Inter-State Commission

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 

Quentin Alice Bryce Governor-General                                                                        2-7-2013

Email; governor-general@gg.gov.au

 

Ref: 130702-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Q A Bryce G- Re appointment Inter-State Commissioner

 

Madam,

             as per requirements of Section 101 (Inter-State Commission) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), our governing constitution, that there always "shall be" an Inter-State Commission, hereby I request you to appoint me as the Inter-State Commissioner.

 

QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

101 Inter-State Commission

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.

END QUOTE (Bold and red colour added by writer)

 

While often there are statements as to the 3 branches of Government, in my view one ought to speak of the 4 branched of nationhood.

1. The Parliament

2. The Federal Executives

3. Judiciary

4. Inter-State Commission.

 

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST (retired Professional Advocate) Attorney, Executor, Paralegal, Author and Publisher I submit that I have the understanding what is required from the Inter-State Commission within the framework of the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).

 

The Inter-State Commission:

The Framers of the Constitution held that the Commonwealth of Australia should apply taxes, duties, funding in a "UNIFORM" manner for the whole of the Commonwealth of Australia.

However, they also recognised that "uniformity" of application of federal laws may not in certain instances be appropriate, considering the diversity of conditions from State to State, and hence held that the s101 Inter-State Commission should exist as a permanent body within the Commonwealth of Australia. The Inter-State Commission is not a executive body, nor a legislator and neither a judicial body but a body to ensure that laws that were enacted without political interferences would be applied to what a body of experts held was in the best interest of each state concerned and so also the Commonwealth of Australia. its decisions could be appealed on "error of law" to the High Court of Australia. I understand that since 1987 no Inter-State Commission existed, and prior that only for a few years since about 1917. This is a serious neglect of constitutional requirements and must not be permitted to continue.

 

I trust that as Governor-General you will without undue delay ensure I am appointed, in view of various former (as well as the current) governments having omitted to have an Inter-State Commissioner appointed. The Australian electors are facing another election but with it a proposed amendment to s96 of the constitution regarding funding. This is of great concern to me, because the proposed referendum is based upon misconceptions.

Albeit the Inter-State Commission is to deal with Trade and Commerce issues, the Framers of the Constitution made clear, that Parliament merely could legislative to provide it with further additional powers and the Inter-State Commission then could attend to these matters also. Therefore, if the Parliament desired a non political solution to health, education and other funding then it merely has to enact legislation for each subject matter the Commonwealth has legislative powers for as to be handed to the Inter-State Commission.

 
(See for further details of this correspondence at my blog www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati)
 
It may be noted that on 2 July 2013 I requested both mr Kevin Rudd PM and Mr Tony Abbott MP to support this rfequest.
.
It may be noted that the silence of all of them is deafening!

THE MESSAGED IS: Get me elected to address the issues!
Car Magnet approx 285mm x 217mm
CAR MAGNET approx 285mm x 217mm

LIMITED STOCK AVAILABLE – MAGNETS & WINDOW STICKERS

If you are using a motor vehicle for wheelchair ramp loading then this magnetic disabled wheelchair ramp loading sign may just be what you needed to ensure ignorant drivers are alerted to keep a distant from your motor vehicle.

There are 2 sizes of magnets available.

Size is about 285mm x 215mm (about the size of an A4 letter) For $16.00 (including Postage & Handling cost) or about size 138mm x 107mm for $13.00 (including Postage & Handling cost).
 
Window stickers 90 x 60 approximate also available at $11.00 (including Postage & Handling cost within Australia).
 
Ordinary P&H cost within Australia is included, but additional charges may apply where different form of postal delivery is requested, pending on place of delivery (such as outside Australia).
 
Payment can be made through our business account:
 
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
Westpac SBS 033077 Account No. 319643
 
 
 
PayPal account inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au (postal cheques also acceptable if made out to G. H. Schorel-Hlavka) but do make known via email your order and reference number you provide for the payment and other details to identify your postal details and items ordered, payment, etc. Make sure the email in subject matter has shown “car sign order" as to ensure we are altered to this.
 
 
Orders can also made payable to: THE ESTATE OF Jaroslav Hlavka MIE Aust CP ENG
All correspondence to be addressed to:

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

C/o Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

107 Graham Road

Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia

 
Orders will only be dispatched after monies have been confirmed by the bank or PayPal to have been received and cleared!
 
Large volume orders and/or mix items orders may attract a special discount as determined by MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
 
Any customer may at his/her own cost have delivery by secure mail services provided this is in advance arranged and accepted by MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®.
 
Again, in regard of any order is is advisable that you forward an email to mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com and state in the "subject" window "car sign order", this as to make it stand out of the order emails we receive, as well as to include delivery details required for postal services purposes. 
 
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® will only forward items as per written instructions received prior to the item(s) being posted. If any alternative postal address is required, other than what was originally indicated, then this must be made known IN WRITING and prior to the item(s) having been posted.
 
Delivery times, if any indicated, will be excluding weekends and any applicable public holidays and always pending the delivery service provided by the relevant postal service(s).
 
Acceptance of any order(s) and delivery mode, charges, etc, are at the sole discretion of MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®!


The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don't forget the hyphens!) flag (on the left) encompass all tribes, races, etc. Recognising their equality within the framework of the constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)).
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear we all are sentries and we all have the privilege, duties and obligation to pursue the true meaning and application of the constitution. We will not fail and those we elect shall never be permitted to be our tormentors, tyrants, dictators, etc, because We, the People, will stand side by side to ensure our democratic rights are preserved and respected and out political and religious liberties and civil rights enshrined in the constitution will be maintained.
The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don't forget the hyphens!) is a constitutional council to advise the Government, the Parliament, the Judiciary and the People about the true meaning and application of the constitution.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE  Mr. ISAACS.-

We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.

END QUOTE


 
 
 
 
 
 
INDEPENDENT
 
CANDIDATE
 
 
 
A REMINDER:
 
Unlike other candidates (including those of political parties) I promote the true meaning and application of the constitution. Being involved in elections is a costly exercise, this in particular so when standing as an INDEPENDENT candidate.
 
Consider this, that one day my campaigns may bear the fruits for if not for you then your descendants or loved once, and so I am looking forwards to your donation.
 
I am, as a (CONSTITUTIONALIST) CONSULTANT taking on the might of the Commonwealth of Australia and so the Family Court of Australia, to which I consider their unconstitutional conduct. 
 
Let me do this constitutional work while you do your bit of support by providing donations, so that I can continue this very costly exercise. 
 
 
 
If you like to hear me speak about the constitution then click on the links below:
 

PART 1 interview 17-2-2011 with Jack Frost

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYuJinF1P58
PART 2 interview 17-2-2011 with Jack Frost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGRCz3lovFs
PART3 interview 17-2-2011 with Jack Frost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1RVSu4jjGc

 

PART 1 interview 24-2-2011 with Jack Frost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BguT_ebNuwA
PART 2 interview 24-2-2011 with Jack Frost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhea-JltqXs
PART 3 interview 24-2-2011 with Jack Frost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL_NDiM53sc


Interview with Jack Frost and Karla on 8-12-2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tCn4W8MI5k&feature=channel_video_title

For those who may be interested in this,I was recently (1-9-2011) provided with a certificate of the Order of the Wattle Blossom (O.W.B):

For upholding the civil rights, and political liberties of Australians, inherent in the Commonwealth Constitution.

120715-political statement by INDEPENDENT candidate Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka

See http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

POLITICAL STATEMENT

 

As an INDEPENDENT candidate I am concerned as to the deterioration of the judicial processes and yet again being in an election I have been called upon to assist in litigation due to my considerable experiences in constitutional matters as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, as a retired Professional Advocate, and also as Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues.

.

Last year I was given the Order of the Wattle Blossom:

QUOTE

For upholding the civil rights, and political liberties of Australians, inherent in the Commonwealth Constitution.

END QUOTE

 

Because I have been caused to be very limited in the current by-election I hold it appropriate to inform my constituents as to why I have been so much absent in recent weeks.

 

I respect too much the legal processes as not to claim that His Honour Strickland J was smirking very often during the proceedings nor about his conduct that I held was scandalous because anyone who were to watch a video, if this existed, may make up his (this includes the female also) mind as to if this judicial officer acted fair and proper., just to state I was disappointed and disillusioned as to how the hearing proceed and how a fine and outstanding OFFICER OF THE COURT Mr Kevin Foley was in my view belittled totally uncalled for. At one stage he addressed Mr Kevin Foley of FOLEYS LAWYERS: “Yes Mr Schorel” you can proceed and then followed with “I mean Mr Foley”. Now, in my view a competent judge would not make an error of misstating a person’s name, in particular where he in previous hearing pronounced my surname as “Schorel-Hlavka” and neither would address an OFFICER OF THE COURT by the incorrect surname. Then again His Honour was for a considerable time claiming that the issue of “jurisdiction” in the 9 June 2011 proceedings before His Honour Cronin J had nothing to do with the case then decided but finally when Mr Damian Harriss for the opposing (male) party began to refer to the “jurisdictional” issue then before the Court His Honour Strickland J then somehow finally started to get it that in fact it was all about “jurisdiction”. What really was I view the issue of the male party was that they wanted to get the title to be handed over and Mr Kevin Foley of FOLEYS LAWYERS simply had no instructions in regard of this and with his client being a Dutch national who has her domicile in The Netherlands it is obviously a bit difficult for Mr Foley to contact his client.

So, His Honour Strickland J adjourned the matter for Mr Kevin Foley to contact his (female) client the sole registered property owner. Well, Mr Foley had no way of contacting her and my observation was that he was close to (as I understood it then to be) a heart attack because of how I perceived the court was getting stuck into him and he didn’t have his heart tablets with him. (Later I was given the understanding it related to blood pressure tabletrs) Anyhow, back into the Court Mr Foley made known he didn’t have a phone number of his client at hand and so was unable to contact her because his office was closed., but he had just be handed the phone number by the other party. So, the court adjourned again.  Later, Mr Foley returned indicating he had left a message for his client to contact him back. Well, I had in that time opened my laptop and gone onto the internet but had to leave for toilet facilities. After returning to the courtroom I understood that his client had contacted Mr Kevin Foley that his services were terminated, and I stood up (to the dismay of His Honour Strickland J) to announce that Mr Foley’s services had been terminated.

Mr Kevin Foley, as His Honour Strickland was aware of from previous hearings, had been ill and it is my understanding that when his client heard the distresses from the voice of Mr Foley she simply didn’t want to risk his life and may have held to terminate his services was the best to avoid this. As his client was made aware in the past about a party I represented having collapsed with a suspected heart attack during proceedings and was taken by ambulance to the hospital she may have not wished to have this risked to Mr Foley.

 

I am known, as a lawyers gave me that label, as the “Police officer against lawyers”, and this may just make clear that I am very critical upon lawyers misconduct. When it comes to FOLEYS LAWYERS and in particular Mr Kevin Foley I can state that I have never met a lawyer who was so honest about matters and constantly referring that he is an OFFICER OF THE COURT and for example cannot therefore engage in attacking a fellow OFFICER OF THE COURT without having all evidence. To me Mr Kevin Foley is a fine example of how lawyers should be and he has been in the practice for about 49 years.

.

Mills Oakley lawyers have a conduct which may be indicated also by that they contacted Mr Foley to indicate that Mr Torsten Kasper Managing Director of Chisholm & Gamon had seen me at about 7.50 am (on 22 June 2012) at the property of Ms Nola Betsy Balas (the subject of purported sale against her will). In fact I understand he even phone the male tenant (who was on holidays) if I had been at his residence that morning. Now, what do you think this may seem to be where his wife and child still might be at home? Well, it happens to be that I left home at that time, an estimated 40 kilometres away from where I allegedly was surveillanced) and went to Officeworks photo copying material and paid for this using my Mastercard (as such a record) as well as obtained receipts proving I could never have been at that time at that location Mr Torsten Kasper Managing Director of Chisholm & Gamon claimed he had seen me. After all even if I had been there, not that this is conceded, then it was none of the business of Mr Damian Harriss nor do I view it appropriate for him to contact the male tenant about me and to then also contact FOLEYS LAWYERS about my doing. In my view the conduct of Mr Damian Harriss is tantamount to STALKING!

 

I have represented numerous parties as Professional Advocate ( including a 22 year veteran as a solicitor/Basrrister Mr Hasrold James Johson in legal proceedinghs of (Victorian) Legal Service Commissioner v Harold James Johnson, but never had that any opponent party was what appears to me having surveillance against my person. I used to refer to such party as being my “friend” as no one ever paid me for my services, nor were required to do so, as it was always under the understanding of a Pro Bono basis, as such but for the same I could have referred to them as my “client” as I will now do in regard of the female party.

Why on earth would anyone make such claim against me you may ask.

We’ll I view this is about character assassination and trying so to say cause a split in the defence. I will now set out why this character assassination really is so important.

It must be kept in mind that Cronin J on 22 July 2012 (while i was giving evidence from the wtness box) specifically denied me to give evidence about what actually eventuated during the 24 March 2012 auction even so the other party fabricated allegations against me which the Court then relied upon. He then (when I was giving evidence) was corrected that the other party, contrary to his wrong assertion, was not at all a proprietor of the property to be sold and instead had been tresspassing and was the real person who had committed break in and entry! Now, obviously this kind of evidence proving the alleged wrongdoing party was actually the innocent party wasn't what suited the court, and so a twisted version of various reasons of judgment were handed down, none actually referring to the true circumstances as they existed but a fabricated version to suit the real offender to be deemed innocent. 

Slanderous allegations were then made, by the court, against solicitor and barrister Mr Kevin Foley, who I held acted honourable, and so on twisted versions of what really was applicable, by the court refusing to allow the true version of events to be stated!

 In my view if an impartial judicial inquiry or ROYAL COMMISSION were held in to these matters it would not only exhonorate Mr Kevin Foley of any alleged wrongdoing but find serious judicial misconduct by various judges! And I view also makes findings of professional misconduct by the lawyers of the other party! 

As azuthor of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues I intend to canvas this extensively in my books in the future. Too often people contemplate to to take own lives because of the rot within the Family Court system and I intend to expose this for what it is. Obviously judges have villified me for decades, so to say, as their way tio get back on me but it has never deterred me to expose their rot.

 

 

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I assisted in the preparation of the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS Supplement 1 which deals extensively with constitutional matters and so in particular with the invalidity of numerous Family Court of Australia court orders and as these proceedings are before the Family Court of Australia then clearly my involvement is well so to say not particularly wanted.

Now, it is normal that when a party OBJECTES to the jurisdiction of the court/tribunal then the court has no further judicial powers other then to determine the jurisdiction of the court but it can make STATUS QUO orders such as injunctions, etc, as to preserve each party position and so rights and entitlements and orders for cost combined with procedural orders to dispose of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.

 

In the Family Court of Australia it is now that His Honour Cronin J on 25 June 2012 simply made no orders as to dispose of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and issued orders, such as that I cannot contact the purported purchasers solicitors as I had “cc” an email to them and later “on their request” formally served a copy of the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS onto their law office and it seems this is not permissible.

As I wrote to Mr Damian Harriss:

QUOTE’

As for your comment that I am not a qualified nor practising legal practitioner, I am wondering what on earth possesses people about this “legal practitioners” issue as your claim that you will no longer accept service of documents will only undermine your own client, In case you didn’t know this one doesn’t have to be a qualified or practising “legal practitioner” to serve documents. Any adult person, other than those who may be incapacitated, may serve documents upon a party.

END QUOTE

Mr Damian Harriss (Mills Oakley Lawyers) has as I understood it, indicated to refuse service by me because I was not a qualified and registered legal practitioner. Well, I am engaged as a Professional Advocate he is entitled to refuse whatever he desires to refuse, but it doesn’t mean he can use this as an excuse that he was not served. It will just be detrimental to his (male) client that he refused service. Now as I understand it, claiming he never received my correspondence, this even so the email address shown on the email record is precisely what he used on his letterhead. To me this is misleading the court and as I had forwarded the email at the same tinme to the court also then the court would have also at the time received a copy and so is aware the email was actually sent and received.

My position is that while Mr Damian Harriss was entitled to not read m y correspondence it is another matter to claim he didn't receive it as I view as an OFFICER OF THE COURT he by this is seriously misleading the court!

For the record I always forward a copy "cc" to myself and so have the evidence when the email was forwarded and to whom.

.

One has to ask then: If indeed the email was actually forwarded to Mr Damian Harriss and he denied having received it then why on earth would an OFFICER OF THE COURT want to misled the court about this unless this was critical for his client?

Obviously, if he had received the email but ignored it and this email contained "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" and he failed to deal with this then the court may hold it against his client to hav e alleged that the female obstructed the salew of the property where in fact she acted contrary to this and in fact was willing and offered to assist in signing required documentation and so the litigation was uncalled for.

.

Indeed, where the female was the sole registered proprietor and by court orders the opposing male party could only sell as a trustee, but no gtrustee documents were ever drafted let alone presented to the female to be signed then clearly all litigation by the male party was without legal justification becayuse the princviple error was by his lawyers not to provide tryusteeship assignment as required by the coufrt orders.

.

What we had, as i view it, was that Cronin J going on and on hearing aftert hearing nbever realising he was so to say betting on the wrong horse, accusing the female of wrongdoing when his for tutor Mr Dan Sweeney was representing the male party and actually failed to inform Cronin J his own client was all along in the wrong, for failing to appropriatly obtain trusteeship!  

 

Basically what it is about is that the female client and their client lived in cohabitation in the Netherlands (the country I was born) and well as many people do they ended up separating. Under Dutch legal system you can live with a person without being in a “registered relationship” (basically meaning de facto relationship) or without being married. A “cohabitation as I understand it to be means that you then are financially independent towards each other unless you make a specific contact such as a property purchase. So, they finished with their cohabitation and the matter was settled in the Dutch courts but then the male travelled back to Australia and started litigation there as a De facto relationship even so having been registered as a resident as a “single” person up to after the time he already had departed from The Netherlands.

Because the legislation came into force, well so it was supposed to be on 1 March 2009 for the Family Court of Australia to deal with de facto financial matters then His Honour Cronin J finding that their (now referred to as) de facto relationship ended on 2 March 2009 the Court therefore did have jurisdiction to deal with the application of the male. Just that in was not until 11 February 2012 that the Family Court of Australia gained jurisdiction, so even if the relationship had been ending on 2 March 2009 it still was without the Family Court of Australia having jurisdiction. It means my client was all along right.

However the male with his lawyers persisted in enforcing the invalid orders to be applied. Now I am not an OFFICER OF THE COURT but can assure you I would never have advised let alone supported any client to deliberately act in violation of another persons legal rights.

The female client opposed from onset the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia, and clearly she was right all along and this shovelling of technicalities to claim that the invalid orders are still enforceable unless they are set aside because they are orders of a Court of Records or orders of a Superior Court of Records is of grave concern to me, because they are not and never were orders of any Court of Record. They were issued by a Court that albeit at the time may considered to have been con ducting matters legitimately in the end was not, and therefore none of the orders issued within legal provisions of jurisdiction which never existed then can be relied upon.

What we therefore have is, as I view it, that the Court seems to be siding with the male rather than to hold that a court of Records must act within the applicable provisions of the law, including the constitution and as such it should instead have issued such orders as to maintain the STATUS QUO as to prevent any harm to either party while the jurisdictional issue is sorted out.

.

His Honour Strickland J as I understood it was arguing that the female client had no constitutional issue before His Honour Cronin J on 9 June 2009. Well, I may not be a lawyer let alone a qualified and registered practitioner but I am well aware that when a party OBJECTS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT then that is all the party has to do and as the female client did so she is not required but may in the aid of her objection raise further matters, it is for the applicant (the male) to prove jurisdiction! Effectively the female client by objection to the jurisdiction questions the validity of the legislation also, without needing to prove this because again and I wish lawyers understood this, all she had to do was to state something like “I object to the jurisdiction of the Court” and then the male has to provide that the Court has jurisdiction, including the validity of any legislation he relies upon for the court to be able to invoke jurisdiction. And then and only then the court determines upon the evidence presented by both parties if there is or isn’t jurisdiction. 

 

It is not for the Court to take the side of the male and determine jurisdictional issues without that the male has to provide any evidence for this.

.

At no time, that I am aware off, did His Honour Cronin J demand from the male he provide evidence that there was valid legislation applicable to give the Court jurisdiction. The fact that it was later discovered that in fact there never was any proclamation and so there was no jurisdiction means that His Honour Cronin J never could have appropriately disposed of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION he had before him. In fact the orders themselves do not show that the objection to jurisdiction was dismissed but merely indicate that there was jurisdiction within s90Rd. Still as most lawyers are aware the court can find jurisdiction in certain parts of legislation but may in the overall find that there is no jurisdiction. As such the narrow basis of s90RD cannot override an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.

What I view now has eventuated is what I consider is tantamount to terrorism and stalking that I am under surveillance for seeking to assist the female client in the best legal manner I am entitled upon!

So legitimately providing copies of documents result in an order by the court but what I view unlawful conduct by the other party may be sanctioned by the court.

 

As an INDEPENDENT candidate I spoke as recent as yesterday at a public meeting that I pursue our constitutional rights which includes civil liberties and political liberties.

 

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE  Mr. ISAACS.-

We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.

END QUOTE

 

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Mr. SOLOMON.-

We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates   (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), 

QUOTE   Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-

Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on terms that are just to both. 

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.

END QUOTE

 

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.

END QUOTE

 

What we have also is a statement by Attorney-General the Honourable Nicola Roxon regarding the “Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Act 2012” such as:

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

 

Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Act 2012

 

Proclamation

QUOTE

Human rights implications

The Proclamation engages but does not limit the right to a fair trial. The right to a fair

trial is protected in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(ICCPR). Article 14 is aimed at ensuring the proper administration of justice, which

includes the right to equality before the courts and tribunals and the right to a fair and

public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

END QUOTE

 

FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT (VALIDATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2012

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

(Circulated by the authority of the Attorney-General, the Honourable Nicola Roxon MP)

QUOTE

The Bill engages the following human rights:

Right to a fair trial

The right to a fair trial is protected in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 14 is aimed at ensuring the proper administration of justice, which includes the right to equality before the courts and tribunals and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

The right to a fair trial will not be prejudiced by the amendments in this Bill. The Bill provides that the new rights and liabilities created by the Bill will be able to be relied upon, in exactly the same way as if the orders had been validly made. The Bill also preserves the right to appeal against, or to apply for the review of an affected order and the right to vary affected orders in later court proceedings. In addition, if an order has been found to be invalid prior to the commencement of the Bill, the Bill preserves the findings of invalidity of any order.

END QUOTE

 

So, now we get it that the Family Court of Australia is even objecting to me attending to the bar table because I am not a legal practitioner. I do not know where in the Article 134 it is stated that members of the legal profession are an excluded special rights species but to me this is precisely what our constitution is about. We have civil rights and political liberties and for the Courts to close the courts of to be limited to legal practitioners in my view was/is a scandalous conduct.

Let’s be clear about it that as Dixon CJ (of the High Court of Australia, at that time) made clear that even an alien of outer space could do better than lawyers if they didn’t keep abreast of legal matters.

Well, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I provided details as to why the Family Court of Australia still has no jurisdiction about financial de facto matters and in fact there is a lot nm ore going on that is unconstitutional and instead of the court so to say seeking to ban me they rather should receive me so to say with open arms because after all which judge wants to make a fool of himself to adjudicate upon matters in which there is no jurisdiction, I may well ask?

It must therefore be very clear that if the Court desired to act honourably it should not oppose my representation because my client is entitled to the best kind of representation she views she can obtain and this should not be restricted to members of the legal profession.

Indeed, considering that if there are 100 disputed cases before the court where both parties are legally represented by hordes of lawyers then at the end of the day any dispute will be resolved by a judicial decision where 100 parties had their lawyers found on the successful side and q00 parties had their lawyers found at the losing side. As such the best you can get is a 50% chance your legal advisors are worth their monies. If we were to apply this to doctors operating on patients to have a 50% rate of death then they may be quickly referred to as charlatans.

 

This case has blown out to a constitutional issue where the Court rather then immediately seeking to attend to what is constitutionally permissible now is bogged down in attempts to prevent this as the male with his lawyers applied for a stay of proceedings of all applications/appeals before the Court including therefore the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as to enforce orders. Again, I am not a lawyer but to me it appears a legal nonsense to try to enforce an “invalid” order contrary to an objection to jurisdiction.

 

The Federal Court of Australia within Order 78, rule 42A provides for an Application (Form 166) for leave to be represented by a person who is not a barrister or solicitor. Therefore one has to ask if lawyers are not registered with the Commonwealth but only with a State then what lawful authority can they claim to represent a party in another state or on a federal level? Why should a Federal Court like the Family Court of Australia deny me to represent my client? Is it because I do not charge it may cause the demise of the legal profession? Is it because of being a CONSTITUTIONALIST I can expose how little lawyers really have as knowledge what is constitutionally appropriate? It is because I am not so to say willing to sell myself out to the highest bidder to protect a practicing certificate at the detriment of my client’s rights and interest? Why indeed are lawyers OFFICERS OF THE COURT where their duties towards their clients are placed second place? Should we ban lawyers to be Officers of the court so that we may achieve an impartial court as the Framers of the Constitution all along desired to have existing? Are lawyers really entitled to charge cost representing parties in the Federal Courts if ordinary persons are not? Isn’t that bias? Are they registered in the Federal courts or just it is assumed they can represent a party without needing to file an application and so the Court is bias towards lawyers?

A lawyer, when admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of a State, makes an oath to uphold the laws of that particular State and not making an oath to uphold the laws of another State, which could be in conflict. Why should a lawyer having a duty and obligation to one State be allowed to practice law that may have conflicting interest?

Why indeed should a lawyer be bound to any court at all and so act in jeopardy of his/her client!

.

Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)

QUOTE

As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.

END QUOTE

 

What we have therefore is that the Family Court of Australia is not concerned about the competence of who represent a party but so to say is an exclusive boy’s (read also girls) club of lawyers seeking to rob ordinary citizens their rights to have an impartial court to adjudicate in.

So here we have it that the court can control the representative lawyers but cannot control me, and so this appears to be the real issue. With a lawyer the can pull the practicing certificate but with me they cannot.

.

So, I wonder is the surveillance now done upon me part of a need bread of litigation lawyers that when they are faced with constitutional issues by a person like myself being a CONSTITUTIONALIST then they will seek to scandalize the character of such a person rather than to remain within the rule of law?

.

My readers are well aware of my decades of battles for those who called my special lifeline service MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® when they were troubles that many contemplated suicide, etc, and despite the huge associated cost I never charged for my services, not any private business or any government gave me financial support for this. Judges may utterly dislike my exposures of, what I view, their inappropriate conduct and surely ample of lawyers resent this but in the end I am about saving lives. I am about defending our constitutional rights.

.

We, the people, must not fail as otherwise the tyranny will be of unlimited scale.

.

We have seen how we are subjected to an unconstitutional GST. An unconstitutional Land Tax. We are subjected to an unconstitutional; CARBON TAX. Let me make it very clear, I am not against persevering the environment but doing so it must be within the framework of the constitution.

As the Framers of the Constitution stated:

HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Mr. OCONNOR.-

We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.

END QUOTE

.

The question now is will you stand by and waste your very precious vote and vote for a political party that may likely provide more of the same rot as is now going on or are you making clear enough is enough and vote for me as an INDEPENDENT candidate and make sure you finally get a voice in the parliament to deal with matters appropriately.

It is wrong to assume you need the majority in the Parliament to achieve something because as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware that as one Member of Parliament I can stop any bill from being debated let alone becoming law where it is to achieve an unconstitutional end.

You and fellow electors can achieve this greatest moment in Victorian history to have a CONSTITUTIONALIST in Parliament who will finally be able to start cleaning up the mess.

You and I all are aware about the huge price increases inflicted upon us all but were you aware that States and councils should not increase their charges, rates, etc. in regard of pensioners and other welfare recipients  above the CPI (Consumer Price Index) because of the Commonwealth overriding policy to limit those increases to the CPI?

.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?

Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.

END QUOTE

 

So, while politicians are inflicting ongoing cost rises upon us their pay packet is increasing well beyond what ought to be because as the Framers of the Constitution intended they ought to receive about average weekly earning through their allowances.

So, why not get them to cut down their payments and limit the monies they receive. No more Gold Card or other perks like after payments for former Members of Parliament because once they leave the Parliament that is the end of their pay!

Yes, you and I can work together and I know when I was in management of factories that once you show to your fellow man/woman that you are fair dinkum then you will succeed.

.

For those who may not be aware of it for every one you give a number 1 as a vote the candidate can be paid a certain amount of monies which may be now near the $2.00 mark, or something like that.  So, if many people vote for a political party candidate they receive a lot of monies, where as the candidate who receives less than 4% gets absolutely nothing. This is how our elections have been hijacked that political parties can spend up big in an election because they know they will get a lot of money coming in to cover if not all then most of it, while I am as a candidate left to so far always have to pay out of my own pocket unless someone at rare occasions may give some financial support to my election campaign.

.

Let’s ensure we take back our powers and politicians do what they are supposed to do and that is to represent the constituent’s interest.

.

We desire also an impartial court that will not be so to say a boy’s club for lawyers only costing litigants an arm and a leg and still getting often (a possible 50% chance) legal representation that will place the obligation to the court above that of the client. What obligation if the client doesn’t know what this means? Is this a sell out? So, you can engage a lawyer who may cause you to lose your case because of his duties to the Court? Come on this is not an impartial court system where JUSTICE now is government to what is more important the upholding of the integrity of the court regardless if this may be a gross injustice to a client? My obligation always has been and will remain to the constitution. This is our ultimate rule of law, and we must all aspire to maintain these rights and privileges as much as our duties and obligations enshrined within

 

Those who desire to wear T-Shirts of MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® or other T-shirts or even mugs, banners, etc, they are available from me FREE OF CHARGE even if you are not an elector at this time to vote. You may download my How-To-Vote card at www.vec@vic.gov.au  and forward them around as a political campaign as we must not fail. You can also download them from my website www.schorel-hlavka.com . You can also at my website go to my UTube recorded radio speeches about the constitution.

Again, we can achieve together the maintenance of our political liberties and civil rights but that is if you do support me.

 

We are all sentries as gate keepers for the protection and endurance of our constitution so that those living when we are long gone can enjoy the same rights and liberties and also duties and obligations as was bestowed upon us.

.

If anyone like to emend the constitution to reflect the changes of the general community perceptions and standards then so be it but we all must accept that whatever shape or form and so the true meaning of the constitution may be we are to hold it sacred and to be our destiny to protect it from any inroads of abuse by the politicians, the authorities and so also the courts.

 

A VOTE FOR ME IS A VOTE FOR YOUR FUTURE!

 

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

 

(Our name is our motto!)

 

Awaiting your response,      G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

 

 


Please do note that due to another operation on my leg (because the previous one was not successful enough) I may not be able to attend to certain matters for some time, due to complications after the last operation causing even the wound to crack open, and possible further hospital stay may eventuate.
Hopefully my blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati will in the meantime provide ample of material to keep you buzy. 
Read up about what appears to me an elaborate scam by the High Court of Australia to use the Court of Disputed Returns decision in Sue v Hill (not a Chapter III court of the constitution but acting for the Parliament) as if it is a Chapter III court. Consider the legal implications where Sue v Hill not at all has any legal meaning to the position of the Commonwealth of Australia as to be some purported independent nation!
My blog has the 9-12-2011 (111209) document about it.


ELECTIONS


My submission regarding the 2010 Ivanhoe District election terrorism, the 2011 Broadmeadows District by-election terrorism and the 2011 Olympia Ward (Banyule city Council) dissaster.
.
Part 1 of 2 Parts can be downloaded from:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50897918

 Part 2 of 2 Parts can be downloaded from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/50898288

.
I AM NOT AGAINST ANY POLITICAL PARTY JUST AGAINST ANY POLITICAL PARTY THAT IS IN GOVERNMENT THAT ABUSES AND MISUSES ITS POWERS AND/OR FAILS TO GOVERN APPROPRIATELY TO THE BENEFIT OF ALL PEOPLE.

As an INDEPENDENT candidate I pursue to hold any Government accountable!

 



To you (wherever you are)

.
As like others I do make typing errors, etc, and this makes me to be human as others. One doesn't need to have a candidate pretending to be superior to electors because how could such a candidate then understand and comprehend what electors needs are?


I am  a CONSTITUTIONALIST and because of this am aware of issues such as the CPI being applicable others were not aware of.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE

   Mr. ISAACS.- We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.

END QUOTE

And

.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,

END QUOTE

And

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE

.

I may state that albeit I am a candidate in elections I do not vote because as a objection to compulsory voting because it is embedded in the constitution that any elector has the “right” to vote but the Framers of the Constitution made clear they refused to allow compulsory registration/voting. The Commonwealth conducted a 5 year epic legal battle against me with charges of FAILING TO VOTE and were comprehensively defeated by me on 19 July 2006. As such, while legislation is on foot in the end it proved to be meaningless because no legislation can interfere or override constitutional embedded rights/liberties.


.

While the electoral commissions are still fining people for failing to vote, and do so in disregard of the courts rulings, they never again can do so against me, and it is merely a matter of time before others will follow my example to stand up for their constitutional embedded rights rather then to cave in to what ultimately could be dictatorship.

.



 

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I pursue the States to reclaim its sovereign rights from the Commonwealth such as education, health, etc.

For example the states are faced with a hospital bed shortage that is caused because of the inadequate way the Commonwealth deals with young invalids.

Just imagine you roll out of your bed during the night and end up being an invalid. Where would they dump you for full time care, more then likely in an age care facility. Is that what you really desire? What we need is the Commonwealth to take its constitutional responsibility more serious and ensure there are ample of young persons care facilities available.  It means that then more then 7,000 young invalids can move out of unsuitable age care facilities and more into appropriate care facilities. It means that 7,000 age care beds become available for age care needed person. It means that more then 7,000 people now in hospital beds awaiting age care accommodation can move to age care facilities. It means more then 7,000 hospital beds become free for patients who need it for ill-health, etc. As such without creating a single hospital bed we can drastically improve it all. Just by getting the Commonwealth to act appropriately.
.


My website
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati both gives further extensive details as to what I have been involved with.


For many I am a GUARDIAN ANGEL, which happens also to be our family crest for over 1000 years.


This is also temporary the website for;

OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN

(Don’t forget the hyphens!)
.

Email: help@office-at-the-guardian.com (Also mayjusticealwaysprevail@schorel-hlavka.com)

alternatively inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
.
(download documents FREE OF CHARGE from) blog Http://www.schribd.com/InspectorRikati

Please note that numerous documents can be in full downloaded from my blog at:

 
Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
 

Such as;

 

* Who can assist-represent a party in legal proceedings?
 

* 100129-01-Kevin Rudd PM-Education
 

* 100126-06-CLIMATE CHANGE - WATER
 

* 090308-V2-2007-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL-G54449-00-Part 1
 

* 090309-V2-2007-ADDRESS TO THE COURT-TRIBUNAL-G54449-00-Part 2
 

* 071202-00-REQUEST ROYAL COMMISSION (Re Iraq war)
 

* 100117-CHILCOT INQUIRY-SUPPLEMENT SUBMISSION (Re Iraq war)



* and numerous other documents
 
 
As author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues I pursue JUSTICE for all and for this seek to provide maximum access to material I produce so others may be able to use some or all of the content for so far they consider it may assist them. However, if you do then I appreciate you do acknowledge this (showing the source you obtained it from) when quoting material.



SPREAD THE WORD, reclaim our constitutional and other legal rights and hold politicians and judges accountable &



MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
 
 
*******************************************
.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

 

Having just completed another case (this time before VCAT, I understand very successfully) I have decided to no longer represent people in courts/tribunals because while I acknowledge there are people in problems and can’t afford to pay for legal representation at the other hand I need to allow myself to enjoy also life as people always will continue to get themselves in all kinds of problems.

Obviously my free service has enabled many, who lack the funding to hire a lawyer, to still obtain JUSTICE and so without having to face any burdensome legal cost but again (after about 30 years) I need to give myself more time to enjoy life and so also by this my family.

.

I would like to see that lawyers will be less easy to act like vultures and understand what JUSTICE is about but this is regretfully beyond the competence of many of them to understand/comprehend.

.

For the above I seek people no longer to request my assistance in legal matters as the average of 10 request a day in itself is already beyond what I could do anyhow.

.

Most of the cases I assisted with were in confidence and so I was not able to publish them but some cases were not and the Colosimo case is an example.

.

Obviously I will continue to write and publish articles and devote time on constitutional matters but that is separately from representing people in courts and/or tribunals and or assist them in preparing their material for litigation.

.

At times, when I was working on a case and not realizing the time it was, I would phone a person I was assisting to clarify something only to be asked if I knew it was 3 am or 4 am or like that in the morning. Well, to be honest about it if I am willing to sacrifice my night sleep for their cases I am not the least worried about them being awaken as after all if they do not like it then they can engage a lawyer and pay for his services. I also used to get an excuse like, I have a ticket for the footy, cricket or whatever and as such there were ample of people who were more concerned about watching something then the litigation they got themselves into. Well the message should be clear that if you want to watch some program then just don’t yourself in problems and I save my time then also to be spend on the case.

.

I never did it for the money and no one ever can claim that I charged them in those about 30-years for representing them as I never did. In my view to charge a person for representation to merely obtain JUSTICE is so to say selling your soul.

.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® is also a special lifeline service seeking to assist those contemplating suicide, etc, and that will continue. It is not and never was government funded either!

.

As I always made known to people assist others as I did for you and that is basically all I can ask.

.

Gerrit

.

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

.

25-8-2010

*******************************************************************************

VOTING ISSUES

.
ARE YOU GOING TO BE BULLIED TO VOTE?
 

Every time you vote the candidate you vote for first gets about $2.20 for the vote. Now do you really want to give out taxpayers monies?

I have been a candidate in federal, state and municipal and shire council elections but refused to vote, even for myself by this, because no one is going to compel me to vote as being a CONSTITUTIONALIST I knew the Framers of the Constitution specifically denied legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia to compel anyone to vote!

The Commonwealth of Australia took me to court for FAILING TO VOTE and after a 5-year epic legal battle I defeated the commonwealth comprehensively.

I do not oppose voting but oppose COMPULSORY voting!

.

You can try to read up on the following documents that were also before the courts at the time:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34650214/070118mw-Appeal-Upheld-p1

.

You can also try the National Library of Australia at Canberra for the book:

.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?

A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights

ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3

.

This contains all relevant details of the case, see also

.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24673459/060719gh-Address-Part-1-v7

.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24673520/060719gh-Address-Part-2-v7

.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24673609/060719gh-Address-Part-3-v7

.

That should give you a start albeit there was a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS, etc.

.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34693456/FORM69-78B-2signed

.

The book was published before the hearing as to avoid prohibition because of the sensitive issues involved. The court refused to permit me to have a copy of the transcript and copy of the video recording etc.

As such the book publishing all relevant material and the orders also will show what the case was about.

.

.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.

END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
   Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference:
When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
END QUOTE

.
 

*******************************************




QUOTE 29 May 2010 correspondence to PREMIER ANNA BLIGHT Re Queensland's CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

ANNA BLIGHT MP, Premier of Queensland                                                      29-5-2010

ThePremier@premiers.qld.gov.au

.

Cc: Mr Peter Wellington MP Member for Nicklin

PO box 265, NAMBOUR old 4560 c/O Nicklin@parliament.qld.gov.au 

      Frank Davis frankdavis@iinet.net.au

.

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.

Anna,

         I find it regrettable that you have written as you did a 27 May 2010 correspondence to Mr Peter Wellington MP Member for Nicklin stating the following;

QUOTE 27-5-2010 correspondence Anna Blight MP to Mr Peter Wellington MP

The claims that Queensland is now outside the Commonwealth of Australia and is an independent sovereign state without common law are completely false but may be founded on claims that, through the introduction of the Constitution of Queensland 2001, the previous Constitution was repealed without having a referendum.

 

These claims stem from confusion between Queensland’s Constitution and the referendum requirement in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. While a referendum is required to alter any part of the Commonwealth Constitution, Queensland’s constitutional laws are ordinary Acts of our Parliament and they can be changed by passing other ordinary Acts of Parliament.

 

In the development of the Constitution of Queensland 2001, provisions of Queensland’s constitutional Acts that were referendum entrenched were not changed, and remain in force.

END QUOTE 27-5-2010 correspondence Anna Blight MP to Mr Peter Wellington MP
.

I take it as a very serious issue that a Premier of Queensland as I view it grossly deceive a Member of parliament as I view that Peter Wellington MP Member for Nicklin was entitled to a honest and well researched response from you.

.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51].

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE

   Dr. COCKBURN:

No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will.

END QUOTE
.

Before however going into details let me explain.

While Pauline Hanson was in prison I then wrote to the then Premier Mr Peter Beattie a 1 September 2003 correspondence in which I requested him also to pass it on to the lawyers of Pauline Hanson, setting out why the judgments against Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge were unsound in law. I did set out in very detail the relevant issues.

On 30 September 2003 I then published this correspondence in one of my books titled:

.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP

A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.

(ISBN 0-9580569-6-X  prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0

.

To my understanding the then Premier of Queensland Mr peter Beattie concealed this 1 September 2003 correspondence from Pauline Hanson’s solicitors and so the courts.

I then provided Judy Smith, sister of Pauline Hanson, with a copy of the book as well as a print out of the relevant correspondence and urged her to use it before the Queensland Court of Criminal appeal. Likewise I forwarded a copy of the book to Pauline Hanson and the prison authorities did confirm receiving it. Subsequently, in November 2003, the Queensland Criminal Court of appeal made a ruling that was precisely as I had set out nearly two months earlier in my correspondence to Mr Peter Beattie. Again my book was already published on 30 November 2003 (At which day 4 copies were delivered to the Melbourne Registry of the High Court of Australia) it must be clear I didn’t use the much later judgment of the court at all to set out the legal issues rather that the judgment vindicated my claims. I am not and never was a member of Pauline Hanson One Nation and merely did the exercise concerned that she and David Ettridge were wrongly convicted.

.

Albeit I am not a lawyer I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and represent parties on constitutional matters that ordinary lawyers simply have no clue to understand.

As a matter of fact on 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia in both cases, after a 5-year epic legal battle, on numerous constitutional issues including that the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to compel anyone to vote and as such s.245 of the Commonwealth electoral Act 1918 is unconstitutional. Again, the court upheld both cases!

.

In a more recent case I represented Mr Francis James Colosimo and he already was advised by the trial judge that she could imprison him. He also was subjected to orders of Administration on the basis he lacked the mental capacity to arrange appropriately some of his own affairs and this at hand of medical reports of expert witnesses. Mr Francis James Colosimo had also representation of a Professor of Law, a Mr Errol Higgens, who teaches at universities and who had conceded that Mr Francis James Colosimo was in breach or orders. More then 20 lawyers were involved in the case when I was requested by Mr Francis James Colosimo to take over his case and represent him. Victoria Legal Aid had advised Mr Francis James Colosimo to purge his contempt. The Office of the Public Advocate also gave me the understanding that Mr Francis James Colosimo refused to comply with the rule of law.

Again, I am not a lawyer but a CONSTITUTIONALIST. On 26 March 2009 I appeared before Her Honour Harbison (then the 6th CONTEMPT hearing)and explained to Her Honour that the lawyers had used her like a fool (it is in transcript) because Mr Francis James Colosimo was innocent of any legal wrongdoing. I will spare you all the details but sufficient to say that her Honour upon my submission ordered a PERMANENT STAY of proceedings. The material I had filed before her also related extensively to Queensland constitutional issues because they related to the issue of FEE SIMPLE and judgments regarding the Burns case.

On 29 March 2010 I then appeared again for Mr Francis James Colosimo and challenged for any expert witness to give evidence as to Mr Francis James Colosimo as so to say I would wipe the floor with them because no psychiatric assessment can be reliable that assessed Mr Francis James Colosimo as being in CONTEMPT orf orders where as I discovered that despite the 6 CONTEMPT hearings he never had been formally charged with CONTEMPT by Her Honour Harbison J and no conviction had ever taken place, even so the Office of the Public Advocate had advised the expert witnesses that Mr Francis James Colosimo was in CONTEMPT.

At the end of the day all orders for Administration were set aside. As such, I succeeded to get a man free where I proved Mr Francis James Colosimo was innocent of any legal wrongdoing and more then twenty (20) lawyers involved have been litigating upon falsehoods.

Again, during the submissions before Her Honour Harbison J I filed an 090309 ADDRESS TO THE COURT/TRIBUNAL Part 2 which was some 659 pages which extensively canvassed the issue of Queensland constitution. As I did set out that the Queensland government during the absenteeism of the Governor had appointed a Lieutenant governor and added members to the Upper House to purportedly abolish the Upper House of Queensland but that this was constitutionally NULL AND VOID and all legislation enacted since without having been passed by the Queensland Upper House therefore is NULL AND VOID.

.

It should be understood that as from the time of Federation Queensland as like any other state was created by s.106 of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) from the colonies/province and hence all States were bound by the legal principles embedded in the Constitution.

.

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Mr. THYNNE:

The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority.

END QUOTE
.

Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Dr. COCKBURN: I think we have nothing whatever to do with deciding the details of the state constitutions. On the other hand, I think it appertains to the functions of this Convention to decide that the power of framing a constitution shall be in the hands of the several states. At present the legislatures of the various colonies can only be altered with the consent of the Imperial Government. Is it intended that that shall remain? When we have a federated Australasia, in which we have state legislatures and a federal legislature, is it intended that the state legislatures shall have the power of altering their constitutions at will or not? From that point of view I think the proposition put forward by the hon. member, Sir George Grey, is decidedly within the powers of the Convention, the power to lay down a general rule, without touching the details of any individual constitution, that the various states should have the power of framing their own constitutions according to the will of the majority of the people of those states. 

END QUOTE
.

Again (RE Section 123);

Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY:

Provision should therefore be made in the federal constitution which will [start page 478] enable the people of each state to adopt by the vote of the majority of voters, their own form of state constitution. 
END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.

END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,

END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.

END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
   Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE

   The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to refutation if I am wrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but, indisputably, the great bulk of them, are subjects on which no question of state rights and state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is, as the right hon. gentleman admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be left for all time to be determined in a purely states house, or by a state referendum, when those questions are not state questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on national lines, and by a national referendum

END QUOTE
.

It doesn’t matter if you claim you merely substituted the Queensland constitution or not because a constitutional Parliament cannot amend the constitution as it can only propose by State (s.123) referendum to the electors to veto or approve an amendment to the State constitution. As such your position that the constitution is an Act of parliament is incorrect as it no longer was an Act of Parliament since federation!

Ok they may not have taught you this, and I who came as an ALIEN from The Netherlands  held it important for me to at least know and understand what the constitution is about happens to have so to say my homework, but nevertheless in the end it isn’t relevant what certificates, diploma’s, education or whatever position anyone has as what is relevant is what is permitted within the provisions of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and clearly the legal embedded principles is that no State parliament can amend its own constitution.

.

Again:

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
   Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
END QUOTE
.

As such, forget about the purported abolishment of the Upper House and forget about all other changes to the Queensland constitution since Federation where they were made without approval of the electors by State referendum because they were all a NULLITY.

Therefore this purported Queensland Constitution Act 2001 is no constitution at all and cannot replace the Queensland State constitution that existed since federation.

Technically all legislation that purportedly enacted since the purported abolition of the Upper House are unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES because the Upper House was never validly abolished. And s.41 of the constitution refers to “both” houses and as such Queensland cannot abolish its Upper House.

.

Neither do I view you have any legitimate excuse of not knowing because my past emails with attached correspondence did set it out but it appears to me you couldn’t bother to read and consider it or so your staff and like wise so the former Premier Mr Peter Beattie.

Well, the people of Queensland are entitled to have appropriate representation and not being conned into something that is totally invalid and without LEGAL FORCE!

.

As for the Federal Government with it’s (proposed) SUPER TAX this is in my view unconstitutional as it is not a tax for the “whole of the Commonwealth” as it is restricted to mining companies only. As much as the proposed ETS would be unconstitutional.

.

Hansard 12-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE     Mr. ABBOTT:
The first resolution clearly points out that we are not to interfere with territorial rights; but what I want to be clear about in this colony of New South Wales is that this expression means that there is to be no interference with our Crown lands. I know, and every member of the Convention knows as well as I do, that it is not intended that the Crown lands of anyone of the colonies shall be interfered with by the federal parliament; yet, this is a bogey that has been raised up outside to frighten the people of this colony into opposition to the proposed federation. In this country-at all events outside the city, the people are most concerned about the settlement of our Crown lands-the occupation and the acquisition of them-and nothing in this world, to my mind, could more prejudice the proposal for federation than to assert that our Crown lands are to be taken away from us and given to those colonies which have no Crown lands at all. I say it was never intended by any of those who initiated this Convention that such a state of things should be carried out, and, speaking on behalf of this colony, I say that it is a state of things that would not be tolerated for one moment. I hope there will be no misunderstanding outside. Our Crown lands are to be our own, and the Crown [start page 303] lands of the other colonies will, I take it, be their own. What surprised me-talking of Crown lands-was the utterance of the hon. member, Sir James Lee-Steere, that if the Government of Western Australia hands her customs duties over to the federal government then she would not have anything with which to pay her debt or the interest on that debt. Now, Western Australia has the largest territory in the whole of the Australian colonies, and I presume that Western Australia is not going to allow that territory to remain as it is at the present time. I presume that Western Australia expects to lease or sell that land, and to construct her public works out of the proceeds of it. I am sure that the colonies on the eastern seaboard hope that that will be one of the results of the responsible government which has been so recently granted to Western Australia. What is the use of their lands, what is the use of their trying to carry out public works, if they cannot at the same time get a population to settle upon their lands?
END QUOTE
.
And again this whole issue about miners taking over parts of private land to explore for oil, gasses, or whatever you may find that private landholders may sue the State for permitting this without their consent (reverse acquisition) and as such I view it would be far better if the Queensland State Government commenced to consider what is really lawful!

This whole sordid constitutional and other legal mess could have been addressed over the years had the Queensland Government taken more notice of my writings. But as Mr peter Beattie proved to do way back in 2003 he didn’t properly consider my writings and this is really where the problem lies because politicians ASSUME they are correct no matter how in the process they destroy the lives of so many.

.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE    Mr. ISAACS.-

 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.

END QUOTE
.

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE    Mr. CARRUTHERS:

This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.

END QUOTE

.

That is why lawyers can’t understand what is constitutionally appropriate! Still I am here to assist if they need my assistance instead of causing further havoc amongst constituents, just contact me so the citizens of Queensland may finally have experiences of the RULE OF LAW.

In the meantime I do view you ought to alert Mr Peter Wellington MP Member for Nicklin of your incorrect claims (they were not made under the protection of parliament, as it appears to me!)

.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)

END QUOTE 29 May 2010 correspondence to PREMIER ANNA BLIGHT Re Queensland's CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

.

THE ISSUE OF RACISM – LANGUAGE & LIBERTY

.

Regardless of my crummy English, considering my native language was Dutch and I had no formal education in the English language let me make clear that I come across lawyers/judges/politicians time and time again who with all their high education in the English language don’t even understand/comprehend how the constitution really applies. On 19 July 2006, after a 5-year epic legal battle I defeated them in court comprehensively and as such proved that my crummy English after all was better then their English!
.
Some people speak a poor English beyond their fault and let not ridicule those who are unfortunately in that postion!
.
What makes you a better person is not how you master a specific language but above all what is your character. How are you towards others!
.
Are you a person of your word and worthy to be trusted?
.
After all no amount of skill in the English language can overcome a deficiency in character and trustworthiness!
.
Often con-artist are fluent in using the English language!
.

Regardless that personally I oppose racism, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I must accept that we have a racist constitution s.51(xxvi) and therefore racism is constitutionally permissible, like it or not.
.
The Commonwealth of Australia, so also Kevin Rudd PM with his apology nevertheless continues his kind of racism against Aboriginals and more over unconstitutionally. So, he is the last one one would want to hear about being anti-racist.
.
When was the last time you saw a half-pregnant woman?  Isn’t it that a woman is either pregnant or she is not?

.

Therefore, either a person is a racist or not?

.

Well, the Federal Government is using racist (albeit unconstitutional) legislation against Aboriginals and as such it is racist and cannot then argue against others not to be racist.

.

The mere fact that we have s.51(xxvi) in the constitution underlines that technically Australians are racist.

.

Now, those who have an issue with this would do far better to then seek an amendment of the constitution to have s.51(xxvi) deleted from the constitution as so to say put their money where their mouth is. Failing this, regretfully racism is part of Australian society, like it or not.

.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates. QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE.

 
 

In any society of the free we will always have conflicting views. We must allow for those who may have as we see it ill-conceived views. If their conduct exceeds what is lawfully permissible then the courts are there to deal with that. We must not seek to deny the right of liberty of others merely because they might not express themselves in what we may prefer. We cannot demand others to be tolerant when we ourself fail to be so. We must embrace and welcome even those who’s comments we may resent because only by seeking them to join us may they commence to open their minds to what we have to say.   Language is but merely one mode of communication and should never be conditional upon how we communicate with others. When I am in litigation (in courts) often opponent lawyers are seeking to target my crummy English because they fear me and have no other way of trying to defeat me. Their cowardly act isn’t going to get them anywhere rather ensures they sidetrack from the real issues and fail therefore to concentrate of the real litigation. I have come across these kind of cowards over the decades and they never learn to overcome their fears because they never understand that attacking a person as to how he uses a language is not relevant rather if the person in what ever way he/she expresses himself can bring his message across. Often people who are so to say a failure will attack another person who is successful for their lack in proper usage of English language, for having a different colour of skin, etc so as to try to pretend to be better after all then those they criticise, rather then to realise that to be better then you are is to work hard for achieving it. What we need to do is not look at the person’s colour of skin, his usage of the language, his religion, etc, but rather what is the real person as to character! If he (or she) is a law abiding citizen then this is really all what society is to benefit from! Therefore, be not blinded by racial differences because racial differences might in fact for the better of society as people of different races can in fact present diversity.

 

I very much also canvassed this in my 7-6-2006 published book;

.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights.

ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3.

 

.
.
Have you been the victim of a speeding measurement unit (laser, etc)? Then check out below as you may just been subjected to an unlawful authorised unit. Do not perceive that I seek to avoid lawbreakers to face the consequences of the law, but rather that I pursue that one can only be deemed a law breaker if once guilt is established in a proper manner and not by usage of unconstitutional legislative provisions! If therefore you were purportedly caught for speeding and even may lose your licence then you might find it worth to check out the 29-5-2009 email to Kevin Rudd PM quoted below and you know what, it cost you nothing to do so other then some of your time!
.





This website is limited in publications and for this my blog at http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/AXWNGJ4NT27OM4CH27T5FMEGOI
provides material also (http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH IS NO LONGER PUBLISHED BY YAHOO AS IT CLOSED DOWN ITS 360 BLOGS) . However, this blog Http://www.schribd.com/InspectorRikati or the website (http://schorel-hlavka.com) allows those interested in pursuing their constitutional and other legal rights to purchase books and other items (see below) and/or make a donation (with an honourably membership subject to conditions).

Since federation many soldiers gave their lives to protect the democratic system in the Commonwealth of Australia only for politicians to rob us anyhow of so much in their ever ongoing quest to get more powers.

I have taken on this cause in using the legal provisions (including the Constitution) to our benefit and to expose the abuse and misuse of powers by lawyers/judges/politicians, etc, and others who may seek to assist in the way best suitable to them are welcome to do so

This web page is merely, so to say, a kind of introduction as my many books already set out matters extensively.

.
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCES;

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084
Victoria, Australia
Phone 03-94577209 (International 61394577209)

.
Email;
.
MAYJUSTICEALWAYSPREVAIL@SCHOREL-HLAVKA.COM

INSPECTOR-RIKATI@SCHOREL-HLAVKA.COM

QUOTE 20-12-2009 reply

Australian Government

Attoney-General’s Department

 

08/14534, MC09/20998

 

20 December 2009-12-24

 
 

Mr G H Schorel-Hlavka

107 Graham Road

VIEWBANK VIC 3084

 

Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka

 

I refer to your email of 2 November 2009 to the Prime Minister, forwarded to the Attorney-General, regarding the oaths and affirmations of office sworn by ministers in the Australian Government. I have been asked to reply to your correspondence.

 

All members of the Commonwealth parliament are required to subscribe the oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Queen of Australia set out in the Schedule to the Australian constitution. That is required by section 42 of the Constitution. Oaths and affirmations of office sworn, in addition, by ministers are not, so far as I am aware, expressed in terms of allegiance to the Prime Minister (or any other minister). Rather, each minister (including the Prime Minister), gives a commitment in terms of the particular office he or she holds (for example, the office of the prime minister, or the office of the Attorney-General, etc).

 

I trust this information is of assistance.

 

Yours sincerely

 

James Faulkner PSM

Assistant Secretary

Constitutional Policy Unit.

END QUOTE 20-12-2009 reply

QUOTE email 24-12-2009 to Kevin Rudd PM

Further to my 2-11-2009 correspondence and your response 20-12-2009 - Fw: Email to the Prime Minister
Thursday, 24 December, 2009 11:16 PM
From:   "Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka"
To: Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
Cc:  inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
 
The following email was actually forwarded in two parts but put together in this email, being it the content remains the same.


--- On Thu, 24/12/09, info@pm.gov.au wrote:

From: info@pm.gov.au
Subject: Email to the Prime Minister [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
To: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Received: Thursday, 24 December, 2009, 10:52 PM
Thank you for your message to the Prime Minister at www.pm.gov.au.

Below is a copy for your records.

Responses prepared to your message will generally be emailed to you. If you have supplied a postal address, a response may be sent to you via Australia Post. In some cases, your message may 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
http://www.pm.gov.au/Site_Feedback

Submitted on 24 December 2009

  Title: Mr
  First Name: Gerrit Hendrik
  Last Name: Schorel-Hlavka
  Email Address:
inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
  Street Address: 107 Graham Road
  Suburb/City: Viewbank
  State: Victoria
  Postcode/Zip: 3084
  Country: Australia
  Subject: Further to my 2-11-2009 correspondence and your response 20-12-2009  Part 1 of 2
  Comment:
Kevin Rudd PM
.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
Kevin,
Further to my 2 November 2009 correspondence and considering the response received dated 20-12-2009 (reproduced below) and also considering the High Court of Australia Sue v Hill and Sykes v Cleary decision I request you to ensure I am provided with each oath/affirmation made by each Member of Parliament and also each Member of Parliament who took up an office as a minister or being it an assistant to a minister or secretary, etc within the meaning of s64 of the constitution.
.
QUOTE
46 Penalty for sitting when disqualified
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by
this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a
member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on
which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to
any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
.
For me, so to say, to make it financial worthwhile to litigate I better get the precise oaths and other relevant details which I am entitled upon to be provided with, even so it might so to say wipe out the entire federal Parliament as well as the federal executives. Do keep in mind that in the proceedings of 19 July 2006 which was a 5-year epic legal battle between the Commonwealth of Australia and myself I did raise already then various constitutional issues and they were left unchallenged by the commonwealth and State Attorney-General’s despite of the 2002 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and as such I view that the Commonwealth of Australia conceded already to the issues then before the court, in which it was comprehensively defeated.
You may also be aware that the High court of Australia itself is on record that the constitution must be interpreted as to the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and guess what? I have been doing this for many years now and came to different conclusions then the High Court of Australia did in Sue v Hill and Sykes v Cleary to mention some cases. As the quotation below also shows that Mr Clearly was not disqualified until he took up the seat in the House of Representatives, as the disqualification is from the time a successful candidate takes up a seat in the parliament and not relevant as to his election.
If the High court of Australia judges were under oath of office to her majesty of the British Crown then they could hardly have made a decision as to a Queen of Australia where the commonwealth of Australia, unlike Canada, is a POLITICAL UNION and as such not a country at all.
.
Also, I noticed the usage of “Australia Government” but as the Framers of the Constitution made clear at the time if Queensland was to not join the federation it still would be part of Australia as it still would be within the landmass Australia. And where the commonwealth includes territories outside the landmass Australia such as the State of Tasmania and other territories then it could at least being “Government of Australiasia”, this as to reflect area’s other then in the landmass Australia.
.
I acknowledge that I lack any formal education in the Commonwealth of Australia, being born in The Netherlands and English not being my native language but I understood that van Diemans Land now known as Tasmania was never part of the landmass Australia for Letters Patent concerned by the British Monarchs two different governors. My understand is that new Zealand at one stage was under the governor of NSW but then later went its own way and despite both New Zealand and Fiji initially being at the conventions (such as in 1891) they decided in the end not to join the federation.
.
Further I request you to ensure I am provided with all and any s128 referendums that were approved by the electors in the terms of s128 of the constitution to amend the constitution as to purportedly amend that application/meaning of the constitution to amend it from its ordinary meaning of being the Queen of the United Kingdom, etc to Queen of Australia, in particular where the Commonwealth of Australia is nothing more but a “POLITICAL UNION” and never was as such a dominion or other stand so to say alone country
.
Further, can you also ensure that I am provided with any referendum details where the electors within s128 of the constitution provided that the High Court of Australia can amend by so to say backdoor manner the application/meaning of the constitution?
.
Further, can you provide also relevant details as to the judges who adjudicated in the sue v Hill case if they had an oath of office at the time of hearing and determining this matter to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom or if they had already sworn an oath of allegiance to the purported Queen of Australia and if so when.
Can you provide details as to any of the judges having made a new oath prior to, during or since the decision of Sue v Hill was handed down by the judges involved in that decision?
.
As you may be aware the constitution never did provide for the commonwealth of Australia to legislate as to the nationality of any person born within the Commonwealth of Australia as at most within s.51xix) it can legislate as to “naturalization and aliens”.
.
It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; “British subject”, “to make persons subjects of the British Empire.”, “with the consent of the Imperial authority”, “What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.”, “we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.” (Barton 2-3-1898)

See also Calvin’s Case 7 Coke report 1a, 77 ER 377

.
Hence, as you were born in the Commonwealth of Australia can you provide details as to when you naturalised to become a subject of the Queen of Australia or if you in fact still are by birth a “subject of the British Crown” and as such by the Sue v Hill decision are and remain to be ineligible to be a federal Member of Parliament? And likewise with this also provide details of each end every other Member of Parliament born within the Commonwealth of Australia.
.
As I indicated already in the 19 July 2006 litigation that where all lawyers/judges are purportedly to have “Australian citizenship” as some nationality, but such a nationality doesn’t, at least constitutionally, not exist then none of the lawyers/judges are validly appointed and so not even the high Court of Australia judges are either. So, that got rid of them and it means that only the Privy Council could deal with it because any judges of an Australian court would be bias as to having to decide his/her own qualification to be a judge.
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
   Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
   Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: There is no doubt a little difficulty. In the cases of which we have experience, members of parliament are elected by a constituency that may be said to be in permanent session. Here we have to deal with the case of a constituency which is in session only sometimes. We must, therefore, deal specially with it. There cannot be more than eight senators at a time. There will be eight senators and four senators elect; for a senator elect is not a senator until his term begins. There is no reason why a member of the house of representatives should not be elected to be a senator in June; next January he becomes a senator and ceases to be a member of the house of representatives. 
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
  Clause 15. The qualifications of a senator shall be as follows:- 
  (1.) He must be of the full age of thirty years, and must, when chosen, be an elector entitled to vote in some state at the election of members of the house of representatives of the commonwealth, and must have been for five years at the least a resident within the limits of the commonwealth as existing at the time when he is chosen; 
  (2.) He must be either a natural born subject of the Queen, or a subject of the Queen naturalised by or under a law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the parliament of one of the said colonies, or of the parliament of the commonwealth or of a state. 
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE   Mr. BARTON.-
. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained;
END QUOTE
.
While I appreciate that James Faulkner PSM responded on your behalf I do however require more appropriate details as to the precise oaths/affirmations, etc.
.
As I also indicated above the commonwealth of Australia has legislative powers as to naturalization of aliens but does the constitutional Policy Unit really understand/comprehend that this is constitutionally limited to being on behalf of the British Crown and unless and until We, the people, vote for approval of a s128 referendum to change this (that is if this is possible in the first place, something I am not going into now) to change this then it remains that people purportedly naturalized to subjects of the Queen of Australia actually are and remain to be “subjects of the British crown”, meaning by the High Court of Australia’s Sue v Hill decision they all are too “foreigners and not qualified to be a federal Member of Parliament.
.
Now who says that the constitution is boring?
.
Awaiting for your full cooperation and early response,
.
Signed
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
.
24-12-2009
 
 
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, GUARDIAN
(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 61394577209
.
Email; mayjusticealwaysprevail@schorel-hlavka.com 
help@office-of-the-guardian.com (constitutional matters only)
 
"CONSTITUTIONALIST" and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues. 
.
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON'T!
 
.
Website;
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
Blog;
http://profiles.yahoo.com/inspector_rikati
 
 

"JUSTICE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER AND CLOUDED BY HIS/HER SIGHT DEFICIENCY" .

QUOTE email 24-12-2009 to Kevin Rudd PM


Those who do not have a PayPal account but still wish to purchase one of more books they can still use PayPal if they have a MasterCard, etc, and in the alternative forward a cheque as payment. See details below.
.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® 

(Our name is our motto.)                  
.
.
QUOTE 25-12-2009 CORRESPONDENCE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Kevin Rudd PM                                                                                                      25-12-2009
C/o R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au
.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.                                                                                          Re: Oath of allegiance - etc
Kevin,
I understood that way back in the late 1940’s the British Parliament held that Australians are “foreigners” and then the commonwealth of Australia started to legislate as to nationality/citizenship as being Australian citizenship. Just that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, and considering what I already previously wrote to you am wondering when was a referendum held successfully to provide the Commonwealth of Australia the legislative powers it was specifically denied by the Framers of the Constitution and so at the time by the people of the colonies that voted to accept the constitution?
As the British courts themselves have made clear in their judgments that a constitution act (such as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) can only be amended I by way of a proposed amendments to the constitution and not by an ordinary act. Hence, unless the Constitution was amended by approval of the electors within the provisions of s128 of the constitution it seems to me that as Barton stated;
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
   Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. 
END QUOTE
.
Below I will quote some other relevant statements in regard of the true meaning of “Australian citizenship” and it has nothing to do with “nationality” as well as that as I indicated in my previous correspondence (such as dated 24-12-2009) that one can’t allow to twist the meaning of the constitution as to infringe upon it. No one is above the constitution.
.
In 2000 I applied for a passport and as yet still have not received a passport that shows that I am a British subject. I did receive some document purporting Australia nationality but that obviously has no constitutional validity and I did request to have a proper passport issued and I am still awaiting for a response.
.
The problem with an “alien” as I was at the time coming into the Commonwealth of Australia in 1971 was that I simply had to learn the English language and it just means I had to do it on my own and trying to work out the meaning of words, etc. Because of this I seem to have a different perception of what is constitutionally appropriate, because I am not so to say brainwashed to belief in gospel but rather seeks to discover what is reality and what is fiction.
.
Because the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill made clear that Heather Hill was a foreigner being a subject of the British Crown, then obviously I take the view that as all Australians, born or naturalized are therefore subjects of the British Crown we simply do not have anyone eligible to be a federal Member of Parliament. Hence the reasons of my request about what oaths every Member of Parliament made!
.

QUOTE 20-12-2009 reply

                                                                                              Australian Government
                                                                                               Attorney-General’s Department
 
08/14534, MC09/20998
 
20 December 2009-12-24
 
 
Mr G H Schorel-Hlavka
107 Graham Road
VIEWBANK VIC 3084
 
Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
 
I refer to your email of 2 November 2009 to the Prime Minister, forwarded to the Attorney-General, regarding the oaths and affirmations of office sworn by ministers in the Australian Government. I have been asked to reply to your correspondence.
.
All members of the Commonwealth Parliament are required to subscribe the oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Queen of Australia set out in the Schedule to the Australian constitution. That is required by section 42 of the Constitution. Oaths and affirmations of office sworn, in addition, by ministers are not, so far as I am aware, expressed in terms of allegiance to the Prime Minister (or any other minister). Rather, each minister (including the Prime Minister), gives a commitment in terms of the particular office he or she holds (for example, the office of the prime minister, or the office of the Attorney-General, etc).
 
I trust this information is of assistance.
 
Yours sincerely
 
James Faulkner PSM
Assistant Secretary
Constitutional Policy Unit.

END QUOTE 20-12-2009 reply

.
It seems to me that if current federal Members of Parliament made an oath to the Queen of Australia then none of them are entitled to be in the Federal Parliament because this is under the British Crown. The reason we have a constitution is so that politicians in parliament are being told they have only those legislative powers actually provided to them and they may fancy to have more but they cannot have it as to do otherwise they are no less TERRORIST then those who are robbing people of their rights otherwise.
.

HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. BARTON.-Yes. The Queen is the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army. She has the sole power of making peace and war. According to constitutional assumption it is her army. But who exercises the control of the Imperial Army? Is it not the adviser of the Queen? Would there not, as I said before, be a revolution if the Queen exercised her powers without consulting her Ministers?
END QUOTE
.
Lets be honest, the Framers of the Constitution wouldn’t have bothered to create a constitution and refer to the imperial army and use other imperial references if it was not relevant. So, the truth is we are “subjects of the British Crown” and will always remain so unless this is constitutionally in a proper manner amended. Sure we may have ample of so to say zombies running around pretending that it is differently, but we must always keep in mind that either we have or we don’t have a constitution but it isn’t going to be a constitution on the terms of politicians1
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
   Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE

.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-

In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.

END QUOTE

.
As such you and fellow ministers may continue to disregard matters but let I make it very clear that the only legitimate powers you and others can exercise is that which was stated by Barton as follows:
.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE

.

And as they also stated;
.
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
   Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Mr. OCONNOR.-

We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.

END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
             Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament. 

END QUOTE

.
HANSARD 18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
 

QUOTE    Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,

END QUOTE

.
Hence, I seek you to show where in the constitution was any legislative powers listed for the Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare citizenship?
.

HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
  Dr. QUICK.-I am disposed to think that there ought to be something in the nature of a definition in the Constitution. In my mind, a reasonably approximate definition would be that which I have drafted, to the effect that all persons resident in the Commonwealth, being natural-born or naturalized subjects of the Queen, and not under any disability imposed by the Federal Parliament, should be citizens of the Commonwealth. That is not a complete definition, it is only an approximation of what I consider a definition. The conditions of citizenship seem to me to be that the citizen shall be either a natural-born or naturalized subject of Her Majesty the Queen, and resident within the Commonwealth, and that he shall not be under any disability imposed by the Federal Parliament.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE   Dr. QUICK.-
Therefore, it is desirable that the Constitution should define the class of persons for whom these rights and privileges would be gained. By placing in the Constitution a definition of citizenship, or by providing for its creation, we do not interfere with the citizenship of the states, which I propose to leave exclusively within the jurisdiction of the states themselves, nor do we interfere with that wider relationship which affects us all as subjects of Her Majesty and members of the great British Empire. We are affected by this relationship by virtue of our position as British subjects.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE

   Mr. SYMON.-Then I think they ought to. The whole object of legislating for aliens is that there should be uniformity. 

   Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They would not have that in the Federal Council. 

   Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament. 

   Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not? 

   Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the amendment will not be accepted. 
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
   Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but the term has since disappeared, and it disappeared owing to objections from members of the Convention. I am inclined to think that the Convention is right in not applying [start page 1765] the term "citizens" to subjects residing in the Commonwealth or in the states, but in leaving them to their ordinary definition as subjects of the Crown. If, however, we make an amendment of this character, inasmuch as citizens of the state must be citizens of the Commonwealth by the very terms of the Constitution, we shall simply be enabling the Commonwealth to deal with the political rights of the citizens of the states. The one thing follows from the other. If you once admit that a citizen or subject of the state is a citizen or subject of the Commonwealth, the power conferred in these wide terms would enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the political rights of subjects of the states. I do not think the honorable member intends to go so far as that, but his amendment is open to that misconception. 
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
   Mr. BARTON.-If the honorable member's exclamation means more than I have explained, then the best thing to do is to confide to the Commonwealth the right of dealing with the lives, liberty, and property of all the persons residing in the Commonwealth, independently of any law of any state. That is not intended, but that is what the expression "Trust the Federal Parliament" would mean unless it was limited by the consideration I have laid down. I am sure Dr. Quick will see that he is using a word that has not a definition in English constitutional law, and which is not otherwise defined in this Constitution. He will be giving to the Commonwealth Parliament a power, not only of dealing with the rights of citizenship, but of defining those rights even within the very narrowest limits, so that the citizenship of a state might be worth nothing; or of extending them in one direction, and narrowing them in another, so that a subject living in one of the states would scarcely know whether he was on his head or his heels. Under the Constitution we give subjects political rights to enable the Parliament to legislate with regard to the suffrage, and pending that legislation we give the qualification of electors. It is that qualification of electors which is really the sum and substance of political liberty, and we have defined that. If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament." 

   Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize. 

   Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and in doing that we give them power to make persons subjects of the British Empire. Have we not done enough? We allow them to naturalize aliens. That is a power which, with the consent of the Imperial authority, has been carried into legislation by the various colonies, and, of course, we cannot do less for the Commonwealth than we have done for the colonies. 

   Mr. KINGSTON.-Such legislation is only good within the limits of each state. 

   Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the states. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page 1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states. We do not propose to interfere with them in this Constitution.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
  Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I see therefore nothing unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British subjects, in proposing to place power in this Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the question of federal citizenship. An objection has been raised in various quarters-as by the honorable and learned members (Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Wise)-to the effect that we ought to define federal citizenship in the Constitution itself.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE

   Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union. 

  Question-That the proposed new sub-section (31A) be inserted-put. 

  The committee divided- 

  Ayes ... ... ... 15 

  Noes ... ... ... 21 

          Majority against Dr. Quick's

          amendment ... ... 6 

 
END QUOTE
.
Did you notice that the amendment of Dr Quick was defeated to have the Commonwealth being granted legislative powers as to define/declare citizenship?
Now, I am well aware that you have been traveling the world as to try to achieve perhaps grandeur things such as the ETS (for which there is no constitutional powers – if this interest you?) but really wouldn’t it be better if instead you had bothered to check what really the constitution stands for as now it seems to me that we do not have a single validly appointed federal Member of Parliament.
.
As author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and other legal issues I have canvassed extensively numerous other constitutional issues and when they were raised in the 5-year epic legal battle between the Commonwealth of Australia and myself, including a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS) then the Commonwealth lawyers and neither the state Attorney-Generals opposed any of my numerous submissions about constitutional issues and the court on 19 July 2006 unreservedly upheld both my cases. As such, I took the matters to the courts and succeeded to comprehensively defeat the Commonwealth on each and every constitutional issue. Hence, more then three years on and a total ignorance as to the purported federal government seeking to resolve matters appropriately and having failed to contact me for this purpose it is therefore clear to me that there will be no attempts made to do so.
As I understand it the constitution does provided for;
QUOTE
An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of
Australia
[9th July 1900]
WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia,
Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God,
have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the
Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the
Constitution hereby established:
END QUOTE
.
The problem with this is that if there are no validly appointed federal Members of Parliament then there can be no federation! Remember the Woods case?
What we therefore have is that we have a pretended federation that is no more.
.
QUOTE
107 Saving of Power of State Parliaments
Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become or
becomes a State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution exclusively
vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from
the Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the
Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the
State, as the case may be.
 
108 Saving of State laws
Every law in force in a Colony which has become or becomes a
State, and relating to any matter within the powers of the
Parliament of the Commonwealth, shall, subject to this
Constitution, continue in force in the State; and, until provision is
made in that behalf by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, the
Parliament of the State shall have such powers of alteration and of
repeal in respect of any such law as the Parliament of the Colony
had until the Colony became a State.
 
109 Inconsistency of laws
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the
Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the
extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
END QUOTE
.
As far as I understand it Commonwealth legislation is not legally enforceable unless and until it received royal assent and is gazetted. The problem is that when Isaacs was appointed as Governor-General the very legal link to validate proposed laws passed by the federal Parliament no longer were validly assented to. I will not bother setting this all out in this correspondence because I have already done so extensively in my published books.
It means that s109 no longer applies to any purported legislation since 19030, including taxation provisions.What has been achieved is to create a so to say BANANA REPUBLIC where the RULE OF LAW really doesn’t exist. You have achieved to be prime banana of the so-called BANANA REPUBLIC!
So to say the Framers of the Constitution would turn in their graves if they knew what you were doing to their constitution!
All you, and others likewise, are ensuring is that perhaps sooner then later there will be a VELVET REVOLUTION that people will take no more and demand that their constitutional rights are appropriately provided for, as after all the constitution belongs to them!
There are (purported) Members of Parliament which were born before this whole “foreigner” nonsense commenced and there can be no doubt that they were then recognized as being British subjects and somehow despite this they sit in the federal parliament even so Heather Hill likewise having the same birthright was kicked out by the High Court of Australia for being ineligible to be a member of parliament. Then ask yourself when did the others naturalize? Or did they never but merely ASSUMED they had somehow naturalized to a queen of the toilet or whatever because Australia is not a country but a landmass and constitutionally is;

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-

In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.

END QUOTE

.

As such, if there is no monarchy there can be no “Queen of Australia”.
If the title of “Queen of Australia” really means the British Crown then Heather Hill clearly was qualified to be a Member of Parliament.
So, make up your mind which way it is! Again consider Calvin’s case 7 coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377 (1608), which I view sets it out considerably.
QUOTE
4. And as to the fourth, it is less than a dream of a shadow, or a shadow of a dream: for it hath been often said, natural legitimation respecteth actual obedience to the sovereign at the time of the birth; for as the antenati remain aliens as to the Crown of England, because they were born when there were several Kings of the several kingdoms, and the [7-Coke-27 b] uniting of the kingdoms by descent subsequent cannot make him a subject to that Crown to which he was alien at the time of his birth: so albeit the kingdoms (which Almighty God of his infinite goodness and mercy divert) should by descent be divided, and governed by several Kings; yet it was resolved, that all those that were born under one natural obedience while the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural born subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright, cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by judgment of law a natural subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a matter ex post facto.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE

3. Where the King hath several kingdoms by several titles and descents, there also are the ligeances several: but the King hath these two kingdoms by several titles and descents; therefore the ligeances are several. These three arguments are collected also from the words of the plea before remembered.

3. Leges. From the several and distinct laws of either kingdom, they did reason thus: 1. Every subject that is born out of the extent and reach of the laws of England, cannot by judgment of those laws be a natural subject to the King, in respect of his kingdom of England: but the plaintiff was born at Edinburgh, out of the extent and reach of the laws of England; therefore the plaintiff by the judgment of the laws of England cannot be a natural subject to the' King, as of his kingdom of England.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
By all which it is manifest, that the protection and government of the King is general over all his dominions and kingdoms, as well in time of peace by justice, as in time of war by the sword, and that all be at his command, and under his obedience.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though the King f' England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And therefore if any of the King's ambassadors in foreign nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the common laws of England they are natural-born subjects, and yet they are born out-of the King's dominions. But if enemies should come into any of the King's dominions, and surprise any castle or fort, and [7-Coke-18 b] possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the King's ligeance or obedience. But the time of his (a) birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the King of England, unless at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the King. And that is the reason that antenati in Scotland (for that at the time of their birth they were under the ligeance and obedience, of another King) are aliens born, in respect of the time of their birth.
END QUOTE
.
Again
QUOTE
yet it was resolved, that all those that were born under one natural obedience while the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural born subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright, cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by judgment of law a natural subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a matter ex post facto.
END QUOTE
.
Despite that for years on end I refuse to vote in elections, refuse to provide tax returns, etc, no more are they taking me to court after the 19 July 2006 debacle when I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia on all constitutional issues I raised because the first issue is which judge is validly appointed to adjudicate where there is really not a single judge as such! And which legislation is validly enacted when the very legal bond required by the constitution for royal assent to be given hasn’t existed since Isaacs became Governor-General? Which lawyer can act for the commonwealth when not a single lawyer is validly appointed lacking to have the “Australian citizenship” so much required for being validly appointed?
You see, I have over the years calmly worked on this all and while I am aware politicians are all about using power, no matter how unlawful, I have slowly been working on how to expose it all.
Do you take the position you are not a subject of the British Crown by birth? As if you take this position then clearly you cannot be a federal Member of Parliament. Do you claim to be under the Queen of Australia? A non existing fictional entity well then get your monies from her as the constitution only permits payment from the British Crown
.
QUOTE
66 Salaries of Ministers
There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated
Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the
Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament
otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a
year.
END QUOTE
.
Did you notice that the wording “until the Parliament otherwise provides” actually is relating to the amount only and not as to the payment to the Queen.
.
What this means is that if you have your fictional Queen then get your salary from her and we taxpayers will saves ourselves a lot of money. You cannot claim monies from one Queen but pretend she no longer is applicable and then serve another Queen!
One thing is however clear to me that even if somehow Australia or better to state the commonwealth of Australia were to become a REPUBLIC the real abuses and misuses will not stop because as long as we do not have a properly constituted constitution bench (which the High Court of Australia really isn’t even so it was to be) and a constitutional committee that first check any proposed legislation as to any constitutional conflicts we will continue to suffer of abuse and misuse of power because ordinary the people have little to no chance to succeed against unconstitutional conduct.
While the State of Victoria now also seeks to replace charges against a citizen from “Queen” to the “DPP” the truth is that such charges have no legal basis because the States are created from the former colonies within s106 of the constitution and by this are bound to have charges in the name of the Monarch. Legislation must be enacted with Royal Assent.
As such, you cannot have a FICTIONAL queen giving Royal Assent and some other person, who himself may be a lawbreaker then in his name conducting litigation. The entire legal system rest upon the premises that the queen can do no wrong, other then where the constitution specifically provides otherwise, and it is more then just a symbol.
Take for example the former judge of the High Court of Australia Michael Kirby who I understood in breach of State law resided in a homosexual relationship and yet was adjudicating from the bench punishing people for breach of law. Surely this is hypercriticism? That is why you need to have some identity that we take as being not likely a lawbreaker and the Monarch is for this the more appropriate person. It is the monarch in whose name all legislation is enacted and therefore in the name of the monarch charges are to be laid.
One day one may find that all people charged and convicted by charges in the name of the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) will all be NULL AND VOID and then criminals will not just walk free from prisons but be able to sue for unlawful detention!
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE

   Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE

   Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.

END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
   Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
QUOTE
.
Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to refutation if I am wrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but, indisputably, the great bulk of them, are subjects on which no question of state rights and state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is, as the right hon. gentleman admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be left for all time to be determined in a purely states house, or by a state referendum, when those questions are not state questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on national lines, and by a national referendum

END QUOTE
.

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a Federal Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government. 

   Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear. 

   Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter of the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is, the same circumstances remain in part; but where you will have a tribunal constantly charged with the maintenance of the Constitution against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by Parliament, then it is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might be dangerous to the Constitution itself.
END QUOTE

.

I can very well understand that politicians desire to ever expand their power base but lets keep in mind that doing so in a lawful manner cannot be objectionable but when politicians are doing this in a unlawful manner and then let it to the people to try to counter act this then the politicians no longer are serving the community but are using TYRRANY and DICTATORSHIP and forgetting that the power base they are creating by this may soon or later come to haunt if not themselves then their family. We have seen this in so many countries that one would do better to avoid such unlawful power base being created.
.
Those who made an oath are by their own conduct proven to be not worth the paper upon which the oath was written upon because they lack dignity and reliability and are in my view no less criminals then those who are put before the courts and are convicted.
You and others may pursue a REPUBLIC of some kind but if you do then let it be in a proper lawful manner and not trying to use so to say backdoor manners. Personally I couldn’t care less one way or another what is, so to say, at the end of the tunnel as all I care about is that whatever is done is done in an appropriate manner, and this is as I view it not being done.
People who therefore are setting up their own principalities or whatever else in my view may very well be right if the Commonwealth of Australia no longer operates under the umbrella of the constitution. Any de facto government acting under a Queen of Australia has no legitimately.
The federal government cannot claim that the constitution applies to everyone but to itself.
The Commonwealth cannot claim that somehow WorkChoices legislation applies because of s51(xx) but then ignores what the intentions of the Framers of the constitution stated: “. For instance, our factory laws are left to the state.”!
.
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us. We are going into a Federation for certain specific subjects. Each state at present has the power to impose religious laws. I want to leave that power with the state; I will not disturb that power; but I object to give to the Federation of Australia a tyrannous and over-riding power over the whole of the people of Australia as to what day they shall observe for religious reasons, and what day they shall not observe for that purpose. The state of Victoria will be able to pass any Sunday law it likes under my scheme. It can pass any law of that sort now; but surely it is a proper thing for a state, and it is not a proper thing for the Commonwealth, to exercise this power. I feel that honorable members who value state rights reserved [start page 1736] to the states, who value the preservation of the individuality of the states for state purposes, will agree with me that it is with the state we ought to leave this power, and that we ought not to intrust it to the Commonwealth. For instance, our factory laws are left to the state. Those laws provide for a certain number of hours of rest, and that employes shall not work on Sundays, and so forth. If we leave the factor laws to the state we should also leave this question of the observance of Sunday to the state. I will not take it from them. At the same time, I am not going, no matter what the consequences are, to help to intrust this power to the Commonwealth. I want the people of the different states to manage their own affairs as well as they can.
END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

 QUOTE  Mr. SYMON.-

The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs.

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE   Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-

We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That would be an absolute impossibility in the different states. 

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE

   Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place where the contract was made.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question. 

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE   Sir JOHN DOWNER.-

The people of the various states make their own contracts amongst themselves, and if in course of their contractual relations disagreements arise, and the state chooses to legislate in respect of the subject-matter of them, it can do so.

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. SYMON.-Why should you interfere with the laws in the different colonies affecting the relations of masters and servants, which are purely a matter of domestic legislation? Why should you hand over that purely state function to the federal authority? 

END QUOTE

.
Again, I acknowledge my English is so to say “crummy English” but I for pone cannot accept that the High Court of Australia judges were competent in constitutional matters when despite the above quotations they by withholding/concealing these relevant quotations held that the so called WorkChoices legislation was constitutionally valid. What to me it rather indicates is a treasonous High court of Australia that is not at all interested in appropriately adjudicating on constitutional matters but has commenced to so to say amend the constitution by how it hands down judgments.
.
The question now remains if you are nevertheless going to continue the rot or you are indeed a man of credibility and seek to rectify matters so that the Commonwealth of Australia operates within the confinements of the constitution and that those who desire to do otherwise are given a clear message that as long as they pursue it in a lawful manner then there is no problem.
In the mean time I look forwards to you ensuring I am provided with all relevant details including which federal Member of Parliament was born and where under the British Crown or otherwise, and if they naturalized or not and if there was any oath of allegiance they made in conflict to their natural birth rights as subject of the British Crown, etc.
.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)


END QUOTE 25-12-2009 CORRESPONDENCE
.
.
.
QUOTE EMAIL RE RELIGION-ETC
constitution guarantees religious freedom! - Fw: Email to the Prime Minister

Saturday, 3 October, 2009 11:50:46 PM

 

From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka  

 

To:  Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au

 

Cc:  inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au

 
 

Malcolm Turnbull, Leader of the Oppostion

 

Malcolm,

              I have grave concerns about the purported statements by Kevin Rudd as to religious issues. The Framers of the Constitution guaranteed relgious freedom and any clamp down on religion one way or another as it is unconstitutional in the Federal setting to do so.

.

The States themselves have the legislative power to legislate as to religious matters however not as to aliens as they fall under the federal compact and the Commonwealth cannot legislate for them either in regard of relgion. This email would not allow me to set it all out but sufficient to say I am concerned about Kevin as Prime Minister going into a rant about relgion where many people who practice religions are never heard off being involved in any kind of criminal matters.

.

Also, I understand that most terrorism is in fact not religious based! The last thing we desire is some kind of religious persecution and it would be better if you were to counsel Kevin that this kind of ranting isn't going to resolve anything and is unconstitutional. for federal purposes no one yhas to disclose religious involvement one way or another as this I pursued in the Courts successfully  and the Commonwealth didn not then even submitt any challenge to this and was totally defeated by me. therefore let Kevin Rudd also observe the RULE OF LAW as no one is above the law!

.

Again, the Constitutional Policy Unit sneeds to be drastically overhauled so a Prime minister can at least obtain some proper and applicable advise as to how the constitution applies.

.

Gerrit

.

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

.

3-10-2009

 

.

 

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, GUARDIAN

(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)

107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia

Ph (International) 61394577209

.

Email; mayjusticealwaysprevail@schorel-hlavka.com 

help@office-of-the-guardian.com (constitutional matters only)

 

"CONSTITUTIONALIST" and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues. 

.

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON'T!

 

.

Website;

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com

Blog;

http://profiles.yahoo.com/inspector_rikati

 

 

"JUSTICE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER AND CLOUDED BY HIS/HER SIGHT DEFICIENCY" .

 
 
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "info@pm.gov.au"
To: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Sent: Saturday, 3 October, 2009 11:31:24 PM
Subject: Email to the Prime Minister [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Thank you for your message to the Prime Minister at www.pm.gov.au.

Below is a copy for your records.

Responses prepared to your message will generally be emailed to you. If you have supplied a postal address, a response may be sent to you via Australia Post. In some cases, your message may 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 http://www.pm.gov.au/Site_Feedback

Submitted on 03 October 2009

  Title: Mr
  First Name: Gerrit
  Last Name: Schorel-Hlavka
  Email Address: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
  Street Address: 107 Graham Road
  Suburb/City: Viewbank
  State: Victoria
  Postcode/Zip: 3084
  Country: Australia
  Subject: constitution guarantees religious freedom!
  Comment:

Kevin Rudd, PM

Cc: Mr Malcolm Turnbulll
.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
Kevin I received details as to what you allegedly stated recently. I will quote it below and then comment upon it, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST!
.
QUOTE
Quote:
'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. '
.
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'
.
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'
.
'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'
.
'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'..'

.
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE  Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-
If under a Constitution in which no such words as these appear such legislation has been carried, what further danger will arise from inserting the words in our Constitution? I do not see, speaking in ordinary language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is necessarily a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of Almighty God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews, Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and are not necessarily applicable only to Christians.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
As the framers of the constitution made clear is any religious practice were to be unlawful then the criminal law would deal with this but they didn’t want a federation that persecute people for religion.
.
As to state “because God is part of our culture” this is not applicable in regard of the Commonwealth of Australia because it is a POLITICAL UNION specifically prohibiting any issues regarding religion.
.
Mind you, during the 5-year epic legal battle between the Crown (Commonwealth of Australia) and myself I raised this religious issue bit and the Crown failed whatsoever to challenge this and it is therefore a bit rich, so to say, the Crown having comprehensively lost the case on 19 July 2006 it now somehow seeks to nevertheless argue otherwise.
.
Regardless of my religious background I do not practice religion and make clear to people of all religions don’t try to shove down my throat your kind of religious beliefs.
As you became Prime Minister under the constitution then I expect you honour the constitution and the legal principles embedded in it.
.
By all means deal with law breakers in a legal manner but leave religion out of it.
.
Unlike you I was not born in the Commonwealth of Australia but unlike you I do not desire to disregard the constitutional rights and freedoms embed in it as our democracy depends upon it. You are no better then those you seek to so to say cast your spell upon if you disregard constitutional guaranteed freedoms.
.
Again, the parliament can , for so far it deems appropriate, legislate as to criminal matters but do not try to score political points by attacking and offending people because they may not accept your kind of God. They have a constitutional right to all together reject any God or to have their own religious principles and customs and they have the guaranteed freedom embedded in the constitution and as the Framers of the constitution made clear if a religious conduct is offending criminal law then the relevant State can deal with it through its courts.
.
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!
.
Keep religion out of politics altogether and accept that you do not have a claim as to which god, if any, is the right one. There are ample of peace loving Australians who live under Shari law without offending any criminal provisions and there are those living under Christian religious conduct are mutilating children with their practices (for example circumcission)and as such let no one claim to be better in religion!
.
A Prime Minister must advice and assist the Governor-General without bias to political and certainly not religious views! If you cannot accept that then as you stated (WITH AMENDMENTS):
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the “CONSTITUTION” YOU accepted, or let someone else be Prime Minister who shows appropriate respect for the political and religious freedoms guaranteed by the constitution!
.
Gerrit
.
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
.
3-10-2009

 END QUOTE RE RELIGION -ETC

Please note that when I stand as a candidate in an election, at
my age, it is not trying to build on being elected for a future
career rather that I seek to represent the real interest of
electors, if elected.
.
The only political part (then existing) I was ever a member of
was the now defunct "The Age and Disability Pensions Party".
.
I oppose compulsory voting, and indeed succeeded in the
County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 when I opposed
to be compelled to vote. I am not against voting but
against compulsory voting.
.
I am also against the so called "deposit" to be able to nominate as a candidate in an election, as I view anyone, regardless of financial position, as such also the poor should be able to stand as a candidate in an election.
.
QUOTE 29 May 2009 email

Contact your PM: your message was successfully submitted [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Friday, 29 May, 2009 4:40 PM

From:

"autoreply@pm.gov.au"

To:

inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au


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:
inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au

Postal Address: 107 Graham Road Viewbank Victoria 3084 Australia

Subject: Funding & WEIGHT AND MEASURES

Comment: Kevin,

For years I have promoted the creation of the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN albeit neither the federal government or any state government really showed any interest in the project. Then when I announced on 18 May 2009 via email to proceed myself to set this up the Centre for Human Rights on 19 may 2009 then registered “
Http://www.officeoftheguardian.com” seemingly at to undermine my work as a CONSTITUTIONALIST. As such abusing and misusing its funding for ulterior purposes.
QUOTE
http://www.godaddy.com/domains/searchresults.aspx?ci=13664
Administrative Contact:
Human Rights, Centre
domain-clients@freedbms.net
Centre For Human Rights
POBox M49
Marrickville South, New South Wales 2204
Australia
61295586231
END QUOTE
.
Hence I use the hyphens in the title as an alternative.
.
Today launching the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (albeit its internal structure is still being worked upon) you can have the luck to be provided with its very first statement.
Considering the tens of millions of dollars on outstanding fines all now subject to being questionable to their validity due to the non-compliance with Commonwealth legislation obviously will so to say cost the States/Territories a lot more then had they long ago taken it more serious to set up the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN.
.
The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN will (as is intended) set up education facilities so that all politicians, lawyers (including judges) and others will be able to learn about the true meaning and application of the Constitution.
.
Hence, my request hereby to provide funding for this.
.
It ought to be clear it doesn’t serve either the Commonwealth and or the States/Territories to pursue conduct that turns out to be unconstitutional and for this the cost of funding the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, to advise the Government, the People, the Parliament and the courts as to constitutional powers and limitations would be a far better way to pursue.
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
   Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
   Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
   Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
Again;  “therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.”
Clearly the need for the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN has been demonstrated time and again.
.
I now quote the email and the correspondence to Premier John Brumby;
QUOTE Email 09-05-29
See attachment; 090529-02-WEIGHT AND MEASURES
Friday, 29 May, 2009 3:58 PM
From:

"Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka" <
inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>

To:
john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc:
inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au, premiers@ministerial.qld.gov.au, wa-government@dpc.wa.gov.au, judy.jackson@justice.tas.gov.au, ramsay@parliament.sa.gov.au, governor-general@gg.gov.au, chiefminister.nt@nt.gov.au, premiers.master@premiers.qld.gov.au, thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au
Message contains attachments
090529-02-WEIGHT AND MEASURES.pdf (242KB)


Premier John Brumby & TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN               29-5-2009
John.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au
.
John,,

See attachment; 090529-02-WEIGHT AND MEASURES
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
.
29-5-2009
.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 61394577209


"CONSTITUTIONALIST" and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues.
.
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON'T!

.
Website;
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
Blog;
http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH .


"JUSTICE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER AND CLOUDED BY HIS/HER SIGHT DEFICIENCY" .
END QUOTE Email 09-05-29
.
QUOTE correspondence 090529
Premier John Brumby & TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN            29-5-2009
John.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au
.
John,,
       I received various emails headed “Major speeding fine breakthrough!” but there appears to me to be a misconception as to what is or isn’t applicable. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK) provides in Subsection 51(xv) “weights and measures”, and this means that therefore any weight and measures legislation only is valid if enacted through the Federal Parliament, other then any colonial weight and measures legislation that still exist unaltered since federation and/or any State/Territorial weight and measures that were enacted prior to the Commonwealth of Australia legislating for it and then only for so far it doesn’t conflict with any Commonwealth existing weight and measures legislation.
.
Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
  The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
   Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will be exercised.
QUOTE
The decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd, R (on application of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments – Mark (Respondent) v. mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from [2003] EWCA Civ 168 the Court had to consider if the weight and measures of the European Union did override English legislation. The Court held that in view the British parliament had been a party to the signing of the European Union’s Constitution then all and any European Union legislation (within its legislative powers) would override British legislation, and is therefore a clear example that the colonies having accepted the compact of federation by this are bound to the national weight and measures legislation by the Commonwealth and since the Commonwealth commenced to legislate it became exclusive Commonwealth legislative powers and the States/Territories by this no longer could legislate in that regard. In my view it is an error to hold that somehow the States still can legislate in this area of weight and measures as it is now exclusive Commonwealth legislative power. As such, it appears to me as a CONSTITUTIONALIST that all State/Territorial measuring equipments such as radar (speed measurement) devices would be without legal validity if not conforming to federal legislative provisions.
The OFFICE-OF THE-GUARDIAN seeks to facilitate a better understanding regarding constitutional powers and its application and limitations.
.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (GUARDIAN)
END QUOTE correspondence 090529
.
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
   Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.
It is ironic perhaps that so many perceive Iran to be backwards yet they have a system that no legislation comes before the parliament unless first approved by the constitutional council. More then one hundred years after federation not even 7 judges of the High Court of Australia can agree upon what the constitution stands for which underlines the need for the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN to train even those judges who are ought to understand it all!
.
I am looking forwards to your funding cheque as after all considering what was sent overseas, etc (about $40 million) it seems to me the funding of the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN would be a more vital issue as this after all can avoid, in various ways, a lot of waste of taxpayers moneys.
.
Gerrit
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (GUARDIAN)
.
OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN
.
29-5-2009


----------------------------------------------------------------------
 

END QUOTE 29 May 2009 email

YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NEED TO BE PROTECTED
OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN
 
YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS NOT TO BE COMPELLED  TO VOTE!
 

Time and again there are articles by the media about the objection to vote compulsory yet they have ongoing for years on end failed to report the epic legal battle that went on between the Crown and myself concluding in a comprehensive defeat of the Crown in regard of its charges FAILING TO VOTE, on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria.

In my view the media neglected its duty towards the general community to inform it of relevant information at hand.

.

Despite of the comprehensive defeat I caused upon the Crown, Banyule City Council now seeks nevertheless to pursue me for FAILING TO VOTE.

.

Obviously, this upsets my 76-year old wife as she views that once I comprehensively defeated the crown after a 5-year epic legal battle then surely this should have been the end of it and Banyule City Council and others should be bound by this decision. In my view, Banyule City Council is committing CONTEMPT OF COURT by disregarding the courts decision and I view the Courts should not tolerate this and deal with the CEO and others for this.

.

.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Sir JOHN DOWNER.-

I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.

END QUOTE


.
I view the CEAO and others acting for Banyule City Council having been notified about the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria decision cannot disregard this and continue their harassment and stalking upon me but have an obligation to establish what the 19 July 2006 decision was about first of all so as not to act in blatant defiance of the orders.

.

It is not relevant if the State government may have in place certain legislative provisions as I proved that even the Commonwealth legislative provisions were ULTRA VIRES as they were unconstitutional and so without legal force.

.

More over, where neither the Crown in right of the Commonwealth or in rights of the states challenged the 19 July 2006 decision, which was also an elaborate constitutional battle, then they all are bound by it and all and any fines and other cost charged against any elector for allegedly failing to vote in my view was fraudulently pursued as the Crown had an obligation to adhere to the 19 July 2006 decision.

.

What was before the Court at the time in fact was published on 6-7-2006 in;

 
INSPECTOR-RIKATI ®& What is the -Australian way of life- really?

A book on CD on Australian political, religious & other rights

ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3

.

Which in “CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC” had reproduced all relevant material that were before the Court, and a copy of this book was filed as evidence for the 19 July 2006 hearing.

 

As such, Banyule City Council and so its CEO and those others acting for it, cannot excuse themselves that they are not aware of what was before the Court as first of all it is their business to sort out what the case was about as to avoid to defy a court ruling and secondly having been notified by me they cannot disregard this either but are bound to consider this appropriately.

.

Let make it very clear I am not opposed to electors voting but I am opposed first of all against unconstitutional COMPULSORY VOTING as the Framers of the Constitution specifically denied this power to compel anyone to vote, as I placed before the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006.

.

Further, I also then challenged the validity of municipal councils to be “local governments” and as such a municipal council can only hold elections for the purpose of electing councillors for municipality but not to hold elections for councillors for “local government” because constitutionally “local government” is the State government and within Section 106 of the constitution the States are bound by the principles embedded in the constitution.

.

As such, Banyule City Council and neither any other municipal council has a legal standing to litigate in that regard and any orders it purported to obtain through some crooked legal system would be null and void, because the Crown is bound by the DIRECT and COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL those arose of the 19 July 2006 decision of the County Court of Victoria, which being an order in federal jurisdiction therefore applies THROUGHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH.

Where then municipal councils are not constitutionally recognised as a level of government then by this it would fall in the federal jurisdiction challenging its “LEGAL STANDING” to litigate and as such by this bound also by the 19 July 2006 decision of the County Court of Victoria.

The fact that the Victorian Electoral Commission on behalf of Banyule City Council pursues matters makes not one of iota difference because where Banyule City Council has no constitutional standing to hold elections for “local government” then its purported agents neither can have any legal standing, regardless what the State Parliament may have legislated in that regard.

.

The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm

37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."

And

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)

.

As the High Court of Australia in Wakim HCA 27 of 1999 made clear anyone is entitled to disregard a unconstitutional court order.

.

Therefore, Banyule City Council better be careful they do not persist with the harm they are causing, and so also upon my wife by this, as the CEO may just discover he has no immunity for persistently disregarding the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria decision.

.

I placed my cases before the court and the Court adjudicated in my favour against the Crown and as such I am entitled to be without ongoing harassment and if the CEO of Banyule city Council has a problem to understand/comprehend this then he should in my view resign and have a more competent person performing the job.

.

This was an epic legal battle where the might of the Crown was totally and comprehensively defeated on all constitutional issues I raised during the trial and I view every municipal council, state government and also the Commonwealth is bound to accept the decision of the court and not only never again harass any elector about FAILING TO VOTE but also refund all fraudulently obtained fines and other cost.

.

It should be understood that when one makes a constitutional challenge against the validity of legislation then where a court upholds this then the purported legislation never was and as such all fines and other cost since the purported legislation was enacted are refundable to the persons so fined, etc.

.

Take for example Derryn Hinch who I understand refuses to vote because of it may compromise his position. I have no issue with his refusal to vote because he is entitled to do so I have however an issue with that he then was fined to vote where he did no more but exercise his constitutional rights! Hence, he should have refunded all fines and other cost levied against him over the years.

.

The issue isn’t if he care less about getting the monies back but that if it was unconstitutionally obtained from him then it should be paid back, even if he was to have it instead donated to a children hospital or whatever.

.

The same is with the coco pop unconstitutional taxation that was obtained. The Framers of the constitution made clear that if a tax was levied unconstitutionally then the Commonwealth would be bound to refund it. The Commonwealth therefore cannot legislate otherwise to keep the monies but must refund it. If companies who had paid the tax do not regard being entitled to it because they in turn had charged their customers for it then they can always donate it to a children hospital or other charity organization. It does however also underline that the commonwealth never should levy taxation through an intermedia because it should only levy taxes of which it keeps records. The GST also is unconstitutional and neither does the ATO keep records who paid what, but that is another issue I have extensively published already in my books that were published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues.

.

Lets make it very clear the Commonwealth cannot raise taxes on behalf of the States because either it has the legislative powers or the States, not both. As such GST is being raised as a Commonwealth power and it is unconstitutional because it refers to more then two different items being taxed.

.

Getting back however to the issue of VOTING, it should be understood that no elector can be bound to vote in any kind of election! Further, this means no one can ever be fined for failure to vote.

.

The Australian Electoral Commission who actually instituted at the time the litigation against me and was totally defeated nevertheless disregards the courts ruling and this also underlines that the Australian electoral commission is not impartial to conduct fair and proper elections but are a stooge for the Government to fraudulently conduct elections. After all if people were not unconstitutionally forced to vote then the election results might be differently.

.

Likewise do I hold that the square above the line (on ballot papers) in elections is unconstitutional, albeit I am well aware of the High Court of Australia decision in the Abbott case, because the High Court of Australia in its decision totally disregarded the principles embedded in the constitution in that regard. This is also why the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (See http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com (Don’t forget the hyphens!) is to address this and numerous other constitutional issues.

.

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!

.

The rule of law applies as much to the governments and those working for it as it applies to anyone else.

.

EITHER WE HAVE A RULE OF LAW OR WE DON’T!

.

It should also be understood that where there is a religious objection to vote provided for then this would be unconstitutional unless it includes secular objections. This too was well canvassed by me before the courts and indeed so successfully.

As such, anyone who objects for whatever reason on that basis also can refuse to vote  (apart of not being compelled to do so) because the mere objection to vote is sufficient in that regard without any need to explain the grounds of objection.

.

Now, lets go to the article;

.

 
 

http://au.news.yahoo.com/opinion/post/-/nickmccallum/33/66

 
Tuesday June 9, 2009
MAD AS HELL!!!
 
By Nick McCallum
 
It's the most un-democratic oddity in our democracy... compulsory voting.
I have just been fined for not voting in our local council election and I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!
It's just plain ludicrous.
Last November I received a pamphlet in the mail introducing council candidates and outlining their policies.
The candidates were drab and uninteresting, their policies the usual motherhood stuff of 'upgrading services' and 'sustainable development.' Boring, meaningless drivel. I followed the campaign in the local paper. None of them appealed to me. None, I thought, deserved my vote.
So on election day, I did not turn up at a polling booth. I did not vote.
I think what I did was democratic, but it was illegal.
My wife turned up to a booth, knowing little about the candidates and cast a donkey vote. She wrote a number beside each name 1 to 8 from top to bottom.
Her vote and those of so many like her who did not even know what the candidates stood for would have affected the result.
I think what she did was undemocratic, but it was legal.
This week I received a 57 dollar fine from the Electoral Commission for not voting.
What a joke!
In a grown-up, modern western-style democracy like Australia there should be a right to vote and a right NOT to vote if you don't support any of the candidates or their policies in any election whether it be Federal, State or Local.
Australia is the only western democracy that has compulsory voting. America doesn't. Britain doesn't. Even New Zealand doesn't! In those countries candidates have to go out on the hustings and court voters, capture their imaginations, and entice them to the polls with good policies. Wouldn't that be nice here?
Some will say... well you don't HAVE to vote in Australia. You can just go into the polling booth, get your name ticked off and leave . The point is in a democracy you shouldn't have to go through that charade.
Some will say... in America voter turnout is often poor. Well, there it's made worse because of a silly tradition of holding elections on Tuesdays, so voting clashes with work. Fortunately we avoid that problem by holding our elections on Saturdays. Much more sensible.
For the record, I did vote in the last Federal election. I supported the Carers' Party because carers are the unsung and unappreciated heroes of our society. Candidates' appearances on TV and in papers about the plight of their families were heart wrenching. They did what political candidates should do... they captured the imagination of a voter and won his vote.
Legal experts say compulsory voting is not enshrined in the constitution, so we don't need a referendum to get rid of it.
It's a matter of one of our political parties having the guts to adopt a policy of dumping compulsory voting and then getting it through parliament.
Now that's a party I WOULD vote for.
 




Lets make it perfectly clear VOTING IS NOT COMPULSORY and I proved this on 19 July 2006 when the County Court of Victoria ruled against the Crown where it had charged me for FAILING TO VOTE in two federal elections, see also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH.

Now Banyule City Council is pursuing me for not voting and I have made clear they cannot overrule the court order. This email doesn’t allow me to set it all out and so see my blog that details it extensively but laws that are unconstitutional are no laws at all and can be ignored. The issue is however who has the stamina and endurance to litigate for 5 years and to defeat the Crown! I did, as I stand up for my constitutional rights! That is the real issue! See also my books published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues.

 

.

Do understand that laws that are unconstitutional are not laws at all and have no legal force! Hence laws governing compulsory voting that are unconstitutional are no laws at all!

.

.

Again, I defeated the Crown in court previously and yet the media never covered this! Why not?

.

If you really are mad as hell then I expect you and others finally to expose this and publish it.

.

See also http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com and http://www.mayjusticealwaysprevail.com. 

.

Why not follow up my battle with Banyule city council if they are to succeed against me despite of the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria ruling? Then again, a magistrate has no judicial powers to overrule a County Court decision!

.

The real issue is if one has the stamina and determination to stand up for your constitutional and other legal rights. I have but have you?

.

Gerrit

.

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka.

.

9-60-2009

 
 
http://www.3aw.com.au/action/contactUs
 

Thank you for your Comments

  • Your comments have been passed along to the right people - so thank you once again for your feedback.

.

 
 
 

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on VCAT as a STAR CHAMBER & KANGAROO COURT-No1
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on VCAT as a STAR CHAMBER & KANGAROO COURT-No1

A Book on DVD about the injustice upon Mr Francis James Colosimo ISBN 978-0-9803712-7-7
.

(Please note; Pending litigation it is anticipated this book is to be published in June 2009 but can be later)

.

This is a book exposing the scandalous conduct of VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) towards Mr Francis James Colosimo involving numerous lawyers also. How Moorabool Shire Council aided by their solicitors MADDOCKS LAYWERS pursued VEXATIOUS litigation in VCAT against Mr Francis James Colosimo and Her Honour Harbison J at least held some 5 CONTEMPT hearings making known she could imprison Mr Francis James Colosimo allegedly for breaching VCAT orders, this even so she never had formally charged him and neither advised him of his legal rights. This is a person who is a Judge of the County Court of Victoria! One may ask, what is her position to act within the powers of persona designata for the State government where she is a Judge of the County Court of Victoria who is supposed to be and so to be seen as being IMPARTIAL as a judicial officer? On 16 March 2009 I was requested to assist Mr Francis James Colosimo in the 6th hearing before Harbison J and submitted then that Her Honour Harbison J had no powers to do anything! In the end she, so to say, caved in and ordered a PERMANENT STAY of the CONTEMPT proceedings.

.

I pursue a JUDICIAL INQUIRY in to what I view was a CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.

.

It should be understood that not only did VCAT never have jurisdiction and never invoked JURISDICTION but also Moorabool Shire Council by way of notice within section 116 of the Act dated 7 and 17 January 2007 had acknowledged that in fact Mr Francis James Colosimo acted within the provisions of the Building Act 1993 and the Building Regulations 2006 and also within the provisions of the Infringement Act 2006 only a Magistrates Court had jurisdiction!

.

In my view there was an elaborate CONSPIRACY to PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE and we have to consider the following to hold that nothing less then an INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL INQUIRY is required to ascertain what, if any criminal offences were committed.

.

If the STANDING and INTEGRITY of VCAT is indeed so important as to try to justify a term of imprisonment for up to 5-years for Mr Francis James Colosimo then I view at the very least the same must be applied against those who may have deceived Her Honour Harbison J and other members of VCAT.

.

The following quotations should be considered with the fact that both Moorabool Shire Council and their solicitors MADDOCKS LAWYERS knew or should have known that Mr Francis James Colosimo had done no legal wrong and the orders were issued without jurisdiction as well as that they concealed relevant details from Her Honour Harbison J and other members of VCAT!

.

QUOTE (AGAIN) 10-4-2009 CORRESPONDENCE

Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)

QUOTE

"As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court."

END QUOTE

Again;

QUOTE

He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case.

END QUOTE

.

Ms Foley, as recorded in the transcript of 29 May 2008 before Her Honour Harbison J at page 57 at line 17;

QUOTE

It is submitted the contempt of the tribunal in this case is a serious matter. It’s not trivial or minor. The contempt has not been inadvertent or unintentional, but has been wilful. The council has spent a great deal of time, effort and the funds of ratepayers in an effort to bring the land into conformity with the scheme.

END QUOTE

Ms Foley, as recorded in the transcript 14 February 2008 at page 25 Ms Foley at 25 to page 26 line 2;;

QUOTE

Paragraph 54, I submit the fact that the tribunal is a statutory tribunal required by s.98 of the Act to conduct itself with little formality and technicality as possible should not be regarded as a licence to disregard the authority of the tribunal and to ignore compliance with its orders. If there’s some sort of suggestion that they’re somehow lesser authority because they don’t come from a court I would submit that that should not be the approach that’s adopted.

END QUOTE

Ms Foley, as recorded in the transcript 14 February 2008 at page 26 Ms Foley at 7

QUOTE

I submit that the status and integrity of the judicial and administrative structures upon which our society depend upon, respect for authority for the law and the orders made pursuant to those laws. Council submits that it’s important the tribunal’s contempt powers are used in appropriate occasions to preserve the authority and standing of the tribunal.

END QUOTE

Ms Foley, as recorded in the transcript of 29 May 2008 before Her Honour Harbison J at page 57 at line 17;

QUOTE

It is submitted the contempt of the tribunal in this case is a serious matter. It’s not trivial or minor. The contempt has not been inadvertent or unintentional, but has been wilful.

END QUOTE

Again;

QUOTE

the fact that the tribunal is a statutory tribunal required by s.98 of the Act to conduct itself with little formality and technicality as possible should not be regarded as a licence to disregard the authority of the tribunal and to ignore compliance with its orders.

END QUOTE

THE SAME APPLIES TO PROPER LEGAL STANDARDS in particular regarding the rights of an unrepresented Defendant facing up to 5-years imprisonment. Well indeed let this be applied but now against Ms Foley herself and her instructing solicitors and their clients. As well as VCAT itself as; What is good for the goose is good for the Gander.

END QUOTE 10-4-2009 CORRESPONDENCE

.

Therefore, where it now turns out that Mr Francis James Colosimo actually had done no legal wrong and Moorabool Shire Council and its solicitors MADDOCKS LAWYERS, as I view it CONSPIRED to PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE then criminal prosecutions are not only desired but warranted.

.

I understand that Mr Francis James Colosimo desires to seek about $10 million compensation and quite frankly I view he should be entitled to every cent because of what they did to this man and the manner they did it.

.

One also may question the conduct of the Office of the Public Advocate to be involved in the case and did nothing at all to expose this or not being aware of this rot! Likewise so Victorian Legal Aid who refused to assist!

.

One also has to question the conduct of State Trustees Limited to have a document signed on behalf of Mr Francis James Colosimo in fragrant breach of the 27 January 2009 orders!

.

While by way of the 27 January 2009 pronounced orders the files should have been provided to me upon my written request (I made on 28 January 2009) nevertheless since then the files have been implicatively refused to be provided seemingly as to obstruct the course of justice to prevent me to further expose rot that went on.

.

Further, despite a request to correct within the slip rule the incorrectly 27 January 2009 sealed orders this too was ignored/refused.

.

As to the mentality of VCAT might be shown that on 13 March 2009 I provided an email to Mr David Harbison associate of Her Honour Harbison J and subsequently phoned him to adjourn the 16 march 2009 CONTEMPT hearing as was indicated by senior VCAT member Ms Preuss on 27 January 2009 (upon my submission) only for Mr David Harbison to make clear that even if Mr Francis James Colosimo was in hospital the CONTEMPT proceedings would nevertheless go ahead! And on 20 march 2009 Mr Francis James Colosimo attended with heart complaints to the hospital!

.

While since my commencement to expose matters the State government has sought the President of VCAT to review its operations I do not accept for a moment that so to say this rot should be swiped under the carpet. The must be an INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL INQUIRY!

.

One has to ask how many other persons are likewise subjected to abuse and misuse of the legal processes, if one can call it “legal processes” at all!

.

While Justice Bell the President of VCAT may claim that there is an improvement in VCAT, well I do not consider the holding of VEXATIOUS CONTEMPT proceedings against an innocent person to be an improvement. If a judge considers this to be an improvement then I hate to find out what it was before this!

.

EITHER WE HAVE THE RULES OF LAW OR WE DON’T!

.

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!

.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I for one do not accept this rot to be allowed to occur in any court or Tribunal and I seek others to join me in exposing this kind of rot.

.

The book will be issued with copies of actually documentation provided to others regarding the case and it also deals extensively with other relevant issues such as FEE SIMPLE, CITIZENSHIP, companies cannot operate as courts, etc.

.

The Author’s views are that while there is nothing wrong to hold elections for councillors of a municipal council it is another thing when municipal councils are trying to operate as another level of government, as constitutionally they never were another level of government. Constitutionally the Federal government was held to be the “central government” and the State government was held to be the “local government” and municipal councils were precisely that and not a level of government at all.

.

This book makes a journey into the historical issues regarding the Queensland constitution and the unconstitutional amendment to abolish its upper house, etc.

.

One may have to consider if a municipal council is not a level of government then where is its validity of issuing infringement notices? Indeed considering the STAR CHAMBER COURT prohibition in the Imperial Act Interpretation Act 1980 (Victoria) then where is the legal validity of issuing “Infringement notices”?

.

Soon I will also provide people with an opportunity, on this website, if they desire to do so, to also order for purchase T-shirts and caps (hats) with MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® trademark upon it. Allow at least 4-weeks delivery in regard of orders.

.

Both Membership Card and Honourable Membership Cards both in regard of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® are in the process of being printed/delivered.

.

We, the people, must reclaim our constitutional and other legal rights and hold lawyers/judges and politicians accountable.

.

.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates  (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE   Mr. BARTON.-

Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.

END QUOTE

.

 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

 

QUOTE    Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,

END QUOTE

.

Thomas Jefferson:

.

QUOTE

"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.".

END QUOTE

.

Let us not permit our governments (both State and federal) to do the same upon us!

.

Again:

.

EITHER WE HAVE THE RULES OF LAW OR WE DON’T!

.

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!

.

.

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

.

9-5-2009

 

 

 

 
 

A book you cannot afford to miss out on reading!

RECOMMENDATION The best way to read this page is first to download it onto your computer.

Then copy and past the content into a Microsoft Word document.

Send me an email if you encounter problems.

inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au


Please note; At the end of this page there is an ability to purchase copies of this and any other book on CD listed. Do note that Postage includes a postage charge applies within the Commonwealth of Australia via "Australia Post" (including its agents Australia Post may engage).
When placing an order, you may having placed the order forward an additional email to inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au as a special notification, however this is not required if you do not desire to do so. It is important to provide all relevant details as to postal address for delivery when placing the order(s).



STRENGTH AND COURAGE

This page is dedicated to the late JAROSLAV HLAVKA MIE Aust CP Eng and to my wife Mrs Olga HLAVKA-SCHOREL.

As Author, creator, and publisher, of the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® book on CD series I pursue JUSTICE for all.

"Our lives are worthless without another human being there to share it with. Therefore, we ought to look after each human being as we do after ourselves."

By; G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA 6-8-2003

The National Library of Australia (Canberra) and the State Library of Victoria are keeping copies of published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® book on CD series!


Read documents such as "The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE", "The Great Deception" and other documents to become aware how collectively parliamentarians and judges of the High Court of Australia have robbed us of our constitutional rights by substituting the Constitution with a fake Constitution!
A must to read!

On 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria ordered that my appeals would be allowed and the convictions of 17 November 2005 by the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg were set aside and the charges for FAILING TO VOTE in the 2001 and 2004 (purported) federal elections were struck out.
This as I maintained that the writs of the purported 10 November 2001 federal election were defective and so the purported election was without legal force and John Howard and his cronies were in fact not elected at all.

I also made clear that the Framers of the Constitution refused to make voting compulsory and therefore it was unconstitutional to force anyone to vote in federal elections. Further, one of the issues I raised was that the right of “religious” objection voting would be unconstitutional unless it included “secular” objections.

Further, I pursued also that there is no such thing as an “Australian nationality” as we are and remain British nationals.

All constitutional issues raised by me in the 5-year legal battle were and remained unchallenged! 

There was a lot more to it, as I have set out in my most recent 6-7-2006 published book;

Some of the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series (published or intended to be published)

For P&H charges see at end of list.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & ADDRESS TO THE COURT

A book on CD, making litigation a more level playing field

RRP $30.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) (ISBN 0-9580569-7-8) After 1-1-2007; ISBN 978-0-9580569-7-7


Brief set out of some main issues;

This book includes examples of the usage of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT where a unrepresented party can still present a well set out case before the Court, and avoiding the judicial officer (Judge, etc) to prevent the unrepresented party to appropriately pursue his/her case.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & ADDRESS TO THE COURT 2nd Edition (check if available)

A book on CD, making litigation a more level playing field

RRP $55.00 + PH charges (where applicable) (ISBN 0-9751760-5-6 was prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-5-4


Brief set out of some main issues;

This book is an updated version and includes examples of the usage of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT where a unrepresented party can still present a well set out case before the Court, and avoiding the judicial officer (Judge, etc) to prevent the unrepresented party to appropriately pursue his/her case.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & High Court as STAR CHAMBER COURT (check if available)

A book on CD about irregular proceedings

RRP $30.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) (ISBN 0-9580569-9-4 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-9-1


Brief set out of some main issues;

The Author in this book sets out how the High Court of Australia rather then operating as a Court of law ends up operating as a STAR CHAMBER COURT, using the transcript of proceedings to underline this.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & High Court of Australia as KANGAROO COURT (check if available)

A book on CD as to improper legal proceedings
RRP $30.00 + P&H charges (where applicable)
(ISBN 0-9580569-8-6 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-8-4


Brief set out of some main issues;

The Author in this book sets out how the High Court of Australia rather then operating as a Court of law ends up operating as a KANGAROO COURT, using the transcript of proceedings to underline this.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting (Book)

A book about Australia’s federal election issues & rights

RRP $30.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) (ISBN 0-9751760-3-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-3-0


Brief set out of some main issues;

This book has limited material in it as it does not have the extensive material as is on the CD version. However, in itself is still very good reading and does set out certain matters. It is a Black & White version of the book itself albeit the additional pages are to some extend also in colour.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to Lawfully Avoid Voting (Book-Colour) (check if available)

A Book about Australia's Federal Election Issues & Rights

RRP $50.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) ISBN 978-0-9751760-9-2


Brief set out of some main issues;

This book has limited material in it as it does not have the extensive material as is on the CD version. However, in itself is still very good reading and does set out certain matters. The usage of colour in some of the text of the book as to bring out certain statements makes it unique in that regard.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & How to lawfully avoid voting (CD)

A book on CD about Australia’s federal election issues & rights

RRP $30.00 + P&H charges (where applicable (ISBN 0-9751760-4-8 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-4-7)


Brief set out of some main issues;

This book includes the Court orders and other documents filed in the Court in the process of the Author succeeding in his quest that he was not legally required to vote. It includes the various documents filed in Court and the constitutional and other legal arguments used in the hearings over the 5-years that it was being litigated.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & There is no Government to go to war

A book on CD About Legal Issues Confronting Australia

RRP $25.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) (ISBN 0-9580569-5-1 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-5-3


Brief set out of some main issues;

This book sets out why there was no government to go to war. Let alone there was no constitutional authority to go to war! The Author goes into numerous constitutional and other legal details. The question being should John Howard and others involved in the unconstitutional war be held accountable before a Court of law for the mass murder, treason, treachery, human rights abuses, war crimes, and other offences!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really? (check if available)

A book in B&W on Australians political, religious & other rights
RRP $50.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) ISBN 978-0-9803712-0-8


Brief set out of some main issues;

While much is argued about "the Australia way of life" what should be attended to what is it constitutionally? After all, politicians can fabricate their own versions but surely what is relevant is what is constitutionally applicable. The author takes the reader on a journey and set out numerous issues. He attends to the religious and racial issues also. This is a "Black and White" limited version which does not have all the material as included on the CD but still worth reading.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really? (check if available)

A book-colour on Australians political, religious & other rights

RRP $65.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) ISBN 978-0-9803712-1-5


Brief set out of some main issues;

While much is argued about "the Australia way of life" what should be attended to what is it constitutionally? After all, politicians can fabricate their own versions but surely what is relevant is what is constitutionally applicable. The author takes the reader on a journey and set out numerous issues. He attends to the religious and racial issues also. This is a version that has certain text in colour as to bring out the statements and which does not have all the material as included on the CD but still worth reading.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?

A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights

RRP $200.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3


Brief set out of some main issues;

While much is argued about "the Australia way of life" what should be attended to what is it constitutionally? After all, politicians can fabricate their own versions but surely what is relevant is what is constitutionally applicable. The author takes the reader on a journey and set out numerous issues. He attends to the religious and racial issues also.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and the BANANA REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA

Dictatorship & deaths by stealth- Preliminary book edition on CD

RRP $25.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) (ISBN 0-9580569-3-5 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-3-9

Brief set out of some main issues;

The author in this book sets out how the Commonwealth of Australia is really no more then a Banana Republic. Read also as to what was going on and how people were concerned by the actions of the Federal Government.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and the Secret of the Empire (check if available)

Personalized crime/comedy novel on CD edition

RRP $25.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) (ISBN 0-9580569-0-0 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-0-8


Brief set out of some main issues;

Read the extraordinary events that involves INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and his fellow travellers through the journey of comedy and crime and the twist ending finish. A book you wish to read over time and again. Will Martina be able to stay a virgin or will she be seduced and so by whom? This is a crime/comedy where the Author has published the book in versions where a person can have his/her name inserted instead of a certain character, just that it cannot be INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, as his name is excluded as such. But, would it not be nice to have a book with your own name as a character?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and the Secret of the Empire, GAME EDITION

Crime/comedy novel on CD edition
RRP $20.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) (ISBN 0-9580569-2-7 Prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-2-2


Brief set out of some main issues;

Read the extraordinary events that involves INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and his fellow travellers through the journey of comedy and crime and the twist ending finish. A book you wish to read over time and again. Will Martina be able to stay a virgin or will she be seduced and so by whom? This is a version of the book where the board game is included. The board game is based upon the events of the book. The board game is unique as you can play it time and again and yet never know how you are going to end up in the game.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and the Secret of the Empire-ORIGINAL EDITION

Crime/comedy novel on CD edition

RRP $15.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) (ISBN 0-9580569-1-9 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-1-5


Brief set out of some main issues;

Read the extraordinary events that involves INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and his fellow travellers through the journey of comedy and crime and the twist ending finish. A book you wish to read over time and again. Will Martina be able to stay a virgin or will she be seduced and so by whom?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP

A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.

RRP $25.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) (ISBN 0-9580569-6-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0


Brief set out of some main issues;

This book goes in detail as to "CITIZENSHIP" and exposes some of the rot fed to the public by the Federal Government.It exposes that the lack of "CITIZENSHIP" affects all lawyers/judges/politicians, etc.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP & Why not voting

A book on CD about ELECTORAL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS

RRP $30.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) (ISBN 0-9751760-1-3 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-1-6


Brief set out of some main issues;

This book goes in detail as to "CITIZENSHIP" and exposes some of the rot fed to the public by the Federal Government, as well as addresses the issue of electoral matters


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on PLEASE EXPLAIN

A book on CD political and legal questions

RRP $30.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) (ISBN 0-9751760-0-5 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-0-9


Brief set out of some main issues;

This book includes the submissions made to the Crime and Misconduct commission, but somehow were seemingly left out by the CMC. The Author provides the evidence it was received, and wonders was this to avoid exposing Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, through the Government lawyers, having perhaps concealed from the Courts relevant material in the Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge litigation. It includes the 1-9-2003 correspondence that so much spilled out why the convictions were legally floored as the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal subsequently used to overturn the convictions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS

For the quest of JUSTICE, in different ways. Book on CD.

RRP $25.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) (ISBN 0-9580569-4-3 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-4-6


Brief set out of some main issues;

This book is where it is the Author versus the BLACKSHIRTS and his involvement in court litigation. The Reader can explore what goes on in regard of the leader of the BLACKSHIRTS Mr. John Murray Abbott and some of other BLACKSHIRTS as well as police and lawyers involved. A behind the scene look with copies of court documents included, including transcripts of hearings. Look at what the Author achieved over a 13 year period versus the BLACKSHIRTS!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)

A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision

RRP $30.00 + P&H charges (where applicable). ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1


Brief set out of some main issues;

This book takes a critical look upon the 14-11-2006 judgment and how the Author exposes the High Court of Australia having failed to balance its statements in a proper manner, basically cherry picking what they used, rather then providing balanced judgments that consider all relevant details, as well as to how lawyers appeared to conceal relevant matters from the Court. The Author pursues that the Amendment Act (WorkChoices legislation) is and remains unconstitutional. The book also sets out why he published the book on the 40th anniversary of the Aboriginal DOOMSDAY on 27 May 2007!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-B&W) (check if available)

A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision

RRP $35.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) ISBN 978-0-9751760-7-8


Brief set out of some main issues;

This book takes a critical look upon the 14-11-2006 judgment and how the Author exposes the High Court of Australia having failed to balance its statements in a proper manner, basically cherry picking what they used, rather then providing balanced judgments that consider all relevant details, as well as to how lawyers appeared to conceal relevant matters from the Court. The Author pursues that the Amendment Act (WorkChoices legislation) is and remains unconstitutional. The book also sets out why he published the book on the 40th anniversary of the Aboriginal DOOMSDAY on 27 May 2007! However, this Black & White issue is limited in material versus the CD issue.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-Colour) (check if available)

A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision

RRP $50.00 + P&H charges (where applicable) ISBN 978-0-9751760-8-5


This book takes a critical look upon the 14-11-2006 judgment and how the Author exposes the High Court of Australia having failed to balance its statements in a proper manner, basically cherry picking what they used, rather then providing balanced judgments that consider all relevant details, as well as to how lawyers appeared to conceal relevant matters from the Court. The Author pursues that the Amendment Act (WorkChoices legislation) is and remains unconstitutional. The book also sets out why he published the book on the 40th anniversary of the Aboriginal DOOMSDAY on 27 May 2007! However, this is a colour version where certain statements are quoted in colours as to highlight them, albeit it is a limited version in material versus the CD issue.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLEASE NOTE: Postage & Handling (P&H) charges varies pending number of items, weight, size, manner of packing, manner of posting, eg, ordinary mail, secure mail, express mail, also destination, etc.Roughly, within the Commonwealth of Australia only, for a printed books to be forwarded by Australia Post is estimated a $12.00 P&H charge is to be added. For a book on CD to be forwarded by Australia Post is $7.00 P&H charge is to be added

Overseas deliveries P&H charges are to be determine differently, as rates varies considerably.

Do keep in mind that those marked with (check if available) may require a long delivery time period.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless payments have been received {including cheque(s) having been cleared} no items will be send out. For delivery times you may contact the publisher.

Please note that any payments (such as a cheque) must be made to (including PayPal account);

THE ESTATE OF JAROSLAV HLAVKA MIE AUST CPENG (ABN 97144820620)

Cheques should be crossed and marked; "NOT NEGOTIABLE"Email to; the_estate_of_jaroslav_hlavka@yahoo.com.au Phone/Fax 03-94577209Postal Address; 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® for THE ESTATE OF JAROSLAV HLAVKA MIE AUST CPENG publish INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books by Author Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka.


Please note, that special postal rates may apply where multiple order is placed, which may allow for a credit/refund, subject to the determination of the Publisher.
Please note, that for postal addresses outside the Commonwealth of Australia the goods may attract higher postal charges and/or any other charges that the relevant Authorities may apply and obviously are to be paid at the time of the order being placed and/or prior to shipment. Hence, any prospective purchaser may inquire by email to the Publisher as to relevant postal charges in such cases.  
Any book on CD/DVD are for use with Computer using Microsoft Word, and are not music or playable CD's?DVD"s!

 

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?

 

 

A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights

 

 

ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 was ISBN 0-9751760-2-1

 

 


Our youth of today are growing up with disrespect, as politicians are showing that it is all right to lie, to be deceitful, to murder innocent civilians. They just do it under the cover that we are being or might be attacked. Yes, it are the “TERRORIST” as they will make clear to anyone.  Really? So, they bread by this home grown terrorism.
It is for this we should hold parliamentarians who ignore the RULE OF LAW accountable. They must face the Courts for any crimes they commit.
 
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
 
Hermann Goering, Hitlers' Reich-Marshall, at the Nuremberg trials after WW2.
 

 


 

 

Time and again, there are issues arising which, I view, could have been avoided had we a more competent High Court of Australia, and had we an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, to advise the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to the proper application of constitutional powers and its limitations.

In my view, such OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN should exist in all legal jurisdictions, State and Federal. Constitutionally, this OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN could be established without interfering with current constitutional powers of anyone. It merely would enhance the protection of State rights and the rights of the people.

 


DONATION (IN MULTIPLE IF YOU DESIRE TO DO SO)
$10.00

YES, WE KINDLY ACCEPT DONATIONS


Since 1982, I have conducted a special LIFELINE SERVICE under the slogan MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®, which at times also assisted people in their Court litigation. See also some of it set out below.

Since 2001 the ESTATE OF JAROSLAV HALVKA MIE AUST CPENG began to provide financial support, as until then I had to do so, often resulting in borrowing moneys from the bank to fund this. Since then, MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® has embarked upon the huge project to return constitutional rights to the people, exposing the abuse by politicians and judges alike to bit by bit rob Australians of their constitutional rights. We accept any financial support/donations, etc anyone wish to provide where in particular those for whatever reason not being able themselves to embark upon this hard work in research, etc, can nevertheless in their own way, by financial contribution support or otherwise assist this cause. In spirit of the Constitution, we do not seek to take any position in regard of political parties and/or the religion of any person. Our platform is that all people should be equal among their fellowman/woman, in the circumstances prevailing. We pursue the creation of an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional council that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional powers and limitations without any political bias. By this, we pursue that no longer a person having to forgo JUSTICE because of the huge cost to litigate a constitutional issues that might be a obstacle in litigation, but the OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN being able to pursue this apart of what any person may desire to do personally. No longer politicians hiding behind lawyers, using taxpayers monies, to defeat innocent people, as we pursue JUSTICE for all. Some people are good in certain skills and some people in other skills, and why not do what you are best in and provide us the financial support to do what we have done for so long. Those who have faced the court may know how terrifying the experiences can be, and I created in 1985 the document "ADDRESS TO THE COURT", that since has been for more then 25 years used in all Court levels including civil and criminal trials. It is where the Defendant can set out his/her case to be heard by the Court without the judge being able to prevent the Defendant to do so, as too often occurs with unrepresented Defendants.

See also the 1-11-2003 published book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & ADDRESS TO THE COURT

A book on CD, making litigation a more level playing field

ISBN 0-9580569-7-8 (After 1-1-2007; ISBN 978-0-9580569-7-7

Those who desire to have mention in any further book publication(s) his/her making of a donation may indicate so when making a donation and state if their amount of donation is to be included or not upon which the publisher considers what would be most appropriate. The person may forward an email to any change in this and we seek to provide for the intentions of any donor. As a donor you do what you are best in and we do our best in fighting for our (the general community) constitutional rights, justice, "civil rights", "human rights", etc.

On behalf of all those who directly and/or indirectly may benefit from your donation I thank you. Please note that corporate sponsorship is also welcome. Estate bequest are also welcome! Please note that the PayPal payment (PayPal also accepts credit card and VISA payments via email) is used so that the donors banking details remains confidential in every way, while it ensures accountability as to any monies donated.
For those interested, the following book also sets out the ambition as to MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® as how it is anticipated to become global for the good of mankind;
  INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and the Secret of the Empire-ORIGINAL EDITION

  Crime/comedy novel on CD edition

  (ISBN 0-9580569-1-9 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-1-5

There are also Personalized and Game (board game) editions available. 

Please note that any DONATION (such as by way of a cheque) must be made out to;

THE ESTATE OF JAROSLAV HLAVKA MIE AUST CPENG (ABN 97144820620)

Cheques should be crossed and marked; "NOT NEGOTIABLE"

Email to; the_estate_of_jaroslav_hlavka@yahoo.com.au Phone/Fax 03-94577209

Postal Address; 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia.


Thank you.
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

DONATION (IN MULTIPLE IF YOU DESIRE TO DO SO)
$100.00
DONATION (IN MULTIPLE IF YOU DESIRE TO DO SO)
$1,000.00