20240203-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senator David Shoebridge

Page 1
1
2
3 Senator David Shoebridge 3-2-2024
4 Email senator.shoebridge@aph.gov.au
5
6 David,
7 I happen to watch a video of Senate Economic Legislation Committee and I very honesty
8 was pleasantly surprised about you questioning the ANCC (Australian National Character
9 Check), as I understood them to be regarding religious charities.
10
11 Let us first consider that the Framers of the Constitution stated:
12
13 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
14 QUOTE
15 Mr. HIGGINS.-That is the question-are those dangers non-existent?
16 Mr. BARTON.-I do not think the fact that we may be held by law to be a Christian
17 community is any reason for us to anticipate that there will be any longer any fear of a
18 reign of Christian persecution-any fear that there will be any remnant of the old ideas
19 which have caused so much trouble in other ages. The whole of the advancement in
20 English-speaking communities, under English laws and English institutions, has shown a
21 less and less inclination to pass laws for imposing religious tests, or exacting religious
22 observances, or to maintain any religion. We have not done that in Australia. We have
23 abolished state religion in all these colonies; we have wiped out every religious test, and
24 we propose now to establish a Government and a Parliament which will be at least as
25 enlightened as the Governments and Parliaments which prevail in various states; therefore,
26 what is the practical fear against which we are fighting? That is the difficulty I have in
27 relation to this proposed clause. If I thought there was any-the least-probability or
28 possibility, taking into consideration the advancement of liberal and tolerant ideas that is
29 constantly going on of any of these various communities utterly and entirely retracing its
30 steps, I might be with the honorable member. If we, in these communities in which we live,
31 have no right whatever to anticipate a return of methods which were practised under a
32 different state or Constitution, under a less liberal measure of progress and advancement;
33 if, as this progress goes on, the rights of citizenship are more respected; if the divorce
34 between Church and State becomes more pronounced; if we have no fear of a
35 recurrence of either the ideas or the methods of former days with respect to these colonies,
36 then I do suggest that in framing a Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia, which
37 we expect to make at least as enlightened, and which we expect to be administered with as
38 much intellectuality as any of the other Constitutions, we are not going to entertain fears in
39 respect of the Commonwealth which we will not attempt to entertain with respect to any
40 one of the states. Now, we have shown that we do not intend these words to apply to our
41 states by striking out clause 109. That might be a provision that might be held to be too
42 express in its terms, because there may be practices in various religions which are believed
43 in by persons who may enter into the Commonwealth belonging to other races, which
44 practices would be totally abhorrent to the ideas, not only to any Christian, but to any
3-2-2024 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 civilized community; and inasmuch as the Commonwealth is armed with the power of
2 legislation in regard to immigration and emigration, and with regard to naturalization, and
3 also with regard to the making of special laws for any race, except the aboriginal races
4 belonging to any state-inasmuch as we have all these provisions under which it would be
5 an advisable thing that the Commonwealth, under its regulative power, should prevent any
6 practices from taking place which are abhorrent to the ideas of humanity and justice of the
7 community; and inasmuch as it is a reasonable thing that these outrages on humanity and
8 justice (if they ever occur) should be prohibited by the Commonwealth, it would be a
9 dangerous thing, perhaps, to place in the Bill a provision which would take out [start page
10 1772] of their hands the power of preventing any such practices.
11 Mr. HIGGINS.-Do you think that the Commonwealth has that power under the existing
12 Bill?
13 Mr. BARTON.-I am not sure that it has not. I am not sure that it has not power to prevent
14 anything that may seem an inhuman practice by way of religious rite.
15 Mr. HIGGINS.-I want to leave such matters to the states.
16 END QUOTE
17
19 QUOTE
20 Mr. HIGGINS.-Then all crimes should be left to the Commonwealth?
21 Mr. BARTON.-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing
22 crime to the Commonwealth, but you do give power to the Commonwealth to make
23 special laws as to alien races; and the moment you do that the power of making such laws
24 does not remain in the hands of the states; and if you place in the hands of the
25 Commonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have described you should not
26 defeat that regulative power of the Commonwealth. I do not think that that applies at all,
27 however, to any power of regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we do
28 not give any such power to the Commonwealth, whilst we do give the Commonwealth
29 power with regard to alien races; and having given that power, we should take care not to
30 take away an incident of it which it may be necessary for the Commonwealth to use by
31 way of regulation. I have had great hesitation about this matter, but I think I shall be
32 prevented from voting for the first part; and as to establishing any religion, that is so
33 absolutely out of the question, so entirely not to be expected-
34 Mr. SYMON.-It is part of the unwritten law of the Constitution that a religion shall not
35 be established.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 Now, consider how many times the Commonwealth is persecuting an Australian for alleged
39 crimes committed when clearly the Framers of the Constitution stated; “No; because you do
40 not give any power with regard to punishing crime to the Commonwealth,”! This is
41 because the States only can deal with crimes allegedly having committed by an Australian. Like
42 it or not but all convictions therefore by a non-State Court cannot be constitutionally valid.
43 Obviously, there is nothing to stop a State Court invested with “Federal jurisdiction” to convict
44 an offender/accused AFTER both sides have been heard and the court decides to apply a
45 sentence. As such the whistle-blowers cases never could have been heard before a Federal court
46 but only by a State Court exercising federal jurisdiction.
47
48 Before I go into the “religious charities” or any “charities” I will also address another
49 misunderstood issue.
50
51 You may not like it but s116 also provides
52
Page 3
1 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

2
3 116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
4 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
5 religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
6 prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
7 shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
8 under the Commonwealth.
9
10 It means that any Member of Parliament who violates the constitution can be deemed to have
11 committed TREASON against the constitution. By Section 45 of the constitution the following
12 applies:
13
15
16 45 Vacancy on happening of disqualification
17 If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:
18 (i) becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the
19 last preceding section; or
20 (ii) takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or
21 otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent
22 debtors; or
23 (iii) directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or
24 honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or
25 for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State;
26 his place shall thereupon become vacant.
27
28 Because of S116 all and any Aboriginal customs and traditions therefore cannot be enforced
29 against Australians. Actually the terms of “First Nations”, “indigenous Aboriginals”, tradition
30 custodians”, “traditional owners” are all made up terms and are not constitutional terms.
31 In 1658 The Dutch then claimed “New Holland” for the Dutch and in 1788 Cap Cooke claimed
32 “New Holland for the British. As such basically the British stole “New Holland from the Dutch.
33 The Dutch never did to my knowledge provide for any “land rights”. The Framers of the
34 Constitution did however make known that Queensland, having taken in Torres Strait Islands,
35 better resolve any land rights before federation. The British did not invade “New Holland”
36 neither did the Dutch, as the Dutch commenced with shipwrecking to live in “New Holland” and
37 then Dutch sailors and Aboriginal women produced offspring’s which then had copper coloured
38 skin, blond hair, etc, and commenced to cultivate the land. You find that my blog
39 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati has ample of information about this and also shows that
40 Aboriginals moved into what is now Australia
41
42 https://cairnsnews.org/2023/04/17/foi-reply-reveals-the-voice-will-enable-a-treaty-which-will-
43 take-a-large-portion-of-gnp-and-rent-from-all-white-australians-and-abolish-
44 flag/?replytocom=461397#respond
45 FOI reply reveals the Voice will enable a Treaty which will take a large portion of GDP
46 and rent from all white Australians and abolish flag
47 QUOTE
48 Peter Campion
49 April 19, 2023 at 6:28 pm
50 From Keith Windschuttle’s books, the current aboriginal people are almost all
51 Carpentarians, close relatives of Sri Lanka’s Vedda people, who came here across the ice-
52 age land bridge where the Torres Strait is now ~15,000 years ago.
Page 4
1 Before them where the Murraysians (~25,000 years ago).

2 Before them where the Negritoes (~40,000 years ago).
3 Surviving in arid ice-age Australia was tough.
4 The Negritoes ate the mega-fauna, which ended any chance of harnessing animal power for
5 farming and any chance of developing an agrarian society in Australia.
6 The Murraysians ate the Negritoes.
7 The Carpentarians ate the Murraysians.
8 Then they ate each other.
9 See ethnographer Carl Lumholtz’s excellent book from his experience in NQ in the 1880s
10 on his journey beginning on the Herbert River, “Among Cannibals: Four Years Travels in
11 Australia and of Camp Life with the Aborigines of Queensland”, free download from
12 archive.org here –
13 https://ia800900.us.archive.org/28/items/amongcannibalsa00lumhgoog/amongcannibalsa0
14 0lumhgoog.pdf
15 Everyone has a history of displacing others, and everyone has 60,000 years of culture.
16 Therefore everyone should be treated the same under the law.
17 No exceptions.
18 Ever.
19 “BTW, they DID invent the boomerang – that’s got to be worth some credit.”
20 I can’t find the link at the moment, but there exists convincing arguments that the
21 boomerang was technology brought here by ancient Egyptians.
22 They’ve been found in the tombs of some ancient kings and there was an ancient Egyptian
23 navigator who went on a world discovery tour thousands of years before Cook, whose
24 name eludes me at present…
25 END QUOTE
26
27 What ‘First Nations’?
28
29 The Murraysians ate the Negritoes.
30 The Carpentarians ate the Murraysians.
31 Then they ate each other.
32
33 And then came others such as the Aboriginals, who despite claims by “Travelling Pete”
34 (Anthony Albanese) they weren’t around 65,000 odd years ago!
35
36 For further details check out:
37 Why have a constitution when governments and law enforcement authorities are
38 failing to protect Australians against abuse of powers. Shadow banning, fraudulent
39 charges to bank account, etc. Defund the Australian Federal Police and replace it
40 with a competent police force.
41 https://www.scribd.com/document/665971908/20230820-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
42 B-to-R-Kershaw-Chief-Commissioner-of-AFP-Suppl-102-Shadow-Banning-Etc
43
44
TAXATION
I understand you gained the seat vacated by former Premier Kristina Keneally.
Page 5
1 Once one jurisdiction commences with a “ THE WINDFALL TAX ” then more
2 than likely other jurisdictions will follow. This document raises the issue that it appears to be
3 unconstitutional as it is an unconstitutional state land tax and also highlights to issue of
4 unconstitutional interest rates charged by organisation, etc, not permitted to do so.
5 https://www.scribd.com/document/624591705/20230209-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
6 Attorney-General-Mark-Dreyfus-COMPLAINT-Supplement-4
7 QUOTE 20230209-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus-COMPLAINT-
8 Supplement 4
9 Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus 9-2-2023
10 Email via portal: https://ministers.ag.gov.au/hon-mark-dreyfus-qc-mp/contact
11
12 Re COMPLAINT Supplement 4
13 Sir,
14 in my view you are guilty of derelict of your obligations and duties as Attorney-General,
15 grossly incompetent and I below intent to set out some further matters. I may add that this has
16 been also applicable to your predecessors and this includes treasurers, Prime Ministers, etc.
17 Obviously you would like me to show why I view this to be so and below I will provide some set
18 out albeit further and additional details also are posted at my blog
19 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
20
21 The issue THE WINDFALL TAX is it constitutionally valid?
22
23 In my view the initial problem lies with the High Court of Australia when in 1904 it
24 unconstitutionally that is decided that the Hansard Constitution Convention Debates
25 (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), where not
26 permitted to be used, this despite that the Framers of the Constitution had stated:
27
29 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
30 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
31 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 And also important:
35
37 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
38 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
39 important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 And as I have already set out in my 7-2-2023 writings that the Framers of the Constitution
43 specifically provided for ordinary citizens to be able to challenge constitutional matters without
44 needing the approval of some political Attorney-General.
45
46 https://www.onenation.org.au/press-release-windfall-tax-a-free-license-for-labor-to-print-
47 money?utm_campaign=newsletter_03_02_2023_3&utm_medium=email&utm_source=onenation
48 QUOTE
49

Page 6
1
2 PRESS RELEASE: Windfall tax a free license for Labor to print money
3 Rikkie - Lee Tyrrell February 01, 2023
4 Regional development and property investment will be strongly discouraged by the
5 Andrews government’s appalling windfall gains tax, which should be subject to a
6 parliamentary inquiry before it comes into effect.
7 One Nation’s Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell MLC said Labor had – quite shamelessly – given itself
8 a free licence to print money at a whim.
9 “No wonder this change was snuck through during the pandemic with very little scrutiny in
10 Parliament,” Mrs. Tyrrell said. “Whenever he decides he needs more funds, Dan Andrews
11 can just have some place re-zoned and skim the cream off the top so he can continue with
12 his reckless spending of other people’s money”.
13 This will impact on growth in regional Victoria by discouraging people from investing in
14 regional housing and property. In the middle of a state and national housing crisis created
15 largely by low supply and exacerbated by the Andrews government’s restrictive rules on
16 landlords, the very last thing the government should be doing is further discouraging
17 property investors.
18 “I’ll be calling for this shameless Labor money grab to be referred to a parliamentary
19 inquiry before it comes into effect from 1 July this year.”
20 Mrs. Tyrrell said the solution to Victoria’s housing and rental crisis was to increase supply,
21 reduce demand, incentivise residential property investment and eliminating bureaucratic
22 red tape.
23 “Under Dan Andrews, Victoria is lagging the nation with social housing comprising less
24 than 3% of total housing stock,” she said. “More than 64,000 people, many of which are
25 families, are on the waiting list.
26 “Almost two years ago, the Andrews government also significantly increased restrictions
27 on landlords, reducing the incentive for them to remain in the long-term rental market.
28 This windfall tax is yet another disincentive.
29 “We can increase housing supply for Victorians by banning foreign ownership of
30 residential property, as New Zealand and Canada have recently done.
31 “Otherwise, government just needs to get out of the way. Local government red tape is
32 creating crippling delays in the release of new land, a huge factor in driving up land prices
33 and further crippling young Victorians and first home buyers from entering the
34 homeownership market”.
35 Landlords and property investors are being unfairly treated as the whipping boys in this
36 crisis. The vast majority of investors have only a single property for which they have
37 worked many years and sacrificed much to save for, just to have a little more income in
38 retirement. They are facing big increases in insurance costs and council rates.
39
40 They should not be treated as a no-limit ATM by Dan Andrews.
41 END QUOTE
Page 7
1
2 https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/windfall-gains-tax
3 Windfall Gains Tax | State Revenue Office
4 10 Oct 2022 ... From 1 July 2023, a windfall gains tax applies to land that is subject to a
5 government rezoning resulting in a value uplift to the land of ...
6
7 https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/windfall-gains-tax-exemptions-and-exclusions
8 Windfall gains tax — exemptions and exclusions
9 7 Oct 2022 ... From 1 July 2023, a windfall gains tax (WGT) applies to land that is subject to a
10 government rezoning resulting in a taxable value uplift to ...
11
12 https://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/windfall-gains-tax
13 Windfall gains tax | Department of Treasury and Finance Victoria
14 Windfall gains tax · Breadcrumb · Factsheet · Share this page · Main navigation · Footer Sub
15 Menu.
16
17 https://www.morrows.com.au/what-is-windfall-gains-tax-and-what-it-means-for-property-owners/
18 What is Windfall Gains Tax and what does it mean for property ...
19 Windfall Gains Tax (WGT) is a new tax that is placed on the extra value added to your property as
20 a result of rezoning. Read more on what's likely to come ...
21 QUOTE
22 What is Windfall Gains Tax and what does it mean for property owners?
23 MORROWS CORPORATE
24
25 BLOGS
26
27 WHAT IS WINDFALL GAINS TAX AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR
28 PROPERTY OWNERS?
29
30 On 12 October 2021, a bill was introduced into the Victorian Parliament, which, if
31 passed, would introduce a Windfall Gains Tax (WGT) on the extra value added to
32 your property as a result of rezoning.
33 As the bill is not yet law, it is subject to change before being enacted. However, to
34 prepare you for what’s likely to come into effect, we have outlined what landowners
35 can expect and how this will likely impact them.
36 How much?
37 The rate is 62.5% of the difference in the capital improved value of the land before
38 and after the rezoning (uplift) that exceeds $100,000. Because of the tax-free
39 threshold that applies under this rate, the effective tax rate is less than 50%.
40 Where the taxable value uplift is $500,000 or more, the rate of WGT is a flat 50% of
41 the uplift.
42 Multiple landowners are jointly assessed for WGT without regard to the separate
43 interest of each owner.
44 Does this apply to me?
45 The WGT is intended to commence on 1 July 2023. Rezonings that were underway
46 prior to 15 May 2021 will escape the WGT.

Page 8
1 There is a threshold of $100,000 (available once per owner or group of owners for
2 rezonings under the same planning scheme amendment).
3 Up to 2 hectares of residential land (including primary production land with a
4 residence) will also receive an exemption from WGT.
5 Affected landowners can defer payment of up to 100% of the tax for up to 30 years
6 or until a dutiable transaction, whichever occurs first; however, interest will accrue
7 on the deferred WGT. Very broadly, the interest rate is the average daily yield for the
8 10-year TCV Bond Rate for May of the preceding financial year.
9
10 An Example (based on the draft WGT bill, which is subject to change)
11 Frank and Estelle Constanza acquired a block of land in the western suburbs of
12 Melbourne in the early 80s. The land has a total area of 12 hectares. Frank and
13 Estelle use the holiday house and hobby farm on the land (comprising 2 hectares of
14 the total area of the land) primarily for residential purposes.
15 As a result of a review commenced in the 2024 year, Melton City Council
16 determined that the available greenfield land supply was below requirements.
17 Accordingly, the council rezoned the land from Green Wedge Zone to Urban Growth
18 Zone. As a consequence, the land increased substantially in value. This is the only
19 land owned by Frank and Estelle that is affected by the rezoning.
20 The gross uplift in value of the land for WGT purposes was $12,000,000. The uplift
21 attributable to the residential land was $2,000,000. Accordingly, the taxable uplift for
22 WGT purposes is $10,000,000.
23 Frank and Estelle will be jointly assessed for WGT of $10,000,000 x 50% =
24 $5,000,000 as if a single person owned the land.
25 Frank and Estelle make an election in the approved form to the Commissioner of
26 State Revenue for Victoria to defer payment of 100% of the WGT.
27 On 1 July 2034, Frank and Estelle sell the land. Frank and Estelle must pay the
28 deferred WGT and interest within 30 days of the settlement of the land sale.
29 Final thoughts
30 With Victoria’s borrowing now the highest in the country, it’s clear that the
31 temptation to participate in Melbourne’s seemingly endless property boom has
32 clearly become overwhelming.
33 Some argue that this will create yet more upward pressure on property prices.
34 Others note that it is fair and economically efficient for Victorians as a whole to
35 benefit from rights to develop land, rather than concentrating these windfalls in the
36 hands of a few landowners and developers.
37 For questions on WGT and any other tax-related matters, please get in touch with our
38 Accredited Specialist in Taxation Law, Russell Krupp at Morrows Legal on (03)
39 9690 5700 or rkrupp@morrows.com.au.
Page 9
1 END QUOTE
2
3 https://lplc.com.au/resources/practitioner/windfall-gains-tax-fact-sheet-act-now
4 Windfall gains tax fact sheet — act now
5 10 Nov 2022 ... The new Windfall Gains Tax (WGT) will potentially impact real estate transactions
6 that your clients enter into now, if those transactions ...
7
8 https://jws.com.au/en/insights/articles/2021-articles/victoria’s-newest-property-tax-windfall-gains-tax
9 Victoria's newest property tax - Windfall Gains Tax
10 In May this year, the Victorian government announced it would be introducing a Windfall Gains
11 Tax (WGT) in order to tax the value of gains made by ...
12
13 https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/as-made/acts/windfall-gains-tax-and-state-taxation-and-other-
14 acts-further-amendment-act-2021
15 Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and ... - Victorian legislation
16 Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and Other Acts Further Amendment Act 2021. Act as
17 made. Act number 52/2021. Authorised version.
18
19 https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/windfall-gains-tax-and-state-taxation-and-other-acts-
20 further-amendment-act-2021/001
21 Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and ... - Victorian legislation
22 Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and Other Acts Further Amendment Act 2021. Act in force.
23 Act number 52/2021 Version ...
24
25 https://www.hunthunt.com.au/services/property/winds-of-change-victorian-government-introduces-
26 new-windfall-gains-tax/
27 Victorian Government introduces new Windfall Gains Tax
28 10 Jan 2023 ... Windfall Gains Tax is a new Victorian State Government tax on land set to be
29 introduced from 1 July 2023. The tax will be triggered where ...
30
31 https://www.maddocks.com.au/insights/windfall-gains-tax-10-problems-with-new-regime
32 Windfall Gains Tax - 10 problems with new regime - Maddocks
33 15 Sept 2022 ... The Windfall Gains Tax Act 2021 (WGT Act) will establish a new tax on the uplift
34 in land value resulting from a planning scheme amendment ...
35
36 It appears to me that essentially it is a state land tax, as much as that that municipal/shire
37 councils are on a yearly basis (in Victoria) revaluating properties as to increase the rate
38 payments, etc. So, you as an owner improve at your cost your property and well the council then
39 for ever charge for your own paid improvements.
40 BUT IS IT CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID? I do not think so!
41
42 https://libguides.usc.edu.au/c.php?g=508875&p=3479253
43 McCawley v The King [1920] AC 691, (1920) 28 CLR 106, [1920] UKPCHCA 1 - this case
44 concluded that the Parliament is legislatively sovereign. This essentially has been the basis for
45 all subsequent State constitutional law in Australia.
46
47 And
48
50 Powell v Apollo Candle (1885) 10 App Cas 282 - this case dealt with the powers of colonial
51 legislatures. It decided that colonial legislatures, though subordinate to the Imperial
52 Parliament, were not mere delegates and were empowered to delegate legislative power to the
53 executive.
54

Page 10
1 It should be understood that what eventuated prior to federation may no longer have been
2 applicable upon federation on 1 January 1901. After all prior to federation the colonies were
3 “sovereign” colonies which could amend its own constitution and also the powers of its State
4 Supreme Court, etc. In that time the Parliament was sovereign and supreme. One however the
5 federation commenced this drastically changed, and hence the High Court of Australia
6 unconstitutional conduct to deny the usage of the Hansard debates this so they could now twist
7 and infringe upon the constitution.
8 The problem we have is that law students are taught at law education facilities this rot and then
9 read the constitution accordingly rather than to read the constitution as it was to be interpreted to
10 the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
11
12 How competent is this AG Mark Dreyfus MP when he appears to me to be asleep
13 behind the wheel grossly incompetent to even understand and comprehend what is
14 going on in violation of the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
15 You can download the document from:
17 B-to-AG-Mark-Dreyfus-MP
18
19 and
20 I consider it very serious that the Victorian Government as well as the VEC seems to
21 undermine the Governor’s prerogative powers. And by this causing invalid elections
22 to be held. Meaning both 2018 and 2022 purported Victorian elections are without
23 legal validity and so anyone purportedly elected.
26 B-to-Victorian-Electoral-Commissioner-Mr-Warwick-Gately-COMPLAINT-Supplement-
27 1
28
29 Also consider:
30
35 END QUOTE
36
38
39 Chapter V—The States
40 106 Saving of Constitutions
41 The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution,
42 continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or
43 establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the
44 Constitution of the State.
45
46 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
47 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
48 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
49 Australasian Convention)
50 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-

Page 11
1 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
2 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection
3 and secure to him.
4 END QUOTE
5
7 QUOTE
8 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
9
10 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law,
11 every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state
12 Parliament will be a sentry.
13 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
14 sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
18 QUOTE
19 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
20 parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark
21 on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer
22 supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They
23 have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That
24 must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament
25 under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of
26 changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
27 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of
28 being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary
29 sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring
30 into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and
31 executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
32 END QUOTE
33
35 QUOTE
36 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
37 Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
38 END QUOTE
39
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the
43 states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
44 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
45 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws
46 will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of
47 making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
48 END QUOTE
49
51 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
52 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
53 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
54 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the
55 meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
Page 12
1 END QUOTE
2
4 QUOTE
5 Mr. REID
6 The object is this, that for some time to come it will not be possible for the Federal
7 Legislature to pass laws on these subjects, and it is necessary to have some laws on them-
8 the state laws if they exist-until federal laws are enacted; but the moment a federal law is
9 passed on any one of these subjects, under the provision under the head of "States" the
10 federal law prevails over the state law.
11 END QUOTE
12
14 QUOTE
15 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the
16 Convention to an apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not
17 yet been made. The word "exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on
18 the coming into being of the Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal
19 Parliament, may mean, and I believe does mean, that the power of the state to legislate
20 ceases. On the question of whether the exclusive power under this provision comes into
21 being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the attention of the leader
22 of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive power
23 arises the moment an Act is passed. It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs
24 duties being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph says-
25 But this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have
26 been imposed by the Parliament.
27 It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at
28 once, and the position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this
29 clause as it [start page 255] stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to
30 Chinese.
31 Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediately
32 on the establishment of the Commonwealth.
33 END QUOTE
34
36 QUOTE
37 Mr. GLYNN.-There seems to be some doubt as to whether the exclusive power arises
38 upon the establishment of the Commonwealth or on the exercise of the power of
39 legislation. The doubt seems to be removed by clause 84. It is said that if we put this
40 provision in clause 52 the exclusive power may be postponed until legislation takes place.
41 But may you not then have a concurrent power, and may not the competence of the local
42 Legislature to legislate in the matter be continued as long as the legislation is not in
43 contradiction of federal legislation?
44
45 Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point.
46
47 Mr. GLYNN.-Yes, and there is still a vagueness in the word "exclusive." If it is doubtful
48 whether the exclusive power commences with the foundation of the Commonwealth, and if
49 it is possible that it may only come into being on the passing of legislation, may it not still
50 be said that on the passing of exclusive legislation the power of the local Parliaments to
51 legislate is extinguished, but that on the passing of concurrent legislation that power does
52 not cease?
53
Page 13
1 Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I think that enough has now been said on this subject by
2 honorable members both sides of the chamber, and I have only a very few remarks to offer.
3 It appears that if the sub-section remains where it is state laws will be valid until federal
4 legislation, but the states will not be able to alter or improve those laws during the possibly
5 long interval between federation and federal legislation. Under these circumstances, as we
6 leave to the states for an indefinite time the power of maintaining the laws they have, we
7 should grant to them the power of improving those laws. It would recommend the
8 Constitution more to a large number of persons if we put the sub-section in clause 52, thus
9 enabling each state to legislate on this matter until the Federal Parliament comes in and
10 legislates for all.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 It should be clear that the HCA decision in “McCawley v The King [1920] AC 691, (1920) 28 CLR
14 106, [1920] UKPCHCA 1” was beyond its judicial powers as it was seeking to unconstitutionally
15 amend the legal principles embedded in the constitution!
16
17 And consider:
18
19 “..However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernize the Constitution to give
20 effect to what Judges think is in the best public interest. The function of the judiciary,
21 including the function of this Court, is to give effect to the intention of the makers of the
22 Constitution as evinced by the terms in which they expressed that intention. That
23 necessarily means that decisions, taken almost a century ago by people long dead, bind
24 the people of Australia today even in cases where most people agree that those
25 decisions are out of touch with the present needs of Australian society.”
26
27 ":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for
28 the intention of its makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
29
30 "... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its
31 words should remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any
32 meaning which they could have borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing
33 facts. It is not to be changed as language changes. "
34 Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
35
36 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
37 27 (17 June 1999)
38 QUOTE
39 Constitutional interpretation
40 The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
41 intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes
42 or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those
43 who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its
44 makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in
45 which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
46 Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my
47 opinion[53]:
48 "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
49 authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have
50 called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of
51 people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an
Page 14
1 historical event - someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking

2 or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion."
3 END QUOTE
4
5 Therefore, we must consider how the relevant circumstances were at the time of federation and
6 not what might be deemed afterwards to suit contemporary views that changes time and time
7 again.
8
9 https://jade.io/summary/mnc/1904/HCA/50
10 The Municipal Council of Sydney v The Commonwealth - 1 CLR 208
11 Date: 26 April 1904. Bench: Griffith, C.J., Barton and O'Connor, JJ. Catchwords: Taxation
12 of Commonwealth property by State - Powers of States - Express and ...
13
14 And
15
17 Cases - Constitutional Law - Library Guides
18 5 Jan 2023 ... In the case of South Australia v Commonwealth (1942) (the First Uniform
19 Tax Case) (1942) 65 CLR 373, [1942] HCA 14, the High Court ruled that ...
20
22 QUOTE
23 Mr. BARTON.- The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
24 that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
25 END QUOTE
26
28 QUOTE
29 Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests,
30 but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
31 END QUOTE
32
34 Section 51 (xxix) external affairs - Commonwealth v Tasmania ("Tasmanian Dam
35 Case") (1983) 158 CLR 1, [1983] HCA 21 - in this case, the Commonwealth succeeded in
36 stopping the building of a hydro-electricity dam proposed for Tasmania. It was held that the
37 Commonwealth had power under section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution to stop the dam based
38 on Australia's international obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
39
40 It is in my view utter and sheer nonsense to claim that because the Commonwealth enters into
41 some treaty then it can harness legislative powers that may belong to the States, as conservation
42 matters are. I have in the past extensively canvassed this issue and those documents can be
43 downloaded from https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati. Also as the States no longer could
44 enact new laws then as set out above the states no longer had any legislative powers once the
45 Commonwealth exclusive powers came into force and by this likewise the so called mandates
46 were un constitutional since the Commonwealth commenced to legislate with the Quarantine Act
47 1908 and subsequently with the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth)
48
49 Let us not ignore that numerous Australians became victims of the COVID scam and here we
50 have an Attorney-General whom I view lacks the integrity and ability to perform his job
51 appropriately. Let him resign so a more competent person can do the job!
54 Attorney-General-Mark-Dreyfus
Page 15
1
2 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
3 Convention)
4 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
5 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the
6 52nd clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
7 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-
8 kind.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 All mandates that effectively were seeking to be a form of quarantine therefore were
12 unconstitutional as it sought to impose quarantine conditions exclusively within the exclusive
13 powers of the Commonwealth and as such the “concurrent” legislative powers that existed since
14 federation by 1908 no more existed in regard of this subject matter.
15
16 I also will high light an issue Gabriel Moens in his article The Epoch Times February 2-8,
17 2023 page A14,“Controversies and Politics of the Australian Open 2023” referred to. So, you
18 got Novak Djokovic who committed no crime being deported in 2022 because of the inmates
19 running the asylum blatantly disregarding Novak’s constitutional rights of FREEDOM OF
20 RELGION, etc. And now his father also banned for no more but to exercise his political rights.
21
23 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
24 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
25 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
26 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
27 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
28 embrace and unite.
29 END QUOTE
30
32 QUOTE
33 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
34 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
35 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
36 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
37 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
38 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
39 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
40 END QUOTE
41
43 QUOTE
44 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
45 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
46 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
47 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
48 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
49 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
50 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
51 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
52 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
53 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
54 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
Page 16
1 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
2 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
3 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 It must be clear that the Commonwealth never had any constitutional powers to deport Novak
7 and neither could his father be banned because of allegedly being where there was a waving of a
8 Russian Flag.
9
10 It should be understood that being it Tennis Australia, Big Tech or whomever registered within
11 the Commonwealth of Australia and/or operating within the Commonwealth of Australia must
12 be bound by the legal principles embedded in the constitution! There is no such thing as to
13 accept certain parts of the constitution and not accept other parts. You cannot have that they
14 operate within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia claiming their constitutional
15 rights but then deny the same to others. It is very simple that if you claim your constitutional
16 right to be permitted to operate within the Commonwealth of Australia then you are prohibited to
17 deny others their constitutional rights.
18 Hence Tennis Australia in my view was wrong against Novak’s father and the
19 Commonwealth with its banning of Novak in 2022 and the purported decisions were
20 actually in violation of Novak’s constitutional rights.
21 Likewise Big Tech censoring publications by the so called “anit-vaxxers” was also
22 unconstitutional!
23
25 Section 51 (xxvi) - the people of any race, *other than the aboriginal race in any State, for
26 whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws - Kartinyeri v Commonwealth
27 (Hindmarsh Island Bridge Case) (1998) 195 CLR 337, [1998] HCA 22 - dispute regarding the
28 Hindmarsh Island Bridge and the issue regarding the scope of the race power. Click here for
29 You Tube video. *The Australian people voting at the 1967 Referendum deleted the words in italics.
30
31 And
32
34 Mabo and Others v Queensland (No. 2) ("Mabo Case") (1992) 175 CLR 1, [1992] HCA 23 -
35 this decision recognised native title in Australia for the first time. The High Court rejected
36 the doctrine of terra nullius in favour of the common law doctrine of aboriginal title.
37
38 My “20230206-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus-
39 COMPLAINT-Supplement 1” has already canvassed this and can be downloaded from:
40 So an Attorney-General who I understand failed to investigate the killing (murder) of an
41 Australian of Aboriginal descent in some quarantine center but somehow desires to push for
42 recognition of Aboriginals What a hypocrite I view he is and so others with him.
45 Attorney-General-Mark-Dreyfus-COMPLAINT-Supplement-1
46
48 Section 51 (xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for
49 any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws - Newcrest
50 Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 513, [1997] HCA 38 - this case decided
51 that when acquiring property in a Territory or in a State, the Commonwealth must do so on

Page 17
1 'just terms'. In other words the majority in this case held that the Commonwealth had infringed
2 section 51 (xxxi).
3
4 And
5
7 In 1942, the Commonwealth passed four new laws designed to raise funds to support the war
8 effort by encouraging the States to give up their right to collect income tax. On June 22 1942,
9 South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia went to the High Court seeking
10 the legislation to be declared invalid. In the case of South Australia v Commonwealth (1942)
11 (the First Uniform Tax Case) (1942) 65 CLR 373, [1942] HCA 14, the High Court ruled that
12 the four pieces of legislation were valid. In 1957, Victoria again challenged the
13 constitutionality of the scheme. But in Victoria v Commonwealth (1957) (the Second Uniform
14 Tax Case) (1957) 99 CLR 575, [1957] HCA 54, the Court held that Commonwealth grants to
15 the States under section 96 of the Constitution may be validly tied to prescribed purposes.
16
18 96 Financial assistance to States
19 During a period of ten years after the establishment of the
20 Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise
21 provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State
22 on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
23
24 Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. ISAACS.-You are referring to paragraph (4) of clause 52?
28 Mr. HOLDER.-Yes.
29 Mr. OCONNOR.-But that money could not be spent upon any object the Federal
30 Parliament thought fit.
31 Mr. HOLDER.-I want an expression of opinion which shall be authoritative on the
32 point. I see that, according to the provision I have quoted, there is power given to the
33 Federal Parliament to borrow money on the credit of the Commonwealth, and I say again
34 that I do not know of any limitation of the expenditure of that money except the limitation
35 which would be specified in the Loan Act authorizing the borrowing of the money. Of
36 course, these words cover the raising of the money for the building of railways for
37 instance, and in such a case the limitation would be the terms of the Loan Act. But is there
38 anything anywhere to prevent a Loan Act being passed by the Federal Parliament
39 authorizing the raising of a certain sum of money, the proceeds of which loan might be
40 divided according to the terms of the Act among the states according to their needs, or
41 upon some other principle?
42 Mr. GLYNN.-The first three lines of clause 52 affect that point.
43 Mr. ISAACS.-The money must be expended with regard to "the peace, order, and
44 good government of the Commonwealth," not of the states.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 It should be understood that because the draft constitution during a referendum was defeated
48 there was a Premiers conference and they inserted S96 which then overcame the rejection of the
49 draft constitution in a subsequent referendum. Ass such the wording “not of the states” in the4
50 circumstances prevailing no longer were applicable after the amendment of the draft constitution
51 were accepted i9n the second referendum.
52
Page 18
2 Section 51 (xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for
3 any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws - Newcrest
4 Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 513, [1997] HCA 38 - this case decided
5 that when acquiring property in a Territory or in a State, the Commonwealth must do so on
6 'just terms'. In other words the majority in this case held that the Commonwealth had infringed
7 section 51 (xxxi).
8
10 QUOTE
11 Mr. BARTON.-If you refer to clause 105, you will see that it can only be done with the
12 consent of the state.
13 Dr. COCKBURN.-On the other hand, Sydney might object to have her harbour and 10
14 miles roundabout taken away by the Federal Parliament, and its administration withdrawn
15 from the local Government.
16 Mr. BARTON.-Clause 105 is quite clear on that point.
17 Dr. COCKBURN.-I would like to be sure of that. Would there not be some right of pre-
18 eminent powers in the Federal Parliament, unless it was restricted by this Act, to take any
19 land anywhere it chose?
20 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; so there ought to be.
21 [start page 258]
22 Dr. COCKBURN.-I do not think there ought to be. Whether or not there ought to be is a
23 matter for debate and for settlement by this Convention as a question of principle, and not
24 as a mere matter of wording. Now, take the second part of the sub-section, in which power
25 is given with the consent of the state for the construction, say, of a quarantine station. I
26 question very much whether the power to establish such a station as a leper station, for
27 example, ought to be given to the Federal Parliament without having to consult the wishes
28 of the state in which it is proposed to establish such an institution. The Federal Parliament
29 will be a distant body, and it may not be exactly apprised of all the local conditions. It may
30 want to establish a leper station in some part of Australia where its establishment would be
31 most disastrous to the interests of the communities in the vicinity, which ought, I think, to
32 have a voice in a matter of this sort. These words are put in to make it abundantly clear that
33 the federal capital shall be chosen only with the consent of the state concerned, which
34 consent would, of course, be given in most cases. I should like to have the matter I have
35 referred to made perfectly clear. It is open to doubt at present, I think, whether the Federal
36 Parliament will have power to take any land for the purposes of government without the
37 consent of the state concerned. I do not think the Federal Parliament should have such a
38 power, and I should be sorry to see it have such a power by the mere insertion of certain
39 words which were not intended to have that meaning. I should like this committee to be
40 clear as to whether or not it is intended that the Federal Parliament should have power to
41 take land from any state without the consent of the state.
42 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I think the honorable member who has last spoken
43 is quite right; but there is a great distinction between the two classes of matters dealt with
44 in this sub-section. I think that the seat of government of the Commonwealth ought to be in
45 quite a different position to such matters as the construction of forts, magazines, arsenals,
46 dockyards, and so on. Dr. Cockburn will recollect that there is no such power for the
47 acquisition of land for the ordinary public purposes of the Commonwealth.
48 Dr. COCKBURN.-Might not the power be included in the general powers of sub-section
49 (37)?
50 Mr. OCONNOR.-No. The only powers that can be held to be given are those which are
51 expressly given. It will be wise, later on, to add a clause which I think the Convention will
52 see the advisability of adding, restricting the power to acquire land to acquisition for the
Page 19
1 public purposes of the Commonwealth; and I think it should then be made very clear that
2 no power is given in that clause to acquire land for a federal capital without the consent of
3 the state interested. Because it is quite clear, from the nature of things, that it is quite
4 impossible that a power of that kind could be carried out without such an amount of
5 friction and difficulty as might lead to a great deal of trouble.
6 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why should not the Federal Parliament buy land from a private owner
7 for the purpose of an arsenal without the consent of the state?
8 Mr. OCONNOR.-Exactly so. I do not think the honorable member apprehends what I am
9 saying. I admit that for all such purposes the Commonwealth would have the power either
10 to purchase or to acquire compulsorily on fair terms.
11 Mr. HIGGINS.-Without the consent of the state?
12 Mr. OCONNOR.-Undoubtedly; because in regard to defence there should be a
13 paramount power for the Commonwealth to act as might be thought necessary, and there
14 should be a similar power with regard to quarantine and other matters which are of general
15 concern. But with regard to the acquisition of a piece of land for the seat of government,
16 which must [start page 259] embrace a large area and be an exceedingly important matter
17 for the state in which it is situated, the Commonwealth should not have power to obtain
18 such land without the consent of the state. That can be dealt with when we are dealing with
19 the general clause, giving power to acquire land for the use of the state.
20 Mr. HIGGINS.-Does not clause 105 answer that objection?
21 Mr. OCONNOR.-No; that is simply a permissive power to the Parliament of the state to
22 surrender any portion of its territory.
23 Mr. ISAACS.-And saying what shall happen if they do.
24 Mr. OCONNOR.-Quite so; but that clause does not deal with the question as to whether
25 the Commonwealth may acquire land for any purpose.
26 END QUOTE
27
29 Attorney-General (NSW) v Trethowan (1931) 44 CLR 394, [1931] HCA 3 - this case revolved
30 around the Premier of New South Wales, Jack Lang, and his attempt to abolish the New South
31 Wales Legislative Council. It was found that the Legislative Council could not be abolished by
32 mere legislation, but rather there is an entrenched requirement for a referendum to precede any
33 such abolition.
34
35 In my view the same applied to the purported abolishment of the Queensland upper House. I
36 canvassed this extensively in documents published at my blog
37 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
38
39 I may add that this utter and sheer nonsense that the WHO (World Health Organisation)
40 somehow can dictates Australians as to health issues is no more but the imagination of those
41 lacking to understand and comprehend the constitution as it has no legal force.
42 Again see also “20230101-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to AG Mark Dreyfus MP”
44 AG-Mark-Dreyfus-MP
45
46 The Commonwealth has no exclusive legislative powers as to health matters and therefore
47 cannot engage in any treaties. In any event the Framers of the Constitution made it very clear:
48
49 Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
50 QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
51 The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
52 would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as

Page 20
1 Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
2 citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
3 page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
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 either legally
10 immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
11 legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.
12 END QUOTE
13 .
15 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
16 The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for
17 the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
18 whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
19 constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
20 several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the
21 royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be
22 practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
23 full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
24 that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
25 assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
26 again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority
27 conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
28 such authority.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 Therefore regardless what the High Court of Australia claimed in the Tasmania Dam case it
32 never could provide the Commonwealth with legislative powers it was not granted by Section 51
33 & S52 of the constitution.
34
35 The High Court of Australia specifically denied the Commonwealth any legislative powers as to
36 environment/conservation and as such any treaty cannot be enforced upon anyone, not even the
37 unconstitutional land-rights treaties.
38
39 Getting back to the purported “ THE WINDFALL TAX” let us consider also
40 the following:
41
42 https://jade.io/summary/mnc/1904/HCA/50
43 The Municipal Council of Sydney v The Commonwealth - 1 CLR 208
44 Date: 26 April 1904. Bench: Griffith, C.J., Barton and O'Connor, JJ. Catchwords: Taxation
45 of Commonwealth property by State - Powers of States - Express and
46 And
48 In 1942, the Commonwealth passed four new laws designed to raise funds to support the war
49 effort by encouraging the States to give up their right to collect income tax. On June 22 1942,
50 South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia went to the High Court seeking
51 the legislation to be declared invalid. In the case of South Australia v Commonwealth (1942)
52 (the First Uniform Tax Case) (1942) 65 CLR 373, [1942] HCA 14, the High Court ruled that
53 the four pieces of legislation were valid. In 1957, Victoria again challenged the
54 constitutionality of the scheme. But in Victoria v Commonwealth (1957) (the Second Uniform
Page 21
1 Tax Case) (1957) 99 CLR 575, [1957] HCA 54, the Court held that Commonwealth grants to
2 the States under section 96 of the Constitution may be validly tied to prescribed purposes.
3
4 As I recall it the High Court of Australia, and so correctly, handed down its judgment that the
5 Commonwealth had every legislative power to provide for Income taxation and the States had to
6 retire from this as it became Commonwealth exclusive legislative powers. As such the
7 “concurrent” legislative powers of the States was no more.
8
9 What we had was that way back in 1904 the High Court of Australia refused to allow the usage
10 of the Hansard Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
11 Australasian Convention), to be used despite that the Framers of the Constitution stated:
12
17 END QUOTE
18
20 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
21 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
22 important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 And so since the High Court of Australia commenced to hear and determine matters is in my
26 view hijacked our constitutional rights and in the process handed down numerous judicial
27 decisions in violation of the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia
28 Constitution Act 1900 (UK). By this legislation such as that somehow an Attorney-General
29 could take over a case from a private citizen and then withdraw it, etc, clearly violates our
30 constitutional rights as much as the High Court of Australia ordering cost against a party in
31 regard of a constitutional matter raised. When you got upcoming lawyers being taught this
32 nonsense then feel sorry for those parties they represent. What is needed is to pursue all past
33 judgments to be reconsidered and notation to be made on each case when it was re-considered
34 and what appears to have been wrongly decided in violation of the legal principles embedded in
35 the constitution, this so anyone seeking to rely upon it is alerted to what was wrongly decided!
36
37 Let us not consider this in regard of the “The Municipal Council of Sydney v The
38 Commonwealth - 1 CLR 208” case. This was a case where the High Court of Australia (in my
39 view correctly) held that council rates were a State land taxation. Let this sink in!
40 Municipal/Shire council rates are a State delegated land taxation.
41 The Commonwealth on 11 November 1910 then commenced with its Commonwealth land
42 taxation and by this all and any State (so also council) land taxations became ULTRA VIRES as
43 the States (so the councils) no longer had any State land taxation powers.
44
46 QUOTE
47 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
48 will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
49 the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
50 be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one
51 which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
52 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
53 parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
54 END QUOTE
Page 22
1
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
5 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
6 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
7 [start page 2004]
8 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
9 END QUOTE
10
13 QUOTE
14 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
15 may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
16 declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
17 beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
18 interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
19 END QUOTE
20 .
22 QUOTE
23 Mr. HIGGINS.-I understood the honorable member to put himself on the very highest pedestal, and by
24 contrast to put me on the very lowest. At all events, I feel that if this were carried, an unpopular individual, to
25 obtain his rights and liberties, would have to go cap in hand to and be at the mercy of the Government of the
26 day. I was thinking of the pig-tail case which occurred in California, and which I alluded to some time
27 ago, where an abominably unjust law was passed against Chinamen. It was passed to persecute them in
28 regard to their pig-tails, which they [start page 1689] regard with exceptional reverence. That law was
29 declared to be unconstitutional as a law passed by a state.
30 END QUOTE
31 .
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
35 saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
36 they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
37 END QUOTE
38 .
39 Because value of a property in general increases ongoing and municipal/shire councils are
40 charging council rates accordingly by revaluing a property on a yearly basis then the “ THE
41 WINDFALL TAX” is really no more but another form of land taxation. The
42 question remains if this is constitutionally valid considering that the Commonwealth commence
43 to legislate as to land taxation on 11 November 1910?
44
45 In the correspondence below the following claim was made:
46
47
49 QUOTE
50 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Will you briefly restate the point?
51 Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different
52 times you may arrive at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular
53 law, and it is necessary for the working of that law that certain fees, charges, or

Page 23
1 taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union, because
2 every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have
3 no power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to
4 provide the necessary revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-
5 section is the question whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal
6 authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has any-and if any, what-power
7 of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be
8 inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should
9 be settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the
10 judgment of Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its
11 reference. It appears to me that this sub-section, which is certainly one of the very
12 valuable sub-sections of this clause, affording, as it does, means by which the colonies may
13 by common agreement bring about federal action, without amending the Constitution,
14 needs to be rendered more explicit. One point more especially which needs to be rendered
15 clear is whether, when we have this federal action, there shall not be a federal means of
16 providing for the necessary revenue that may be required or for imposing the necessary
17 charges under such legislation.
18 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Is that not implied?
19 Mr. DEAKIN.-If it is implied, would it not be best to make it explicit? The parentage of
20 this clause, as I have shown-originating as it does in a body with practically no financial
21 power-casts a certain suspicion on that reading of it, although, of course, the provision
22 when embodied in this Act would have a different effect. Still, why not make it clear
23 whether we mean that, when the Federal Parliament has passed federal legislation for
24 some of the colonies, we shall allow that same legislation to deal with any necessary
25 raising of revenue from those colonies which may be required to give effect to the
26 legislation?
27 Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-I think the point taken by my honorable friend (Mr. Deakin) is
28 one well worthy of the consideration of the Drafting Committee, and probably the
29 difficulty to which he has drawn attention could be obviated by some such provision as
30 that which he suggested. But this matter has struck me also from another point of
31 view, and it seems to me that the provision affords an easy method of amending the
32 Federal Constitution, without referring such amendments to the people of the various
33 states for their assent. Now, either when the state Parliaments have referred these matters
34 to the Federal Parliament, and the Federal Parliament has dealt with such matters, that
35 becomes a federal law, and cannot afterwards be repealed or revoked by the State
36 Parliaments-that is one position, and in that case, of course, the reference once made [start
37 page 218] is a reference for all time, and cannot be revoked, so that to that extent it
38 becomes an amendment of the states' Constitution, incorporated in and engrafted on the
39 Federal Constitution without the consent of the people of the various states. On the
40 other hand, if that be not so, and the states can, after making such reference, repeal
41 such reference, what is the result? You have a constant state of change-no guarantee for
42 continuity or permanence-in this class of laws, and this might lead to a great deal of
43 confusion and a most unsatisfactory state of things. My principal objection to the provision
44 is that it affords a free and easy method of amending the Federal Constitution without such
45 amendments being carried into effect in the manner provided by this Constitution.
46 Mr. BARTON.-I cannot understand how it gives an opportunity of amending the
47 Federal Constitution.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 I have already canvassed that the States cannot refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth
51 unless this is approved by way of State referendum:
Page 24
1 Let us not ignore that numerous Australians became victims of the COVID scam and here
2 we have an Attorney-General whom I view lacks the integrity and ability to perform his
3 job appropriately. Let him resign so a more competent person can do the job!
6 B-to-Attorney-General-Mark-Dreyfus
7
8 QUOTE 20230203-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus
10 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
15 END QUOTE
16
17 Therefore, as an example, the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is no constitution at
18 all because it was never placed before the electors to be approved by State referendum. The
19 same for the purported 2000 Queensland Constitution Act, etc.
20
21 It should be understood that all and any State legislative powers that the Commonwealth may
22 accept within the provisions of ss51(xxvii) would require a State referendum to approve this,
23 because the States no longer having sovereign powers therefore did not validly refer any
24 legislative powers to the Commonwealth. As French J WA (later French CJ HCA) made
25 clear that Ss51(xxxvii) was merely to permit the Commonwealth to accept reference of
26 legislative powers but the authority for the States to do so had to be found elsewhere. As such,
27 the purported abolishment of the Queensland Upper House never in my view was valid. As
28 such the purported Commonwealth Powers (Family Law---Children) Act 1986(Vic) never
29 was a valid referral as the Victorian electors had not been requested to vote in a State
30 referendum to permit this referral of legislative powers from the State of Victoria to the
31 Commonwealth.
32
35 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-
36 It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the constitution shall be
37 obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the constitution.
38 END QUOTE
39
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education
43 question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the
44 Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because
45 we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy
46 for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no
47 one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
48 provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the
49 Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies
50 may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the
51 people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal
52 has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a
53 few minutes in discussing it.
Page 25
1 END QUOTE
2
3 It means that all and any Family Court judgments regarding non marriages are
4 unconstitutional!
5 And “marriage must be interpreted not by the Commonwealth Act Interpretation Act 1901
6 but by the Act Interpretation Act 1889 (UK) (as it was at the time of the passing of the
7 constitution) in view that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a
8 British legislation! However, the exception is where there was a Section 128 referendum,
9 albeit only for so far the referendum altered any part of the Constitution. For example, the
10 Framers of the Constitution held that S51(xxvi) was to be to DISCRIMINATE against
11 “aliens” “inferior” coloured races. However Australians of Aboriginal descent were
12 specifically excluded from this race provisions, as to ensure they were not discriminated
13 against. It was also made clear that any legislation within Ss51(xxvi) could not be used
14 against the “general population”. Because the provisions of Ss51(xxvi) was specifically to
15 DISCRIMINATE then the purported Discrimination Act 1975 being against the “general
16 community” therefore was unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES. While the High Court of
17 Australia in KOOWARTA V BJELKE-PETERSEN purported to claim that the legislation
18 was valid, one cannot have contrary provisions within the same constitution. Meaning that the
19 con-job 1967 referendum regarding ss51(xxvi) in real terms re-delegated Australians of
20 Aboriginal descent as being equal to being “alien” “inferior” coloured races. It had absolutely
21 nothing to do with “citizenship” because every Australian (including those of Aboriginal
22 descent) automatically were by birth a State citizen and by this an Australian citizen as to
23 their residence and had absolutely nothing to do with “nationality”. While the High Court of
24 Australia in Sue v Hill held that Heather Hill was ineligible to be a Senator, reality is that
25 Heather Hill actually was validly elected. In AEC v Schorel-Hlavka the court on 4-12-2002
26 ordered that the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS (which included the legal
27 challenged against the validity of the Commonwealth legislating as to citizenship) was to be
28 heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. There is a lot more to it all as I have
29 published at my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
30 END QUOTE 20230203-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus
31
32 QUOTE 110308-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc
33 Premier Kristina Keneally 8-3-2011
34 <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>
35 .
36 Cc: * Mr Ted Baillieu Premier ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au
37 * Tony Newbury Chief Commissioner of State Revenue C/o peter.geffroy@osr.nsw.gov.au
38 * Mr Robert Pincevic <roblp@bigpond.com> PO Box 15 Luddenham NSW 2745
39 .
40 Re: State Land tax - etc
41 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
42 .
43 Kristina,
44 your office for having provided me with a 13 September 2010 response (in regard of my
45 31 August 2010 correspondence to you regarding the unconstitutional State land taxes:
46 QUOTE
47 CMU10-16940
48 13 September 2010
49 Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
50 schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
51
52 Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
53 I write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax.
54 As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the Hon
55 Eric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention.
Page 26
1 You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration.
2 Yours sincerely
3 David Swain
4 for Director General
5 END QUOTE
6 .
7 I received on 8-3-2011 a response dated 2-3-2011 from Barry Collier MP Parliamentary
8 Secretary Assisting the Treasurer on behalf of the Treasurer he responded.
9 Section 107 he refers to is very clear that for example “Income Tax” albeit was a Colonial and
10 later State legislative power the moment the Commonwealth legislated upon “Income Tax” then
11 the power became an exclusive Commonwealth power and the States had to retire from this.
12 Once it became an exclusive power then the constitution doesn’t permit it to return to become a
13 “concurrent” power, as I have set out in past correspondence. The legislative powers on the
14 particular field is forever an exclusive power of the Commonwealth!
15 In regard of the State Land Taxes the same applies. Once the Commonwealth commenced to
16 legislate as to “Land taxes” then it became by this an exclusive legislative power and as such the
17 State no longer had concurrent legislative powers on Land taxes matters.
18 The States were created out of the former colonies and as s.106 of the (federal) constitution
19 makes clear “subject to this constitution” and this clearly provides in s51 for concurrent
20 legislative powers to become exclusive Commonwealth legislative powers. It is not relevant if
21 the Commonwealth, as like with the 1952 abolition land taxes were to abolish “income tax”
22 because it would still remain an exclusive Commonwealth legislative power. As for s5 of the
23 Constitution Act 1992 (NSW) it cannot override any Commonwealth exclusive powers and as it
24 clearly is subject to the Commonwealth constitution it therefore cannot be perceived it somehow
25 gives legislative powers no longer permissible by the Commonwealth Constitution to be
26 exercisable by a state.
27
Page 27
1 .
2 Critical might be the claim:
3 QUOTE
4 Land taxes were imposed by the States prior to federation. They were introduced at the
5 federal level in 1910. In 1952, the Commonwealth Government abolished land tax. This
6 did not have the effect of preventing the States from imposing land tax, but rather returned
7 taxation powers back to them. Accordingly, the NSW Government introduced the land
8 Management Act in 1956.
9 END QUOTE
10 Obviously, contrary to what was claimed by Barry Collier MP the Commonwealth Government
11 has no constitutional powers to abolish any legislation as it being the Executive it can refuse to
12 enforce legislative provisions but cannot abolish an act of Parliament. As such it is the
13 Commonwealth Parliament that can only abolish legislation.
14 What may be noted is the wording “but rather returned taxation powers back to them” as
15 such this is a concession that in fact since 1910 land taxes were an exclusive Commonwealth
16 legislative power. The question then is how does one “return” a legislative power to any State,
17 not just NSW, where the Constitution never provided for this? Clearly Barry Collier MP didn’t
18 clarifyy within what constitutional powers, if any, a reversal of legislative power could eventuate
19 and quite frankly the Framers of the Constitution made clear that once a legislative power was a
20 Commonwealth legislative power then this was the end of the States dealing with the subject.
21 .
24 QUOTE
25 Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
26 position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that
27 law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the
28 Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no
29 power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary
30 revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even
31 when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it
32 has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I
33 should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be
34 settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and
35 that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
36 END QUOTE
37 .
39 QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
40 The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
41 the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
42 END QUOTE
43 .
45 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
46 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
47 An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
48 Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
49 END QUOTE
50 .
52 QUOTE
53 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
54 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
55 END QUOTE
56 And
58 QUOTE
Page 28
1 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be
2 necessary for the Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once.
3 We have pretty heavy duties in Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at
4 once it may do serious injury to the colony. The Federal Parliament will have power to
5 fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a sliding scale great injury
6 will be avoided.
7 END QUOTE
8 .
10 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
11 But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years
12 after the imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the
13 conclusion that, on the whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
14 END QUOTE
15 And
17 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
18 On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of
19 excise such as it may determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise
20 would represent something like the average opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and
21 the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, might, I
22 am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states for some
23 years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.
24 END QUOTE
25
27 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
28 2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties
29 shall be uniform throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed
30 on any goods exported from one state to another;
31 END QUOTE
32
34 QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-
35 Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and
36 that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.
37 END QUOTE
38 .
40 QUOTE
41 Mr. BARTON.-I am saying now that I do not think there is any necessity for clause 95
42 in its present form. What I am saying however, is that it should be made certain that in the
43 same way as you provide that the Tariff or any taxation imposed shall be uniform
44 throughout the Commonwealth, so it should be provided with reference to trade and
45 commerce that it shall be uniform and equal, so that the Commonwealth shall not give
46 preference to any state or part of a state. Inasmuch as we provide that all taxation,
47 whether it be customs or excise duties, or direct taxation, must be uniform, and
48 inasmuch as we follow the United States Constitution in that particular-in the very same
49 way I argue that we should protect the trade and commerce sub-section by not doing
50 anything which will limit its effect. That is the real logical position.
51 END QUOTE
52 .
55 QUOTE

Page 29
1 Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would
2 like to draw the Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section
3 (2), there has been [start page 1856] a considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section
4 seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform
5 throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect taxation, and
6 the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that
7 an income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I
8 should like the Drafting Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform
9 would not prevent a graduated tax of any kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with
10 the same weight on the same class of property, wherever it is found. It affects all kinds of
11 direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very careful, we shall get into a
12 difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to
13 be imposed might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were
14 not absolutely uniform.
15 END QUOTE
16 .
17 It should be clear that a “UNIFORM” law under the Commonwealth cannot somehow revert
18 back to a non-uniform law merely because of the States desiring to pursue their own kind of land
19 taxation. As such, on this basis also the State land taxes are floored (and so also any Territorial
20 land taxes).
21 .
23 QUOTE
24 Mr. ISAACS.-The court would not consider whether it was an oversight or not.
25 They would take the law and ask whether it complied with the Constitution. If it did
26 not, they would say that it was invalid. They would not go into the question of what was
27 in the minds of the Members of Parliament when the law was passed. That would be a
28 political question which it would be impossible for the court to determine.
29 END QUOTE
30 .
31 As I previously indicated the Commonwealth could have allowed the States to collect under its
32 authority land taxes but it still would have to be uniform through the Commonwealth and as such
33 all States and Territories (quasi States) would be bound to have the same land taxes application
34 and not different rates. This then would clearly be a waste of exercise as why allow different
35 States/Territories to collect taxes when one federal office can do the same?
36 The issue then is of the Commonwealth somehow could enact legislation to retrospective provide
37 for legislation for the States/Territories to have collected land taxes on its behalf. Again, the first
38 hurdle is that retrospective legislation would be invalid where so to say it makes the conduct of a
39 honest man to be a criminal conduct. Further, where the States raised different levels of land
40 taxes then it cannot be uniform. One couldn’t accept that a person of one State having paid less
41 then in another State now suddenly was to pay more by some kind of retrospective legislation
42 and neither that some who paid more now were going to receive a refund of any land taxes paid
43 above that of other States. After all commercial entities are based upon overhead cost, including
44 land taxes, etc, and as such a business enterprise might be determined where the lowest taxation
45 is available. Changing the system after the contracts are already in operation would make a
46 mockery of the reliability of State provisions.
47 I have indicated for years that what is needed is an OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN which
48 would advise the government, the parliament, the people and the Courts as to constitutional
49 meanings and application as a constitutional council. This is what is missing in Australia and as
50 result we have sport stars and singers and whatever elected to the parliament and basically no
51 one understands let alone comprehend the meaning and application of the constitutions.
52 .

Page 30
1 It is obviously of concern to me that it took a massive 6 month period (from 31 August 2010 till
2 2 March 2011) to present this kind of response that doesn’t appear to me to indicate to be any
3 well researched response.
4 .
5 Obviously I will pass on the 2-3-2011 response and my reply to those concerned with the issue.
6 .
7 EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!
8 .
9
10
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
.
11 Our name is our motto!

12 .
13
14 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
15 END QUOTE 110308-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc
16
17 I may add that in regard of my country property the shire council besides the shire council rates
18 also charge me for garbage collection this even so no one resided on the property. In fact, when
19 the Framers of the Constitution debates municipal/shire council rates it held it was for the
20 corporation (council) for its cost of collecting garbage, etc. Clearly councils separating council
21 rates and adding garbage collection cost themselves proved that the very purpose of council rates
22 was defeated by the garbage charges. And this is without seeking to imply that council rates are
23 constitutionally valid.
24
25 There is also more to this and let us go back to the image:
26
27
28
29 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) Re s51
30
31 (xiii) banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits
32 of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money;
33
34 It must be clear that unless a “State bank” operates within the confines of a State it falls under
35 Commonwealth banking legislation.
36
37 Not uncommon State governments apply interest rates and so municipal/shire councils regarding
38 overdue rates, etc. Actually when you go through it all numerous companies apply interest
39 charges but where is their authority to do so one should ask?
40

Page 31
1 The State of Victoria regarding its intended “ THE WINDFALL TAX ” will be
2 applying interest rates, but upon what legal basis, as the State of Victoria has no “State Bank”
3 operating within the confines of the States jurisdiction, in fact it has no State Bank at all, as it
4 sold/handed it over to the CBA (Commonwealth Bank of Australia)
5
6 Alex Graham (alexgraham04@gmail.com) is a person who well deals with the deception by the
7 banks and so one might be better to contact him as he as I understand it already published 2
8 books about it. My personal interest is constitutional matters and therefore I leave any kind of
9 discussion a person may wish to pursue to a person like Alex Graham regardless if one may or
10 may not agree with each other’s views.
11
12 While there are all kind of organisations like Credit Unions, etc, they obviously are not “banks”
13 as the Framers of the Constitution referred to and may therefore fall within the Commonwealth’s
14 jurisdiction regarding corporations, etc.
15
16 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) Section 51:
17
18 (xx) foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of
19 the Commonwealth;
20
22 QUOTE
23 Mr. MUNRO: We have agreed to sub-clause 13, dealing with the incorporation of
24 banks, and I do not see why a similar provision should not be made in regard to the
25 incorporation of companies. Why should they not be under the control of federal officers?
26 At the present time the law as to incorporation is different in the different colonies, and
27 the result is [start page 686] extremely unsatisfactory in many cases. I do not see why
28 we should not make the same provision in regard to the incorporation of companies as we
29 have made in regard to the incorporation of banks. We might introduce at the
30 commencement of the sub-clause words to this effect: "The registration or incorporation of
31 companies."
32 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I do not think we should. There are a great number of
33 different corporations. For instance, there are municipal, trading, and charitable
34 corporations, and these are all incorporated in different ways according to the law
35 obtaining in the different states.
36 Mr. MUNRO: But as to trading corporations!
37 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It is sometimes difficult to say what is a trading corporation.
38 What is important, however, is that there should be a uniform law for the recognition of
39 corporations. Some states might require an elaborate form, the payment of heavy fees,
40 and certain guarantees as to the stability of members, while another state might not
41 think it worth its while to take so much trouble, having regard to its different
42 circumstances. I think the states may be trusted to stipulate how they will incorporate
43 companies, although we ought to have some general law in regard to their
44 recognition.
45 Sir JOHN BRAY: I think the point raised by the hon. member, Mr. Munro, is worth a
46 little more consideration than hon. members seem disposed to bestow upon it. We know
47 what some of these corporations are; and I think joint-stock companies might be
48 incorporated upon some uniform method. In South Australia, a banking company is not
49 allowed to be incorporated under the Companies Act; still, there is nothing in Victoria of
50 which I am aware to prevent a banking company from being registered there as a limited
51 company and opening a branch in South Australia a few days afterwards. I think it is
Page 32
1 necessary, therefore, to have some uniform law. There is nothing in which the public
2 should have more confidence than in banks which are in any way recognised by the state;
3 and I think we should have some uniform system of incorporating banks. Many
4 companies, although doing business under different names, are, in reality, banks.
5 Mr. MUNRO: The banks are incorporated under the Companies Act in Victoria!
6 Sir JOHN BRAY: You can establish financial companies, which you do not call banks,
7 but which answer all the purposes of banks. We have provided that the federal
8 parliament shall legislate as to the incorporation of banks; but there is nothing to
9 prevent the incorporation by the states themselves, quite apart from the federal
10 parliament, of trading companies which will do all the ordinary business of banks. If it is
11 desirable to intrust legislation as to the incorporation of banks to the federal government,
12 there is no reason why we should not say that the registration of financial companies doing
13 all the business of banks should be dealt with in the same manner.
14 Sub-clause agreed to.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 Obviously the issue we are faced with is that some company that is not a bank and neither a
18 “financial corporation” but merely is selling goods/service to a customer cannot be deemed to be
19 a “financial corporation” as such as it is not a lending corporation. If then a customer were to fail
20 to pay on time then I view the company may pursue a court to award charges for loss of interest,
21 etc, had the company borrowed monies from a bank to cover the unpaid monies owing to it but it
22 cannot in my view charge a customer interest itself. Yet, I understand corporations, not being
23 financial institutions nevertheless do so. They also use the trickery to charge a certain amount
24 and then reduce it by say 10% or whatever if the customer pays the bill within a certain period.
25 This to me is a violation of banking powers, this as it is adding the charge it purportedly later
26 deduct. In fact I have a dispute for a number of yours where GWMW is allegedly charging me
27 for water connection to a vacant property and charging interest on what they claim I am owing,
28 this even so they previously admitted that they cannot charge me for a vacant land as they do not
29 for other vacant land. They are not a “financial institution” and neither have by their own
30 admission any legal right to charge any connection fee but nevertheless seems to hold this power
31 over me so that if the property was to be sold they would demand their unlawful claim to be
32 paid. Yet to another property that is deemed a residential property but has no water connection
33 and has been vacant for more than a decades GWMW refuses to provide connection for
34 safe drinking water despite the Safe Drink Water Act 2003 (Vic). As such they violate to only
35 provide “UNTREATED WATER” to the vacant property but refuse to provide safe drinking
36 water to the residential property.
37 For the record, some years ago the Victorian Ombudsman made clear that it was a legal dispute
38 for the courts, however GWMW since then never pursued it before the courts. At one stage it did
39 cause a Debt collector to attend to me at which time I explained the legal issues and I understand
40 the Debt Collector withdrew from the case. This may indicate that the Debt collector realized
41 that GWMW had no legal standing in the matter and as such no debt could exist either. Still,
42 GWMW purports to still charge interest rates despite to my knowledge no legal basis to do so.
43
45 Powell v Apollo Candle (1885) 10 App Cas 282 - this case dealt with the powers of colonial legislatures. It
46 decided that colonial legislatures, though subordinate to the Imperial Parliament, were not mere delegates
47 and were empowered to delegate legislative power to the executive.
48
49 While the Colonial Parliaments had “sovereign” legislative powers and could amend its own
50 constitutions and so delegate its powers to the executives this however seized to remain a
51 “sovereign” powers upon federation, albeit the now states wrongly continued to do so. See
52 above set out. For the above all and any State land Taxation being it a State Land Tax as named,
Page 33
1 a municipal/shire council rates and/or the purported “THE WINDFALL TAX” in the end they
2 are all unconstitutional. All monies collected as land taxation should have been deposited in the
3 Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Fund. Essentially it is now that the cashier in putting her
4 hands in the till and pay herself monies regardless this to be legally permissible. Here we have
5 the States presiding over an elaborate tax rip off and the Attorney-General, the Treasure, the
6 Prime Minister and all their predecessors are all blatantly disregarding what is constitutionally
7 permissible. But wait, if you didn’t comply with the unconstitutional mandate to wear a mask the
8 police would grab your throat and throw you onto the ground, as after all terrorism is now part of
9 the governments conduct to violate a person’s constitutional rights. My publications at
10 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati sets it all out in considerable details, as such no need to
11 repeat it now. Let’s not ignore that in my view Premier Daniel Andrews violated S92 of the
12 constitution when colleting about $9 billion regarding the leasing of the port which was
13 unconstitutional in so far it included monies nothing to do with harbor improvements and as such
14 was an unconstitutional tax as I have previously in details published also at
15 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
16 What we need is to revise the teaching of law students so that they do not interpret the
17 constitution pending what they were taught in law studies but interpret the constitution as the
18 Framers of the Constitution made clear:
19
21 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
22 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
23 understand.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 It is important to realise that this document doesn’t set out all relevant details as many have been
27 canvassed to a great extent in documents published at https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati,
28 for this do not make any hasty conclusion about what is so far set out above.
29
30 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal
31 constitution!
32
33 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
34 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
35 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

36 (Our name is our motto!)
37 END QUOTE 20230209-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus-
38 COMPLAINT-Supplement 4
39
40 https://m.facebook.com/scottmorrison4cook/posts/did-you-know-28-of-child-sex-
41 offenders-sentenced-in-australia-last-year-did-not-/2629424383768615/
42 Did you know 28% of child sex... - Scott Morrison (ScoMo) | Facebook
43 3 Sept 2019 ... Did you know 28% of child sex offenders sentenced in Australia last year
44 did not serve one day in jail? That's just not OK, not even close ...
45
46 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c579c79e-5001-4b7c-94d8-2e1887977709
47 What do we know, and what can we say, about the charges against ...
48 6 Aug 2021 ... Brian Houston, one of Hillsong's most powerful players, has been charged with
49 concealing child abuse. It's a crime that carries a five-year ...
50 QUOTE

Page 34
1 What do we know, and what can we say, about the charges against Scott Morrison’s
2 spiritual mentor?
3 MARQUE Lawyers
4 Australia August 6 2021
5 Brian Houston, one of Hillsong's most powerful players, has been charged with
6 concealing child abuse. It's a crime that carries a five-year prison sentence.
7 Note: this article mentions child sexual abuse.
8 The news broke yesterday that Brian Houston, senior pastor of the Hillsong church and CEO of
9 its global corporate empire, currently preaching in North America courtesy of an exemption to
10 the overseas travel ban -- oh, and also personal spiritual mentor and friend of Prime Minister
11 Scott Morrison -- had been charged by NSW Police with a serious criminal offence.
12 Turns out the PM needn't have chucked Christian Porter on the table with a dead cat bounce;
13 this sensational story will suck all the oxygen out of the room.
14 The charge is that Houston "knowingly concealed information relating to child sexual
15 offences". According to the police statement, they will allege that he "knew information
16 relating to the sexual abuse of a young male in the 1970s and failed to bring that information to
17 the attention of police".
18 What do we know and, more importantly, what can we say? Bearing in mind both the
19 presumption of innocence and the legal constraints on public commentary about a criminal case
20 in progress, there is a limited amount that can be said regarding the underlying facts of the case
21 or how it might go. Some media have reported that it relates to alleged abuse by Houston's
22 deceased father, Frank Houston.
23 We can, however, talk about the law. The particular offence with which it appears Houston has
24 been charged is that of "concealing child abuse", under section 316A of the NSW Crimes Act.
25 It has three elements:
26  The accused person knows, believes or reasonably ought to know that a child abuse
27 offence has been committed; and
28  They know, believe or reasonably ought to know that they have information that might be
29 of material assistance in securing the apprehension or prosecution of the offender; and
30  They fail without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of the
31 police as soon as practicable.
32 There are many child abuse offences; the only clue we have from the police statement is that
33 the relevant offences were "child sex offences". That points us to the parts of the Crimes Act
34 that deal with a wide range of specific sexual offences where the victim is a child.
35 Unsurprisingly, they all carry very heavy penalties, up to life imprisonment in some cases.
36 If the relevant child abuse offence is one that has a maximum penalty of five years
37 imprisonment or more, then the maximum penalty for concealing it is also five years.
38 As the crime of concealment includes many elements, it is hard to prove. Strong evidence of
39 what the accused knew, the information or evidence they held, or what they should have known
40 if they'd put their mind to it, is a prerequisite.
41 Then there is the question, assuming the accused should have informed the police, as to why
42 they did not and whether they had a reasonable excuse for not doing so.

Page 35
1 Section 316A provides a list of available reasonable excuses, including where the accused
2 reasonably believes that the police already know about it, or where the alleged victim is an
3 adult at the time that the accused finds out about the alleged offence, and the accused
4 reasonably believes that the alleged victim doesn't want the police to be told. The accused can
5 also try for a reasonable excuse not in the list.
6 Interestingly (and unusually), a charge under this particular Crimes Act provision cannot be
7 brought by the police on their own volition against a member of the clergy; it requires the
8 approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The police statement indicates that that is what
9 happened in Houston's case, following a two-year police investigation.
10 That's all we have -- for now. The case is in the Local Court for its first mention on October 5.
11 Given Houston's profile, and connections, not to mention the case's broader significance,
12 hardly anybody won't be watching.
13 MARQUE Lawyers - Michael Bradley
14 END QUOTE
15
16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Morrison
17 QUOTE
18 Response to parliamentary sexual misconduct allegations
19 The Morrison Government was widely criticised for its handling of the 2021 Australian
20 Parliament House sexual misconduct allegations, with an Essential poll finding that 65% of
21 respondents (including 76% of Labor supporters, 51% of Coalition supporters and 88% of
22 Greens supporters) saying the Government was more interested in protecting itself than
23 women.[128] As well as the Labor and Greens parties, the government faced criticism from
24 within its own party. Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who had been made aware
25 of the allegations against Christian Porter in 2019, criticised him for taking too long to
26 come forward.[129] Former prime minister John Howard defended Morrison's decision not
27 to open an independent inquiry into Porter's conduct. [130] Australian of the Year and sexual
28 assault survivor advocate Grace Tame also criticised Morrison in a speech to the National
29 Press Club, saying she did not believe he was creating an environment where victims were
30 believed. She also said "It shouldn't take having children to have a conscience" in response
31 to Morrison's statement that he'd been prompted to reflect on the issue and decide to listen
32 to Tame after a discussion with his wife Jenny Morrison where she said to him "you have
33 to think about this as a father. What would you want to happen if it were our girls?" [131]
34 Porter resigned from his parliamentary position in September following concerns that he
35 had accepted anonymous donations via a blind trust to pay for his legal expenses. [132] The
36 following month, Morrison and the Coalition successfully voted against a motion to
37 investigate Porter's blind trust, in turn preventing the identities of the benefactors who
38 donated to his legal costs from being revealed.[133] Speaker of the Australian House of
39 Representatives Tony Smith had determined there was a prima facie case and in voting
40 down the motion, the Morrison Government became the first government since Federation
41 to refuse a referral from the Speaker in Australian parliamentary history. [134] This decision
42 attracted significant attention and criticism from the media. [135][136][137][138][139]
43 END QUOTE
44
45 When you suspect “braindead” professional politicians to be involved in any kind of fraud
46 then you better scrutinize what else, if anything, they are fraudulently involved in. We
47 should limit total period to 12 years for anyone to be a Member of Parliament. And abolish
48 the “non-profit” unconstitutional provisions!
49 You may download the document from:

Page 36
1 https://www.scribd.com/document/577022424/20220605-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-R-
2 Kershaw-Chief-Commissioner-of-the-Australian-Federal-Police-Suppl-70-Fraud-by-the-
3 Braindead-Politicians
4 QUOTE Re: 20220605-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal
5 Police-Suppl 70-Fraud by the 'braindead' politicians
6 No more political science to determine medical issues we need to imprison every politician,
7 medical worker, government official, police, media personnel who all were deceiving
8 Australians and by this directly/indirectly caused harm upon many, including death. We need to
9 get rid of “professional politicians” who are only interested in power at cost of Australians. We
10 need to limit being a member of the parliament to no more than 12 years in total.
11
12 We also need to abolish this elaborate scam of “not-for-profit” as I view it violated the legal
13 principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
14 .
17 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
18 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
19 An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
20 Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
21 END QUOTE
22 .
24 QUOTE
25 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
26 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
27 END QUOTE
28 And
30 QUOTE
31 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be
32 necessary for the Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once.
33 We have pretty heavy duties in Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at
34 once it may do serious injury to the colony. The Federal Parliament will have power to
35 fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a sliding scale great injury
36 will be avoided.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 Tax exemption for "not-for-profit" are not by a sliding scale and are unconstitutional!
40 We now have organisations having not-for-profit” taxation exemptions which are investing
41 monies in bio-laboratories to create deadly pathogens claiming to be for the interest of humans
42 while in fact pursuing exactly the opposite to depopulate. That is why I view a moratorium
43 should be on all science research and only any real scientific research for the benefit of mankind,
44 not gain-of-function kind, to be permitted.
45
46 https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=730464245030812&_rdr
47 tonibologna.com - Are charities, nonprofits, and private
48 QUOTE
49 The U.S. non-profit sector is one of the world’s largest economies, which makes it a little
50 sus. When I think of the concept of a non-profit or a charity I’m like, Oh, that’s helping the
51 planet or the people or whatever. But there is a huge difference between grassroots
52 organizations to make change and massive institutional establishments that comprise the
53 non-profit industrial complex. They’re actually managing the status quo. Donating to
54 private charity sure helps making rich people look good, are tax deductible which is a legal
55 way for a wealthy to avoid paying large sums of taxes on their wealth. And this effectively
56 goes all revenue for public services for the working class. The rich mostly give their
Page 37
1 money away to private foundations and those foundations are legally required to only give
2 away 5% per year. So 5% of the assets are going to the charity but 95% of the assets are
3 invested in the stock market. So if you’re a private foundation that’s trying to save the
4 environment 95% of your assets are in the stock market. Which ummm… kind of
5 notoriously is destroying the environment. And if you’re like a wealthy billionaire, that’s
6 putting your money into private foundations, and then that money is going right back into
7 the stock market, probably into those very same companies that you already invest in. It’s
8 just another way to get money into Wall Street. You want to hear something really funny?
9 Donor Advised Funds are the largest growing charitable organizations in the U.S. right
10 now… but there is no legal requirement that those donor advised funds have to pay out
11 their assets to working charities ever. It can be delayed indefinitely and it’s impossible to
12 tell whether the money is going to qualified charities at all. So really, the non-profit
13 industrial complex is just a tool of capitalism where the wealthy decide where the money
14 goes. So if we want our voices to be heard then we need to support grassroots organizing.
15 Yeah. Like, those people they’re doing it
16 END QUOTE
17
18 Well, Bill Gates somehow knows to predict (as to the W.H.O. the W.E.F. and others) when the
19 next disease will come out and coincidentally they have generally been prepared with so called
20 “vaccines”. It all proves the charity work somehow can enrich the rich, never mind the streets
21 littered with the dead, after all without making a profit from non-profit it is not worth the
22 investment, is it?.
23
24 https://downthechupacabrahole.com/2022/05/31/the-root-of-monkeypox-internal-pfizer-document-reveals-vaccines-
25 trigger-autoimmune-skin-blistering/
26 The Root of Monkeypox? Internal Pfizer Document Reveals Vaccines Trigger
27 ‘Autoimmune Skin Blistering’ – Down the Chupacabra Hole
28
29 With the now claimed “Monkeypox” I understand this was part of a bio-laboratory research in in
30 Ukraine bio-laboratories and that people already suffered from this many months ago but then it
31 was not referred to as being “Monkeypox” this while the USA VEARS system already appeared
32 to have many reports about it already.
33
34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k31b6cCOPX0
35 The president of one of Europe's biggest pharmaceutical giants has been charged by police
36 with being falsely vaccinated against Covid-19
37 QUOTE
38 The president of one of Europe’s pharmaceutical giants has been charged by police with
39 being falsely vaccinated against Covid-19.
40 Dr souse-faro president of PharmaMar was caught in a scandal where celebrities and
41 powerful politicians were added the National Immunization registry in exchange for large
42 sums of money.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 As I understood it the same scam of politicians being jabbed with a saline rather than the so
46 called covid jab may involve the Queensland premier, Scott Morrison and many others also.
47 Now would it not be nice if the Australian Federal Police actually got of its backside and start
48 checking the suspects if their blood contains anything from those so called “vaccines” or they
49 indeed were merely jabbed with a “saline”? If their blood shows no traces of the so called
50 “vaccines” then well likely they decided to deceive the general community pretending they were
51 being “vaccinated’ but not wanting to because of the deadly risk associated with it, but still were
52 fraudulently claiming the vaccinated status

Page 38
1 END QUOTE Re: 20220605-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian
2 Federal Police-Suppl 70-Fraud by the 'braindead' politicians
3
4
5 Let us now compare The Commonwealth of Australia freedoms versus how it is applied in
6 Ukraine! And let us not overlook how many not-for-profit (non-profit) organisations are ripping
7 off ordinary taxpayers by having an unconstitutional tax exemption using the monies not for
8 charity but to use it as a scam to enrich themselves!
9
12 QUOTE
13 Dr. COCKBURN: Local freedom and government by the people are inseparable.
14 END QUOTE
15
18 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
19 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
20 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
21 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
22 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
23 embrace and unite.
24 END QUOTE
25 And
27 QUOTE
28 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
29 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
30 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
31 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
32 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
33 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
34 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
35 END QUOTE
36 And
38 QUOTE
39 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
40 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
41 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
42 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
43 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
44 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
45 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
46 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
47 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
48 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
49 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
50 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
51 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
52 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
53 END QUOTE
54
55
Page 39
1 This is the final part 3 of the supplement 84, and everyone should ask: What was the
2 “science” (scientific date required) upon which each state Politician and Chief Health
3 Officer / Chief Medical Officer as well as those of the Commonwealth and Territories
4 relied upon to justify the each and every mandate. If they didn’t have any then they should
5 be held personally legally accountable for the harm inflicted upon so many, and even
6 causing deaths!
9 Kershaw-Chief-Commissioner-of-the-AFP-Suppl-84-Urgent-Criminal-Investigation-Required-
10 Part-3
11 QUOTE 20220827-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the AFP-Suppl 84-
12 Urgent criminal investigation required Part 3
13 https://www.theepochtimes.com/covid-jab-is-far-more-dangerous-than-
14 advertised_4381781.html?utm_source=ai_recommender
15 COVID Jab Is Far More Dangerous Than Advertised
16 QUOTE
17 And that's for those over the age of 65.
18 BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIMEAPRIL 4, 2022 October 26, 2021, Global Research
19 published an interview with Dr. Peter McCullough, in which he reviews and explains the
20 findings of a September 2021 study published in the journal Toxicology Reports.
21 STORY AT-A-GLANCE
22  According to a September 2021 analysis, based on conservative, best-case scenarios, the
23 COVID shots have killed five times more seniors (65+) than the infection
24  In younger people and children, the risk associated with the COVID shot, compared to
25 the risk of COVID-19, is bound to be even more pronounced
26  Data show higher vaccination rates do not translate into lower COVID-19 case rates
27  50% of reported deaths after COVID-19 “vaccination” occur within 24 hours; 80% occur
28 within the first week. According to one report, 86% of deaths have no other explanation
29 aside from a vaccine adverse event. A Scandinavian study concluded about 40% of post-
30 jab deaths among seniors in assisted living homes are directly due to the injection
31 The study in the journal Toxicology Reports, states: (1)
32 “A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are
33 five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to
34 COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 Our politicians instead are pushing advertising for more people to be jabbed as it is “safe and
38 effective” I wonder if this means: “safe way to ensure you are going to be killed and effective
39 because soon or later you will be killed by it. And they are pushing for more manufacturing
40 facilities as it is in their political interest never mind that the long term harm is still not known as
41 after all the “clinical trials” are still going on! Well sort of minus those already maimed or killed.
42
43
Page 40
1
2 While in my view the Premier is simply Minister for the Office of the Prime Minister and
3 Cabinet, somehow we get now the Premier available for a photo opportunity and well Anthony
4 Albanese likewise. If it is a medical and business issue then I view the Minister for health and
5 the Minister for business, etc, should have been there not the Premier and Anthony Albanese.
6
7 As now has been revealed, as I previously wrote about also graphene has been used for creating
8 capsules. So a person may digest a medication that is appropriate but the capsule itself is
9 harmful! And when you for example take such a capsule on a daily basis then the increase of
10 graphene into the body can have serious if not disastrous results, even death. So what are all
11 those Ministers for Health doing to ensure this harm is not inflicted? Well, it seems none of them
12 really could care less as after all their concentration seems to me to be more about photo
13 opportunities rather than to do the job they are being paid for.
14
15 https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2022/07/22/transcript-coronavirus-new-
16 variants-with-rochelle-walensky/
17 Transcript: Coronavirus: New Variants with Rochelle Walensky
18 QUOTE
19 MR. DIAMOND: I have been covering this pandemic from the beginning. You've been
20 part of responding to this pandemic from the beginning in a couple of different roles.
21 Throughout the pandemic, the view of public health agencies has weakened if you're
22 looking at polling. Public trust has fallen at agencies like CDC and others. What is your
23 message to Americans who feel frustrated with how the public health apparatus or public
24 health system has responded to the pandemic?
25 QUOTE
26 And
27 QUOTE DR. WALENSKY:
28 What I didn't say, which was implied, but I think we should articulate, is that that science
29 moves, that science changes. And sometimes we have to make decisions in the absence of
30 all the data and all the science that we would like to have before all of that information is
31 available. That is very hard in a pandemic. People want to understand a decision and have
32 it not move. But my responsibility to the American people and to populations and to
33 individual patients is to deliver the best information that I have at the time, and sometimes
34 that has changed.
35 QUOTE
36
37 Let me get this clear “that that science moves, that science changes” but despite that the
38 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) provides for “political liberty”
39 nevertheless Premier Daniel Andrews had the Victorian Police like terrorist shooting in the back
40 of unarmed protestors because he didn’t like them to exercise their constitutional rights to protest
41 and exposed that the science the protestors relied upon proved that the Chief Health Officer has
42 no scientific basis for any mandates. The politicians insisting their “science” (whatever it was
43 purportedly to be) was reliable and yet here we have an admission that “that that science
44 moves, that science changes” and as such this clearly warrnete3d to communicate the different
45 opinions But as AHPRA proved with Dr William Bay of Queensland, it non-existing science
46 that they fabricate as being science is what is adhered to and everyone else must obey!
47 END QUOTE 20220827-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the AFP-
48 Suppl 84-Urgent criminal investigation required Part 3
49
50 Video: “IT’S OVER! This Fauci SCANDAL Is Just The Tip Of The Iceberg”
51 QUOTE

Page 41
1
2 END QUOTE
3 And
4 QUOTE
5
6
7 END QUOTE
8
9 We had about 194 countries applying “social distancing” and somehow all of them doing to
10 because the World Health Organisation was dictating this without any scientific basis! Then
11 again, it was actually all along planned by the pharmaceutical companies:
12
13 QUOTE 20211009-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian
14 Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-16-The AFP conspiracy
15 https://www.globalresearch.ca/pfizer-scientists-caught-undercover-admitting-pfizer-evil-natural-immunity-better-
16 than-covid-19-vaccine/5757751?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
17 Pfizer Scientists Caught Undercover Admitting Pfizer Is Evil and that Natural Immunity Is
18 Better than the COVID-19 Vaccine
19
20 I watched a video by Veritas (Pfizer JOHNSON & JOHNSON Scientists Caught Undercover
21 Admitting that Natural Immunity is Better than Their Vaccine
22 https://www.bitchute.com/video/L2FhBNI6FK9q/) and I understand that scientist working for
23 pharmaceutical companies may have a NDA (non disclosure agreement) but nevertheless
24 admitted that people are forced to be vaccinated by having countries to deny unvaccinated
25 people certain rights so that in the end they are forced to be vaccinated.

Page 42
1 END QUOTE 20211009-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the
2 Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-16-The AFP conspiracy
3
4 QUOTE 20211014-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian
5 Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-18-Arrest them now
6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNIj83XNNeE
7 Johnson & Johnson 'Kids Shouldn’t Get A F cking [COVID] Vaccine;' There are
8 Unknown Repercussions
9 My kind of transcribing the video but better check for one selves in case I made a typing error.
10 (PV stands for Project Veritas) (Starting at 1.39)
11 START
12 PV JOURNALIST:
13 So, I should tell her [12 year old cousin] to not get the Johnson and Johnson one?
14
15 PV JOURNALIST:
16 Don’t get the Johnson and Johnson.
17
18 JUSTIN DURRANT, SCIENTIST, JOHNSON & JOHNSON:
19 Don’t get the Johnson and Johnson- [winks]
20 I didn’t tell you though.
21
23 Only way people really act, and - - comply, if it affects their pocket.
24
26 So, it is like, if you’re working for a big company and you’re going to lose your job, best
27 believe you’ll be the first one in the line.
28
30 I mean, if you can’t work, I feel like that’s punishment enough.
31
33 Like, a second grader [class] citizen- like you can’t do anything that a normal citizen can
34 do.
35
37 Inconvenience them to the point where it’s like, it’s the holiday- no, not the holiday – but
38 like- I might as well just f*cking do it.
39
40 PV JOURNALIST:
41 So, you said I shouldn’t trust the media?
42
43 BRANDON SCHADT, BUSINESS LEAD, JOHNSON & JOHNSON:
44 In no capacity should we ever trust anything that they say.
45
46 Voice (medical doctor):
47 The government doesn’t want to show
48
49 Voice (medical doctor):
50 That the darn vaccine is full of shit.
51
52 Pfizer JOHNSON & JOHNSON employee:
Page 43
1 There need to be a registry of people who aren’t vaccinated.

2
4 That’s sounding very [Nazi] Germany.
5
7 I’m gonna go door-to-door and stab everyone,
8
10 “Oh, it’s just your booster shot!”
11
12 Voice:
13 Don’t get the Johnson & Johnson?
14
15 Voice:
16 I didn’t tell you though.
17
18 Voice (re Pfizer JOHNSON & JOHNSON):
19 They are not reporting.
20
21 Voice (re Pfizer JOHNSON & JOHNSON):
22 Because they want to shove it under the mat.
23
24 Voice:
25 why do you think there is such a strong push for it?
26
27 Voice (Johnson & Johnson):
28 Numbers.
29
31 Laws like that, if you want to go to a bar, you need to come in with Covid test-like
32 inconvenience there people so much- that they’re just like, f*ck it. I need to just get this.
33
35 That’s what we’re doing.
36
37 PV JOURNALIST:
38 So, that’s what we need to do?
39
41 That’s what we’re doing.
42
44 Inconvenience them to the point where it’s like, it’s holiday-no, not the holiday-but like-I
45 might as well just f*cking do it, you know what I’m saying? Like I can’t go out of state…
46
48 …I can’t- my grandma’s in Canada. I can’t visit her, you know what I am saying-‘cause-
49 you can’t go to France, unless you’re vaccinated. I can’t go to [inaudible]-you know…
50
Page 44
1 You’ve just got to keep doing things like that to-where it’s almost like you’re almost
2 like a second grade [class] citizen, if you’re not vaccinated-I know that is awful.
3
4 PV JOURNALIST:
5 You’re almost what?
6
8 Like, a second grade [class] citizen-like you can’t do anything that a normal citizen
9 can do.
10
11 PV JOURNALIST:
12 A second grade [class] citizen?
13
15 Yeah like-top graded like the ones that get it, and the ones that just like [makes a
16 lower hand gesture] – you can’t do shit.
17
18 PV JOURNALIST:
19 So, then how do we punish them?
20
22 I mean if you can’t work, I feel like that’s punishment enough… money, it hurst
23 them.
24
25 PV JOURNALIST:
26 People what?
27
29 People-the only way people really act, and – comply, if it affects their pockets.
30
32 So, it’s like, if you’re working for a big company and you’re going to lose your job,
33 best believe you’ll be the first one in the line.
34
35 PV JOURNALIST:
36 Right.
37
39 You know (laughs).
40
41 PV JOURNALIST:
42 So, if you’re working for a big company and you’re about to lose your job, you’ll be the
43 first one in the line?
44
46 Yes.
47
48 PV JOURNALIST:
49 So true- so true. So, that’s what-that’s smart, that’s what we need to do.
50
Page 45
1 And that’s what we’re doing.

2
4 Just counting this straight heads – not like – Ohh… it’s a baby, it’s up to them, you
5 hear what I’m saying, it’s – everyone needs to vax.
6
8 You really – you really don’t need to vaccinated a baby, you don’t need to vaccinate a
9 baby…
10
12 ..especially if it’s not going to school, it’s not going out, it’s in your house- it’ll probably
13 be fine.
14
15 PV JOURNALIST:
16 So, at what age do you think people should?
17
19 Once you go out and you’ve got to go to preschool, you’re out – like I don’t know, what
20 the hell Johnny down-the-block was doing, right – so, that’s when you need to start [to]
21 vaccinate.
22
23 PV JOURNALIST:
24 Okay, so then – if you think that babies like don’t need to get vaccinated, then why do you
25 think there’s such a strong push for it?
26
28 Numbers.
29
30 PV JOURNALIST:
31 I should tell her to not get the Johnson and Johnson one? Is that what you are saying?
32
33 PV JOURNALIST:
34 Don’t get the Johnson and Johnson.
35
37 Don’t get the Johnson and Johnson- [winks] I didn’t tell you though.
38
39 PV JOURNALIST:
40 She doesn’t necessarily need to because she’s young?
41
43 Yeah, traditionally it’s not necessary.
44
45 PV JOURNALIST:
46 Yeah.
47
49 But again, she should get it, just out of her civic- her civic duty as a- you know?
50
51 PV JOURNALIST:
Page 46
1 But it really wouldn’t make that much of a difference?

2
4 It wouldn’t make that much of a difference, no.
5
6 PV JOURNALIST:
7 Yeah.
8
9 PV JOURNALIST:
10 So, what would you say, homeschool or get the vaccine?
11
13 Honesty, I don’t think a kid needs to get it, but that’s just me.
14
15 PV JOURNALIST:
16 Why not?
17
19 Because it’s a kid, it’s a f*cking kid- you know? Kids shouldn’t have to get a f*cking
20 vaccine, they’re kid, you know.
21
23 It’s just a kid who’s not developed yet- there’s so much growth, you know. And you’re
24 young- you can rebound from the virus- it’ll be fine.
25
27 They shouldn’t be getting it because, “You could spread to other people,” you know-
28 because you’re a kid , you know.
29
31 It’s terrible.
32
33 PV JOURNALIST:
34 What about it is terrible in your eyes?
35
37 It’s like the same concept of you don’t do things to kids right, you don’t put kids through
38 certain things you put adults through…
39
41 …it just that kind of category for me.
42
43 PV JOURNALIST:
44 Right.
45
47 It’s a kid, you just don’t do that, you know- not something that’s so unknown in terms
48 of repercussions down the road, you know.
49
50 PV JOURNALIST:
51 So, would you say we don’t know the repercussions of it?
Page 47
1
3 I mean, how could you- right- there’s nobody who’s thirty years in, who said, “Hey, I
4 had the vaccine and I don’t have a third eye ball”…
5
6 PV JOURNALIST:
7 So, you’re probably loving work right now then.
8
10 Yeah, it’s a little, it’s not like – it’s weird because they want us to get the J&J and I was
11 like, just look at the effectiveness of like, “No” – I’m good I mean you just look at the
12 effectiveness of like -
13
14 PV JOURNALIST:
15 So, you didn’t take it?
16
18 Oh no I did, I took the moderna.
19
20 PV JOURNALIST:
21 Oh, you took it?
22
24 Yeah – yeah.
25
26 PV JOURNALIST:
27 So, why is everyone leaning away from the Johnson and Johnson one?
28
30 I don’t know it could be in part like an F U- I’m not going to get your vaccine if
31 you’re going to force me to do this…
32
34 It could be too because people just don’t trust them, you know.
35
36 PV JOURNALIST:
37 But never Johnson & Johnson?
38
40 No.
41
42 PV JOURNALIST:
43 Why though?
44
46 I don’t know. The 60% thing and the blood clots that they reported.
47
48 PV JOURNALIST:
49 So, what do you think this is about?
50 Do you think it’s about the money?
51
Page 48

2 Collection of everything I bet.
3
4 PV JOURNALIST:
5 What?
6
8 Collection of everything I bet.
9
10 PV JOURNALIST:
11 What do you mean?
12
14 Politics, money – a lot of people trying to make the right decision, but being stuck in
15 their position of – am I being influenced by somebody to go one side or the other.
16
18 No, no, I don’t think anybody’s going to say anything either, if something went wrong
19 you know-
20
21 PV JOURNALIST:
22 Why not?
23
25 People are private you know, even J&J.
26
27 PV JOURNALIST:
28 What?
29
31 Even J&J is [private].
32
34 You’re not going to hear about that stuff like – if something bad is going on – like
35 alright, for the 13 years that I’ve been there…
36
38 …at least my time in consumer products, they’ve got Tylenol that was laced with like
39 cyanide, something bad happened there-
40
42 They had to recall products.
43
44 PV JOURNALIST:
45 I don’t know if I trust people – I don’t know if I trust like – what the media tells us, you
46 know.
47
49 Nope, you shouldn’t.
50
51 PV JOURNALIST:
Page 49
1 So, you said I shouldn’t trust the media?

2
4 No, why should we? Why the hell should we? Hell no, no chance.
5
6 PV JOURNALIST:
7 What do you mean by that?
8
10 In no capacity should we ever trust anything that they [media] say.
11 FINISH
12 END QUOTE 20211014-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the
13 Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-18-Arrest them now
14
15 It must be very clear that governments around the world simply obeyed the
16 directions/instructions of Pharmaceutical companies, the W.E.F., WHO, and U.N. to pursue the
17 DEPOPULATION that was planned all along by the DoD (USA)!
18
19 QUOTE 20230728-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 101F-
20 DEMOCIDE 2.0
21 1974/12/10 – Secretary of State Henry Kissenger’s national
22 Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) study
23 completed as the Kissinger Report, establishing global
24 depopulation as US geopolitical strategy.
25
26
27 1975/11/26 – President Gerald Ford endorsed the Kissinger Report’s depopulation plan
28 through National Security Decision Memorandum 314
29
30
31 Let us first therefore look at the (USA) DoD DEPOPULATION plan:
32
33 Let us look as Deagel.com (http://www.deagel.com/country/forecast.aspx) population forecast
34 of 2017 and in particular, the current countries hit with COVID-19!
35
36 Name Country 2017 2025 Reduction %
37
38 United Kingdom 65,650,000 14,517,860 51,132,140 77.886%
39 Ireland 5,010,000 1,318,740 3,691,260 73.678%
40 Germany 80,590,000 28,134,920 52,455,080 65.089%
41 Spain 48,960,000 27,763,280 21,196,720 43.294%
42
43 France 67,100,000 39,114,580 27,985,420 41.707%
44 Switzerland 8,240,000 5,342,540 2,897,460 35.163%
45 Denmark 5,600,000 3,771,760 1,828,240 32.647%
46 Belgium 11,490,000 8,060,900 3,429,100 29.844%
47
48 Italy 62,140,000 43,760,260 18,379,740 29.578%
49 Austria 8,750,000 6,215,000 2,535,000 28.971%
Page 50
1 Ukraine 44,030,000 31,628,980 12,401,020 28.165%

2 Norway 5,320,000 3,833,960 1,486,040 27.933%
3
4 Portugal 10,840,000 8,113,860 2,726,140 25.149%
5 Poland 38,480,000 33,230,780 5,249,220 13.641%
6
7 TOTALS 462,200,000 254,807,420 207,392,580 44.871%
8
9 United States of America 326,620,000 99,553,100 227,066,900 69.520%
10
11 Australia 23,230,000 15,196,600 8,033,400 34.582%
12
13 And to silence critics they went on to pay handsomely the media (albeit also unconstitutionally)
14 as I understood was what Event201 October 2019 was indicating, as to prevent others to become
15 aware of their murderous DEPOPULATION scam. The eSafety Commissioner, Ombudsman,
16 Human Rights Commissioners were simploy AWOL (Absent Without Leave) and if anything
17 not just refused to enforce constitutional rights but rather supported this TREASONOUS
18 conduct and let DICTATORSHIP & TERRORISM be the rule of the day.
19 END QUOTE 20230728-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl
20 101F- DEMOCIDE 2.0
21
22 Yes, it was dictated by the pharmaceutical companies to force/coerce the jabs upon everyone!
23 And little wonder Scott Morrison was pretending it to be a “NATIONAL SECURITY” to keep
24 the contracts secret!
25 Constitutionally there is no such thing as to use taxpayer’s monies to enter into secret deals and
26 hide possible financial or other kickbacks. Who did get the commission the pharmaceutical
27 companies were paying to those who engaged in contracts?
28 I understand that former New Zealand Jacinta Adhern made about $25 million in a year and
29 considering the population of Australia this might have been a lot more and who really received
30 this all?
31
33 Convention)
34 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
35 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
36 clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
37 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 Meaning, that since the Commonwealth legislated the Quarantine Act 1908 that since was
41 superseded by the Biosecurity Act 2015. The States since 1908 lost their “concurrent” legislative
42 powers and this means the “mandates” regarding quarantine issues by the States were beyond
43 their legislative, executive and administrative powers.
44
45 END QUOTE 20240126-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Julie Inman-Grant, Office of the eSafety
46 Commissioner
47 Julie Inman-Grant, 26-1-2024
48 Office of the eSafety Commissioner
49 enquiries@esafety.gov.au
50 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
51 Madam,
52 it appears to me you may misunderstand your position as a public servant on the pay roll
53 of Australian taxpayers. Regardless who might be in government (politically) your obligations at
Page 51
1 all times is to serve the interest and wellbeing of all Australians, not just some selective few, and
2 within the bounds of the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australiaq
3 Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
4
5
6
7 https://sxswsydney.com/speaker/julie-inman-grant/
8 QUOTE (part added with red colour, bolding and underlind)
9 About
10 Julie Inman Grant is Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, leading the world’s first
11 government regulatory agency committed to keeping its citizens safer online. In this role,
12 Julie has launched the global Safety by Design initiative and led work to stand up novel
13 and world-first regulatory regimes under the new Online Safety Act 2021, with
14 implementation of a sweeping new set of online safety reforms.
15
16 Before commencing as eSafety Commissioner in January 2017, Julie spent two decades
17 working in senior public policy and safety roles in the tech industry. She served as one of
18 Microsoft’s first and longest-standing government relations professionals, ultimately in the
19 role of Global Director for Safety & Privacy Policy and Outreach. At Twitter, she set up
20 and drove the company’s policy, safety and philanthropy programs across Australia, New
21 Zealand and Southeast Asia.
22
23 As Commissioner, Julie also plays an important global role as Chair of the Child Dignity
24 Alliance’s Technical Working Group and Board Member of the WePROTECT Global
25 Alliance, She serves on the World Economic Forum’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety
26 and on their XR Ecosystem Governance Steering Committee on Building and Defining the
27 Metaverse.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 Again:
31
32 QUOTE
33 She serves on the World Economic Forum’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety and
34 on their XR Ecosystem Governance Steering Committee on Building and Defining the
35 Metaverse.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 This latter in my view means you are essentially working with a foreign (enemy) power and this
39 then invalidate the position you purport to be holding. I contemplate to set out some of it below
40 but more is extensively canvassed at my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
41 END QUOTE 20240126-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Julie Inman-Grant, Office of the eSafety
42 Commissioner
43
44 In my view she is committing TREASON to be associated and even work for the W.E.F. this as
45 the W.E.F., WHO and U.N. all desire to overtake all countries for the One World Government
46 and get rid of elections so they can install their own servants/lackeys.
47
Page 52
1 Now have a look at Ukraine that is democratic and my Scribd blog shows ample of samples, like
2 cutting a school teacher in halve while being alive when the start doing so!
3
4 We seem to have “braindead” politicians all over the West, and regretfully also in the
5 Commonwealth of Australia. It seems to me we lack a competent Governor-General who
6 check out the credibility of any person he commissions into a portfolio. Funding a Ukraine
7 NAZI government so continue its genocide against its own citizens needs to be stopped. Let
8 the true facts be exposed and made known!
11 Ambassador-H-E-Dr-Alexey-Pavlovsky
12 QUOTE 20220604-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Ambassador H.E. Dr Alexey Pavlovsky
13 Back to the Ukraine constitution
14 QUOTE
15 Article 27. Every person shall have the inalienable right to life.
16 No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life. Protection of human life shall
17 be the duty of the State.
18 Everyone shall have the right to protect his life and health, and lives and health of other
19 people against unlawful encroachments.
20
21 Article 28. Everyone shall have the right to have his dignity respected.
22 No one shall be subjected to torture, cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or
23 punishment that violates his dignity.
24 No person shall be subjected to medical, scientific, or other experiments without his free
25 consent.
26 END QUOTE 20220604-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Ambassador H.E. Dr Alexey Pavlovsky
27 And
28 QUOTE 20220604-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Ambassador H.E. Dr Alexey Pavlovsky
29 Article 34. Everyone shall be guaranteed the right to freedom of thought and speech, and
30 to free expression of his views and beliefs.
31 Everyone shall have the right to freely collect, store, use, and disseminate information by
32 oral, written, or other means at his discretion.
33 The exercise of such rights may be restricted by law in the interests
34 of national security, territorial integrity, or public order, for the purposes
35 of preventing disturbances or crimes, protecting the health of the population, protecting
36 the reputation or rights of other persons, preventing the publication
37 of information received confidentially, or supporting the authority and impartiality of
38 justice.
39
40 Article 35. Everyone shall have right to freedom of beliefs and religion. This right shall
41 include the freedom to profess any religion or profess no religion, to freely practice
42 religious rites and ceremonial rituals, alone or collectively, and
43 to pursue religious activities.
44 The exercise of this right may be restricted by law only in the interests
45 of protection of the public order, health and morality of the population,
46 or protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons.
47 The Church and religious organisations in Ukraine shall be separated from the State, and
48 school shall be separated from the Church. No religion shall
49 be recognised by the State as mandatory.
50 No one shall be exempt from his duties to the State or refuse to abide
51 by laws on religious grounds. If the performance of military duty contradicts the religious
52 beliefs of a citizen, the performance of this duty shall be replaced
53 by alternative (non-military) service.
Page 53
1
2 Article 36. Citizens of Ukraine shall have the right to freedom of association into
3 political parties and public organisations for exercising and protecting their rights and
4 freedoms and for satisfying their political, economic, social, cultural and other interests,
5 with the exception of restrictions established by law in the interests of national security
6 and public order, protection of public health,
7 or protection of rights and freedoms of other persons.
8 Political parties in Ukraine shall promote the formation and expression
9 of political will of citizens and shall participate in elections. Only citizens
10 of Ukraine may be members of political parties. Restrictions on membership
11 in political parties shall be determined exclusively by this Constitution and laws
12 of Ukraine.
13 Citizens shall have the right to take part in trade unions with the purpose
14 of protecting their labour and socio-economical rights and interests. Trade unions shall be
15 public organisations uniting citizens bound by common interests
16 in accordance with the nature of their professional activity. Trade unions shall
17 be formed without prior permission on the basis of the free choice of their members. All
18 trade unions shall have equal rights. Restrictions on membership
19 in trade unions shall be determined exclusively by this Constitution and laws
20 of Ukraine.
21 No one may be forced to join any association of citizens or be restricted
22 in his right to belong or not to belong to political parties or public organisations.
23 All associations of citizens shall be equal before the law.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 The Ukraine NAZI President who in 2019 campaigned to become president to commence a war
27 against the Russian Federation!
28
29
30
31
32 The image above shows for example what is done to a Christian man under the
33 leadership of Ukraine NAZI President Zelenskyy
Page 54
1 END QUOTE 20220604-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Ambassador H.E. Dr Alexey Pavlovsky

2
3 There is currently a dispute about if Australia should provide Ukraine with Taipans helicopters.
4 Well, considering the genocide it has been engaged in since about 2014 against its own
5 Ukrainian population merely because of being ethnic Russians, while in the process also kill non
6 ethnic Russians Ukrainians one has to be very concerned.
7 Firstly the (prime) Minister has no legal authority over the Department of Defence where he is
8 not the Minister for Defence. And the Minister of Defence cannot dispose of military hardware,
9 including munition, etc, that were purchased by provisions of Appropriation Acts for the
10 Australian armed forces. If the Taipans helicopter are indeed not safe then why at all provide
11 them to Ukraine? Is it so to minimize the Australian armed force capability to withstand any
12 possible invasion?
13 But in any event, as the Minister for Defence cannot provide weapons, ammunition to a foreign
14 country where the Governor-General has not published in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF
15 WAR naming the Russian Federation as an enemy, then the Minister of Defence cannot transfer
16 military equipment such as weapons, munition, tanks, vehicles, etc, to Ukraine.
17 However, there might be a way the Minister for Defence can do so legitimately that is if there is
18 a proper evaluation, not a mere assumed one, that the Taipans are a real risk to Australian
19 soldiers, etc, then the Minister for Defence can strip the helicopters of any combat equipment’s
20 and have the helicopters painted in white to indicate they are non-combat helicopters for non-
21 combat duties. And any helicopters provided for this must be under a signed agreement
22 stipulating the helicopters are not permitted for usage in combat purposes and only for extraction
23 of wounded soldiers from any front. If there is any misuse of the helicopter(s) then the
24 helicopter(s) must be immediately returned at cost of Ukraine to the Commonwealth of
25 Australia.
26 As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that unless Australia waters were invaded by
27 enemy ships, etc, which in itself would be a declaration of war by enemy forces, the Minister of
28 Defence can respond however if this is not applicable then the Minister for Defence cannot act
29 unless the Governor-General first publish in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR naming
30 the particular country or countries. As such any military equipment/munition provided by Scott
31 M orison and now Anthony Albanese violates our constitutional system and technically by s44
32 they are by s45 already without a seat in the Parliament.
33
34
35 This is the final part 3 of the supplement 84, and everyone should ask: What was the
36 “science” (scientific date required) upon which each state Politician and Chief Health
37 Officer / Chief Medical Officer as well as those of the Commonwealth and Territories
38 relied upon to justify the each and every mandate. If they didn’t have any then they should
39 be held personally legally accountable for the harm inflicted upon so many, and even
40 causing deaths!
43 Kershaw-Chief-Commissioner-of-the-AFP-Suppl-84-Urgent-Criminal-Investigation-Required-
44 Part-3
45 QUOTE 20220827-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the AFP-Suppl 84-
46 Urgent criminal investigation required Part 3
47 COMPLAINT
48 Sir,
49 further to my original COMPLAINT of 6 August 2021 I provide a further supplement hereby.
50
51 Below I will continue the quotations “20220826-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R
52 Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the AFP-Suppl 84-Urgent criminal investigation required
Page 55
1 Part 2” which also includes other constitutional issues, medical issues, etc.
2
3
4 I like to attend to the spending spree politicians in the Commonwealth, States and Territories are
5 engaged in as I view it in a criminal manner.
6
7 In the last 2½ years Australians, unless for that time in a coma, would have been aware of the
8 deluge of advertising about covid, the need to be tested (with what now finally was declared to
9 be no proper testing at all) vaccinations (when the Pfizer and Moderna were no vaccines at all
10 but gene therapy) and on and on. But where did the monies come from did you ever ask?
11
12 The States were created in S106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
13 “subject to this constitution”. This means the legal principles embedded in the constitution also
14 applies to the State/Territories.
15
17 QUOTE
18 Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an
19 annual service.
20 Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?
21 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.
22 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from
23 special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which
24 we are accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.
25 Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place
26 expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a
27 service.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 What we can gain from this is the knowledge that there are “annual service” Appropriation Bills
31 and “special” Appropriation Bills. “Annual service” as such is the maintenance of the overall
32 cost to manage a Department. The salaries of the employees, the administration cost to provide
33 offices, stationary, etc, all being recurrent cost on an annual basis.
34
35 Advertising for special events are not at all “annual services” because they are merely whatever a
36 Minister may desire to allegedly aid in promoting something. Often misused for political
37 purposes. Therefore, advertising must be paid for only if the relevant Parliament passed “special”
38 Appropriation Bills” to authorise the usage of Consolidated Revenue Funds of the particular
39 State/Commonwealth/Territory. As such, “annual service” Appropriation Bills should bar
40 inflation be generally the same. But we seem to have highly inflated “Appropriation Bills” for
41 “annual services” so that the Minister or those colluding with him/her then can syphon off
42 monies for whatever purpose they want to. About 6 months prior to the RED Shirt incident in
43 Victoria I actually did write to Premier Daniel Andrews that he couldn’t use public monies
44 (Consolidated Revenue Funds) for political purposes but we know now he nevertheless did.
45 After all who cares when you by hook or by crook can succeed in an election? Who is really
46 being held legally accountable? Yet, if an ordinary citizen were to do likewise then FRAUD
47 charges likely will be the order of the day!
48 We therefore have that politicians are in a way encouraged to defraud Consolidated Revenue
49 Funds as no matter if they are caught out, they more than likely have already succeeded in what
50 they desired to achieve without any real legal accountability.

Page 56
1
2 What is needed is to ask: By which “special” Appropriation Bills passed by the Parliament, and
3 subsequently enacted, were payments for advertising legally justified?
4 Moreover, there ought to be no doubt that this whole PLANDEMIC was a scam for the NEW
5 WORLD ORDER as the PLANDEMIC really was about INFLUENZA renamed covid-19.
6 Check out the executive orders of President Donald Trump and you may find that the WARP
7 SPEED reference is about INFLUENZA. As I previously extensively have set out, before the
8 name COVID-19 even emerged it was Anthony Fauci (NIH) who indicated at the Milken
9 Institute to alter the about 10 year process for approval of medication/vaccines by merely
10 causing fear mongering amongst the population. Having already in 2015 approval for what is
11 now referred to COVID-vaccines, albeit being mRNA “gene therapy” so called vaccines, it must
12 be obvious that this was an elaborate swindle upon the entire world.
13 We have however the TGA which job is to make sure that the stakeholders (Australians) are
14 appropriately protected. Well it seems to me that TGA John Skerritt was more concerned about
15 following “government policy” of former Director of the W.E.F. (World Economic Forum)
16 Minister for health Greg Hunt and Scott Morrison PM (I understand also connected with the
17 W.E.F.) then to safeguard Australian stakeholders. A clear example might be where there is a
18 process of “clinical trials” that will slowly increase the number of participants pending which
19 stage of the “clinical trial” is used. Well, having all Australians jabbed hardly shows any
20 responsible conduct of “clinical trial” stages. Moreover the “provisional approval for a “clinical
21 trial” actually prohibits the use of commercial obtained so called vaccines. Yet, this is precisely
22 what was being used! As such TGA John Skerritt should have stepped in to immediately halt any
23 usage of commercial items without proper approval. However, he seemed to be more interested,
24 as I view it, to even allow coercion upon Australians.
25 While I understand TGA John Skerritt claims that every batch that arrives is tested the question
26 is: REALLY?
27 What is it tested for? Just the vials don’t leak? Surely there can be no proper testing claimed
28 when around the world scientist are exposing the contamination of vials they checked. In some
29 cases 100% of the vials have items in them that are not listed as ingredients, yet can be harmful
30 if not fatal to a person injected with the substance in that vial.
31 One then have to ask for each government what are the Minister for Health and the Chief Health
32 Officer of each and every jurisdiction doing about it, other than playing sickening games?
33
34 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/
35 Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines
36 worsening clinical disease
37 QUOTE
38 Timothy Cardozo 1, Ronald Veazey 2
39 Affiliations expand
40 PMID: 33113270
41
42 PMCID: PMC7645850
43
44 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.13795
45 Free PMC article
46 Abstract
47 Aims of the study: Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics
48 standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if
49 sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID-19
50 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.
51 Methods used to conduct the study: Published literature was reviewed to identify

Page 57
1 preclinical and clinical evidence that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon
2 exposure to challenge or circulating virus. Clinical trial protocols for COVID-19 vaccines
3 were reviewed to determine if risks were properly disclosed.
4 Results of the study: COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may
5 sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated.
6 Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in
7 the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that
8 vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified
9 or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they
10 composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may
11 worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is
12 sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing
13 COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely
14 to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
15 Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and
16 significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and
17 independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as
18 those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in
19 order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed
20 consent.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 As I previous wrote about I used to attend to a playgroup and the nurse simply collected my
24 daughter for a vaccination never revealing what kind of vaccination it was and neither what, if
25 any dangers there was associated with it. It was just common that this process eventuated with
26 parents left unknown what they really needed to give “informed consent”. No proper supervision
27 by any Chief medical Officer/Minister for Health and it went on for decades. Now that I am
28 researching what has been going on it seems to me obvious that were had grossly incompetent
29 Chief Health Officer/Minister for Health no matter if they were replaced with others with the
30 same positions.
31
32 https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/u-s-cdc-director-announces-shake-up-citing-covid-
33 mistakes-1.6030960
34 U.S. CDC director announces shake-up, citing COVID mistakes
35 QUOTE
36 The agency has long been criticized as too ponderous, focusing on collection and analysis
37 of data but not acting quickly against new health threats. Public unhappiness with the
38 agency grew dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic. Experts said the CDC was
39 slow to recognize how much virus was entering the U.S. from Europe, to recommend
40 people wear masks, to say the virus can spread through the air, and to ramp up systematic
41 testing for new variants
42 “We saw during COVID that CDC's structures, frankly, weren't designed to take in
43 information, digest it and disseminate it to the public at the speed necessary,” said Jason
44 Schwartz, a health policy researcher at the Yale School of Public Health.
45 Walensky, who became director in January 2021, has long said the agency has to move
46 faster and communicate better, but stumbles have continued during her tenure. In April,
47 she called for an in-depth review of the agency, which resulted in the announced changes.
48 “It's not lost on me that we fell short in many ways” responding to the coronavirus,
49 Walensky said. “We had some pretty public mistakes, and so much of this effort was to
50 hold up the mirror ... to understand where and how we could do better.”
51 END QUOTE
52
Page 58
1 Without conceding that there is such a thing as a “virus” it seems obvious that the CDC itself
2 acknowledges it made mistakes sufficient to t\require reorganisation. yet, we have Australian
3 health officials referring to the CDC as it it is the source that knows what it is doing and for
4 everyone to follow. And the referral as being an agency, it is to my understanding a company
5 that acts in the interest of its sponsors, the pharmaceutical companies and not overlook Bill Gates
6
7 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/08/andrew-p-napolitano/on-government-invasions-of-
8 private-property/
9 On Government Invasions of Private Property
10 QUOTE
11 Privacy is a natural right because there are aspects of human existence and personal
12 behavior that are not subject to the government. Natural rights come from our
13 humanity. The natural right to own property has three aspects — the right to use the
14 property, the right to alienate (lease, pledge or sell) it, and the right to exclude
15 whomever and whatever the owner wishes — including the government.
16 As natural rights stem from our humanity, they may only be violated when we give
17 them up or waive them by our violation of someone else’s natural rights. When James
18 Madison wrote the Fourth Amendment, he rejected the waiver standard and instead
19 chose the easier-for-the-government probable cause standard as the sole element
20 justifying a government assault on property rights.
21 END QUOTE
22 And
23 QUOTE
24 The government claims it can examine your emails, bank accounts, medical and legal
25 records at will merely because it claims you have waived your interest in them by placing
26 them in the custody of others. This is, of course, farcical. Those custodians have a legal
27 duty to keep your records private. Yet, to get physically onto your property in defiance of
28 your will, the government must meet Madison’s probable cause standard.
29 That standard requires a showing to a neutral judge that it is more likely than not that a
30 crime has been committed and that it is more likely than not that evidence of that same
31 crime can be found in the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. These
32 standards come directly from the language of the amendment itself.
33 Does the probable cause standard adequately protect property rights? It does not. That
34 standard involves a weighing and balancing test pitting the nature of property ownership
35 against the government’s claimed need for evidence. It weighs the harm to property rights
36 caused by a government invasion as against the harm to the government by denying it the
37 fruits of its planned invasion.
38 The very concept of weighing a natural right against a government need is totalitarian. The
39 government needs whatever it wants, whereas our rights are inalienable unless we waive
40 them. A natural human right always supersedes a government wish. Thus, the only
41 standard that morally justifies government invasion of private property is waiver by the
42 violation of another’s natural rights.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 Private property includes also a person’s natural body. His/Her right to move freely in public
46 provided not to cause harm upon others and to comply with laws that are constitutionally valid.
47 Yet we had under the cover of purported “science” that didn’t exist at all, the State Government
48 issuing mandates such as restrictions of number of persons allowed in a person’s residence, etc,
49 the wearing of mask and other intrusions allegedly as to protect society when there existed no
50 scientific basis to justify this let alone any court decisions for this.
51

Page 59
1 https://naturalnews.com/2022-08-23-aerosolized-vaccines-sprayed-on-human-cities-for-global-
2 depopulation.html
3 VAX CARPET BOMBS: Aerosolized “vaccines” being developed that can be sprayed on
4 human cities for automatic depopulation
5
6 QUOTE
7 (Natural News) When conventional farmers want to carpet bomb a crop field with
8 insecticides to kill the insects, they spray the field with toxic chemicals. The chemicals are
9 absorbed by the insects and go to work destroying their nervous systems or circulatory
10 systems. Before long, millions of insects experience a “died suddenly” event.
11 When globalists want to kill off masses of humans living in high population density cities,
12 they can similarly carpet bomb the city with aerosolized “vaccines” that are designed to be
13 inhaled. These can be sprayed from low altitude aircraft in exactly the same
14 way malathion was sprayed on populations, presumably to control mosquitoes and the
15 over-hyped Zika virus.
16 A recent article from Eugyppius: A Plague Chronicle reveals that Bill Gates-associated
17 researchers are now pushing for covid nasal vaccines that could theoretically be sprayed on
18 populations and inhaled without individual knowledge or consent.
19 “Virus moron Eric Topol and snakeoil saleswoman Akiko Iwasaki plug mRNA nasal spray
20 hocus pocus, demand a second Operation Warp Speed to further tinker with billions of
21 human immune systems,” writes the website:
22 Oligarchic support for nasal spray vaccines proceeds primarily from the beleaguered mind
23 of Bill Gates, who is quietly disappointed in the performance of the mRNA elixirs and now
24 places the better part of his hope in masking…
25 END QUOTE
26
27 https://naturalnews.com/2022-08-22-the-mass-culling-of-the-human-herd-is-now-under-way.html
28 The mass culling of the HUMAN HERD is now under way… here’s exactly how it’s being
29 accomplished to achieve mass extermination
30 QUOTE
31 (Natural News) Globalists see humanity as cattle (or sheeple) to be exploited for as long as
32 needed, then culled like cattle herds when they are no longer useful. As globalist advisor
33 Yuval Harari is now saying (paraphrased), the age of humans is coming to an end on planet
34 Earth, and globalists have activated a multi-faceted plan to “cleanse” the planet of all
35 human beings.
36 If someone were to have some sick, twisted desire to kill off a herd of cattle, they could
37 simply shut off the water and the food. Death would come in a matter of days or weeks at
38 most. The same is happening right now to humans.
39 The water supply is being cut off via geoengineering, causing global droughts and
40 widespread crop failures. Entire cities like Los Angeles and Los Vegas are being
41 threatened with a terminated water supply in the years ahead.
42 END QUOTE
43
44 While air pollution is something that may not be deliberately done to target humans, nevertheless
45 if you were to start a stinking bon fire in your yard than authorities might be quickly arriving for
46 that you are polluting the air of your neighbours. Your right to use your property as you desire
47 may be curtailed when you use your property to offend the rights of others ling adjoining to you.
48 However, for the Government to permit any kind of spray that is specifically designed to harm
49 you, albeit using Rockefeller’s reasoning you claim it is for the best will while achieving the
50 opposite, might be the real issue here. After all, politicians will always claim that they do it for
51 the general community as who dare to think they are selfish, egoistic, etc? Just that in my view
52 any government cannot willy nilly permit spraying that may adversely affect the general
Page 60
1 community or any person in particular. The right to privacy includes in my view the right to
2 enjoy once life without undue disturbances. Being sprayed upon without you knowledge and/or
3 consent I view is a violation of your natural rights. Chemtrials as such may likely be considered
4 to be an invasion of your privacy where it directly/indirectly harms \your private environment.
5 The mere fact that some public servant may approve of any spraying itself in my view cannot
6 override your right to natural privacy. As such, even if a Government Department may approve a
7 certain spraying (perhaps being provided financial supports?) it in itself I view cannot override
8 your right to “natural privacy. As such, the Government would require to obtain a Court order
9 against each and every person who might become affected if such spray was to be done.
10 As we have witnessed in the last few years with this PLANDEMIC COVID-19 a Government
11 and its collaborators may make any claim to seek to justify doing whatever it desires even so the
12 real issue might be ulterior purposes such as spraying to affect the minds of citizens and so make
13 them more gullible to accept the NEW WORLD ORDER, but a judge must remain impartial and
14 must consider not the FICTION proffered by The Government but rather the FACTS.
15
17 Australasian Convention),
18 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
19 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
20 justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
21 END QUOTE
22 .
24 QUOTE
25 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people
26 and the states on terms that are just to both.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 As with so called vaccinations it is beyond the pale to merely assume that those claiming to rely
30 upon “science” when not having any scientific basis to prove this then it is nothing less than
31 TERRORISM to deliberately deny the general population and/or any member of this of their
32 “natural privacy”.
33
34 https://www.theepochtimes.com/untested-bivalent-covid-jab-being-rolled-
35 out_4679868.html?utm_source=healthnoe&utm_campaign=health-2022-08-
36 23&utm_medium=email&est=x%2Blg8%2FxqRTgCZcZAFSHwMQSbKJ%2FyUNiIrAbo1jLY89H%2B51lPkePc
37 vUJBHyWkEVDFkSH3%2Fs3FlBwx
38 QUOTE
39
40 Viersen, Germany - December 9. 2021 By Ralf Liebhold/Shutterstock
41 HEALTH VIEWPOINTS
42 Untested Bivalent COVID Jab Being Rolled Out
43 STORY AT-A-GLANCE
44  August 15, 2022, the U.K. became the first country to approve Moderna’s new bivalent
45 COVID booster — Spikevax bivalent — which contains mRNA that codes for the
46 original Wuhan strain spike protein and the Omicron BA.1 subvariant
47  The approval of the new booster comes on the heels of complaints about lack of demand
Page 61
1 for the shots. Moderna recently threw away 30 million doses of its original COVID jab,
2 as nobody wanted them, and the U.S., has tossed 82.1 million COVID jab doses in the
3 trash for the same reason
4  The Spikevax bivalent shot is already out of date, as both strains included are no longer
5 in circulation anywhere in the world
6  In the U.S., infections are currently caused by the BA.4, BA.5 and BA.2.12.1 variants of
7 Omicron. In Europe, Omicron BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 are the current “variants of
8 concern.” BA.1 is on the list of “de-escalated variants,” meaning it’s of no concern either
9 because it’s either not in circulation, or because it doesn’t cause severe illness
10  Coronaviruses mutate very rapidly, and when you vaccinate against a rapidly mutating
11 virus, you encourage it to mutate even faster, and to develop immune-evading properties.
12 This is what we’ve been witnessing since the beginning of the COVID jab campaign, and
13 outdated, leaky bivalent boosters may worsen the situation further
14 END QUOTE
15
16 Why indeed there isn’t a compulsory medical assessment for each person before any jab is given
17 as to make sure that the patient is not unduly harmed? After all the State of Victoria itself
18 recognises that not every so called vaccine is for every Victorian as special vaccinations are
19 exclusive for Australians of Aboriginal descent. Apart of that I view this is unconstitutional.
20
21 https://en-volve.com/2022/08/23/german-scientists-discover-hidden-toxic-components-in-all-
22 covid-vaccines-they-tested/
23 German Scientists Discover Hidden ‘Toxic Components’ In ALL COVID Vaccines They
24 Tested
25 QUOTE
26 Making matters even more disturbing, the Working Group for COVID Vaccine Analysis
27 says that some of the unusual toxic elements found in the AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and
28 Moderna vaccine vials were not listed in the ingredient lists from the
29 manufacturers.
30 The following metallic elements were found in the COVID vaccines:
31  Alkali metals: caesium (Cs), potassium (K)
32  Alkaline earth metals: calcium (Ca), barium (Ba)
33  transition metals: cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), titanium (Ti)
34  Rare earth metals: cerium (Ce), gadolinium (Gd)
35  Mining group/metal: aluminum (Al)
36  Carbon group: silicon (Si) (partly support material/slide)
37  Oxygen group: sulphur (S)
38 END QUOTE
39
40 To me this means that the Chief Health Officer and/or Minister for Health simply neither could
41 have done their jobs to make sure that all ingredients are listed, and likewise so the TGA!
42 How then could any person have provided “informed consent” without knowing the ingredients
43 in the vial? While the TGA may claim to check every batch, reality is that for whatever reasons it
44 to me failed disastrously to discover what ought to have been discovered. It makes me wonder if
45 there merely might be some arrangement that the checking is done not to upset the commercial
46 interest of the pharmaceutical company concerned!
47 END QUOTE 20220827-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the AFP-
48 Suppl 84-Urgent criminal investigation required Part 3
49
50 QUOTE 20210824-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian
51 Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-09-MURDER

Page 62
1 https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/941509
2 How Do You Distinguish COVID-19 From Flu in Kids?
3 QUOTE
4 The CDC recommends testing to differentiate between symptoms of flu and COVID-19. Key
5 symptoms cited to be different between the two are the the presence of loss of taste or smell as
6 COVID-19 symptoms.
7 Table. Similarities and Differences Between Flu and COVID-19
Symptoms Flu COVID-19
Fever (or feeling feverish) ✓ ✓
Cough ✓ ✓
Shortness of breath/difficulty breathing ✓ ✓
Fatigue (tiredness) ✓ ✓
Sore throat ✓ ✓
Runny or stuffy nose ✓ ✓
Muscle pain or body aches ✓ ✓
Headaches ✓ ✓
Possible vomiting and diarrhea* ✓ ✓
Change in or loss of taste ✓
Change in or loss of smell ✓

8 *More common in children than adults.
9 CDC website.[3]
10 One key thing to note is that people with COVID-19 do not develop symptoms right away as
11 compared to those with the flu. Persons with the flu are contagious for about one day before they
12 show symptoms. In contrast, persons with COVID-19 may be contagious for a longer period of
13 time before showing symptoms.
14 Study Highlights
15 The study by Song and colleagues[2] compared children diagnosed with COVID-19 between
16 March and May with children diagnosed with flu between 2019 and 2020. All data came from
17 one major US children’s hospital.
18 The main study outcomes were children’s symptoms at presentation and the course of illness for
19 the two infections.
20 Investigators compared 164 children who tested positive for COVID-19 with 1402 children who
21 had flu. The median ages of patients with COVID-19 and flu were 8.4 years and 3.9 years,
22 respectively, and there was a slight preponderance of males in both groups.
23 Researchers observed no significant difference in the rates of hospitalization (COVID-19: 17%;
24 flu: 21%); ICU admission (COVID-19: 6%; flu: 7%); or mechanical ventilation (COVID-19:
25 3%; flu: 2%) between groups.
26 No patient was found to have coinfection with both flu and COVID-19, at least in part because
27 of a sharp decline in cases of flu after schools closed on March 15, 2020.
Page 63
1 Two patients with influenza A infection died. There were no deaths among patients with
2 influenza B or COVID-19.
3 Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were generally older than children hospitalized for flu
4 (median ages: 9.7 and 4.2 years, respectively). Adolescents older than age 15 years accounted
5 for 37% of hospitalized patients in the COVID-19 cohort.
6 Rates of underlying medical conditions among pediatric patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and
7 flu were 65% and 42%, respectively (OR = 2.6 [95% CI: 1.4, 4.7]). Neurological disease such as
8 epilepsy or developmental delay were the most common comorbid illnesses recorded.
9 Fever and cough were the most commonly reported symptoms among hospitalized patients in
10 both groups; however, fever, diarrhea/vomiting, headache, chest pain, and myalgia were more
11 commonly reported in cases of COVID-19 vs flu. This difference was significantly pronounced
12 in comparing COVID-19 and influenza A.
13 Rates of cough, sore throat, dyspnea, and congestion were similar in the flu and COVID-19
14 cohorts.
15 The CDC recommends testing to differentiate between symptoms of flu and COVID-19. Key
16 symptoms cited to be different between the two are the presence of loss of taste or smell as
17 COVID-19 symptoms.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 The above seems to indicate that the flu symptoms and the claimed COVID-19 symptoms are
21 identical other than for the loss of smell and/or taste. Then again prior to the claimed COVID-19
22 existing the loss of smell and/or taste was also contributed to:
23
24 https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/smell-and-taste-disorders
25 Smell and Taste Disorders | Johns Hopkins Medicine
26 Anosmia. Loss of sense of smell · Ageusia. Loss of sense of taste · Hyposmia. Reduced ability
27 to smell · Hypogeusia. Reduced ability to taste sweet, sour, bitter, ...
28 QUOTE
29 Smell and Taste Disorders
30 Ear Nose and Throat Pediatric ENT (Otolaryngology)
31 What are smell and taste disorders?
32 The most common smell and taste disorders are:
33 Anosmia. Loss of sense of smell
34 Ageusia. Loss of sense of taste
35 Hyposmia. Reduced ability to smell
36 Hypogeusia. Reduced ability to taste sweet, sour, bitter, or salty things
37 In other disorders, odors, tastes, or flavors may be misread or distorted. They may cause you to
38 detect a bad odor or taste from something that is normally pleasant to taste or smell. These
39 disorders can affect quality of life. They may also be a sign of underlying disease.
40 Problems with taste and smell can suggest certain health problems, such as:
41 Obesity
42 Diabetes
43 High blood pressure
44 Poor nutrition
45 Nervous system diseases, such as:
46 Parkinson disease
47 Alzheimer disease
48 Multiple sclerosis
49 What causes smell and taste disorders?
50 Some people are born with these disorders, but most are caused by:
51 Illness (for example, cold or flu, sinus infection, and allergies)
52 Head injury
Page 64
1 Hormone changes
2 Dental or mouth problems
3 Nasal polyps
4 Exposure to certain chemicals
5 Certain medicines
6 Exposure to radiation therapy for head or neck cancer
7 Cocaine snorted through the nose
8 Cigarette smoking
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Yes, pull the other leg will you!
12
13 It must be clear that a person loosing taste/small also can be simply by other ways, as there are
14 videos around, where a person was unable to say if he was tasting union or something else. As
15 such, a person could innocently not being able to taste and/or smell not because of an illness but
16 merely because of some co-incidence having say a blocked nose. And one can get a blocked
17 nose not merely due to some illness but merely working in dust.
18
19 Obviously the question needs to be asked why on earth Are such absurdities such as so far
20 mentioned going on?
21
22 Is it that politicians, medical doctors, scientist, journalist, law enforcement officers, judges, etc
23 all list their marbles?
24 It seem to me that it is best to refer to the following video:
25
26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09maaUaRT4M
27 MASS PSYCHOSIS - How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL
28
29 I am not going to do a transcript as the video should be watched.
30
31 What seems to be clear is that MASS PSYCHOSIS is what I view seems to make politicians,
32 medical doctors, scientist, media, law enforcement officers and a host more all delusional that
33 they suddenly have a power and become totally unable to even understand let alone comprehend
34 that they not just place them selves in harms way but are blatantly ignoring the harm inflicted
35 upon their family members and others. How can anyone accept a medical doctor to conceal from
36 a patient the truth about the risk of being jabbed with a poison?
37 How can any politician destroy the very constitutional system that enabled this politician to hold
38 the position he/she does?
39
40 How can any law enforcement offici8er act in violation of laws that he/she seems wanting to
41 enforce against any law breaker?
42
43 How can any scientist rely upon “follow the science” when they have corrupted this?
44
45 How can any media get the trust of the readers when they so blatantly deceived the very readers?
46
47 Throughout my life I held that the medical profession was trustworthy, but since January 2020 I
48 discovered that most of them are not at all. For sure there are doctors/scientist who are still
49 earning the trust of patients and others because of presenting the TRUTH, but far too often
50 medical doctors and scientist have destroyed the trust in science, etc.
51
Page 65
1 We now have that reportedly the FDA (U.S.A.) has given final approval for certain so called
2 “vaccines” this even so the long term effects have not been established and in fact the “clinical
3 trials” are still to go on into 2023, etc.
4 What if the TGA in Australia were to do the same? Would this then somehow legally justify
5 whatever wrongdoing that was done.
6 Well, you can forget about that!
7
8 As I understand it blood cells ordinary do not stick together and are deemed to be “negative”
9 however it now appears that after the so called “vaccination” they become “positive” which I
10 understand makes blood clothing more likely besides many other issues.
11 END QUOTE 20210824-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the
12 Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-09-MURDER
13
14 Consider this nonsense about a daughter denied to visit her elderly mother because of not being
15 vaccinated when those who were vaccinated were no less but more likely to be more of a danger
16 to cause any infection, if it was indeed an infectious disease. Any e4xscuse we had it wrong
17 cannot be accepted as such as too many seek to excuse themselves, and blame whomever, rather
18 than to accept they never bothered to actually check the scientific data if what they were pushing
19 as a mantra, etc, was in fact based upon FACTS.
20
21 I cannot visit my elderly mum of 89 because I am Not Vaccinated - Northern Health Hosp. Vic.
22 healthachievers - <healthachievers@hotmail.com>
23 Mon, 20 Dec at 3:31 pm
24 QUOTE
25 This is so "mental: torture for my mum, who is bed ridden... has a twisted small bowel.
26 She may go into palliative care...
27 My sister who is vaccinated can only visit for one hour.
28 When communicating to Patient Experience -
29 : If my mum is vaccinated and my sister is vaccinated what risk exists?
30 Reply: is the Hospital Policy.
31 : If I, an unvaccinated and am healthy, wear ppe gear and mask - what risk exists?
32 Reply: Hospital Policy
33 : If Covid 19 is so contagious - then can the virus enter through the eyeballs?
34 Reply: No answer
35 God only knows, the torture my mum in her end of life is experiencing. A dog/animal has
36 more rights.
37 : I posed the question. I can see my mum, hold her hand as she is able to communicate,
38 rather than if she is "dying?" Note: I, may not be allowed to see mum, as I am not
39 vaccinated.
40 This is a nightmare for the whole family.
41 Who are the policymakers that under "compassion" grounds is "reasonable" for one hour -
42 out of an 8hour day?
43 : My mum cannot hold the phone and does not have a mobile phone. Essentially she is in
44 solitary confinement.
45 This can happen to any of us.
46 Essentially - "risk" is the achillies heel.
47 If ppe gear and mask is worn, and my sister is vaccinated...
48 What "risk" factor exists?
49 So, help me, God.
50 Marg
51 END QUOTE
52
53 https://allnewspipeline.com/Americans_Vaxxed_Lines_Up_Alarmingly_With_Deagel.php
Page 66
1 The Depopulation Smoking Gun: Alarming Charts Show The Number Of

2 Americans 'Vaxxed' Aligns Ominously With Deagel's Forecast Depopulation
3 Numbers For 2025
4
5 Deagel published in 2005 a DEPOPULATION for the world and it seems that this covid scam
6 was to achieve this. However, it appears not as such extensively having worked and so now
7 other bioweapons are likely going to be used to achieve this DEPOPULATION goal. And I
8 view the Victorian Government very much proved to seek to assist to achieve this.
9 Do notice Australia proposed reduction in population!
10
11 Why have a constitution when governments and law enforcement authorities are failing to
12 protect Australians against abuse of powers. Shadow banning, fraudulent charges to bank
13 account, etc. Defund the Australian Federal Police and replace it with a competent police
14 force.
17 Kershaw-Chief-Commissioner-of-AFP-Suppl-102-Shadow-Banning-Etc
18 QUOTE 20230820-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 102-
19 shadow banning, etc
20 All Australians are “sovereign” citizens and they ultimately are the ones who decide what
21 legislation is or is not accepotable.
22
24 QUOTE
25 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
26 parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark
27 on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer
28 supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They
29 have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That
30 must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament
31 under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of
32 changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
33 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of
34 being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary
35 sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring
36 into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and
37 executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 It is therefore misleading for the Voice to claim it will not cede “sovereignty”, but at the same
41 token now seek to dictate other non-Aboriginal soivereigns what rights they can be permitted to
42 have. Yet, the Minister and so ACMA failed misserably to place this misinformation/
43 disinformation before the Courts, even so it related to a very significant issue to amend the
44 constitution! Instead it now seems to have allowed (by its failure to act) a foreign company
45 META to silence Australians to expose the truth. This in my view underlines that the Minister,
46 ACMA and others are violating their duties and obligations for political reasons and by this
47 committing TREASON and TERRORISM that should be stopped rather than encouraged to be
48 supported by further legislation, which legislation in itself would be without the warrant of law.
49

Page 67
1
2
3 I have noticed that some of my Scribd published writings are “shadow banned” as while I have
4 them listed as being published they cannot be seen by others to exist. Which is a violation of my
5 constitutional rights of “political liberty”. The “shadow banning” of any Australian for
6 political purposes must never be tolerated by the Minister/ACMA considering it distort what is
7 really applicable and denies other Australians to make an “informed decision”.
8
9 The following doesn’t show up on the blog but when one use the link it shows up, meaning this
10 is called “shadow banning” that unless one has a link that works anyone going to the site will
11 not be aware this documents exist. As such keep it from ordinary persons who visit the site.
12 END QUOTE 20230820-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl
13 102-shadow banning, etc
14
15 Now, since 2023 it appears Scribd is shadow banning everything and this means likely that
16 ACMA and/or the eSafety Commissioner are interfering with my “political liberty” without a
17 court order to do so.
18
19 And let us consider the banning of NAZI signs in Victoria:
20
21 QUOTE 20230610-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 95
22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavei_Tzion
23 QUOTE
24 Archaeology[edit]
25
26 Byzantine remains
27 In 1955, remains of a Byzantine church were found along the beach path that leads
28 from Acre to Tyre and was dated to the 4th century. The excavations were led by Moshe
29 Prausnitz and the findings included Mosaic floors and walls as well as remains of an Artesian
30 aquifer.[8][9]

Page 68
1 END QUOTE
2
3 https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-wants-war-
4 russia/5773366?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
5 Who Wants War with Russia?
6
7
8
9 President Zelenskyy did so to show his association with the NAZI Azov troops, etc!
10
11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
12 QUOTE
13 Swastika
14 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
15 Jump to navigationJump to search
16 For other uses, see Swastika (disambiguation).
17
18 The swastika is a symbol with many styles and meanings and can be found in many
19 cultures.
20
21 The adoption of the swastika by the Nazis and neo-Nazis is the most recognisable modern
22 use of the symbol in the Western world.
23 The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍, is an ancient religious symbol in various Eurasian cultures,
24 now also widely recognized for its appropriation by the Nazi Party and by neo-Nazis.[1] It
25 continues to be used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indic religions, including
26 Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.[2][3][4][5][6] It generally takes the form of a cross, the arms
27 of which are of equal length and perpendicular to the adjacent arms, each bent midway at a
28 right angle.[7][8]
29 In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s[9]
30 when the German Nazi Party adopted a right-facing ('clockwise') form and used it as an
31 emblem of the Aryan race. As a result of World War II and the Holocaust, in the West it
Page 69
1 continues to be strongly associated with Nazism, antisemitism,[10][11] white

2 supremacism,[12][13] or simply evil.[14][15] As a consequence, its use in some countries,
3 including Germany, is prohibited by law. [A] However, the swastika remains a symbol of
4 good luck and prosperity in Hindu, Buddhist and Jain countries such as Nepal, India,
5 Mongolia, Sri Lanka, China and Japan. It is also commonly used in Hindu marriage
6 ceremonies and Diwali celebrations.
7 The word swastika comes from Sanskrit: स्वस्तिक, romanized: svastika, meaning "conducive
8 to well-being".[16][6] In Hinduism, the right-facing symbol (clockwise) ( 卐) is called
9 swastika, symbolizing surya ("sun"), prosperity and good luck, while the left-facing
10 symbol (counter-clockwise) ( 卍 ) is called sauwastika, symbolising night or tantric aspects
11 of Kali.[6] In Jain symbolism, it represents Suparshvanatha – the seventh of 24 Tirthankaras
12 (spiritual teachers and saviours), while in Buddhist symbolism it represents the auspicious
13 footprints of the Buddha.[6][17][18] In several major Indo-European religions, the swastika
14 symbolises lightning bolts, representing the thunder god and the king of the gods, such as
15 Indra in Vedic Hinduism, Zeus in the ancient Greek religion, Jupiter in the ancient Roman
16 religion, and Thor in the ancient Germanic religion.[19] The symbol is found in the
17 archeological remains of the Indus Valley Civilisation[20] and Samarra, as well as in early
18 Byzantine and Christian artwork.[5]
19 In various European languages, it is known as the fylfot, gammadion, tetraskelion, or cross
20 cramponnée (a term in Anglo-Norman heraldry); German: Hakenkreuz; French: croix
21 gammée; Italian: croce uncinata; Latvian: ugunskrusts. In Mongolian it is called Хас
22 (khas) and mainly used in seals. In Chinese it is called 卍字 (wànzì) meaning "all things
23 symbol", pronounced manji in Japanese, manja (만자) in Korean and vạn tự / chữ vạn in
24 Vietnamese.
25 Reverence for the swastika symbol in Asian cultures, in contrast to the stigma attached to it
26 in the West, has led to misinterpretations and misunderstandings. [9][21]
27 END QUOTE
28 And
29 QUOTE
30 
31 The petroglyph with swastikas, Gegham mountains, Armenia[73]
32
33 Swastika seals from the Indus Valley Civilisation preserved at the British Museum
34
35 The Samarra bowl, at the Pergamonmuseum, Berlin. The swastika in the centre of the
36 design is a reconstruction.[74]
Page 70
1 Historical use
2 In Asia, the swastika symbol first appears in the archaeological record around [63] 3000
3 BCE in the Indus Valley Civilisation. [21][75] It also appears in the Bronze and Iron Age
4 cultures around the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. In all these cultures, the swastika
5 symbol does not appear to occupy any marked position or significance, appearing as just
6 one form of a series of similar symbols of varying complexity. In the Zoroastrian religion
7 of Persia, the swastika was a symbol of the revolving sun, infinity, or continuing
8 creation.[76][77] It is one of the most common symbols on Mesopotamian coins.[6]
9 The icon has been of spiritual significance to Indic religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism
10 and Jainism.[5][6] The swastika is a sacred symbol in the Bön religion, native to Tibet.
11 END QUOTE
12 And
13 QUOTE
14
15 A 3,200-year-old swastika necklace excavated from Marlik, Gilan province, northern Iran
16 END QUOTE
17
18 Well, the necklace is reportedly 3,200 years old and so you unlikely would know who it
19 belonged to. Still, it may underline that banning certain signs, etc. is utterly stupid where they
20 have multi functions.
21 It is like countries banning the “Z”, “V”, “O” and other letters because the Russian Federation
22 uses this to identify certain groups of forces. Ban all letters and then what kind of alphabet
23 instead do you propose to use?
24 END QUOTE 20220515-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the
25 Australian Federal Police-Suppl 66-use of cluster bombs on civilians, etc
26
27 And then consider what I recently published:
28
29 https://www.australianjewishnews.com/attorney-general-launches-federal-bill/
30 https://www.australianjewishnews.com/remembering-a-giant-of-the-community/
31 ‘We will act to keep you safe’
32 There is no place for symbols that glorify the holocaust.
33 By MARK DREYFUSJune 8, 2023, 8:50 am
34 QUOTE
35 In my view Mark Dreyfus is a hypocrite who claims to oppose the Hakenkreuz/Swastika and
36 claiming that “6 million” Jews were murdered a mantra that was already claimed in the late
37 1800’s and time and time again even before World War I and so later again in WWII.
38 Yes, members of my Jewish family were recorded to have died in Auschwitz but I prefer to
39 stick to facts rather than to the British propaganda, etc. The Brits were first claiming
40 (propaganda) that Hitler was gassing injured German soldiers, etc. At times their own
41 propaganda came back to them and they admitted they spread the lies. The same we have with
42 the Ukraine NAZI Government mass murder/Genocide and well it seems to me that Mark
43 Dreyfus
44 Is so horrified about what his grandparents had to go through that somehow he
45 seems to me to have no problem to fund and provide weapons, vehicles and
46 ammunition for the Ukraine NAZI Government armed forces to display the
47 “Hakenkreuz” and promote the NAZI’s. President Zelenskyy showing of his T-shirt
Page 71
1 with the “Hakenkreuz”. And well we know that “Travelling Pete” (Anthony
2 Albanese) was meeting up with Zelenskyy soon after the 2022 purported federal
3 elections to (albeit unconstitutionally) assure him to get funds, vehicles,
4 ammunition, etc.
5 And anyone checking out my blog will discover that I wrote extensively to
6 Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and he never even bothered to respond let alone to
7 act appropriately to stop this kind of support for a NAZI government.
8
9 This document explains why for several decades there was not a single valid
10 candidate standing for a federal election, and I rely for this also upon my successful
11 appeals on 19 July 2006! Also the W.H.O. wanting to grab power from all countries to
12 implement the NEW WORLD ORDER is in my view beyond any federal government
13 power to allow for this. After all, one vote for representation and not for some
14 irresponsible organization to dictate our rights and what we may be permitted to do,
15 etc! Check out how scientist conceal information, never mind the risk of death to
16 many!
17
19 https://www.scribd.com/document/574750931/20220518-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-R-Kershaw-
20 Chief-Commissioner-of-the-Australian-Federal-Police-Suppl-67-No-Valid-Federal-Election-Etc
21
22 This part 2 of Supplement 84 sets out issues including polio issues, alleged climate
23 change, etc. Those who desire to fight FAILING TO VOTE issues may also like to
24 read up on what I did set out. Do understand you may not desire to read page after
25 page but then do not complain when you become a victim caused by politicians and
26 their collaborators that you might have been able to avoid had you just done the
27 reading.
29 https://www.scribd.com/document/589117773/20220826-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-R-Kershaw-
30 Chief-Commissioner-of-the-AFP-Suppl-84-Urgent-Criminal-Investigation-Required-Part-2
31 END QUOTE 20230610-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 95
32
33 Why doesn’t Parliament ban knives from kitchens when they are used a lot in harming even
34 killing others? The same with the swastika that has been used for thousands of years! So, we
35 have the federal government unconstitutionally financing NAZI Ukraine but you are not allowed
36 to display the swastika? This just doesn’t make sense, and then what really does when politicians
37 wreck the country in various ways and then retire with a job well done while citizens then will
38 be left with the disasters that was put upon them. Allegedly Bill Gates is the largest landholder in
39 the USA, and likely is a non-for-profit (non-profit) registered with some organisation not to have
40 to pay land taxation, etc, and so artificially can enrich himself while ordinary land holders are
41 having to pay more to make up for this shortcoming. The right was is to ensure a ‘UNIFORM”
42 taxation system where those seeking to minimise taxation for charity purposes will have to prove
43 they have actually spend the monies on charities and not charities in which they have any stock
44 holdings, etc.
45
46 Video: “Profit The Teaching Lab is a”
47 QUOTE

Page 72
1
2 END QUOTE
3
4 Video: “Soros Backed Not-For-Profit Behind Indictment of Parnas, Fruman”
5
6 You find all over the world that organisations/companies, etc, are using not-for-profit (non-
7 profit) taxation registrations as a scam for funding political and other issues. Do you really think
8 that Bill Gates would be the larges USA land holder if he like anyone had to pay taxes?
9 But in Australia we have political parties also as not-for-profit taxation registration which has
10 nothing to do with “charity”.
11
12 Then now my SHOCK AND AWE !
13 It is unconstitutional to use taxpayer’s monies like about $39 Billion a year for Aboriginals (that
14 includes Torres Strait Islanders. In fact unlike what you may perceive that Aboriginals have
15 “Australian Citizen” as a nationality be4cause of the 1967 S51(xxvi) referendum the truth is not
16 only has no Australians a nationality as “Australian Citizenship” because as I (representing
17 myself) successfully and unchallenged submitted in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka including a
18 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER served on all 9 Attorney-Generals that
19 Australians are by birth or by naturalization all “Subjects of the British Crown” (as such the Sue
20 v Hill HCA decision was without jurisdiction!) by nationality but while Aboriginal were since
21 federation all “Australian citizen” merely by the fact that their residence in a State/Territory
22 provided them with State/Territorial citizenship and AUTOMATICALLY Australian Citizenship
23 to indicate their place of abode (not nationality) but with the 1967 s51(xxvi) con-job referendum
24 they actually lost their state/Territorial citizenship and were stripped of Australian citizenship by
25 this also. Meaning, that constitutionally they have no franchise and are not permitted to be
26 Members of Parliament, etc. And, because of being included in s51(xxvi) the Framers of the
27 Constitution made it very clear:
28
30 QUOTE
31 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
32 Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
33 END QUOTE
34
36 QUOTE
37 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the
38 states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
39 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
40 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws
41 will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of
42 making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
Page 73
1 END QUOTE
2
4 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
9 END QUOTE
10
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
14 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable
15 to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation
16 with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal race in any state.
17 Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general
18 community" I understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If
19 it means the general community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of
20 saying that the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do
21 that, because any single state would have the right to do it under any circumstances. If it
22 means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not see why it should
23 not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
24 particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known
25 instances. For instance, if Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get
26 hawkers' licences under certain conditions which are not [start page 228] applicable to
27 Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do not know how it
28 will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
29 confines of Victoria at all.
30 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
31 Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put
32 them in the same class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole
33 community of the Commonwealth. I do not think that this has any application. If it is to
34 have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to debar the state from passing
35 legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think that that
36 sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
37 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was
38 to deal with the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior
39 races, though I do not know with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the
40 Commonwealth at the time it is brought into existence, or who may under the laws of the
41 Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have made the dealing with aliens,
42 which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the Commonwealth,
43 and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so that all
44 those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the
45 Commonwealth will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration,
46 but will remain subject to any laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for
47 them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth should not have power to devise such
48 laws.
49 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
50 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
51 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
52 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of
53 aliens and immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
Page 74
1 END QUOTE
2
4 QUOTE
5 That the words "The affairs of," first line sub-section (1),be omitted.
6 [start page 253]
7 Mr. BARTON.-I have no objection to taking it that way.
8 Mr. DEAKIN.-I think it must now be perfectly clear that what we desire is, not to
9 deprive, the Federal Parliament of its paramount power in every respect in regard to
10 any dealings with the races referred to, but to leave to the several states, until the
11 Federal Parliament legislates upon the alien question, the operation of all legislation
12 already passed, and the the right to legislate in the future until the Federal Parliament thinks
13 fit to supersede it by specific legislation. For instance, the Federal Parliament might well
14 pass a general law applying to these races without making any reference to their
15 employment as miners or hawkers, and any state legislation in regard to those occupations
16 which might be in existence would continue, or now legislation regarding them might be
17 introduced. When the Federal Parliament chooses to make regulations in regard to the
18 employment of aliens as hawkers and miners, the state legislation will cease to have effect.
19 The honorable and learned member (Mr. Symon) said-Hand to the Federal Parliament all
20 powers connected with aliens, and allow them to give back certain powers to the state." We
21 say-Instead of taking these powers from the states and giving them back again, let us leave
22 them with the states until the Federal Parliament chooses to assume them."
23 Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I do not think it makes any substantial
24 difference whether you put this provision in clause 52, or leave it where it is. The Federal
25 Parliament has first to say what races it is: necessary to make regulations about.
26 Mr. ISAACS.-That is giving a rather limited meaning to the words "deemed
27 necessary."
28 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only
29 body to which the words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial
30 difference does it make whether we leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52?
31 True, if the provision is left where it stands, the Federal Parliament will have exclusive
32 power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have exclusive power when it
33 chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed legislation
34 dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive
35 power will have arisen. The only matter for the committee to consider is as to the
36 expediency of leaving the provision here or of putting; it into clause 52. Wherever it is, it
37 will, upon the passing of the Constitution, operate as an intimation to the Federal
38 Parliament that this is a matter of national import, upon which they are expected to
39 legislate. Once within the Commonwealth citizens should be able to go freely from one
40 state to another; there should be no lines of differentiation between states. If races are
41 admitted into one state, and are not free to go into another, the inconveniences of
42 administration, especially on the borders, will be very great. It has been thought well that
43 there should be a uniform law throughout Australia in respect to the citizens of
44 Australia, and it was considered that this provision should be put into a separate
45 clause giving exclusive powers, in order to emphasize the fact that the Federal
46 Parliament should legislate upon this matter. In my opinion, whether you put the
47 provision into clause 52, or leave it where it is, its substantial legislative effect will be the
48 same. As to the meaning of the words, "the affairs of the people of any race with respect to
49 whom it is deemed necessary," in my opinion it is the Federal Parliament who must deem it
50 necessary.
51 Mr. ISAACS.-What is the meaning of the statement that the state cannot legislate
52 for the whole general community?
Page 75
1 Mr. BARTON.-That is by way of description. A law made by the state does not apply
2 to the general community.
3 [start page 254]
4 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-My argument is that deemed necessary means deemed necessary
5 by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Assuming that I am right, I ask to whom does this
6 clause extend? The persons named by an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament. When the
7 Commonwealth Parliament deals with this subject, its legislation will over-ride any local
8 legislation, no matter whether you put the provision in clause 52 or leave it in clause 53.
9 What the representatives from Victoria want is exactly what is provided here, but the
10 provision is put where it is for the purposes of extra emphasis, and to indicate to the
11 Federal Parliament that they are expected to make over-riding and general legislation in
12 regard to this vital question. I think honorable members are, almost without exception,
13 strongly of opinion that there should be federal legislation upon this matter, and I therefore
14 believe that it will meet the wishes of honorable members if we leave the provision exactly
15 where it is, as a means of hurrying up the Federal Parliament and causing it to legislate in
16 this matter as soon as possible.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 Again:
20
22 QUOTE
23 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
24 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not
25 applicable to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize
26 legislation with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal race in any state.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 All and any laws regarding Aboriginals (including Torres Strait Islanders) are therefore
30 unconstitutional where they are in some manner against the “general community”! This includes
31 where alleged land rights deny Australians to use a beach, etc.
32 Again in 2006 in AEC v Schorel I extensively supported with a NOTICE OF
33 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS had this before the courts and succeeded in both appeals
34 unchallenged!
35
36 The 2023 VOICE referendum was a con-job referendum, because even if it had allegedly
37 succeeded it would have clashed with S51(xxvi) and s25 of the constitution. It simply was a
38 communist VOICE referendum.
39
40 There is a lot more to it but safe to state that Sue v Hill was (unconstitutionally) wrongly
41 decided. Likewise so, MABO, Sykes v Cleary, The Barnaby Joyce and numerous other cases.
42 As for environment issues they are not within the legislative powers of the Commonwealth, this
43 as the Framers of the Constitution specifically denied this legislative powers!
44 Actually the Tasmania Dam case was wrongly decided also because the issue related as to a river
45 within one State and as such fell outside the Commonwealth powers.
46
48 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
49 I do not see the necessity for considering the hon. member's proposal at the present
50 time. I am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to
51 be proud of that position. I have no desire to weaken a single link binding us to that
52 empire, whether as regards the appointment of a governor-general or anything else.
Page 76
1 END QUOTE
2
4 QUOTE
5 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that
6 we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
7 END QUOTE
8
10 QUOTE
11 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will
12 come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who
13 would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for
14 such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
15 Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it
16 is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two
17 men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only
18 is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant.
19 What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a
20 citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual
21 citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce this
22 clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those who say
23 that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which
24 we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much
25 better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can
26 that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude
27 anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a
28 citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want
29 to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be
30 prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an
31 argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth
32 Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen
33 of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
34 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
35 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
36 rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every
37 citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth
38 shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
39 with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so
40 on.
41 END QUOTE
42
44 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
45 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with
46 regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the
47 Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted
48 elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is
49 not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
50 END QUOTE
51
53 QUOTE
Page 77
1 Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.
2 Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the
3 power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and
4 learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this
5 Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
6 exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we
7 acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is
8 put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot
9 on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a
10 lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to
11 become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
12 having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-
13 "Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out
14 of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to
15 take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union.
16 END QUOTE
17
19 QUOTE
20 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
21 END QUOTE
22 .
24 QUOTE
25 Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution
26 we will have to wipe it out."
27 END QUOTE
28
29 As for Barnaby Joyce and many others who did not make an oath of alliance and neither were
30 born in a foreign country and as such s44 of the constitution doesn’t apply as such:
31
33 QUOTE
34 [start page 1012]
35 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia)[8.33]: Before the Committee proceeds to consider the
36 amendment which has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, I
37 would suggest that we make an alteration in the first portion of the clause by adding words
38 to the effect that these disqualifications shall operate until the federal parliament
39 otherwise provides.
40 The Hon. E. BARTON: Does the hon. member contemplate the federal parliament
41 making provision exempting a man who has taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign
42 power?
43 Mr. GLYNN: This provision is really temporary. It is to cover the gap between the
44 adoption of the constitution and the passing of special legislation by the federal parliament.
45 I would ask hon. members also to consider the effect of sub-clauses II and III. For instance,
46 the meaning of the term "bankrupt" itself may change. It may be very different twenty
47 years hence from what it now is. Then there is the word "felony." As Sir Samuel Griffith
48 has pointed out, the meaning of the word "felony" is changing considerably. In some
49 colonies felony is comparatively a light offence; in other colonies it is a heavy offence. In
50 New Zealand felony is practically unknown to the federal law. Changes similar to that
51 which have taken place in New Zealand in regard to the meaning of the word may take
52 place in other colonies, and if you leave the clause as it stands you will put it in the power
53 of the states parliaments to either extend or diminish the qualification by making a change
Page 78
1 in the meaning of "felony." I say that this is a matter for the federal parliament, and that it
2 ought not to be fixed perpetually in the constitution. Again, as regards the construction of
3 the clause itself, I would draw the attention of the Drafting Committee to another matter.
4 The hon. member, Mr. Barton, has referred to the taking of an oath or declaration of
5 allegiance. The first part of the clause, it will be seen, does not read with the latter part of
6 it. For instance, it says, "Any person who has taken an oath or made a declaration or
7 acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power." The
8 clause then goes on to say that the person shall be incapable of being chosen or sitting as a
9 member of the senate or of the house of representatives until the disability is removed.
10 But, once a man takes an oath of this kind, you cannot remove the disability because
11 a thing is done. The amendment required is purely a drafting amendment. The way in
12 which the matter should be put would be, until the removal of the disqualification caused
13 by the taking of the oath. That is the evident intent of the clause; but the wording of the
14 clause is altogether different. I think this is a matter that ought to be left to the federal
15 parliament, and I think that the words I suggest should be adopted.
16 The HON. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[8.36]: I am unable to see that it would be a
17 good thing to limit this clause in the way suggested by my hon. friend, Mr. Glynn, who has
18 said that this is a matter that should be left to the federal parliament. This happens to be
19 just one of those matters which are included in the constitution of every one of the
20 colonies. All the colonial constitutions provide for such matters as these, and it is perhaps
21 right that they should provide for them, for even in the first parliament it would be rather a
22 strange thing to find persons who had taken oaths of allegiance to foreign powers, who
23 were undischarged bankrupts or insolvents, or who had been recently attainted of crime, or
24 convicted of felony or infamous crime. Unless you have provisions of this kind, it is quite
25 possible that somebody might take a violent affection for a gaol-bird, and put him into
26 parliament. We do not want that sort of thing. It is one thing not to put limita- [start page
27 1013] tions on the ordinary freedom of the citizens of the commonwealth. It is another
28 thing to provide against the defilement of parliament; and this would be the case as regards
29 the 3rd sub-clause, whilst in the case of the 2nd sub-clause it would be the admission into
30 parliament of persons who had not purged themselves of certain disabilities, while in the
31 case of the first subclause it would be the entry of persons into parliament whose very
32 conditions would suggest that their interests were quite different from those of the citizens
33 of the country. Persons who have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power are
34 not to be classed in the same category as citizens of the country for the purpose of
35 joining in legislation.
36 An HON. MEMBER: And not to be trusted?
37 The Hon. E. BARTON: Not to be trusted, prima facie!
38 Mr. GLYNN: That is not one of my points!
39 The Hon. E. BARTON: If the definition of a point is a thing of no magnitude, it is not a
40 point because it is larger. These limitations having been put in all constitutions of the
41 Australian colonies, and having worked well, and prevented the entry of undesirable
42 persons into parliament, they may well be continued in the constitution we are now
43 framing. They are not limitations of the freedom of the electors. It is scarcely to be
44 supposed that, except by inadvertence or accident, the electors would vote for such a
45 person; but it is quite possible that the electors of the commonwealth, not knowing that
46 certain persons had taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power or had become attainted
47 of some crime, or become bankrupt or insolvent-it is quite on the cards that such persons
48 would stand for election for the commonwealth parliament, and the electors might choose
49 them, not knowing who they were. That is not at all an improbable supposition. Such a
50 thing has happened, and it is a kind of thing which the electors are to be protected against,
51 because it is a state of things the electors themselves could not provide against. They might
Page 79
1 be taken in warily; they might be caught in a trap. This is not merely a case of preserving
2 the freedom of the electors, but of preventing them from being imposed upon by persons
3 who otherwise might creep into parliament, perhaps, in some cases, persons who were
4 insidious enemies of the commonwealth, and in other cases persons who had been attainted
5 of crime, or who were under other conditions of which they should rid themselves before
6 they offered themselves for election to any legislative assembly. I submit that on the whole
7 it is very desirable to avoid making the alteration suggested by the hon. member, Mr.
8 Glynn; and while I am speaking, I think I might say that, although it is far less
9 objectionable, it would be desirable also not to accept the amendment that has been
10 suggested by the Legislative Assembly of this colony.
11 END QUOTE
12 .
14 QUOTE
15 Mr. WISE.-You cannot impose exceptional treatment upon the citizens of another
16 state; that applies to everything.
17 END QUOTE
18 .
20 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
21 Surely every person who has the suffrage-the right to vote within the Commonwealth-
22 and who lives within the Commonwealth, is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and
23 entitled to all its privileges, including the right to take part as the Commonwealth
24 provides in the framing of the laws.
25 END QUOTE
26
28 QUOTE
29 Mr. DEAKIN.-That might relieve it of a number of its paupers. I do not make that
30 statement of the single tax as such, but a land tax might have that result. The leader of the
31 Convention points to the divorce which exists between the Federal Parliament and the land
32 as contrasted with the state Parliaments, and their relation to the land, but the difference is
33 not so wide as his argument would imply. For, after all, there does rest dormant in this
34 Constitution a power of direct federal taxation which can reach the land if it ever becomes
35 necessary to do so. Consequently if it be found that by injudicious or injurious land
36 systems this burden is being cast on the Federal Commonwealth, the Federal
37 Commonwealth will fortunately have within its own power a means of remedying to some
38 extent any such law, and of placing the burden where it ought to be placed-on the land.
39 [start page 22]
40 Mr. BARTON.-Would not that be the only rational thing for the Federal Parliament to
41 do-to put on a land tax?
42 END QUOTE
43
45 QUOTE Mr. HOLDER.-
46 Surely there would be at least one representative out of the whole Senate and one member
47 of the House of Representatives, who would have individuality enough, and strength
48 enough, to get up and challenge the order of any particular measure which might be
49 disorderly under this clause of the Constitution.
50 Mr. ISAACS.-They would not all sit on the same side of the House.
51 Mr. HOLDER.-I should think not. They would not all be Ministerialists, or all members
52 of the Opposition, or all members of any particular party; and I cannot believe that any Bill
53 which contained anything objectionable at all could pass through both Houses of the
54 Federal Legislature without finding some one member of either of the two Houses who
Page 80
1 would rise to a point of order, and have such a Bill laid aside of necessity as being out of
2 order under this provision.
3 END QUOTE
4 And
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-It is worth while considering the stages that a
8 proposed law has to go through, and the opportunity afforded to a member of either House
9 or a member of the Executive to call attention to any infraction or infringement of the
10 Constitution. It does not require a majority of the members of the House of Representatives
11 to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed in the matter of procedure; it only requires
12 one solitary member to rise to a point of order, and the Speaker has to give a legal
13 interpretation of the rules of procedure. It only requires one member of the Senate to
14 call the attention of the President to the fact that a Bill is introduced contrary to the
15 Constitution for that proposed law to be ruled out of order. It does not require a
16 majority of the states to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed, because a
17 majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the Constitution. Neither House
18 could pass the standing order which would give the majority power to dissent from the
19 Speaker's or President's ruling. The standing orders only confer certain explicit power.
20 They give no power to either House to pass an order which would enable its members to
21 amend the Constitution.
22 END QUOTE
23
25 Convention)
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
32 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
33 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
34 Constitution,
35 END QUOTE
36
38 QUOTE
39 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by
40 the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in
41 effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies,
42 and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been
43 the work of Australians.
44 END QUOTE
45
48 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
49 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
50 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection
51 and secure to him.
52 END QUOTE
53

Page 81
1 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the
2 observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of
3 misconception.
4 END QUOTE
5
7 QUOTE
8 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
9
10 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law,
11 every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state
12 Parliament will be a sentry.
13 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
14 sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 The question is: are you a genuine “sentry” as referred to by the Framers of the Constitution? Or
18 will you ignore the proper application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution when
19 it doesn’t suit your political views and intentions?
20
21 DISCLOSURE: One of my daughter’s first (female) cousins married an Australian of
22 Aboriginal descent, and they had 5 children.
23
24 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
25
26 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
27 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
28 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

29 (Our name is our motto!)
30
31
32


20240203-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senator David Shoebridge

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

20240203-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senator David Shoebridge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

1 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

1 Before them where the Murraysians (~25,000 years ago).

3-2-2024 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 historical event - someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking

3-2-2024 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 19 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 22 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 28 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 29 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

11 Our name is our motto!

3-2-2024 Page 30 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

35 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

3-2-2024 Page 33 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 34 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 35 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 37 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 40 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 41 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 There need to be a registry of people who aren’t vaccinated.

1 And that’s what we’re doing.

1 But it really wouldn’t make that much of a difference?

1 BRANDON SCHADT, BUSINESS LEAD, JOHNSON & JOHNSON:

1 So, you said I shouldn’t trust the media?

1 Ukraine 44,030,000 31,628,980 12,401,020 28.165%

1 END QUOTE 20220604-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Ambassador H.E. Dr Alexey Pavlovsky

20 Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?

21 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.

3-2-2024 Page 55 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 56 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 58 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 61 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Fever (or feeling feverish) ✓ ✓

Shortness of breath/difficulty breathing ✓ ✓

Runny or stuffy nose ✓ ✓

Muscle pain or body aches ✓ ✓

Possible vomiting and diarrhea* ✓ ✓

Change in or loss of taste ✓

Change in or loss of smell ✓

1 The Depopulation Smoking Gun: Alarming Charts Show The Number Of

3-2-2024 Page 66 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 67 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 continues to be strongly associated with Nazism, antisemitism,[10][11] white

3-2-2024 Page 71 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-2-2024 Page 80 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

28 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

3-2-2024 Page 81 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like