You are on page 1of 9

ISSUE: 20180130- Re Anthony Albanese possibly setting future government directions, etc, & the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

I will be honest about it that I quite frankly never bothered to read on about what Anthony
Albanese was ab out until on 28 January 2018 I heard over a news bulleting that he was
promoting a referendum for Australia day and Aboriginals. To make sure I has been hearing it
correctly I decided a quick check on the internet was better.
Anthony Albanese calls for twin January 26 referendums
16 hours ago - Anthony Albanese has called for referendums on the republic and indigenous
constitutional recognition to be held on a January 26, as a way of creating a ... Declaring that
political leaders needed to “look to solutions, not just arguments'', Mr Albanese said finding a way
forward was “more important than ...
And I also then noticed:
Anthony Albanese's long-held family secret
"We had a photo from the ship (the Fairsky) where he worked as a steward, which is where he met my
mother on the journey across from Sydney across to London," Mr Albanese said.
"As well as knowing Amanda Vanstone ... my second cousin happened to work at the embassy [and]
was in charge of the international visits at the embassy," Mr Albanese said.
In all fairness to others with unknown fathers, is it really appropriate to use embassy staff for
this? Regardless if his mother had a fling with a steward she can but only be respected not to give
up the child she gave birth to. Having stated this, how many other children might Carlo (his
father) as a steward have fathered while working on cruise ships? Are embassies around the
worlds now going to work on this to see if there are other half siblings around? Maybe hundreds.
We had already Alexander Downer as High Commissioner reportedly having a drinking session,
and then well seemingly via the Government, reporting to the FBI and we need to ask are those
who are placed to represent Australians with consulate services now serving other functions at
cost of taxpayers not at all being within the description of their functions abroad?
Wouldn’t it be better if Government resources were to be addressing issues like the issue below?
How many Australian soldiers are using items like FitBit and/or other brands that can show their
movements and set them up to be harmed?
Here's a fascinating story from my colleague Liz Sly: an interactive map posted online by a GPS-tracking
company called Strava may accidentally reveal sensitive information about U.S. bases overseas. As Sly
explains, Strava's map highlights where in the world people are using popular fitness devices like the FitBit.
While the locations of some bases are hardly a secret, the webs of movement shown on the map could
provide valuable information for would-be attackers:
p1 30-1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
"Many people wear their fitness trackers all day to measure their total step counts, and soldiers appear to be
no exception, meaning the maps reveal far more than just their exercise habits.
"Lines of activity extending out of bases and back may indicate patrol routes. The map of Afghanistan
appears as a spider web of lines connecting bases, showing supply routes, as does northeast Syria, where the
United States maintains a network of mostly unpublicized bases. Concentrations of light inside a base may
indicate where troops live, eat or work, suggesting possible targets for enemies."
And while Anthony Albanese appears to be occupied about SSM, When to have if at all
Australian Day and the Republic issue, and mind you he sought to be leader of the ALP and so
alternative Prime Minister we are faced with for example the following issues:
The New Number One Problem For Mankind
By TruePublica: Last May, Warren Buffett announced that cyber attacks are a bigger threat to
humanity than nuclear weapons.”I’m very pessimistic on weapons of mass destruction generally
although I don’t think that nuclear probably is quite as likely as either primarily biological and maybe
cyber,” Buffett said during Berkshire Hathaway’s annual shareholders’ meeting.
The War Against ‘Fake News’ Is A War On Us
By Jonathan Cook: Barely a day passes without a new development in the war on social media –
that is, the war on us. Today, it is a report that Twitter has emailed hundreds of thousands of its
users, warning them that they shared “Russian propaganda”.
Ok, I last week clicked on the ‘F’ from Facebook to place a comment on an article and well was
advised the article was not permissible. So, merely seeking to place a comment, without even
having typing anything, was prevented. Yet, it seems that those posting how to make bombs and
commit/engage in terrorism can do so freely. I view that the government should make clear to
those internet companies that if they desire to operate within the commonwealth of Australia they
must act appropriately recognizing out FREEDOM OF SPEECH as embedded as a legal
principle in the constitution and not allow conduct to engage in terrorism to be available.
Writings by Topic: Threats to Free Speech
This list numerous writings about the issue of FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Let us also consider:
Human Rights after Brexit, ‘reliant on Parliamentary goodwill’
By Political Concern: Jeremy Corbyn’s Amendment 2 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill,
aimed to retain the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and ensure that it would be
transferred, with the rest of EU law, when Britain leaves the EU in March 2019.
The Home Page of the Democracy Defined Educational Campaign for RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL
After 1265, the statutes were actuated by parliament itself, yet definitively, “A government, parliament /
congress or legislature cannot, by legislative assertions, recite itself into constitutional power.” No
parliamentary statute binds any subsequent parliament (regardless of the wishful thinking of some few
overruled, eccentric lords, lawyers and judges). See Chapter Three.

p2 30-1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
Magna Carta is recognised as Constitutional: the strictures of Magna Carta are binding on Executive,
Legislature, the Judiciary and the entire population.
The Great Charter is egalitarian: it guarantees equal right of access to the Trial by Jury (for cost-free private
prosecution and/or in defence of all causes, civil, criminal and fiscal) to All People (villeins and serfs
Firstly, it is a misconception of folks today to imagine that the feudal monarch was ‘absolute’. Far from it.
That was an attribute which came much later in our history under the deranged dogma of the “divine right of
kings”! According to feudal protocols, the king was at all times subject and bound under the Common Law
terms of his coronation oath to uphold the Law of the Land, legem terræ. The king’s numerous atrocities and
unchivalrous gross offences placed him outside the Law of the Land to which he was subject and already
bound by oath.
Secondly, in all secular legal matters concerning possession of the Land of England at large, John’s feudal
position placed the nobility, the ‘barons’, the Three Hundred Great Peers of the Realm, as John’s equals and
judges in accord with the Common Law of the Land, quashing John’s ‘appeal’ to the pope. The religious
potentate’s attempted interventions were ultra vires; spurious; a figment of his conceit.
Thirdly, correct translation and interpretation of Article 39 (which installs the pan- European phenomenon of
judicium parium, the Common Law Trial by Jury set out in the Great Charter), refutes all notion of a ‘get-out
clause’ as a dunce’s nonsensical fiction.
It is fascinating to see how these principles of justice expressed as the Common Law Trial by Jury were
known and utilised throughout Europe, set the standard civilised constitution for the world, and eventually
were also constitutionally confirmed in the Eighteenth Century by the United States’ Founding Fathers (USC,
Article 3, Section 2).
It is alas with the greatest sense of foreboding tinged with resolve that one observes how people in England,
Russia, the United States, Australia, Canada, Europe (and all the West) have passively acquiesced to or
actively participated in the criminal usurpation of their traditional Trial by Jury Constitutional Justice System.
This can be ascertained by comparison of the ideals in Magna Carta with today’s degenerate government.
Through their corruption, or ignorance, servility, complacency and unconcern, these peoples have aided and
abetted the descent of once civilised great nations into becoming dangerous modern tainted nests of injustice,
warmongering, crime and avarice.
The above then places the question that with the Magna Carta being the basic Constitution which
reflects also Common Law then the right of all to decide who shall be King or not clearly is
based upon the magna Carta and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
must be deemed subservient to this. Yet, reality is that this last mentioned constitution doesn’t
allow any right by those subject to this constitution to cast their vote as to any monarch. Section
128 only allows amendments to Part 9 of this constitution.
Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
So it will be with the Judges of our High Court. Their strength, their knowledge, their judicial experience,
will grow with the opportunities that come to them. Uniformity, it is said, will not be preserved. Well, the
law, of course, is always proverbially uncertain. We are guided by the House of Lords, not by the Privy
Council. We are bound by the decisions of the House of Lords as long as we are part of the empire. The High
Court of Justice here-the Federal High Court will be bound to give effect to English law as expounded
in the highest court available to English-speaking people, and the uniformity will be maintained just as
effectually without the intervention of the Privy Council upon a discretionary appeal, such as is proposed, as
if the right of appeal were retained in its fall force.

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates

Can it be suggested, however high the Federal High Court may be in regard to attainments, that under any
circumstances the Judges of that court would have the experience, the training, and the knowledge of the men
p3 30-1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
composing the Court of the Privy Council? Would it be possible to separate the members of the Federal
High Court from local influences? Unintentionally, men are influenced by their surrounding
conditions. It does not follow because a man is to-day in public life as Attorney-General, and to-
morrow is sitting on the bench wearing the ermine, that he can dissociate himself or separate himself
from local surroundings and be unbiased or uninfluenced by those considerations.
I have heard men express their astonishment that the Judges of our own Supreme Court have not
taken into consideration the Hansard debates when they were giving judgment. I feel quite sure that when
an appeal goes to the Privy Council all these considerations are completely wiped out.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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.

Hansard 6-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. GILLIES: We are not all agreed on the question of the establishment of a republic!
Dr. COCKBURN: There is no question of that. We want to establish such a commonwealth as will
exist with the least strained relations with the mother country.

Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of
the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute
majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed
amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions
in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the
constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.

Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

. I quite admit that the United States system suits them; and if we are simply going to form a republic,
and to establish an institution in which the executive will not be in Parliament, and will not be
responsible, the state of affairs will be totally different. But I am contemplating that this Convention has in
view the formation of true responsible government.
In 1990 Kim Beazley was asked a question in Parliament by Senator Button, Beazley replied: "the
United Nations has given the Federal Government a mandate for the ownership of housing, farms,
property and business to government control, once the Republic has been proclaimed" Any one care to
comment on the implications of this statement made by "Bomber" Beazley?
p4 30-1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
Button was in the Senate and Kim Beazley was a member of the House of Representatives and as
such kind of communication could only have eventuated, that is if it did at all, in a joint sitting, in
a Cabinet meeting, in a 1998 Constitution Convention or other location. Regardless what might
be claimed by whomever the United Nations cannot override the constitution! And the
Commonwealth cannot without proper compensation take over any property and it can only do
so for purposes within its legislative powers. As such, if it in my view a tale of a fairy land that
somehow the Commonwealth could acquire properties merely because of the United Nations
NWO (New World Order).
I understand there is a NWO issue that reportedly the population should be reduced drastically
and well what better way than to force vaccinations upon all children (with or without any
electronic transmitter injected also) as to turn the masses over time into sheeple. Ample of
reports show that vaccinations are generally harmful and not at all avoiding flu, etc. For the
elderly I understand it can in fact undermine/destroy their immune system to cause early death.
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)
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.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown
in prosecuting criminals are.

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

The last quotation makes it very clear that “This new charter is to be given by the people of
Australia to themselves.”. However it cannot be held that the liberties, rights, etc, that existed
already within English common law and constitution then evaporated, rather that they were
included in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
p5 30-1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is
co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any
disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
As such, it is well within the powers of the Commonwealth to deport any criminal and any
person of a race regardless if being a subject of the British Crown who is undesirable, other than
Caucasians. The latter one not being held to be of a race.
I G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. stated at 11.30 PM 15-2-2015
Katie Robertson obviously is bias by that she has about 110 children as her clients for which Australians are
paying. She refers to chairs being bolted down, but not the reason why. Perhaps because people use chairs as
objects? So why not be honest about it?
Then she refers to the child having her first birthday in a detention centre after the parents already have been
in detention for 18 months. This appears to indicate the mother was pregnant when she came to Australia.
Also the argument as to the father not being allowed to be out of detention if the child and mother were to be
allowed. Seems to me the mother considers her own child of less importance then her husband!
We Australians cannot cater for the rest of the world!

We have religious battles in a country where religion “A” persecute “Religion “B” and so we allowed “B” to
settle in Australia. Then “B” persecutes “A” subsequently and we allow “A” now to settle in Australia. Now
“A” and “B” start their religious conflicts in Australia. We have nothing achieved but to involve ourselves.

We have the proverbial widow with 5 children in a UN camp and the widow ensures her children are learning
English as she does as she desires to settle in Australia if the opportunity comes about. But wait, now we get
people who pay people smugglers and leave a camp in another country as to jump the proverbial queue.
While they may have been refugees to go to the nearest country they however just don’t like the conditions in
the camp and well why not place their own children at risk just to get to Australia.

And we must consider that since the con-job 1967 referendum Aboriginals now falling within
ss51(xxvi) therefore constitutionally have no right to citizenship. They are recognized in the
constitution but certainly not for what they might have anticipated with the con-job referendum.
Ss51(xxvi) was inserted for a purpose and it didn’t alter one bit in its purpose merely because
Aboriginals previously excluded now become included!
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
p6 30-1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal
natives shall not be counted.

Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose
in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to
be debarred from voting.

Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal
population is too small to affect that in the least degree.

Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.

Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be

Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.

Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up
the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote.

Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.

Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with this matter is, that
when we come to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per capita, if he leaves out these
aboriginals South Australia will have so much the less to pay, whilst if they are counted South
Australia will have so much the more to pay.

Clause, as read, agreed to.

This clearly indicated that section 127 purpose was to avoid States having to pay for every
Aboriginal and so avoid a possible massacre of them.
As such, the 1967 con-job referendum to amend ss51(xxvi) was not at all to provide Aboriginals
with citizenship to the contrary it stripped them of it, where they had it since federation.
We better consider/address issues such as:
Tamiflu causing mass hallucinations; flu season getting deadly
Two blockbuster stories for you today:

First, the vaccine industry is now in panic mode as vaccinated children keep dying from the flu.

Read the full story (and CDC stats) here.

The second story concerns Tamiflu, the anti-flu drug prescribed by doctors. It's causing widespread
hallucinations and self-abuse among people who take the drug.

Find the full story here.

Pro Vaccine death threats against Dr Suzanne Humphries

This as result of the video;
p7 30-1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://
She explains her reasons and demonstrates how incredibly brave that she and Polly really are!

We have governments who are violating our constitutional rights and this must stop!

And then also the issue so long blatantly ignored where I promoted even when John
Howard was Prime Minister that all so called refugees should be handed over to the United
Nations and it and it alone has the responsibility for refugees and the window shopping
travelers. Indeed had this been implemented we would not have any refugee problems as
such. I will avoid setting it all out in this PRESS RELEASE as it is available on my blog at
Let us look how secure we are in checking aliens, such as with German passports. One also has
to ask are Australian passports also being stolen?
The Islamization of Germany in 2017: Part I January - June 2017
The Islamization of Germany in 2017: Part II
July - December 2017
Thieves broke into an immigration office in the Moabit district of Berlin and stole up to 20,000 blank
passports and other immigration documents as well as official stamps and seals.
July 24. The Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) ruled that the deportation of so-called
Gefährder, potentially dangerous persons, even if they have not been convicted of a crime, is constitutional.
The case was brought by an Algerian national who arrived in Germany in 2003. In March 2017, Bremen's
interior minister deemed him to be a "dangerous person" potentially planning a jihadist attack. The Algerian
claimed that the deportation order against him was unconstitutional. The court ruled that he could be deported
provided that the Algerian government would protect his human rights.

October 2. Germany's partial ban on face coverings "must be expanded" to include a full ban on the
burqa in public, said Andreas Scheuer, the secretary general of the Christian Social Union (CSU),
the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU). "A ban is
possible and necessary," he said a day after a burqa ban went into effect in neighboring Austria.
"We will not give up our identity, we are ready to fight for it, the burqa does not belong to
Germany," he said. The deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, Stephan Harbarth,
said that the partial ban "goes to the limit" of what is constitutionally possible: "I fear that a more
far-reaching ban would not be compatible with the Basic Law."

October 3. Beatrix von Storch, the deputy leader of the anti-immigration party, Alternative for
Germany (AfD), said that political Islam has no place in Germany. "Islam does not belong to
Germany," she told the BBC. "We are in favor of religious freedom of course, but Islam is claiming
political power, and this is what we oppose."

November 6. Germany's Constitutional Court rejected a lawsuit by Muslim parents who wanted
their son to be exempt from the religious teachings at a publicly funded Catholic school in the state of
North Rhine-Westphalia. According to the court, the boy's parents did not make a strong enough
argument for the judges to consider the case.

p8 30-1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://

November 13. The Upper Administrative Court in Münster denied a request by two Muslim
associations to introduce religious lessons in schools in North Rhine-Westphalia. The court ruled
that the Central Council of Muslims in Germany (ZMD) and the Islamrat ("Islam council") did not
fulfill all of the criteria of a religious association as defined by the German constitution, and
therefore could not claim the same privileges that the Protestant and Catholic churches have in


As I recently wrote about in Africa they so to say are breeding like rabbits and as such no amount
of refugee intake will dent this. The solution must lie within Africa to avoid this overpopulation.
It also should be understood that when our Ambassadors enter a Muslim country they are bound
to dress as to the legal requirements of that country to enter. Well, then likewise those visiting
the Commonwealth of Australia should likewise accept Western traditions.
The requirement of
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. ISAACS.-The money must be expended with regard to "the peace, order, and good government
of the Commonwealth," not of the states.

Mr. HOLDER.-The passage to which Mr. Glynn refers me is as follows:-

The Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have full power and authority to make
laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, with respect to all or any of the
matters following.

Well, that includes the borrowing of money.

Mr. ISAACS.-It is the Commonwealth as distinguished from the state that is to borrow; the money is only
to be borrowed for the purposes of the Commonwealth.


Hence, while the Commonwealth of Australia has to repay debts (borrowings) then it cannot
fund anything like spending to overseas issues for assisting other countries. After all if its
Consolidated Revenue Funds cannot provide sufficient to pay out debts then it cannot have
monies for funding other countries one way or another.
Perhaps Anthony Albanese rather than to pursue Ab originals to be recognized in the
constitution, where they are already in ss51(xxvi) albeit in a negative manner, and pursuing a
republic that cannot be achieved within constitutional context, he might just concentrate upon the
real issues facing Australians. And any travel abroad as to finding perhaps other half-
brothers/sisters or whatever I view surely shouldn’t be at the cost of the taxpayers.
Our constitution is for Australians and not for the politicians and Anthony Albanese in my view
ought to do better to work on those issues in an appropriate manner then to pursue a Referendum
as to the 26 January date that doesn’t require any kind of referendum! Even such a simple matter
appears to me to be beyond his understanding!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
p9 30-1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://