20200902-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Clive Palmer Re WA Issue, Etc

Page 1
1
2
3 Mr Clive Palmer (& Ors) 2-9-2020
4 admin@unitedaustraliaparty.org.au
5
6 20200902-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Clive Palmer Re WA issue, etc
7 Clive,
8 while I am aware you lacked the courtesy of responded to my previous correspondences,
9 nevertheless I do not hold this against you.
10 I just watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpt50LhqpSs If a government can do this
11 to Clive Palmer, it can do it anyone where you conversed with Alan Jones. While you may
12 ignore my writings nevertheless I as a (self educated) constitutionalist pursue JUSTICE.
13 Our Federal Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) has in
14 Section 106 the states created “subject to this constitution” and as such the States are bound
15 with the legal principles embedded in it.
16 .The issue is if the WA Parliament (as after all it was the Parliament) has the legislative powers
17 to legislate in such manner that could deny you the rights you obtained already. In my view the
18 Parliament of a State is bound by the legal principles embedded in the federal constitution.
19
20 For example
21 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) Section 51:
22 (xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect
23 of which the Parliament has power to make laws;
24
25 One then has to ask if the State could simply then acquire your property without giving you a
26 single cent and then sell it to the Commonwealth. In my view a State must abide by the legal
27 principle embedded in the constitution and as such must also provide a reasonable compensation
28 for any rights it takes from you. The word “property” doesn’t mean just a parcel of land but can
29 include anything of possession of a person.
30 .
31 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
32 Australasian Convention)
33 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
34 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
35 the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
36 that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
37 Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
38 any private person would be.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
42 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
43 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
44 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
45 END QUOTE
46
2-9-2020 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 I do not know if the following judgment may or may not of assistance to you.
2
3 Alec Kruger & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia; George Ernest Bray & Ors v The
4 Commonwealth of Australia [1997] HCA 27 (31 July 1997)
5
7 QUOTE
8 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on
9 the point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must
10 be heard.
11 Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
12 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything the
13 state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person accused will
14 have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in
15 criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
16 END QUOTE
17
19 QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES
20 It is an organism, as I have tried to explain, for protecting each individual citizen in the undisturbed
21 possession of his property, in the undisturbed possession of his liberty, and from my point of view the
22 expense of that government ought to be defrayed in the easiest manner and only to the extent which is
23 necessary for that purpose, and that taxation is unjustifiable for any other purpose whatever.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
27 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
29 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
30 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
31 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 But there is more!
35
36 The issue is can the WA Parliament set aside any judgment or allow the WA Government to
37 ignore any settlement and/or other court decision.
38 In my view it has no powers to act against any court determination regarding another judiciary.
39 Parliament can only legislate as to matters within its legislative jurisdiction.
40 .
41 Then the question may be ask: Can the WA Parliament override any WA Court decision.
42 .
43 The High Court of Australia held that where a party pleads the non-application of a State Act because of
44 Commonwealth legislation then the State Court is exercising Federal jurisdiction.
45 As such if you challenge the validity of the WA legislation to deny your rights and interest
46 because of the embedded legal principles in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
47 1900 (UK) then I view this would automatically become a federal jurisdiction issue.
48
49 Perhaps you may also consider if any of the following may suit your case:
50 Held by the High Court of Australia that the expression “Court or judge of a State” does not include a Judge
51 sitting in Chambers exercising the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Wilcox v Donohoe, (1905) 3 C.L.R. 83;
52 12 A.L.R. 54.
53 .
54 Held by the High Court of Australia that the federal jurisdiction which is conferred on a State Court by the
55 section is subject to any limitations imposed by the laws of the State upon its state jurisdiction, unless
56 otherwise expressly declared. Federated Saw-mill Timberyard and General Woodworkers Employees
57 Association v Alexander, (1912) 15 C.L.R. 308; 19 A.L.R. 22.

Page 3
1 .
2 Held by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland that the police magistrate exercising Federal
3 jurisdiction is not an officer of a Federal Court within the meaning of this paragraph (Section 39 of the
4 Judicial Act 1903) R. v. Archdall and Others; Ex parte Taylor, 1919 St. R. Qld 207; 13 Q.J.P.R. 22 C.L.R.
5 437 in which the High Court (Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy and Ricch JJ ; Griffith CJ and Barton J
6 dissenting) held that a Judge of an inferior Court of a State invested with and purporting to exercise Federal
7 jurisdiction is not an officer of the Commonwealth within the meaning of s. 75 (v) of the Constitution.
8 .
9 Held by the High Court of Australia that a State Court, the appellated jurisdiction of which is limited by a
10 State Act, has no federal appellated jurisdiction beyond those limits. R. v. Whitfield and Others’ Ex parte
11 Quon Tat, (1013) 15 C. L.R. 689; 19 A.L.R. 97
12 .
13 Held by the High Court of Australia that under this section the Courts of the several States have federal
14 appellated jurisdiction, as regard the matters enumerated in ss75 and 76 of the Constitution, to the same
15 extent that, and subject to the same conditions as, under the State laws they have appellated jurisdiction in
16 matters to which State laws apply. Ah Yick v Lehmert, (1905) 2 C.L.R. 593; 11 A.L.R. 306
17 .
18 Held by the High Court of Australia (Williams J.) that under this section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 the
19 Attorney-General for the Commonwealth or a State may apply for the removal into the High Court of a cause
20 or part of a cause whether or not he is a party to the proceedings in which the cause arises, and if the cause
21 really and substantially arises under the Constitution or involves its interpretation, the court MUST grant the
22 removal as of right notwithstanding that the matter is apparently concluded by authority. Any distinct and
23 divisible question may be “part” of such a cause within the meaning of this section. In re an Application by
24 the Public Service Association of N.S.W. , (1947) 75 C.L.R. 430
25
26 This may be a question that may require to be considered as to if one is dealing with a WA court
27 exercising federal jurisdiction. I do not know if your case involved federal jurisdiction, such as
28 any federal Court involvement, however in my view if there was any federal jurisdiction invoked
29 at anytime, which is a matter that automatically applies if either party in the past did refer to
30 legal provisions contained within the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
31
32 The following is of a Judgment albeit I have misplaced the case law details albeit your lawyers
33 may easily track this:
34 QUOTE
35 10. Magna Carta c 29 embodies a "protest against arbitrary punishment, and against arbitrary infringements
36 of personal liberty and rights of property" (Holdsworth, Volume II at p 215; Wade and Bradley,
37 Constitutional and Administrative Law, 10th edition, Longman, London, pp 13-14). The summary procedure
38 proposed to be undertaken in this case accords with these principles.
39
40 Magna Carta may be modified by NSW law
41
42 11. Even if the above submission is incorrect, c 29 of the magna carta cannot be availed of in this case
43 as it does not hold the status of a constitutional provision of NSW, rather it is open to "affectation and
44 modification" by ordinary legislation enacted by the State Parliament (Galea v NSW Egg Corporation
45 Court of Appeal, 21 November 1989, Unreported, at 6, Adler v District Court of NSW (1990) 19 NSWLR
46 317 at 332; see also Chester v Bateson (1920) 1 KB 829 per Darling J). Such is explicit in s 6 of the Imperial
47 Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW) which declares c 29 to have remained in force in NSW "except so far as
48 affected by any ... State Acts from time to time in force in New South Wales" (6(b)). The Supreme Court Act
49 and Rules have affected the asserted right to trial by jury in providing for a procedure whereby contempt may
50 be prosecuted by summary procedure (see Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 53(3F), Supreme Court Rules
51 Part 55; Fraser v The Queen (No 2) (1985) 1 NSWLR 680 at 91-3 per McHugh JA).
52
53 12. This Court has held on a number of occasions that local law is able to over-ride Magna Carta. In Chia Gee
54 v Martin (1905) 3 CLR 649 Griffiths CJ said, at 653, "The contention that a law of the Commonwealth is
55 invalid because it is not in conformity with Magna Carta is not one of serious refutation." In Re Cusak (198)
56 60 ALJR 302 Wilso J pointed out that "The validity of laws enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament falls
57 to be determined by reference to the proper construction of the Australian Constitution. It is not open to base
58 an argument for validity by reference to alleged inconsistencies between laws of the Commonwealth and
59 either Magna carta or the Bill of Rights.".
60 END QUOTE
Page 4
1
2 Considering The Court having made this ruling we must however consider that the Framers of
3 the Constitution embedded the following legal principle in the Commonwealth of Australia
4 Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
5
6 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
8 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
9 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and
10 the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in
11 this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the
12 peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
13 END QUOTE
14 And
15 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
18 people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
19 for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
20 history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
21 Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
22 charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
23 END QUOTE
24 And
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of
28 the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under
29 it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-
30 the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
31 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
32 this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions , then by slow
33 degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
34 guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the
35 court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as
36 will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
37 constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere
38 of the Commonwealth.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 As such this “new Magna Charta” our federal constitution is relevant and the States cannot
42 legislation in defiance of the legal principles embedded in it, as they were created “subject to this
43 constitution”.
44
45 But there is more:
46 One has to consider that there is a separation of powers both in the Commonwealth and the
47 States (A Territory are a quasi State).
48
50 QUOTE
51 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
52 sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
53 parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present
54 are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the
55 power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
56 sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
57 power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
58 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
59 one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
Page 5
1 with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
2 which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
3 of the constitution.
4 END QUOTE
5
7 QUOTE
8 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Therefore while politicians and their agencies and the police may desire to pretend otherwise in
12 reality no constitutional amendment is valid unless approve by the “sovereign citizens” by way
13 of referendum. If therefore the WA Parliament in any way had amended its Colonial constitution
14 since federation without any State referendum then any such purported amendments would be
15 NULL AND VOID Ab Initio. The Colonial constitution would be in force subject to the
16 provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) (and so its embedded
17 legal principles also.
18 .
19 But wait there is more!
20 Because the Colonial Parliaments were “sovereign Parliaments” that could deal with any
21 constitution and in fact override any court judgment but since federation became State
22 “constitutional Parliaments”, then it no longer can interfere with any court order/judgment, etc.
23 What this means is that the WA Government is bound by any decision the WA courts and/or its
24 arbitration decided.
25 The Letters Patent of the Governor for WA published on 2 January 1901 may likely as was
26 with Victoria provide for the governor to appoint an “impartial administration of justice”. This
27 means the WA Parliament has no legislative powers as to interfere and/or override any WA
28 Court decision or delegated decision by an appointed mediator. While a State parliament can
29 legislate as to ordinary legal provisions of a State Court it can however, at least in my view, not
30 disregard/override a WA Court decision or inappropriately interfere with the courts processes.
31
32 As for “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” in my view the WA Parliament cannot apply
33 “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” for a person who blatantly disregard the rule of law, and or
34 deliberately act in violation of court decisions or other legal rights.
35 The term of “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” is to some extend considered in
36
37 CAMPBELL v CHRIS FLORIAN; DAVID TATARSKY and Ors
38 https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/196417.P.pdf
39
40 While ordinary a Premier acting within his/her legal position as Premier may claim
41 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY hoever where he acts deliberate in violation such as the legal
42 requirements of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) and pursue conduct of purported State legislation
43 that violates the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) and or in violation of any
44 constitutional provisions such as sections 117 & 92 must be deemed to deny the Premier his/her
45 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY from any prosecution.
46
47 Likewise, I view that the WA legislation to shield the Premier or any official from any
48 prosecution/liability would be without legal basis.
49
50 I am merely providing you with my views which you may or may not desire to consider.
51

Page 6
1 As with this whole COVID-19 issue I am slowly working on this case. Actually I commenced
2 already way back on 8 April 2020. Having been subjected to a physical attack when shopping
3 because a customer didn’t accept I was not wearing a mask (I have in fact a medical certificate
4 not needing to wear a mask and also the Department of health indicates one doesn’t even need a
5 medical certificate for this) I continue to prepare my case against this COVID-19 absurdity. This
6 as if they get away with the matter now then more than likely they will repeat the same as they
7 are power hungry.
8
10 QUOTE
11 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
12
13 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
14 state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
15 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
16 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 Well, as a “sentry” I seek to provide my assistance but in the end what if anything you consider
20 is entirely up to you.
21
22 Good luck.
23
24 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
25
26 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
27 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
28 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

29 (Our name is our motto!)


20200902-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Clive Palmer Re WA Issue, Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20200902-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Clive Palmer Re WA Issue, Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

2-9-2020 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-9-2020 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

28 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

2-9-2020 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like