20230508-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Tom Rogers - Australian Electoral Commission & Ors-COMPLAINT-supplement 1

Page 1
1
2
3 Tom Rogers - Australian Electoral Commission & Ors (Australia, Victoria time) 8-5-2023
4 info@aec.gov.au
5
6 Cc: Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus
7 Email via portal: https://ministers.ag.gov.au/hon-mark-dreyfus-qc-mp/contact
8
9 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
10
11 Re COMPLAINT supplement 1 -resignation for gross incompetence, etc.
12 Sir,
13 in my view you are grossly incompetent as an Australian Electoral Commissioner and should
14 resign forthwith.
15
16 Some of the issues I raise may not be directly related to you but in the overall context will be
17 indirectly relevant. For example:
18
19 While “Travelling Pete” (Anthony Albanese) may claim that he is (Prime) Minister reality
20 is he is not!
21 Let us consider:
22
23 https://www.aec.gov.au/media/2023/04-13.htm
24 Skip to contentInformation for people with disabilityInformation on accessibility
25
26 Re: Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984
27
28
29 I view, you of all persons surely are an utter fool to pursue this. Not because I support
30 “disinformation” but you have been guilty of this for years, as well as being the drive of
8-5-2023 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 obstructing the administration of justice, perverting the course of justice and a whole lot more.
2 You now seem to embark upon a proposed referendum seemingly without having a clue what
3 proper process is to be followed. With Anthony Albanese making clear first to have the proposed
4 referendum and then AFTERWARDS the parliament decides what it will be about. What a lot
5 of crock! We seem to have a federal Attorney-General who in my view is also grossly
6 incompetent not having any understanding what is constitutionally appropriate. This is very
7 serious because this is a real issue of “NATIONAL SECURITY” where we seem to have so
8 called ‘professional politicians’ whom are more interested in exercising power than to be
9 genuine ‘constitutional advisers’ to the Governor-General. In my view what is needed is to have
10 limits on how long a person can be in total a Member of parliament (say 12 years) and that any
11 person desire to be a Minister must pass a test on constitutional matters to ensure we no longer
12 have idiots in power like John Howard, Scott Morrison, Anthony Albanese and their
13 collaborators who with their lackeys are not only placing Australian lives unduly at risk but as
14 we saw in recent years also are mass murdering Australians.
15 While the AEC may argue that it is an election entity that should be impartial and cannot get
16 involved in certain matters, reality is that it has gotten involved in ensuring this system is not a
17 system at all but a theft of constitutional rights of Australians.
18 After all the AEC as I recall it has promoted to place “deposits” and number of electors
19 signatures on requirement for a candidate to stand, well seemingly apart of those who are
20 standing for a political party which underlines it is in my view political motivated to suit political
21 parties and the hell with what is constitutionally appropriate. As the Framers of the Constitution
22 made clear the only qualification a person needs to have to be a Member of Parliament is to be
23 an elector. Yet, even this the AEC has stuffed up big time as to allow people who are not at all
24 permanently residing in the Commonwealth of Australia to vote in Federal elections if they
25 merely can show to have this “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” Australian citizenship as a nationality.
26
27 I will not go into every detail as you can download ample of details/information from my blog at:
28 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
29
30 The meaning of “disinformation” I canvassed at my blog what this stands for.
31
32 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) has legal principles embedded in
33 nit:
34 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
35 Convention)
36 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
37 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
38 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
42 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
43 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
44 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
45 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
46 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
47 embrace and unite.
48 END QUOTE
49 And
51 QUOTE
52 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
53 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
Page 3
1 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
2 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
3 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
4 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
5 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
6 END QUOTE
7 And
9 QUOTE
10 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
11 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
12 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
13 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
14 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
15 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
16 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
17 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
18 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
19 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
20 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
21 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
22 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
23 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 So, now we know that the High Court of Australia has absolutely no constitutional powers to go
27 beyond the true meaning and application of the constitution.
28
29 Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
30 QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST:
31 We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born
32 in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the
33 commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old
34 country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of
35 the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies
36 should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired
37 his appointment.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 So, what was Sue v Hill then about?
41
42 The High Court of Australia pretended that those who were “subjects of the British Crown” were
43 ineligible to be Members of Parliament. Where on earth in the constitution does it provide that
44 the High Court of Australia instead of mere interpreting the intentions of the Framers of the
45 Constitution it now can amend the intention of the Framers of the Constitution as to what its
46 political masters may desire? The fact that the High Court of Australia is an equal branch in the
47 constitution and not the third branch of government as the latter would mean it is not impartial
48 seems to be ignored.
49
51 QUOTE
52 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
53 END QUOTE
54
Page 4

2 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
3 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
4 justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
5 END QUOTE
6
7 It should be understood that there is a ‘separation of powers’ which within our (federal)
8 constitutional system means:
9
10  The legislators
11  The executives
12  The judiciary
13  Section 101 Inter-State Commission
14
15 Yes, the Inter-State Commission is actually a constitutional creation!
16
17 As with MABO we had that the High Court of Australia declared the Commonwealth of
18 Australia to be a TERRA NULIUS.
19
20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius
21 Terra nullius - Wikipedia
22 In international law, terra nullius is territory which belongs to no state. Sovereignty over
23 territory which is terra nullius can be acquired by any state by ...
24
25 That really is not a correct term because Australia was known as “New Holland” when the Dutch
26 claimed it in about 1656! (see my blog).
27
28 So, what is this about “land rights” by Australian of Aboriginal descent referred to as
29 Aboriginals?
30
31 What really is and was applicable is that Aboriginals had their customary laws referred to as
32 Aboriginal Lore but being “common law” relevant to the particular area one of the about 350
33 tribes were in some area. Those customary laws were not extinguished by the Dutch claiming
34 New Holland unless specifically ousted by Dutch legislation. Likewise those customary laws
35 were not ousted by the later British law unless specifically ousted by British law. British law in
36 fact never seemed to oust Dutch law at al either.
37
38 Talk about opening a can of worms or Pandora Box, well you got one.
39
40 Anyhow getting back to the Sue v Hill decision, it should be understood that the High Court of
41 Australia has “judicial” powers and cannot use “social engineering” to create alleged legal
42 provisions where it held the Parliament ought to have legislated for but in its view failed to do
43 so. The task of the High Court of Australia is to remain within the ambit of judicial powers and
44 not transgress into legislative/executive or Inter-State Commission powers. For example, as the
45 Framers of the Constitution made very clear the High Court of Australia could only deal with
46 legal issue regarding an appeal against the Inter-State Commission decision and not otherwise.
47
48 With Sue v Hill the HCA in my view unconstitutionally interfered with the rights of Australians
49 by denying them to be as the constitution provides for “subjects of the British Crown”. And
50 even so to say kicked out Mr Barnaby Joyce for having allegedly “citizenship” or entitlements
51 from New Zealand, this even so the true meaning and application of the constitution did not

Page 5
1 provide for this. As such, this is a judicial interference with the constitution that is without
2 constitutional validity.
3
5 QUOTE
6 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: So far as the objection with regard to payment is concerned,
7 there is a good deal in it, and the matter should be dealt with now. The clause only deals
8 with the first senators. Afterwards the term of service begins on the 1st of January. I
9 suppose a senator can hardly be called a senator until the 1st of January arrives. He
10 will be a senator elect, but he will not be a senator really until that day. If parliament
11 is in session on the 1st of January, he will walk in and take his seat, and the other man
12 will walk out, and his pay, I apprehend, will begin on the same day. But the hon.
13 member has pointed out a blot with respect to the first senators. A man might be elected in
14 December and claim twelve months' pay, dating from the previous January. This, I think,
15 would be remedied by inserting in the second paragraph the words "for the purposes of his
16 retirement."
17 Mr. WRIXON: The matter will want a little thinking over, because I apprehend a
18 man is not a senator until he presents himself and takes the oath.
19 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Why not?
20 Mr. WRIXON: He might refuse to take the oath, and so would be disqualified from
21 the beginning. It is not until be presents himself and takes the oath that he is really a
22 senator. He is in potentiality a senator; but he is not completely clad in that position until
23 he [start page 602] appears at the table and takes the oath, and I apprehend he is not
24 entitled to payment until that takes place. I would suggest that it is somewhat hazardous
25 to make an amendment at the table in a bill of this kind, which has been carefully
26 considered; and if these matters are home in mind, they can be afterwards dealt with by the
27 draftsman. I would deprecate any hurried amendment on the spot, where it may not be
28 required.
29 Sir HARRY ATKINSON: The clause states that the term of service of a senator
30 shall not begin until the 1st January following the day of his election. If a vacancy
31 occurs, and a senator is elected in June, he then becomes a senator; but, according to
32 this part of the clause, he cannot become an actual senator until the following
33 January. Though parliament might be in session, he would be unable to take his seat. I
34 would suggest to the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, that he should take a note of this
35 point, and consider it. I do not think we could make any amendment here that would meet
36 the case. For the purposes of this particular clause the provision is right enough; but I think
37 there will be a difficulty in regard to payment, and also as to vacancies occurring.
38 Sir JOHN BRAY: I quite agree with Sir Samuel Griffith, that if we are not to overlook
39 this question entirely it ought to be settled somewhere in this clause, and if the hon.
40 gentleman sees no strong objection to such a course I shall move the insertion at the
41 beginning of the second paragraph of the words "for the purposes of this section." It would
42 be manifestly absurd in regard to the first election of senators to say that if a man is elected
43 in September or October the term of his service shall begin from the preceding January,
44 and that he shall be entitled to all the privileges of a senator from that date. It is quite
45 possible that this may not be the best amendment that can ultimately be made, but it seems
46 to me clear that the second paragraph was drawn with the idea, that it applied to this
47 section only and not to other portions of the bill. I beg, therefore, to move as an
48 amendment:
49 That before the words "The term of service" line 11, the words "For the purposes of this
50 section" be inserted.
51 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That is quite correct: those are the right words!
52 Amendment agreed to.
Page 6
1 END QUOTE
2
3 Let this sink in!
4
5 A person is not a Member of Parliament until he has taken up the seat elected for by an
6 oath/affirmation.
7
8 While Senators ordinary retire at the conclusion of their term on 30 th June when the new Senator
9 takes up the seat the following day on 1st July the Member of the House of Representatives and
10 Territorian Senators however are governed by a Prime minister calling for an election. If the
11 Governor-General calls for a ‘Double Dissolution’ then all Members of Parliament are out!
12 It should be understood that when an ordinary election eventuates then all Members of the House
13 of Representatives are deemed to have vacated their seats when the governor-General publish in
14 the Gazette a proclamation for an election.
15
16 Meaning, that the moment the proclamation is published the persons who were holding seats in
17 the House of Representatives no longer do so and are then ‘former Members of Parliament’,
18 albeit those who are holding Ministerial positions continue to do so during the election process
19 until the Governor-General commission /recommission those the Governor-General deems fit
20 and proper to serve in a new Ministry.
21
22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Australian_federal_election
23 2022 Australian federal election - Wikipedia
24 QUOTE
25 The 2022 Australian federal election was held on Saturday 21 May 2022 to elect members of the 47th
26 Parliament of Australia. The incumbent Liberal/National Coalition government, led by Prime Minister
27 Scott Morrison, sought to win a fourth consecutive term in office but was defeated by the opposition
28 Labor Party, led by Anthony Albanese. Up for election were all 151 seats… +
29 Read More
30 END QUOTE
31
32 The wording “but was defeated by the opposition Labor Party, led by Anthony Albanese.” Is in
33 my view misleading because once an election is called then without a House of Representatives
34 there can be no “Leader of the Opposition” or “opposition Labor Party’.
35 When I pointed this out to Mr Kevin Rudd in 2007 he (to his credit) actually subsequently
36 acknowledged to the media that he was an unemployed former diplomat.
37
38 Politicians by S44 of the constitution are prohibited to have any office of profit with the
39 Commonwealth albeit the High Court of Australia misconceived this is Sykes v Cleary this
40 because when Edmund Barton placed to the Constitutional Convention to put different draft
41 clauses together as what is now Section 44 of the constitution he made clear that it didn’t alter
42 what had been agreed upon previously upon the separate draft clauses. That was that a person
43 having an office for profit with a State doesn’t prevent the person to stand for federal election.
44 Indeed, it was made clear that a Minister of a State Government would not relinquish his seat
45 unless elected to Federal Parliament and willing to take up a seat.
46 For example a Minister with a State government might be elected to the Parliament but decides
47 not to take the seat where the party he stood for failed to have the majority to form a
48 government.
49 For this Mr Cleary was wrongly ousted.
50
51 With Mr Barnaby Joyce there are other complications,

Page 7
1 The term “Australian citizenship” was used by the Framers of the Constitution to mean any
2 Australian who was residing in the Commonwealth of Australia!
3
5 QUOTE
6 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will
7 come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who
8 would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for
9 such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
10 Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists,
11 but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
12 be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but
13 one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship
14 meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say,
15 I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the
16 dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we
17 introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and
18 those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision,
19 and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore,
20 it is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we
21 possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or
22 exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness.
23 As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not
24 want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be
25 prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an
26 argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth
27 Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen
28 of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
29 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
30 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
31 rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every
32 citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth
33 shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
34 with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
35 and so on.
36 END QUOTE
37
39 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
40 No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses
41 of Parliament act capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if
42 the Houses choose to agree to it-let the Houses do one thing one day and another the next,
43 and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but trust the Parliament." Of course; but
44 Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution. The Senate of to-
45 day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the
46 Constitution.
47 END QUOTE
48
50 QUOTE
51 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and
52 the states on terms that are just to both.
53 Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.
Page 8
1 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no
2 Constitution is required at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen
3 shall be elected, and meet together, and, without limitation, do what they like. Victoria
4 would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very life-blood of the
5 Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would
6 give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most
7 important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances
8 before, in matters that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already
9 arrived at.
10 END QUOTE
11
13 QUOTE
14 Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the
15 provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this
16 dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is
17 the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
18 exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining
19 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
20 Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why
21 it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood
22 who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
23 having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the
24 Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
25 not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for
26 joining the Union.
27 END QUOTE
28 .
30 QUOTE
31 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded
32 the spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has
33 enlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one
34 citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship.
35 That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again.
36 We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be
37 recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution.
38 END QUOTE
39
41 QUOTE
42 Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
43 Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
44 Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
45 Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with
46 the view of inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
47 I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship
48 to any citizen within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little
49 too hastily when I said that every citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the
50 Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power to determine who is a citizen. I
51 do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a definition of
52 citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
53 decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
54 Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.

Page 9
1 Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an
2 inherent right to determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its
3 borders.
4 Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
5 END QUOTE
6
8 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
9 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
10 Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to
11 pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the
12 Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by
13 the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
14 END QUOTE
15
17 QUOTE
18 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that
19 we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
20 END QUOTE
21
23 QUOTE
24 Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
25 comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in
26 the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the
27 clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of
28 the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship,
29 and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
30 interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the
31 scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a
32 colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I
33 see therefore nothing unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British
34 subjects, in proposing to place power in this Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament
35 to deal with the question of federal citizenship.
36 END QUOTE
37
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-
41 and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers
42 for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall
43 get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our
44 schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could
45 complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the
46 amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
47 amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree?
48 Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave
49 this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for
50 that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
51 END QUOTE
52
53 HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
54 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
Page 10
1 Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten
2 Constitution of England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When
3 once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it.
4 END QUOTE
5
7 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
8 I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
9 One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be
10 either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority
11 above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state
12 legislatures, existing under the constitution.
13 END QUOTE
14
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. GORDON: I should like to ask Mr. Barton whether there is anything in this point: A
18 number of German fellow colonists may have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign
19 power, especially those who have served in the ranks in Germany. Would it not be
20 necessary to add after "power" in line 27 the words "or who has not since been naturalised
21 as provided in clause 30"?
22 Mr. GLYNN: You cannot have two, allegiances.
23 Mr. BARTON: No; a man might have to go out of our Parliament to serve against us.
24 Sir GEORGE TURNER: He may be Minister of Defence.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 It should be clear that once a person makes an oath to a foreign power then this person by section
28 44 is no longer a Member of Parliament.
29
30 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
31 QUOTE
32 44 Disqualification
33 Any person who:
34 (i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or
35 adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or
36 entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a
37 foreign power; or
38 (ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under
39 sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence
40 punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State
41 by imprisonment for one year or longer; or
42 (iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
43 (iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension
44 payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the
45 revenues of the Commonwealth; or
46 (v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement
47 with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than
48 as a member and in common with the other members of an
49 incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five
50 persons;
51 shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a
52 member of the House of Representatives.
53 But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the
Page 11
1 Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the

2 Queen’s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or
3 a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s
4 navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of
5 the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person
6 whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.
7 END QUOTE
8
9 This means that any person standing for election cannot have any financial benefit at cost of
10 taxpayers! It means that those standing for re-election cannot use parliamentarian offices and
11 benefits to pursue re-election. Neither can have some agreement of some financial payment
12 when retiring and/or failed in re-election!
13
14 Moreover, neither can therefore travel at cost of taxpayers to electioneer for themselves and/or
15 others. And yet we frequently find that a Minister, even so if they are no longer a Member of the
16 House of Representatives nevertheless use taxpayers monies to fund their travelling around the
17 Commonwealth of Australia. Which also denies opponents of a fair and proper election!
18
19
20
21 My view is that Anthony Albanese is and has been an imposter to claim to be (Prime) Minister.
22 Then again so I view have many of his predecessors also.
23
24 Let us consider the position of the Governor-General:
25
27 QUOTE
28 2 Governor-General
29 A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the
30 Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the
31 Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen
32 as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
33 END QUOTE
34
35 Do note the part “but subject to this Constitution”!
36
37 Actually this also is a condition in Section 106:
Page 12
1
3 QUOTE
4 106 Saving of Constitutions
5 The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution,
6 continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or
7 establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the
8 Constitution of the State.
9 END QUOTE
10
12 QUOTE
13 101 Inter-State Commission
14 There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and
15 administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance,
16 within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and
17 commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Section 101 makes it very clear: “There shall be”, yet we have purported Federal Governments
21 squandering monies blatantly ignoring/undermining the constitutional authority of the Inter-State
22 commission!
23
24 The Framers of the Constitution made it very clear that the Governor-General was to be
25 appointed by the Queen (Monarch) on recommendation of the Home Office (10 Downing Street)
26 but they did also discus that in the alternative a Governor-General was to be elected by the
27 electors! As such, no such thing as a Governor-General being a puppet-on-a-string and the
28 Commonwealth decide who shall or shall not be Governor-General.
29
30 Therefore Isaac Isaacs a purported Governor-General clearly failed to be appointed as intended
31 by the Framers of the Constitution, which places all future commissions of purported Minister of
32 the Commonwealth of Australia into doubt.
33
34 Again: “but subject to this Constitution”!
35
36 Meaning that the Governor-General can only commission a person subject to the legal principles
37 embedded in the constitution. Without conceding that Isaac Isaacs and subsequent Governor-
38 Generals were validly appointed, let’s consider that even if they were Anthony Albanese (and
39 others) could have been in a constitutional valid manner have been appointed within the
40 provisions of S64 of the constitution.
41
43 QUOTE
44 64 Ministers of State
45 The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the
46 Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.
47 Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be
48 members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for
49 the Commonwealth.
50 Ministers to sit in Parliament

Page 13
1 After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period
2 than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of
3 Representatives.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 This means that the Governor-General may appoint any person, regardless if not elected to the
7 Federal Parliament but “but subject to this Constitution”!
8 I understand that Anthony Albanese prior to the purported 2022 federal election was making
9 clear to pursue the Commonwealth of Australia to be a “Republic” and in addition supporting the
10 USA (DoD) Deagel DEPOPULATION that was and remains pursued via the U.N. (United
11 nations, WHO (World Health Organisation) and the W.E.F. (World Economic Forum), albeit
12 merely making clear to support the so called “vaccination” which really is a ‘covid scam’
13 because neither Pfizer and/or Moderna are vaccines but are “gene therapy” and the
14 Commonwealth and neither the States/ Territories had any constitutional powers to force/coerce
15 any mandates for vaccinations regarding “mankind” infectious diseases.
16
17 While the High Court of Australia purported in Palmer v WA that the States/Territories could
18 close borders and not violate Section 92, etc, reality is that the court concealed from its judgment
19 the following:
20
22 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
23 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
24 clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
25 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 This means that the States/Territories have no constitutional powers as to any mandates when it
29 comes to “man-kind” infectious diseases. And as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that
30 legal principle exist that ‘both sides” is to be heard before a judicial decision can be made.
31
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I beg to move-
35 That there be inserted at the beginning of Mr. Symon's new clause the following words:-
36 "Every subject of the Queen resident in any state or part of the Commonwealth shall be
37 entitled in any other state or part of the Commonwealth to all the privileges and immunities
38 to which he would be entitled if a subject of the Queen resident in the latter state or part
39 of the Commonwealth. "
40 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Cannot you reverse the mode, and say that the person outside
41 the state shall not be subject to greater disabilities than a person in such state?
42 Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I think that Sir George Turner has exactly bit the nail on the
43 head. The form of expression used in Mr. O'Connor's amendment is affirmative, and it
44 operates too widely. I [start page 1801] would suggest therefore that, as we have all a
45 common object to be gained, we should express the matter in as simple a form as we can. I
46 would suggest the following words:-
47 There shall be no discrimination by state laws based on residence or citizenship in another
48 state.
49 That would attain the purpose exactly, and it would allow Sir John Forrest at the same
50 time to have his law with, regard to Asiatics not being able to obtain miners' rights in
51 Western Australia. There is no discrimination there based on residence or citizenship;
52 it is simply based upon colour and race. It would also prohibit a law like that of the state
Page 14
1 of Maine, in the United States, alluded to by Mr. O'Connor, to the effect that a resident of
2 an adjoining state should not be allowed to sue for damages in Maine for any want of
3 repair of roads. What we want is to get a negative prohibition for the purpose of securing
4 free intercourse between the various states. We want, as I understand it, to prohibit any
5 discrimination which is based upon a false principle; and if you say that there shall be
6 no discrimination made by state laws based upon residence or citizenship in another
7 state I think that would answer the purpose. It is a form of expression which is
8 preferable to the affirmative form used in Mr. O'Connor's proposal.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Yet we found people denied to be with their dying love ones because a state discriminated as to
12 where the person resided what conditions were enforced.
13 This underlines how utterly Stone Age kind of principles lawyers/judges & politicians are living
14 under not having any clue what is constitutionally appropriate.
15
16 In the process they have mass murdered Australians and visitors with all kinds of non-sensible
17 mandates in violation of the constitution and prevented proper access to the courts, etc, as to seek
18 any relief.
19
20 When did the High Court of Australia actually establish in a legal manner that such alleged
21 SARS-CoV-2 virus actually existed? It simply seemed to me grossly incompetent to do so, a
22 failure of its very constitutional requirement to rule upon legal issues and not accept mere
23 allegations that even now nearly 3½ years later turned out never to have actually been proven to
24 exist other than on some computer generated sequencing of an alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus that
25 was already done way back in 2006!
26
27 In my view the separation of powers ensures that it is beyond the judicial powers of the High
28 Court of Australia to invent/apply through judgments “Social engineering”.
29
30 Did Peter Doherty Institute really prove the existence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2
31 (COVID-19) or it merely assumed it and scientist around the world simply didn’t
32 bother to check and verify it?
33 You can download the document from:
34 https://www.scribd.com/document/641798519/20230430-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
35 B-to-Mjainsight
36
37 https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/how-the-unvaccinated-got-it-
38 right_5238208.html?utm_source=healthnoe&src_src=healthnoe&utm_campaign=health-2023-05-
39 04&src_cmp=health-2023-05-
40 04&utm_medium=email&est=FR8NFfFoiqnHZBa3YR4Xa%2BYPqnwXbKc7X%2FiyCL%2FmvcHY6BRz
41 SOTVZ0GGZ03HFtXoCbuDHldW3IN1
42 How the ‘Unvaccinated’ Got It Right
43
44 Also consider:
45
46 This request is not needed for FOI Act as it is supposing already public. However, I
47 outline what real amendments ought to be made by a referendum! And obviously
48 more to come to be attended to so “race” issues never again will be part of the
49 constitution!
51 B-to-Attorney-General-Mark-Dreyfus-REQUEST-FOR-DETAILS-INFORMATION
52
Page 15
1 And
2 I use a hypothetical litigation where VOICE insist on compulsory vaccination of
3 Aboriginals resulting in over 100,000 Aboriginal deaths. Who is the blame? Also is it
4 mRNA and/or ModRNA that can alter DNA?
7 B-to-Attorney-General-Mark-Dreyfus-mRNA-or-ModRNA-That-Can-Alter-DNA
8
9 And
10
11 I am concerned that there are lawyers/legal practitioners who are as I view it
12 spreading false and misleading claims/statements to deceive electors about Voice. I
13 view they must not only stop this kind of conduct but also retract incorrect statement
14 and/or clarify. The same regarding “native tile”/”land rights” claims.
17 B-to-Katie-O-Bryan-Paula-Gerber-Re-Voice-Etc-Supplement-1
18
19 When someone claims about the Voice, such as Anthony Albanese that it is a “modest”
20 amendment then I view this is disinformation big time.
21
22 Scott Morrison requested the Australian Federal Police to investigate regarding
23 COVID issues, and well, let the AFP do its job and do a proper investigation as I now
24 have requested in this COMPLAINT.
25 This document can be downloaded from:
27 B-to-Reece-Kershaw-Chief-Commissioner-of-the-Australian-Federal-Police-
28 COMPLAINT-2
29
30 QUOTE
31 Reece Kershaw 6-8-2021
32 Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
33 Forwarded via email
34
35 Cc: acv@health.gov.au
36 Advisory Committee on Vaccines, Therapeutic Goods Administration
37 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606
38 Attn: Pharmacovigilance and Special Access Branch, MDP 122
39
40 Committees@health.gov.au
41 Committee Support Unit, Therapeutic Goods Administration
42 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606
43 Attn: Scheduling & Committee Support Section, MDP 122
44
45 Mr Daniel Andrews Premier
46 daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
47
48 Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au, attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
49
50 Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
51
52
53 20210806-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
54 COMPLAINT
Page 16
1 Sir,
2 I understand from news report that a special AFP team has been appointed regarding
3 online publications relating to the COVID-19 issue. I view therefore that it is within the AFP
4 investigative powers to investigate all relevant issues and not just those which the
5 Government may desire to be investigating to perhaps aids in its overthrow of the
6 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and so the provisions therein.
7
8 https://www.9news.com.au/national/coronavirus-anti-vaxxers-targeted-special-team-detectives-fears-could-
9 target-vaccine-hubs/fad28908-9340-4d0e-80f7-f5e21d61f0e7
10 Coronavirus: Anti vaxxers targeted by special team of detectives amid fears they could target
11 vaccine hubs (9news.com.au)
12 Fears vaccine hubs could be 'targeted' as online chatter spikes
13 QUOTE
14 A special team of AFP detectives has been appointed by the Federal Government to
15 watch the online interactions of the anti-vaccination "movement".
16 END QUOTE
17
18 My concern is also that the Federal Government is aiding and abetting with the States as to
19 succeed in this to install a NEW WORLD ORDER, violating our constitutional rights, by
20 providing funding for the unconstitutional lockdowns or any state/territory.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 Yet the mass murder of Australians continued and our entire constitutional system was
24 sidestepped also because of what I view grossly incompetent judges in the courts.
25 The late Australian of Aboriginal descent “Kumanjayi Walker” paid with her life as to be
26 unconstitutionally held in a quarantine centre without any required court order let alone legal
27 representation to ensure her constitutional, legal, human and natural rights in addition to her
28 “common law rights” where not violated!
29 This is what eventuate when the electoral system is so much corrupted to seek to prevent
30 ordinary Australians their constitutional rights to be a candidate by unconstitutional artificial
31 requirements such as ‘deposit’ and ‘number of signatures’ from other electors causing them
32 having to do a mini election to somehow qualify to become a candidate in a political election and
33 by this ensuring that the political party mob totally incompetent of understanding/comprehending
34 the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution are then
35 able to dominate the political power landscape and so for their corporate masters who fund them.
36 THIS NEEDS TO STOP!
37
38 Despite My thousands upon thousands of pages I published about the COVID scam the
39 Australian Federal Police at no time pursued any of this to be deleted/removed from my blog.
40 This may underline it was in cahoot with the politicians to avoid making head waves with me
41 well aware that I was right on the dot about this covid scam and their DEPOPULATION tactics.
42
43 I have no doubt that likewise the AEC will remain silent as after all it has itself been involved in
44 “disinformation” for decades, as well as allowing political parties to do so!
45
46 The AEC has been at the forefront to ensure an elaborate swindle of the electors by allowing
47 political parties to pretend they are voting who shall be (Prime) Minister, this even so ultimately
48 the Governor-General determines who shall be commissioned to be a Minister.
49
50 As we saw with the unconstitutional disaster involving Scott Morrison no proper system was in
51 place to ensure that the Governor-General when commissioning a person to be a Minister this is
52 published in the Gazette to ensure it is all constitutionally valid!
Page 17
1
2 The Monarch and so the representative of the Monarch being the Governor-General cannot
3 exercise any prerogative powers unless and until the Monarch (Governor-General) has published
4 in the Gazette any decision/appointment.
5
7 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
8 The practice in England has been that when the House of Commons is dissolved, the
9 Gazette which contains the proclamation, or one issued concurrently, also contains a
10 proclamation summoning a parliament to meet on a given day, and all the writs are
11 appointed to be returned on that day.
12 END QUOTE
13 .
14 WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374;( JUDGE3 STEPHEN J.)
15 QUOTE
16 As Scott L.J. said in Blackpool Corporation v. Locker (1948) 1 KB 349, at
17 p
18 361 , speaking there of sub-delegated legislation, "there is one quite general
19 question . . . of supreme importance to the continuance of the rule of law
20 under the British constitution, namely, the right of the public affected to
21 know what that law is". The maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse forms the
22 "working hypothesis on which the rule of law rests in British democracy" but to
23 operate it requires that "the whole of our law, written or unwritten, is accessible to
24 the public - in the sense, of course, that at any rate its legal advisers have access to it at
25 any moment, as of right".
26 END QUOTE
27 Again;
28 QUOTE
29 it requires that "the whole of our law, written or unwritten, is
30 accessible to the public - in the sense, of course,
31 END QUOTE
32
33 Citizens are entitled to have a system in place that they can ascertain what is applicable and not
34 having to be suddenly be confronted with an alleged appointment no one has been advised about.
35 But, as I pointed out in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka not erven this simple system was adhered to
36 regarding the purported 2001 federal election. Meaning, not even the AEC was able to follow
37 proper legal processes and merely took the word of whomever, or didn’t even bother for this and
38 embarked upon an election process in total disregard that the proclamation that was to have been
39 published in the Gazette never was on 8 October 2001 but to some States/Territories on 9
40 October 2001 and others on 10 October 2001 and some States not at all until the general Gazette
41 was published weeks later. Actually, Counsel for AEC during litigation submitted to file the 8
42 October 2001 Special Gazette to try to prove it was published that day. I objected to this but was
43 overruled. And well when then I drew attention that the Special Gazette by documents o9btained
44 under FOI Act was proved not to have been published until at earlies on 9 October 2001 then
45 Counsel for AEC (Commonwealth) withdrew the exhibit Gazette but could not prevent me to
46 rely upon it. I had in fact already provided the Court with a copy of the Special Gazette and
47 included FOI Act obtained documents to prove it was never published on 8 October 2001. This
48 underlined that the Government lawyers didn’t really bother to read and consider my filed
49 material at all. Worse, the AEC proved that it was rather seeking to pervert the course of justice
50 and obstruct the administration of justice and refused to declare the purported 2001 federal
51 election to be invalid as the writs having been issued on 8 October 2001 clearly had no legal
52 validity. Therefore the AEC was involved in an elaborate scam to pursue a purported election
Page 18
1 having been validly held rather than to ensure it was and remained to be impartial and would act
2 within legal requirements.
3
4 ADDRESS TO THE COURT
5 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
6
7 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
8
9 Communication, or there lack thereof, by CDPP (Prosecutor)
10
11 In May and June 2006 the Defendant provided the Commonwealth Director of Public
12 Prosecutions with correspondences which included most of the submissions the Defendant
13 intended to make to the Court, including for a “PERMANENT STAY” of orders, and also
14 about religious objection, seeking the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to
15 consent to a “PERMANENT STAY” of the proceedings relating to the charges. However,
16 having done so, the Defendant then is faced with the Commonwealth Director of Public
17 Prosecutions being for warned as to what the Defendant intends to do in most issues and as
18 such may seek to counteract those arguments. It is not the counter argument itself that the
19 Defendant is worried about, but the deceptive conduct employed in the past by the lawyers
20 acting for the Australian Electoral Commission in their litigation to the extend as to
21 deliberately replace words in what is claimed to be an Authority being quoted as to pretend to
22 the Court that a judge made a certain ruling even so the ruling is a fraudulent version to
23 deceive the Court. Such as Mr Peter Hanks QC did before the Federal Court of Australia and
24 later again made a deceptive statement to the High Court of Australia.
25
26 For example, checking the transcript of the hearing, it is noted that Mr Peter Hanks QC in his
27 argument in point 22 and 22.1 of the OUTLINE stated the following;
28
29 QUOTE
30 22 In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred
31 to the general rule that “not less than” so many days refers to clear days – “unless the
32 context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention”.
33 END QUOTE
34 His quotation is again false and misleading!
35
36 Mr Peter Hanks QC quoted of the judgment the following;
37 QUOTE
38 “unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention”
39 END QUOTE
40 This ought to be;
41 QUOTE
42 “unless the context or the subject matter reveals a contrary intention”
43 END QUOTE
44
45 Clearly, that is a gross deception. In legal terms there can be a significant difference in a case
46 for the Court to deal with a “statutory intention” versus “subject matter”.
47
48 Mr Peter Hanks QC stated to the Court (7 November 2001);
49
50 The researches of counsel have been unable to find provisions using simular language (“not
51 less that” or “at least” a number of days) where the language is as clear and specific as
52 found in ss156(1) and 157.
Page 19
1
2 Thousands upon thousands of Internet references can be found upon a search “shall not be
3 less than” or “shall not be less that”. As such this statement by Mr. Peter Hanks QC for the
4 Australian Electoral Commission was a fraudulent statement. Likewise other statement were
5 found by the defendant to be deceptive and/or misleading.
6
7 We also have the fact that Counsel Mr peter Hanks QC argued the authority of the
8
9 ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD
10 (1950) 81 CLR 161
11
12 What counsel did however was to make a false and misleading presentation of what the case
13 really was on about.
14 As the authority stated:
15
16 The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which
17 was too short by one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position.
18
19 Mr Peter Hank QC didn’t argue that the authority wasn’t relevant, to the contrary he argued
20 its relevance only by misrepresenting how it applied and what the authority really was on
21 about. As such, it had nothing to do with “within” as Mr Peter Hanks QC argued as clearly the
22 usage “within” was in a different context and not at all as Mr Hanks sought to imply and did
23 imply.
24
25 It ought to be considered a serious matter that a barrister employs these kind of tactics, indeed
26 deceptive tactics, but it seems the Australian Electoral Commissioner does not seem to worry
27 about the means as long as it achieves his end results.
28 Because I expect the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to come up with any
29 nonsense and unable to verify the correctness of any claims they may make about any
30 AUTHORITY they may refer to I am left no alternative but to present my own research.
31 Lawyers are “OFFICERS OF THE COURT” but I experienced that when it comes to the
32 Australian Electoral Commissioner being the instructing party then it seems to me from
33 experiences their “oath of alliance” is worthless and they cannot be trusted, as set out also
34 further in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT.
35
36 It is my view, that had Mr Peter Hanks QC not concealed matters and not presented
37 fraudulent Authorities and how they applied then the Federal Court of Australia would not
38 have ruled that it had no legal jurisdiction, and would in fact have granted the orders I sought.
39 And in the end this case would never have eventuated before this Court as then matters could
40 have been addressed appropriately before any federal election had been held!
41
42 I take the position that Subsection 245(14) of the Constitution is not and cannot be regarded
43 to limit the right of a objection to be only a (theistic belief ) “religious objection” but includes
44 also any secular belief objection.
45
46 If Subsection 245(14) was limited to being “theistic belief” then it would be
47 unconstitutional.
48
49 QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
50 WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Page 20
1 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006

2
3 C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
4 Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
5 GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
6 Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
7 T01567737 & Q01897630
8 AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
9
10 Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)
11 offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.
12
13 Madam,
14 As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate
15 that while using the “religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of the
16 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an
17 objection only to an “theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in fact it also includes
18 any secular belief based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses
19 as grounds for an “objection”. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the
20 Commonwealth of Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only “theistic belief”
21 based “religious objections”. Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or
22 philosophical source of “religious objection” have a valid objection.
23 Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state his/her
24 religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious objection” as the
25 mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a
26 “religious objection”. Therefore, the wording “religious objection” is to be taken as
27 “objection” without the word “religion” having any special meaning in that regard.
28 If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
29 I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.
30
31 Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
32 END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
33
34 QUOTE 7-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 7-6-2006
35 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
36 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 7-6-2006
37
38 C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
39 Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
40 GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
41 Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
42 T01567737 & Q01897630
43 AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
44 Re; Charges, etc
45 Madam,
46 With proceedings due next month, I view it would be more appropriate if you were to
47 make some effort as to communicate with myself regarding matters relating to the charges
48 and indeed the legal justification of them. After all, the Commonwealth Director of Public
49 Prosecutions may be litigating against many people allegedly failing to vote, besides myself,
50 and it may be born out by my material that none of such litigation could be constitutionally
51 valid. In my view, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions must consider ALL
52 RELEVANT MATERIAL as to ensure it is not pursuing vexatious charges.
Page 21
1 I assume that while you are a lawyer, more then likely you are not a “constitutionalist”, and
2 as such may lack the experiences and competence to understand and comprehend the material
3 I am relying upon, and for this you may do better to perhaps seek to consult a
4 “constitutionalist” who is appropriately trained in these matters. After all, if a
5 “constitutionalist” were to conclude that indeed I am on the right track that the charges have
6 no constitutional validity then you could surely save the Courts time to hear and determine
7 vexatious charges or even to try to attempt to do so.
8 Albeit, I am still working on the DRAFT version of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT, it
9 nevertheless is already comprehensive and would indicate to a “constitutionalist” that the
10 charges are ill conceived and without any constitutional bases to proceed with, and as such I
11 am willing to provide an electronic copy to you of the DRAFT, albeit not completed, version
12 so you may perhaps seek advise of a “constitutionalist”.
13
14 Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
15 END QUOTE 7-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 7-6-2006
16 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
17
18 It is utter and sheer nonsense that the AEC somehow shall determine if an Within the provisions
19 of Section 116 of the Constitution there is no constitutional powers for the AEC
20 (commonwealth) to decide what if any religious faith a person may or may not prescribe to.
21 elector has an excuse why not having voted. As such the AEC is spreading
22 “DISINFORMATION” big time and involved in unconstitutional and so unlawful conduct.
23
24 Likewise, the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics has been pursuing questions about religion
25 that many will simply respond no religion to avoid possible religious prosecution of the details
26 are misused by the ABS or fall in the hands of unauthorised persons. And it is well known the
27 ABS has published the details and entities have used this to claim that religion is waning, etc. As
28 such the unconstitutional conduct by the ABS to even request details (regardless it now claims to
29 be voluntarily) means it engages in a massive unconstitutional conduct.
30
31 When I had to fill in the form I simply filled in N/A (not Applicable) at numerous question as it
32 was none of the Commonwealth business. Regretfully most citizens are not aware of their
33 constitutional rights and so will answer questions that the ABS Commonwealth) simply lacks
34 any constitutional powers for.
35
36 Where for example is the constitutional powers to question how many motor vehicles a person
37 and/or his family may have? There is none.
38
40 QUOTE
41 Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the
42 rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and
46 LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
47 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
48 Australasian Convention)
49 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
50 for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
51 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
52 END QUOTE
53

Page 22
1 What we therefore have is that while no government can interfere with, our civil rights it has
2 however a constitutional/legal obligation to protect a person’s civil rights.
3
5 QUOTE
6 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-We spend time enough in discussing things here, and when every one is agreed that
7 this clause is not to be adopted in the form in which it is printed, but is only to be a power of the Parliament,
8 it is not worth while to discuss the question of whether it is [start page 1665] absolutely necessary to put in
9 the words. Where there is a wide difference of opinion, it would be safer to do it. I agree with Mr. Barton that
10 there is no power, because sub-section (37) of clause 52 reads-
11 Any matters necessary for or incidental to the carrying into execution of the foregoing powers, or of any
12 other powers vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or Executive Government of the Commonwealth,
13 or in any department or officer thereof.
14 I venture to say that these are not necessary or incidental to the execution of any powers. The
15 Commonwealth will come into existence under this Constitution plus English law, one of whose
16 principles is that the Queen can do no wrong. That is the foundation on which the Constitution is
17 established.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 While Australia appears to have somewhere of 100,000 legal practitioners (and a lot more
21 lawyers who are not legal practitioners) nevertheless few is any actually have any grasp what is
22 legally applicable where it comes to constitutional powers and other powers.
23
24 When the Framers of the Constitution stated “under this Constitution plus English law” this then
25 would mean ordinary English law not being constitutional law! This as the Commonwealth of
26 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) also is English law. What this means is that English law is
27 complimentary to but not overriding constitutional law of Commonwealth of Australia
28 Constitution Act 1900 (UK). Further, as while the UK was part of the EU (European Union)
29 then also its laws were ‘complimentary’ to the Commonwealth of Australia.
30
31
Page 23
1 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such
2 considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English
3 Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark
4 (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment
5 IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168
6 It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
7 Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is
8 complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
9 Act 1900 (UK) is.
10
11 Because EU law at the time overrode British law due to the UK having signed the EU
12 constitution then it automatically also applies to the Commonwealth of Australia albeit only
13 complimentary and not in violation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
14 (UK) and any valid law enacted within the provisions of this constitution.
15
16 https://namastepublishing.co.uk/elisabeth-beckett-her-untold-story/
17 Elisabeth Beckett – Defender of the British Constitution Her Untold Story
18 QUOTE
19 “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.
20 But it cannot survive treason from within…”
21 ~ Cicero Marcus Tullius~ Born January 3,
22 106 BC and murdered December 7, 43 BC
23 END QUOTE
24 And
25 QUOTE
26 The answer to this can be found in the descriptively accurate words of Cicero Marcus
27 Tullius, born on 3 January, 106 BC and murdered on 7 December, 43 BC:
28 “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason
29 from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his
30 banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly
31 whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For
32 the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he
33 wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
34 hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the
35 night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no
36 longer resist.
37 A murderer is less to fear.”
38 END QUOTE
39 And
40 QUOTE
41 The English Constitution includes:
42 1). Magna Carta, (which the Supreme Court used for the release of the people in Guantanamo
43 Bay)
44 2). The Petition of Right 1627
45 3). The Bill of Rights of 1689
46 4). The 1700 Act of Settlement
47 These legal statutes were made by the people from whom the colonies are descended, only
48 rubber stamped by British Parliament, (governing the colonies at the time) until independence.
49 It is the basis of your Law and your Constitution. The United States Constitution is subject to
50 the British Constitution.
51 The only elements of the US Constitution that differ fron the British Constitution is the Royal
52 Prerogative and Christianity. The prerogative can exceptionally be used by the President, but is
53 not part of the law as it is with us in the UK. However, the people of the USA cannot rely on
Page 24
1 the ‘prerogative,’ all they can do is find the relevant phrases that can fight orders. These can be
2 found in the Bill of Rights 1689 and chapter 29 of Magna Carta. Good luck!
3 END QUOTE
4 And
5 QUOTE
6 For readers to understand. KNOW THIS.
7 The ‘prerogative power’ is given to the monarch by the PEOPLE, under the Bill of
8 Rights of 1689 and Magana Carta. The monarch agrees to protect our laws and customs
9 under the Coronation Oath and the Constitution. Failure do so is TREASON against the
10 people! We are protected from GESTAPO type (executive) law by the ‘prerogative.’ This is
11 what the New World Order is trying to take away from us. This is our ancient law. Therefore,
12 why has the monarch signed FIVE illegal treaties taking us into a crimalised organisation – the
13 EU, which is completely against our Constitution?
14 STOP PRESS
15 Elisabeth has now applied for an interlocutory injunction to stop Brown and his associates
16 taking us, the People of the UK further into an illegal administrative situation. (Anyone can
17 and should do this). It is illegal for a government to be financially involved with an
18 organisation that cannot even audit its own accounts. The EU has not audited its accounts for
19 the past 13 years.
20 QUOTE
21 And
22 QUOTE
23 In Magna Carta it was made clear that if the monarch went against this Oath then chapter
24 61 would apply, the contract would be broken and the monarch would have to give up his
25 position and possessions. You have, throughout your reign, disregarded our laws and
26 customs in the legislation that has gone through Parliament.
27 END QUOTE
28 And
29 QUOTE
30 Only the year before, Asquith had been forced to go to the country by Edward VII
31 who sent back the same bill to Parliament. And indeed monarchs had refused assent on
32 at least six other occasions since 1707. On each occasion this refusal of Assent was
33 because the bills concerned breached our constitution.
34 END QUOTE
35 And
36 QUOTE
37 The 1911 Act purports to permit taxes to be levied on us merely by a majority in the
38 House of Commons and without reference to the upper chamber. This again is
39 against our Constitution and specifically not permitted by our Petition of Right of
40 1627.
41 END QUOTE
42 And
43 QUOTE
44 Your contract with the people of this country and the colonies and dominions cannot be
45 destroyed by the chicanery of the Fabians in the 1911 Act, nor by subsequent legislation. If
46 you have the courage to fulfil your contract, however belatedly, you could prorogue
47 Parliament now and have a free election with or without party divisions so that this country
48 can go forward in a proper and united way to remove us from the difficulties that have
49 ensued since the 1911 Parliament Act.
50 END QUOTE
51 And
52 QUOTE
53 Mrs. Beckett, who was a District Officer’s wife in India, believes that adding onto local
54 taxes the cost of illegal immigrants or local assemblies that are a link to the European
Page 25
1 Union, itself a body not allowed under our Constitution, is illegal. Money raised for local
2 councils should be described as a service charge, not a Tax.
3 END QUOTE
4 And
5 QUOTE
6 We the people hold the power (we are a democracy but we are also a Constitutional
7 Monarchy) but for the power of Government and giving assent to Bills, we give the power
8 known as the Royal Prerogative, to the Queen to govern. She governs in our name and
9 according to the laws that we brought in to prevent her or the people in Parliament, from
10 taking over power.
11 END QUOTE
12 And
13 QUOTE
14 They then gave to Parliament the right to decide on whether or not to go to war instead of
15 putting the power under our laws that say we cannot go to war unless someone is attacking
16 us.”
17 END QUOTE
18 And
19 QUOTE
20 Elisabeth asks that readers make a determined effort to understand our unique British
21 Constitution, which was made by our ancestors, ordinary people who fought and gave their
22 lives for the Magna Carta and other statutes. In fact it is stated in the Act of Settlement that
23 these are the Birth Right of the People of Britain. As it was referred to by Lord Chatham
24 (Pitt the Elder) “the Genius of our ancestors”. Our own Declaration of Rights were all
25 contracts made between the people and the monarch and only later rubber stamped by
26 Parliament. These statutes consist of the Magna Carta 1215, the Petition of Rights 1627,
27 Bill of Rights 1689. These are available in the public libraries and direct from the House of
28 Lords Records’ Office and some are on the internet.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
33 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
34 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
35 Constitution,
36 END QUOTE
37
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by
41 the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in
42 effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies,
43 and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been
44 the work of Australians.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 In my view many if not most members of any Parliament are not interested in pursuing what they
48 were elected for and rather may just like to make some extra monies on the side line and/or work
49 on their future past Parliament involvement. However there are also those who are often vilified
50 and that for doing their very job they were elected for. Some others not in the Parliament make
51 outstanding contributions also.
52
53 https://stephenreason.substack.com/p/the-voice-to-parliament-the-united

Page 26
1 THE VOICE TO PARLIAMENT: The United Nations' Agenda 2030, and how 'The
2 Voice' will be Used to Steal Australian Land & Assets
3 Examining the Globalist Conspiracy to use the "Indigenous" as a land-grab
4 STEP HEN REASON
5
6 https://stephenreason.substack.com/p/spying-on-victorians-examining-the
7 SPYING ON VICTORIANS: Examining the Implications of Dan Andrews' Secret Data Agency
8 PANDEMIC WRITINGS, Melbourne, Australia (2020-2022): piece published August 8, 2022
9 STEPHEN REASON
10
11 https://stephenreason.substack.com/p/the-voice-of-deception-how-the-
12 voice?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email
13 THE VOICE OF DECEPTION: How The Voice will be used for the Globalist Invasion of
14 Australia
15 Revealing the Globalist strategy to use 'Voice, Treaty, Truth' in a War for Conquest
16 of our Lands (Corporate Colonialism)
17 STEPHEN REASON
18
19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkhjH2ySMUw
20 WHO new treaty-Dr John Campbell with recording (UK) Andrew Bridget MP-with
21 text
22
23 https://cairnsnews.org/2023/03/08/the-voice-is-a-trojan-horse-warns-senator-jacinta-price/
24 The Voice is a ‘Trojan Horse’ warns Senator Jacinta Price
25
26 https://www.facebook.com/fairgoforall/photos/a.110070802003565/110065022004143/
27 Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, on behalf of FAIR AUSTRALIA <info@fairaustralia.com.au>
28
29 QUOTE
30 The Voice
31 Yahoo/Inbox
32
33 Carol P <prendyspot@gmail.com>
34 Bcc:inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
35 Tue, 18 Apr at 6:32 pm
36 THIS IS A MUST READ
37 A message from Jacinta Price regarding the "VOICE".
38 Dear Chris,
39 This is the bombshell Albo tried to hide.
40 But now it’s out and every Australian needs to hear it before voting on the divisive Voice.
41 You know how the PM keeps saying the Voice is a “modest change” to the Constitution?
42 Well, the real agenda behind his Voice referendum has finally been revealed.
43 Secret government documents the National Indigenous Australians Agency was forced to release under
44 freedom of information laws say that “any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support
45 and promote a treaty-making process” (1).
46 And what’s in the treaty?
47 According to these secret documents, it must include a “fixed percentage of Gross National Product.
48 Rates/land tax/royalties.”
49 The documents explain:
50 …a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission,
51 reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and
52 resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law…
53 This a direct quote from the secret Voice documents:
54 “Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it.”
55 Doesn’t that just tell you everything you need to know?
56 But it gets worse.

Page 27
1 According to these documents, they want to abolish the Australian flag, because “the Australian flag
2 symbolises the injustices of colonisation.”
3 This is why I get so angry when Albo says this is a modest proposal.
4 What’s modest about forcing you to change your flag or pay a percentage of the entire economy as
5 reparations?
6 Sounds like a bloody BIG change to me!
7 Just to be super clear, this is how their plan works:
8 1/. ❌They enshrine the divisive Voice in the Constitution and it’s there forever.
9 2/. ❌The Voice forces Australians into a “treaty”.
10 3/. ❌The treaty means Australians pay a percentage of the GDP, that is, a percentage of the entire nation’s
11 economy, to the Voice … every year!
12 4/. ❌On top of that, Australians are forced to pay “rates/land tax/royalties” to the Voice.
13 This is why Albo wants you to think you’re voting on a “modest” change.
14 Because when Australians find out the truth, there’s no way they’ll support it, let alone enshrine it in their
15 Constitution forever.
16 Yours in unity,
17 Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price,
18 on behalf of FAIR AUSTRALIA.
19 (1) National Indigenous Australians Agency, Agency FOI Disclosure Logs, FOI/2223/016, date of access:
20 March 10, 2023.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 As “Grandmother Mulara” made clear those of the Aboriginal race didn’t own the land but
24 rather the land own them. And considering there is no “treaty power” within the Constitution
25 other than with foreign entities, obviously you cannot make a treaty with yourself, and consider
26 the exclusive powers by the Commonwealth since 1967 Ss51(xxvi) con-job referendum then any
27 so called land rights with States/Territories are invalid and a nullity.
28
30 Convention)
31 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
32 So that any citizen of any portion of the Commonwealth would have the guarantee of liberty and safety in
33 regard to the processes of law, and also would have a guarantee of the equal administration of the law as it
34 exists. I think Mr. Isaacs will bear me out, that in the United States it has been decided that the title to equal
35 treatment under the law does not mean that you cannot make a law which differentiates one class of the
36 community from another; but, as has been decided, it means that in the administration of the laws you have
37 made, all the citizens shall be treated equally. And that should be so. Whatever privilege we give to our
38 citizens, the administration of the law should be equal to all, whatever their colour. The case I refer to is
39 one of the Chinese cases-I forget the name of it.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 From: 'Eric J Segall' via Discussion list for con law professors
43 QUOTE
44 Doug, Justice Chase’s opinion in that case clearly treated the issue of state power to negate
45 treaties as obviously and clearly barred by the Constitution. So, this case is not a good
46 example (though I admit I didn’t read all the opinions in the case). Moreover, Chase said
47 the following about the court’s power to declare treatises unconstitutional:
48 “If the Court possess a power to declare treaties void, I shall never exercise it but in a very
49 clear case indeed.”
50 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/199/#tab-opinion-1935309
51 END QUOTE
52
54 QUOTE
55 Mr. BARTON.-It has been suggested that this sub-section is embraced in the preceding one-"External
56 affairs and treaties." That is arguable; it is quite possible that it may be true; but there are a very large
57 number of people who look forward with interest to the Commonwealth undertaking, as far as it can as part

Page 28
1 of the British Empire, the regulation of the Pacific Islands. It may be, I think, as there is a doubt as to
2 whether the one thing is included in the other, and as there are a large number of people who are interested in
3 this question, that it is better in deference to their views to leave the words as they are. As the subsection may
4 do some good, and can do no harm, I think that the objection should not be pressed.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 It is very clear that the External Affairs powers related to: “External affairs and treaties ”. No
8 amount of external affairs powers to make treaties can somehow become internal treaty powers.
9 Neither does Ss51(xxvi) facilitate any internal treaty powers to the contrary it is to
10 DISCRIMINATE against certain races! It also means that the High Court of Australia acted
11 outside its judicial powers to claim in KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR
12 168 High Court of Australia that somehow making a treaty could give the Commonwealth
13 additional legislative powers. This to me was utter and sheer nonsense, because the Constitution
14 was specifically created to divide the legislative powers of the Commonwealth versus the States.
15
16 We have however that in my view we do not have proper education at universities for a person to
17 become a true “constitutionalist” and so whenever a person happens to gain a law degree they
18 promote themselves often as a “constitutional lawyer totally ignorant to what the real meaning of
19 the legal principles embedded in the constitution actually stands for.
20
21 Any competent legal practitioner ought to be well aware you cannot have a constitutional
22 provisions such as”
23
25 QUOTE
26 (xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is
27 deemed necessary to make special laws;
28 END QUOTE
29
30 Considering we had Afghans, Chinese and numerous other races coming into what is now the
31 Commonwealth of Australia and were essential parts of the fabric that resulted to today’s
32 society, then why should this ss51(xxvi) somehow be interpreted to DISCRIMINATE against
33 them while the very same wording would be used in contradiction for Australians of Aboriginal
34 descent?
35 Granted I was not in the Commonwealth of Australia when the 1967 referendums were held, but
36 it appears to me the AEC simply failed to ensure the referendum process was clear from onset as
37 to what it was about.
38 In my view no elector would have possibly understood that to amend ss51(xxvi) would somehow
39 ends up a constitutional provision to have contrary meanings. In my view it is a legal nonsense.
40 The referendums were not as to amend the application of this ss51(xxvi) as in regard of
41 “inferior” “alien” “coloured” races at all. Hence, the true meaning and application of this section
42 was to remain to DISCRIMINATE against a race, which would then include Australians of
43 Aboriginal descent.
44
46 QUOTE
47 Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is
48 co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any
49 disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
50 Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
51 END QUOTE
52

Page 29
1 Clearly Ss51(xxvi) means that the moment any legislation was enacted within this provision
2 against Australians of Aboriginal descent then they would actually they lose their rights of
3 franchise, etc., as was applicable to any other “inferior” “alien” “coloured” race!
4
5 To me the AEC likely failed to ensure that proper convent5ions were held in each state to iron
6 out what really was intended with amending ss51(xxvi). It is an utter disgrace to equate
7 Australians of Aboriginal descent as being “inferior” to other Australians, let alone to equalise
8 them as “inferior” “alien” “coloured” races.
9
11 QUOTE
12 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
13 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable
14 to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize
15 legislation with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal race in any state.
16 Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term
17 general community" I understand to mean the general community of the whole
18 Commonwealth. If it means the general community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not
19 see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall have the
20 exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to do it under
21 any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I
22 do not see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward
23 position indeed if any particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in
24 certain well-known instances. For instance, if Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans
25 shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which are not [start page 228]
26 applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do not
27 know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate
28 beyond the confines of Victoria at all.
29 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
30 Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put
31 them in the same class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole
32 community of the Commonwealth. I do not think that this has any application. If it is to
33 have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to debar the state from passing
34 legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think that that
35 sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
36 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section
37 was to deal with the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called
38 inferior races, though I do not know with how much warrant sometimes-who may be
39 in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into existence, or who may under the
40 laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have made the dealing
41 with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
42 Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the
43 Commonwealth, so that all those of the races who come into the community after the
44 establishment of the Commonwealth will not only enter subject to laws made in
45 respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any laws which the
46 Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the
47 Commonwealth should not have power to devise such laws.
48 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
49 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
50 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
51 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of
52 aliens and immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
Page 30
1 END QUOTE
2
3 As Australians of Aboriginal descent which had State franchise by Section 41 of the constitution
4 were entitled and did vote even in the 1901 first federal election then it cannot be argued that the
5 Commonwealth pursued to discriminate against Australians of Aboriginal descent. The
6 amendment of Ss51(xxvi) I understand was driven by the U.N! I understand allegedly the
7 Australian of Aboriginal descent who pushed for this amendment was provided with a human
8 rights medal. Clearly, the U.N. was then already undermining the rights of Australians of
9 Aboriginal descent!
10
11 I consider it appropriate to quote the following:
12
13 https://josephinecashman.substack.com/p/lest-we-forget-we-fought-
14 together?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
15 QUOTE
16 Lest We Forget: We fought together in WW2 so all Australians would have a VOICE
17
18 JOSEPHINE CASHMAN
19 APR 24, 2023
20 8
21 The word is getting out.
22 Our Prime Minister knows that no Australian stands to gain from The Voice, especially
23 Aboriginal people; and much will be stolen from all.
24 They are selling the big lie Voice/Treaty/Truth.
25 The shocking realisation is that Albo’s globalist controllers want the Australian people
26 to own nothing and be happy.
27 Canadian, US and New Zealand territory is similarly being targeted by the Globalists.
28
29 Australians can fight this when they know the tactics; divide and conquer; using black and
30 white; creating confusion; distraction; so we don't know who the real enemy is.
31 Globalists use infiltration; subversion; gradualism; lies; traitors; demoralisation agents;
32 fake freedom leaders; compromised political parties; the Big Lie Media to destroy our
33 valued institutions; industry bodies; clubs and organisations.
34 The key to winning is rebuilding the networks they've trashed.
35 You, your friends, your family, your neighbours have superior knowledge and networks to
36 the enemies. They are very weak.
37 Our strength is our human connection.
38 We have the numbers. It starts with you; on your street; be bold; be brave.
39 We have a country to save.
40 Don't listen to their lies. Focus on the enemy.
41 They want us to turn on our countrymen for being betrayed. Help them, help you, help
42 yourself to save Australia. Our job is to assist Australians to come to terms with the
43 betrayal.
44 Australia is the only Western country not to suffer from black lives matter destruction. We
45 can do it again.
46
47 Lest We Forget.
48 We fought together in WW2 so all Australians would have a VOICE.
49 Our heroes honored us with liberty. Lest we take this for granted.
Page 31
1 My son Joseph is extremely proud to be related to Reg Saunders. The first Aboriginal
2 Soldier to be made a Captain in the Australian Army.
3 His father fought in WW1 and Reg Saunders military career started in WW2.
4
5
6 Sergeant Saunders with fellow soldiers of the 2/7th Infantry Battalion in North
7 Queensland, October 1943
8 This Anzac Day we will remember:
9 They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old; Age shall not weary them, nor the
10 years condemn.
11 Standby, as One Voice Australia, will provide the tools to make Australia for Australians
12 again.
13 Stephen Reason’s brilliant piece THE VOICE TO PARLIAMENT: The United Nations'
14 Agenda 2030, and how 'The Voice' will be Used to Steal Australian Land & Assets must
15 be read by everyone.
16 To save our country share Stephen Reason's article:
17 THE VOICE TO PARLIAMENT: The United Nations' Agenda 2030, and how 'The
18 Voice' will be Used to Steal Australian Land & Assets
19 Australia, and our Australian democratic freedoms are in the sights of a cunning Global
20 Predator. Foreign vultures silently circle our Great Southern Land, casting ominous
21 shadows upon the unwitting population below. In our col…
22 Stephen Reason
23 END QUOTE
24
25 My posted comment 16.55 24-4-2023:
26 QUOTE
27 Josephine, as you pointed out there are certain Australians of Aboriginal descent whom are
28 siding with what I view a corrupt "Travelling Pete" (Anthony Albanese) as generally
29 happens in any society. The document I refer to below may indicate that some Australians
30 of Aboriginal descent may say use VOICE to get others compulsory injected and then
31 when it comes to accountability will be no where to be found. As a constitutionalist I hold
32 the Framers of the Constitution were right that all Australians, including those of
Page 32
1 Aboriginal descent were to be equal and Ss51(xxvi) as it was at federation clearly

2 recognised Aboriginals for this. I understand the U.N. then was supporting the 1967
3 Ss51(xxvi) con-job referendum to rob Australians of Aboriginal descent from equality.
4 Those who like Sgt Saunders served in the Australian Armed forces underline that race
5 should play no part in equality.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 I will now refer to a previous statement regarding Mr Peter Dutton
9
10 https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nobody-is-above-the-law-journalists-committed-a-
11 crime-says-peter-dutton-20190712-p526il.html
12 'Nobody is above the law': Journalists committed a crime, says Peter Dutton
13 QUOTE
14 Mr Dutton on Friday rejected demands from media chiefs to drop any action
15 against the reporters.
16 "Nobody is above the law and the police have a job to do under the law," he told
17 the Today program.
18 "I think it is up to the police to investigate, to do it independently and make a
19 decision about whether or not they prosecute."
20 Critically, Mr Dutton added: "These are laws that go back decades in western
21 democracies like ours where, if you've got top secret documents and they've been
22 leaked, it is an offence under the law and police have an obligation to investigate
23 a matter referred to them ... and they'll do that."
24 END QUOTE
25
26 While Mr Peter Dutton may have stated this in his understanding of what the law might be,
27 where it conflicts with legal principles embedded in the constitution then the purported law is a
28 nullity.
29
30 For example the Victorian Parliament purportedly seem to have enacted that somehow
31 authorities and including the political office of the premier can access even bank accounts, etc.
32 This is utter Bull (B.S.) because the State of Victoria has no banking system and as such cannot
33 legislate as to banking. Neither can the State of Victoria legislate as to federal banking systems
34 accessible to the Victorian Government, etc.
35
36 As I understand it the State of Victoria STOLE most of the reported $9 billion dollars it received
37 regarding the lease/sale of the Port of Melbourne in clear violation of S92 of the Commonwealth
38 of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). Where was Mr Peter Dutton then to uphold the rule of
39 law?
40
41 Where indeed was Mr Peter Dutton to uphold the legal principles embedded in the
42 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) that the States/Territories have no
43 legal, executive, administrative powers to issue mandates regarding a “man-kind” infectious
44 disease such as the covid scam claimed SARS-CoV-2 alleged virus?
45
46 Where indeed was Mr Peter Dutton to hold the States legally accountable for forcing/coercing
47 their residents to be subjected to injections against diseases such as measles, polio, etc, when it
48 was a “man-kind” disease to which the States/Territories were excluded since 1908 when the
49 Commonwealth commenced to legislate regarding Land Taxation and as in line when the High
50 Court of Australia ruled that the States had to retire from income taxation once the

Page 33
1 Commonwealth commenced to do so likewise the same applies to land taxation, the same with
2 “man-kind” infectious diseases, etc. .
3
4 Where indeed was Mr Peter Dutton while exercising federal power and before to enforce the rule
5 of law that since 11 November 1910 the States/Territories no longer had State land taxation
6 powers and so neither did Municipal/Shire councils able to exercise this alleged State land
7 taxation powers? Now in Victoria the State of Victoria even purport to introduce another State
8 land taxation of increase of property value when a property is reclassified, etc. All the so called
9 State/Territory “land taxation” monies should have been paid into Commonwealth Revenue
10 funds if it were UNIFORM through the Commonwealth. Where it lacked to be “UNIFORM”
11 then it couldn’t have been collected for and on behalf of the Commonwealth and as such was and
12 remained since 11 November 19010 unconstitutional. Plain THEFT!
13
14 Where is Mr Peter Dutton as to have opposed any unconstitutional spending such as in regard of
15 the Ukraine NAZI government, including providing weapons, ammunition, etc.
16
17 Why has Mr Peter Dutton not pursued to have criminal charges pursued against John Howard
18 and his collaborators to unconstitutionally invade Iraq and participate by this in mass murder,
19 etc? Why not did Mr Peter Dutton pursue criminal charges against Mr Scott Morrison, Anthony
20 Albanese and their collaborators for TREASON/TERRORISM, etc for being involved in the
21 elaborate covid scam?
22
23 Is it because he could to some issues being charged himself for having failed to take appropriate
24 action to prevent those horrendous crimes?
25
26 I refer to my blog at https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati which sets out the political and other
27 rights about publications, etc.
28
29 With the Voice I view Mr Peter Dutton actually is now on the correct (constitutional) side that it
30 should be opposed but he in my understanding at no time seemed to have the constitutional
31 requirement of holding conventions in each State/Territory as to establish what the Voice
32 actually would be standing for.
33
34 What I view is needed is that any person desiring to be commissioned by the Governor-General
35 as to being a Minister must be able to competently pass an examination upon the legal principles
36 embedded in the constitution. And not merely because the person happens to be able to be put
37 forwards regardless of any competence in constitutional matters required for the position. Such
38 requirement would not whatsoever interfere with the provisions of the constitution because the
39 Governor-General would be permitted to expect and test anyone proposed to be commissioned as
40 a Minister to be indeed competent in constitutional matters as to be a “constitutional advisor”
41 and not some goofy or WOKE person who hasn’t got a clue about what is constitutionally
42 permission and appropriate. Having some fool/idiot going on about holding a referendum as to
43 become a republic underlines how absurd this is and a gross lack of what is constitutionally
44 permissible or not. Indeed the AEC having catered for this in 1999 underlines how it too failed to
45 act within constitutional provisions and acted in violation of the provisions of the legal principles
46 embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
47
48 How on earth can the AEC or for that the courts determine what is “disinformation” when none
49 appear to be competent to even understand/comprehend what the true meaning and application of
50 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is about? At least if I were to ask
51 my latest born great-grandson Shiro then he likely would simply not respond at all, and this
Page 34
1 would then be a more intelligent response or lack of response then what we now seem to end up
2 from the AEC, ABS, politicians, judges and numerous lawyers!
3
5 QUOTE
6 Mr. ISAACS.-If you were to bring in a Bill to impose one tax, would it include a power
7 to repeal another on the same subject?
8 Mr. OCONNOR.-Undoubtedly.
9 Mr. ISAACS.-Mr. Barton has given an opinion that it would not.
10 Mr. MCMILLAN.-We have the ablest lawyers divided on this question, and what is the
11 layman to do?
12 END QUOTE
13
15 QUOTE
16 Mr. TRENWITH.-And yet this clause is throwing legislation into the hands of those
17 people who cannot agree.
18 MR. REID.-The lawyers.
19 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The lawyers?
20 Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, thrusting it on them.
21 Mr. MCMILLAN.-That is one of those commonplaces which are always used. There is
22 no clause or sub-clause of any Bill in the world, even if it were framed by an angel from
23 Heaven, that would not be the subject of litigation.
24 Dr. COCKBURN.-The disagreement is not legal, but constitutional.
25 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-You do not got lawyers from Heaven.
26 Mr. ISAACS.-No, lawyers are sent there; they are not drawn from there.
27 Mr. MCMILLAN.-Looking at the clause from a common-sense point of view, are the
28 provisions a vital condition of the Constitution? Was it worth our while to spend days and
29 weeks thrashing out these matters as a compromise to the financial scheme? We are
30 dealing now with one of the great compromises of our financial scheme. Is that
31 compromise, of vital importance in the financial scheme, to be made a matter of simple
32 procedure in the House, liable to the judgment of a Speaker or a President? Or is it, like
33 hundreds of other things, embedded in the Constitution, so that, if at any time there be an
34 infringement, the law passed would be invalid, and the High Court would protect the
35 people of the country? Apart from all legal quibbles, that seems to be the plain English of
36 the fact. Speaking as an ex-Treasurer, I say that it is impossible to safeguard you in the
37 third section. I would be quite willing to put in the word "proposition," or "Bill," or
38 anything of the kind. All the arguments used to-day are valid against the third sub-clause.
39 But, as against the other sub-clauses, looking at it as a matter of English, and as clearly
40 defining the rights in the Constitution, it seems to me that they ought not to be disturbed.
41 END QUOTE
42
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not think that could be the intention. We are attempting to
46 legislate for a very limited possibility. You will get disputes so long as there are lawyers
47 in the world. I do not know whether Federation will do away with lawyers.
48 Mr. BARTON: Not until merchants will cease to quarrel.
49 Mr. MCMILLAN: If so it would simplify our arrangements very much. At the same time
50 it does seem that there ought to be something introduced to prevent the law being put into
51 operation for a mere breach of procedure, if there is such a chance.
52 Mr. SYMON: There is no chance.

Page 35
1 Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not suppose that any ordinary moral layman would do it,
2 unless he were instructed by a less moral lawyer.
3 END QUOTE
4
6 Convention)
7 QUOTE
8 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
9 END QUOTE
10
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
14 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
15 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
16 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
17 established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
18 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
19 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
20 are going to create under that Union. The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
21 is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
22 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
23 be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
24 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
25 END QUOTE
26 .
29 There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to
30 amendments of the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be
31 passed by an absolute majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if
32 that is done, the proposed amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people
33 of the states to be expressed in conventions elected for the purpose, and that then if the
34 amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions in the states it shall become law,
35 subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the constitution might
36 be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
37 no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 Where are the “the proposed amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of
41 the states to be expressed in conventions elected for the purpose”? It seems to me as stated in
42 the video “ZEROTIME Grandmother Mulara - How The Voice to Parliament Advances the”
43 As I understand it from “Grandmother Mulara” that already there is a great deception how
44 Commonwealth funding is syphoned off by certain Australians of Aboriginal descent such as
45 about $60 million and monies do not go to the very Australians of Aboriginals descent to which
46 it is to go for their assistance. She also explains that about 350 Aboriginal tribes exist in the
47 Commonwealth of Australia and most appear to have been excluded of what the Voice is about.
48
49 https://www.aec.gov.au/media/disinformation-register.htm
50 Disinformation register - Australian Electoral Commission
51 The register lists prominent pieces of disinformation the AEC has discovered regarding
52 the electoral process. It also provides details of actions the AEC ...
53
54 Again:
Page 36
1 Where are the “the proposed amendment must be submitted for the opinion of
2 the people of the states to be expressed in conventions elected for the purpose”?
3
4 It appears to me that Anthony Albanese simply had some selected people to pretend to represent
5 all about 350 Aboriginal tribes with the Uluru statement even so it I view essentially is another
6 con-job.
7
10 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
11 understand.
12 END QUOTE
13 .
15 QUOTE
16 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee
17 will not fail to exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not
18 understand, and that they will put in words which can be understood by persons commonly
19 acquainted with the English language.
20 END QUOTE
21
23 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
24 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 I understand from what “Grandmother Mulara” stated that Australians of Aboriginal descent
28 were at times asked to sign documents that were not in the understanding of Australians of
29 Aboriginal descent. The video by Zeee Media is best to be checked for accurately details.
30
31 While it is stated “which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English
32 language” this doesn’t mean that Australians of Aboriginal descent cannot rely upon their
33 “common law” rights to have communication states also within their native Aboriginal language.
34 As such, where is the translation of the alleged Uluru statement in the about 350 Aboriginal
35 tribes languages?
36
37 We have often Government notifications, etc, also provided in foreign languages and yet it
38 appears to me that this alleged Uluru statement was not in even local Aboriginal languages and
39 yet claims it was supported by Aboriginals.
40
41 It must be clear that it is in my view another elaborate con-job proposed referendum was in 1967
42 re Ss51(xxvi) where the electors were deceived what the true amendment was to be about.
43
44 It should be understood that “Grandmother Mulara”, as do others, made clear that this
45 proposed Voice amendment is no more but to enable the U.N., WHO & W.E.F. a power grab.
46
47 That is not a “modest” amendment of the constitution rather throws away most of the legal m
48 provisions currently embedded in the constitution.
49
50 I view that therefore Anthony Albanese and his collaborators are TRAITORS/TERRORIST who
51 are seeking to overthrow out constitution for a New World Order.
52

Page 37
1 https://substack.com/redirect/90df7c93-22cf-4679-824d-
2 2c9bb6a7819c?j=eyJ1IjoiMXExa3l4In0.gWHYw6loO5OzokU06MQrLD3puIVG7ZapTt3gdhV
3 C8mw
4 QUOTE
Sharing this one too. Karen Kingston points out that Plasmid DNA is a Prfizer ingredient
not a contaminant. Why haven't these biological and technological weapons been banned.
5 Plasmid DNA is a Known Pfizer Ingredient - NOT a Contaminant
6 On June 7, 2021, AGC Biologics announced that they were the supplier of plasmid DNA
7 for the manufacturing of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA 'vaccines'
8 END QUOTE
9
10 What this shows is that not only did the fake ‘vaccines” contain “ModmRNA”
11 (ModifiedmRNA) but also “Plasmid DNA”, and as I referred to in my numerous writings at my
12 blog at https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati swabs were taken from people, including causing
13 brain barrier damage, and the DNA then used to target certain races that then could be
14 exterminated by specific designed bioweapons injected as “vaccines’ but really for
15 DEPOPULATION.
16 Already reports are available how in the USA certain states were specifically targeted with more
17 deadly so called vaccines, where the dead toll was linked back to certain so called vails.
18
19 The Voice in my view may be used to accelerate this kind of genocide upon Australians of
20 Aboriginal descent, by pretending that the Voice recommended the vaccination.
21
22 While it may be argued that surely Aboriginals will never let themselves be used for this, I
23 understand that when 2 brothers (of Aboriginal descent) were Ministers, one in WA and one in
24 the Commonwealth they then permitted a mining comp-any to destroy reportedly some 40,000
25 Aboriginal artefacts. As such, like in any community/race/society there are always people who
26 so to say are for sale.
27
28 Clearly, there need to be a proper consultation process as to “the proposed amendment must
29 be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
30 elected for the purpose” and not merely that Anthony Albanese and his collaborators couldn’t
31 care less and persist in pushing this Voice to serve their foreign enemy masters to betray our
32 constitutional rights.
33
34 Obviously the AEC is legally bound to ensure that elections and referendums are held in a proper
35 legal manner and I view cannot therefore proceed with any proposed amendment to be held
36 which has not provided for a convention to the relevant states/territories.
37
39 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
40 Of course, when I speak of a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state,
41 which, of course, stands in exactly the same position.
42 END QUOTE
43
44 Obviously one cannot even consider to start providing for any referendum if the States/
45 Territories have not completed beforehand their consideration of a proposed amendment to the
46 constitution. If anything the con-job 1967 Ss51(xxvi) referendum ought to make clear that what
47 is claimed to be might in fact be opposite to what the amendment may actually stand for.
48
49 Do also understand the true meaning of Ss51(xxvi)
50
Page 38
1 QUOTE
6 END QUOTE
7
8 Meaning that any special law within ss51(xxvi) resulted to the loss of al, persons of that race
9 against which the legislation was enacted no longer have their franchise, etc. That is what the
10 1967 con-job referendum never revealed to the electors.
11
12 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/one-health-who-global-takeover-
13 cola/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20230501
14 05/01/23
15 ‘One Health’ — The Global Takeover of Everything?
16 Under the One Health agenda, the World Health Organization would have power to make
17 decisions relating to diet, agriculture and livestock farming, environmental pollution, movement
18 of populations and much more. Taxpayers would fund the scheme — corporations would profit.
19 QUOTE
20
21 END QUOTE
22
23 Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
24 QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
25 The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
26 would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
27 Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
28 citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
29 page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
33 QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:

Page 39
1 Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
2 secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
3 possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been
4 no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
5 in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
6 There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
7 country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
8 by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
9 we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
10 in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
11 END QUOTE
12
14 QUOTE
19 END QUOTE
20
21 Let us try to understand what really the U.N. was created for! It was to try to avoid ever again
22 another WORLD WAR!
23
24 Well, consider this;
25
26 https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-
27 1776/5565946?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
28 America Has Been at War 93% of the Time – 222 out of 239 Years – Since 1776
29 QUOTE
30 2001 – War on Terror in Afghanistan
31 2002 – War on Terror in Afghanistan and Yemen
32 2003 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, and Iraq
33 2004 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
36 2007 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen
40 2011 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; Conflict in
41 Libya (Libyan Civil War)
42 In most of these wars, the U.S. was on the offense. Danios admits that some of the wars
43 were defensive. However, Danios also leaves out covert CIA operations and other acts
44 which could be considered war.
45 Let’s update what’s happened since 2011:
46 2012 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen
47 2013 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen
48 2014 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in
49 Ukraine
50 2015 – War on Terror in Somalia, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in Ukraine
51 So we can add 4 more years of war. That means that for 222 out of 239 years – or 93% of
52 the time – America has been at war. (We can quibble with the exact numbers, but the high
53 percentage of time that America has been at war is clear and unmistakable.)
54 Indeed, most of the military operations launched since World War II have been launched
55 by the U.S.
Page 40
1 And American military spending dwarfs the rest of the world put together.
2 No wonder polls show that the world believes America is the number 1 threat to peace.
3 Why We’re Sliding Towards World War
4 The original source of this article is Washington's Blog
5 Copyright © Washington's Blog, Washington's Blog, 2023
6 END QUOTE
7
8 Obviously the U.N is a total failure \when it comes to what it was set out to do. It seems to me
9 reality is not to stop wars but rather to pursue the New World Order (One World Government)
10 where unelected so called elite then determine who can or cannot live, etc.
11
12 The High Court of Australia made clear
13
14 Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 38 (14 August 1997)
15 KIRBY J. : “ One highly influential international statement on the understand of universal and
16 fundamental rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document is not a
17 treaty to which Australia is a party. Indeed it is not a treaty at all. It is not part of
18 Australia’s domestic law, still less of its Constitution. ”
19
20 Even if the Commonwealth of Australia were part of a treaty it w3ould not be within the powers
21 of the Commonwealth to enforce it unless it already had legislative powers to do so. A treaty
22 cannot in itself provide legislative powers where there was none.
23
24 The WHO pursues powers to dictate State members as to Human Health, Animal Health and
25 Environmental issues, and allegedly on 22 May 2022 representative of the Commonwealth of
26 Australia voted to provide for this power. Just one has to ask by which constitutional authority?
27
28 Firstly, on 22 May 2022 Scott Morrison was allegedly still the (Prime) Minister but by
29 convention could not make any major decision as convention requires to include the Leader of
30 the Opposition. It should be noted that a ‘convention’ cannot override any constitutional
31 provision and/or any legislation validly enacted.
32 Where indeed is the Commonwealth powers to give to the WHO powers as to water and
33 environment when they were specific denied by the Framers of the Constitution other than
34 Section 100 of the constitution in regard of maintaining rivers for shipping. Where is the
35 Commonwealth power to hand to the WHO to determine a person’s diet?
36 It should be clear that even the issue of general health care is not within the powers of the
37 Commonwealth other than within the provisions of ss51(xxiiiA) and quarantine.
38
39 (xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions,
40 child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical,
41 sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services
42 (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription),
43 benefits to students and family allowances;
44
45 Well we have experienced the scam covid genocide/mass murder perpetrated by the
46 Commonwealth/State/Territories upon Australians all to serve the U.N.,WHO & W.E.F.
47 DEPOPULATION.
48
49 Within Section 44 of the constitution they are all constitutionally barred from holding any seat
50 where they I view committed TREASON/TERRORISM for the sake of them and so USA DoD
51 (Deagel) DEPOPULATION.
Page 41
1
2 This whole “safe and effective” elaborate swindle has resulted in untold victims and numerous
3 deaths.
4
5 We have therefore major issues at hand which includes the validity of having a Governor-
6 General, having any validly commissioned Minister, etc.
7
8 Let us consider also that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I (representing myself) on constitutional
9 grounds pursued that John Howard had no constitutional authority to invade Iraq. My 409 pages
10 ADDRESS TO THE COURT (written submission) and I view was a mass murderer, etc.
11 What eventuated was that I was an INDEPENDENT candidate for Jagajaga in 2001 and pursued
12 that the election was called a week to early, failing to show 10 clear days. Mr Peter Hanks for the
13 AEC however (as transcripts prove) mislead the court as to an Authority he claimed to quote
14 from while actually substituting some words and made other deceptive comments. I view this
15 was actually CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT by Counsel for the AEC. The
16 Court then dismissed my case. However, I as a candidate pursued that the “compulsory “ part of
17 voting was unconstitutional. Subsequently the AEC charged me for FAILING TO VOTE.
18 That was a fatal error.
19 I responded to file and serve (also upon all 9 Attorney-Generals) a NOTICE OF
20 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS that also included that the Commonwealth had no
21 constitutional powers to declare Australian Citizenship as a nationality. On 4 December 2002 the
22 court ordered that this NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS was to be heard and
23 determined by the High Court of Australia. Dispute that the High Court of
24 Australia were made aware of this at various times it never did hear and determine the NOTICE
25 OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.
26 Even so I had formally objected to the constitutional validity of the Australian citizenship Act
27 (Cth) nevertheless the AEC then charged me for FAILING TO VOTE in the 2004 federal
28 election. Ignoring that once a party object to the constitutional validity of purported legislation
29 then this purported legislation is ULTRA VIRES ab initio unless and until if ever at all a court
30 of competent jurisdiction declare the challenged legislation or part thereof to be INTRA VIRES.
31 This never eventuated and as such remains ULTRA VIRES.
32
33 The arrogance of both the AEC and lawyers involved not bothering to communicate with me as
34 to try to appropriately address matters and seeking to resolve it caused further escalation of
35 litigation.
36
37 On 4 August 2005 the matter came before the Court and the AEC Counsel submitted that the
38 CEA 1918 provided for “AVERMENT”. This I opposed on the basis that “Kable” NSW was
39 clear about this. The Court then ordered the Commonwealth to file and serve all “evidence” it
40 relied upon. Counsel for AEC then made deceptive claims that it would take trucks to do so. The
41 Court made clear this was for the parties to sort out. Reality is that all ballot papers regarding the
42 2001 federal election already had been destroyed by legislative provisions and those of the 2004
43 federal election were about to be destroyed. I view this was actually CONTEMPT IN THE
44 FACE OF THE COURT by Counsel for the AEC.
45
46 Next was 16/17 November 2005 hearing where the court first stated that if John Howard was not
47 elected in 2001 then he was in no position to call the 2004 election. However, the court then
48 announced to ignore the previous orders and without the Commonwealth having filed evidence
49 then convicted me. This even so I had provided evidence that the alleged 8 October 2001 Gazette
50 containing the proclamation had not been published until 9/10 October 2001.

Page 42
1 I appealed the matter and filed and served (also upon all 9 Attorney-Generals) a 409 pages
2 ADDRESS TO THE COURT (written submissions) and on 19 July 2006 the court upheld both
3 appeals and noted that the Commonwealth had not filed any evidence. By this underlining that
4 the 4 August 2005 court order was relevant and AVERMENT didn’t apply. Neither the
5 Commonwealth and/or any of the Attorney-Generals challenged any of my submissions to the
6 court and as such all of those submissions are deemed to be unchallenged and conceded by the
7 parties. The State of Victoria Attorney-General Mr Rob Hulls did make known to accept the
8 ruling of the Court.
9
10 Obviously this also now raises the issue that as I formally challenged the validity of the
11 purported Australian Citizenship legislation then this remains ULTRA VIRES.
12
13 “A pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the
14 country is entitled to disregard it”. Chief Justice Latham 1942
15
16 https://www.westernjournal.com/email-hidden-5-years-declared-hunter-biden-undercut-us-
17 efforts-fight-ukraine-corruption-report/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=conservative-brief-
18 WJ&ff_campaign=dailypm&ff_content=western-journal
19
20 Email Hidden for 5 Years Declared Hunter Biden 'Undercut' US Efforts to Fight Ukraine
21 Corruption - Report
22 QUOTE
23 “The United States Supreme Court in the Brady decision ruled that when a defendant
24 is on trial, the prosecutors cannot withhold evidence that could be exculpatory, or in
25 any way helpful to the defendant,” Dershowitz said.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 In my view the AEC ought to have informed the Court of the 4 August 2005 decision that the
29 AEC cannot rely upon AVERMENT as well as that the “compulsory” part of voting was
30 unconstitutional. Failing to do so time and time against Australians charged with FAILING TO
31 VOTE in my view is a serious criminal matter.
32
33 The AEC requires a person to make known to be an ‘Australian citizen’ by nationality. Clearly
34 despite the defeat on 19 July 2006 the AEC has persisted with unconstitutional requirements.
35 There can be no excuse that (purported) legislation may require this because ultimately the
36 constitution is the primary law.
37
38 The problem now is that ordinary electors, candidates (for political elections), Members of
39 parliament, legal practitioners, judicial office holders, police, etc, all require to hold “Australian
40 citizenship” as a nationality which constitutionally doesn’t exist, and this means that no one then
41 is qualified as a elector, candidate (for political elections), etc. Meaning that while we may have
42 courts they cannot operate without any qualified judicial officers.
43
44 In 1994 I then raised the issue that a registrar cannot do judicial decisions without proper
45 supervision by a judge, and in WA it was found no judge was supervising a registrar.
46
47 Obviously, concerning the set out above, “compulsory” part of voting is unconstitutional and so
48 the AEC nevertheless fining people and have convictions recorded using also the
49 unconstitutional AVERMENT I view is a very serious matter that requires at the very least that
50 you and others involved resign.
51 I view this has been an ongoing perverting the course of justice, to obstruct the administration of
52 justice and indeed a conspiracy of obstructing the course of justice as the 19 July 2006 appeals
Page 43
1 should have made clear that the AEC couldn’t force/coerce let alone fine any person for
2 allegedly FAILING TO VOTE let alone cause harm to a person of ending up with a conviction.
3 This is the kind of TERRORISM I stand against!
4
5 Because judicial officers would be bias to deal with the “citizenship” matters where their own
6 validity to be a judicial officer is re4levant then there is really not a single court in Australia that
7 possibly can hear and determine any alleged case before them.
8
9 Gaynor J claimed “The constitution doesn’t apply to me”!
10
11 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
12 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
13 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
14 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
15 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
16 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
17 authority of the United States”.
18
19 In my view the same applies in regard of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
20 (UK).
21
22 For the above courts appear to me to have operated without the warrant of law and all and any
23 convictions should be declared a nullity and any fines and cost that were imposed be refunded.
24
25 That, I view, is the task of the AEC to seek to restore, for so far this is possible, JUSTICE.
26
27 What obviously is needed to be done now is to suspend all and any matters regarding any
28 proposed Voice referendum this as there are major issues to be addressed.
29
30 It is the blatant ignorance and arrogance by the AEC and lawyers and politicians that has caused
31 this matter to escalate and this ought to be a lesson not to repeat the same in future.
32
33 The AEC in my view would do better that when it engage lawyers it does so who actually
34 understand/comprehend the constitution and not merely claim to be “constitutional lawyer”
35 which is an oxymoron like “firefighter firebug”.
36
37 In my view the AEC is guilty of DISINFORMATION where it has continued to publish details
38 that voti9ng is compulsory in spite of having lost the cases against me.
39 Obviously the DISINFORMATION should also be checked against candidates in political
40 elections to make promises and then acting contrary to it when having taken up the seat elected
41 for.
42
44 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
45 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
46 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
47 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
48 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
49 embrace and unite.
50 END QUOTE
51

Page 44
1 This legal principle is not “subject to what the Parliament may legislate” as the Parliament has
2 no ability to interfere with the embedded constitutional rights of any person!
3
4 In Re Wood’s case the High Court of Australia made clear that the fact that a Governor-General
5 had commissioned Mr Wood itself didn’t mean it was a valid appointment where Mr Wood was
6 not eligible to be a Member of Parliament.
7 The same can be held about a Governor-General and indeed regarding judicial officers.
8 The same where purported electors failed to be validly electors. And let us not ignore the
9 absurdity of having a person to allegedly become a naturalised Australian Citizen while residing
10 and continuing to reside overseas, not in government employment and then can vote in
11 State/Federal election this even so the Framers of the Constitution made clear that an elector had
12 to reside within the Commonwealth of Australia.
13
14 The very notion that a person is an elector is the basic requirement as to be abler to be a
15 candidate and if successful in a political election a Member of Parliament. The extortion of
16 having to pay a deposit and/or to have to get electors to provide signatures is a violation of the
17 basic legal principle the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the constitution that the basic
18 requirement was to be an elector to be able to be a Member of Parliament. Buy this the AEC
19 having so to say rolled over or bending over for politicians is unconstitutional to deny any
20 elector to be a candidate.
21
22 The current system is not at all that the best of electors can enter Parliament but rather that
23 crooks can manipulate the electoral system so they can get into power and join some millionaires
24 club without having a clue what is constitutionally applicable!
25
26 If the AEC is not the one to have the task to check the validity of any candidate, which I view is
27 a wrong position to take, then why did it contest certain persons to be a candidate?
28
29 The AEC while bound to act within the validity of laws cannot and must not merely accept
30 whatever to be valid law because Parliament passed it.
31
32 There are many lawful ways to address and resolve issues but blatant ignorance so far displayed
33 by the AEC, politicians and lawyers/judges isn’t going to do it.
34
35 While Anthony Albanese and his collaborators claim that AFTER the referendum than it will be
36 sorted out what the amendment would stand for, that is obviously utter and sheer nonsense!
37
38 Where are the “the proposed amendment must be submitted for the opinion of
39 the people of the states to be expressed in conventions elected for the purpose”?
40
41 Clearly, the electors have a right to debate and consider what it is about before any referendum is
42 put to them. The AEC is not bound to follow some party politics but is legally bound to follow
43 the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
44
45 Here we have reportedly $30+ billion dollars spend on Aboriginal issues just that the question
46 that is ignored is within which constitutional provision is this done? It certainly is not
47 Ss51(xxvi)!
48
49 The same with the absurd special legislation that Aboriginals can have a different registration
50 format for corporations than non-Aboriginals.
51
Page 45

2 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
3 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
4 An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
5 Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
6 END QUOTE
7 .
9 QUOTE
10 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
11 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
12 END QUOTE
13
15 QUOTE
16 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
17 Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
18 Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
19 Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
20 sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 There are numerous other statements making clear that any Commonwealth must be uniform
24 throughout the Commonwealth to be a Commonwealth law. If Voice were to purport otherwise
25 then it would never be a Commonwealth law and as such it is utter and sheer nonsense for
26 Anthony Albanese to claim it is a ‘moderate” amendment.
27
28 There appears to me a gross misconception that Ss51(xxvii) somehow allows for States to refer
29 matters to the Commonwealth. This section does no more but to allow the Commonwealth to
30 accept a reference of State legislative powers but as French J (then WA) made clear the powers
31 for the States to do so must be found elsewhere.
32
33 And numerous other issue are coming up. Many argue that in 1919 Bill Hughes provided for the
34 Commonwealth to be some independent nation, where as in reality the Commonwealth is not a
35 country at all. It are the States that are the colonies of the UK and the Commonwealth is no more
36 but a “political union”, more akin like the EU (European Union) where there is no he3ad of State
37 but merely a President. Therefore it is also utter and sheer nonsense to claim we need to have an
38 elected “Head of State” being an Australian, because the Monarch of the UK (King/Queen) is
39 not the King/Queen of Australia but rather King/Queen over the Commonwealth of Australia.
40
42 QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
43 The resolutions conclude:
44 An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to
45 time be appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of
46 office shall depend upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives
47 expressed by the support of the majority.
48 What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of
49 the new nation as similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional
50 advisers who shall stand as nearly as possible in the same relation to the representative of
51 the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial advisers stand is relation to the
52 Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to lay down as a
53 foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite
54 other gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in
55 view.
Page 46
1 END QUOTE
2
3 We have not a single Member of Parliament to actually be competent to be part of “a body of
4 constitutional advisers”
5
6 For example, both Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese were unconstitutionally aiding the
7 Ukraine NAZI government with weapons, ammunition and cash, without any Appropriation bills
8 having been approved. Anthony Albanese had no Parliament in session after the 2022 purported
9 election. Likewise, giving away army weapons that were never authorised by the (non-sitting)
10 Parliament for the army's yearly expenditure. In my view he just raided (stole) the army for this.
11 This in itself should have caused (automatically) S44 to be invoked! One doesn’t need a court
12 decision where a Member of Parliament violates the provisions of the constitution!
13
14 Those who commit and are convicted for TREASON should be awarded with the death penalty.
15 No use to scream that the death penalty has been abolished because the purported coalition of the
16 willing had no qualms to hand over its prisoner President Saddam Hussein to be hanged by the
17 neck until death. As such, what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.
18
20 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
21 We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
22 Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this
23 case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform
24 to it.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Let us look at an issue within the EU (European Union)
28
29 https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/05/03/eu-backs-dutch-scheme-to-forcibly-shut-
30 down-thousands-of-farms-ban-farmers-from-returning-to-agriculture-
31 forever/?utm_source=wnd&utm_medium=wnd&utm_campaign=syndicated
32 EU Backs Dutch Scheme to Forcibly Shut Down Thousands of Farms, Ban Farmers
33 From Returning to Agriculture Forever
34
35 Contrary to the initial principle of the EU to advance resident s liberty, etc, now the W.E.F.,
36 WHO and U.N. dictates are controlling and vandalizing the lives of EU residents.
37
38 This appears to me to be what Anthony Albanese and numerous other politicians are on about.
39 They so to say have sold out to foreign enemy entities.
40
41 https://stephenreason.substack.com/p/spying-on-victorians-examining-the
42 SPYING ON VICTORIANS: Examining the Implications of Dan Andrews' Secret Data Agency
43 PANDEMIC WRITINGS, Melbourne, Australia (2020-2022): piece published August 8,
44 2022
45 QUOTE
46 The revelation was supposedly the result of documents obtained by a Freedom of
47 Information (FOI) request submitted by the Herald Sun. Insights Victoria was established
48 primarily to ‘collate sensitive and private information,’ with ‘a powerful deep dive IT
49 system.’ It syphoned data from a multitude of interconnected platforms, ‘monitoring
50 Victorians every digital move, cross tabulating their personal information’
1
51
52 from credit card purchases to Facebook and Twitter posts. It could specifically focus upon
53 an individual, ‘right down to the street level,’ if so directed.
Page 47
1 Inspired by the prescient pages of Big Brother, its very existence confirmed everything
2 Orwell had forewarned libertarians about: Big Ears Andrews was watching us (and surely
3 listening, too.) This unnerving technology granted Dan Andrews and his fellow pandemic-
4 hoaxing cohorts (Chief Health Officer, Brett Sutton; and Chief Police Commissioner,
5 Shane Patton) daily access to data trends, collective community sentiment shifts; and, most
6 certainly, it was calibrated to isolate and categorize a growing list of problematic wrong-
7 think citizens. Surely, this was its primary purpose.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 This obviously may be also a matter of concern where a person were to engage in electronic
11 voting (wherever) and then the Government could access this and use this to terrorize or
12 otherwise seek to place citizens under duress.
13
14 For example, it could use any knowledge to deny certain services where it seek to force citizens
15 to vote for their political party or not get certain services.
16
17 I understand that reports have been published that NSW electronic voting machines are subject
18 to unauthorised access (hacking).
19 No use to claim this will not happen because one only has to consider the numerous hackings
20 into Medibank, Optus, etc.
21 And the Federal Government may seek to centralise it all, as always claiming it can prevent
22 hacking, yet it turns out even military contractors were hacked and information that were
23 supposed to be confidential were obtained.
24
25 Actually, in regard of the covid scam I wrote about how this could be used to spy on certain
26 people and then know precisely their daily routine, etc. Well it was claimed this was not
27 possible, albeit it turned out to be far worse than that. I was right after all.
28
29 When there are political elections then much is totally without any proper control. For example
30 you may find a candidate having numerous posts on fencing near a polling station and preventing
31 by this other candidates to have a reasonable opportunity to post their posters, etc. What I view
32 should be done is to have area’s near polling stations marked where no greater than the ordinary
33 size of a banner can be posted. Say 80cm x 40 cm. Then the presiding officer number each area
34 and place numbers into a ballot container and ask a person (not related to the political election as
35 a candidate or supporter) to take out each time a number for a candidate in order as they are
36 listed ion a ballot paper. Now however you may find numerous posters and huge canvasses
37 plastered around of just one candidate and others may have little or no hope to have their
38 material shown. I* had that my poster was simply ripped of (State election) and a political party
39 had over the bits and pieces of my ripped post then placed their own post. The election official
40 when shown made clear there was nothing he could do about it. What a crap!
41
42 Likewise, no sitting politicians should be allowed to use taxpayer’s monies to advertise re-
43 election as this denied other candidates a fair and proper election.
44
45 In my view the election system needs to be updated so that it provides for each candidate to have
46 an A4 size of article to be shown at a polling station on an electronic display that regardless if
47 there is an elderly rest home, hospital or whatever, each elector will be able to check out each
48 candidate presentation. Currently, when the nominations close there is basically no time for
49 INDEPENDENT candidates to get pamphlets printed and this means that at nursing homes,
50 hospitals, etc, electors are robbed of the ability to check out who to vote for. Using this kind of

Page 48
1 electronic presentation would likely cut down considerably on the enormous waste of how-to-
2 vote cards.
3 Where there are many candidates (such as in Senate/Upper House elections) then each candidate
4 has a number behind in brackets (randomly allocated) and then when an elector press this
5 number the screen will show the particular candidate statement.
6
7 While I do not view electronic voting is reliable it however can be used in a manner that would
8 not undermine security and avoid wasting a lot of papers. For example, instead of printing huge
9 ballot papers for the Senate, an elector can go to a polling station where an electronic voting
10 machine is in the booth. The elector then can press numbers to the relevant candidate wishing to
11 vote for in order of selection and then print. A printer then print out the selection on a ballot
12 paper and that then is a ballot paper that is placed in the ballot box. The system should allow for
13 an elector to alter choice and cancel it all and start again so in the end the candidate can have the
14 print out needed. This then would avoid any unauthorised interference by others and avoid a
15 huge waste of ballot papers which may be in excess of what is needed, etc. In that manner you
16 may find that regardless of the number of candidates most electors may just limit their selection
17 to a few candidates they select in their preferred order and by this the printed ballot paper will be
18 a lot less than one that has all candidates shown. The system would not prevent an elector to
19 select all candidates in a particular order and then have this printed out, and as such no denial of
20 elector having access to all candidates. The booth can display all candidates on a poster with
21 their relevant numbers (in brackets) to check their statements and by this process the only thing
22 that is greatly affected is to reduce unnecessary waste on paper.
23 For postal voting the AEC could still post out entire ballot papers.
24 And a similar system could be used for State/Territory elections.
25
26 If for the above we didn’t have any more “electors” or for that any qualified “candidate” in
27 federal elections and neither any competent persons to become Minister” then why is this all
28 eventuating?
29
32 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
33 understand.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
38 Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
39 England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
40 cannot get behind it.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 lawyers/judges will generally fabricate whatever meaning they desire to twist on something and I
44 view we saw this again in Palmer v WA. This is why we need a complete overhaul of
45 everything. As I indicated I raise issues which of some/many are not directly under the control
46 of the AEC but had it done its job properly then I view many of the issues could have been
47 avoided.
48 Instead of seeking to pursue a raise in “deposit” and “number of signatures” the AEC should
49 have acted within the legal principles of the constitution that by merely being an elector any
50 elector by this is entitled to be a candidate and become a Member of Parliament if elected subject
51 to the limitations enshrined in the constitution.
52 There is no constitutional; power for the Commonwealth to dictate any “deposit” or for that for
53 any candidate to have a mini election to harness a number of “signatures” from electors.
Page 49
1
2 The Framers of the Constitution embedded in the constitution that those who were serving in the
3 Parliament generally would be losing income as the “allowance:” would likely be less than their
4 ordinary income away from the parliament. Yet, we now have Members of Parliament involved
5 in all kinds of schemes that they are joining the millionaires club and are totally remote from
6 reality of ordinary people the very constituents they are to serve. We have ended with far too
7 many crooks/lairs in the Parliaments and when one con siders Premier Daniel Andrews of
8 Victoria I view he is a clear example of this.
9 With the bicycle incident it appears to me that (not stated in any order of importance):
10
11  His wife Catherine failed to give way to through traffic, being the cyclist.
12  Catherine may have made a false statement to the police
13  Daniel may have made a false statement to the police
14  Catherine and Daniel may have conspired to make false statements to the police.
15  Catherine and/or Daniel interfered unlawfully with the scene of an accident by removing
16 the motor vehicle involved as well as their children who may have been witnesses and/or
17 victims also due to the alleged trauma upon them.
18  Catherine and/or Daniel removed an unroadworthy motor vehicle from the scene of the
19 accident
20  Catherine and/or Daniel returned an unroadworthy motor vehicle to the scene of the
21 accident
22  Catherine failed to exchange relevant details with the cyclist.
23  Catherine failed to rendered first aid or other assistance to the injured cyclist.
24  Catherine and Daniel perverted the course of justice by making false/misleading
25 statements (Consider that \any statement to the police can be the start of legal
26 proceedings)
27  Catherine and Daniel obstructed the Administration of Justice to make false/misleading
28 statements. (Consider that \any statement to the police can be the start of legal
29 proceedings)
30  Catherine may have removed herself from the scene of the accident as to perhaps
31 consume something that may assist to prevent being tested if under the influence of
32 alcohol or other substance impairing her ability to competently drive a motor vehicle.
33 (that is unless Daniel was the actual driver and Catherine really pretended to be the driver
34 to cover for Daniel?)
35  Failing to leave the children at the scene of the accident so that they could have medical
36 attention by the paramedics in view that they themselves claimed about the children’s
37 distress.
38  Possibly leaving the children unsupervised while Catherine and Daniel returned to the
39 scene of the accident.
40
41 And obviously the role of the Victorian Police is questionable not even bother to do any testing
42 for alcohol/drug that may have impaired Catherine driving ability. Neither having charged her
43 for dangerous driving, etc.
44
45 It was claimed that she stopped to give a motorist right of way and noted that this was an L-plate
46 driver and yet the report now surfaced was that the cyclist was hit with a speed of about 40/60
47 kilometres an hour where he was a mere 17 meters from the corner. This alone ought to indicate
48 that to gain such a speed over such short distance could not be deemed reasonable concerning a
49 careful driver giving way to an opposite motor vehicle but failing to give way to a cyclist who
50 had right of way.
Page 50
1
2
3 Let me make it clear that on 8 April 2020 I lodged a complaint with the Victorian Ombudsman
4 about the unconstitutional mandates and the response was that it was for IBAC to investigate. I
5 also filed on 13 April 2020 an extensive complaint with the Victorian Human Rights
6 Commission about the same, she didn’t bother to respond. On 19 May 2020 I received the
7 following respond, and further writing to IBAC had no change in its position:
8
9 Level 1, North Tower, 459 Collins Street, Melbourne Victoria 3000 | GPO Box 24234,
10 Melbourne Victoria 3001 Telephone: 1300 735 135 | Facsimile: (03) 8635 6444 | DX 210187 |
11 info@ibac.vic.gov.au | www.ibac.vic.gov.au
12 QUOTE
13 Case ref: CASE-20201194
14 Doc ref: CD/20/23019
15
16 15 May 2020
17
18 Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
19 Via email: admin@inspector-rikati.com
20
21 Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
22
23 Your complaint against Victorian Parliament I refer to your complaint made to the
24 Victorian Ombudsman, notified to IBAC on 14 April 2020.
25
26 IBAC assesses whether matters it receives are, or involve, public interest disclosures under
27 the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012 (PID Act) to see if particular protections and
28 confidentiality obligations apply. IBAC has determined that your complaint should not be
29 treated as a ‘public interest complaint’.
30
31 This decision was made in accordance with section 26 of the PID Act, particularly
32 subsection 3. Although IBAC has determined your complaint is not a public interest
33 complaint, you will still be entitled to the protections under part 6 of the PID Act.
34
35 After considering the information you provided, IBAC has decided not to investigate or
36 refer your complaint to another agency for investigation. This decision was made in
37 accordance with section 67 of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission
38 Act 2011.
39
40 IBAC appreciates receiving information from individuals about possible corrupt conduct in
41 the Victorian public sector. All information received is recorded and assists IBAC to learn
42 of potential corruption risks, and helps target our prevention and education activities.
43
44 You should be aware that IBAC is only able to investigate a very small number of matters.
45
46 To better understand IBAC’s assessment process, the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ and
47 the thresholds for IBAC to investigate corruption, you may wish to visit our website
48 www.ibac.vic.gov.au.
49
50 Yours sincerely
51
Page 51
1 Sue Kapourelakos
2 Manager
3 Assessment & Review
4 END QUOTE
5
6 Even so I had made clear:
7
8 Let us see if the Victorian Ombudsman really is going to do her job as I have set out
9 in the document regarding COVID-19 restrictions.
12 B-to-Deborah-Glass-Victorian-Ombudsman
13
14 QUOTE 20200408-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Deborah Glass-Victorian Ombudsman
15 Deborah Glass-Victorian Ombudsman 8-4-2020
16 Office and mailing address
17 Level 2, 570 Bourke Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
18 ombudvic@ombudsman.vic.gov.au
19
20 20200408-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Deborah Glass-Victorian Ombudsman
21
22 Madam,
23 by now you too may have been aware about the Victorian Police having issued a
24 $1,652.00 fine against Hunter Reynolds albeit this appears to have been withdrawn since.
25
26 My concern is that the State of Victoria or for that any state has no police powers to restrict
27 anyone from their legal and constitutional rights of freedom of movement.
28
29 Regretfully we lack too often competent politicians, lawyers and judges to
30 understand/comprehend this.
31 .
32 I will below provide some quotations of the Hansard Constitution Convention Debates for the
33 creation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) of which within
34 section 106 the states were created “subject to this constitution” and it should be clear that
35 the Framers of the Constitution stated:
36
37 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
40
41 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd clause, is
42 intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine. That simply applies to
43 quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 The Framers of the Constitution rejected that the States could invoke police powers
47 END QUOTE 20200408-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Deborah Glass-Victorian Ombudsman
48
49 Let get this correct:
50
51 QUOTE
52 IBAC has determined that your complaint should not be treated as a ‘public interest
53 complaint’.
54 END QUOTE

Page 52
1
2 Here we had Victorian Police even at the Shrine of Remembrance shooting bullets at parents
3 holding small children exercising their constitutional rights to protest somehow IBAC seemed to
4 hold it not being “a ‘public interest complaint’.” Complaint. Never mind the ongoing toll on
5 the health and lives of many Victorians.
6
7 Are we yet again mislead as to the real causes of death by fabricated Novel Coronavirus
8 statistics and failing test results to violate our constitutional rights as set out in this
9 correspondence regarding Prime Minister Scott Morrison failing leadership?
11 https://www.scribd.com/document/452976879/20200324-Mr-g-h-Schorel-hlavka-o-w-b-to-
12 Pm-Mr-Scott-Morrison
13
14 Let us seek solutions to keep the death toll low without unduly interfering with
15 people’s ability to live as normal as possible lives and use a Home Faeces Test Kit to
16 check who is infected.
18 https://www.scribd.com/document/455531739/20200408-Press-Release-Mr-g-h-Schorel-
19 hlavka-o-w-b-Issue-Re-Constitutional-Quarantine-Powers-Etc
20
21 QUOTE 20200408-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to PM Mr SCOTT MORRISON-Re CONSTITUTIONAL
22 QUARANTINE POWERS
23 PM Mr Scott Morrison 8-4-2020
24 Forwarded via email
25
26 Scott,
27 QUOTE my 24-3-2020 correspondence to you
28 Remember your add; “Where the hell are you?” Well, I would ask “Where the hell are
29 you when it comes to responsible leadership?”
30 END QUOTE my 24-3-2020 correspondence to you
31
32 Either you ignored to read the correspondence or simply lack the ability to apply common
33 sense, nevertheless I will hereby supplement my 24-3-2020 correspondence.
34
35 Firstly, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
39
40 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd clause, is
41 intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine. That simply applies to
42 quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 Obviously in the proper context this means the Commonwealth can apply quarantine
46 measures regarding humans but within its powers of aliens, migration and immigration. The
47 States lack this powers unless the person is found to be in ill-health and not otherwise. This
48 means, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any “citizen” (meaning a person
49 residing within the Commonwealth of Australia) who is an “alien” can be subjected to special
50 provisions of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth therefore even without any
51 QUARANTINE issue involved limit the movement of any “alien”, as it deems appropriate in
52 the circumstances. Also it can invoke S51(xxvi) against any specific race but not against the
53 “general community”! The Framers of the Constitution made clear that S51(xxvi) could not
Page 53
1 be used against the “general community”. The States cannot unilaterally order a kind of house
2 arrest for its citizens (being people residing within the State) as it has no such constitutional
3 powers. However, a State within its Health legislation obviously can provide for anyone who
4 has a certain contagious illness to be limited in movement. Any citizen who however doesn’t
5 accept this cannot be restrained unless both in Federal and State/Territory a court obtains a
6 specific court order against that particular person. However, a court exercising state and/or
7 federal powers cannot merely issue orders in violation of a person’s constitutional rights. As I
8 proved with both successful appeals on 19 July 2006 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka that I was
9 well within my constitutional rights of Political Liberty to be subjected to “compulsory”
10 voting. As such if I do vote in any political election it is because I consider there is a worthy
11 candidate who is standing to vote for. Otherwise I continue to exercise my rights not to vote.
12 Likewise with this nonsense of purported unilateral “house arrest” under whatever mantra this
13 is pursued, it simply is not going to prevent me to do what I elect to do. Our constitution
14 provides for embedded legal rights of freedoms which no Parliament can blatantly disregard.
15 We had in Victoria that the politicians had an almighty rise in pay and why so one has to
16 wonder when the Health System they claim will be overburdened could have done with that
17 money to provide for the required ICU facilities that is needed? It has been the States
18 themselves who blatantly disregard responsible action considering there were past pandemics
19 and so a competent leader would have ensured the medical system to be prepared for the next
20 wave, not scream about the overburdening of a health system when they could have avoided
21 it.
22 When then you get Premiers unconstitutionally ordering cruise ships to depart and so with
23 sick crew in my view in clear violation of the Titanic Board of Inquiry recommendations to
24 not send out ships where the lives of those on board are placed at the perils of the sea, then
25 where was your leadership to make clear (see below extensive set out) that those ships fall
26 within the powers of the Commonwealth and no Premier has the right to order them to leave.
27 Why indeed when Premiers are complaining about being short in hospital beds was one or
28 more cruise ships not converted to hospital ships?
29 In The Netherlands, as set out below, Scientist have established that human faeces will show
30 COVID-19 (Novel Coronavirus) infection days before an infected person shows any
31 symptoms, if they show any at all. We have home testing kits for people to test their
32 swimming pool water and why not have a “home faeces test kit” for people to test if they are
33 infected? Consider mothers of infants being able to test their babies before an all scale deadly
34 infection becomes reality?
35 No use to lock in people in high rising units ( in residential towers) who then are missing out
36 of Vitamin D, etc, and have a weaker immune system and become cooked in their unit when
37 there is a much better alternative to just concentrate upon those who are infected and let
38 others continue to get along their lives as they desire.
39 As I attend to below, why are medical staff despite their gowns, mask, and whatever
40 becoming ill? Is it that they may not at all fall ill because of being in contact with patients but
41 because they actually became ill away from their place or work? Meaning, they are perhaps
42 contaminating those attending to hospitals? Is it that the mask and other protection gear they
43 are using might in the end not at all be sufficient to protect them?
44 Where are the food parcels for the elderly, the invalids and the carers and those under their
45 charge to prevent stress and duress? No use to claim to care for the elderly, etc, when
46 blatantly ignoring the stress and other problems you inflict upon them.
47 Our constitution doesn’t provide whatsoever for a so called “National Cabinet” and it is time
48 you show real leadership instead of this kind of nonsense. If you hold there is a “National
49 Cabinet” system within our constitution then I challenge you to show where it is stated in the
50 constitution.

Page 54
1 We obviously also lack a competent leader of the Opposition as not to even bother raise any
2 of the issues I am about.
3 The States created within s106 of the constitution “subject to this constitution” therefore are
4 also bound by the embedded legal principles. While the States are entitled to limit retailers in
5 working hours there should however be no abuse of this nor any bias to any particular section.
6 There is a lot more to this all but this correspondence will already be of a considerable extent
7 and so I will refrain delving in that issue in details, safe to say that in my view businesses who
8 are affected by restrictions by a State are entitled to sue the State for compensation. It has then
9 nothing to do with the Commonwealth. Neither does the constitution provide for the
10 Commonwealth to pay a reported $1,500.00 a fortnight for businesses to keep staff where
11 they are not even unemployed.
12 You and others may not like my exposure and criticism but I am sick and tired of this
13 stupidity of blatantly violating citizens their constitutional rights. As with this “compulsory”
14 voting issue I can assure you I am preparing my case already in case some person were to take
15 me to task to litigate against me. How dare you to restrict the lives of the elderly who in their
16 later years of life are denied proper communication and freedoms otherwise where clearly
17 there are other ways to APPROPRIATELY address the issues at hand.
18 Going about playing some kind of Santa Claus isn’t going to resolve anything as you are
19 really giving away monies of other people. Neither is this in my view economical competent
20 when a far lesser manner issues can be addressed.
21
22 It is in my view very obvious that neither you or the Premiers have a clue what the true
23 meaning and application of our constitution is about, this despite you all are purported to be
24 “constitutional advisers” to the respective Governor/Governor-General. Shame on you all!
25 END QUOTE 20200408-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to PM Mr SCOTT MORRISON-Re
26 CONSTITUTIONAL QUARANTINE POWERS
27
28 From the above it must be clear that IBAC at least to me appeared to be more interested to shield
29 Daniel Andrews from any legal accountability and that Scott Morrison as like Daniel Andrews
30 ignored my advice/warnings and persisted in their murderous conduct and other harm upon
31 citizens
32
33 Obviously there might be a lot more issues in this regard to be addressed but it certainly is a start
34 to make elections more user friendly and advance the ability of all candidates to have a fair and
35 proper election.
36
37 There ought to be absolutely no doubt that had those in the Federal Government and/or Victorian
38 Government taken proper consideration of my writings then likely thousands upon thousands of
39 citizens likely would never have ended up becoming a victim in ill health, disability or even
40 deaths.
41 Let us not ignore what IBAC responded:
42
43 QUOTE
44 IBAC has determined that your complaint should not be treated as a ‘public interest
45 complaint’.
46 END QUOTE
47
48 As such the elaborate corrupt conduct causing considerable harm to small businesses, ordinary
49 persons, etc, involving the media to pursue fearmongering to push a poisonous “gene therapy
50 somehow is not “a ‘public interest complaint’”!
51

Page 55
1 I wonder if (without religious input) each got, so to say, 30 silver pieces as reward for their
2 betrayal of their oath of office and the unduly harm inflicted upon citizens? What happened to
3 the “commissions” the pharmaceutical companies were paying to those ensuring the poisonous
4 jabs were enforced?
5
6 What this underlines is that we seem to have career politicians who couldn’t care less about the
7 harm they inflict upon others and are in my view morally bankrupt, and this is aided by how the
8 electoral system is in their benefit knowing that it generally is a contest between mere 2
9 opponents and any other candidate becomes irrelevant because the AEC allows this kind of
10 unconstitutional sickening game to go ahead and flourish where citizens are hoodwinked they
11 vote for who shall be Prime Minister even so no elector can vote for this, because it is a
12 prerogative powers of the Governor-General to appoint whomever he deems to be appointed for
13 this position. A Prime Minister is no more than a Minister amongst equals, and cannot interfere
14 with the “Ministerial responsibility” of another Minister.
15
16 Currently we do not have any Governor-General and (Prime) Minister as both having made an
17 oath to a foreign power by this have lost their relevant constitutional position. One has to
18 question why the Attorney-General didn’t alert them about this. Then again, I view he too is
19 grossly incompetent to understand/comprehend the constitution.
20
21 I thank the many persons from all move the world who have provided me with
22 details/information even if mere links. Such as (not in any particular order): My wife Olga who
23 despite her considering suffering at age 90 nevertheless seek to accomopdate me for my work to
24 present my writings, JOSEPHINE CASHMAN, “https://namastepublishing.co.uk/elisabeth-
25 beckett-her-untold-story/ Elisabeth Beckett – Defender of the British Constitution Her Untold
26 Story,” Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Senator Pauline Hanson, Senator Gerald Rennick,
27 Senator Antic, Senator Malcolm Roberts, and countless others, but not to ignore the very readers
28 who over the years have each in their own way provided valuable information and other
29 assistance. It is ultimately their diligent assistance and care that has enabled me to provide a
30 more comprehensive set out.
31 We should never be a nation divided on racial grounds but be and remain all equal Australians.
32
33 Due to recent revelation on Sunday 7 May 2023 I decided to add to the above.
34
35 I understand that the Victorian Government now is having their own version of Voice
36 implemented where now decisions may be subject to what the Victorian Voice may decide.
37
38 Firstly, all and any State/Territory legislation, etc, regarding Australians of Aboriginal descent is
39 unconstitutional since the 1967 Ss51(xxvi) con-job referendum.
40
42 QUOTE
43 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
44 Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
45 END QUOTE
46
48 QUOTE
49 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the
50 states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
51 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

Page 56
1 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws
2 will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of
3 making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
4 END QUOTE
5
7 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
8 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
9 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
10 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the
11 meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 Also, the States within Section 106 of the constitution are limited in legislative powers:
15
16 Chapter V—The States
17 106 Saving of Constitutions
18 The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject
19 to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the
20 Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the
21 State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the
22 Constitution of the State.
23
24 All and any legislation since 1967 regarding Aboriginals by any or all States/Territories is
25 unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES.
26
27
Page 57

Page 58
1
2
Page 59
1 We now can grasp a bit that even so there might be few Australians of Aboriginal descent in
2 Victoria versus WA, NT, QLD nevertheless they will have the say over the rest of millions of
3 Victorians, with this Voice.
4 Meaning that Victorians not of Aboriginal descent will be second class citizens. And, any
5 Australian of Aboriginal descent who may move to Victoria also will have more rights than
6 Victorians who have generations of their families living in Victoria and build this to what it is
7 now.
8
9 It is very obvious that this Victorian Voice is a doomsday scenario where soon being not of
10 Aboriginal descent means you are an outcast.
11 As I indicated this kind of legislation by the Victorian Parliament and conduct by the Victorian
12 Government violates the exclusive legislative powers of the Commonwealth and as such is null
13 and void (ULTRA VIRES)
14
15 Let’s be clear about it that if reportedly 80% of Australians of Aboriginal descent are part of
16 mainstream population then we are referring to say about 20% of Australians of Aboriginal
17 descent who will wield power over more than 6 million Victorians how taxers are spend.
18
19 Just that the States were created within S106 “subject to this constitution”, which means that
20 the federal system cannot be undermined in any manner. Therefore, the States/Territories cannot
21 alter their system merely because they desire to do so as the Federal system dictates that all
22 taxation and legislation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. This means that any
23 State legislating must also provide for the laws of the State to be uniform throughout the State. In
24 this case Victoria. It means all taxation and the spending thereof must be uniform.
25 Australians of Aboriginal descent have the right as any Australian to petition their representative
26 to provide for funding but such funding must the equal through the states. As such setting up a
27 Voice for Victoria or for that any other State/Territory is useless as it would violate the federal
28 compact to which they are bound by “subject to this constitution”.
29
30 As I have stated previously we should simply cut out the crap about “races” as while I recognise
31 that the Framers of the Constitution at the time of federation had genuine concerns those
32 whoever no longer can be deemed applicable. This is also why the previous S127 having served
33 its purpose at time of federation no longer was relevant after the original tax issues had been
34 disposed off.
35
36
Page 60
1
3 QUOTE
4 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which
5 the words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether
6 we leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the
7 Federal Parliament will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have
8 exclusive power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed
9 legislation dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power
10 will have arisen.
11 END QUOTE
12
14 QUOTE
15 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the Convention to an
16 apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not yet been made. The word
17 "exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on the coming into being of the
18 Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal Parliament, may mean, and I believe does
19 mean, that the power of the state to legislate ceases. On the question of whether the exclusive power
20 under this provision comes into being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the
21 attention of the leader of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive
22 power arises the moment an Act is passed. It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs duties
23 being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph says-
24 But this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have been imposed
25 by the Parliament.
26 It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at once, and the
27 position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this clause as it [start page 255]
28 stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to Chinese.
29 Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediately
30 on the establishment of the Commonwealth.
31 END QUOTE
32
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. GLYNN.-There seems to be some doubt as to whether the exclusive power arises upon the
36 establishment of the Commonwealth or on the exercise of the power of legislation. The doubt seems to
37 be removed by clause 84. It is said that if we put this provision in clause 52 the exclusive power may be
38 postponed until legislation takes place. But may you not then have a concurrent power, and may not the
39 competence of the local Legislature to legislate in the matter be continued as long as the legislation is not in
40 contradiction of federal legislation?
41 Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point.
42 Mr. GLYNN.-Yes, and there is still a vagueness in the word "exclusive." If it is doubtful whether the
43 exclusive power commences with the foundation of the Commonwealth, and if it is possible that it may only
44 come into being on the passing of legislation, may it not still be said that on the passing of exclusive
45 legislation the power of the local Parliaments to legislate is extinguished, but that on the passing of
46 concurrent legislation that power does not cease?
47 Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I think that enough has now been said on this subject by honorable
48 members both sides of the chamber, and I have only a very few remarks to offer. It appears that if the
49 sub-section remains where it is state laws will be valid until federal legislation, but the states will not be
50 able to alter or improve those laws during the possibly long interval between federation and federal
51 legislation. Under these circumstances, as we leave to the states for an indefinite time the power of
52 maintaining the laws they have, we should grant to them the power of improving those laws. It would
53 recommend the Constitution more to a large number of persons if we put the sub-section in clause 52,
54 thus enabling each state to legislate on this matter until the Federal Parliament comes in and legislates
55 for all.

Page 61
1 END QUOTE
2
4 QUOTE
5 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the
6 only body to which the words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very
7 substantial difference does it make whether we leave the provision as it stands or put it into
8 clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the Federal Parliament will have
9 exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have exclusive
10 power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed
11 legislation dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this
12 exclusive power will have arisen. The only matter for the committee to consider is as to
13 the expediency of leaving the provision here or of putting; it into clause 52. Wherever it is,
14 it will, upon the passing of the Constitution, operate as an intimation to the Federal
15 Parliament that this is a matter of national import, upon which they are expected to
16 legislate. Once within the Commonwealth citizens should be able to go freely from one
17 state to another; there should be no lines of differentiation between states. If races are
18 admitted into one state, and are not free to go into another, the inconveniences of
19 administration, especially on the borders, will be very great. It has been thought well that
20 there should be a uniform law throughout Australia in respect to the citizens of
21 Australia, and it was considered that this provision should be put into a separate
22 clause giving exclusive powers, in order to emphasize the fact that the Federal
23 Parliament should legislate upon this matter. In my opinion, whether you put the
24 provision into clause 52, or leave it where it is, its substantial legislative effect will be the
25 same. As to the meaning of the words, "the affairs of the people of any race with respect to
26 whom it is deemed necessary," in my opinion it is the Federal Parliament who must deem
27 it necessary.
28 Mr. ISAACS.-What is the meaning of the statement that the state cannot legislate
29 for the whole general community?
30 Mr. BARTON.-That is by way of description. A law made by the state does not apply
31 to the general community.
32 END QUOTE
33
36 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
37 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
38 An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
39 Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
40 END QUOTE
41 .
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
46 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
47 END QUOTE
48
49 And
52 QUOTE
53 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
54 Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
55 Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The

Page 62
1 Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
2 sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
3 END QUOTE
4 .
6
7 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
8 But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the
9 imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the
10 whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 And
15 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
16 On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it may
17 determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average
18 opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout
19 the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states
20 for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.
21 END QUOTE
22
25 2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties shall be uniform
26 throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods exported from one
27 state to another;
28 END QUOTE
29
31 QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-
32 Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty
33 shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 Therefore, taxation and other laws by the Commonwealth of Australia must always be
37 UNIFORM throughout the Commonwealth, with the clear exemption that the Section 101 Inter-
38 State commission can make decision upon the details/information before it that funding for
39 certain State/Territory might be needed different than that of another State/Territory when it
40 comes to Trade and commerce and any other powers the Commonwealth Parliament may have
41 assigned to it.
42
43 Federal politicians however unconstitutionally seek to use pork-barrelling and ignore that this
44 conduct is unconstitutional.
45
46 In my view if the federal government pursues through legislation to apply a tax for profit then it
47 must be regarding all companies and other entities that arte taxes likewise and not merely to
48 target gas industries.
49
50 As I have often made clear we lack proper law education at universities in general and certainly
51 about constitutional law, and this is why we get those who obtained a law degree (perhaps by
52 purchasing some packets of butter) end up with law degrees without any decent knowledge and
53 comprehension what it is about. They are flogging their law degree as if they are superior even
54 so they to me are worse than ordinary persons.
55
56
Page 63
1
2
3 https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-
4 commonwealth-laws-alrc-report-129/7-freedom-of-movement/protections-from-statutory-
5 encroachment-
6 26/?fbclid=IwAR0ibiChY3yspyb7dmfpJ4aJaRbe4rCxp9ORe5TUFx4VkeMlqjGZYHdk6_8
7 QUOTE
8 Home / Publications / Traditional Rights And Freedoms—Encroachments By
9 Commonwealth Laws (ALRC Report 129) / 7. Freedom Of Movement / Protections
10 From Statutory Encroachment
11 Traditional Rights and Freedoms—Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws (ALRC Report 129)
12 Terms of Reference
13 Participants
14 1. Executive Summary
15 2. Rights and Freedoms in Context
16 3. Scrutiny Mechanisms
17 4. Freedom of Speech
18 5. Freedom of Religion
19 6. Freedom of Association and Assembly
20 7. Freedom of Movement
21 Summary
22 The common law
23 Protections from statutory encroachment
24 Justifications for limits on freedom of movement
25 Laws that interfere with freedom of movement
26 Conclusion
27 END QUOTE
28 And
29 QUOTE
30 International law

Page 64
1 7.26 Freedom of movement is widely recognised in international law and bills

2 of rights. For example, art 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human
3 Rights provides:
4 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders
5 of each state.
6 (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his
7 country.
8 7.27 Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
9 provides, in part:
10 1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have
11 the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
12 2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
13 …
14 4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. [21]
15 7.28 International instruments cannot be used to ‘override clear and valid

16 provisions of Australian national law’. However, where a statute is ambiguous,
[22]
17 courts will generally favour a construction that accords with Australia’s

18 international obligations. [23]
19 Bills of rights
20 7.29 In other countries, bills of rights or human rights statutes provide some
21 protection from statutory encroachment. Freedom of movement is protected in
22 the United States Constitution, and in the human rights statutes in Canada and
[24] [25]
23 New Zealand. [26]
24 7.30 Freedom of movement is also expressly protected in the Charter of Human

25 Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) and the Human Rights Act
26 2004 (ACT). Section 12 of the Victorian Act, for example, provides:
[27]
27 Every person lawfully within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria and to
28 enter and leave it and has the freedom to choose where to live.
29 END QUOTE
30 And
31 QUOTE
32 [12]
33 Miller v TCN Channel Nine (1986) 161 CLR 556, 581–2. ‘The Constitution also contains
34 implied guarantees of freedom of speech and other communications and freedom of
35 movement not only between the States and the States and the territories but in and between
36 every part of the Commonwealth. Such freedoms are fundamental to a democratic society
37 … They are a necessary corollary of the concept of the Commonwealth of Australia. The
38 implication is not merely for the protection of individual freedom; it also serves a
39 fundamental societal or public interest’. Williams and Hume wrote that freedom of
40 movement is arguably ‘implicit in the system of free trade, commerce and intercourse in s
41 92, the protection against discrimination based on state residence in s 117 and any
42 protection of access to the seat of government as well as in the very fact of federalism’:
43 George Williams and David Hume, Human Rights under the Australian
44 Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2013) 120. In Williams v Child Support
45 Registrar, the applicant was unsuccessful in arguing that there was a constitutional right of
46 freedom of movement into and out of Australia: Williams v Child Support
47 Registrar (2009) 109 ALD 343.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 Reality is that Australians are constitutionally “Subject of the British Crown” and remain to be
51 so as the High Court of Australia has no constitutional authority to amend the constitution in any
52 manner. Australians therefore are entitled to travel abroad to other Commonwealth countries and
Page 65
1 no charge can be applied such as some purported departure tax this as it would be an
2 unconstitutional interference of Australians to travel to other Commonwealth countries.
3
4 There are numerous other issues that I can raise to show that what wee need is to get rid of the so
5 called professional politicians and to return to politicians who are respecting their constituents.
6
7 We of then hear about a Coalition Government or a Labour Government this even so any Federal
8 government actually is a Government for the people, that is all citizens in the Commonwealth of
9 Australia regardless of their nationality.
10
11 We also have this nonsense that Australia should have its own “Head of State” but that is really
12 what the Framers of the Constitution already debated. As they held that any Governor-General
13 (obviously being elected and not a mere puppet-on-a-string for a Federal government) would
14 effectively be the “Head of State” even if representing the Monarch of the United Kingdom.
15 A (Prime) Minister is not a “Head of State” and in my view Anthony Albanese had really no
16 business to be at the coronation. We have an Agent-General representing the Commonwealth of
17 Australia, and a Governor-General representing the Monarch and that should have been
18 sufficient and not some busy body of a (Prime) Minister who I view lacks any proper
19 understanding as to what the constitution stands for. Well I view he is an utter idiot having made
20 a pledge to what the High Court of Australia held in Sue v Hill being a foreign Monarch
21 (regardless I disagree with HCA about this) and for this kicked out Senator Heather Hill and
22 Senator Woods. In my view technically the commonwealth of Australia is not a country but a
23 “POLITICAL UNIONS” and the real countries are the States as “colonies” of the UK. This is
24 why the Commonwealth of Australia never can be a “Republic” as after all consider the
25 European Union system where the EU is neither a country, and neither a monarchy but merely a
26 “POLITICAL UNION”.
27
28 Already the AEC fails to prevent/stop ‘DISINFORMATION” by the ‘yes23’ group.
29 And wait for my 8 May 2023 supplement to discover what is so wrong with the entire
30 proposed Voice referendum!
33 B-to-Tom-Rogers-Australian-Electoral-Commission-Ors-COMPLAINT
34
35 Now I will repeat my 7 May 2023 COMPLAINT:
36 QUOTE 20230507-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Tom Rogers - Australian Electoral Commission & Ors-
37 COMPLAINT
38 Tom Rogers - Australian Electoral Commission & Ors 7-5-2023
39 info@aec.gov.au
40
41 Cc: Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus
42 Email via portal: https://ministers.ag.gov.au/hon-mark-dreyfus-qc-mp/contact
43
44 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
45 Re COMPLAINT
46 Sir,
47 today at about 15.32 I understood there was an advertising (on radio) by “yes23” claiming
48 that after 122 years Aboriginals had not been recognised in the constitution. I object to this
49 false and misleading claim as Aboriginals were in fact from the time of federation held to be
50 equal to other Australians and for this specifically Ss51(xxvi) excluded Aboriginals as a race
51 to fall within Commonwealth legislative powers. In fact, Aboriginals who had been granted
52 franchise (voting rights) by their State were entitled and many did vote in the first federal
Page 66
1 election in 1901. The removal of the protection by the 1967 Ss51(xxvi) con-job referendum
2 simply means that Aboriginals (meaning Australians of Aboriginal descent) were from then
3 on outed and not entitled to vote or hold a seat in any Australian Parliament. It appears that
4 “yes23” is already providing “DISINFORMATION” and obviously you are failing big time
5 to ensure this is prevented/stopped. When are you going to do your job?
6 I intend to email on 8 May 2023 an extensive supplement to this complaint setting out further
7 some matters.
8 END QUOTE 20230507-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Tom Rogers - Australian Electoral Commission &
9 Ors-COMPLAINT
10
11 While we have an AEC that for its sake has been pursing to make it more difficult for any elector
12 to be a candidate in a political election it in my view would have done better to actually make it
13 more difficult for professional politicians to abuse the system and to ensure that there is a system
14 that any person who becomes a Member of Parliament is provided with appropriate education as
15 to what the true meaning and application of the constitution is about and also that any person
16 seeking a Ministerial position is competent in constitutional matters.
17
18 I do not know if “yes23” actually sought the view if not permission to use this kind of
19 “DISINFORMATION” for its advertising (as the AEC requires approval for how-to-vote-cards
20 in federal elections, but it is of grave concern that electors are hoodwinked and not provided with
21 appropriate information. I view that the Federal Government reportedly funding the yes
22 campaign but not equally the no campaign implies that there is not fair and proper referendum to
23 be held. We had the “DISINFORMATION” regarding the WMD and caused mass murder in
24 Iraq, We had the “DISINFORMATION” to bring “DEMOCRACY” in Afghanistan and well
25 we have witnessed it is anything but. We have “DISINFORMATION” to assist Ukraine NAZI
26 government mass murdering ethnic Russians in the Donbass and surrounding areas just that we
27 are denied the true FACTS. We have theft of Consolidated Revenue Funds, etc, and this goes on
28 and on and this is why what is needed is to ensure a 12 year limit is applied to any person to be a
29 Member of Parliament so they cannot be there just to join a millionaires club and the hell with
30 the health and wellbeing of Australians.
31
32
33
34 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal
35 constitution!
36
37 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
38 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
39 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

40 (Our name is our motto!)

20230508-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Tom Rogers - Australian Electoral Commission & Ors-COMPLAINT-supplement 1

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

20230508-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Tom Rogers - Australian Electoral Commission & Ors-COMPLAINT-supplement 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

1 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

8-5-2023 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the

8-5-2023 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 19 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006

8-5-2023 Page 21 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 25 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 26 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 27 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 28 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Aboriginal descent were to be equal and Ss51(xxvi) as it was at federation clearly

8-5-2023 Page 32 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 34 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 36 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 38 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 41 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 43 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

8-5-2023 Page 47 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 51 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 53 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 54 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 55 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 57 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

41 Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point.

8-5-2023 Page 60 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 61 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-5-2023 Page 63 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 7.26 Freedom of movement is widely recognised in international law and bills

15 7.28 International instruments cannot be used to ‘override clear and valid

17 courts will generally favour a construction that accords with Australia’s

23 New Zealand. [26]

24 7.30 Freedom of movement is also expressly protected in the Charter of Human

39 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like