20240414-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re Written Submission ADDRESS TO THE COURT

Page 1
1
2
3 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN (Australia, Victoria date) 14-4-2024
4
5 20240414-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re written submission ADDRESS TO THE COURT
6
7 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
8
9 For those contemplating to litigate against me the following better be understood, as no matter
10 who it is I am not a person to so to say ‘roll over’ and anyone involved in any litigation better be
11 aware what you actually seek to accomplish if this is in the “public interest” and also for
12 yourself. The Framers of the Constitution were referring to:
13
14 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
15 Australasian Convention), (page 151)
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. RUTLEDGE: I think that in a matter of this kind we should proceed as far as possible
18 by familiar analogy, and, though perhaps the suggestion of the analogy may, in the minds
19 of some hon. members, be thought entirely inappropriate to an assemblage of this kind-
20 though the suggestion or the expression of the analogy may in some quarters create a
21 smile-yet it appears to me that in order to have a perfect system of federal government, we
22 ought, as far as possible, to preserve an analogy to that form of Government which prevails
23 in a model family. Now, in the case of a model family we know that the husband
24 represents the entire household.
25 An HON. MEMBER: In providing for the expenditure!

26 An HON. MEMBER: There is no federation there!
27 Mr. RUTLEDGE: The husband is supposed, in the natural order of things, to be the
28 representative of the entire household but, though he is a representative of the entire
29 household, we know that the wife also plays a very important part in the government of
30 that household. The wife comes very near to all those smaller constituent elements of the
31 family circle, which may, perhaps, by analogy be likened to the great family of states
32 which will exist in connection with this great federal constitution.
33 Colonel SMITH: She is the home ruler!

34 Mr. RUTLEDGE: It is the wife that knows all about the particular interests which affect
35 all the members of the family group: they come to her with their particular ideas, and they
36 look to her for the expression of their ideas and for the enforcement of their particular
37 claims.
38 Mr. MUNRO: Not for finding the income!
39 Mr. RUTLEDGE: With regard to that interjection, I say that he is a wise man who,
40 being the head of a household, puts all his financial projects into the crucible of the
14-4-2024 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 sagacious mind of his wife, far more enlightened, far more discriminating than his own.
2 Colonel SMITH: With the power of veto!

3 Mr. RUTLEDGE: I say yes, with the power of veto. In this community many a man
4 owes a great deal to the advice of his wife and the veto which she has put upon his
5 proposals. We know that those strong headed men who think that all wisdom is embodied
6 in themselves, who do not take their wives into their confidence, who do not consult their
7 wives as to some particular speculation on which they desire to embark, are the men who
8 very frequently come to grief. But the men who do take, their wives into their confidence in
9 this way, and who do permit them to have a considerable voice in the management of
10 family affairs, even to putting a veto upon their own impulsive tendencies in regard to
11 financial proposals, are the men who go on very safe lines. No analogy is perfect; every
12 analogy will break down when you come to some particular modes of applying it; but I do
13 regard a great family of states, governed by a house of representatives and a senate, as
14 bearing a very considerable analogy to the constitution of a family; and I say the same rule
15 which prevails in the one ought to prevail in the other.
16 Sir THOMAS McILWRAITH: The wife initiates most of the money bills there!
17 Mr. RUTLEDGE: The wives do initiate a great many of the money bills, and I appeal to
18 the experience of a great many hon. gentlemen to know whether they have not been
19 saved very frequently from financial mistakes by consulting their wives in regard to
20 important steps which they proposed to take in the very serious affairs. of life.
21 END QUOTE
22 (Writers note; See also 9 March 1891 Page 151 & 152)
23
24 The reference to “a model family” I view refers to a husband and wife and one or more children.
25
26 What was presented is that the Commonwealth is the parent and the States (former Colonies) are
27 the adult children, who albeit cannot overrule the parents authority have gained their own rights
28 to conduct their own affairs within the powers provided to them.
29
30 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
32 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the
33 observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of
34 misconception.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 Actually the British Government did also read the Hansard Debates so they gained an
38 understanding what the Constitutional convention with its draft proposal the Commonwealth of
39 Australia Constitution Bill was sought to achieve. Afterwards when the Bill was presented the
40 British government then made some amendments it held was appropriate before the Bill was
41 passed by the British Parliament and enacted in 1900.
42
43 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)
44 QUOTE
45 More to the same effect appears in the debates, which were long and thorough and
46 contain nothing to the contrary. While the general rule precludes the use of these debates to
47 explain the meaning of the words of the statute, they may be considered as reflecting light
48 upon its general purposes and the evils which it sought to remedy. Federal Trade
49 Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 650 , 51 S.Ct. 587, 79 A.L.R. 1191
50 END QUOTE
Page 3
1
2 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)
3 QUOTE
4 A like situation was [295 U.S. 602, 627] presented in the case of Cohens v. Virginia,
5 6 Wheat, 264, 399, in respect of certain general expressions in the opinion in Marbury v.
6 Madison, 1 Cranch, 137. Chief Justice Marshall, who delivered the opinion in the Marbury
7 Case, speaking again for the court in the Cohens Case, said: “It is a maxim, not to be
8 disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with
9 the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be
10 respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit, when the very point
11 is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually
12 before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles
13 which may serve to illustrate it, are considered in their relation to the case decided, but
14 their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.”
15 And he added that these general expressions in the case of Marbury v. Madison were to be
16 understood with the limitations put upon them by the opinion in the Cohens Case. See,
17 also,
18 Carroll v. Lessee of Carroll et al., 16 How. 275, 286-287; O'Donoghue v. United States,
19 289 U.S. 516, 550 , 53 S.Ct. 740.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 ‘The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second
23 down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized
24 version of the first.’
25 Thomas Jefferson
26
27 While the Framers of the Constitution had their desires to have a federation, regrettably the
28 moment they became judicial officers they then started to undermine the very Constitution they
29 had been involved to be created.
30
31 In The Municipal of Sydney v Commonwealth 1904 they then started to undermine the true
32 meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the Constitution and ever since
33 judges have with the aid of politicians vandalized the true meaning and application of the
34 constitution big time. Politicians in particular appear generally more concerned about getting into
35 power and staying in power and becoming in the process a TRAITOR and/or TERRORIST
36 doesn’t seem to be of any concern.
37 They are there foremost of their urge for more and more power, but willing in the process to
38 unduly harm not just the general community but also their own family members regardless it
39 may kill them. Anyone who may question this statement merely has to read this entire document
40 to become aware that indeed this is so. We have a constitution called the Commonwealth of
41 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) but one may ask how many politician s really are
42 competent in what it stands for? And then the judiciary, it either fails to understand what
43 “separation of powers” stand for or they just couldn’t give a darn! And it appears to me they
44 neither understand what “IMPARTIAL Administration of Justice” means.
45 My benefit was that I was not born in Australia and neither knew the English language and so
46 had to educate myself to be able to communicate in the English language, by this I was not
47 brainwashed as most people in my view were to belief a lot of rot and so fail to really understand
48 what the constitution stands for. I will below try to educate the reader!
49
50 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
51
Page 4
1 Sir/Madam,
2
3 I am aware that customary one addresses ma judicial officer as “Your Honour” but my
4 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION also related to you!
5
6 Before you may wish to unleash upon me let me set out the following::
7
8 Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
9 QUOTE
10 The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the
11 inalienable right of everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:
15
16 LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335
17 QUOTE
18 But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of
19 justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises
20 the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in
21 the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to
22 err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives
23 to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of
24 criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice,
25 they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the
26 scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary man
27 END QUOTE
28 .
29 The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
30
31 THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER “THE EVENING
32 NEWS” (1880) N.S.W. LR 211 AT 239.:
33 QUOTE
34 The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be
35 disputed. Our practice of sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions
36 as we do, always in the broad light of day, would be shown of some of its value if the
37 public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be rigidly suppressed. We
38 claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
39 END QUOTE
40 .
41 As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
42 (a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368
43 (b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
44 (c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
45 (d) SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31
46 .
47 Not to refer you to you as “Your Honour” is not to insult you but simply that this OBJECTION
48 TO JURISDICTION has to establish certain FACTS which I intent to come to below.
49
50 Law Encyclopedia: Coram
51 [Latin, Before; in the presence of.]
52 The term coram is used in phrases that refer to the appearance of a person
53 before another individual or a group. Coram non judice, "in the presence of
Page 5
1 a person not a judge," is a phrase that describes a proceeding brought

2 before a court that lacks the jurisdiction to hear such a matter. Any
3 judgment rendered by the court in such a case is void.
4
5 QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
6 Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged,
7 cannot be assumed and must be decided.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
11 Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 QUOTE Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.
15 Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the
16 legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 QUOTE Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27
20 Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it
21 assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. .
22 END QUOTE
23
24 QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,
25 Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven
26 END QUOTE
27
28 QUOTE HALSBURY’S LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460):
29 Consent to summary jurisdiction The consent to be tried summarily must be clear
30 and unequivocal and a failure to carry out the procedures for obtaining the consent
31 will deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine the matters summarily.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 QUOTE Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
35 Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even
36 on appeal.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 QUOTE In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
40 Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have
41 jurisdiction to hear is void, ab initio.
42 END QUOTE
43
44 QUOTE (Jagens v. Lavine, 415 S.Ct.768).
45 Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.
46 END QUOTE
47
48 QUOTE Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
49 There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 QUOTE Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.
53 Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction
54 asserted.
55 END QUOTE
56
Page 6
1 QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

2 The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it
3 must be proven.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 QUOTE Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
7 Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that
8 the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather,
9 should dismiss the action.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 QUOTE Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
13 Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of
14 law, court is deprived of juris.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 QUOTE Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
18 A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without
19 jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or
20 property.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 QUOTE Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
24 The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 The latter quotation means that the Court cannot determine jurisdiction on its own but requires
28 the submissions and evidence of both sides (parties) albeit the objector doesn’t have to disprove
29 jurisdiction as an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION places the onus upon the opponent party
30 to prove jurisdiction! A judge must remain IMPARTIAL and it is absurd that a judge would do
31 the work for the opponent Counsel!
32
33 QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,
34 No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 QUOTE Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
38 Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 Well, Carmody J County Court of Victoria simply assumed jurisdiction without even bothering
42 to have the opposing Counsel to try to prove jurisdiction!
43
44 QUOTE Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.
45 When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date,
46 the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a
47 judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially,
48 but merely ministerially.
49 END QUOTE
50 .
51 QUOTE Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.
52 Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a
53 nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be
54 rejected upon direct collateral attack.
55 END QUOTE
56
Page 7
1 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:

2 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
3 important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
4 END QUOTE
5 .
6 Bowers v Smith (1953) 1 ALL ER 320 (Re Clarke Hall) and (Morrison on Children, 7 Ed, P3)
7 QUOTE
8 "... the first business of the court is to try to issue whether or not the case is
9 bought within the terms of the statute, and only if this be proven by proper
10 evidence can the court proceed to decide upon treatment"
11 END QUOTE
12
13 Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:
14 "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until
15 proved guilty according to law”
16
17 Well the ATO, Councils, etc, are not even concerned about charging a person they just take the
18 position that they are above the judicature and themselves decide the guilt and innocence
19 unilaterally! It should be understood that the EUI legislation and acceptance of the Un
20 Declaration of Human Rights because the UK was a member state this then complimentary
21 applies also to the Commonwealth of Australia.
22
23 If I were to claim for the last 10 years that not a single judgement by any court in Victoria was
24 legally valid and enforceable you more than likely would think this is absurd.
25
26 If I were to claim for the last 10 years that not a single judgment in Australia was legally valid
27 and enforceable then well you may just start to wonder if I were on some drugs.
28
29 What if I were to make it say 20 years instead of 10 years?
30
31 What if I were to make it 30 years?
32
33 What if I were to claim that not a single Member of Parliament is validly appointed?
34
35 While perhaps you may start thinking there should be a vacancy in an asylum that could be
36 filled, but let us continue.
37
38 We in 2020 had January standing out that there was a Covid-19 virus going on and well then PM
39 Scott Morrison made clear there was a war going on with an invisible enemy. But Health
40 Minister Greg Hunt (formally a Director with W.E.F.) and John Skerritt TGA boss well
41 clinical trials were commenced with the covid-19 vaccines but they announced the ‘vaccines”
42 were “safe and effective”. I was wondering why hold clinical trials with reporting dates about 2
43 years later when we already know they are “safe and effective” as we were told from start?
44 And, didn’t the States and Territories dictate covid-19 mandates like wearing a mask to keep the
45 virus out? Like you put a wire fence around your property and the mosquitos obviously cannot
46 fly over it and the wire fence holes being about 50 mm obviously will not let any mosquito
47 flying through the wire mesh?
48
49 I about 4 decades ago appeared before a judge at the bar table and well I was making a claim that
50 the other party had committed an “assault”. Oh boy, did I get a dressing down from the judge
51 that I couldn’t at the Bar table make a totally unsupported claim using a merely general word,
52 and His Honour went into an explanation that when you make a statement you need to back it up
Page 8
1 with FACTS, and his Honour referred to if someone was to claim I was drunk, going along the
2 street in a unstable manner but then I could respond that I had as a pedestrian been hit by a car
3 and attended to a hospital which used alcohol pads to clean the wound and after that I decided to
4 walk home even so still unsteady from the accident.
5
6 His Honour made his point all right. I was forever grateful of this lesson.
7
8 When the claim was made that there was a covid-19 virus which was an invisible virus enemy I
9 obviously was immediately reminded about where are the FACTS?
10
11 As I and neither my wife watch television or listen to the radio (unless I happen to hear it in the
12 car) I was wondering where is the evidence that such covid-19 virus exist?
13
14 Well, a scientist in England made clear (January 2020) that the moment China released the
15 sequence of the (alleged) virus within 2 hours they had the answer as to how to combat the virus
16 with vaccines.
17
18 Oh boy, are they not clever?
19
20 Then she was on another show and claimed it was 3 hours.
21
22 Well, it seems to me that she was making up things.
23
24 I understand that Peter Doherty Institute (Melbourne) claimed in January 2020 to have found at
25 least 6 versions of the virus. They even as I understand it were awarded a $10,000 prize, for
26 doing so. Just that I understand that in regard of legal proceedings in Germany held in 2023 it
27 turn out that after all Peter Doherty Institute actually never isolated and purified the alleged
28 covid-19 virus. But at least they gained contracts with the government for advice how to combat
29 covid-19.
30
31 And well I understood that the Federal constitution that is the Commonwealth of Australia
32 Constitution Act of Australia 1900 (UK) had provided for “separation of powers” as follows:
33
34  Parliament (legislator)
35  Federal government (Executives)
36  Judicature (judiciary)
37  Inter-State-Commission s101 (Expert deciding application of trade and commerce laws, etc)
38
39 And the States were created in Section 106 of this constitution “subject to this constitution”!
40
41 The States were to have a “separation of powers” structure also.
42
43 I just wonder then when Chief Health Officer (CHO) Brett Sutton announced that the (covid-19)
44 mandates were not applicable to the Members of Parliament and the courts, where did I miss the
45 separation of powers bit? After all, at least as I understood it the Courts are a sovereign entity
46 within the States as are the Parliament buildings. And why excluded members of the government
47 and their staff and judges when there is this oh so deadly invisible virus going on, that those who
48 were not injected were deplorable that likely were causing others who were “vaccinated” to be
49 harmed, and they should therefore be excluded from society.
50 So, my wife who suffers from heart failure and other comorbidities, in 2020 being only as young
51 as 87-years and was not even permitted to travel with me to go shopping and so at risk of her life
Page 9
1 had to stay home, as only one member of the household was permitted to get basic needs. And
2 the German government is on record that the pandemic never existed (See below). Remember
3 how I referred to the word “assault” and the trial judges made clear that details had to be
4 provided and not merely some general word? Well, what on earth where the judges doing when
5 they accepted that crap about this covid-19 virus and they violated the constitution by claiming
6 that the States could deny a person to travel interstate? (See below for more.) Are they next
7 going to make rulings regarding the deadly or other horrible dangers of the tooth Fairy, that the
8 Tooth Fairy to collect teeth will cause some disease to have teeth falling out and so we better all
9 wear nappies 24/7 to try to prevent the Tooth Fairy to get near our teeth.
10
11 My wife in utter fear whenever I went shopping, as already I had been physically attacked in a
12 supermarket for not wearing a mask, and even so I provided a photo of the person nevertheless
13 the police somehow was unable to locate him, despite having the receipts of his purchases paid
14 for by card. It seemed to me they really held I deserved it to be violently attacked by a male
15 about 1/3 of my age. Well, I a few weeks later file a formal report in the police station, and I did
16 walk in without a mask, while there were numerous police officers inside the building walking
17 past me but they wisely left me alone. However, 2 police officer in another shopping centre
18 decided to ask me for my driver’s licence, and obviously I questioned why on earth they wanted
19 me to show my driver’s license when I was not driving a motor vehicle in the store. Oh I get it I
20 pushing a shopping trolley might now require a person to have a driver’s licence that is when not
21 vaccinated. I was informed I would receive a “summons” to go to court, and my response was “I
22 am ready”. Oops, that was wrong to state because now they never issued a summons, likely they
23 checked me out on the internet exposing the elaborate “covid scam”!
24
25 If just I had not stated “I am ready” then I might have had then the opportunity to battle the
26 “covid scam” nonsense!
27
28 Why on earth did the courts close down for this INVISIBLE enemy virus whereas the trial judge
29 so long ago made clear the court requires FACTS. Where were the FACTS such “covid scam”
30 virus existed? Surely the courts should have the evidence before adjudicating upon something
31 that was claimed to be INVISIBLE?
32
33 I understand that after federation on 1 January 1901 the Governor of Victoria on 2 January 1901
34 published in the Victorian Gazette the Letters Patent which included that the Governor could
35 provide for an IMPARTIAL Administration of Justice. How then can we have an
36 IMPARTIAL Administration of Justice if it allows itself to be dominated by the State
37 executives and its officials even having listed the Courts as a part of the Department of Justice
38 and dictating it to close for this INVISIBLE virus? Perhaps, I am wrong in holding that a Chief
39 Justice is ultimately responsible for the relevant Court and doesn’t has to answer to the
40 Government of the Day how it operates the judiciary, this as the judicature is having a sovereign
41 status. How on earth can the Government of the Day dictate to the judiciary what it must or must
42 not do where the Government of the Day actually was pursuing the UNCONSTITUTIONAL
43 mandates? That is right, the States/Territories had no constitutional powers to make any
44 mandates to “man-kind” diseases as it falls exclusively within the Commonwealth exclusive
45 powers since the Quarantine Act 1908 and later being superseded by the Biosecurity Act 2015.
46 Well the High Court of Australia in Palmer v WA somehow concealed this part of its judgment!
47 (see below for a set out.)
48 Obviously I am left to question as to the judiciary really being “IMPARTIAL” when it seems to
49 me to be siding with the Government of the Day in clear violation of the constitution?
50 Well, to be honest I spend over 3 decades preparing just for such an event, to expose this rot.
51 Let me now go back in time.
Page 10
1
2 I in 1971 with wife and child migrated to Australia, just that we didn’t speak the English
3 language. While living in The Netherlands and serving in the Royal Dutch Army I had collected
4 statutes regarding the Dutch constitution as I held this interesting. Migrating to Australia I
5 decided that instead I would research the Australian constitution. After all having to know from
6 day 1 the myriad of legislative provisions of the Commonwealth and relevant State without
7 being able to speak or write the English language was a bit rich as they say “not knowing is no
8 excuse”, well unless you are a law breaking politicians as then them not knowing somehow is
9 generally accepted. As such learned the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
10 at least I held would be better as then I would know which legislation was likely to be
11 unconstitutional. Just that not being able to speak the language let alone write it I spend
12 countless hours translating word for work using a Dutch-English little translation booklet. It was
13 an agonis, excruciating work, besides working in management in factories, but I never regretted
14 doing so.
15 The more I translated the more I was wondering if I was really living in Australia or some other
16 foreign country as what was stated in the constitution versus how things were being done was
17 often completely different.
18
19 Anyhow in 1982, a young woman mother of 3 children living with her de facto husband confined
20 to me that she contemplated suicide. Oh boy, I have no medical or scientific training and now
21 facing a young woman who at anytime might possibly killing herself, so I just used “common
22 sense” and suggested that what she ought to do is to be a person in her own right such as getting
23 a drivers licence. Well, she asked me what is the use of having a driver’s licence but no car to
24 use it with. I explained that by her getting a drivers licence she would self-improve her status and
25 self esteem and that she is a person in her own right and where she had her driver’s licence I
26 would let her use my (about) new car so she could drive her children and de facto around. And I
27 made clear I would pay for her to get her driver’s licence. I actually did so and on the morning
28 she had to go for her test she was all in tears that she never was going to make it, etc. I then
29 explained she had no choice that she had to do the test and she better immediately get her license
30 as if she failed I would pay for new test until she got her license. Her De facto seemed to hold I
31 was cruel to her, at least that was how he expressed himself to me. But what he didn’t seem to
32 consider that it was his conduct that drove her nearly to suicide! She went for the test and came
33 back she had succeeded and then made known that what I had stated was precisely what she
34 needed. She now was using my car for well over a year but then her de facto (not a motor
35 mechanic) decided to strip the motor and left it in a public car park, and well I needed a tow
36 truck to have it repaired.
37
38 In the meantime word had gone around that I would listen to people and more and more people
39 asked my assistance, many had bad court experiences and they were made aware that I would not
40 charge anyone for any assistance or representation in court, if that was needed.
41 I was really filling a position that was missing in society, and did so for 37 years until my wife in
42 2019 became serious ill.
43
44 While I was assisting/representing people it became to me absolutely clear that the way courts
45 are run far too often caused uncalled misery to the many, in particular where many lawyers are
46 making false and misleading statements from the Bar table to succeed for their client where
47 otherwise their client would have lost the case.
48
49 I became acute aware that trying to clean up the utter mesh through the courts would be likely
50 very unsuccessful as judges more than likely prefer to go along with the lying, deceptive lawyers
51 then with FACTS.
Page 11
1
2 I used a slogan “All you have to do is sleep with the Registrar” because I discovered that
3 Registrars were ignoring what the judges had actually ordered and simply would alter the orders.
4 For example, a judge who issue an order referring to “each weekend” and the order was issued as
5 such, but then 4 more different versions were subsequently issues and the last one now showed
6 “each alternative weekend”. I questioned the Registrar about the various different version and his
7 response has that different people in the Registry simply held the orders needed rectification to
8 make it more appropriate in the English language. Well, in my view changing from “each
9 weekend” to “each alternative weekend” hardly is a correction in grammar of the English
10 language.
11
12 I also discovered that the transcripts could have as many as 9 incorrect statements per page. One
13 day I was reading from a document at the Bar table but then when I received the transcript the
14 wording” that Scott is the husband’s” was shown to be “that Scottish bastard”. There is no way a
15 trial judge would have permitted such kind of inappropriate language! The transcript was later
16 corrected.
17
18 I often came across Counsels (barristers) who would claim to quote an Authority-judgment but
19 then afterwards when I checked the transcript versus the recorded judgment in a law report I
20 found the Barrister having changed word to suit his client’s case whereas had he not the case
21 would have been adverse to his client.
22
23 And the young woman I had assisted way back in 1982 contacted me in 2017 asking me if I was
24 willing to assist Roberta Williams regarding the 2010 murder of Carl Williams. I never had
25 followed the case but accepted to do so. Roberta Williams provided me with a large box of
26 documents and while scanning each page I happen to come across a note written by Carl
27 Williams that he held that his lawyer Nicola Gobbo was a police informer. (In 2018 it became
28 known to the public that indeed Nicola Gobbo had been all along a police informer but
29 somehow her conduct as an OFFICER OF THE COURT to place the Administration of Justice
30 in disrepute seems to have really little consequences, let alone how she undermined her victims
31 their constitutional and other legal rights. When I checked the Victorian Ombudsman
32 investigation report it appeared to me that the Ombudsman was unknown who had delivered a
33 CD to Carl Williams containing his statements to the police. However, I also came across a note
34 from the prison itself naming the police officer who had delivered the CD and it was checked by
35 the (call him) Governor of the prison. I also discovered that there was a record of a fellow
36 prisoner having a copy of this CD (Obviously someone provided it to that prisoner and one has
37 to ask why?) and about 5 weeks later this governor disappeared in the Grampian and never
38 reappeared and neither so his body but a copy of the CD was found in his car. To me this was
39 clear circumstantial evidence that either the police officer and/or the prison staff had copied the
40 CD. However, staff indicated that the governor had no ability regarding computers and had not
41 been seen making a copy. Well, if the CD was inspected on the computer then it could have
42 remained in the memory and then anyone could have burned a copy afterwards, but that would
43 not explain why the copy was found in the car unless the governor himself put it there?
44 It seems to me that those working for the State government were implicated having set up the
45 murder of Carl Williams, and so I extensively set this out in documentation and provided this to
46 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Victoria Police, IBAC, etc, but to no
47 avail. Dhakota Williams was by this robbed of her grandfather’s inheritance as the ATO had
48 deceived the Court in litigation against George Williams (Carl’s father)!
49
50 In representing parties ( was assisting with my special lifeline service) I had a case where the
51 opponent party had filed a DVD albeit I discovered that the DVD was burned a day after the
Page 12
1 Affidavit had been sworn, and had a different content then that which was served on the party I
2 represented as well as the one on file. I made this known to the judicial officer but to no avail!
3 Nothing was done to hold that party accountable for having engaged in this deceptive conduct.
4 Moreover, I received an order that was dated on my birthday and I knew that the party I
5 represented had no court date for that particular day and neither was any application served. I
6 wrote in to the judge making clear she should disqualify herself as it appeared to me that she had
7 secret communication with the opposing party’s lawyers. She did get of the case and later it
8 turned out she and her staff had 5 secret phone calls together with the opposing lawyers.
9 I over the years read numerous files (legal files from lawyer’s clients) and discovered how
10 instructing lawyers were making known to a barrister to seek an adjournment albeit using
11 deliberate false/misleading grounds. For example, the instructing lawyer urged the barrister to
12 get an adjournment on the basis the father was alleged having sexual abused the child, but to be
13 careful as there had been an investigation and the father was cleared of any wrongdoing.
14 I have witnessed in the Registry lawyers tampering with the files the Registrar handed over to
15 them, by writing in the Affidavits of their client, etc. as such tampering with the courts files
16 without the client’s knowledge.
17
18 And again I proved this.
19 A man contacted me that the police were pestering him that he had broken into his estranged
20 wife’s residence and had stolen jewellery, etc. Later he again was accused of similar incidents.
21 The man indicated he was unable to work due to the police attending to his work on at least 2
22 occasions, etc. He denied any wrongdoing, etc. Including the allegation he had bashed his wife in
23 the UK. There was a lot more that even I contacted the Police in the UK, etc. Still, he ended up
24 with a lot of orders against him, while he was still in the UK. Anyhow, I accepted to do his case
25 and having contacted the UK police and asking them if the lay out was as I suspected it was, they
26 confirmed this and they also made known that in fact they had earlier attended to another
27 residence where the wife had been found to have had a fight with another man and when they
28 attended to the wife’s residence they found the husband and the children asleep. Yet while the
29 husband was still in the UK the wife had claimed in Australia in court her husband had basher
30 her. Some years later, the former wife died of cancer and the reported stolen jewellery was found
31 in her safe deposit box. She had been compensated previously by the insurance company for the
32 alleged stolen jewellery. There was a lot more to it all but you may get the gist.
33
34 Already in the 1980’s I found that the courts really were a disaster and held I should try to do
35 something about it but the courts themselves unlikely would want to clean up what is wrong
36 within their system. I in 2001 became remarried and when there was an announcement that there
37 was to be a federal election I decided I better would stand as an INDEPENDENT candidate. This
38 I did, only to discover that the writ was incorrect regarding the House of Representatives. I
39 attended to the High Court of Australia to file for a mandamus (as it has original jurisdiction) but
40 was advised to file in the Federal court of Australia. I attended there and requested their forms
41 and was informed I had to create them as they never had such a case. I created the forms and
42 filed them and after appearing before on judge the matter was adjourned and I appeared then
43 before another judge with Mr Peter Hanks QC appearing for the Commonwealth. Mr Peter
44 Hanks QC during his submissions was referring to an Authority and to me it didn’t seem to be
45 correct what he stated.
46
47 ADDRESS TO THE COURT
48 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
49 QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
50
51 In May and June 2006 the Defendant provided the Commonwealth Director of Public
52 Prosecutions with correspondences which included most of the submissions the Defendant
Page 13
1 intended to make to the Court, including for a “PERMANENT STAY” of orders, and also about
2 religious objection, seeking the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to consent to a
3 “PERMANENT STAY” of the proceedings relating to the charges. However, having done so,
4 the Defendant then is faced with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions being for
5 warned as to what the Defendant intends to do in most issues and as such may seek to counteract
6 those arguments. It is not the counter argument itself that the Defendant is worried about, but the
7 deceptive conduct employed in the past by the lawyers acting for the Australian Electoral
8 Commission in their litigation to the extend as to deliberately replace words in what is claimed to
9 be an Authority being quoted as to pretend to the Court that a judge made a certain ruling even
10 so the ruling is a fraudulent version to deceive the Court. Such as Mr Peter Hanks QC did before
11 the Federal Court of Australia and later again made a deceptive statement to the High Court of
12 Australia.
13
14 For example, checking the transcript of the hearing, it is noted that Mr Peter Hanks QC in his
15 argument in point 22 and 22.1 of the OUTLINE stated the following;
16
17 QUOTE
18 22 In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred
19 to the general rule that “not less than” so many days refers to clear days – “unless the
20 context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention”.
21 END QUOTE
22 His quotation is again false and misleading!
23
24 Mr Peter Hanks QC quoted of the judgment the following;
25 QUOTE
26 “unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention”
27 END QUOTE
28 This ought to be;
29 QUOTE
30 “unless the context or the subject matter reveals a contrary intention”
31 END QUOTE
32
33 Clearly, that is a gross deception. In legal terms there can be a significant difference in a case for
34 the Court to deal with a “statutory intention” versus “subject matter”.
35
36 Mr Peter Hanks QC stated to the Court (7 November 2001);
37
38 The researches of counsel have been unable to find provisions using simular language (“not
39 less that” or “at least” a number of days) where the language is as clear and specific as
40 found in ss156(1) and 157.
41
42 Thousands upon thousands of Internet references can be found upon a search “shall not be less
43 than” or “shall not be less that”. As such this statement by Mr. Peter Hanks QC for the
44 Australian Electoral Commission was a fraudulent statement. Likewise other statement were
45 found by the defendant to be deceptive and/or misleading.
46
47 We also have the fact that Counsel Mr peter Hanks QC argued the authority of the
48
49 ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD
50 (1950) 81 CLR 161
51
Page 14
1 What counsel did however was to make a false and misleading presentation of what the case
2 really was on about.
3 As the authority stated:
4
5 The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which
6 was too short by one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position.
7
8 Mr Peter Hank QC didn’t argue that the authority wasn’t relevant, to the contrary he argued its
9 relevance only by misrepresenting how it applied and what the authority really was on about. As
10 such, it had nothing to do with “within” as Mr Peter Hanks QC argued as clearly the usage
11 “within” was in a different context and not at all as Mr Hanks sought to imply and did imply.
12
13 It ought to be considered a serious matter that a barrister employs these kind of tactics, indeed
14 deceptive tactics, but it seems the Australian Electoral Commissioner does not seem to worry
15 about the means as long as it achieves his end results.
16 Because I expect the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to come up with any
17 nonsense and unable to verify the correctness of any claims they may make about any
18 AUTHORITY they may refer to I am left no alternative but to present my own research.
19 Lawyers are “OFFICERS OF THE COURT” but I experienced that when it comes to the
20 Australian Electoral Commissioner being the instructing party then it seems to me from
21 experiences their “oath of alliance” is worthless and they cannot be trusted, as set out also further
22 in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT.
23
24 It is my view, that had Mr Peter Hanks QC not concealed matters and not presented fraudulent
25 Authorities and how they applied then the Federal Court of Australia would not have ruled that it
26 had no legal jurisdiction, and would in fact have granted the orders I sought. And in the end this
27 case would never have eventuated before this Court as then matters could have been addressed
28 appropriately before any federal election had been held!
29
30 I take the position that Subsection 245(14) of the Constitution is not and cannot be regarded to
31 limit the right of a objection to be only a (theistic belief ) “religious objection” but includes also
32 any secular belief objection.
33
34 If Subsection 245(14) was limited to being “theistic belief” then it would be unconstitutional.
35
36 QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
37 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
38 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
39
40 C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
41 Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
42 GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
43 Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
44 T01567737 & Q01897630
45 AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
46
47 Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)
48 offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.
49
50 Madam,

Page 15
1 As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate
2 that while using the “religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of the
3 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an objection
4 only to an “theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in fact it also includes any secular
5 belief based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses as grounds for
6 an “objection”. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of
7 Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only “theistic belief” based “religious
8 objections”. Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source of
9 “religious objection” have a valid objection.
10 Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state his/her
11 religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious objection” as the
12 mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a
13 “religious objection”. Therefore, the wording “religious objection” is to be taken as “objection”
14 without the word “religion” having any special meaning in that regard.
15 If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
16 I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.
17
18 Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
19 END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
20 END QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
21
22 He also made clear that the court could not hear the matter as it was not within its jurisdiction.
23 (However 2 days later the AEC then somehow litigated in the same court against One Nation!)
24 My position was that the election could not be held on 10 November 2001 but should be held on
25 17 November 2001 because of the legal requirement that 10 clear days were needed and the writ
26 only provided for 9 days. My application was dismissed. I never had any doubt that the court no
27 matter how right I was would railroad my case, as I view it did.
28
29 The purported election was held and as the candidate I published my material that claimed that
30 “compulsory” voting was unconstitutional and that “state land taxation” was unconstitutional.
31 The AEC in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka decided to charge me for “FAILING TO VOTE” and I had
32 no doubt that if it succeeded it would likely then charge me for misleading electors, etc, for not
33 being compelled to vote.
34
35 I requested within FOI Act copies of the Gazette as it is required to publish the Proclamation of
36 the dissolving and prorogue of the Parliament. To my horror I received the documents showing
37 that the Gazette while dated 8 October 2001 was not published until 9 October 2001 in some
38 States and some others on 10 November 2001 and some not at all. Meaning the writs were issues
39 while the House of Representatives had not been dissolved and Parliament had not been
40 prorogued at all. No valid writs were issued. Obviously the Governor-General could have issued
41 an amended Proclamation to have the election on 17 November, as it should have been all along,
42 but that never eventuated.
43
44 On 4 December 2002 the matter came before the Magistrates Court of Victoria and so my
45 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS which I had filed previously and served on all
46 9 Attorney-Generals.
47 Counsel for the Commonwealth gave me the understanding that the issues I raised had never
48 been litigated previously and consented for the Court to issue an Order that the NOTICE OF
49 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS be heard and determined by the High Court of Australia.
50 That was on 4 December 2002, and as to date (more than 21 years later) the High Court of
51 Australia has not heard and determined the matter and I suspect never will as it cannot do so
52 because of implied bias. As I will set out below.
Page 16
1 However, the matter was also heard on 19 July 2006 as I will refer to below also, at which time I
2 succeeded in both appeals!
3
4 As I on constitutional ground opposed the “compulsory” part of voting the legislation objected
5 against was therefore ULTRA VIRES, unless and until if ever at all a court of competent
6 jurisdiction would declare it to be INTRA VIRES. This never occurred since.
7
8 Remarkably the AEC charged me again for FAILING TO VOTE in the 2004 federal election,
9 despite the legislation being ULTRA VIRES.
10
11 On 4 August 2005 the matter returned before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg and
12 Counsel for the Commonwealth claimed “AVERMENT”, this I opposed as the Kable principle
13 also underlined that the Commonwealth must find the State Courts exercising federal jurisdiction
14 as it is and cannot implement different legal procedures, etc.
15 The magistrate upheld my objection and ordered for the Commonwealth to file and serve all and
16 any evidence it relied upon. Counsel then claimed that it would be truck loads, this even so all
17 ballot papers regarding the 2001 federal election had already been destroyed, as the legislation
18 provides for 12 months before the ballots can be destroyed, and the 2004 ballots were about to be
19 destroyed. The matter returned before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg on 16 and
20 17 November 2005 and the Magistrate making known that if I was correct than indeed the 2001
21 federal election was invalid and then also so the 2004 federal election as Mr Howard not being
22 the Prime Minister could not then call for the 2004 federal election. However, on 17 November
23 2005 the magistrate then made known to disregard previous orders and without evidence then
24 convicted me on both charges.
25
26 I, continuing to represent myself, successfully appealed the matter and the matter came before
27 the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006.
28 I had submitted my 409 pages written submission ADDRESS TO THE COURT well before the
29 hearing and also served it on all 9 Attorney-Generals as well as the opponent Counsel.
30
31 20240325-07-1151
32 QUOTE Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I on 19 July 2006 succeeded in both appeals
33 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+in+AE
34 C+v+Schorel-Hlavka+I+on+19+July+2006+succeeded+in+both+appeals%3F
35 Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I on 19 July 2006 succeeded in both appeals?
36 According to www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Questions Search Engine:
37 Yes, in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I on 19 July 2006, the defendant succeeded in both appeals.
38 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:
39 1. Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)
40 2. Legal Database
41 3. Court Records
42 Web Search Results
43 5 results
44
45 Comments:High Court of Australia dismisses appeal against conviction ...
46 https//en.m.wikinews.org › wiki ›
47 Comments:High_Court_of_Australia_dismisses_appeal_against_conviction,_compulsory_voting
48 Comments:High Court of Australia dismisses appeal against conviction ...
49 The defendant claims that he has a right to disregard the will of the majority regarding
50 compulsory voting. I argue here that he does not. A holding to the ...
51
Page 17
1 Submission-0506-Gerrit-Schorel-Hlavka.pdf
2 https//www.parliament.act.gov.au › __data › assets › pdf_file › 0009 › 1945197 › Submission-
3 0506-Gerrit-Schorel-Hlavka.pdf
4 Submission-0506-Gerrit-Schorel-Hlavka.pdf
5 On 19 July 2006 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737.
6 12. & Q10897630 (representing myself) I succeeded in ...
7
8 20190507-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Australian Electoral ...
9 https//www.scribd.com › document › 409006849 › 20190507-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
10 Australian-Electoral-Commission-Re-COMPLAINTS
12 20190507-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Australian Electoral Commission Re
13 COMPLAINTS - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) ...
14
15 ELECTORAL LITIGATION
16 https//www.aph.gov.au › parliamentary_business › committees ›
17 house_of_representatives_committees
18 ELECTORAL LITIGATION
19 Injunctions. Mr Ned Kelly's application on late candidate nomination. On 22 October. 2001, Mr
20 Ned Kelly, previously known as Mr Terry Sharples, filed an.
21
22 20200719-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Victorian Inspectorate ...
23 https//www.scribd.com › document › 469674114 › 20200719-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-
24 to-the-Victorian-Inspectorate-Reference-11722468
25 20200719-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Victorian Inspectorate ...
26 20200719-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to the Victorian Inspectorate-Reference # 11722468
27 - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), ...
28 END QUOTE Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I on 19 July 2006 succeeded in both appeals
29
30 20240325-08-1153
31 QUOTE Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I sucessfully challenge the validity of
32 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+in+AE
33 C+v+Schorel-
34 Hlavka+I+sucessfully+challenge+the+validity+of+the+Australian+citizenship+Act+as+being+u
35 nconstitutional%3F
36 Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I sucessfully challenge the validity of the
37 Australian citizenship Act as being unconstitutional?
38
40 Yes, in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I successfully challenged the validity of the Australian
41 Citizenship Act as being unconstitutional.
43 1. University of South Australia (Sue Milne)
44 2. High Court of Australia
45 3. Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
46 The information provided in the response is based on the analysis and insights from the
47 University of South Australia’s Sue Milne regarding constitutional challenges to the stripping of
48 Australian citizenship, the rulings and decisions made by the High Court of Australia in cases
49 such as Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs, Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs, and
50 Jones v Commonwealth, as well as the provisions and amendments outlined in the Australian
51 Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).
Page 18

2 5 results
3
4 Constitutional challenges to the stripping of Australian citizenship
5 https//globalcit.eu › constitutional-challenges-to-the-stripping-of-australian-citizenship-an-update
6 Constitutional challenges to the stripping of Australian citizenship
7 In Alexander, the High Court held the revocation of citizenship for dis-allegiant conduct (foreign
8 incursions and recruitment) unconstitutional ...
9
11 https//www.scribd.com › document › 409006849 › 20190507-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
12 Australian-Electoral-Commission-Re-COMPLAINTS
14 46 Electoral Act 1918 being unconstitutional. 47 48 The quotations are reproduced with any
15 typing error as was in the original documentation ...
16
17 Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023
18 https//www.aph.gov.au › Parliamentary_Business › Bills_Legislation › bd › bd2324a › 24bd36
19 Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023
20 Key points. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to repeal the
21 current citizenship cessation provisions ...
22
23 Constitutional cases: October 2022
24 https//www.ags.gov.au › sites › default › files › 2022-10 ›
25 Constitutional%20cases%20_Oct%2022.pdf
26 Constitutional cases: October 2022
27 Steward J dissenting) held that s 36B of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (Citizenship
28 Act) is invalid because it infringes Ch III of the ...
29
30 Intelligence and Security Committee to review new citizenship ...
31 https//www.aph.gov.au › About_Parliament › House_of_Representatives ›
32 About_the_House_News › Media_Releases ›
33 Intelligence_and_Security_Committee_to_review_new_citizenship_repudiation_law
34 Intelligence and Security Committee to review new citizenship ...
35 The review provides the opportunity to examine the operation, effectiveness and implications of
36 the new citizenship repudiation regime, as well ...
37
38 INSERT by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
39 https://youtu.be/ldFIHArgQxk
40
41 https://youtu.be/b3uC0m0KkmQ
42
43 https://youtu.be/SyR4RsdmDOg
44 END INSERT by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
45 QUOTE Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I sucessfully challenge the validity of
46 I do not need to set out all relevant details regarding “citizenship” as it was extensively
47 canvassed before the Court and the main issue is that on 19 July 2006 when both appeals were
48 before the County Court of Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction neither the Commonwealth
49 and/or any of the 9 Attorney Generals challenged anything I had submitted to the court and as
50 such Res Judicata applies. It also should be clear that at the time Victorian Attorney-General
51 Rob Hulls made clear that the State of Victoria was accepting the Courts ruling, which means
Page 19
1 that neither the Government of the Day or any council; claiming to act for and on behalf of the
2 State of Victoria can re-litigate the issues I had raised in the previous litigation.
3
4 As for the 4 December 2002 court order, the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER
5 was at the time also on 19 July 2006 before the County Court of Victoria and as the Court did
6 not at all indicated any reservations then the “citizenship” issue was therefore being
7 unchallenged to have been deemed conceded by the Commonwealth and the 9 Attorney-
8 Generals.
9
10 Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
11 National Australasian Convention)
12 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
13 I do not see the necessity for considering the hon. member's proposal at the present
14 time. I am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to
15 be proud of that position. I have no desire to weaken a single link binding us to that
16 empire, whether as regards the appointment of a governor-general or anything else.
17 END QUOTE
18
20 QUOTE
21 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual
22 right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and
23 protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be
24 recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the
25 subjects confided to the Commonwealth.
26 END QUOTE
27
29 QUOTE
30 Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.
31 Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the
32 power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and
33 learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this
34 Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
35 exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we
36 acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is
37 put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot
38 on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a
39 lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to
40 become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
41 having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-
42 "Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out
43 of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to
44 take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union.
45 END QUOTE
46 .
48 QUOTE
49 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded
50 the spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has
51 enlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one
52 citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship.
Page 20
1 That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again.
2 We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be
3 recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution.
4 END QUOTE
5
7 QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST:
8 We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of
9 our own race, born in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming
10 senators until they have been resident in the commonwealth for a certain period? No
11 such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old country. Any
12 Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member
13 of the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman
14 coming to these colonies should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the
15 legislature of one of the colonies desired his appointment.
16 END QUOTE
17
18 Well, we have the High Court of Australia legislating from the bench violating the separation of
19 powers.
20
21 And here is the beauty. Judicial officers are as I understand it required to have Australian
22 citizenship as a nationality to be admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of Victoria, or any
23 other Supreme Court, and as I at the time litigated that there was no such thing as “Australian
24 Citizenship” as a nationality as the Commonwealth lacked the legislative powers for this and as
25 the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill banned parliamentarians to have “Subject of the British
26 Crown” as a nationality albeit this ruling was in violation of the legal principles embedded in the
27 constitution, then not a single lawyer can be deemed to be validly appointed as an OFFICER
28 OF THE COURT and neither can any judicial officer be deemed to be validly appointed
29 because constitutionally one requires to be a “Subject of the British Crown”.
30
35 misconception.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that
41 we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
42 END QUOTE
43
44 It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; “British
45 subject”, “to make persons subjects of the British Empire.”, “with the consent of the Imperial
46 authority”, “What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am
47 a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.”,
48 “we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.” We have a High Court of Australia that appears
49 to me being political motivated to try to alter the Constitution by stealth by endorsing a substitute
50 Constitution! The question is if the judges of the High Court of Australia committed
51 TREASON?
52

Page 21

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual
4 right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection
5 under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the states. It must be recollected that the
6 ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects confided to
7 the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page 1766] the laws regarding property
8 and personal liberty is still left with the states.
9 END QUOTE
10
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
14 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
15 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
16 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
17 established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
18 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
19 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
20 are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
21 is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
22 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
23 be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
24 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
25 END QUOTE
26
28 QUOTE
29 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: At all events, I would ask hon. members to pause before they
30 determine upon asking the Queen to surrender all her prerogatives in Australia. For my
31 part, I believe that all the prerogatives of the Crown exist in the governor-general as far as
32 they relate to Australia. I never entertained any doubt upon the subject at all-that is so far
33 as they can be exercised in the commonwealth.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates
37 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
38 In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere
39 defined, and cannot be defined under this constitution.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/do-legal-practitioners-have-to-swear-oaths-of-allegiance-to-the-
43 monarch/
44 Do legal practitioners have to swear oaths of allegiance to the Monarch?
45 QUOTE
46 It is clear from the case of Moller below that after seeking an order of the Supreme Court
47 Rules Moller attempted to be excused from taking the oath of allegiance as prescribed.
48 Moller over the passage of time to become an Australian citizen had a conscientious
49 objection to taking an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen but the Court clearly
50 stated one must swear an oath of allegiance, this is clearly based on the facts Australia is
51 still a Constitutional Monarchy.
52 END QUOTE
53
Page 22
1 While the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill seems to claim that Australians are “Australian
2 Citizens” as a nationality, the truth is that the Constitution actually doesn’t provide for the High
3 Court of Australia to amend the constitution. The Commonwealth can naturalize a person to
4 become a “Subject of the British Crown” but not otherwise. And by it this naturalization
5 should include that any other nationality no longer is applicable.
6
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. WISE.-You cannot impose exceptional treatment upon the citizens of another
10 state; that applies to everything. It is difficult to contemplate a concrete case, but that the
11 words themselves have a definite and clear meaning any one can see; and whether that
12 clear power should be taken away or not is a matter of very serious consideration. It does
13 appear to me that this clause is a powerful instrument in the hands of the federal authority
14 to prevent any state acting in an overt manner, permitting overt acts of hostility against
15 citizens outside its jurisdiction. For that reason I hope that the clause will be allowed to
16 stand.
17 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr.
18 Isaacs) is I think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start
19 page 672] one of those instances which should make us very careful of following too
20 slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution.
21 No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for
22 doing so used the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably
23 they felt that they would be incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out
24 provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is for us to consider,
25 looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the
26 United States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my
27 honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of
28 every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no word in it
29 which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
30 come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and
31 an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words
32 which we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which
33 none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is
34 some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution. Now, I
35 agree with Mr. Isaacs, that the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution was
36 directed entirely to the question of the citizenship of negroes who were freed men,
37 and it was necessary to implant something of that kind in the American Constitution,
38 because of the fever heat which had been excited, and which was then subsiding, over
39 the war which had convulsed the country. But how can that condition of things, or
40 that necessity which arose then, have any hearing on our position? I take it that the
41 best way to look on this matter is to try and forget all about the 14th amendment of
42 the United States Constitution, and regard it as though we were framing this
43 Constitution without any knowledge of any such provision. It seems to me that the
44 first portion of the amendment of the United States Constitution, which deals with
45 citizenship, is not in any way necessary. Surely every person who has the suffrage-the
46 right to vote within the Commonwealth-and who lives within the Commonwealth, is a
47 citizen of the Commonwealth, and entitled to all its privileges, including the right to
48 take part as the Commonwealth provides in the framing of the laws.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 One has to consider that if the judges at the time were having “Australian citizenship” as a
52 purported nationality then they simply in my view were not validly/legally appointed. If they
Page 23
1 however had the nationality of “Subject of the British Crown” then for that their judgment was
2 invalid because they claimed you had to be an “Australian citizen” as a nationality, and even so
3 to say threw out Senator Heather Hill because of this, albeit in my view unconstitutionally.
4 Likewise, so with Phil Cleary in Sykes v Cleary, albeit he was so to say thrown out for having a
5 contract with the State of Victoria this even so Barton during the Constitutional convention
6 made clear that section 44 (as it is now) did not change the meaning of the application as the
7 various clauses were already accepted by the convention. In fact, even a Minister in a State
8 Parliament could stand for federal election as long as (so the Framers of the Constitution made
9 clear) the Minister was to resign his State portfolio before he accepted a seat in the federal
10 Parliament, if so elected.
11
12 https://www.westernjournal.com/mom-discovers-strange-device-looking-inside-7-year-olds-sneakers-comes-horrifying-
13 realization/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=CTBreaking&ff_campaign=breaking&ff_content=conservative-tribune
14 Mom Discovers Strange Device After Looking Inside 7-Year-Old's Sneakers, Comes to
15 Horrifying Realization
16 QUOTE
17 While Giurleo’s story turned out to be nothing but a great tale to share
18 at Thanksgiving family gatherings for years to come, there are serious potential dangers to
19 these tiny, convenient tags.
20 In June 2022, a 26-year-old Indianapolis man was allegedly killed by his ex-girlfriend after
21 she reportedly placed an AirTag on the back of his car and used it to secretly track his
22 movements before fatally confronting him, according to CBS News.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 With the QR code anyone who could hack into the system then would know precisely where a
26 particular person would be habitually shop, etc. Then all they have to do wait for the time and
27 place they contemplate to harm this person. It could be a former client or one who simply didn’t
28 like the ruling of a judge, etc. Politicians are eager to legislate for whatever to increase their
29 powersa, regardless they do not need those powers as it is rather an obsession wanting to control
30 over others, but they generally ignore to consider the misuse and abuse and possible harm that
31 could result to themselves.
32 For example, if a person regularly purchase food items at a specific store then what would
33 prevent a person to wait and perhaps put some poison item down when the target person is about
34 to take some item from there? The same is with Digital ID, where then every move in spending
35 monies can be monitored. As was found in the USA (and obviously coming to Australia, if not
36 already there) police would gather the details from stores who made purchases in the city and
37 then well the FBI would attend and well when they come with a swat team they do not
38 particularly do so to celebrate your birthday, that is not due for another couple of months, but
39 being a suspect of whatever they think happened somewhere nearby, and well you then may
40 have to incur at huge expenses lawyers regardless you had done no wrong!
41
42 It reminds me to Debt collectors, which I understand they get from a company that say Mr XY
43 has an outstanding bill and then this debt collector may check wherever XY may live and well
44 discover there are say 10 people with the identity of XY and as XY had changed address then
45 well perhaps they may get one to pay up in fear of litigation regardless none of them may
46 actually be XY who allegedly left an unpaid bill. And well perhaps most of XY’s will pay not
47 because they mowe any monies but the risk of litigation and losing a day or more of work is not
48 worth to challenge anything. So the Debt Collector makes a fortune and the original XY may
49 never end up paying the bill.
50
51 I am pestered with email scams soon after Optus was hacked, including that the Bank of America
52 will close down my account if I do not respond, etc. Just that I never had an account with the
Page 24
1 bank of America. Well, Medibank also got hacked and that added other scam problems. And
2 with the Federal Government wanting to do Digital ID and centralise it all, so to make it easier
3 from scammers that instead of hacking different companies they now only have to hack the
4 government and get all biometric and other details in one hit. Well I stopped years ago to use any
5 reward cards to prevent tracking in that manner. I used about seldom any electronic banking for
6 this purpose also. I understand that commonwealth Bank was tracking people’s usage of cards to
7 check their “carbon footprint” and that I view the Commonwealth failed to stop as it violates the
8 person’s privacy, and allow unlawful tracking, etc. And well people who were injected with the
9 FAKE covid-19 vaccine that really was a “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION “bioweapon” in
10 clear violation of Australian and international bioweapon laws, then were the luck or more likely
11 the unlucky recipients of a bar code chip into their body also, and a lot more. Now you can go to
12 a cemetery and find bar code signals of the dead and buried!
13 Why on earth the judiciary has not acted against this is beyond me or perhaps it is because they
14 are collaborating how to ensure that the W.E.F. can have its One World Order, even so this may
15 means that it will do away with law enforcement and courts as all they need to do is to disengage
16 the bar code and the person dies. Why bother about judiciary when you can unilaterally
17 exterminate a person, even if accidentally? One has to be braindead not to understand how
18 dangerous both the Digital ID and any Digital monies will be. Powers-to-be can simply nullify
19 any monies held in an account and well it was no hacker just someone to claim “You own
20 nothing and be happy!”.
21
22 In my view our judiciary has been failing us since at least 1904 and continued to do so. And with
23 politicians rampaging we have to ask where are the “sentries” guarding our constitutional rights?
24
25 Abo0ut 4 decades ago I was cross examining several “expert” witnesses and also the opposing
26 party herself and during each cross examination witnesses were recanting evidence. To the
27 extent that the trial judge when I was cross-examining the opponent party and she had made a
28 statement the trial judge intervened and as I recall stated: You swore an Affidavit this morning
29 that your husband was not the father of the child and now you just gave evidence that he is? The
30 witness responded that it was correct. During further cross-examination the witness when asked
31 if she voluntarily became married answered “Yes” that the trial judge intervened and made clear
32 that he accepted she voluntarily married and so there was no need to continue on this issue. Yet,
33 in his judgment he claimed the wife was forced to become married and this was why she was
34 violent (towards the children). He granted her custody. Some 10 years later the opposing
35 Counsel happen to see me in a court lobby when he came up to me and gave me the
36 understanding that the trial judge had been totally wrong about granting custody to his client as
37 the evidence clearly was adverse to her and he had twisted the evidence. For a Barrister to have
38 this on his conscience that even more than a decade later he had to get this out may underline
39 how deceptive a judge was.
40
41 In another case I was cross-examine an “expert” witness who had filed an affidavit in which he
42 stated he had been working for this company for about 14 years. I then pointed out that the
43 company was only registered for about 13 months. He then admitted that indeed the company
44 had only been registered for about 13 months. While this was a mere soft question I then also
45 asked him about the equipment he had sold to the other party (I was representing) and he
46 conformed this. I then asked him if the statement in his Affidavit that he had demonstrated the
47 spot welder to the customer. He confirmed. I then asked him if the pressure roller for the feeding
48 wire could be adjusted and he responded that this was not possible as this was automatic
49 adjustment. I then showed him a photo of the unit and he confirmed that was the unit. I then
50 asked him if the little door on the unit was known to him and he confirmed. I then showed
51 another photo with the little door open and asked him if he could see there was a tension bolt
Page 25
1 with a ‘–‘ and a ‘+’ indicating the adjustment of the rollers on the wire. He confirmed. I then
2 asked if this proves that one could adjust the pressure on the feeding wire, he agreed but
3 commented he never knew about this. I asked him so the equipment was working when he left
4 the customer. He confirmed this. I then asked him if it was correct that he had a special electrical
5 connector was needed to connect the power cord of the spot welder to the wall power point and
6 he confirmed this. I then asked what did he do with this special power connector and his
7 response was that it was his power connector and so he took it with him. I then asked if the spot
8 welder could work without the power connector and he admitted it could not. His comment was
9 he was going to provide a power connector to the customer but forgot to do so (we now were
10 more than a year after the sale of the spot welder. It was then that the opponent Counsel
11 intervened complaining that I was surgically taking apart his witness statement. My response:
12 Sit down I am doing my job. Still, the judicial officer despite all this made a ruling against the
13 party I represented. Even requested me to be investigated. Well the investigation ended up with
14 nothing against me!
15
16 What I learned over the decades is that no matter you can have 100% solid case in the end some
17 judicial officer have already decided before hand which party is going to succeed and all the
18 hearing is about to try to elicit some detail and take it out of context to ensure to have alleged
19 “evidence” to support the orders all along intended. Also you cannot trust a judicial officer’s
20 direction during a trial as the judicial officer may likely give a final ruling contrary to the
21 directions and statements made during the trial.
22
23 I in one case about 4 decades ago appeared before a judge and submitted he disqualify himself
24 for being bias. He read out numerous authorities and then made clear he didn’t view he was bias
25 and neither would a FAIR MINDED PERSON view he was bias and dismissed my submission
26 to disqualify himself. I then followed up with a submission that he disqualified himself for being
27 bias not having disqualified himself. The judge then again went reading out numerous
28 Authorities and then concluded that he didn’t view he was bias but he accepted that a FAIR
29 MINDED PERSON may view he was bias and so he disqualified himself.
30
31 In a case while I was cross-examining a medical doctor as to what kind of food a baby could be
32 fed, etc, the trial judge intervened and commented that I was not trying to allege the mother was
33 starving the child to death as clearly she was feeding the child upon which I responded, as I
34 recall; She is not accused of starving the child to death but rather she could choke the child to
35 death when she is feeding the child with food the child cannot eat properly! Here we had a trial
36 judge who was braindead about what was appropriate to feed a baby while his very job was to
37 deal with custody matters!
38
39 Numerous judges to me appeared to be ignorant, ill informed, unreasonable, etc, that I often
40 wondered how such a judge ever made it to succeed to graduate to be a lawyer, let alone to be a
41 judge. Well, the latter I started to understand when a lawyer confined to me (confidentially) how
42 judges were sick and tired about a particular lawyer appearing before them with his
43 incompetence and so he was recommended to be a judge, and so he was appointed to be a judge.
44 And well I first hand, when being a witness, discovered how indeed grossly incompetent he was.
45 For example, he was time and time again holding hearings between opponents regarding a
46 property and yet didn’t even know who actually owned to property according to the Title of the
47 property! Surely, that is the first thing to deal with if there is a dispute about property ownership
48 to check who is and is not recorded on the Title? It turned out the judge was making a claim that
49 a certain party was the owner of the property while in fact it was the other party!
50
51 Back to the story about tracing a person.
Page 26
1
2 While this story regarding the tracing is about what turns out 2 children accidentally taken the
3 other child’s shoes, where then one suddenly was having a tracker often used to locate items or
4 even cars but at times also used for murder, it is however a danger I wrote about regarding the
5 QR code and wearing mask that could have a chip in it where then powers-to-be could establish
6 where a certain person was and daily moves about and then well harm the person, etc.
7
8 And, back to the issue of nationality and so part of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION:
9
10 It means, that unless a lawyer/judge holds the nationality of being a “Subject of the British
11 Crown” the person cannot in my view being permitted to practice law or be a judge. As for
12 Section 44 of the constitution in my view most Federal parliamentarians likely are ineligible to
13 be a Member of Parliament for a number of reasons but even more so considering that the
14 purported “Digital ID” Bill was forced through the Senate without any debate being permitted.
15 This I view was TERRORISM/TREASON by those who pushed this denial of debate as well
16 as those who voted for the Bill. It doesn’t matter if there are standing orders or not as ultimately
17 the Parliament cannot act in violation of the true meaning and application of the legal principles
18 embedded in the constitution. And the Framers if the Constitution did make very clear:
19
21 QUOTE
22 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I know that my right honorable friend, judging probably from
23 the time I am taking now, thinks that in such a case I would take a long time, if I were in
24 the Senate. I admit that his surmise is quite right in my case. I admit there are persons on
25 whom this terrorism could not be practised, or on whom, if practised, it would probably
26 not be effective. But I am thinking of persons of weaker minds and wills, and I say that, as
27 far as this Constitution is concerned, it is absolutely necessary to put some provision in this
28 Bill which will strengthen the Senate and prevent it being intimidated in the way indicated.
29 We have been frittering away the first principles of the Federal Constitution long enough.
30 END QUOTE
31
33 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS:
34 There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to
35 pass that line would be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely
36 to abandon the principle of responsible government, when we are invited to surrender
37 the latest-born, but, as I think, the noblest child of our constitutional system-a system
38 which has not only nurtured and preserved, but has strengthened the liberties of our
39 people-then,
40 END QUOTE
41 .
43 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
44 We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us,
45 I am happy to say, are very clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the
46 book which he was good enough to distribute amongst us. He puts it in this form:
47 That it is desirable there should be a union of the Australian colonies. That is one of
48 the principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments. Second, that such union
49 should be an early one-that is, that we should remove all difficulties in the way in order that
50 the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third, that it should be under
51 the Crown. Now, I am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with
52 which we have to deal-that the union that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown.

Page 27
1 Fourth, that it should be under one legislative and executive government. That also is
2 laid down by our various parliaments.
3 END QUOTE
4 .
6 QUOTE
7 III. Who is attainted of treason, or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime:
8 shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the Senate or of the House
9 of Representatives until the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge, or the
10 expiration or remission of the sentence, or a pardon, or release, or otherwise.
11 Mr. GORDON: I should like to ask Mr. Barton whether there is anything in this
12 point: A number of German fellow colonists may have taken the oath of allegiance to
13 a foreign power, especially those who have served in the ranks in Germany. Would it
14 not be necessary to add after "power" in line 27 the words "or who has not since been
15 naturalised as provided in clause 30"?
16 Mr. GLYNN: You cannot have two, allegiances.
17 Mr. BARTON: No; a man might have to go out of our Parliament to serve against
18 us.
19 Sir GEORGE TURNER: He may be Minister of Defence.
20 Mr. CARRUTHERS: I would like to put a case to Mr. Barton. It may happen that
21 treaties may be in force between say England and Japan. There is a treaty almost in
22 operation on the very lines I am citing that will give to a British subject travelling in
23 Japan practically the same rights and privileges as he would enjoy as a citizen of his
24 own country. Surely it is never intended that by a person travelling in another
25 country, who becomes entitled to privileges conferred on him by a treaty between two
26 high powers, he should be disqualified from holding a seat in the Federal Parliament.
27 Our members of Parliament who are hardworked take their summer trips, and it
28 may be that some of them may come back and find they have lost their seats as a
29 result of this clause.
30 Clause as read agreed to.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 In my view it was terrorism upon the Senators to deny them to debate the DIGITAL ID Bill and
34 also intended upon the “general community” to force this upo0n them as well as TREASON and
35 by Section 45 those Senators who voted for the Bill I view committed treason against the
36 constitution.
37 Moreover, in my view the Commonwealth had no constitutional power to force this Digital ID
38 legislation because regardless of this is claimed to be voluntarily reality is already is not, this
39 because even for “general” (not personal) information to obtain from Centrelink website one had
40 to log in. Neither can the Commonwealth permit private organisations to engage in biometrics to
41 be used as it violates the persons constitutional, legal, human, natural and common law rights.
42 This as the person has constitutional guaranteed rights of “political liberty” and “religious
43 liberty” which cannot be circumvented by any Commonwealth, State or Territorial government.
44 The misinformation/disinformation legislation to exclude government entities while in my view
45 it proved with the “covid scam” to be the worst offender may underline this is not about
46 NATIONAL SECURITY but rather how to seek to manipulate the system to prevent opponents,
47 regardless how correct they might be, from being able to post their opposition to whatever the
48 Government may pursue. The fact that the federal government is obligated (well not
49 constitutionally as it actually violates s44) to follow the commands of W.E.F. underlines that it
50 has got nothing to do with NATIONAL SEUCITY but rather contrary to it.
51

Page 28
1 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

2 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
3 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
4 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
5 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
6 embrace and unite.
7 END QUOTE
8 And
10 QUOTE
11 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
12 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
13 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
14 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
15 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
16 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
17 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Now Scribd, despite legally required to act within the confines of our constitution has last year
21 commenced to “shadow ban” certain documents I uploaded so that a person going to my blog
22 will not see the documents. I understand this has resulted on request of the Federal Government
23 agencies. For example regarding the S129 Voice failed referendum nevertheless Scribd shadow
24 banned the document I published opposing this Voice referendum! But the gross deception by
25 many that somehow Capt Cook “invaded” Australia (then named “New Holland” which is a
26 common claim but utterly false and fraudulent claim somehow is not an issue for the
27 misinformation/disinformation pursuance.
28
29 Corporations can only operate their businesses within the Commonwealth of Australia provided
30 they act within the constitutional provisions applicable and not despite of this.
31 With a Digital ID effectively the government of the day can use this to say suspend the Digital
32 ID of a judge (regardless if accidentally or deliberately) as to punish a judge for having handed
33 down a decision that was unfavourable to the Government of the Day. It would also by this
34 violate the separation of powers because the Federal Government could use this to influence the
35 decision of any judge, etc. It could be used to blackmail a court staffer to interfere with an order
36 of the court by deliberately or accidentally, change the terms of the orders without the
37 knowledge of the judge, etc. Likewise, it could suspend the Digital ID of any lawyer who were
38 to represent a client who is challenging the Government of the Day. And when the Digital ID
39 was to be suspended of whatever person then the person could end up stranded without access to
40 any bank account to pay a bill, say at a petrol station, at a grocery store, etc. Actually the same
41 when there is a power outage, an internet outage, etc. And when then someone steals a mobile or
42 even a person has lost a mobile then this so called “SECURITY” is utterly and totally useless!
43 You may find not only being prevented to use any monies and be stranded but you also may find
44 someone else using your monies. The same with the transfer of Title, etc. When a politicians
45 claims it is for the best interest of the “general community” then be assured this politician is
46 lying and mean really to be conning everyone who beliefs him. If misinformation/
47 disinformation is the real issue then why do we have politicians deceiving the “general
48 community” with claiming they will not change a certain taxation system only after being
49 elected do precisely the opposite?
50 We already have that the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) is so to say thumbing its nose upon
51 the judiciary. For example it claimed to have unilaterally fined me twice for a total over $1,500
52 for not providing tax returns, this even so I am not required to do so. Furthermore, they have
Page 29
1 been effectively stealing monies from my wife (money she badly need for her medical expenses)
2 for more than 2 decades without even informing her, let alone ask her permission in more than
3 tens of thousands of dollars. And the ATO deceives the courts for years to use
4 “AVERT”/”AVERMENT” this even so they cannot lawfully do so. How dishonest is this that
5 the ATO can make any unsupported allegation and if you stand your ground to make clear the
6 ATO has to prove this, which as a reasonable demand, then they will possibly go to court to get
7 perhaps some grossly incompetent judge who then will order cost against the objecting party also
8 for doing what this objector is entitled to do. What a crazy system. The same with this
9 Infringement Court rubbish!
10 Let us not ignore the unconstitutional Infringement Court which fines people not because they
11 had violated any laws, but simply because some person claims that certain people did. For
12 example when the Toll road operator instead of using the Victorian data base accessed the NSW
13 data base reportedly about 2,000 NSW drivers were fined without them having been in Victoria
14 committing any offences. Also the person issuing an Infringement Notice then secretly altering
15 the details of the copy that is lodged with the Infringement Court and so a person is convicted on
16 something he/she didn’t even know about of such altered charge. I discovered that while the
17 Infringement Court purportedly is part of the magistrates Court of Victoria in reality it proved
18 not to be so, as when I checked the number of convictions of the magistrates Court of Victoria I
19 discovered that the Infringement Court convictions were not included, which should have been if
20 they were part of the magistrates Court of Victoria. So the accuser no matter how deceptive,
21 fraudulent, etc, the allegations might be doesn’t generally suffer any harm whereas the defendant
22 will. Why is it that adverse finding by a court against a law enforcement officer are never
23 revealed when the same law enforcement officer is pursuing a defendant, this so the court can
24 consider the dishonest law enforcement agent past conduct?
25 There is a lot more to it all but this should indicate that it is all a big elaborate con.
26 Indeed, in 2008 I discovered an Infringement Notice for exceeding 3 hours parking limits even
27 so the Council officer by his own records had me recorded as having been parked 2 hours and 29
28 minutes. I appealed but was advised that my appeal was dismissed and no further appeal was
29 possible. I wrote back making clear that 2 hours and 29 minutes was less than 3 hours, etc. I was
30 then advised my appeal was upheld.
31 So an appeal that was already dismissed was somehow upheld. But what about all other motorist
32 wrongly fined?
33 On 6 September 2023 I discovered (afterwards) that Banyule City Council officers had
34 trespassed upon my property even so there are signs that ENTRY PROHIBITED citing various
35 High Court of Australia decisions.
36 I then also (afterwards) discovered that Banyule City Council trespassed upon my neighbours
37 property and then climbed over the shared fence to gain access to my property and then went
38 around the property making photographs, etc, also twice entering a gazebo, also causing damage
39 to a disability mobile scooter, etc. And after leaving the property seemingly not satisfied with the
40 criminal conduct they engaged in then vandalised my wife’s station wagon that was lawfully
41 parked in front of our property. How did I know this, because they send me a letter with
42 photographs proving they did so. This caused considerable problems to my wife being a heart
43 patient and as if they had not engaged in enough terrorism they then came back on 29 November
44 and again climbed over the fence, by having trespassed over the neighbours property and then
45 trespassing upon our property and twice entering a gazebo and my wife became aware of this
46 (not knowing who it was) when she heard and saw a man violently banging on the backdoor that
47 my wife heart rate went from 72 to 122. Which could have had deadly results. Because my
48 wife’s GP requested my wife to regularly monitor her heart rate we therefore had the record prior
49 to and after the violent trespassing. And this was still not enough as on 3 January 2024 they
50 again were trespassing, etc. Yet, to my knowledge they never had any WARRANT at all! And
51 they claim to be law enforcement officers when terrorising residents?
Page 30
1
2 While I extensively provided details to the Victorian Police nothing was done about it.
3
4 Well, because I have been complaining about the Victorian Police terrorism regarding the “covid
5 scam” that it was unconstitutional, etc, they obviously do not desire to enforce the law against
6 the council officers.
7 And basically you cannot trust courts, because I learned from time to time and also assisting
8 others with my special lifeline MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® judges at times pre
9 determine the orders even so there were still 2 days of trail to be held.
10
11 Here we have the ATO undermining the Administration of Justice time and time again and yet
12 none of their lawyers who are supposed to be OFFICERS OF THE COURT are being held
13 legally accountable. Is it that those (purported) judges simply are grossly incompetent not to
14 know and/or apply what is constitutionally appropriate or there are other inappropriate reasons?
15 Never mind that Australians in the process are robbed of FAIR and PROPER hearings and duped
16 by the very Administration of Justice that is supposed to be impartial!
17
19 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
20 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the
21 administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be
22 beyond the possibility of suspicion;
23 END QUOTE
24
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. KINGSTON.-What does the honorable and learned member mean by the term "due
28 process of law"?
29 Mr. OCONNOR.-The amendment will insure proper administration of the laws, and
30 afford their protection to every citizen.
31 Mr. SYMON.-That is insured already.
32 Mr. OCONNOR.-In what way?
33 Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions.
34 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the
35 alteration of these Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent
36 the alteration of these Constitutions in the direction of depriving any citizen of his
37 life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Because if this provision in the
38 Constitution is carried it will not be in the power of any state to pass a law to amend
39 its Constitution to do that. It is a declaration of liberty and freedom in our dealing with
40 citizens of the Commonwealth. Not only can there be no harm in placing it in the
41 Constitution, but it is also necessary for the protection of the liberty of everybody
42 who lives within the limits of any State.
43 Mr. SYMON.-Have we not that under-Magna Charta.
44 Mr. OCONNOR.-There is nothing that would prevent a repeal of Magna Charta by
45 any state if it chose to do so. Let us suppose that there were any particular class of
46 offences, or particular class of persons who, at any time, happened to be the subjects
47 of some wild impulse on the part of a majority of the community, and unjust laws
48 were passed-
49 Mr. SYMON.-Has anything ever happened that would Justify such a proposition?
50 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, they are matters of history in these colonies which it is not
51 necessary to refer to.

Page 31
1 Mr. SYMON.-Would it not require an amendment of the Constitution to repeal Magna

2 Charta?
3 Mr. OCONNOR.-What Constitution?
4 Mr. SYMON.-This Constitution. Do you think Magna Charta would be repealed by
5 an Act of the Federal Parliament?
6 Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not think so, and I did not say so. But I say that, under the
7 Constitution of the states, as we are dealing with the Constitution, a State might enact
8 any laws which it thought fit, and even if those laws amounted to a repeal of Magna
9 Charta they could be carried. I admit we are only dealing with a possibility, but at the
10 same time it is a possibility which if it eventuated, as it might, would be very
11 disastrous, and there is no reason why we should not prevent it.
12 [start page 684]
13 Mr. FRASER.-We might provide a safe-guard, at any rate.
14 END QUOTE
15
17 QUOTE
18 Mr. OCONNOR.-That shows the history of it, as Mr. Isaacs suggests. I am pointing out
19 that there is no necessity for it in our Constitution-no necessity to point out that every
20 person in the states is a citizen of the Commonwealth. There is no necessity for it, because
21 citizenship follows from the rights you give every person in every portion of the
22 Commonwealth under the Constitution. Now, is there any right which it is necessary to
23 state that you give? I see that this provision that we are discussing now makes some
24 reference to privileges or immunities of citizens. Quite sufficient has been pointed out to
25 show that that might work in an exceedingly complicated way-in a way we have no
26 conception of at the present time-if it is inserted in its present form. The only possible
27 differences or disabilities in the states now, as affecting different classes of citizens, are
28 those which exist in regard to aliens and coloured races. But already in clause 52 we have
29 agreed to the insertion of a sub-section which enables the Commonwealth to deal with
30 that matter, and there can be no question about it that in course of time the different
31 laws that exist in the states dealing with such coloured races will be similar, and that
32 such races will be dealt with uniformly, so that whatever privileges [start page 673] or
33 disabilities exist in one state with regard to these people will exist in another state.
34 There is only one portion of the Tasmanian amendment which I think should be preserved,
35 and I prefer it in the form in which it stands as submitted by the Legislative Assembly of
36 Tasmania. I think that the only portion of it which it is necessary to preserve is this-altering
37 the wording slightly so as to make it read as I think it should read-
38 A state shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process
39 of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws.
40 So that any citizen of any portion of the Commonwealth would have the guarantee of
41 liberty and safety in regard to the processes of law, and also would have a guarantee of the
42 equal administration of the law as it exists. I think Mr. Isaacs will bear me out, that in the
43 United States it has been decided that the title to equal treatment under the law does not
44 mean that you cannot make a law which differentiates one class of the community from
45 another; but, as has been decided, it means that in the administration of the laws you have
46 made, all the citizens shall be treated equally. And that should be so. Whatever privilege
47 we give to our citizens, the administration of the law should be equal to all, whatever
48 their colour. The case I refer to is one of the Chinese cases-I forget the name of it.
49 Mr. ISAACS.-The case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins.
50 END QUOTE
51

Page 32
1 While at the time of the convention the Framers of the Constitution held that Aboriginals
2 (including Torres Strait Islanders) were equal to other Australians and for this were kept out of
3 the race legislation of the Commonwealth, however, as there was a con-job 1967 Ss51(xxvi)
4 referendum to include Aboriginals then the following applies to them also:
5 Again:
6 QUOTE
7 But already in clause 52 we have agreed to the insertion of a sub-section which
8 enables the Commonwealth to deal with that matter, and there can be no question
9 about it that in course of time the different laws that exist in the states dealing with
10 such coloured races will be similar, and that such races will be dealt with uniformly,
11 so that whatever privileges [start page 673] or disabilities exist in one state with
12 regard to these people will exist in another state.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 Again:
16 and that such races will be dealt with uniformly, so that whatever privileges [start
17 page 673] or disabilities exist in one state with regard to these people will exist in
18 another state
19
20 Meaning, that any legislation to deprive an Aboriginal in say NT would also apply to all and any
21 Aboriginal wherever they live within the Commonwealth of Australia, regardless if they are
22 medical doctors, lawyers or even Members of Parliament. As the moment such a law in enacted
23 those who were serving in the Parliament are no longer a Member of Parliament as they lost this
24 right, because of the legislation, neither could become4 Members of parliament!
25
26 While the Section 129 Voice referendum was considerably defeated this did no more but to keep
27 the constitution as was. However, the States lacked any constitutional powers to legislate about
28 its own kind of Voice such as in South Australia and something like First Nations Assembly in
29 Victoria, etc. This as the Framers of the Constitution made very clear that once the
30 Commonwealth legislated then the States no longer had the legislative powers for the same
31 subject matter.
32
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
36 Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
37 END QUOTE
38
40 QUOTE
41 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the
42 states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
43 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
44 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws
45 will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of
46 making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
47 END QUOTE
48
50 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
51 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
52 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away

Page 33
1 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the
2 meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
3 END QUOTE
4
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
8 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable
9 to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation
10 with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal race in any state.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 Clearly Aboriginals were protected as equal as like any other Australian since federation but the
14 1967 Ss51(xxvi) con-job referendum instead of providing Aboriginals more rights stripped them
15 of equality, and the moment the Commonwealth legislated regarding Aboriginals as a “race”
16 within the provisions of Ss51(xxvi) Aboriginals were equal to “inferior”, “alien”, “coulored”,
17 races.
18
20 QUOTE
21 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was
22 to deal with the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior
23 races, though I do not know with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the
24 Commonwealth at the time it is brought into existence, or who may under the laws of the
25 Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have made the dealing with aliens,
26 which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the Commonwealth,
27 and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so that all
28 those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the
29 Commonwealth will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration,
30 but will remain subject to any laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for
31 them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth should not have power to devise such
32 laws.
33 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
34 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
35 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
36 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of
37 aliens and immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 Had the 1967 Ss51(xxvi) referendum never succeeded then the States could have legislated
41 regarding some Voice provision, albeit within certain limitations as it was bound to follow the
42 federal constitution principles, however, this con-job 1967 Ss51(xxvi) referendum that was to
43 provide for Aboriginal equality in fact was achieving the opposite.
44
45 Just don’t blame me as I was not then in Australia!
46
47 Obviously, in view that before the British the Dutch already in 1658 claimed “New Holland” and
48 this long before Queensland in 1879 annexed the Murray Islands (Torres Strait Islanders)
49 (actually some 221 years earlier) then why are the Dutch not included as “First Nations”? Are
50 Banyule City Council and other councils, etc, seek to wipe out the history of the Dutch in “New
51 Holland”? Also claiming that “Australia Day” is offensive on an alleged invasion by the British
52 when in face such an invasion never eventuated, as the Dutch were shipwrecked many times and
53 then with Aboriginal woman sired children which were with blond hair and copper coloured
Page 34
1 skin, etc. Banyule City Council as many other councils claiming to be inclusive while in fact
2 excluding the Dutch from “New Holland” (Australia) history
3
4 Here we have an alleged Governor-General designate who I view is a braindead dimwit who is
5 too political and unsuitable for this also to be a Governor-General, besides not serving the British
6 Monarch, neither to be validly being commissioned on recommendation by the British
7 Government and neither in the alternative having been elected by the electors.
8 Reportedly she stated that the British “bloody invasion” Australia (at the time “New Holland”!
9
10 QUOTE Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by the Dutch?
11 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Do+you+accept+that+Cap+C
12 ook+did+not+invade+"New+Holland"+as+it+was+already+claimed+by+the+Dutch%3F
13 Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by
14 the Dutch?
15
17 Answer:
18 No, Captain Cook did not invade “New Holland” as it was already claimed by the
19 Dutch.
20 The story of Lieutenant James Cook and British Sovereignty over Australia has been
21 somewhat misconstrued. While Cook did chart the east coast of New Holland (Australia)
22 in 1770 during his voyage, his primary mission was not to claim the land for Britain.
23 Cook’s initial objective was to reach Tahiti to study the Transit of Venus and then search
24 for the mythical Great Southern Land, Terra Australis.
25 When Cook was heading back after mapping New Zealand (Aotearoa), he intended to
26 return via Cape Horn in South America to potentially discover Terra Australis. However,
27 due to the condition of his ship, he decided to sail north along the east coast of New
28 Holland towards Batavia (Java) for repairs and supplies. Cook’s intention was not to
29 invade or claim New Holland but rather to navigate a route back home that would benefit
30 his mission.
31 Cook’s journal entries indicate that he consulted with his officers on the best route to take
32 for their return journey, ultimately deciding to sail west until they reached the East Coast
33 of New Holland and then follow its direction northward. The decision to explore parts of
34 New Holland was based on practical considerations and the need for provisions rather than
35 a deliberate invasion or claim of sovereignty.
36 Therefore, it can be concluded that Captain Cook did not invade “New Holland” as it was
37 already claimed by the Dutch, and his exploration of the east coast of Australia was part of
38 a larger navigational journey rather than a conquest.
40 1. National Library of Australia
41 2. Australian National Maritime Museum
42 3. State Library of New South Wales
43 These sources provided historical records, journals, and archives related to Captain James
44 Cook’s voyages and explorations in Australia, offering valuable insights into the events
45 surrounding his navigation along the coast of New Holland.
47 5 results
48
49 New Holland (Australia)
50 https//en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › New_Holland_(Australia)
51 New Holland (Australia)
Page 35
1 New Holland was never settled by the Dutch people, whose colonial forces and buoyant
2 population had a settled preference for the Dutch Cape Colony, Dutch ...
3
4 Why do the Dutch think that they discovered Australia before ...
5 https//www.quora.com › Why-do-the-Dutch-think-that-they-discovered-Australia-before-
6 the-British
7 Why do the Dutch think that they discovered Australia before ...
8 The Dutch called it “New Holland”, rather strangely because it looked nothing remotely
9 like Holland. They were quite unimpressed with the areas ...
10
11 'Over Cooked': Is Captain Cook the source of British sovereignty in ...
12 http//nationalunitygovernment.org › content › over-cooked-captain-cook-source-british-
13 sovereignty-australia
14 'Over Cooked': Is Captain Cook the source of British sovereignty in ...
15 Another oddity in the story is that Cook's Journal speaks of it not being widely known
16 whether a strait exists between New Holland and New Guinea, but back in ...
17
18 The Search for 'Terra Australis'
19 https//www.nationalarchives.gov.uk › education › resources › the-search-for-terra-australis
20 The Search for 'Terra Australis'
21 Why do you think it's important for Cook to be sure that he is the first European to visit
22 before he claims the lands? Can you find out where 'New Holland' is?
23
24 The Blind Spot on Our Indigenous History
25 https//www.linkedin.com › pulse › blind-spot-our-indigenous-history-leon-gettler
26 The Blind Spot on Our Indigenous History
27 The guide does not say that Cook “invaded” the country, merely that he was the first
28 Englishman to map the coast of New Holland. It points ...
29 END QUOTE Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by the
30 Dutch?
31
32 Clearly for a braindead nitwit to claim that the Brits did a “bloody invasion” in my view is an
33 insult to the Monarch and she hardly can be deemed a proper representation for the Monarch.
34 After all what else fabricated claim is or has she been pursuing?
35
36 We also have this sheer absurd nonsense about “Australia Day” being “invasion Day” and
37 should be cancelled and many city/shire councils have done so and this just show the gross
38 absurdity.
39
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. TRENWITH: I have been a federationist ever since I have taken any part in public
43 life. I am an Australian native, and I have a patriotic desire to see the nation with which I
44 am associated assume a position of importance amongst the nations of the world.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
48 QUOTE
49 William Arthur Trenwith (15 July 1846 – 26 July 1925) was a pioneer trade union official
50 and labour movement politician for Victoria, Australia.
51 Born to convict parents at Launceston, Tasmania, he followed his father's trade as a
52 bootmaker.
Page 36
1 END QUOTE
2
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
4 QUOTE
5 Trenwith was the only elected labour representative at the Federal Constitutional
6 Convention (1897–98) that led to the Federation of the six Australian colonies in 1901. His
7 support of Federation was over the objections of many in the labour movement, and served
8 to ameliorate accusations that the Federation Bill had been "wholly shaped in a
9 conservative direction" as accused by the Age.
10 END QUOTE
11 And
12 QUOTE
13 Trenwith was married three times. His first marriage was to Susannah Page on 2
14 November 1868 and they had four children, a daughter and three sons. Susannah died in
15 1896. His second marriage was to Elizabeth Bright on 7 April 1896 and they would have
16 three children, a daughter and two sons. Elizabeth died in 1923. His third marriage was to
17 Helen Florence Sinclair on 1 October 1924. [1]
18 Trenwith died in Melbourne on 26 July 1925, aged 79, survived by his third wife and his
19 seven children.[1][8]
20 END QUOTE
21 This underlines that being a “native” was not at all considered a derogative word but rather that
22 natives being Aboriginal or not were all deemed equal unless a race legislation was enacted
23 ,against a certain race.
24
25 The Framers of the Constitution didn’t refer to “First Nations”, “traditional custodians” later
26 referred to as “traditional owners”, etc because to them all Australians were born as “natives”
27 and equal in rights. How then courts provide for “native Title” when they are acting in violation
28 of the constitution. Even the MABO case was a distortion of the FACTS, this as the Court in its
29 judgment didn’t at all refer to the Dutch having claimed “New Holland” in 1658.
30
31 Also:
32
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. BARTON.-It has been suggested that this sub-section is embraced in the preceding
36 one-"External affairs and treaties." That is arguable; it is quite possible that it may be
37 true; but there are a very large number of people who look forward with interest to the
38 Commonwealth undertaking, as far as it can as part of the British Empire, the regulation
39 of the Pacific Islands. It may be, I think, as there is a doubt as to whether the one thing is
40 included in the other, and as there are a large number of people who are interested in this
41 question, that it is better in deference to their views to leave the words as they are. As the
42 subsection may do some good, and can do no harm, I think that the objection should not be
43 pressed.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 There can be no doubt about the wording "External affairs and treaties." That therefore the
47 “external” treaty powers cannot be used internally within the Commonwealth of Australia.
48 This means all and any purported treaty not only by the Commonwealth but also by the
49 States/Territories created within 106 of the constitution (subject to this constitution) cannot
50 exercise any treaty powers regarding Aboriginals (including Torres Strait Islanders).
51
53 QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-
Page 37
1 We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but
2 also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
3 END QUOTE
4
5 This clearly underlines we have badly educated (purported) judges or they simply were/are
6 betraying the constitution!
7
8 The following legal principle also applies in the Commonwealth of Australia:
9
10 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
11 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
12 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
13 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
14 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
15 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
16 authority of the United States”.
17
18 And then also consider:
19
21 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
22 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
23 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
24 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
25 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
26 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 Each and everyone of them can be immediately placed in custody in a prison!
30
31 This means that (former) parliamentarians and (former) judges can be held legally accountable
32 for their conduct to betray the true meaning and application of the legal provisions embedded in
33 the constitution! The same with those law enforcement officers and the military who betrayed
34 Australians with enforcing the “covid scam” unconstitutional mandates!
35
37 QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
38 The question of creating a standing army is one which, to my mind, is almost more
39 repulsive than the question of readjustment of territorial boundaries. It means the
40 existence in our midst of a certain number of idle men-men sharpening their knives
41 and their swords for the first fitting opportunity of fleshing them on the people of
42 their own country, because we have no other enemies. We, in Australia-federated
43 Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies to the whole-have no
44 enemies within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute with us the possession of the
45 soil; we have no powerful Maori race, to fight, as was once the case in New Zealand, for
46 the territory the right to which belonged to the Maoris themselves. We have no enemies
47 within, and the only thing we have to fear is the possibility of any assault on the mother
48 country by her enemies from without, unless indeed the creation of a standing army proves
49 a menace to the people of Australia by the existence of an armed force for unlawful
50 purposes. This question of the creation of a military force is one of the blots upon these
51 resolutions. We want no military force within New South Wales. All we want to do is to
52 make every man who is either a native of the soil, or one of ourselves by reason of his
Page 38
1 taking up his residence amongst us, prepare to resist possible invasion from without.
2 Who are our enemies? Who are our enemies but the enemies of England, and they, so long
3 as we remain under the Crown, will be dealt with by an outer barrier, an outer bulwark in
4 the defence of Australia, in the shape of the navy of Old England. But we have no enemies
5 within, and there is no necessity to fasten the curse of a standing army upon us. As was
6 pointed out by the hon. member, Sir George Grey, yesterday, in his interesting speech, we
7 have no necessity to keep a large standing army at a large cost to the people of the country,
8 [start page 185] when we have no enemies with whom they will have to fight. Our own
9 police are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 Again
13 All we want to do is to make every man who is either a native of the soil, or one of
14 ourselves by reason of his taking up his residence amongst us, prepare to resist
15 possible invasion from without.
16
17 However, this includes also home grown traitors/terrorist!
18
19 The States/Territories had no legislative, executive and/or administrative powers regarding the
20 “man-kind” infectious diseases mandates, this because it was within the Commonwealth
21 exclusive legislative, executive and administrative powers and couldn’t be delegates to the
22 States/Territories [Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth)]! This means that everyone who colluded with the
23 evil doers to suit the W.E.F., UN, WHO, to implement a New World Order system as NSW Brad
24 Hazard then Minister for Health made clear was it about, should be standing trial for the mass
25 murder, etc, that they inflicted upon Australians and others. This includes any (purported)
26 judicial officer as they had no judicial powers in violation of the constitution! Remember he
27 reportedly corralled about 4,000 students to be jabbed, while held in a stadium! As it was in
28 Roman’s times to have people facing lions, etc, in a stadium!
29
31 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-
32 It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the constitution shall be
33 obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the constitution.
34 END QUOTE
35 .
37 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
38 I believe that, with certain alterations in the financial provisions, that Bill is a measure
39 under which the colonies could even now safely federate. Not that I say it is the best Bill
40 that could be framed; but I do believe it is a well-devised and well-drawn Constitution,
41 and a Constitution [start page 11] under which a free people-making such
42 amendments from time to time as necessity will require, and the powers given by the
43 Constitution will allow-might live in perfect freedom and with perfect security.
44 END QUOTE
45
47 QUOTE
48 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start
49 page 2092] Higgins) may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision
50 the practice of the High Court, when declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a
51 declaration applied only to the part which trespassed beyond the limits of the
52 Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
53 interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
54 END QUOTE
Page 39
1 .
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his
5 mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the
6 states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according
7 to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign
8 will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I do not care much
9 about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
10 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains
11 some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either
12 side to attack each other's laws.
13 END QUOTE
14
16 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
17 We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
18 Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this
19 case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform
20 to it.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 The same regarding the Courts:
24
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
28 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
29 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
30 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
31 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
32 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
33 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
34 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
35 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
36 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
37 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
38 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
39 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
40 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
41 END QUOTE
42
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the
46 rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are.
47 END QUOTE
48
49 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and
50 LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
52 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
53 for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
54 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
55 END QUOTE
Page 40
1 .
2 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
3 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
4 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
5 Constitution,
6 END QUOTE
7 .
8 With the Digital ID the Federal government seeks to push Australians to use digital payments
9 as to get rid of cash. But let us consider the following:
10
11 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
12
13 115 States not to coin money
14 A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and
15 silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.
16
17 Regardless what the RBA (Reserve Bank of Australia) might pursue it is bound by the
18 constitution to ensure Australians have access to cash. And any alleged transaction fee for using
19 cash should be held unconstitutional. It was the Federal Government that some decades ago
20 required and welfare beneficiaries to have a bank account as this was more secure than posting
21 cheques in the mail. The monies so deposited by the Commonwealth into bank accounts are
22 therefore for the purpose of the banks providing this to the account holder. Bail-in cannot be
23 used to rob an account holder of his entitlements for this, as the Commonwealth provides the
24 monies for one purpose only for the benefits of the account holder. The entitlement by the
25 account holder is not and cannot be subject to the bank limiting how the account holder desires
26 to use the entitlements. The accountholder may wish to transfer part or all of it to some other
27 account, or whatever or just use as little as possible to save up for any future major bills, etc.
28 Ultimately the monies (the value of it) must be paid out to the account holder as he/she desires.
29 The RBA is not the Federal government and it is sheer and utter nonsense for the Federal
30 Government to claim it doesn’t control the RBA, as the RBA can only function under the
31 authority of the Federal government!
32
33 As the Commonwealth has no legislative powers as to “civil rights”, etc, it therefore cannot use
34 any purported legislative powers as to interfere with how a person desires to use the monies and
35 for what.
36
37 Actually, the same applies with Aboriginals as any other coloured race in regard of which the
38 Commonwealth legislate unless it is a UNIFORM law that relates to all persons of that race.
39 Meaning, that if there is a restriction on Aboriginals what they can or cannot purchase (such as
40 alcohol) then it must apply to all persons of that race throughout the Commonwealth of Australia
41 regardless if they might be lawyers, medical doctors, etc.
42 The same with restrictions as to what is referred to as night curfews. The Commonwealth when
43 legislating as to night curfew then must apply this to all people of that race regardless where they
44 reside within the Commonwealth of Australia. A State/Territory cannot legislate as to a “race”
45 and so can only implement a night curfew where it applies to all residents in the State/Territory
46 and not being “race” based.
47
48 We cannot have Digital ID and digital monies of which the latter one could be expiring as the
49 Government of the Day may dictate, and may restrict the usage of digital monies pending what
50 the Government of the Day will permit and to what extent.
51 Neither can the Commonwealth dictate what food we can or cannot consume and in what
52 proportion, unless it is a specific race legislation and apply to all persons of that particular race.
Page 41
1
2 https://www.globalresearch.ca/net-zero-digital-panopticon-future-
3 food/5851840?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_
4 articles
5 Net Zero, Fake Green, the Digital Panopticon and the Future of Food
6
7 While the Federal Government is cosying up with the W.E.F., WHO, UN, etc. let us look at
8 some constitutional issues.
9
10 When the 2022 federal election was held the media claimed that Anthony Albanese was “prime
11 minister elect”. This was an absurdity because electors do not and never have elected who shall
12 be prime minister. Neither do any State elect a Premier!
13
14 The constitutional system is that electors vote for those they desire to represent them in the
15 Parliament and pending the election system how their votes are tallied, etc, the outcome may
16 produce a certain candidate of the election to be the successful candidate. Then, when the writs
17 are returned, the successful candidate may or may not be eligible to be a Member of Parliament
18 pending S44 of the constitution. The person may nevertheless decide to take the oath of office
19 (for the seat) or not. The person may discover to end up in opposition and may still be holding a
20 ministerial position with a State and so decide to decline to accept the seat elected for regarding
21 the federal Parliament.
22
23 The 2022 Federal election was held on a Saturday and the following day a representative of the
24 Commonwealth voted in a WHO (World Health Organisation) meeting on behalf of the
25 Commonwealth. The question then is who authorised this as in my view this was TREASON. No
26 one can assign Australians sovereignty to some foreign entity, as I understand Scott Morrison did
27 with pharmaceutical companies and for this unconstitutionally claims it was for NATIONAL
28 SECURITY to keep it secret, this even so nothing can be secret involving taxpayer’s monies.
29 Likewise, Scott Morrison assigning monies and weapons to NAZI Ukraine I view were acts of
30 TREASON, this because no Appropriation Act existed, at least to my knowledge, to authorise
31 such transfer of monies and give away weapons, etc, which were purchased by Appropriation
32 Acts for the Australian Armed Forces. Anthony Albanese on that Sunday was merely a candidate
33 elect but not a Leader of the Opposition, as the Parliament was prorogued, and neither was
34 shadow prime Minister as we have no such constitutional provisions. This placed the question
35 who paid for his travelling during the election period as certainly he had no parliamentarian
36 rights to claim “allowances”? And if he did claim it against Consolidated Revenue Funds that by
37 s44 he was ineligible to become a Member of Parliament. As after all the High Court of
38 Australia in Sykes v Cleary claimed as to what was at the time of the election the position was to
39 be eligible to be a candidate!
40
42 QUOTE
43 Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part
44 of an annual service.
45 Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?
46 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.
47 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we
48 distinguish from special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got
49 rid of the phraseology to which we are accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation
50 Bill, we are using the word law.

Page 42
1 Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to
2 place expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it
3 would not be a service.
4 END QUOTE
5
7 QUOTE
8 Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?
9 Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!
10 Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole
11 of the expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the
12 services and powers given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred
13 from the States to the Commonwealth.
14 Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?
15 Mr. BARTON: Yes.
16 END QUOTE
17 Again:
18
20 QUOTE
21 Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?
22 Mr. BARTON: Yes.
23 END QUOTE
24
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this
28 Constitution?
29 Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could
30 not receive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
31 [start page 1773]
32 END QUOTE
33
35 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
36 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with
37 regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the
38 Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted
39 elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is
40 not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
41 END QUOTE
42
43 Meaning, that while the Commonwealth is bound to provide for UNIFORM legislation and so
44 any funding to a public school must be equal to that of a student attending to a private school
45 regardless if this school is religious based, the monies however so provided cannot be used for
46 religious purposes. For example, if the Commonwealth provides for financial support for school
47 busses then regardless if the student attend to a public education facility or a religious based
48 private education facility it must fund this equally per student.
49 Likewise, with the funding of school, books it must fund the student equally regardless if the
50 student attends to a religious based private education or non-religious based education facility or
51 a public education facility in all cases the funding cannot be used for religious books.
52 As referred to above there are annual expenditures Appropriation Acts and there are special
53 Appropriation Acts. When then the Armed forces purchase equipment such as munition,
Page 43
1 weapons, vehicles, tanks, etc, then those items are the property of the Armed Forces and cannot
2 be transferred to the NAZI Ukraine armed forces and if a special Appropriation Act was for
3 special military expenditure then those Items neither can be used for a foreign army! As such,
4 provided this is within the provisions of the constitution, which I hold it is not, the
5 Commonwealth would require special Appropriation Acts to supply the NAZI Ukraine armed
6 forces with monies, weapons, munition, vehicles, etc. As the armed conflict between NAZI
7 Ukraine and the Russian Federation according to NATO admission it started way back in 2014
8 with the genocide of the ethnic Russians living in the Donbass area, then where there were no
9 specific Appropriation Acts to authorise the Federal Government to provide the NAZI Ukraine
10 government with monies, weapons, etc, then this all was clear theft and the relevant politicians
11 and those in the armed forces should be standing trial for TREASON and theft, etc.
12
13 TREASON in my view includes where a person acts in violation of the Constitution!
14
16 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
17 Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of
18 which it is that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not
19 present, holds that prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen
20 would declare war or peace without the advice of a responsible Minister.
21 END QUOTE
22
24 QUOTE
25 Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no
26 desire to interfere with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
27 END QUOTE
28
30 QUOTE
31 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: At all events, I would ask hon. members to pause before they
32 determine upon asking the Queen to surrender all her prerogatives in Australia. For my
33 part, I believe that all the prerogatives of the Crown exist in the governor-general as far as
34 they relate to Australia. I never entertained any doubt upon the subject at all-that is so far
35 as they can be exercised in the commonwealth.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 It must be very clear that to provide monies and weapons to a side in armed conflict means to be
39 participating in this armed conflict.
40
41 If a person was to provide a weapon to bank robbers but does not physically be part of the bank
42 robbery and sway a bank teller is killed, then the person providing the weapons ordinary can be
43 held guilty of the murder because of having provided the weapon. Likewise where the Federal
44 government provided monies to the NAZI Ukraine for its continued genocide mon ethnic
45 Russians and in the process also killing non-ethnic Russians then clearly the Federal government
46 is implicated with being a party to this genocide. The same where the Australian Army provides
47 logistics to the NAZI Ukraine armed forces, etc.
48 And as only the Governor-General can approve for the Australian armed forces to engage in a
49 military conflict with another country by publishing in the gazette a declaration of war naming
50 the relevant country/countries then where the Governor-General did not publish such a
51 DECLARATION OF WAR in the Gazette then beyond doubt those who engaged in this armed
52 conflict committed TREASON. The exception to this is as the Framers of the Constitution
53 debated:
Page 44
1
3 QUOTE
4 Clause 112-The Commonwealth shall protect every state against invasion, and, on the
5 application of the Executive Government of a state, against domestic violence.
6 Mr. GORDON (South Australia).-I beg to move-
7 That the word "invasion" (line 2) be struck out, and the word "attack" substituted.
8 Why should the protection of the Commonwealth be confined only to invasion? We are
9 not likely ever to be invaded, but we are exceedingly likely to be attacked.
10 Mr. BARTON.-Any attack is an invasion in the sense in which the word is used in this
11 clause.
12 Mr. GORDON.-The gunning by a cruiser standing off a city is not an invasion, but it is
13 an attack.
14 Mr. BARTON.-It is an attack which is part of an invasion; if the attack succeeds invasion
15 follows.
16 Mr. GORDON.-I think "attack" is very much better. Of course, if the word "invasion"
17 covers the ground, well and good; but while "attack" covers "invasion," does "invasion"
18 cover "attack"? Originally, the amendment I intended to move used both the words
19 "attack" and "invasion."
20 Mr. REID.-You can repel an invasion 100 miles from the coast.
21 Mr. GORDON.-But how does the honorable member know that an invasion is intended?
22 [start page 692]
23 Mr. REID.-If there was a war between two countries, and a cruiser from the one country
24 was approaching the other, you would know that it was not on a visit of brotherly love.
25 Mr. GORDON.-They may not intend to invade the chances are that they do not intend to
26 invade, but to attack.
27 Mr. BARTON.-Do you think that the Commonwealth, if a hostile fleet appeared for the
28 purpose of attacking, and not invading, would keep the batteries silent and the Australian
29 fleet at anchor?
30 Mr. GORDON.-Something may turn upon this. By this clause the Common-wealth is
31 only bound to protect every state against invasion. If the Commonwealth neglected its
32 duty, and South Australia was invaded, South Australia would have a claim against the
33 Commonwealth. But, it appears to me, that it should have an equal claim against the
34 Commonwealth if it was simply attacked, and not invaded. However, if the leader of the
35 Convention thinks that "invasion" covers "attack," I am willing to leave the matter to the
36 Drafting Committee, but I have some doubt on the point.
37 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am perfectly satisfied that when the guns are
38 booming there will be no discussion about the meaning of the two words.
39 Mr. GORDON.-Ought the construction of this Act to be left until the guns are booming?
40 I thought the object was to prevent the guns booming at all.
41 Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-I think there is something in the point raised by my
42 honorable friend (Mr. Gordon). We have previously used separately the terms "naval" and
43 "military." Now, an attack would be naval, while an invasion would be military.
44 The CHAIRMAN.-Does the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) press his amendment?
45 Mr. GORDON.-No. If the leader of the Convention relies on his booming guns I am
46 content.
47 The amendment was withdrawn.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 It would be farfetched to claim that the Russian Federation was having its naval forces attacking
51 the Commonwealth of Australia to justify the deployment of Australian troops to provide
52 assistance in NAZI Ukraine and/or to provide monies/weapons, etc, to it.
Page 45
1
2 Even if the Russian Federation were to have had their ships “booming” outside the borders of
3 the Commonwealth of Australia in early 2022 (not that I seek too imply this occurred) then the
4 Commonwealth could respond to what could be deemed an invasion but still couldn’t take
5 monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds during the current financial year unless Appropriation
6 Acts were already enacted prior to the start of that financial year.
7
8 When the 2022 federal election was held there were months to wait until the Writs were returned
9 for the elected candidates to be sworn in to take their seats. In the meantime however we really
10 on the Sunday following the election had no “prime minister designate”/”prime minister
11 designate” because our election system doesn’t allow for electing a prime minister. Albeit I did
12 not stand as a candidate in the 2022 federal election and neither was a successful candidate
13 within our constitutional system the Governor-General very well could have commissioned me
14 to become (prime) Minister, say because of my considerable knowledge regarding constitutional
15 issues, which most if not all parliamentarians appear to fail to have, and then I could be
16 legitimately be (prime) Minister) albeit subject to Section 64 of the constitution that I to continue
17 beyond 3 months I would need to be elected.
18
20 QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
21 The resolutions conclude:
22 An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to
23 time be appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of
24 office shall depend upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives
25 expressed by the support of the majority.
26 What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of
27 the new nation as similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional
28 advisers who shall stand as nearly as possible in the same relation to the representative of
29 the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial advisers stand is relation to the
30 Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to lay down as a
31 foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite
32 other gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in
33 view.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 On the Sunday following the Saturday 2022 federal election Anthony Albanese may by
37 ‘convention’ have been involved about the so called ‘care taking government” decisions albeit
38 there is no constitutional provision for this. However Anthony Albanese when commissioned as
39 (prime) Minister then should have immediately acted against any agreement with the WHO.
40 Failing to do so is no excuse and he ought to have been then had his commission as (prime)
41 Minister removed. As such, Scott Morrison was then being (prime) Minister ultimately was
42 responsible for the TREASONOUS conduct on the Sunday for somehow voting for the WHO to
43 get its hands on Australia’s sovereign rights, as he did previously with pharmaceutical
44 companies, albeit each time unconstitutionally.
45
46 Just that Anthony Albanese and many other successful candidates were by Section 44 of the
47 constitution not eligible to be Members of Parliament this as they were unconstitutionally (s44
48 od the constitution) using monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds to fund their travelling, etc,
49 during the election period.
50 When the Governor-General prorogue the Parliament the former Members of Parliament of the
51 House of Representatives are no more Members of Parliament and as such, their usage

Page 46
1 nevertheless of (their non-existing) parliamentarian privileges, etc, to fund their election

2 campaign cost places them in violation to s44 and by s45 their right to hold a seat evaporated.
3 To the credit of former Member of Parliament Kevin Rudd, when I wrote to him about not being
4 a Member of Parliament while campaigning in the 2007 federal election he actually subsequently
5 on national television made clear he was an unemployed former diplomat.
6
7 Members of Parliament do not receive a salary but only are entitled to a compensation that is
8 referred to as being an “allowance”
9
11 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
12 There are, of course, many formal matters relating to both houses, such as the election of
13 president and speaker, disqualifications, the issue of writs, elections, and so on, with which
14 I shall not on this occasion trouble the Convention. It is provided, then, that each member
15 of either house shall have an annual allowance for his services, which is proposed to be
16 fixed in the meantime at £500 a year. The ordinary disqualifications are inserted as to
17 members holding offices of profit, with the exception of ministers of the Crown, or
18 becoming public contractors and other similar provisions.
19 END QUOTE
20
21 While the quotation below refers to “salary”, being paid for “work” the legal principle is that an
22 “allowance” is not a salary. It means that you cannot have some “superannuation” with the
23 Commonwealth in addition of an “allowance” as all laws must be “UNIFORM” and therefore
24 cannot provide special facilities to Members of Parliament that are contracts in violation of s44
25 of the constitution. Because Member of Parliament of the House of Representatives lose their
26 seats when the Governor-General dissolves the House of Representatives and prorogue the
27 Parliament then neither can they claim on that basis also being in a continues position as to being
28 a Member of parliament regardless if they are re-elected time and time again, this because each
29 period is separate parts of service.
30 Our constitutional system doesn’t provide for any Member of the House of Representatives to be
31 continuously a Member of Parliament for say 10 or 20 years, etc, this as the breaks for holding
32 elections prevents this.
33
34 Also the system that somehow family members of a Minister somehow can long after the
35 Minister retired nevertheless have the Consolidated Revenue Funds paying for their so called
36 special provisions (gold card) incurred cost is a lunacy and utter and sheer ridiculous.. Only the
37 Minister while actually serving can be paid a salary and it excludes his/her family members.
38
40 QUOTE
41 Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an
42 annual allowance for his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the
43 parliament from time to time. Until other provision is made in that behalf by the
44 parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
45 Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting
46 here, except to suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I
47 think, the best that could be adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in
48 the clause as an allowance for services is a misdescription. It is really an allowance for
49 the reimbursement of expenses.
50 Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!
51 Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the
52 statutes of those colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it
Page 47
1 should be put as the reimbursement of expenses, because otherwise you get into the
2 public mind the idea that members of parliament are actually paid a salary for their
3 work, which they are not.
4 Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at
5 all. Why not say that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall
6 receive an annual allowance? I move as an amendment:
7 That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
8 Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:
9 That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
10 If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies,
11 with reference to the payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought
12 to be inserted in the bill which are not inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act,
13 they will find provisions which take into consideration the salaries that are paid to
14 ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
15 officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the
16 [start page 654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament
17 lapses. There is no provision of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present
18 contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than the bald provision already made.
19 Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was
20 being paid £500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the
21 Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions
22 in a rational manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely
23 to commend it to our own judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public.
24 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are
25 likely to do well to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give
26 proper attention to further work to-night. I should like to say a word or two in reference to
27 what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in regard to the absence of provision on
28 matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting committee was
29 concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution
30 with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the
31 commonwealth in its first session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great
32 number of other matters of that kind. We have, therefore, given them power to deal with
33 this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a payment of members
34 bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual
35 allowance for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at
36 £500.
37 Motion agreed to; progress reported.
38 END QUOTE
39 Again:
40 . When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654] Crown, the
41 amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses.
42 And
43 Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was
44 being paid £500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the
45 Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament.
46 And
47 Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the
48 statutes of those colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it
49 should be put as the reimbursement of expenses, because otherwise you get into the
50 public mind the idea that members of parliament are actually paid a salary for their
51 work, which they are not.
Page 48
1
2 Yet, we find that Ministers are still claiming allowances and how, even when sleeping in a
3 garage of another Member of Parliament somehow this seems to entitled the garage occupant
4 about $400+ a day on allowance?
5
7 QUOTE
8 Sir JOHN BRAY: What the hon. gentleman has said is quite right so far as the purposes
9 of this section are concerned as regards reckoning the time of retirement. But in another
10 part of the bill it is provided that the senators are to be paid for their services, and the
11 question arises, does the term of service of a senator for the purposes of payment begin
12 from the date of his election, from the date when he is sworn in, or from the first day of
13 January?
14 HON. MEMBERS: On the day when he is sworn in!
15 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Surely when his
16 service begins!
17 Sir: I think we ought to have that fixed. It seems to me very undesirable to provide, as
18 suggested by Colonel Smith, that although a senator is elected in June, his term of
19 service and payment for service shall not begin until the following January.
20 Mr. CLARK: He will not do anything until the following January!
21 Sir JOHN BRAY: For the purposes of retirement, a date should be fixed from which the
22 time should be reckoned; but for all other purposes a senator ought to be a senator from the
23 day he is chosen.
24 Mr. BAKER: How can he be when there is another man in his place?
25 Sir JOHN BRAY: I can quite see that for the purposes of this section the provision as
26 contained in the clause is right; but, as regards other portions of the bill, it seems to me that
27 it is not right, and the question ought to be clearly understood.
28 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: So far as the objection with regard to payment is concerned,
29 there is a good deal in it, and the matter should be dealt with now. The clause only deals
30 with the first senators. Afterwards the term of service begins on the 1st of January. I
31 suppose a senator can hardly be called a senator until the 1st of January arrives. He
32 will be a senator elect, but he will not be a senator really until that day. If parliament
33 is in session on the 1st of January, he will walk in and take his seat, and the other man
34 will walk out, and his pay, I apprehend, will begin on the same day. But the hon.
35 member has pointed out a blot with respect to the first senators. A man might be elected in
36 December and claim twelve months' pay, dating from the previous January. This, I think,
37 would be remedied by inserting in the second paragraph the words "for the purposes of his
38 retirement."
39 Mr. WRIXON: The matter will want a little thinking over, because I apprehend a
40 man is not a senator until he presents himself and takes the oath.
41 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Why not?
42 Mr. WRIXON: He might refuse to take the oath, and so would be disqualified from
43 the beginning. It is not until be presents himself and takes the oath that he is really a
44 senator. He is in potentiality a senator; but he is not completely clad in that position until
45 he [start page 602] appears at the table and takes the oath, and I apprehend he is not
46 entitled to payment until that takes place. I would suggest that it is somewhat hazardous
47 to make an amendment at the table in a bill of this kind, which has been carefully
48 considered; and if these matters are home in mind, they can be afterwards dealt with by the
49 draftsman. I would deprecate any hurried amendment on the spot, where it may not be
50 required.

Page 49
1 Sir HARRY ATKINSON: The clause states that the term of service of a senator
2 shall not begin until the 1st January following the day of his election. If a vacancy
3 occurs, and a senator is elected in June, he then becomes a senator; but, according to
4 this part of the clause, he cannot become an actual senator until the following
5 January. Though parliament might be in session, he would be unable to take his seat. I
6 would suggest to the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, that he should take a note of this
7 point, and consider it. I do not think we could make any amendment here that would meet
8 the case. For the purposes of this particular clause the provision is right enough; but I think
9 there will be a difficulty in regard to payment, and also as to vacancies occurring.
10 Sir JOHN BRAY: I quite agree with Sir Samuel Griffith, that if we are not to overlook
11 this question entirely it ought to be settled somewhere in this clause, and if the hon.
12 gentleman sees no strong objection to such a course I shall move the insertion at the
13 beginning of the second paragraph of the words "for the purposes of this section." It would
14 be manifestly absurd in regard to the first election of senators to say that if a man is elected
15 in September or October the term of his service shall begin from the preceding January,
16 and that he shall be entitled to all the privileges of a senator from that date. It is quite
17 possible that this may not be the best amendment that can ultimately be made, but it seems
18 to me clear that the second paragraph was drawn with the idea, that it applied to this
19 section only and not to other portions of the bill. I beg, therefore, to move as an
20 amendment:
21 That before the words "The term of service" line 11, the words "For the purposes of this
22 section" be inserted.
23 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That is quite correct: those are the right words!
24 Amendment agreed to.
25 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: In reference to the point raised by the hon. member, Sir
26 Harry Atkinson, in regard to vacancies occurring by death, the difficulty would be met by
27 substituting for the words "retiring senators" the words "senators retiring by rotation."
28 Amendment (by Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH) proposed:
29 That the words retiring senators," line 17, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof
30 the words "senators retiring by rotation."
31 Mr. MARMION: Is this intended to refer to senators retiring by rotation throughout, or
32 only in the first instance?
33 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Always!
34 Mr. MARMION: It seems to me that there are two portions of the bill which may be
35 affected by the proposed amendment. In the first place, unless it is distinctly laid down in
36 the bill that a senator, though elected, does not become a senator until the 1st of January,
37 there will be during that interval twelve senators instead of eight; because there will be
38 four who will not retire for some considerable period after the election. There is another
39 view of the case. A senator may be prevented for a period from holding his seat in the
40 local house of representatives. When he is elected to the senate, he cannot sit any
41 longer in the state house of representatives, and if his election to the senate takes
42 place some time prior to the end of the year, unless it is distinctly laid down that the
43 mere fact of his election [start page 603] does not make him a senator, he will be
44 obliged to retire from the local house of representatives.
45 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: There is no doubt a little difficulty. In the cases of which we
46 have experience, members of parliament are elected by a constituency that may be said to
47 be in permanent session. Here we have to deal with the case of a constituency which is in
48 session only sometimes. We must, therefore, deal specially with it. There cannot be more
49 than eight senators at a time. There will be eight senators and four senators elect; for
50 a senator elect is not a senator until his term begins. There is no reason why a
51 member of the house of representatives should not be elected to be a senator in June;
Page 50
1 next January he becomes a senator and ceases to be a member of the house of

2 representatives.
3 Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, agreed to.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 Again:
7 A senator may be prevented for a period from holding his seat in the local house of
8 representatives. When he is elected to the senate, he cannot sit any longer in the state
9 house of representatives, and if his election to the senate takes place some time prior
10 to the end of the year, unless it is distinctly laid down that the mere fact of his election
11 [start page 603] does not make him a senator, he will be obliged to retire from the
12 local house of representatives.
13 And
14 There is no reason why a member of the house of representatives should not be
15 elected to be a senator in June; next January he becomes a senator and ceases to be a
16 member of the house of representatives.
17
18 This underlines that the word “chosen” relates to the Governor-General having “chosen” to
19 swear in the person and not at all being “chosen” by an election.
20 Also consider this:
21
22 . I suppose a senator can hardly be called a senator until the 1st of January arrives. He will be
23 a senator elect, but he will not be a senator really until that day. If parliament is in session on
24 the 1st of January, he will walk in and take his seat, and the other man will walk out, and his
25 pay, I apprehend, will begin on the same day.
26
27 It is therefore very clear that when the seat is vacated by a Senator/Member of the House of
28 Representatives then all payments stop, no such thing as a former Member of Parliament to still
29 use monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds to fund electioneering while another candidate is
30 forced to incur his own cost for this, as this denied FAIR and PROPER elections.
31
32 We have however that Electoral Commissions permit this unconstitutional conduct to favour
33 mainly the major political parties. The AEC for example will not at all prevent major political
34 parties to campaign to vote for a “prime minister”, despite this is false, deceptive and misleading.
35
36 Actually, with the “covid scam” the various Australian Governments were interfering with
37 Australians publications and to have Big Tech and the media preventing certain postings by
38 Australians they objected against while in fact they were the real culprits to make deceptive,
39 fraudulent, misleading claims all along themselves and somehow the purported
40 misinformation/disinformation bill excludes the governments from any misinformation/
41 disinformation publications and so politicians, etc, even so the Framers of the Constitution made
42 clear any law is to be UNIFORM and apply to all Australians, and as such also to government
43 entities and politicians.
44
45 Where is banking security?
46
47 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is very much very clear:
48 QUOTE
49 (xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in
50 respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws;
51 END QUOTE

Page 51
1
2 In my view Bail-in is not within this provision because acquisition for a private entity is not
3 within this provision.
4
5 QUOTE
6 (xiii) banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of
7 the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money;
8 END QUOTE
9
10 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/04/paul-craig-roberts/the-great-dispossession/
11 The Great Dispossession
12 (post by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka)
13 As the Commonwealth can only pursue “UNIFORM” laws then it cannot provide for Bail-
14 in for all banks. As any State bank would be excluded. Niether could it do so regarding
15 private businesses foreign or domestic, this as it would not be for the “public interest” as
16 such.
17 Article:
18 QUOTE
19 The loss of property rights in financial assets is the case throughout the Western world. The
20 rewrite of financial property rights appears to be the work of regulatory bodies, not
21 legislatures which seem to be unaware of it.
22 No, it is not a conspiracy theory. Regulatory authorities have made legal changes of which
23 financial market participants are unaware. Webb’s purpose is to bring awareness, which is
24 why he has made his book freely available.
25 As a result of these changes, which appear to have been made by financial regulatory
26 authorities rather than by elected legislatures, individuals no longer have property rights in
27 “their” securities. “Owners” now have “entitlement rights,” which means that they have pro-
28 rata rights to whatever securities remain in the depository institution after secured
29 creditors’ claims are met. In actual fact, “your” securities and your bank deposits are no
30 longer recognized in law as your personal property if the depository institution–the bank or,
31 for example, Merrill Lynch–becomes financially troubled. Your “ownership” is encumbered
32 as collateral for secured creditors who are the owners in fact.
33 END QUOTE
34
36 QUOTE
37 (xx) foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of
38 the Commonwealth;
39 END QUOTE
40
41 While State banks are within the Commonwealth their registration can be as any corporation be
42 subjected to “UNIFORM” but not as to interfere with State Banking.
43
45 QUOTE
46 Mr. MUNRO: We have agreed to sub-clause 13, dealing with the incorporation of
47 banks, and I do not see why a similar provision should not be made in regard to the
48 incorporation of companies. Why should they not be under the control of federal officers?
49 At the present time the law as to incorporation is different in the different colonies, and
50 the result is [start page 686] extremely unsatisfactory in many cases. I do not see why
51 we should not make the same provision in regard to the incorporation of companies as we
52 have made in regard to the incorporation of banks. We might introduce at the
Page 52
1 commencement of the sub-clause words to this effect: "The registration or incorporation of

2 companies."
3 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I do not think we should. There are a great number of
4 different corporations. For instance, there are municipal, trading, and charitable
5 corporations, and these are all incorporated in different ways according to the law
6 obtaining in the different states.
7 Mr. MUNRO: But as to trading corporations!
8 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It is sometimes difficult to say what is a trading corporation.
9 What is important, however, is that there should be a uniform law for the recognition of
10 corporations. Some states might require an elaborate form, the payment of heavy fees,
11 and certain guarantees as to the stability of members, while another state might not
12 think it worth its while to take so much trouble, having regard to its different
13 circumstances. I think the states may be trusted to stipulate how they will incorporate
14 companies, although we ought to have some general law in regard to their
15 recognition.
16 Sir JOHN BRAY: I think the point raised by the hon. member, Mr. Munro, is worth a
17 little more consideration than hon. members seem disposed to bestow upon it. We know
18 what some of these corporations are; and I think joint-stock companies might be
19 incorporated upon some uniform method. In South Australia, a banking company is not
20 allowed to be incorporated under the Companies Act; still, there is nothing in Victoria of
21 which I am aware to prevent a banking company from being registered there as a limited
22 company and opening a branch in South Australia a few days afterwards. I think it is
23 necessary, therefore, to have some uniform law. There is nothing in which the public
24 should have more confidence than in banks which are in any way recognised by the state;
25 and I think we should have some uniform system of incorporating banks. Many
26 companies, although doing business under different names, are, in reality, banks.
27 Mr. MUNRO: The banks are incorporated under the Companies Act in Victoria!
28 Sir JOHN BRAY: You can establish financial companies, which you do not call banks,
29 but which answer all the purposes of banks. We have provided that the federal
30 parliament shall legislate as to the incorporation of banks; but there is nothing to
31 prevent the incorporation by the states themselves, quite apart from the federal
32 parliament, of trading companies which will do all the ordinary business of banks. If it is
33 desirable to intrust legislation as to the incorporation of banks to the federal government,
34 there is no reason why we should not say that the registration of financial companies doing
35 all the business of banks should be dealt with in the same manner.
36 Sub-clause agreed to.
37 END QUOTE
38
40 QUOTE
41 Colonel SMITH: A municipal corporation can borrow without the consent of the state
42 parliament, and why should not the state parliament have a similar power?
43 Mr. MUNRO: The hon. member is going away from the question with which I am
44 dealing. The municipal corporations that borrow upon the security of their own assets can
45 only do so upon the authority of an act of parliament giving them that power; but the
46 parliament that gives the power to borrow did not take over their debts.
47 END QUOTE
48
49 https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-climate-cold-truth/5854501
50 Video: Climate – The Cold Truth. The Massive Scam which Promotes Global Warming /
51 Climate Change
52 QUOTE
Page 53
1 Climate Change/Global Warming is the scare tool being used to completely capsize
2 the world economy, destroy agriculture and act as a supposed critical ‘health hazard’ to the
3 global population.
4 The World Health Organisation has the audacity to claim that it is in a position to also rule
5 on climate issues. So its ‘Pandemic Treaty’, if approved by The World Health Assembly
6 this May 2024, looks like being the basis for placing both climate change and world health
7 under its United Nations/World Economic Foundation backed despotic mantle.
8 Let us be in no doubt that the depopulation agenda is at the forefront of these maneuvers.
9 Covid, Climate and Health Care are now all weaponised by the elite Big Finance cult that
10 pulls the strings of puppet political chiefs, non governmental organisations (NGO’s) and
11 all operatives that toe the line of the top down status quo.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/04/no_author/how-our-government-medical-institutions-
15 and-universities-kill-us/
16 How Our Government, Medical Institutions, and Universities – Kill Us
17 QUOTE
18 The fact that the Pfizer CoVid Vax can ‘cause’ cancer would indicate that the
19 technology to ‘cause’ cancer has likely been around for sometime. The fact that the
20 DoD has been operating bioweapon laboratories for decades in conjunction with NIH
21 and Pfizer would indicate that disease is their focus in warfare. The fact that the
22 Pfizer CoVid vax was ‘forced’ on the US military would indicate that our DoD
23 ‘wants’ to kill our military – not just citizens. The fact that illegals do not take the
24 Vax – is their end point.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 https://www.globalresearch.ca/fraudulent-use-gene-therapy-healthy-people-extreme-
28 violation-human-
29 rights/5854521?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related
30 _articles
31 Japanese Professor’s Message to the World: “Fraudulent use of gene therapy in
32 healthy people an extreme violation of human rights”
33
34 https://www.globalresearch.ca/net-zero-digital-panopticon-future-
35 food/5851840?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
36 Net Zero, Fake Green, the Digital Panopticon and the Future of Food
37 QUOTE
38 According to investigative journalist Michael Byrant, €1.5 trillion was needed to deal
39 with the crisis in Europe alone. The financial collapse staring European central
40 bankers in the face came to a head in 2019. The appearance of a ‘novel virus’
41 provided a convenient cover story.
42 END QUOTE
43 And
44 QUOTE
45 This great reset envisages a transformation of Western societies, resulting in
46 permanent restrictions on fundamental liberties and mass surveillance. Being rolled
47 out under the benign term of a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’, the World Economic
48 Forum (WEF) says the public will eventually ‘rent’ everything they require
49 (remember the WEF video ‘you will own nothing and be happy’?): stripping the right
50 of ownership under the guise of a ‘green economy’ and underpinned by the rhetoric
51 of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’.
52 END QUOTE
53
Page 54
1 https://www.takimag.com/article/targeting-trump/
2 TAKI'S TOP DRAWER
3 QUOTE
4 Back in the good old days when the Brits ruled the roost in the American colonies, the
5 sneaky Brits used a system of their own to lord it over those who looked like them,
6 spoke like them, and worshipped the same God as them, but called themselves
7 American rather than British. It was very simple, really. The bad old Brits recalled
8 an old British law passed by those whose knowledge of democracy was equal to mine
9 of homosexuality, called the Bills of Attainder. If someone had displeased you, and if
10 you belonged to the right party, he or she would be attainted, and they’d never bother
11 you for the duration. Bills of Attainder did wonders for those who were on the side of
12 the state, such as landowners, the rich, members of parliament, aristocrats, females
13 with connections to the landowning aristocracy, and prostitutes whose clients
14 belonged to the Church of England, parliament, and the landowning aristocracy.
15 This kangaroo court system has now been revived right here in the good old US of A,
16 and my good friend and editor of The New Criterion, Roger Kimball, was the first to
17 write about it. As Roger pointed out, the Founders of this country, having managed to
18 kick out the Brits, made sure Bills of Attainder became a no-no in the Land of the
19 Free. Along with the hated “bills” came the ex post facto law, which was pretty much
20 the same thing. The Founders said no bills, no post facto, and added a statute of
21 limitations to ensure that if you stole an apple when young, you would not be
22 prosecuted after you were a success fifty years later. (I am simplifying all this for any
23 of you who only read from your telephones.)
24 “If this is justice, I am a banana.”
25 Needless to say, all the above are back with a vengeance, and the target is The Donald—
26 who else?—with a ludicrous statute of limitations trampled by a woman who claims she
27 was raped by The Donald at Bergdorf’s, an impossibility to those of us who know the
28 dressing rooms, unless the rapist and the victim are tiny midgets no circus would employ
29 because they’re simply too small.
30 Let’s face it: Trump might not be a gentleman of the old school, but that he’s a victim
31 of the establishment and target of the judiciary under orders from the top is as true
32 as the fact he dyes his hair. Just reading the headlines reminds me of the ones that
33 appeared back in the ’30s in Moscow. That’s when Uncle Joe Stalin purged his rivals
34 by having them admit under torture that they had plotted against the state and had
35 them shot. This the Democrats have not done, and they don’t need to because they’ve
36 got the useful idiots, the media, on their side.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 With the vaccine passport as like the denial of free movement from State to State, despite no
40 such constitutional powers existed to deny this we nevertheless found that in my view the High
41 Court of Australia betrayed Australians!
42
45 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
46 clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
47 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
48 END QUOTE
49
51 QUOTE
52 92 Trade within the Commonwealth to be free
Page 55
1 On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among
2 the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely
3 free.
4 But notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, goods imported before the imposition of
5 uniform duties of customs into any State, or into any Colony which, whilst the goods
6 remain therein, becomes a State, shall, on thence passing into another State within two
7 years after the imposition of such duties, be liable to any duty chargeable on the
8 importation of such goods into the Commonwealth, less any duty paid in respect of the
9 goods on their importation.
10 END QUOTE
11 And
12 QUOTE
13 117 Rights of residents in States
14 A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject
15 in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable
16 to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.
17 END QUOTE
18
20 QUOTE
21 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and
22 the states on terms that are just to both.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 The Court however in Palmer v WA stated:
26
27 https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2021/5.html
28 Palmer v Western Australia [2021] HCA 5 (24 February 2021)
29 QUOTE
30 291. By contrast, the purpose of public health provisions such as ss 56 and 67 is plainly
31 sufficient to justify even the deep and wide burden that the application of those
32 provisions can place upon the freedom prescribed by s 92. Indeed, at federation it
33 was contemplated that the application of provisions of this nature might be justified
34 despite the imposition of such deep or wide burdens. During the Sydney debates,
35 after one of the delegates, Dr Cockburn, expressed a fear that the clause as drafted
36 might prevent laws prohibiting the passing of cattle across State borders or the
37 introduction of diseased vines into South Australia, Mr O'Connor, quoting from a
38 prolific writer from the United States[465], set out a good description of the
39 operation of structured proportionality in this area[466]:
40 "By parity of reason addressed to the protection of the public health, states
41 may exercise their police powers to the extent of prohibiting both persons
42 and animals, when labouring under contagious diseases, from entering their
43 territory. They may pass any sanitary laws deemed necessary for this
44 purpose, and enforce them by appropriate regulations. It is upon this reserved
45 right of self-protection, that quarantines are permitted to interfere with the
46 freedom of commerce and of human intercourse. But this power is not without its
47 limitations, and its exercise must be restricted to directly impending dangers to
48 health, and not to those who are only contingent and remote. Hence, while
49 diseased persons or diseased animals, and those presumedly so from contact
50 with infected bodies or localities, may be prevented from entering a state, any
51 general law of exclusion, measured by months, or operating in such a way as
52 to become a barrier to commerce or travel, would be a regulation of
Page 56
1 commerce forbidden by the constitution. Such a statute being more than a

2 quarantine regulation, transcends the legitimate powers of a state."
3 292. Subsequently, Mr Barton said, in terms reflecting the first stage of structured
4 proportionality, that "the power to prevent the introduction of diseases would still
5 remain with the states, except in so far as any state law was found to be an
6 intentional derogation from the freedom of trade"[467].
7
8 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention (Sydney), 22
9 September 1897 at 1062.
10 Conclusion
11 293. For these reasons, I join in the orders that were made on 6 November 2020.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 Over the decades I became aware how judges would twist the truth/facts by taking out of context
15 what was relevant as to seek to justify a ruling/orders they all along may have intended to make.
16
17 On 22 September 1897 as shown in the transcript the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention
18 commented:
19 QUOTE
20 The CHAIRMAN: I would point out that there is no question of quarantine or
21 quarantine regulations before the Committee.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 It therefore must be very clear that what the Chairman did was to make clear that
25 QUARANTINE issues were not debatable at that time. However, on 7-2-1898 which was at a
26 later date then the QUARANTINE issue was debated and then Barton clearly commented
27 regarding “man-kind” diseases. Therefore the difference between what was debated on 22-9-
28 1897 and 7-2-1898 was considerable. I cannot accept that 5 High Court of Australia judges with
29 having their office staff somehow none of them were aware about the differences and somehow
30 all never were aware of what Barton had stated on 7-2-1898! For clarification I will reproduce
31 parts of the transcript of both days of the Constitutional Convention Debates.
32
33 Now let us consider the following of the Hansard transcripts:
34
36 QUOTE
37 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[12.42]: It may be interesting for the hon.
38 and learned member, Dr. Cockburn, to hear this very concise statement of the law of the
39 United States, which would be exactly applicable to this proposed constitution, and very
40 much on the lines that the hon. and learned member, Mr. Isaacs, has just stated. I am citing
41 from a well-known book, Ordronaux's "Constitutional Legislation." At page 296 he says
42 this:
43 By, parity of reason addressed to the protection of the public health, states may
44 exercise their police powers to the extent of prohibiting both persons and animals,
45 when labouring under contagious diseases, from entering their territory. They may
46 pass any sanitary laws deemed necessary for this purpose, and enforce them by
47 appropriate regulations. It is upon this reserved right of self-protection that
48 quarantines are permitted to interfere with the freedom of commerce and of human
49 intercourse. But this power is not without its limitations, and its exercise must be
50 restricted to directly impending dangers to health, and not to those who are only
51 contingent and remote. Hence, while diseased persons or diseased animals, and those
Page 57
1 presumedly so from contact with infected bodies or. localities, may be prevented from
2 entering a state, any general law of exclusion, measured by months, or operating in
3 such a way as to become a barrier to commerce or travel, would be a regulation of
4 commerce forbidden by the constitution. Such a statute being more than a quarantine
5 regulation, transcends the legitimate powers of a state.
6 So it is quite clear that all the powers are left in the state, which are necessary for
7 the preservation of the health of the inhabitants and of the property by the state.
8 Those powers would include power to deal with such diseases in the vegetable world as the
9 hon. and learned member; Dr. Cockburn, has spoken of, and also with animal diseases. It
10 was suggested in Adelaide that these powers might be used in such a way as to have a
11 protective influence in favour of certain states.
12 Mr. Symon: That would be in conflict with the constitution!
13 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: I was going to point that out. There are a number of
14 decisions in America, as has been pointed out by my hon. and learned friend, in
15 which on that very ground or similar grounds it has been held that the law, not being
16 a bona fide exercise of the police powers, is not within the powers of the state. Of
17 course, there is another question behind all that, which I think is a very important one, that
18 is, considering the immense traffic, say, in cattle, that there is right across this continent,
19 the infrequency of habitation, and the difficulties of enforcing the quarantine laws from
20 state to state, whether such a disease, for instance, as the tick disease should be dealt with
21 by the authority of the commonwealth instead of by the states themselves. It is a very
22 important question, and there are many difficulties in the way of its being dealt with by the
23 federal authority. One of the chief of them is, I think, the impossibility of the federal
24 authority administering an act of that kind without having an enormous array of officials
25 and immense expenditure. As we all know, there are in each colony laws-affecting
26 contagious diseases of cattle or sheep, and they are all administered by local bodies, The
27 machinery and administration are simple, and the laws are cheaply worked in the various
28 districts themselves. But if you place them under the federal movement, to be operated
29 by federal officers, you render an [start page 1063] immense machinery necessary to
30 carry out the very simple objects which are carried out by the local bodies at the
31 present time. It appears to me that the balance of reason is in favour of leaving things as
32 they are, leaving power in the states to deal with all those matters that come under the head
33 of police powers in the United States, the infection of animals, the infection of vegetables,
34 the introduction of, animal and vegetable diseases. There is ample power to deal with
35 them, and I think that the matter might be left in that way.
36 The CHAIRMAN: I would point out that there is no question of quarantine or
37 quarantine regulations before the Committee.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 As such, the debate the High Court of Australia quoted was about ordinary diseases to which no
41 QUARANTINE MANDATES was required. The High Court of Australia in my view took out
42 of context what the real intentions of the Framers of the Constitution was about! Consider the
43 following:
44
50 END QUOTE
51
52 To show how this was stated in context:
Page 58
1
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I remember well that this question was raised in
5 Adelaide by the honorable member (Dr. Cockburn), and there is a great deal in it. The
6 section in the American Constitution is as follows:-
7 No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or
8 exports except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the
9 net produce of all duties and imposts made by any state on imports or exports shall be for
10 the use of the Treasury of the United States, and all such laws shall be subject to the
11 revision and control of the Congress.
12 Then it goes on to other subjects, such as maintaining armies and levying war. A case
13 which the honorable member (Mr. Isaacs) mentioned appears clearly to go the length
14 which he suggested, that is that this section as it exists in the American Constitution, or the
15 parallel clause, does not deal with inter-state commerce but only with imports from or
16 exports to foreign countries. That might be got rid of, as far as this clause is concerned, by
17 a small amendment. For instance, after the words "imports and exports," we might insert
18 "inter-state or foreign" or similar words. That will show clearly that the power was
19 intended to be reserved to the states to deal with importation even from other colonies of
20 such pests as have been mentioned. It might be as well between now and the next occasion
21 upon which we deal with this clause to draft an amendment to meet the position. Mr. Isaacs
22 has referred me to a decision in America, in the State of Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S.,
23 313, which goes this length:-
24 The statute of Minnesota providing for inspection within the state of animals designed for
25 meat, by its necessary operation practically excludes from the markets of that state all fresh
26 beef, veal, mutton, lamb, or pork, in whatever form, if taken from animals slaughtered in
27 other states, notwithstanding the same may be sound and healthy. The result is that it thus
28 directly tends to restrict the slaughtering of animals whose meat is to be sold in Minnesota
29 to those engaged in such business in that state. This discrimination is an encumbrance on
30 commerce amongst states, and is unconstitutional. It cannot be regarded as a rightful
31 exertion of the police power of the state. A burden thus imposed is not to be sustained
32 simply because the statute imposing it applies alike to the people of all the states, including
33 the state enacting it.
34 That is a statute which applied to every animal, whether sound and healthy or not,
35 entering the state and designed for meat. That does not apply to the case which arises under
36 the clause with which we are now dealing. What we want here, I take it, is to see that the
37 states retain power to deal with these pests not in the way of prohibition-and the law which
38 was referred to in that case was a prohibition, and was therefore declared unconstitutional.
39 But we want here a provision that the states shall be able to exercise their powers as
40 individual states at proper places such as the ports and borders. That will not be an
41 infringment of free-trade within the Commonwealth. The way to look at it is: Is it desirable
42 that this power shall be placed in the Commonwealth or among the powers of the states? I
43 am inclined [start page 651] strongly to the latter view. I do not think the word
44 quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd clause, is
45 intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine.
46 That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind. I do not
47 think it is intended to enable the Commonwealth to deal with such matters as the tick
48 disease. It has been pointed out by the honorable member (Mr. Fraser) that the Federation
49 should have that power. As far as I am at present advised, that would be a very unwieldy
50 and difficult power for the Commonwealth to use at all. It requires the local knowledge
51 which would only be possessed by the states Parliaments and Governments. I am in favour
52 of the amendment suggested by the honorable member (Mr. Isaacs), and I shall prepare an
Page 59
1 amendment to make it quite clear that the states shall have power to deal with this matter,
2 not by way of putting on imposts, but simply making charges to enable them to carry out
3 inspection laws.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 The High Court of Australia clearly failed to refer to this part
7
8 That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
9
10 To have concealed this from the judgment I consider to be unacceptable to have been
11 accidentally. It is absurd to hold that 5 judges assisted by their staff who may do most of the
12 research somehow none of them would have been aware of what was stated about
13 “QUARANTINE” this even so the very notion of “MANDATES” were to isolate people and
14 confine them to certain areas, even restricting them to so to say house arrest, etc.
15
16 The very purpose of the “covid scam” was to restrict the rights of people, and this was made
17 very clear also by the exposure by Veritas ( some shown below) where pharmaceutical
18 companies did set up this elaborate “covid scam” to restrict people so they be injected with a
19 “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION “bio weapon” and this was part of the elaborate scam,
20 including “covid-19 PCR test” being sold to numerous countries in 2017 and 2018 even so the
21 “covid-19” alleged virus was not named until January 2020!
22
23 We have the WHO making known a “Disease X” is going to come around likely 100 times more
24 deadly than covid -19. As if the WHO has somehow a crystal ball to see the future. Then again
25 so did Bill Gates make known there would be certain diseases. Well, it appears to me that he
26 released mosquito’s in the USA such as Florida and people did become ill. In fact before that
27 mosquitos were reportedly released in Africa to protect the people but it turned out that more
28 people died. Then in India again mosquitos were released and I understand again there was an
29 escalation of people dying.
30 Reportedly NAZI Ukraine had some 58 laboratories and was releasing mosquitos, etc, such as
31 those in Russian Federation areas and I understand from documentation that Dorothy Institute in
32 Melbourne was one of the contractors to NAZI Ukraine laboratories.
33
34 It seems that the alleged “covid-19” virus was so deadly that Neil Ferguson if the ridiculous
35 computer prediction made known that fir the benefit of the financial supporters it would be better
36 to claim that Hey Fever was part of the disease.
37
38 https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/german-government-admits-there-was-no-pandemic/
39 GENOCIDE
40 GERMAN GOVERNMENT ADMITS THERE WAS NO PANDEMIC
41 QUOTE
42 Huge news out of Germany as the federal government have been forced to admit that so-
43 called “conspiracy theorists” were right about everything during the Covid pandemic.
44 In fact, according to the German government data, there was no pandemic at all, just a
45 tightly choreographed military grade psy-op to brainwash the masses into accepting an
46 experimental vaccine with disastrous consequences.
47 These secret German government documents obtained via a Freedom of Information
48 request and subsequent lawsuit have blown the lid of the global elite’s Covid lies and the
49 it’s vitally important that as many people as possible are made aware of the truth.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 https://www.globalresearch.ca/official-vaccine-passport-scam/5854621
Page 60
1 WHO Official Admits Vaccine Passports May Have Been a Scam

2 Testifying in a lawsuit, WHO’s leading vaccine expert said she advised against COVID vaccine
3 passports as the vaccines did not stop transmission and gave a false sense of security.
4 QUOTE
5 The World Health Organization’s Dr. Hanna Nohynek testified in court that she advised
6 her government that vaccine passports were not needed but was ignored, despite
7 explaining that the COVID vaccines did not stop virus transmission and the passports
8 gave a false sense of security. The stunning revelations came to light in a Helsinki
9 courtroom where Finnish citizen Mika Vauhkala is suing after he was denied entry to a
10 café for not having a vaccine passport.
11 Dr. Nohynek is chief physician at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare and
12 serves as the WHO’s chair of Strategic Group of Experts on immunization. Testifying
13 yesterday, she stated that the Finnish Institute for Health knew by the summer of
14 2021 that the COVID-19 vaccines did not stop virus transmission.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 https://www.globalresearch.ca/lockdowns-could-cause-more-harm-than-covid-19-no-evidence-wearing-masks-
18 useful-german-health-body-admitted-during-coronavirus-pandemic-released-documents-
19 show/5853927?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
20 Bombshell: Official Data from Germany’s Ministry of Health Confirms The Devastating
21 Impacts of The Covid Lockdowns, “More Harm Than COVID-19”
22 The German Government's Report Confirms the legitimacy and validity of the numerous
23 independent scientific reports on the alleged pandemic, which have been the object of censorship
24 QUOTE
25 March 11, 2020, Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was A Pandemic. The
26 Data Base is Flawed. The Covid Mandates including the Vaccine are Invalid
27 By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 30, 2024
28 Today March 11, 2024: Four Years Ago the Covid-19 Lockdown was imposed in one fell
29 swoop by national governments Worldwide.
30 The Lockdown implied: “Confining the Labour Force” and “Freezing the Work Place”.
31 Not a single economist has acknowledged this relationship. From their standpoint, it was
32 the virus which triggered economic and social collapse. What nonsense.
33 What does this imply. The most serious economic and social crisis in World history which
34 four years later is still ongoing, leading to economic chaos and mass poverty Worldwide.
35 Destabilizing the social, political and economic structure of 190 sovereign countries
36 cannot constitute a “solution” to combating the virus.
37 But that was the imposed “solution” which was implemented in several stages from the
38 very outset of the corona crisis in January 2020.
39 It’s the destruction of people’s lives. It is the destabilization of civil society.
40 Fake science was supportive of this devastating agenda. The lies were sustained by a
41 massive media disinformation campaign. 24/7, Incessant and Repetitive “Covid alerts” in
42 the course of the last four years.
43 The historic March 11, 2020 lockdown triggered economic and social chaos Worldwide. It
44 was an act of “economic warfare”: a war against humanity.
45 This diabolical agenda has undermined the sovereignty of nation states
46 END QUOTE
47
48 https://www.globalresearch.ca/invalid-data-drives-catastrophic-public-policies-
49 globally/5796827?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_art
50 icles
51 Invalid Covid Data Drives Catastrophic Public Policies Globally
52 QUOTE
53 The COVID database is invalid.
Page 61
1 First, the tests are not fit for purpose. Dr. Michael Yeadon describes the PCR tests as the
2 “central operational deceit.” (1) The CDC itself withdrew its support for these tests as of
3 January 2022 . (2) Similarly, rapid antigen test data is invalid. The test insert states
4 specifically under Intended Use Advisory that
5 “Positive results indicate the presence of viral antigens, but clinical correlation with patient
6 history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine infection status. Positive
7 results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent
8 detected may not be the definite cause of disease.” (emphasis mine)
9 As for the WHO which is the fountainhead of the global plandemic, even this institution of
10 corruption, funded in large part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has admitted to
11 the failings of the PCR tests. (3)
12 So the basis for determining the existence of “confirmed cases” is flawed on multiple
13 levels.
14 The data for COVID mortality rates is also flawed and invalid.
15 The CDC changed coding to death certificates for COVID in March 2020, prior to the
16 declared pandemic. CODING changes falsely elevate COVID as cause of death by a factor
17 of about 17 times. How? So-called “COVID deaths” would have been deemed due to other
18 causes using the long-standing, peer-reviewed system of data collection and reporting
19 established in 2003. (4)
20 END QUOTE
21
22 https://www.globalresearch.ca/tests-invalid-politicians-lying/5741853
23 Covid Tests Are Invalid. Politicians Are Lying.5 April 2021
24
25 https://www.globalresearch.ca/bombshell-cdc-no-longer-recognizes-the-pcr-test-as-a-valid-method-for-
26 detecting-confirmed-covid-19-cases/5765179
27 Bombshell: CDC No Longer Recognizes the PCR Test As a Valid Method for Detecting "Confirmed
28 Covid-19 Cases"?6 April 2022
29
30 https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-test-insert-admits-results-scientifically-invalid/5787069
31 COVID Antigen Test Results Are Scientifically Invalid. Confirmed by the Pharmaceutical
32 "Intended Use" Advisory19 July 2022
33
34 QUOTE 20211009-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian
35 Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-16-The AFP conspiracy
36 https://www.globalresearch.ca/pfizer-scientists-caught-undercover-admitting-pfizer-evil-natural-immunity-
37 better-than-covid-19-
38 vaccine/5757751?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
39 Pfizer Scientists Caught Undercover Admitting Pfizer Is Evil and that Natural
40 Immunity Is Better than the COVID-19 Vaccine
41 (Image not reproduced)
42 I watched a video by Veritas (Pfizer JOHNSON & JOHNSON Scientists Caught
43 Undercover Admitting that Natural Immunity is Better than Their Vaccine
44 https://www.bitchute.com/video/L2FhBNI6FK9q/) and I understand that scientist working
45 for pharmaceutical companies may have a NDA (non disclosure agreement) but
46 nevertheless admitted that people are forced to be vaccinated by having countries to deny
47 unvaccinated people certain rights so that in the end they are forced to be vaccinated.
48 END QUOTE 20211009-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Reece Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the
49 Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-16-The AFP conspiracy
50
51 QUOTE 20211014-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian
52 Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-18-Arrest them now
Page 62
1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNIj83XNNeE
2 Johnson & Johnson 'Kids Shouldn’t Get A F cking [COVID] Vaccine;' There are
3 Unknown Repercussions
4 My kind of transcribing the video but better check for one selves in case I made a typing
5 error.
6 (PV stands for Project Veritas) (Starting at 1.39)
7 START
8 PV JOURNALIST:
9 So, I should tell her [12 year old cousin] to not get the Johnson and Johnson one?
10
11 PV JOURNALIST:
12 Don’t get the Johnson and Johnson.
13
14 JUSTIN DURRANT, SCIENTIST, JOHNSON & JOHNSON:
15 Don’t get the Johnson and Johnson- [winks]
16 I didn’t tell you though.
17
19 Only way people really act, and - - comply, if it affects their pocket.
20
22 So, it is like, if you’re working for a big company and you’re going to lose your job, best
23 believe you’ll be the first one in the line.
24
26 I mean, if you can’t work, I feel like that’s punishment enough.
27
29 Like, a second grader [class] citizen- like you can’t do anything that a normal citizen can
30 do.
31
33 Inconvenience them to the point where it’s like, it’s the holiday- no, not the holiday – but
34 like- I might as well just f*cking do it.
35
36 PV JOURNALIST:
37 So, you said I shouldn’t trust the media?
38
39 BRANDON SCHADT, BUSINESS LEAD, JOHNSON & JOHNSON:
40 In no capacity should we ever trust anything that they say.
41
42 Voice (medical doctor):
43 The government doesn’t want to show
44
45 Voice (medical doctor):
46 That the darn vaccine is full of shit.
47
48 Pfizer JOHNSON & JOHNSON employee:
49 There need to be a registry of people who aren’t vaccinated.
50
Page 63
1 That’s sounding very [Nazi] Germany.

2
4 I’m gonna go door-to-door and stab everyone,
5
7 “Oh, it’s just your booster shot!”
8
9 Voice:
10 Don’t get the Johnson & Johnson?
11
12 Voice:
13 I didn’t tell you though.
14
15 Voice (re Pfizer JOHNSON & JOHNSON):
16 They are not reporting.
17
18 Voice (re Pfizer JOHNSON & JOHNSON):
19 Because they want to shove it under the mat.
20
21 Voice:
22 why do you think there is such a strong push for it?
23
24 Voice (Johnson & Johnson):
25 Numbers.
26
28 Laws like that, if you want to go to a bar, you need to come in with Covid test-like
29 inconvenience there people so much- that they’re just like, f*ck it. I need to just get this.
30
32 That’s what we’re doing.
33
34 PV JOURNALIST:
35 So, that’s what we need to do?
36
38 That’s what we’re doing.
39
41 Inconvenience them to the point where it’s like, it’s holiday-no, not the holiday-but like-I
42 might as well just f*cking do it, you know what I’m saying? Like I can’t go out of state…
43
45 …I can’t- my grandma’s in Canada. I can’t visit her, you know what I am saying-‘cause-
46 you can’t go to France, unless you’re vaccinated. I can’t go to [inaudible]-you know…
47
49 You’ve just got to keep doing things like that to-where it’s almost like you’re almost like a
50 second grade [class] citizen, if you’re not vaccinated-I know that is awful.
51
Page 64
1 PV JOURNALIST:
2 You’re almost what?
3
5 Like, a second grade [class] citizen-like you can’t do anything that a normal citizen can do.
6
7 PV JOURNALIST:
8 A second grade [class] citizen?
9
11 Yeah like-top graded like the ones that get it, and the ones that just like [makes a lower
12 hand gesture] – you can’t do shit.
13
14 PV JOURNALIST:
15 So, then how do we punish them?
16
18 I mean if you can’t work, I feel like that’s punishment enough… money, it hurst them.
19
20 PV JOURNALIST:
21 People what?
22
24 People-the only way people really act, and – comply, if it affects their pockets.
25
27 So, it’s like, if you’re working for a big company and you’re going to lose your job, best
28 believe you’ll be the first one in the line.
29
30 PV JOURNALIST:
31 Right.
32
34 You know (laughs).
35
36 PV JOURNALIST:
37 So, if you’re working for a big company and you’re about to lose your job, you’ll be the
38 first one in the line?
39
41 Yes.
42
43 PV JOURNALIST:
44 So true- so true. So, that’s what-that’s smart, that’s what we need to do.
45
47 And that’s what we’re doing.
48
50 Just counting this straight heads – not like – Ohh… it’s a baby, it’s up to them, you hear
51 what I’m saying, it’s – everyone needs to vax.
Page 65
1
3 You really – you really don’t need to vaccinated a baby, you don’t need to vaccinate a
4 baby…
5
7 ..especially if it’s not going to school, it’s not going out, it’s in your house- it’ll probably
8 be fine.
9
10 PV JOURNALIST:
11 So, at what age do you think people should?
12
14 Once you go out and you’ve got to go to preschool, you’re out – like I don’t know, what
15 the hell Johnny down-the-block was doing, right – so, that’s when you need to start [to]
16 vaccinate.
17
18 PV JOURNALIST:
19 Okay, so then – if you think that babies like don’t need to get vaccinated, then why do you
20 think there’s such a strong push for it?
21
23 Numbers.
24
25 PV JOURNALIST:
26 I should tell her to not get the Johnson and Johnson one? Is that what you are saying?
27
28 PV JOURNALIST:
29 Don’t get the Johnson and Johnson.
30
32 Don’t get the Johnson and Johnson- [winks] I didn’t tell you though.
33
34 PV JOURNALIST:
35 She doesn’t necessarily need to because she’s young?
36
38 Yeah, traditionally it’s not necessary.
39
40 PV JOURNALIST:
41 Yeah.
42
44 But again, she should get it, just out of her civic- her civic duty as a- you know?
45
46 PV JOURNALIST:
47 But it really wouldn’t make that much of a difference?
48
50 It wouldn’t make that much of a difference, no.
51
Page 66
1 PV JOURNALIST:
2 Yeah.
3
4 PV JOURNALIST:
5 So, what would you say, homeschool or get the vaccine?
6
8 Honesty, I don’t think a kid needs to get it, but that’s just me.
9
10 PV JOURNALIST:
11 Why not?
12
14 Because it’s a kid, it’s a f*cking kid- you know? Kids shouldn’t have to get a f*cking
15 vaccine, they’re kid, you know.
16
18 It’s just a kid who’s not developed yet- there’s so much growth, you know. And you’re
19 young- you can rebound from the virus- it’ll be fine.
20
22 They shouldn’t be getting it because, “You could spread to other people,” you know-
23 because you’re a kid , you know.
24
26 It’s terrible.
27
28 PV JOURNALIST:
29 What about it is terrible in your eyes?
30
32 It’s like the same concept of you don’t do things to kids right, you don’t put kids through
33 certain things you put adults through…
34
36 …it just that kind of category for me.
37
38 PV JOURNALIST:
39 Right.
40
42 It’s a kid, you just don’t do that, you know- not something that’s so unknown in terms of
43 repercussions down the road, you know.
44
45 PV JOURNALIST:
46 So, would you say we don’t know the repercussions of it?
47
49 I mean, how could you- right- there’s nobody who’s thirty years in, who said, “Hey, I had
50 the vaccine and I don’t have a third eye ball”…
51
Page 67
1 PV JOURNALIST:
2 So, you’re probably loving work right now then.
3
5 Yeah, it’s a little, it’s not like – it’s weird because they want us to get the J&J and I was
6 like, just look at the effectiveness of like, “No” – I’m good I mean you just look at the
7 effectiveness of like -
8
9 PV JOURNALIST:
10 So, you didn’t take it?
11
13 Oh no I did, I took the moderna.
14
15 PV JOURNALIST:
16 Oh, you took it?
17
19 Yeah – yeah.
20
21 PV JOURNALIST:
22 So, why is everyone leaning away from the Johnson and Johnson one?
23
25 I don’t know it could be in part like an F U- I’m not going to get your vaccine if you’re
26 going to force me to do this…
27
29 It could be too because people just don’t trust them, you know.
30
31 PV JOURNALIST:
32 But never Johnson & Johnson?
33
35 No.
36
37 PV JOURNALIST:
38 Why though?
39
41 I don’t know. The 60% thing and the blood clots that they reported.
42
43 PV JOURNALIST:
44 So, what do you think this is about?
45 Do you think it’s about the money?
46
48 Collection of everything I bet.
49
50 PV JOURNALIST:
51 What?
Page 68
1
3 Collection of everything I bet.
4
5 PV JOURNALIST:
6 What do you mean?
7
9 Politics, money – a lot of people trying to make the right decision, but being stuck in their
10 position of – am I being influenced by somebody to go one side or the other.
11
13 No, no, I don’t think anybody’s going to say anything either, if something went wrong you
14 know-
15
16 PV JOURNALIST:
17 Why not?
18
20 People are private you know, even J&J.
21
22 PV JOURNALIST:
23 What?
24
26 Even J&J is [private].
27
29 You’re not going to hear about that stuff like – if something bad is going on – like alright,
30 for the 13 years that I’ve been there…
31
33 …at least my time in consumer products, they’ve got Tylenol that was laced with like
34 cyanide, something bad happened there-
35
37 They had to recall products.
38
39 PV JOURNALIST:
40 I don’t know if I trust people – I don’t know if I trust like – what the media tells us, you
41 know.
42
44 Nope, you shouldn’t.
45
46 PV JOURNALIST:
47 So, you said I shouldn’t trust the media?
48
50 No, why should we? Why the hell should we? Hell no, no chance.
51
Page 69
1 PV JOURNALIST:
2 What do you mean by that?
3
5 In no capacity should we ever trust anything that they [media] say.
6 FINISH
7 END QUOTE 20211014-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the
8 Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-18-Arrest them now
9
10
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. WISE.-You cannot impose exceptional treatment upon the citizens of another
14 state; that applies to everything.
15 END QUOTE
16 .
18 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
19 Surely every person who has the suffrage-the right to vote within the Commonwealth-
20 and who lives within the Commonwealth, is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and
21 entitled to all its privileges, including the right to take part as the Commonwealth
22 provides in the framing of the laws.
23 END QUOTE
24
26 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
27 This Bill also contains a provision in favour of electors, which is altogether absent
28 from the Bill of 1891; that is, a provision for the protection of the voting right, when
29 the right has been granted, so that no adult person who, at the establishment of this
30 Constitution, or [start page 2468] at any time afterwards, acquires the right to vote for the
31 Legislative Assembly in his own colony or state can be deprived of that right by any law
32 passed by the Federal Parliament. This is a provision which was introduced at the instance
33 of the Hon. Mr. Holder; and although the matter has been the subject of complaint from
34 time to time, the instance I have cited may be appealed to as one evidence of the want of
35 foundation of accusations against this Bill on account of its alleged illiberal character.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 Let us consider the following:
39
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. HIGGINS.-According to one suggestion, you must go to the Parliament, [start page
43 984] but in most cases, if there is any question of policy involved, the consent of the
44 Governor-General in Council will be discussed in Parliament. It will be raised on motion in
45 Parliament, and it will be a matter for the parliamentary majority to support him or not.
46 Constitutionally, he will not give his consent unless he is in the majority.
47 Mr. REID.-What will be the position if the Governor-General in Council approves and
48 the Parliament disapproves?
49 Mr. HIGGINS.-I apprehend the effect will be that the Federal Parliament will be able to
50 pass a law which will over-ride this particular grant.
51 Mr. REID.-That is not the object of the amendment.
52 Mr. SYMON.-Would not the effect of your amendment be to make the Federal High
53 Court sit in judgment on an executive act of the Governor-General in Council?

Page 70
1 Mr. HIGGINS.-With all respect, no. The Governor-General in Council, as the honorable
2 member knows as well as any one, has to obey the law as well as every one else.
3 Mr. SYMON.-But suppose the Governor-General in Council grants the bonus, and
4 suppose its operation derogates from freedom of trade, then the Federal High Court will sit
5 in judgment on an act of the Governor-General in Council which involves a question of
6 policy.
7 Mr. HIGGINS.-Does not the honorable member recognise that even the legislation of the
8 Federal Parliament is subject to the decision of the Federal High Court?
9 Mr. SYMON.-But not a question of executive administrative policy.
10 Mr. HIGGINS.-The Federal High Court goes still further than that. It has the function of
11 deciding whether the Acts of the Parliament are valid or not, and why should it not have
12 the function of deciding whether the acts of the Ministry are valid or not?
13 Mr. SYMON.-That was not the intention in determining the functions of the Federal
14 High Court.
15 Mr. HIGGINS.-Our British system is that every official under Her Majesty is amenable
16 to the law-that everybody is under the law.
17 Mr. SYMON.-But this is a question of Ministerial responsibility.
18 Mr. HIGGINS.-Of course it is; but supposing the Ministry were to consent to a bonus or
19 bounty which interfered with freedom of trade, then the Federal High Court could be asked
20 to interfere, and it therefore has the ultimate decision of the matter. If the court decided
21 against a bonus or bounty, I rather think that the money would have to be refunded.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 Again
25
26 If the court decided against a bonus or bounty, I rather think that the money would have to
27 be refunded.
28
29 The same should be where taxation is wrongly applied!
30
31 For example,
32
33 The issue is what is your position as a Premier in this all?
34 Councils were recognised by the Framers of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
35 1900 (UK) to be “corporations” and in Sydney Municipal v Commonwealth 1904 the High
36 Court of Australia held that councils are a corporation and cannot legislate, however can exercise
37 “delegated” “State land taxation” where the State legislated for this. However, on 11 November
38 1910 the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to land taxation and that means the States no
39 longer had “concurrent” legislative powers as to “land taxation” and by this neither could
40 councils then have any “delegated” land taxation powers referred to as “council rates”.
41 Because, albeit unconstitutional, the High Court of Australia denied litigants to rely upon the
42 Hansard records of the constitution convention Debates it resulted that not uncommon the High
43 Court of Australia handed down decisions that were in violation to the legal principles embedded
44 in the constitution. The States decided that the “concurrent” legislative powers somehow was
45 always applicable, at least so it appears to me, albeit this was wrong!
46
47 Meaning that the State of Victoria (and any other state for that) lacked legislative powers for
48 land taxation. This means that the State of Victoria couldn’t delegate land taxation to ‘councils”
49 where it had no legislative powers in the first place regarding land taxation. As the Framers of
50 the Constitution made very clear that any unconstitutional tax has to be refunded! Remember, the
51 States were created in Section 106 of this constitution “subject to this constitution”?
Page 71
1
6 misconception.
7 END QUOTE
8
9 Despite of that the Commonwealth on 11 November 1910 commenced to legislate as to “land
10 taxation” the State of Victoria then did albeit unconstitutionally the same subsequently on 26
11 December 1910.
12
13 QUOTE 20240325-0114-20240325-Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting
14 the Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011 claimed
15 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+Bar
16 ry+Collier+MP+Parliamentarian+Secretary+Assisting+the+Treasurer+NSW+on+2+March+2
17 011+claimed+%28to+me%29+that+the+States+had+legislative+powers+regarding+land+tax
18 ation+returned+to+them%3F+Do+you+accept+this+is+possible+when+the+constitution+doe
19 sn’t+provide+for+this+mechanism+to+return+exclusive+Commonwealth+power+back+to+th
20 e+States%3F
21
22 Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the
23 Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011 claimed (to me) that the States had legislative powers
24 regarding land taxation returned to them? Do you accept this is possible when the
25 constitution doesn’t provide for this mechanism to return exclusive Commonwealth
26 power back to the States?
27
29 Answer:
30 No, it is not possible for the States to have legislative powers regarding land taxation returned
31 to them if the Constitution does not provide for such a mechanism to transfer exclusive
32 Commonwealth power back to the States. The Australian Constitution clearly outlines the
33 division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States, and any changes or transfers
34 of powers would require formal amendments to the Constitution through specific processes
35 outlined in Section 128.
36 The Australian Constitution establishes a federal system of government where certain powers
37 are allocated exclusively to the Commonwealth Parliament under Section 51, including
38 taxation. Land taxation falls under this category of powers exclusively vested in the
39 Commonwealth. While there are provisions for concurrent powers and areas where both
40 levels of government can legislate, matters related to land taxation are generally within the
41 domain of the Commonwealth.
42 Any assertion that States could unilaterally reclaim legislative authority over land taxation
43 without a constitutional amendment would be legally unfounded and contrary to the
44 established framework of federalism in Australia. Therefore, unless there is a formal
45 amendment to the Constitution or a change in legislation at the federal level, States do not
46 have the authority to independently control land taxation.
47 In summary, based on the existing constitutional framework and principles of federalism in
48 Australia, it is not feasible for States to regain legislative powers over land taxation without
49 proper constitutional amendments or legal mechanisms.
51 Australian Constitution
52 Legal Principles of Federalism in Australia
Page 72
1 Division of Powers between Commonwealth and States

2 These sources were consulted to provide accurate information on the distribution of
3 legislative powers in Australia’s federal system and how changes or transfers of such powers
4 would need to adhere to constitutional provisions.
6 5 results
7
8 Barry Collier (politician)
9 https//en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Barry_Collier_(politician)
10 Barry Collier (politician)
11 He was a Labor Party member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly from 1999 to
12 2011 and from 2013 to 2015, representing the electorate of Miranda.
13
14 Department of the Legislative Assembly - Parliament of NSW
15 https//www.parliament.nsw.gov.au › la › department › Documents › department-of-the-
16 legislative-assembly-annual-report-for-2009-2010 ›
17 LA%20Annual%20Report%20200910.pdf
18 Department of the Legislative Assembly - Parliament of NSW
19 parliamentary recess between december 2010 and the march 2011 election should provide
20 staffing resources to complete some of these projects.
21
22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
23 https//api.parliament.nsw.gov.au › api › hansard › search › daily › pdf › HANSARD-
24 1820781676-64586
25 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
26 Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges)
27 Bill 2009. State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Defence Force ...
28
29 Committee Secretary 5-6-2011 Joint ...
30 https//www.aph.gov.au › parliamentary_business › committees ›
31 house_of_representatives_committees
32 Committee Secretary 5-6-2011 Joint ...
33 This did not have the effect of preventing the. States from imposing land tax, but rather
34 returned taxation powers back to them. Accordingly ...
35
36 House of Representatives Official Hansard
37 https//citeseerx.ist.psu.edu › document
38 House of Representatives Official Hansard
39 House of Representatives Officeholders. Speaker—The Hon. David Peter Maxwell Hawker
40 MP. Deputy Speaker—The Hon. Ian Raymond Causley MP.
41 END QUOTE 20240325-0114-20240325-Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary
42 Assisting the Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011 claimed
43
44 It should be clear that AI agreed that the States since 11 November 1910 had no “concurrent”
45 legislative powers as to State land taxation and it would require a Section 128 referendum to
46 amend the constitution for the States to regain State land taxation legislative powers.
47 AI also agreed that I had succeeded in the appeals on numerous grounds, albeit it did not refer to
48 all issues then before the court.
49 This means to me that “Council(s)” has/have no legal standing as to pursue any alleged
50 “delegated” “ State land taxation” referred to as “council rates”.

Page 73
1 While in my view councils can legitimately charge for garbage collection, provided they actual
2 do so) but only as a corporation and not some purported “local government’.
3
4 Can a “council” claim to be a “local government”? Absolutely not, this as regardless what the
5 State Parliament may have legislated about it cannot override the constitution which created the
6 State within Section 106 “subject to this constitution”, and this constitution doesn’t provide for
7 a second level of “local government” which the state government itself already is.
8
9 The State government/councils, despite my past writings that “council rates” are unconstitutional
10 nevertheless failed to appropriately attend to this and this I view may constitute fraud by your
11 client to claim monies it knew or ought to have known it was not entitled upon as such, whereas
12 if it had claimed as a corporation for actual charges of collecting garbage, etc, it may have
13 avoided a lot of problems. But that is the direction your client choose to follow and well it must
14 then face the legal consequences for doing so. This means that all and any Victoria State land tax
15 legislation (so the alleged delegate State land taxation referred to as “council rate”) are and
16 remain to be unconstitutional!
17
18 Victoria embarked upon increasing this unconstitutional State land taxation selectively to certain
19 businesses and property owners seeming to try to get monies coming in after its reign of wasteful
20 spending that it still continues to do so, however this should be stopped.
21 Likewise, the so called unconstitutional covid laws must be abandoned. This as the States in the
22 first place had no legislative, executive and/or administrative powers as to the mandates.
23 Moreover it has no legislative, executive and/or administrative powers as to any man-kind
24 (infectious) diseases. I provided you extensive set out about this already in emails with their
25 attachments and so no need to repeat it all again.
26 With State land taxation and the alleged delegate powers being unconstitutional and to also the
27 Covid levy, etc, then obviously the State of Victoria has a considerable financial problem ahead.
28 I kept writing about this for decades but ignorance is no excuse and I am as the Framers of the
29 Constitution made very clear entitled to a refund of all unconstitutional taxation.
30
31 Can the Commonwealth step in?
32 The Commonwealth obviously can reinstate its exclusive “land taxation” but it can do so only in
33 a “UNIFORM” manner on a “SLIDING SCALE” and this means that all land taxation
34 throughout the Commonwealth must be equal! The alleged delegated land taxation referred to as
35 “council rates” never were “UNIFORM” throughout the Commonwealth and as such cannot be
36 deemed to have been Commonwealth delated powers either. Moreover, all taxation was to be
37 deposited in the Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Funds and could only be drawn by
38 Appropriation Acts, and I understand councils never did so. The same with the State land
39 taxation claimed by the States.
40
41 The question may be asked if the Commonwealth could use its “corporation” powers to delegate
42 land taxation to “councils”? This is not possible because any legislation must be “UNIFORM”
43 and so all “corporations” not just councils could start collecting taxes. In a sense with the
44 unconstitutional GST they are essentially already doing so under the guise that it is a business
45 taxation and it is up to the businesses if the charge it to the end users, however this fallacy
46 doesn’t work out as such. Let me give an example:
47 When about a truck load of boxes with their content was arriving from overseas then customs
48 informed me that I would have to pay GST charges regarding the content of the boxes. Oh boy,
49 did I teach them the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the
50 constitution was all about that Customs responded they would release immediately everything
51 without any payment.
Page 74
1 First of all I had with my order been charged GST (unconstitutionally that is) and the business
2 then decided to have items send to me from foreign countries. That was not my decision and
3 cannot then cause me to having to pay twice the unconstitutional GST.
4 Then the Federal government claims that GST is a business tax while I was not having any
5 orders placed as a business but as a private person and so for this (even if the GST was
6 constitutionally valid, something I do not concede to be so) then the GST would not have applied
7 to me. Yet, customs nevertheless is charging Australians this unconstitutional GST!
8
9 Then we have the issue of
10 https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/view.htm?docid=EV/1051986927516&PiT=99991231235958
11 1051986927516 | Legal database - Australian Taxation Office
12 ... v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1834 at [90] ... Melton Highway Pty Ltd
13 [2020] VSC 820at [58]-[70] ... | View related websites - ATO.gov.
14
15 Purportedly councils are not having to pay GST!
16
17 Let it be very clear that prior to federation “councils” were known as corporations” as the High
18 Court of Australia in Sydney Munnicipal v Commonwealth 1904 also underlined. It was then
19 about garbage collection, roads, etc. And as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that
20 when it came for example to “customs” the State of Victoria regarding railways sleepers couldn’t
21 be excluded from such charges. Then why would a council such as Buloke Shire Council be
22 excluded from Commonwealth taxation when the Framers of the Constitution made it very clear:
23
25 QUOTE
26 Mr. GLYNN: I think the last few words of this clause are too comprehensive in their
27 meaning. In South Australia there is a lot of land which is leased with the right of
28 purchase, and I can see that under the latter portion of this clause there is considerable
29 danger of defeating the effect of direct taxation.
30 Mr. O'CONNOR: In a case of that kind the reversion which is in the Crown would
31 not be taxed, but the letting value would be taxed.
32 Mr. BARTON: I might mention that the property of the Commonwealth in that land is
33 the reversion upon the lease. The reversion upon the lease would not be [start page 1002]
34 taxable, but the interest of the lessee in the property would be taxable.
35 Mr. GLYNN: I am only pointing out a difficulty that might arise.
36 Mr. HENRY: I would like to raise a question as to the right of the Commonwealth
37 to tax materials for State purposes. In the event of a colony importing rails,
38 machinery, engines, &c., for State purposes, I would like to know whether such
39 exports are to be free from Customs duties. Will the Federal Parliament have a right
40 to levy duties on materials imported for State purposes?
41 Mr. BARTON: This is a matter that was discussed very fully in the Constitutional
42 Committee, and I think my hon. friend Sir George Turner will remember that I consulted
43 the members of the Finance Committee upon it, intimating to them the opinion of the
44 Constitutional Committee on the point. The words:
45 Impose any tax on property
46 do not refer to the importation of goods at all, and any amendment to except the Customs
47 would be unnecessary. This clause states that a State shall not, without the consent of the
48 Parliament of the Commonwealth, impose taxation on property of any kind belonging to
49 the Commonwealth, meaning by that property of any kind which is in hand, such as land
50 within the Commonwealth. That has no reference to Customs duties.
51 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Will articles imported by the States Governments come in
52 free?
Page 75
1 Mr. BARTON: The question then arises whether articles imported by the States
2 Governments are to come in free, but this section has nothing to do with that. Under
3 this Bill and in the measure of 1891 I believe duties would have been collectable upon
4 imports by any State, and after the consultation which I had with the hon. member
5 and his colleagues on the Finance Committee the Constitutional Committee decided
6 not to make any exemption in the case of any State.
7 END QUOTE
8
9 Let it be very clear that prior to federation “councils” were known as corporations” as the High
10 Court of Australia in Sydney Munnicipal v Commonwealth 1904 also underlined. It was then
11 about garbage collection, roads, etc. And as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that
12 when it came for example to “customs” the State of Victoria regarding railways sleepers couldn’t
13 be excluded from such charges. Then why would a council such as Buloke Shire Council be
14 excluded from Commonwealth taxation when the Framers of the Constitution made it very clear:
15
17 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
18 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the
19 Commonwealth. An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must
20 be uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the
21 Commonwealth.
22 END QUOTE
23 .
25 QUOTE
26 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
27 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 This means that if the GST legislation is valid (something I do not concede to be so) then
31 councils must pay the same as anyone else despite
32
33 What we seem to have is so to say braindead people running amok when placed in a position of
34 power and surrounding themselves with numerous advisers which themselves neither have a clue
35 what is constitutionally permissible and let say that those advisers and their staff, etc, cost at
36 least a billion dollars a year then had the Victorian government just considered my writings,
37 which was notably provided free of charge, it not only could have saved itself at least a $1 billion
38 a year but also may have avoided the about $25 billon dollars now in debt, it more than likely
39 would have avoided numerous Victorian to be victim of the covid scam, and would also then
40 have avoided the ballooning of the health cost now incurring to care for the victims, well other
41 than those who were murdered in the process. In addition the numerous small business may
42 never have gone to the wall and may also have saved many marriages, etc.
43
49 END QUOTE
50
51 This is the part the High Court of Australia in Palmer v WA concealed from their judgment as
52 after all this in my view is how the High Court of Australia often has been operating to
53 undermine the true meaning and application of the constitution!
Page 76
1
2 Still, I lodged a complaint on 8 April 2020 with the Victorian Ombudsman quoting this
3 particular part also, who then referred this to IBAC. Well IBAC made known on 19 April 2020
4 that it didn’t view it was a matter of “public interest”!
5 Well tell that to the victims of the covid scam! In my view their suffering could have been
6 avoided and so also the murder of the many in the process. And my 13 April 2020 complaint to
7 the Victorian Human Rights Commissioner never even had any response. And as I understand
8 from video recording then Premier Daniel Andrews made known that “human rights” was not
9 relevant to him. So, mass murder was the thing to pursue!
10 And, then Premier Daniel Andrews could neither bother to respond to my request of 8 August
11 2020 regarding the alleged covid virus!
12 It ought to be clear that this was a disaster in the making where we seemed to have braindead
13 politicians and advisers who simply couldn’t bother to consider my writings.
14 Well, the Framers of the Constitution made known that politicians serving in the Parliament
15 would be losing monies despite any allowance. To me that means they would be given an
16 allowance no more than the average weekly earnings. So, let’s strip the bloated payments of all
17 of them. Advisers that are braindead didn’t deserve and still do not deserve huge payments.
18
19 I received below an email and have reproduced the details of the website as it contains numerous
20 links which may indicate that the testing on human beings, in particular also on soldiers, have
21 been a practice by the USA military and no surprise then that in the end now the entire planet
22 was subjected to this murderous, etc, conduct to try to find ways to escalate human disasters and
23 kill of people. The use of aeroplanes to disburse chemicals for this project underlines that
24 Australians are not excluded from this when this is done in Australia,
25
26 We hear so much by politicians about NATIONAL SECURITY where in fact that is the least
27 on their minds when their unconstitutional conduct is performed as set out that is done in the
28 USA and other countries.
29
30 Bailiwick News
31 From:bailiwicknews@substack.com
32 To:inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
33 https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/other-researchers-who-have-compiled?utm_source=post-
34 email-title&publication_id=37889&post_id=143424501&utm_campaign=email-post-
35 title&isFreemail=true&r=1a0316&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
36 Other researchers who have compiled evidence that US military-public health-vaccination
37 programs injure and kill people.
38 Also updated PDF compilations
KATHERINE WATT
APR 9
39 Orientation for new readers
40 American Domestic Bioterrorism Program
41 Tools for dismantling kill box anti-law
42
43 https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/other-researchers-who-have-compiled?utm_source=post-
44 email-title&publication_id=37889&post_id=143424501&utm_campaign=email-post-
46 Other researchers who have compiled evidence that US military-public health-vaccination
47 programs injure and kill people.
48 QUOTE
49 Each researcher has compiled evidence that US government statements about military,
50 public health, and vaccination program objectives, historical events and scientific,
Page 77
1 regulatory data, have been demonstrably false for a very long time, and each researcher’s
2 work has been suppressed and maligned, to prevent widespread public interest in it and
3 access to it.
4 Some of the listed investigators have concluded that documented injuries and deaths
5 caused by chemical and biological agents, including vaccines, deployed against foreign
6 and domestic human targets, have been unintentional, unexpected effects of willed acts
7 undertaken with benevolent intent.
8 Others have concluded that injuries and deaths have been intentional, planned, anticipated
9 effects of willed acts undertaken with malicious intent.
10 The evidence Sasha Latypova and I have added to the work done by these men and
11 women includes federal and state statutes, regulations, executive orders, international
12 treaties, contracts, and other legal instruments that have — since 1944 — legalized
13 government-directed, pseudoregulation-mediated, drug-caused torture, mutilation,
14 sterilization and killing.
15 I think the legal history supports the conclusion that injuries and deaths are intentional;
16 they result from legalized, premeditated, goal-oriented acts.
17 I think the FDA is a non-credible, false-front institution. It is not a regulatory agency. FDA
18 employees have never had, and still do not have, any enforceable legal obligation to
19 regulate vaccine development, manufacturing and use for safety and efficacy, and cannot
20 produce any valid records of ever having fulfilled such regulatory functions.
21
22  Eleanor McBean - The Poisoned Needle (1957), Swine Flu Expose (1977)
23  Robert and Theodore Strecker - This Is a Bio-Attack Alert (1986); The Strecker
24 Memorandum (video, 1988)
25  Stanley Monteith - AIDS: The Unnecessary Epidemic (1991); The Population
26 Control Agenda (1997)
27  Bryan J. Ellison and Peter Duesberg - Is the AIDS Virus A Science Fiction?
28 Immunosuppressive Behavior, Not HIV, May Be the Cause of
29 AIDS (1990); HIV and AIDS research. Why We Will Never Win the War on
30 AIDS (1996)
31  Peter Duesberg - Inventing the AIDS Virus (1996)
32  Donald W. Scott and William L.C. Scott - The Extremely Unfortunate Skull
33 Valley Incident (1997); The Brucellosis Triangle:
34 Neurodegenerative/Systemic-Degenerative Diseases (1997)
35  Leonard M. Horowitz - Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola -- Nature, Accident
36 or Intentional (1996); Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism & Toxic
37 Warfare (2001)
38  Edward Hooper - The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS (1999)
39  Boyd Graves - The Smoking Gun of AIDS: A 1971 Flow Chart; State Origin:
40 The Evidence of the Laboratory Birth of AIDS (2001)
41  Donald W. Scott - Common Mycoplasmas: Now Weaponized, Pathogenic &
42 Deadly (2001)
43  Gary Matsumoto - Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That's
44 Killing Our Soldiers, and Why GIs Are Only the First Victims (2004)
45  Edward Haslam - Dr. Mary’s Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor,
46 A Secret Laboratory in New Orleans and Cancer-Causing Monkey Viruses
47 Are Linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, The JFK Assassination and Emerging
48 Global Epidemics (2007)
49  Jane Burgermeister - WHO Memorandum from 1972 outlined three-step
50 approach to killing people using vaccines, specifically to trigger cytokine
Page 78
1 storms (2009); WHO moves forward in secrecy to accomplish forced

2 vaccination and population agenda (2009)
3  William Engdahl - Now Legal Immunity for Swine Flu Vaccine Makers (2009)
4  Michel Chossudovsky, The Worldwide H1N1 Flu Vaccination Program:
5 Martial Law and the Militarization of Public Health (2009)
6  Stephen Lendman, Readying Americans for Dangerous, Mandatory
7 Vaccinations (2009)
8
9 PDF compilations of Bailiwick News posts for readers who want to save the legal research
10 material offline and/or print, including January and February 2024 collections:
11  2022 Bailiwick News, Vol. 6 (950 pages, 24 MB)
12  2023 Bailiwick News, Vol. 7 (785 pages, 10 MB)
13  2024 Bailiwick News, Vol. 8 to date (January to March, 258 pages, 7.6 MB)
14 The files compile more than two years of legal research and writing in support of this
15 synopsis from a January 2023 abstract for an academic paper:
16 …Through gradual, covert statutory reclassification and program transfers, reinforced
17 through Presidential Executive Orders and related executive branch declarations, and
18 implemented through hundreds of regulatory amendments, the US Government's
19 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program originally housed in the Department of
20 Defense (DOD), became the Public Health Emergency [PHE]-Emergency Use
21 Authorization [EUA]-Medical Countermeasures program housed in the Department of
22 Health and Human Services (HHS).
23 The bioterrorism program is now jointly operated by DOD, HHS, Department of
24 Homeland Security, Department of State, most other US federal agencies and their
25 subordinate departments, divisions, offices, authorities, enterprises, committees,
26 advisory boards and employees, in collaboration with the World Health Organization,
27 the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and other public, private and public-private
28 hybrid institutions around the world…
29 END QUOTE
30
31 Shocking NIH Evidence! Food Supply is Being Contaminated with mRNA 'Viruses'
32
33 Karen Kingston from The Kingston Report
34 From:karenkingston@substack.com
35 To:inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
36
37 https://karenkingston.substack.com/p/shocking-nih-evidence-food-supply?utm_source=post-email-
38 title&publication_id=1103773&post_id=143465205&utm_campaign=email-post-
39 title&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo3NzI2NjI2NiwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTQzNDY1MjA1LCJpYXQiOjE3
40 MTI3ODcxNjQsImV4cCI6MTcxNTM3OTE2NCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTExMDM3NzMiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlY
41 WN0aW9uIn0.ZFEZ4fmhSE87DmQI9rEHDVCl-1KCsl2aX-
42 OAIok8DiI&r=1a0316&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
43 QUOTE
44 Shocking NIH Evidence! Food Supply is Being Contaminated with mRNA 'Viruses'
45 "My fear about this bioweapon attack, which is what it is, is that they could release a
46 chimeric weaponized 'virus' on US and global citizens through our food and water
47 supply."
48
49 KAREN KINGSTON
50 APR 10, 2024
51

Page 79
1 April 10, 2024: More than 2 years ago, on March 17, 2022, on Brannon Howse live I broke
2 the news that mRNA ‘vaccine technology’ was not only being put into our food supply, but
3 also being produced by plants.
4 This post is free. Feel free to share.
5 Share
6 “We are so far behind in this war. What's going on right now is we are fighting against
7 vaccine mandates, which are the bioweapon injections. We are fighting against masks and
8 contact tracing, etc. But they have had the technology since 2005 to put these weaponized
9 chimeric ‘viruses’ into edible products, such as lettuce and tomatoes and other fruits and
10 vegetables.”
11 - Karen Kingston, March 17, 2022, Brannon Howse Live
12 END QUOTE
13
14
15 https://karenkingston.substack.com/p/mrna-lettuces-are-not-vaccines?utm_source=post-email-
16 title&publication_id=1103773&post_id=143467641&utm_campaign=email-post-
18 mRNA Lettuces Are NOT Vaccines
19
20 The mRNA food supply is proven to be a delivery method for extremely aggressive
21 synthetic pathogens (viruses) that can penetrate the cell wall and nucleus of our cells
22 causing disease.
23 QUOTE
24 The mRNA food supply, including lettuces, is proven to be a delivery method for
25 extremely aggressive and durable synthetic pathogens (viruses) that can penetrate the cell
26 wall and nucleus of our cells in order to; “transcribe the viral RNA genome into messenger
27 RNA (mRNA) and to replicate its genome, thereby promoting rapid evolution, including
28 high rates of genetic mutation” resulting in disease. If the distribution of mRNA modified
29 lettuce plants becomes ubiquitous, the consumption by rabbits, insects, and human beings
30 will be catastrophic.
31 Lettuce is Being Weaponized with mRNA, Not Medicated
32 END QUOTE
33
34
35 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/autism-population-care-society-
36 cost/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20240409
37 : Society’s Cost to Care for Expanding, Aging Autism Population Will Hit $5.54 Trillion by
38 2060
39 QUOTE
40 A 2021 study predicting a tsunami of future autism cases and costs if environmental root
41 causes of the disease remain unaddressed was retracted last year under pressure from
42 the “autism industry,” and republished last month. Rising prevalence rates and lack of
43 state services show the predicted crisis is already playing out.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 It ought to be very clear that from onset in 1904 the High Court of Australia started to undermine
47 the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of
48 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and ever since had been doing so.
49
50 There is a lot more to it all but it is my view the judiciary can simply not be trusted. The same
51 with most politicians and their collaborators. In the overall about none of them I view hold
52 legitimately their offices.
Page 80
1
2 How one deal with TRAITORS/TERRORIST and their collaborators is what each person may
3 have as a standard. I for one prefer to hold them all legally accountable but the reality is we have
4 “LAWFARE” going on. And the fact that we have scientist and medical doctors also involved
5 in the scams is also very problematic as now those medical doctors that needs to be trusted
6 proved in general to deceive their patients!
7 The Framers of the constitution did refer to Militia and well it might very well be that in the end
8 Militias may be needed to try to enforce the rule of law against those who violate it as some set
9 out above.
10
11 We cannot have that politicians are so to say sanctioned to commit mass murder etc, as they need
12 to be held legally accountable.
13
14 ADDRESS TO THE COURT
15 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
17 Where then Mr John Howard was not elected in 2001, so neither others, then he neither
18 could have been Prime minister for any longer then 3 Months, as Section 64 limits the
19 appointment of a non elected person to no longer then a period of three months.
20
21 Hence, Mr John Howard was neither then Prime Minister to advise the Governor-General
22 for a general election in 2004! Indeed, neither was Mr John Howard in any legal position
23 to be involved in the appointment of the Governor-General Michael Jeffrey and as such
24 that also the appointment also is unconstitutional and invalid (without legal force- ULTRA
25 VIRES).
27 And
29 The Defendant submits, that even so he does not require to state his religion and neither
30 which part of his religion is relevant for a religious objection as it can be a secular
31 objection, he has religious objections and one is that “THOU SHALL NOT KILL” where
32 Mr. John Howard unconstitutionally authorised the murderous invasions into Afghanistan
33 and Iraq. How on earth could anyone expect me to vote by preference voting for what I
34 consider a mass murderer and one who committed treachery, treason, sedition and
35 committed crimes against humanity, and by this voting for anyone who supported the war,
36 such as members of his political party.
37 My right to abstain from voting could not be denied, neither be punished.
38 Likewise, in regard of the 2001 election where unconstitutionally, against International
39 obligations, such as the maritime report in regard of the sinking of the Titanic it is
40 unlawful to allow or to send any boat or ship away that is unseaworthy. Yet, we had the
41 Government using the navy to do so and refugees drowning in the process. We had the
42 Australian Federal Police, a law enforcement agency, being involved in what was claimed
43 to be conduct to discourage people smuggling, but it was being to prevent refugees to come
44 to the Commonwealth of Australia, and in the process we had the sinking of SIEV X, with
45 363 people aboard of which 146 children, on 19 October 2001.
46
47 The Defendant submits, that no one in his right mind could enforce any unconstitutional
48 voting electoral laws to force me to vote against me. I value human life to precious and it is
49 my peaceful way to protest against this kind of conduct.
50
51 The Defendant submits, that the Court rather seeking to enforce unconstitutional
52 legislation against the Defendant it would do better if the Commonwealth Director of
Page 81
1 Public Prosecutions were to occupy the Courts time instead to have Mr John Howard and
2 others facing the Courts as to their unconstitutional and otherwise illegal conduct.
3 To disregard the, what I consider plain murder of refugees, by towing their unseaworthy
4 boats back into the sea and so leave the occupants left to the perils of the sea in my view is
5 unacceptable and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, so to say, ought to
6 get his act together and pursue those responsible for their day in Court. After all what are
7 laws for if those in power can unconstitutional authorise a murderous invasion and get
8 away with it?
9 While the Australian Federal Police, as the Defendant understands it, seeks to excuse
10 themselves that they paid people to “discourage” refugees from coming to the
11 Commonwealth of Australia, in the defendants view, where any person acting so then goes
12 to the extend to tamper with boats causing the death of many, then the Australian Federal
13 Police must be held accountable for their deeds.
14 For this also, the Defendant holds that no one could demand nor expect that the defendant
15 was to cast a vote that could be utilised then by any person involved in such criminal
16 conduct as to claim to have the support of the people in view of the votes cast.
17 Because it is a preference voting system, the vote of an elector could turn out to go to a
18 person they never really wanted to vote for by the preference counting still could be.
19
20 The Defendant submits, that if the elections were held in a manner that an elector could
21 vote for the number of candidates he desire, and once those choices are exhausted then the
22 vote simply no longer is used, but because a preference voting system requires a voter to
23 list all candidates, the elector is by this robbed of a FREE election.
24 As a candidate, I opposed the murderous conduct against refugees in 2001 and for this also
25 was entitled not to vote where the major parties appeared to support the conduct to tow
26 unseaworthy boats in breach of Australian law, as well as International Law, back into
27 Indonesian waters regardless that people died as a result.
28 Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates [page 354]
29 Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-
30 It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular
31 feeling of a particular state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it
32 would become the duty of every citizen to exercise his practical power of
33 nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences against it. That is
34 a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its
35 condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the
36 law itself was originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to
37 the citizens of the states which should be preserved, and that the Federal Government
38 should not have the power to interfere and prevent the citizens of a state adjudicating on
39 the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by this
40 Constitution.
41 Every person in this case include also any judicial officer!
42 The Defendant submits, that therefore that no judicial officer having made an “oath of
43 office” could in any way whatsoever cause a conviction against a person who stands up
44 against tyranny and murderous conduct and other inhumane conduct for the advance of
45 human rights and humanity at general.
46
47 This Court, as all Court uses the Bible so people can make an oath when giving evidence,
48 then this Court cannot act contrary to the teaching of this Bible, THOU SHALL NOT
49 KILL, and somehow seek to punish me for doing what any humane person does and that is
50 to refuse to join and/or support in any way (including voting for) a group of callous
51 murderers, where they are using their powers to authorise the killing of so many.
Page 82
2 And
4 The Defendant submits, that the Prosecutor failed to disprove each and every excuse the
5 Defendant gave, which is required to enable a conviction to occur, as many of the issues the
6 Defendant raised were ignored by the Australian Electoral Commission. If indeed the
7 Defendant is right about his claims that s245 of the CEA 1918 is ULTRA VIRES because of
8 his constitutional based objection then the Australian Electoral Commission failing to obtain a
9 ruling of a competent Court to make a declaration to the constitutional validity of what was
10 objected against then in any event the Court could never invoke legal jurisdiction as the
11 legislation in that regard is and remains ULTRA VIRES.
12
13 The Defendant submits, that even if in some point of time in the future the High Court of
14 Australia were to declare Section 245 of the CEA1918 to be constitutionally valid, not that the
15 Defendant seeks to indicate the Court might do so, it nevertheless in the mean time was
16 ULTRA VIRES, and as such the charges cannot be legally justified, as not until after the
17 Court declares the legislation that is ULTRA VIRES due to the constitutional based
18 objection is declared ULTRA VIRES it is and remains without legal force. So, likewise the
19 proclamation and writ(s).
20 In any event, even considering every declaration were to go against what the Defendant
21 claims, in the end the issue then is if the Defendant had mens rea, to commit any criminal
22 offence or in his own views he was entitled to refuse to vote, if this the Court were to
23 conclude he did, because of his objections made.
24
26 Mr. GORDON.-
27 Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it
28 leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised.
29
30 The Defendant has placed before the Court that that it cannot invoke legal jurisdiction to deal
31 with the charges on a number of grounds. He contents that he made numerous objections to
32 the Australian Electoral Commission, and in previous litigation, etc, about constitutional and
33 other legal issues affecting the Proclamation, the writs, and legislative provisions itself, and
34 that it were the lawyers of the Australian Electoral Commission who by their 25 October 2001
35 themselves presented the option for the Defendant to pursue legal action in the Federal Court
36 of Australia and by this then there is an ESTOPPEL that they cannot then, while legal
37 proceedings are ongoing then they nevertheless seek to enforce the legislation by proceeding
38 with the election as if no constitutional based objection was made as so the Defendant makes
39 clear, once he made his constitutional based objection then the “legislation, part of legislation,
40 proclamation and/or writ(s)” are and remain ULTRA VIRES until the High Court of
41 Australia adjudicate upon this to declare it to be INTRA VIRES or ULTRA VIRES. The
42 Defendant submits, that this in itself is an ESTOPPEL as by the objections the
43 Proclamation, writ(s) and legislation are all ULTRA VIRES, and remain so, unless and until
44 the High Court of Australia has made its declarations in that regard to show otherwise. The
45 Defendant has provided a wealth of information to support his argument including quotations
46 of the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates which appears to support
47 the Defendants contention that this is embedded in the Constitution.
49 And
51 The Defendant submits, that he has in an elaborate way made constitutional based
52 objections against the validity of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, to declare/define
Page 83
1 citizenship as he submit, “citizenship” is a State legislative power. Further more, he

2 submit, that constitutionally ss51(xix) provides only for the “naturalization” of “aliens”
3 to become “British nationals”, which when residing in the Commonwealth of Australia
4 are referred to as Australians as much as are “aliens” residing in the Commonwealth of
5 Australia and as such where the Attorney-General of the State of Victoria made known
6 there is no State citizenship then the Defendant submits, there can be no Australian
7 citizenship either. In any event, the Defendant submits, that the Racial Discrimination
8 Act (Cth) enacted within subsection 51(xxvi) is in fact unconstitutional but by it causes a
9 disability against all Australians and for this not a single Australia has franchise as this is
10 in the citizenship which is removed by the effect of this Act.
12 And
14 The Defendant submits, that in view the Prosecutor did not fulfil the burden of proof, that
15 the Court could invoke jurisdiction, he was entitled to take it that the Prosecutor had
16 abandoned the charge relating to the 2001 election, albeit he further claims it did not and does
17 not validate any “legislation, part legislation, proclamation, writ(s)” that he claims are now
18 ULTRA VIRES because of the constitutional based objections made against them.
19
21 Dr. QUICK.-
22 we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British
23 Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be
24 citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would
25 still be, subjects of the Queen.
26
27 The Defendant submits, that the statement “It would be beyond the scope of the
28 Constitution to do that.” in itself makes clear that any decision of the High Court of
29 Australia itself is and remain ULTRA VIRES, where it offence its constitutional powers to
30 declare laws INTRA VIRES beyond the provisions of the Constitution. Such as that
31 Heather Hill was some kind of “alien”, not entitled to hold a seat in the Senate. This, as the
32 High Court of Australia cannot declare a British subject an “alien” or not entitled to
33 constitutional rights as this would be beyond the scope of judicial powers provided to the
34 High Court of Australia under the Constitution. Where this judgment affected other British
35 subjects, it is a major disaster at hand.
36
37 The Defendant also has relied upon the decision of the High Court of Australia in
38
39 Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court)
40
41 "A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the burden of
42 endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by their own
43 advocacy"
44
45 This does not mean that the Court is obligated to conduct the case for the unrepresented
46 Defendant but is obligated to ensure that the proper legal processes are followed in
47 proceedings before the Court. In law, the Defendant is unrepresented and as such this duty
48 applies.
49
50 When this Court faces an OBJECTION TO LEGAL JURISDICTION in that it cannot
51 invoke jurisdiction because of certain obstacles which have to be dealt with first, then this
52 Court cannot simply ignore those matters.
Page 84
1
2 On the material on Court file it is clear, that the Defendant made elaborate constitutional
3 based objections, including that the elections were and remain unconstitutional, and there has
4 been no formal judgment on record that formally declared that the matters the Defendant
5 claims are now ULTRA VIRES in fact have been declared INTRA VIRES. It may never
6 have donned nor comprehended by the Australian Electoral Commission and/or any lawyers
7 (including judges) involved in these matters how constitutional based objections instanter had
8 the effect to cause the proclamation, writ(s), legislation objected against to be ULTRA
9 VIRES and remain to be so unless a competent Court of federal jurisdiction determine
10 otherwise. Federal legislation that purport to set out a legal process to be followed – as set
11 out by the defendant in his ADDRESS TO THE COURT- do not have any bearing upon the
12 processes of a State Court, not even when exercising federal jurisdiction, and neither can
13 effect the rights of the Defendant where such legislative provisions are beyond constitutional
14 powers and/or are seeking to interfere/undermine the defendants rights and application of his
15 objections.
16
17 It is not for this Court at this stage to decide if the elections were or were not constitutionally
18 or otherwise validly elected as that remains in question considering the material on Court file.
19
20 In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780 (GS17)
21 "As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on
22 filing institutes the appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all
23 findings of fact and law made in the lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in
24 challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the respondent. All the issues (unless
25 by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the absence of reason
26 for the magistrates decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded
27 for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal
28 process, there is the basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their
29 witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to controvert the opposing case are entitled to
30 know, if they lose, why they lost. If they are given no reason they may be entitled to feel
31 the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case not
32 only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
33
34 Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not
35 mere ordinary trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of
36 responsibility which administrations of the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching
37 consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail. [Baker v Baker (1906)95 LT
38 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and again in Cobb v Cobb (1900) p145] it was
39 stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is
40 the duty of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his
41 decision, but to give the reasons for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his
42 reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required, but the reasons which lead the magistrate
43 to make his order must be explicitly stated.”
44
45 Because there is no REASON OF JUDGMENT and neither was any verbal reasons given by
46 the presiding magistrate causing to convict the Defendant, this Court cannot therefore elicit if
47 the magistrate did or did not deal with the issue of religious objection.
48 It is not for this Court to assume the Magistrate and indeed the Prosecutor may have overlooked
49 this issue because of the considerable amount of material placed by the Defendant before the
50 Court, but ultimately, this is why there is a need for a Reason of Judgment so that it could have
51 been elicited if this was considered by the presiding magistrate.
Page 85
2 And
4 As was also placed before the Magistrates Court of Victoria the evidence in the ADDRESS
5 TO THE COURT that the Attorney-General in November 2002 advised me that the State of
6 Victoria has no legislation to provide State citizenship!
7 Mr. SYMON.-
8 As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want
9 to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared
10 to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship.
11 And
12 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
13 rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every
14 citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth
15 shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
16 with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
17 and so on.
18
19 Therefore, regardless if the Commonwealth of Australia purports to call “nationality”
20 citizenship it still does not encompass a right to declare/define “CITIZENSHIP” that
21 includes state citizenship and State franchise.
22 Section 41 of the Constitution is very clear that the right to vote, and it is a right not an
23 obligation, is based upon being a State lector. If therefore, the state or States do not have any
24 State citizenship, then there neither can be a State franchise right, and so section 41 of the
25 Constitution does not come in play either.
26
27 It might be clear that the magistrate on 4-12-2002 upon submission of the Commonwealth
28 Director of Public Prosecutions held it better that these matters be determined by the High
29 Court of Australia before any further proceedings were to be dealt with, if at all.
30 As the onus of proving jurisdiction was upon the Commonwealth director of Public
31 Prosecution then it had the obligation to have a ruling by the High Court of Australia upon
32 these matters.
33 The fact that it failed to pursue the matters before the High Court of Australia in my view was
34 tantamount to abandoning its prosecution against me.
35
36 Any notion that somehow I had to pursue the matters before the High Court of Australia is
37 absurd, as I am not the one who instituted proceedings in the Magistrates Court of Victoria!
38
39 When is a proclamation published?
40
41 &
42
43 When is a proclamation legally enforceable?
44
45 Page 96 & 97 of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT 16-11-2005
46
48
49 Mr. BARTON.-
50 If we make it read that it shall take place on the date of the proclamation by the Governor-
51 General it will only take place when the Governor-General will take that action by
52 publishing a proclamation. Then it would follow the action of the Commonwealth.
Page 86
1
2 Again; will take that action by publishing a proclamation
3
4 It shows; “Then it would follow the action of the Commonwealth”!
5
6
8 Application of provisions relating to Governor-General.
9 4. The provision of this Constitution relating to the Governor-General extend and apply to
10 the Governor-General for the time being or other the Chief Executive Officer or
11 Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth, by whatever title he is
12 designated.
13
15 Mr. SYMON.-
16 We know that the Governor is the chief executive officer,
17
19 Mr. GLYNN.-The Federal Parliament can affect the prerogative, but only within the
20 limits prescribed by this Act.
21 And
22 Mr. SYMON.-Do you think acquiescence would make a law if the law passed by the
23 Commonwealth Parliament was ultra vires?
24 Mr. GORDON.-It would until the law was impugned. If the state did not impugn that
25 law it would remain in force. It is a law, and it could be allowed to be valid by the force of
26 acquiescence. And here is another point. The proposal which I am supporting, to some
27 extent keeps a remnant of parliamentary sovereignty over the strict interpretation of the
28 courts.
29 Mr. FRASER.-That is too abstruse for laymen altogether.
30 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his
31 mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the
32 states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according
33 to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign
34 will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I do not care much
35 about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
36 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains
37 some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either
38 side to attack each other's laws.
39 Mr. BARTON.-How would they raise the question?
40 Mr. GORDON.-Suppose it were a federal law, the Attorney-General of any of the states
41 could intervene in an actual suit, or place an abstract question before the High Court.
42 Mr. SYMON.-The state would not bother its head if the law only affected a few
43 individuals.
44 Mr. GORDON.-If the law only affected a few individuals, the state might not intervene,
45 but it is possible that a law referring to only a few individuals may involve the benefit of
46 the whole of the community.
47 [start page 1683]
48 Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law if it is ultra vires.
49 Mr. GORDON.-It would be law by acquiescence. It would remain a law until it was
50 attacked.
51
52 And
Page 87
1 The question has been asked whether the Parliament cannot make laws affecting the
2 prerogative. The answer is-"Yes" and "No." The Parliament can make laws affecting the
3 prerogative in respect of any matter in which it has express power of legislation or a power
4 necessarily implied. It cannot make laws affecting the prerogative in matters with respect
5 to which it has no power to make laws.
6 Mr. FRASER.-Can it not get authority?
7 Mr. BARTON.-Not unless it gets the power in this Act.
8 Considering also the fact that the evidence placed before the magistrate was that there never
9 was any constitutional valid 2001 federal election as Gazette containing the proclamation was
10 not published in time, as computer records obtained under FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
11 ACT proved that the Gazettes’s were still at the Printers on 9 October 2001, even so the Writs
12 were issued on 8 October 2001, then clearly there were no vacancies on 8 October 2001 for
13 writs to be issued in regard of the House of Representatives.
14 Further, while the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions somehow sought to rely
15 upon the Marshall J 7 November 2001 decision and also upon the Gummow J decision in the
16 Ned Kelly case, neither of those two decision considered that fact that Victorian Senate
17 elections legislation required that “not less than eleven days” was to be provided for closure
18 of nominations.
19 Therefore the 9 days plus a bit provided for in thew writs were clearly failure to comply with
20 legislative provisions and for this the Senate writs were invalid, as was set out in the
21 ADDRESS TO THE COURT provided for the 16 and 17 November 2005 proceedings and
22 now subject to this appeal for a DE NOVO hearing.
23
24 Therefore, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions will have the onus to prove to
25 this Court that the relevant Gazette was published prior to the issue of the writs. Failing to
26 prove this then this Court cannot for this either invoke any jurisdiction. As if the writs were
27 invalid (ULTRA VIRES) then any purported election held is of no legal force.
28
29 More over, where the writs for the House of Representatives also failed to be “shall not less
30 then 10 days” then for this those writs were also without legal force for this also, and no valid
31 election took place.
32
33 When I discovered on 20 October 2001 that there were irregularities with the writs issued, I
34 then forwarded emails to the Australian Electoral Commission, Mr John Howard and many
35 other Members of Parliament about this. The Australian electoral commission indicated in its
36 25 October 2001 response that the appropriate course to be followed was to seek matters to be
37 heard before the Federal Court. Just that at the 7 November 2001 hearing then Mr Peter
38 Hanks QC misled the Court that it has no legal jurisdiction, etc.
39 Marshall J then refusing to hear the matter upon its merits, and the High Court of Australia
40 refusing to hear an appeal, even so constitutionally there was a right of appeal to the High
41 Court of Australia for a refusal by a Federal Court to deal with a Section 75(v) application for
42 mandamus, prohibition, etc.
43
44
45 Bodney v Westralia Airports Corporation Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1609 (13 November 2000).
46 The Governor-General might direct that land be acquired by compulsory process (s
47 15(1)). The next step was the publication of a notification in the Gazette declaring
48 "that the land has been acquired under HYPERLINK
49 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/tola1893160/" this Act for the
50 public purpose therein expressed" (s 15(2)). Upon publication of the notification,
51 the land, by force of HYPERLINK
Page 88
1 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/tola1893160/" the Act , was

2 vested in the Commonwealth "freed and discharged from all trusts, obligations,
3 estates, interests, contracts, licences, charges, rates and easements" (s 16); and the
4 estate and interest of every person entitled to the land (including the title of the State
5 to any Crown land) was converted into a claim for compensation (s 17). After
6 publication of the notification, a copy was required to be served upon the owners of
7 the land "or such of them as can with reasonable diligence be ascertained" (s 18).
8
9 32 For present purposes, an important aspect of that scheme is that no notification to
10 owners was required before the publication in the Gazette; and the publication in
11 the Gazette vested the land in the Commonwealth and converted former estates or
12 interests in the land into claims for compensation. The scheme excludes the
13 possibility that a failure to notify owners under s 18 would prevent the acquisition
14 from becoming effective.
15
16 Where the Commonwealth acquired land by compulsory process, extinguishment
17 took place on the occurrence of the event which vested title in the Commonwealth:
18 that is, the publication of the notice in the Gazette.
19
20 Re: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL EQUITY PTY. LTD. And: ROGER DAVID BARNARD
21 BEALE, SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND
22 COMMUNICATIONS; ROBERT LINDSAY COLLINS, MINISTER OF STATE FOR
23 TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS and THE COMMONWEALTH OF
24 AUSTRALIA No. WA G14 of 1993 FED No. 141 Legislation (1993) 114 ALR 50 (1993) 41
25 FCR 242 (1993) 30 ALD 849 (extract)
26 His Honour concluded that in the case before him the
27 publication of the instrument was essential to the valid exercise of the power
28 and that no distinction could be drawn between the publication of the notice
29 and the exercise of the power.
30
31 At HYPERLINK "http://www.dofa.gov.au/infoaccess/informan/about_gazettes.html"
32 http://www.dofa.gov.au/infoaccess/informan/about_gazettes.html the following is
33 provided by Ausinfo – Commonwealth Gazettes of the Department of Finance and
34 Administration;
35
36 Special Gazettes
37 Contains notices that would normally appear in any of the above Gazettes but which
38 are produced on demand when customers are unable to wait for the next Government
39 Notices Gazette to publish their notice.
40
41 Ben Ward & Ors v State of Western Australia & Ors [1998] 1478 FCA (24 November 1998).
42 As stated above in respect of pastoral leases, re-entry was effected by notice in the
43 Government Gazette (WA)
44
45 If it were proposed to grant a lease for a term longer than ten years, wide publication
46 of that intent was to be given by notice published in four consecutive numbers of the
47 Government Gazette (WA), the first publication to be at least one month before
48 the grant. The term of the lease was not to exceed twenty-one years.
49
50 Two special leases granted under the HYPERLINK
51 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/la193348/" Land Act 1933
52 (WA) for grazing purposes were said to have been issued in respect of land in the
53 claim area. Neither lease is current. Grazing is not a purpose specified in
54 HYPERLINK
Page 89
1 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/la193348/s116.html" s 116 of
2 the HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/la193348/"
3 Land Act 1933 (WA) and it must be assumed that it was a purpose approved by
4 the Governor by notice in the Government Gazette
5
6 Formal notice of cancellation of the lease was published in the Government Gazette
7 (WA) in 1996.
8 That the Act Interpretation Act 1901 refer to;
9 16A References to the Governor-General
10 Where, in an Act, the Governor-General is referred to, the reference shall, unless
11 the contrary intention appears, be deemed to include:
12 (a) the person for the time being administering the Government of the
13 Commonwealth; or
14 (b) where the reference occurs in or in relation to a provision
15 conferring on the Governor-General a power or function which the
16 Governor-General or the person administering the Government of the
17 Commonwealth has for the time being assigned to a person as his deputy, that
18 last-mentioned person in his capacity as deputy;
19 and shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be read as referring to the
20 Governor-General, or a person so deemed to be included in the reference, acting
21 with the advice of the Executive Council.
22
23 Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
24 The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Governor-General in Council
25 shall be construed as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the
26 Federal Executive Council.
27
28 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act as such must be read in accordance to the
29 legal provisions of the Section 17 of the Act Interpretations Act 1901, which under the
30 heading “17 Constitutional and official definitions” refers to “Proclamation shall mean
31 Proclamation by the Governor-General published in the Gazette;” as such referred to in
32 Section 12 and Section 32 of the Commonwealth Constitution must mean that the writ or
33 writs can’t be issued until after the proclamation of the dissolution of either or both Houses of
34 the Parliament has been published in the Gazette.
35 17 Constitutional and official definitions [see Note 2]
36 In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
37 (a) Australia or the Commonwealth means the Commonwealth of Australia
38 and, when used in a geographical sense, includes the Territory of Christmas
39 Island and the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands, but does not include any
40 other external Territory;
41 (c) The Constitution shall mean the Constitution of the Commonwealth;
42 (d) The Constitution Act shall mean The Commonwealth of Australia
43 Constitution Act;
44 (e) The Parliament shall mean the Parliament of the Commonwealth;
45 (g) The Executive Council shall mean the Federal Executive Council;
46 (j) Proclamation shall mean Proclamation by the Governor-General
47 published in the Gazette;
48 (m) Gazette means the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, and includes the Australian
49 Government Gazette published during the period commencing on 1 July 1973 and ending

Page 90
1 immediately before the commencement of subsection 5(2) of the Acts Interpretation

2 Amendment Act 1976;
3
4 Publication being the act of publishing it then must be held that where a Gazette is not
5 published until a certain date, irrespective if printed, then the date of actual publication
6 must be held relevant as being the date of the Gazette. This, as the public and others can’t
7 be aware of what might be printed in a Gazette where the Government withholds the
8 publication of a Gazette. To allow for such tactics would mean that a government can
9 print its Gazette and deliberately withhold it from publication until a certain time frame
10 has been passed as to avoid scrutiny or any other action the government of the Day might
11 wish to avoid or limit. As such, not the printing but the actual publication of the Gazette
12 must be deemed to be the date of the Gazette. Meaning that the date of the actual
13 publication of the Proclamations were 17 October 2001 being the day of the publication
14 of the said Gazette. Meaning that the Publication of the dissolution of the House of
15 Representatives backdated to the 8th day of October 2001 well before the Proclamation
16 was published on the 17th day of October 2001 of the prorogue of the Parliament was
17 NULL AND VOID and so the issue of the writs for the House of Representatives and
18 that of the Senate of the Territories as they couldn’t be issued prior to the publication of
19 the dissolution of the House of Representatives.
20
21 In this case the special Gazette dated 8 October 2001 wasn’t even published with the 10th
22 day of October Government Notice Gazette known as GN40 but it was strangely held
23 until GN41 being published on the 17th day of October 2001. Being it an error of staff or
24 not, it hardly can be accepted that the non publication for so long until 17 October 2001
25 could be accepted. The Government Printers might very well print a Gazette but change
26 its content prior to publication, such as deleting parts and/or adding parts but in any event
27 the Gazette has no meaning until it is actually published. Perhaps a comparison can be
28 made alike an Affidavit that isn’t an Affidavit until it is sworn and filed with the Court
29 before it has any legal effect. The mere producing of an DRAFT affidavit without it being
30 filed would deny it any legal status in court proceedings for litigation purposes as where
31 it hasn’t been filed and so neither could have been served the other party entitled to be
32 aware of the content of any Affidavit relied upon by an opposing party is entitled to
33 object to any material not part material of proceedings in the proper manner.
34 The very purpose of Gazetting matters is as to make it official and in Victoria the
35 supreme Court of Victoria actually found that the failure by the Victorian Government to
36 have the Gazette publish the new Act (Albert Park racing) then it was not legally
37 enforceable against the protesters. Likewise where the Proclamation wasn’t published
38 until 17 October 2001 no action could be taken prior to publication as if the House had
39 been dissolved.
40
41 That the Act Interpretation Act 1901 clearly binds the Crown, by this the Governor-General
42 also.
43 2 Application of Act
44 (1) Except so far as the contrary intention appears, this Act applies to all Acts,
45 including this Act.
46 (2) This Act shall bind the Crown.
47
48 That the Act Interpretation Act 1901 also states;
49 6 Evidence of date of assent or proclamation
50 The date appearing on the copy of an Act printed by the
51 Government Printer, and purporting to be the date on which the Governor-
Page 91
1 General assented thereto, or made known the King’s assent, shall be evidence that
2 such date was the date on which the Governor-General so assented or made
3 known the King’s assent, and shall be judicially noticed.
4
5 There is clear evidence rebutting that the said date of 8 October 2001 the document was not
6 published, and was an attachment for publication on the 17 th day of October 2001, then
7 Section 6 does not appear to apply as it isn’t dealing with the “publishing” of the Gazette but
8 with a date of an Act.
9 WESTERN AUSTRALIA v_ THE COMMONWEALTH; NEW SOUTH WALES v_ THE
10 COMMONWEALTH ; QUEENSLAND v_ THE COMMONWEALTH (1975) 134 CLR 201.
11 18. No attack is made in these submissions on the validity or effectiveness of the
12 proclamation of the double dissolution. It is submitted, and in my opinion correctly
13 submitted, in this connexion that the power simultaneously to dissolve both Houses of the
14 Parliament and the power subsequently to convene a joint sitting are statutory and not
15 prerogative powers. The validity of the proclamation convening the joint sitting is attacked
16 but the submissions to which I have so far referred do not depend on the suggested
17 invalidity of the proclamation. (at p219)
18
19 What is clear is that one can dispute the validity of the proclamation as well as the validity of
20 writs.
21
22 WESTERN AUSTRALIA v_ THE COMMONWEALTH ; NEW SOUTH WALES v_ THE
23 COMMONWEALTH ; QUEENSLAND v_ THE COMMONWEALTH (1975) 134 CLR 201
24
25 and his Excellency has no power to increase or diminish those powers or duties.
26
27 VICTORIA v. THE COMMONWEALTH AND CONNOR; NEW SOUTH WALES v. THE
28 COMMONWEALTH; QUEENSLAND v. THE COMMONWEALTH; WESTERN
29 AUSTRALIA v. THE COMMONWEALTH (1975) 134 CLR 81
30
31 Following the averment
32 the proclamation continues: "Now therefore, I (The Governor-General in office)
33 does by this my Proclamation dissolve the House of Representatives”? (At p129)
34
35 If the Senate were in fact dissolved, and if thereafter
36 writs for an election were issued, the election was held and a new Parliament
37 was summoned to meet, I can see no difficulty in holding that the new
38 Parliament would have validly assembled. This of course is not to suggest
39 that this Court could not intervene to uphold the Constitution and prevent an
40 invalid proclamation for the dissolution of the Senate from being given
41 effect. However, these questions need not be further discussed.
42
43 THE QUEEN v. PEARSON; Ex parte SIPKA (1983) 152 CLR 254 Parliamentary Elections
44 (Cth)
45
46 4. Usually when a federal election is impending many of the hundreds of
47 thousands of persons who have become qualified by naturalization or attaining
48 the age of eighteen years or otherwise but are not enrolled, become enrolled
49 before the writs are issued. This is because, apart from the obligation to
50 enrol (see s. 42, Commonwealth Electoral Act) there is usually some reasonable
51 warning that the election is imminent. (at p266)
52
53 5. In accordance with constitutional practice a dissolution of the House of
54 Representatives or of both Houses occurs only on the advice to the
Page 92
1 Governor-General of the Prime Minister. It is well known that during the

2 latter part of 1982 and early 1983 the Prime Minister, in repeated
3 announcements which were widely reported, stated that there would not be an
4 early election and towards the end of that period, that he was exploring the
5 possibility of an election in 1984. (See, e.g., The Australian, 3 February
6 1983.) However without any prior public notice the Prime Minister announced in
7 the late afternoon of 3 February 1983, that on his advice, the
8 Governor-General had that day agreed to a double dissolution of the Senate and
9 the House of Representatives; that the writs for the election would be issued
10 on 4 February 1983, the date for nominations would be fixed as 19 February
11 1983; for the polling day, as 5 March 1983, and for the return of the writs,
12 on or before 5 May 1983. Proclamations to this effect were issued on 4
13 February 1983. (at p266)
14
15 6. Thus, although s. 32 of the Constitution allows for issue within ten days,
16 the writs were issued on the same day as the proclamation of the dissolution.
17 Although that was done in 1914, the practice since then has been to allow a
18 space of some days between the proclamation of a double dissolution and the
19 issue of writs for the elections. In 1951 the writs were issued nine days
20 after the proclamation; in 1974 the writs were issued nine days after the
21 proclamation; in 1975 the writs for four States were issued six days after the
22 proclamation and the writs for the other two States were issued ten days after
23 the proclamation. (See Commonwealth Gazettes of 19 March 1951, 4 April 1974
24 and 11 November 1975.) (at p266)
25
26 What no one ever seemed to be aware of is that the Framers of the Constitution indicated that
27 no one could act upon a proclamation unless it was first published in the Gazette. It is not
28 the day a proclamation is signed that determines the ability to act upon the proclamation but
29 when it is actually available to the general public by being published. So to say, available over
30 the counter.
31
32 Again;
33 However without any prior public notice the Prime Minister announced in
34 the late afternoon of 3 February 1983, that on his advice, the
35 Governor-General had that day agreed to a double dissolution of the Senate and
36 the House of Representatives; that the writs for the election would be issued
37 on 4 February 1983, the date for nominations would be fixed as 19 February
38 1983; for the polling day, as 5 March 1983, and for the return of the writs,
39 on or before 5 May 1983. Proclamations to this effect were issued on 4
40 February 1983. (at p266)
41
42 As such, while the Governor-General had signed on 3 February 1983 the proclamation, it did
43 not come into effect until it was published in the Gazette on 4 February 1983.
44
45 Bodney v Westralia Airports Corporation Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1609 (13 November
46 2000).
47 Mayors and councils were elected (Pt IV). Part VIII conferred on a council power to
48 make by-laws upon a wide range of matters; by-laws came into effect when
49 confirmed by the Governor and published in the Gazette (s 186).
50
51 Re: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL EQUITY PTY. LTD. And: ROGER DAVID BARNARD
52 BEALE, SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND
Page 93
1 COMMUNICATIONS; ROBERT LINDSAY COLLINS, MINISTER OF STATE FOR

2 TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS and THE COMMONWEALTH OF
3 AUSTRALIA No. WA G14 of 1993 FED No. 141 Legislation (1993) 114 ALR 50
4 (1993) 41 FCR 242 (1993) 30 ALD 849 (extract)
5 His Honour concluded that in the case before
6 him the publication of the instrument was
7 essential to the valid exercise of the power and
8 that no distinction could be drawn between the
9 publication of the notice and the exercise of the
10 power.
11
12 The following clearly refers to “the date of the Gazette wherein such notification is first
13 published” being the relevant date and not the date of the Gazette. Albeit, in normal
14 circumstances one might assume that the Gazette shall bear the date of the publication, it has
15 been found that at least with S421 the Gazette was never published as such.
16 New South Wales Consolidated Acts
17 OATHS ACT 1900 - SECT 16
18 16 To be notified in Gazette
19
20 From and after the expiration of twenty-one days next following the date of
21 the Gazette wherein such notification is first published the provisions of
22 this Part shall extend and apply to every case, office, or department
23 specified in such notification.
24
25 The evidence obtained from the Commonwealth Gazette clearly dispute the date of S421 of
26 8 October 2001 being correct as it wasn’t published until 22 October 2001 in Tasmania and
27 so S421 ought to have been dated 22 October 2001 be held to be so for Tasmania.
28
29 END QUOTE
30
31 There can be absolutely no question about the above stated regarding the written submissions in
32 regard of the successful appeals on 19 July 2006 that what I quoted above is merely part of some
33 409 pages of submissions and none of it, I repeat none of it was challenged by the
34 Commonwealth and/or any of the 9 Attorney-Generals and as such this implies that they all
35 agreed with what I submitted. Indeed, had any not done so they could have appealed the matter
36 but none did since 19 July 2006!
37
38 As was made clear the signing of the proclamation by the Governor-General was merely p-art of
39 the job and it is the publication in the Special Gazette that completes the job. Where than the
40 proclamation did not eventuate until 9 October 2001 and in some states later, such as in
41 Tasmania on 22 October 2001 then there is obviously a gross neglect on how the Governor-
42 General is dealing with matters.
43 After all, as there was no challenge to my set out about the unconstitutional invasion into Iraq
44 then it must be questioned why did the Governor-General, in view that John Howard was not
45 elected, appoint a prime Minister considering s64 permits maximum 3 months after the
46 appointment when not elected?
47 Why indeed did the Attorney-General not charge John Howard and his collaborators, which
48 included the Attorney-General himself for TREASON to permit/authorise Australian Armed
49 forces to unlawfully invade Iraq
Page 94
1
2 On 18 February 2003 I tried to file an application for mandamus in to prevent the Australian
3 Armed forces to invade Iraq without a Governor-General having published a DECLARATION
4 OF WAR naming Iraq in the Gazette. The Registrar refused to accept it and an appeal/review on
5 19 February 2003 dismissed my appeal/review. The registrar however on 19 February made
6 notes how to change the application, etc. I then did so, and on 18 March 2003 again attended to
7 the Registry of the High Court of Australia having the Application amended as recommended by
8 the Registrar and supported by an Affidavit that included hundreds of pages of the Hansard
9 Constitutional Convention Debates. The Registrar refused to accept it for filing and I
10 appealed/sought a review (as really one cannot appeal a Registrars decision as he is not an
11 OFFICER OF THE COURT but merely makes an administrative decision) but on 19 March
12 2003 (the very day Australian armed forces invaded Iraq and besides the mass murder also
13 bombed it with its warmongering partners back into the Stone Age) the Court then dismissed my
14 18 February 2003 appeal/review again, but not the 18 March 2003 appeal/review! As such
15 this application remains on foot. As with the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER
16 this to technically is outstanding but the court cannot hear the matter due to implied “bias” as the
17 judges would have to declare themselves being validly appointed lacking to be “Subjects of the
18 Crown”, as they claim to have the constitutional non-existing “Australian citizenship” as a
19 nationality! Meaning that INTRA VIRES remains to be applicable to whatever I objected
20 against and no court can deny me this and litigate against me! Moreover technically no court can
21 act against anyone else either! As the laws apply to everyone in the same manner and likewise
22 cannot be applied to anyone if the law is challenged! Meaning, not a single court order against
23 anyone can be held to be legally valid since judges claimed to hold “Australian Citizenship” as a
24 nationality instead of being “Subjects of the British Crown”. And I have no doubt this is also
25 why I am targeted with purported “LAWFARE” to try to get me and my wife this even so we
26 did no legal wrong! More than 3 decades ago dealing with so many people who were suffering
27 because of the ongoing gross injustice inflicted upon them I decided to take on the politicians,
28 judges, etc, and I view I succeeded. While they all may ignore the rule of law they need to keep
29 in mind that without any proper system in place as is required by the constitution then Militia
30 may very well do the job. Having Ministers who are still so to say selling us out to foreign
31 enemies cannot be accepted and appropriate action needs to be taken because of the numerous
32 victims who have suffered enough, being it due to the “covid scam” or otherwise.
33
34
35
36 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
37
38 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
39 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
40 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

41 (Our name is our motto!)

20240414-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re Written Submission ADDRESS TO THE COURT

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

20240414-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re Written Submission ADDRESS TO THE COURT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

25 An HON. MEMBER: In providing for the expenditure!

33 Colonel SMITH: She is the home ruler!

2 Colonel SMITH: With the power of veto!

1 a person not a judge," is a phrase that describes a proceeding brought

1 QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

1 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:

14-4-2024 Page 14 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Web Search Results

14-4-2024 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

14-4-2024 Page 26 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

14-4-2024 Page 27 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

14-4-2024 Page 30 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Mr. SYMON.-Would it not require an amendment of the Constitution to repeal Magna

14-4-2024 Page 31 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

14-4-2024 Page 32 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

14-4-2024 Page 41 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

14-4-2024 Page 45 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 nevertheless of (their non-existing) parliamentarian privileges, etc, to fund their election

14-4-2024 Page 48 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 next January he becomes a senator and ceases to be a member of the house of

14-4-2024 Page 50 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 commencement of the sub-clause words to this effect: "The registration or incorporation of

1 commerce forbidden by the constitution. Such a statute being more than a

1 WHO Official Admits Vaccine Passports May Have Been a Scam

1 That’s sounding very [Nazi] Germany.

14-4-2024 Page 69 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Division of Powers between Commonwealth and States

14-4-2024 Page 72 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 storms (2009); WHO moves forward in secrecy to accomplish forced

14-4-2024 Page 78 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 citizenship as he submit, “citizenship” is a State legislative power. Further more, he

1 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/tola1893160/" the Act , was

14-4-2024 Page 89 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 immediately before the commencement of subsection 5(2) of the Acts Interpretation

1 Governor-General of the Prime Minister. It is well known that during the

1 COMMUNICATIONS; ROBERT LINDSAY COLLINS, MINISTER OF STATE FOR

40 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like