiction of what the federal government is seeking to achieve.

In particular with gamblers it is very dangerous to let them borrow monies where their only means of income is a Federal government financial support payment. Hence, I would rather prefer if the Federal government were to split such financial support payments to that part is paid out while another part is paid into some kind of building society that is obligated to pay bills such as rent, gas, electricity, etc. As such, those using drugs, gambling or otherwise misusing the Federal Government payments will be prevented to misuse monies that are paid to them to pay certain bills. We find so many people sleeping on the streets even so their financial support payments through Centrelink includes payments towards rent, gas and electricity.

We find that municipal councils are willing to sell the residents of people if they cannot pay the rates, even so the Federal government clearly has its policy not to touch the family home. What is worse is that Municipal councils have under the federation no legal standing as a level of government, yet such as with Banyule city council are getting involved in an about 370 million project with LandLease for a shopping complex and I quote from a medica article; “Banyule Council’s director of corporate services, Keith Yeo, did not expect residents struggling with rates to affect spending on projects.” As such, Banyule Council will go full steam ahead being involved in a 370 million business dealing ignoring the plight of the struggling ratepayers. The article also points out only one objection was filed against the new budget. Well I was the person who lodged my objection well aware that most people consider it a waste of time to loge an objection because it will generally be ignored anyhow.

Yet the same article also stated; “A GROWING number of residents will be seeking financial assistance as they struggle to pay rising rates, Banyule Council has predicted.”.

This is precisely what my objection was about that in particularly pensioners were having next to no increase in the pension and yet slugged nevertheless a huge increase in rates, nothing to do really with Banyule City Council providing ordinary services but Banyule city council setting itself as a business empire in a shopping complex at cost of the struggling ratepayers..

So much for the Federal government seeking the exclude the family home from hardship when a municipal council totally disregard federal policy and still goes about basically robbing the poor, etc. This all underlines that we need to address this system and so appropriately and not by setting up all kinds of inquiries which eventually end up with nothing but they are addressed right now by appropriate legislative provisions.

.

I made clear in my submissions to the Royal commission in regard of the bushfires that for some 10 years I pursued the Victorian government to set up a special Community Protection Service who will also care for the ill, the frail and the elderly during disasters, such as bush fires and floods and that there should be a assembly area known to all where to assemble in case of danger. I now became aware of media reports that the State government now proposes refuges for people in case of fires. As such, the State government finally seems to follow to some extend what I have proposed so often after more then 10 years but in the mean time more then 200 people lost their lives in the bushfires, of which many or most could have been avoided had the Victorian government have more appropriately considered my numerous submissions over the past 10 years. And this is what it really comes down to, that the State government is far too slow to act when needed and in the meantime so many people suffer while those who are elected to govern seems to ignore their laid up duties.

.

We need to stop this rot and instead of Ministers going on winter brakes, etc, let them do their job so that we finally can get a better society where the elderly, the frail and the sick can also enjoy the life they are entitled upon. A copy of this correspondence will also be published in;

.

.

I anticipate you will take required action to have matters appropriately investigated.

.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

.

(Our name is our motto!)

.

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA

Chapter Children of the marriage

.

* Gerrit, what is the nonsense about what I heard you saying that Michael Jackson is the half brother of one of your daughters?

.

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI® he is. You see his mother and my daughters mother is one and the same just different fathers.

.

* Come on, surely the world would have known about Michael Jackson being one of your daughters half brother.

.

**#** Well they both have a birth certificate that their mother is Jackson and so for the world that is so.

.

* And why didn’t the media then pick this up?

.

**#** More then likely because they were not interested as to who Michael Jackson’s half sister was or for that other half siblings.

.

* Are you saying there are more?

.

**#** Well, for so far I am aware of the Family court of Australia records would show it that there were more.
.

* Family Court of Australia? You mean when he got his divorce from Debbie Rowe?

.

**#** Michael never got actually married to Debbie Row and never fathered any children with her and so hardly could get a divorce from her.

.

* Well, it is now on the media that Michael didn’t father the children with Debbie Rowe…

.

**#** I think you got it a bit wrong. I am not talking about Michael Jackson the singer who recently died but about Australian born Michael Jackson the half brother of my daughter Gabrielle.

.

* Oh, I assumed you referred to the late singer Michael Jackson. So9 what is then the issue about “children of the marriage”?

.

**#** Well, let me have some fun with you will you? Anyhow, with the singer Michael Jackson, he as I understand it to be became married with Debbie Row while in Australia.

.

* Well, that is what was reported.

.

**#** Well, as I understand it Debbie Rowe gave birth to two of the children and she was married to Michael Jackson, the singer, and so they are children of the marriage. That is at least Prince Michael and Paris.

.

* What about Prince Michael II?

.

**#** I do not know what is behind all that and if he adopted the child or not but at least with the two children with Debbie Rowe they are indisputable children of the marriage where Debbie Rowe gave birth to them.
.

* How do you know this?

.

**#** For reason of limited posting availability on the blog I will only quote certain parts of the judgment but it should be clear that a Section 55 declaration of the dissolution of marriage between Debbie row and Michael Jackson would in fact within australian law have provided that Prince Michael and Paris both were children of the marriage. Obviously Prince Michael II (Blanket) was not but we then have to look at the Courts statement that it is all about the welfare of the children. To therefore accept this it must be clear that a separation of Prince Michael II from his siblings Prince Michael and Paris in my view at least would be horrendous because the child has obviously grown up with his siblings and formed a close bond. Where Prince Michael II already has lost his doting father then the last thing that should be pursued is to separate the children.

.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FamCA/1990/58.html?query=title(schorel)

In the Marriage Of: Gerrit Hendrik Schorel Appellant/Husband and Maureen Lorraine Schorel Respondent/Wife Appeal [1990] FamCA 58; (1990) FLC 92-144 14 Fam Lr 105 Custody - Divorce (18 May 1990)

QUOTE

16. In contrast to the English provisions, s.55A does not provide any method for avoiding such a declaration in a case where there is a dispute whether a child is a "child of the marriage." If the decree nisi is to become absolute a declaration under s.55A must be made, and that section requires the Court to specify the "children of the marriage" who are under 18 years.

17. The husband in his divorce application set out in the relevant paragraphs the names and other particulars of each of the four children as being a child of the marriage.

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE

25. Here the divorce decree operates not only as a res judicata as between the parties but as a judgment in rem, that is, the conclusiveness of that decree could not be challenged in any subsequent proceedings.

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE

28. Relevantly here, the question is whether the declaration under s.55A and the components of that declaration are "fundamental" or "essential" to the grant of the decree absolute. Clearly the findings by the trial Judge that the parties had lawfully married, that there was appropriate jurisdiction and that the ground for divorce had been established are essential components of the decree nisi. One view is that the declaration under s.55A is not an essential part of the divorce decree; that this section's operation is a negative one - it prevents the decree becoming absolute until that declaration is made. Further, it could be said that in reality it does not relate to any issue between the parties but is an obligation imposed by the Parliament upon the Court as part of the Court's obligation towards the welfare of children within its jurisdiction. The alternative view is that an essential aspect of the decree becoming absolute (and therefore creating a decree which can be relied upon either as a res judicata or as the basis of an issue estoppel) is the declaration under s.55A. We are inclined to the former view but for reasons set out hereunder it is unnecessary to finally determine that issue.

29. This is because the cases appear to us to establish that, whatever might be the scope of issue estoppel in ordinary civil litigation, it has a much more limited application in matrimonial causes, and more especially in litigation which involves the welfare of children. That approach is based upon the view that the duty of Courts in family law has a wider and more public element and imposes a greater responsibility to elicit the actual facts, but more particularly it is based on the obligation of such Courts to have regard to the welfare and protection of children within its jurisdiction.

30. This caution was underlined in the judgment of Lord Upjohn in Carl Ziess Stiftong v. Rayner and Keeler Ltd. (No. 2) (1967) 1 AC 853 at p 947:

"All estoppels are not odious but must be applied so as to
work justice and not injustice and I think the principle of
issue estoppel must be applied in the circumstances of a
subsequent case with this overriding consideration in mind."

31. There are in fact a number of cases in Australia and England where the question which this appeal raises has been referred to, that is, the scope of issue estoppel in family law proceedings. Some cases relate to the issue of paternity, others to other and wider issues.

32. A convenient starting point is the decision in Lindsay (1934) P 162 where Merriman P. said that the grant of the custody of a child in the decree nisi under the English legislation in undefended divorce proceedings created a "res judicata" in respect of that finding of paternity in subsequent matrimonial proceedings between the same parties where that issue was sought to be raised. This case appears to us to be the strongest case in support of the proposition contended for by the Appellant. It seems in effect to have been followed in the later cases of Nokes (1957) P 213; and G(S.D.) v. G(H.H.) (1970) 3 All ER 844.

33. On the other hand, in the intervening period the general issue was raised in the Court of Appeal in the case of Tristian (1950) P 198. That case related to the question whether the wife could, in subsequent maintenance proceedings, lead evidence which was inconsistent with the ground upon which her husband had previously obtained a decree of dissolution of marriage. The Court of Appeal concluded that she may do so. Of particular relevance to the present issue is the general statement by Denning, L.J. at p 2O2;

"I desire to say emphatically that the fact that the husband
has obtained this decree does not give a true picture of the
conduct of the parties. I agree that the marriage has
irretrievably broken down and it is better dissolved. So
let it be dissolved. But when it comes to maintenance, or
any of the ancillary questions which follow on divorce, then
let the truth be seen."

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE

39. This line of English authority is completed by reference to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Rowe (1979) 2 All ER 1123. The facts of that case are more closely akin to the circumstances of this appeal.

40. In that case the husband was served with the wife's divorce petition. Under the English practice the husband signed the printed acknowledgement of service stating that he consented to the decree being granted and on the form which asked whether he wished to be heard on the claim by the wife for custody of the named children and whether he wished to make any application for custody or access he answered "No" to both questions. On the hearing of the undefended divorce application the wife was granted a decree and the custody of the named children.

41. Subsequently a Registrar ordered the husband to pay maintenance in respect of the children. The husband appealed against that order contending that the children were not children of the family under the English legislation. The Judge before whom that appeal came held that the husband was estopped as a consequence of the decree and custody order from raising that issue.

42. The Court of Appeal upheld the husband's appeal, holding that the husband was not estopped from denying in the maintenance proceedings that the children were children of the family. The reasons which led to that conclusion are summarised in a passage in the judgment of Sir Stanley Rees at p 1132 as follows:

"Accordingly, the case for holding that the doctrine of
estoppel per rem judicatam should not be permitted to apply
in the instant case and any similar cases may be summarised
thus: public policy on which the doctrine is founded does
not require that it should apply because no benefit to the
public would be achieved, since litigation is at least as
likely to be increased as it is to be diminished and a grave
injustice would be inflicted in certain cases on one party.
In matrimonial cases, and particularly those relating to the
custody of children, estoppels have a limited and
diminishing role to play. The courts exercising this highly
personal jurisdiction should only be bound be estoppels in
clear cases where public policy is seen to demand that they
should. Finally, the judgment in the present case is in the
nature of a default judgment and there was good reason for
the husband's failure to intervene."

43. In the course of their judgments the members of the Court reviewed the earlier English cases referred to above and in effect overruled the decisions in Lindsay and Nokes.

44. This issue has been considered in a number of cases in Australia.

45. In Wakely (1979) FLC 90/632 the parties to the marriage each applied for custody of a child. The intervener, who alleged that he was the father of the child, had previously been granted the custody of the child in orders made by the consent of the wife in the Supreme Court. When the Family Law proceedings came before Bulley, J. the real issue was the question of custody as between the wife and the intervener. Bulley, J. concluded that the wife was, as a consequence of the Supreme Court order, estopped from raising in those proceedings as against the intervener the issue of paternity. His Honour discussed the authorities relating to estoppel and placed reliance upon the decision in Lindsay, supra. However it needs to be borne in mind that the decision in Wakeley's case pre-dated by a few months the decision of the Court of Appeal in Rowe, supra.

46. To the contrary effect is the decision of Lambert, J. in Hill (1980) FLC 90/843. In the husband's divorce petition only one child was included as a child of the marriage. The divorce application was not defended, an appropriate declaration was made under the then existing section and the decree became absolute. Subsequently the wife filed an application in which she sought custody of a second child. The husband contested that application on the ground that this latter child was not a child of the marriage and relied upon the decree as constituting an estoppel. Lambert, J. held that the wife was not estopped. He concluded (at p 75,332) that no issue estoppel arose because:

"...the judicial inquiry made under s.71 of that Act was not
a "lis" between the parties to the marriage unless both
parties by their conduct made it so.
... The purpose of the inquiry is to enable the Court to
exercise its discretion to make or withold one or other of
the prescribed declarations upon which the becoming of the
decree nisi for dissolution of marriage depended ...
Further, in my opinion the sole effect of the declaration
was to remove the bar to the decree nisi becoming absolute.
Section 71 was a provision relating to procedure the intent
of which was to ensure that proper arrangements were made
for the children of a marriage before the marriage was
finally dissolved. The determination of the children within
the class of children of the marriage was incidental to that
intent."

47. His Honour also concluded that the concept of issue estoppel had little application in matrimonial proceedings and in any event was not binding on the Court because of its obligation to the welfare and protection of the child concerned.

48. Shortly after that Lindenmayer, J. gave judgment in the matter of Diessel (1980) FLC 90/481. Dicta in that case were relied upon by Mr Schorel as supporting his argument in this case. The actual issue in Diessel's case was whether an unborn child fell within the then s.63 and his Honour held that it did not. However in the course of that discussion his Honour made the following remarks at p 75,322:

"On the other hand, a declaration by me now that the unborn
child of the wife is a "child of the marriage" for the
purposes of sec.63 may well stop the husband from
subsequently asserting that he is not the father of the
child. This is because the child can be a "child of the
marriage" only if the husband is its natural father, since
there is no possibility of the child's falling within the
extended definition of that term as provided by sec.5(2) of
the Act. Therefore, a declaration by me under sec.63 that
the unborn child is "a child of the marriage who has not
attained the age of 18 years" clearly entails a finding of
fact that the husband is the father of that child, and that
finding may well raise an issue estoppel between the parties
as to paternity. This would seem to be unfair to the
husband in this case and potentially unfair to any husband
in similar circumstances. He could find himself in the
situation that, by application of the presumption of
legitimacy, he is declared to be the father of a child of
which he is not in fact the father without having an
adequate opportunity to rebut the presumption."

49. Curiously enough, on the date on which judgment in Diessel's case was published (ll July 1980) Lambert, J. again had dealt with the same issue in an unreported case of Naumann. In that case the facts were particularly striking. In 1976 orders had been made in a Magistrates Court in proceedings between the parties relating to the custody of and access to certain children, those orders being made upon the basis that they were the natural children of both of the parties. During 1977 and 1979 further orders were made in the Family Court which varied the access orders. When the matter came on for hearing before Lambert, J. in July 1980 the wife raised the question whether the former husband was the father of one of the children. It was contended for the husband that the wife was estopped as a consequence of the previous orders from raising that issue. His Honour, after an extensive review of the authorities including on this occasion the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Rowe's case, concluded that the wife was not estopped. His Honour reiterated the views he had expressed in Hill, and appears to have drawn a distinction between cases where the issue of paternity is determined by the Court as a consequence of a contested issue on the one side and cases where there was no such express or positive finding by the Court.

50. Assuming for the purposes of this discussion that a declaration under s.55A can form the basis for an issue estoppel relating to the children referred to (or not referred to) in that declaration, a matter about which we have considerable reservations, it appears to us that no such issue estoppel as that contended by the Appellant in this case should arise. Issue estoppel has at best a very limited application in family law proceedings, for reasons referred to in the above cases. Public policy, upon which estoppel is based, does not support the use of that doctrine within this jurisdiction - at least in its jurisdiction in relation to the custody of children. The Court has a clear obligation to concern itself with the welfare and interests of the child or children concerned and may not allow that duty to be circumscribed by what are basically technical rules of evidence. Although the adults are the parties in custody and like proceedings, the real "party" is the child whose welfare is being considered. If a child in such a case was separately represented it would be difficult to envisage that the separate representative would be estopped from raising an issue such as paternity.

51. In addition, to hold that an estoppel arose in the circumstances of this case would be most unjust. It is clear from the transcript set out above that neither the solicitor for the wife nor the Judge contemplated such a consequence; to the contrary it was thought to be a process by which the divorce could become absolute and the issue of paternity would be determined, if need be, in later proceedings.

52. It is sufficient for present purposes to say that an issue estoppel relating to the paternity of a child does not and cannot arise as a consequence of a declaration made under s.55A. Issue estoppel has a very limited application generally in family law, whether in relation to the narrower issue of paternity or in relation to other issues which may have previously been determined between the parties, as particularly the English cases referred to above amply demonstrate. It is unnecessary for present purposes to consider the outward limits of this view, except perhaps to add that where a matter has been clearly and directly put in issue in contested family law proceedings it may not be open to a party in ordinary circumstances to continue to relitigate that same issue in subsequent proceedings.

53. Accordingly we conclude that no issue of estoppel arises in this case.

54. The Appellant, by his notice of appeal and supporting material and oral argument, raised a number of other issues. It was submitted by Mr Schorel that in any event the trial Judge had wrongly exercised his discretion in making this order for parentage testing. Mr Schorel in particular drew our attention to the circumstance that an order to a like effect had been made in 1988 but the wife had failed to comply with it because it then required disclosure by her of the person or persons whom she alleged to be the father or fathers of the relevant children and she refused to do so.

END QUOTE

.

While there are claims that Michael Jackson did not reside with his wife, in the end she did not have the marriage annulled but pursued a divorce and as such it should be considered that regardless of the circumstances of their cohabitation or the lack thereof they were married and as such the children were born into a marriage. It is not uncommon for marriages to exist, regardless of the length of the marriage that no sexual intercourse or indeed cohabitation takes place. For example a marriage at the dead bed of a loved one who is in hospital due to an accident and about to die still would be deemed to be a marriage (provided all relevant legal provisions are complied with) regardless that within minutes of the marriage ceremony death eventuate and as such there was no subsequent marriage and/or intercourse.

.

The intend of the marriage is to seal the intent of both parties to become husband and wife to the exclusion of others and how husband and wife are to deal with their affairs are matters for them.

.

Reportedly Debbie Rowe was paid 8.5 million dollars for becoming married to Michael Jackson, and while undoubtly many women around the world would have gladly married Michael Jackson without any exchange of monies, in the end while it might appear to have really a sham marriage in which Debbie Rowe may have been more attracted to getting rich still it was a marriage and held for all purposes and intent to be so by the subsequent decree nisi and then absolute and as such it cannot be that anyone can go beyond this.

.

The issue therefore is that Michael Jackson was clearly the primary carer for the children and Debbie Rowe basically had no relationship with the two children which I understand she claimed were inseminated to her by donors IVF system. Well, the issue then must be considered if it would lie in the interest of the children, and that is the unity of the three children, having lost their father then having to live with a virtual stranger being Debbie Rowe who seemed to have shown next to nothing as to any maternal care to the two eldest children or that they should reside with the maternal grandmother who albeit at an advanced age nevertheless was held by Michael Jackson to be the best person to care for his three children.

.

In my view, considering the age of the grandmother, the time she might have left to life athe age of the children and the bond between them I still view that in the circumstances known to me she would be more then likely the best person to be granted custody. Again, the age of the grandmother cannot be ignored and I do not do so but I view that the family relationship that exist between the three children and their extended Jackson family is of considerable importance and I view that the grandmother may obviously have assistance of others, including a nanny to assist her in the care of the children.

.

The fact that she reared herself 9 children in itself must neither be overlooked and as such it should be clear that she has shown to have the experiences of caring for a a number of children.

.

As to the grandfather the dilemma a court would face is that Debbie Rowe reportedly wants to exclude him from any contact with the grandchildren and this would be a grave dilemma. Is she proposing that Prince Michael II can have contact with his grandfather but not her two children?

.

In my view this would be an untenable situation to have one child being allowed to have contact with the paternal grandfather but not the other two. Debbie Rowe would by this indicate willing to treat the children differently.

.

It also must be considered a warning sign that granting custody to her will undoubtly lead to ongoing litigation.

.

In my view, from the limited details known to me it would not be in the children’s interest to grand Debbie Rowe custody of any or all of the three children.

.

It is my view that the three children would be better of in the custody and care of their paternal grandmother which would be a loving environment to which the children are accustomed to.

.

The issue as to if Michael Jackson was the biological father of all or any of the children in his care in my view is not an issue that should interfere with the custody issue.

.

It has been held that about 20% of children born into a marriage actually are not that of the husband, just that most husbands are not aware of it. As such, to hold that the non biological aspect would somehow change the family situation should be held to be nonsense. The non biological father as the husband for all the years provided for the children and cared for them and his love to the children, being it joining birthday parties and other events as a father cannot be diminished merely because he turns out not to be the biological father.

.

If it is about children’s rights and interest then one must not seek to declare the children’s emotional position with that of legislative provisions. Myself having for example a child that I all along knew was not my biological child to me for all purposes and intent is equally as to my feelings towards him as I have to my natural born children. If anything I have always felt my non-biological son to be closer to me then some of my biological children. As such, I do not view that it is relevant if Michael Jackson was biologically related to any or all of the children.

Within the Family Law Act 1975 a child that was born within the marriage but was not the biological child of one of the parents but nevertheless was accepted by the non biological parent as being a child of the marriage for all purposes and intent is a child of the marriage.

Many couples after becoming married have to rely upon IVF from donors to be able to have children in the marriage and it would be utter and sheer nonsense then to argue that the husband and/or the wife were not thee parent of those children where in fact they were deliberately put into the marriage regardless of any biological connection with either of them.

.

As I understood it from Debbie Rowe’s own recent broadcasted statements she declare not to have any maternal connection with the two eldest children and as such I am concerned that the alleged TRUST set up for the children’s future might be the real issue of why Debbie Rowe may have a sudden interest is in seeking to gain custody.

.

Regardless where the divorce of Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe took place as they were married in Australia I view the children born within the marriage of Debbie Rowe and Michael Jackson are children of the marriage.

.

As to the donors who are the biological parents of each child conceived it may very well that this also may become an issue and they might stake their claim being the egg or sperm donor, if that eventuated if neither Michael Jackson’s sperm or Debbie row’s eggs were use.

And in the interest of the children themselves, such as any possibly genetically defect that might at some stage come to light I for one hold it important children are at the appropriate time advised of their biological heritage and their medical record do reveal it as after all not to do so may very well in an emergency leave the child at risk between life and death if a certain donor is required but cannot be located due to the lack of information at hand on the medical records.

.

See also “Chapter IVF - Sperm Donor - Circumcision - Constitution” for further discussion about this, where as a (Life) sperm donor (without IVF procedures, some 25 years ago when IVF was in an infancy stage) to an ABC television station personality I left it to her and her husband how they would go about albeit never considered to have and neither did ever pursue to do so as to severe any right of the child (so the husband and/or the wife) to contact me when and if they held this appropriate to do so.

I just will quote the warning of that Chapter;

QUOTE

Chapter IVF - Sperm Donor –Circumcision - Constitution

.

WARNING:

This Chapter contains very revealing statements and therefore do not read this Chapter if you consider you may not be able to deal with that. It deals (eventually) with constitutionally issues as to constitutional powers, but as the circumstances referred to are very technical and complicated it is better to delve into some of the emotional issues and mental perceptions as to what really took place. In particular where it deals with being a sperm donor the details may not be what everyone may desire to read up about. Still, the Author has sought to be extensive in details and yet be very limited in details at the same time pending what he deemed needed to give a proper understanding to the reader as to the events described in this Chapter. The Author does not endorse and neither dissuades anyone from using the process of sperm donor as it all will be in every set of circumstance prevailing different. As this spans about 25-years period it means that some insight can be gained what it might be from the point of view of a sperm donor and the various mental, emotional and also ethical issues involved. And obviously, in particular the child’s legal position that is fathered by a sperm donor through sexual intercourse. To the child it obviously is important to know what his/her legal standing might be. It also should be understood that some 25-years ago people had different values that many may have strongly disapproved of what this ABC television station personality pursued where as in today’s society it might be far more acceptable. Hence this woman at the time took a considerable risk as after all, albeit she never insisted on any kind of confidentiality, I maintained this for decades. After all, she would be the mother of my biological child and valued that very much. The Author refused any other time to be a sperm donor and as such this is a unique occurrence that eventuated and the Author never regretted having been a sperm donor on that occasion and would not hesitate in the same circumstances to do the same. The only but still a major regret is to not knowing what eventuated since the events took place, as after all the child itself may have questions about it all, if it learned the circumstances of being conceived and may desire to not only know that but in particular if the husband no longer were around may desire to know his/her biological father, in particular if medical issues arose governing gene’s, etc, in view that the husband was of Indonesian origin and so obviously would have been clear he could not have been the biological father.

In any event the Chapter will have plenty to consider and being it from a male’s point of view it also may open up the eyes of many that there is a lot more to it then a man simply donating sperm. Also, it should be understood that when a woman is in such situation of her have biological clock ticking and then desperate to wanting to have a child, and considering then IVF was not then applicable as such, then this woman rather ought to be respected for how she and her husband went about it all. While women now can use IVF for sperm donation, the problem they are facing is that they never really know what they are in for. While most women would not desire to opt for Life Sperm Donation, as to actual have sexual intercourse with the sperm donor, the issue remains that by this they neither have any real knowledge as to the biological father and what his character might be about. Having a child of an unknown sperm donor might be very much of a missing link to continue through life with ultimately the child being the one having to face it. As such, the woman might to some extend be deemed to be selfish to want to do it her way disregarding the child’s real interest.

Ample of children are searching for their biological father, regardless how good the alternative father might be, as ultimately it is their heritage link of gene’s, etc.

.

The Author held it was also appropriate to canvass in this chapter the issue of circumcision and how parents may not realize the direct and indirect harm they can inflict upon their child as a child as well as an adult.

END QUOTE

.

* Well, you obviously understand the position of both being a parent of a non-biological child and being a sperm donor and as such I for one value what you are seeking to bring out.

.

**#** Do keep in mind that ultimately the courts decide the future of Michael Jackson’s children but in my view it would be wrong to try to argue Michael Jackson’s was not the father of the children and it would be wrong to pursue the biological link as to seek to deprive the paternal grandmother Mrs Jackson of custody. Again, I am well aware of her age but do not consider this to be a real issue as it is not like that she is a total stranger to the children unlike Debbie row basically is, and also Mrs Jackson will not be seen either as some gold digger trying to access the trust funds for the children. And the last thing we all should do is to rob the children of their father. Then are and can be proud on their late father Michael Jackson and I view wee all should avoid causing any harm to the legacy they have from him.

.

* May I ask if you were or are a Michael Jackson fan?

.

**#** Actually, while obviously I heard his music and held some understanding about his music and his dancing my respect for him really was gained after his death when I saw the real Michael Jackson emerging from family video’s, etc. I never had any real interest in his personal life.

.

* What about the allegations against him? Did you form any opinion about it then?

.

**#** To be truth full I never did one way or another but was keeping in mind that no matter how innocent he could be of whatever was alleged against him in the end so to say mud sticks. And this is also why it is so dangerous to allow such kind of horrendous allegations to be made without any accountability for the accusers. After all, if the accuser can make allegations without any legal consequences no matter how much allegations are fabricated then we as a society basically have lost the plot as to be able to target high profile persons with allegations so perhaps this can be an alternative way to really blackmail the person for a settlement regardless nothing ontowards ever took place. I never did purchase any records of Michael Jackson as I never go out doing so for any artist other then if I happen to go to a personal appearance by the artist in a show (that was on 2 occasions) and do not intend to change this. But my conclusion is from what I have seen from media broadcast is that Michael Jackson was a doting father who loved his children very much and we as a society have an obligation to treasure this and not trying to turn it into filth for the sake of trying to make some money out of it.

.

* I got the message.

.

**#** I hope others will likewise.

What I found very frustrating is that over the years I made numerous submissions and seldom they are published. Most are basically buried. Some times I get a response from a government official with what I consider sheer and utter nonsense. I wonder if anyone in the CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY UNIT actually comprehend what the constitution stands for.

.

When I never received any proper respond upon numerous submissions, other then some nonsense and was involved in a 5-year legal battle with the Commonwealth then in the end the Court ruled in my favour and the Crown was comprehensively defeated. On 19 July 2006. Despite this the ignorance to it all continues.

.

It should be obvious that when a court rules in my favour then surely it proved the commonwealth in the wrong, but government officials simply are using the taxpayers funding to disregard it all. What kind of responsible government is that one may ask.

.

While I am not a lawyer but a CONSTITUTIONALIST and also the GUARDIAN of the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN I DO at times assist people in their litigation and find there simply is no proper organization and regulation in it all. My websites reveal details but sufficient to say that I was called in for the sixth CONTEMPT hearing and I did then set it out comprehensively that the accused was totally innocent and the entire case was a conspiracy to pervert the course of JUSTICE and that constitutionally it had no jurisdiction and the case should be stayed pending investigations. The trial judge ordered a PERMANENT STAY, and that I be provided with the transcripts of all CONTEMPT hearings. I then subsequently discovered the trial judge previously having made clear to the accused she could right then send him to prison, this even so the transcript proves the man was never formally charged and neither explained his legal rights.

Despite the man having all along pursued his constitutional rights this was time and again ignored throughout past proceedings and so when I got involved as a CONSTITUTIONALIST it was clear the judge couldn’t proceed.

The Commonwealth simply disregard its duties to ensure that where a accused person pursues his right provided for within the federal constitution then there must be a proper system in place. What we had was a man (who also attended to hospital in regard of heart problems) was facing up to 5-years imprisonment while it turned out he had done no legal wrong. Yet up to about 20 lawyers involved in the case never seemed to have a clue what was constitutionally and otherwise legally applicable and how to deal with matters. On 27 January 2009 I even had lawyers ordered out of the hearing on the basis they had no legal standing to be there!

.

The problem is that innocent people are suffering uncalled for as we have to much rot going on and no accountability in regard of those doing the wrong.

.

As author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues, I even use my own book very successfully in litigation, and so do others.

.

What appears to me is that over more then one hundred years the Commonwealth of Australia has gone of the rials as to what the federation really is about and those who grew up haven’t got a clue it is so wrong.

.

A clear example is the sheer and utter nonsense that somehow Australian citizenship is a nationality. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear is relates to “POLITICAL RIGHTS” and on 2 March 1898 they specifically refused to give the Commonwealth any legislative powers to define/declare “CITIZENSHIP”. And on 19 July 2006 the Court ruling in my favour on this also.

.

No matter what system is put in place as to Internet publications, etc, unless and until there is a real attempt to address what is being done wrong all we seem to do is filling up space.

.

I refused to vote in federal elections, not because I oppose voting but as the Framers of the Constitution made clear voting could not be compulsory and again the court ruled on 19 July 2006 in my favour. Yet, despite this the Commonwealth nevertheless persist to pursue people for FAILING TO VOTE and so abuses its might and power rather then to acknowledge that the courts have made its ruling and are bound by it.

.

This underlines that the RULE OF LAW is ignored by the government and this I view is a very serious matter.

.

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!

.

Meaning that where I comprehensively defeated the Crown of some 50 submissions on constitutional and other legal issues then the Crown is bound to observe this and not persist in unconstitutional conduct while at the same time seeking to lay claim to be entitled to govern because of the constitution!

.

prior to comprehensively defeating the crown I had requested meetings with government officials hoping to get them to understand they had a total hopeless case and ware wasting taxpayers monies in litigation but not a single government official was willing to have any kind of discussion. As such they are seeking to plunder consolidated Revenue for paying lawyers in an attempt to bulldoze themselves through litigation hoping to kill of any opposition no matter how inappropriate. Well I defeated them and this despite elaborate lies presented by counsel for the Crown. This is the kind of government we are now facing, regardless which political party is in power, where JUSTICE is now a dirty word.

Well my trademark is MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® and I for one will continue to pursue this.

.

For more precise set outs of numerous matters see also my websites;

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com

http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com

http://www.mayjusticealwaysprevail.com

See also my blog at;

http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST it is my issue that to derogate of Gordon Ramey isn’t in our interest at all. As I pointed out his usage of the F word is known to us because television standards permitted by the Federal government allows this. As such, don’t blame Gordon Ramsey for using the word where it so often used by others also. This, even so personally I have no need to use such a word in speech.

.

As for the spat between Gordon Ramsey and Tracy it seems to me that Tracy has been dishing it out, either personally or through those working with her, upon countless others. If therefore she cannot stand the heat in Hell’s Kitchen then she should get out of it. Not that she can do as she likes, no matter how wrong she might be while she cannot have someone doing it to her. This is not to excuse Gordon but merely making a valid point.

.

Also, if Kevin Rudd and others in the ministry were just as alert to the millions of food poisoning cases and the financial cost of it and how Gordon Ramsey is in fact looking after us all to try to combat dangerous practices by many restaurants then Gordon would have more then likely not such a following. People recognise the man is looking after all our health and wellbeing to expose the rot! It doesn’t mean Gordon can conduct himself inappropriate towards others but if it comes to having to make a choice between highly paid Ministers and Gordon Ramsey who is not costing money but yet is so to say a saint in trying to keep food poisoning down then any time I would choose for Gordon.

I do not cook and basically I am a vegetarian and neither a follower of what he as a chef cooks up. My view is as to what this man does for the wider community around the world.

Wait until you fall sick of food poisoning or even have someone to die as result and then see if you would rather have that Kevin Rudd and other ministers instead of having a go at Gordon instead would follow his lead to clamp down on dangerous practices in restaurants.

.

I think you get the message!

.

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

.

15-6-2009

Subject : Contact your PM: your message was successfully submitted

Date:

: Thu, Jun 11, 2009 2:22 am

To; help@office-of-the-guardian.com

Contact your Prime Minister
---------------------------
Thank you for your message to the Prime Minister.

Below is a copy of your comments to the Prime Minister for your records.

If you have supplied a postal address, a reply may be sent to you via Australia Post. Your message may also be forwarded to other Federal Ministers for their consideration.

This is an automatically generated email. Please do not reply to this email as this address is not monitored. If you have any
problems with this service please contact the Web Administrator through the site feedback service at www.pm.gov.au/feedback/


--------------------- Copy of your comments ------------------------

Name: mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka

Email Address: help@office-of-the-guardian.com

Postal Address: 107 Graham Road Viewbank Victoria 3084 Australia

Subject: Your conduct - etc

Comment: Kevin,
I BECAME AWARE OF A REPORT;

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25609763-2,00.html?from=public_rss
Gordon Ramsay is a new form of low life – Rudd

QUOTE
Mr Rudd congratulated Grimshaw for giving Ramsay a "left uppercut" in responding to his offensive comments about her looks and her sexuality at a Melbourne food and wine show at the weekend.
END QUOTE
.
As Prime minister I view you should seek to avoid getting involved in personal disputes where possible. Surely Commonwealth’s national security warrants you to concentrate on real issues.
.
Over the years there have been to my understanding numerous reports about false/misleading allegations made in reporting of A current Affair headed by Tracy Grimshaw, and I understand even a suicide was connected due to misreporting and yet I am not aware you then called those involved “low life”. Indeed the Commonwealth while having constitutional powers to stop this kind of rot somehow doesn’t appear to bother to stop this. Now that Tracy Grimshaw somehow got involves with Hell’s Kitchen leading man she cannot stand the heat. Are we having DOUBLE STANDARDS that she can dish it out no matter how inappropriate it might be but cannot face herself any criticism or jokes?
.
I do not seek to justify what Gorden Ramsey may have stated, but it appears mostly to have been a misconception and misreporting but surely a Prime minister should first get his facts right before referring to a person, as was reported, to be a low life!
.
The fact that the Deputy Prime minister also started to attack the man indicates that there is a total disregard to proper checking of details before you and Gillard and others commented.
.
I understand from reports even the Health minister got involved in the act.
.
Well, lets have a look at what I consider offensive. We have a health minister, a Prime minister and a Deputy Prime minister who cannot even manage health matters such as seeking to avoid millions of food poisoning cases every year while Gorden Ramsey, not on the payroll of Australian taxpayers, makes clear food restaurants must be closed down if they are a risk to the public.
.
I recall a few years ago taking 4 of my adult children for dinner at Sophy’s restaurant in Burke Road Camberwell (East hawthorn) when one of my sons pointed out a cockroach in his meal. Staff then advised us that they were all over the kitchen. We left obviously without concluding the meals but still had to pay.
.
Now, I am not a cook (my wife does it all) and not interested to learn about cooking but I view Gorden Ramsey if anything should be given a medal for looking aftyer the public good to seek to make people aware about shoddy restaurants and by this seek to avoid food poisonings and even death to occur from this.
.
It doesn’t mean he can be excused of any improper conduct, but lets be frank you cannot have a go at this man as if it is a national issue when we are daily presented not just simular but far worse on television and the Federal Government allows this.
.
If you hold that for the , albeit perhaps misplaced jokes, Gorden Ramsey is a low life then what would you call those who participated in the mass murder of people such as with the Iraqi invasion and those who so far, despite my requests, refuse to hold a ROYAL COMMISSION into it all?
.
With the recent Victorian bushfires it is clear from the reporting of the Royal Commission into the bushfires that there was no proper conduct to safe people’s lives, yet as my submission (some months ago) to this Royal Commission was that already when Jeff Kennett was Premier of Victoria and ever since I have been seeking to set up a CIVIL PROTECTION SERVICE that specifically was to attend to the people concerned. Meaning, that since I did so both the various Federal governments and the State governments couldn’t care less and now hundreds of peoples lost their live failing such system being in place. Now, quite frankly I would regard those who ignored it all to be worse then low life!
.
So, next time you want to attack a persons standing I would urge you first of all to show true leadership and get your facts correct and then consider if you should at all get involved where so many other far more important issues are pressing to be appropriately to be attended to, after all you are getting paid to do a job!
.
Gorden Ramsey, for his own reasons made an apology and are we now going to see that you and others, including Tracy Grimshaw have the decency and stamina to also apologise for misplaced comments? After all first I heard about the issue was some comment by Tracy Grimshaw about Gorden Ramsey and his conduct towards his wife, and I held this was totally deplorable!
.
I might not like the use of the F-word but then accept that the Federal government allows the usage of it and so I can hardly blame Gorden for doing something that appears to be permitted on Australian television.
.
More over, there has been a wide reporting about alleged abuse of yourself upon others, being it at a plane or otherwise and as such I view you ought to have done better to stay out of the spat altogether as you do not appear to me to be inn0ocent yourself of misconduct.
.
Then we have the so called law-enforcement issue involving Indian nationals. If it is not a race issue but a law-enforcement issue then what on earth has it got to do with you? Is it that you are simply unable to concentrate on the real important issues?
.
We have currently also the claims of an early election and I for one would look forwards that if there was an early election called then everyone will show their disapproval by voting against your party. I view it is an abuse of the processes to deliberately try to engineer a double dissolution. As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I am too aware that the Framers of the Constitution held this would be the exception to the rule rather then to be some tool to seek early elections.
.
As for the coco-pops unconstitutionally collected taxes, the Framers of the Constitution debated this at length that any unconstitutionally collected taxes must be refunded! It means that no kind of legislation can overrule the constitution and so neither the principles embedded in the constitution. Too bad the Australian Taxation Office lacks proper record keeping as to which customer paid such a tax but it is no excuse to keep the moneys as it was unconstitutionally collected.
Therefore it is nothing less then theft from the people who where forced to pay the unconstitutional tax.
.
And this brings me to the issue of the budget, considering the provisions of the constitution and also section 57 for allowing a double dissolution it must be clear that the budget must be handed down allowing ample of time for any double dissolution if the Senate were to fail to pass supply. I understand from reports during the last federal election that you claimed to be a “FEDERALIST” well if you are not a “low life” yourself but hold to be honest then I expect you will without delay address these and numerous other unconstitutional issues! After all we do have a federal compact, don’t we?
.
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!
.
I will look forwards for you showing not to be a “low life” yourself and admit having made inappropriate comments about Gorden Ramsey upon incorrect details. After all if the joking, no matter how inappropriate, is to constitute being a “low life” then why was this not used when others did far worse?
.
Perhaps, you would do better getting Gorden Ramsey appointed as a Minister for health for up to 3-months (this is permissible within the constitution) and we might find a drastic reduction in food poisoning and so also a drastic reduction in health care cost because no doubt Gorden Ramsey would get health inspectors to do a proper job of clearing out all those filthy and dangerous eating places from operating, where the current minister and predecessors were so far unable to do so!
.
Gerrit
.
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, GUARDIAN

OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN
Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com
.
11-6-2009