20190607-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Joint Standing Committee On Electoral Matters

Page 1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters 7-6-2019
Inquiry Secretary JSCEM@aph.gov.au
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Sir/Madam,
When I consider one of my submissions such as the one dated 30 May 2002 and yet
to my knowledge there was nothing done to address issues then with the now reported AFP
warrants against journalist and the AC it is far more relevant to electoral matters then most if not
anyone besides myself may understand.
On 19 July 2006 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I (representing myself) comprehensively defeated the
Commonwealth as to FAILING TO VOTE in 2001 and 2004. As the Court noted that the
Commonwealth had not filed any evidence.
There are lawyers and politicians who are misguided that the Australian Electoral Commission
(AEC) can use AVERMENT because after all it is part of the legislation. However, reality is that
on 4 August 2005 I defeated the Commonwealth in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka on this. The Court
ordered that the Commonwealth had to file and serve all details it relied upon. Counsel
representing the Commonwealth then submitted that this would be truck loads but the Court
made clear that was to be sorted out between the Commonwealth and myself. The truth is as I
understand it that Counsel representing the AEC was deceiving the court as ABC) recently
published that after 12 months the House of Representatives ballot papers are destroyed. Here we
had a barrister deceiving both the court and myself by concealing that the ballot papers already
had been destroyed regarding the House of Representatives. I consider this very serious but this I
am aware is not the first time the AEC uses this kind of conduct.
On 17 May 2019 I personally informed Mr King of the Heidelberg AEC office that I would not be
voting in the election. Mr King is well aware that sometimes I do vote and other times I do not, as I
explained I only vote when I hold there is a worthy candidate to vote for.
Because I was delivering my wife’s postal vote ballot papers Mr King personally then attended to
me. I explained that I held the return envelope to post the ballot papers was in my view a
violation of confidentiality as it shows the person’s name and signature, etc. In my view the small
flap that is to cover the original address of the elector as shown when AEC posted it, would have
another section inserted between the envelope and the flap so that then on the inside the details of
the postal elector can be printed. With identity theft on the rise it is important the AEC doesn’t
needlessly place electors in a vulnerable position. With extending the flap with the addition of the
section then the flap can have the relevant AEC postal address on it. Both the new section as well
as the flap to be glued for closure.
The new section (inserted) that has the electors signature and other details is to be removed from
the envelope and then the closed envelope with the ballot papers be placed in a special postal
voters container. This as currently (I was informed by Mr King) the envelope is placed in a safe
and later the ballot papers are removed. I hold this violates the secrecy entitled upon of any
elector. This, as the staff could check the ballot papers and substitute them or whatever. Staff
should have no access whatsoever to the ballot papers themselves.
p1 7-6-2019 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, Email:
admin@inspector-rikati.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Page 2
There also was an issue with GetUp having I understand false and misleading election material
against Mr Tony Abbott who was a candidate. In my view this ought to be considered a criminal
offence where the person authorising this was not a candidate in the Warringah seat Mr Tony
Abbott was standing for.
GetUp! pulls Tony Abbott lifesaver election ad after widespread ... - ABC
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-24/getup-pulls-tony-abbott.../11041878
Apr 24, 2019 - The ad was part of GetUp!'s campaign against the re-election of Tony Abbott in the seat of
Warringah; Royal Surf Life Saving Australia said the ...
GETUP GETS WAY DOWN AND DOGLIKE | Daily Telegraph

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/.../getup.../0301145e0372dbf6a824e918f1794e8f
Apr 24, 2019 - The bogus “Tony Abbott” and GetUp's Paul Oosting, who approved the ad ... and
independent candidate for Abbott's seat of Warringah, Zali Steggall, ... out that Abbott has long volunteered
as a firefighter and surf lifesaver.
Federal Election 2019: GetUp pulls Tony Abbott ad after Royal Life ...
https://www.smh.com.au › Politics › Federal › Battle for Warringah
Apr 24, 2019 - The YouTube ad, which aimed to critique the embattled Warringah ... that GetUp "should
apologise to Australia's 150,000 plus surf lifesavers for ...
Getup pulls ad showing Tony Abbott refusing to help drowning ...

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/getup-pulls-ad-showing-tony-abbott-refusing-to-hel...
Apr 24, 2019 - After criticism, Getup has apologised for running an ad that used an actor to ... How desperate
is this to make fun of Tony and the fact he is a surf ... Zali Steggall for the Sydney seat of Warringah at the
federal election in May.
I am aware that there were people who had an issue about SHIFTY SHORTEN advertising by
Clive Palmer, but he was a candidate and as such I view he was entitled to campaign against an
opponent. When I was an INDEPENDENT candidate I was known for my style of
posters/banners.
We have also a lot of people complaining against Gladys Liu about stating that to follow what
she showed or the vote might be informal. I see no issue with that because she was promoting the
political party she was associated with and as such I view entitled to present her kind of how-to-
vote card to electors.
Then we have the issue about electors voting far too soon and so that many used pre-polling
voting. I have some 2 decades ago raised that issue as an INDEPENDENT candidate it is
extremely difficult to get How-To-Vote cards printed overnight and so after the ballot has shown
the candidates in order that they will appear on the ballot paper then there should be at least 4
working days before any pre-polling commences.
Section 41 of the constitution provides:
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act1900 (UK)
QUOTE
41 Right of electors of States
No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the
Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from
voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
This means that other for the Commonwealth to set the age of being an ADULT the
Commonwealth has absolutely no constitutional powers to have a purported Commonwealth
Electoral Roll, nor disfranchise any State elector or to list a person living overseas as an elector
even so not residing in a particular State/Territory.

Page 3
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth had to rely upon the State
electoral rolls albeit could only allow persons of the age of being an ADULT to vote in federal
elections. As such the nonsense of closing enrolment is in violation of Section 41 because any
person who enrol on a State electoral roll is entitled to vote in federal elections even if this
person enrols on the day of the federal election. Neither can the Commonwealth bar anyone in a
prison from voting because if the State allows the person to have franchise then so be it.
It should be understood that compulsory voting violates the right of electors to have political
liberty. I canvassed this in great details in my 409 pages written submissions ADDRESS TO
THE COURT for both appeals before the County Court of Victoria (Case numbers T01567737
& Q10897630) on 19 July 2006 and none of it, I repeat none of it was challenged by the
Commonwealth.
.
I in my appeals also challenged the validity of the 2001 Federal election that the election was
held a week too early. The Commonwealth didn’t challenge this whatsoever. Meaning that the
election was invalid. It means that neither Mr John Howard or any other purported member of
the House of Representatives was duly elector. Hence, by the provisions of Section 64 Mr John
Howard was no longer a (Prime) Minister nor others who purportedly were elected to the House
of Representatives as they didn’t hold any seat in the Parliament. Had the Commonwealth held
otherwise it could have challenged my submissions but it didn’t and also accepted that what I
submitted was unchallenged. It also means that Mr John Howard and others had no authority to
pursue the invasion into Afghanistan and/or Iraq.
HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the
Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one
would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a
responsible Minister.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere
with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
END QUOTE
It is totally irrelevant if the purported Prime Minister, Cabinet or whomever held justification to
go to war. I wrote way back in July 2002 to the then General Peter Cosgrove that without the
Governor-General publishing a DECLARATION OF WAR naming the country it holds to be
subject of a war then there can be no military action unless the country itself is actually about or
is attacking the Commonwealth of Australia. The ANZUS treaty cannot override the constitution.
As to my knowledge no such DECLARATION NOF WAR was ever published by the Governor-
General in regard of Afghanistan and/or Iraq then it was a criminal offence (Within the
provisions of Crimes Act (Cth)) to attack a friendly nation. It was totally irrelevant if the UN
(United Nations) did or didn’t sanction any invasion into Afghanistan and/or Iraq or for that any
other friendly country (I understand it never did anyhow) nor if there were WMD (Weapons of
mass Destruction) because unless and until if ever at all the
Governor-General publish in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR naming a particular

Page 4
country the Ministers have no constitutional powers to authorise deployment of Australian
soldiers in any war theatre. One has to apply the same in regard of past wars such as Vietnam.
There is however more to this as we had in recent days the AFP armed with search warrants
going to a journalist and the ABC offices.
There is a gross misunderstanding/misconception about it all.
.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) was if not equal then more protecting the civil rights of citizens. By then the USA
had 15 Amendments to its constitution. Hence the legal principles embedded in the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) includes therefore the provisions of
the USA constitutional amendments such as FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Not just freedom of the
press. They also stated:

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a
person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by
being a citizen of the states. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by
the laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page
1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-I think that the reason of the proposal is obvious. So long as each state has to do only
with its own citizens it may make what laws it thinks fit, but we are creating now a new and a larger
citizenship. We are giving new rights of citizenship to the whole of the citizens of the Commonwealth, and
we should take care that no man is deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law.
Mr. GORDON.-Might you not as well say that the states should not legalize murder?
Mr. OCONNOR-That is one of those suppositions that are against the first instincts of humanity.
Mr. GORDON.-So is this.
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it is not. We need not go far back in history to find cases in which the
community, seized with a sort of madness with regard to particular offences, have set aside all

Page 5
principles of justice. If a state did behave itself in that way, why should not the citizens of the
Commonwealth who did not belong to that state be protected? Dr. Cockburn suggested in so
contemptuous a way that there could be no reason for this amendment, that I got up to state again
what had been stated before.
Dr. COCKBURN.-Not contemptuous.
Mr. OCONNOR.-I know the honorable member meant nothing personal, but I thought it necessary to state
the reasons of what, had it not been for the honorable member's statement, would have seemed to be a
perfectly obvious proposition. Mr. Clark, of Tasmania, thought the amendment of importance, and pointed
out that it had been put in the United States Constitution. It should also be put in this Constitution, not
necessarily as an imputation on any state or any body of states, but as a guarantee for all time for the citizens
of the Commonwealth that they shall be treated according to what we recognise to be the principles of justice
and of equality.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution.
Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the
British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the
power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute
freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we
contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from
interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this
Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily
determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom
in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has
sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is
something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work
difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well.
END QUOTE
Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:

Page 6
Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been
no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE
http://www.heineraffair.info/site_pages/heiner_affair_quotes.html
“…The criminal law only carries a moral and constitutional basis of authority and respect in a democracy if
it is applied equally by government against all citizens who transgress it. That is government by the rule of
law. If, however, the law becomes an instrument of sectional application by government for government, such
conduct is unfair and oppressive and sets government in conflict with democracy itself and the rule of law.
That is tyranny.”
Kevin Lindeberg NSW Parliament Theatrette 9 October 2007
In my view any warrant must be equal for all people and not some special warrants for journalist.
Any warrant can only be issued as the Framers of the Constitution made clear: Both sides heard.
As such forget about ex-parte warrant.
Then the alleged provision that the AFP (Australian Federal Police) could delete any details it
came across. Parliament can legislate as it likes but in my view it doesn’t mean that it is
constitutionally valid. While the AFP may operate within Commonwealth Territories it has no
such powers within State boundaries.

QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
The question of creating a standing army is one which, to my mind, is almost more repulsive than the
question of readjustment of territorial boundaries. It means the existence in our midst of a certain
number of idle men-men sharpening their knives and their swords for the first fitting opportunity of
fleshing them on the people of their own country, because we have no other enemies. We, in Australia-
federated Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies to the whole-have no enemies
within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute with us the possession of the soil; we have no powerful
Maori race, to fight, as was once the case in New Zealand, for the territory the right to which belonged to the
Maoris themselves. We have no enemies within, and the only thing we have to fear is the possibility of
any assault on the mother country by her enemies from without, unless indeed the creation of a
standing army proves a menace to the people of Australia by the existence of an armed force for
unlawful purposes. This question of the creation of a military force is one of the blots upon these
resolutions. We want no military force within New South Wales. All we want to do is to make every man

Page 7
who is either a native of the soil, or one of ourselves by reason of his taking up his residence amongst
us, prepare to resist possible invasion from without.
END QUOTE
What this indicates to me is that the Framers of the Constitution neither accepted some federal
force, being it called ASIO, AFP or whatever to infiltrate into State jurisdictions without the
specific consent of the Governor of that State. If therefore there was any real justified reason to
pursue warrants then this should have been applied for in a State court exercising federal
jurisdiction and the person/persons, etc, against whom the proposed warrant was intended to be
given an opportunity to present to the court any objection against such warrant issue.
When Julian Assange was pursued many in the media claimed he was not a journalist, etc, and
essentially they couldn’t give a darn about the harm inflicted upon him. Well now they are
receiving the benefits of their own idiotic stance.
In my view the FREEDOM OF THE PRESS was an important issue by the Framers of the
Constitution and often referred to. They did hold that certain areas were off limit such as
deliberations held in private but the proceedings themselves were open to the press.
As I pursued during my unchallenged successful appeals Mr John Howard and others committed
war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc, and where this was not challenged by the
Commonwealth then the court was entitled to accept that whatever I had submitted was accepted
by the Prosecutor to be correct. On that basis journalist or anyone else exposing the criminal
conduct of anyone, including soldiers cannot be then crucified for doing so. They are entitled to
expose what they consider to be war crimes.

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our
own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above
Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
The resolutions conclude:
An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.
What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE
Ministers supposing being a body of constitutional advisers therefore should be well aware that
legislation they put to the Parliament cannot defy the legal principles embedded in the
constitution.
.
Page 8
Often I wonder why we have so many Members of parliament being lawyers when in reality they
know next to nothing about the constitution.
.
Anyone can do a self-test as to how the person understand the basics of the constitution.
How many parts/pillars are there created by the Constitution?

.
Generally the Courts refer to themselves as the third part of the Government. This is wrong as the
judiciary is part of the constitution.

QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
We have the Legislators (Parliament), the Executives (Government of the Day) and the
Judicature (courts) most persons will claim. Really?
Section 101 (Inter-State Commission) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK), our governing constitution, that there always "shall be" an Inter-State Commission. Hence
this is MANDATORY and as such a creation of the constitution.
QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
101 Inter-State Commission
There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the
Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions
of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.
END QUOTE (Bold and red colour added by writer)
While often there are statements as to the 3 branches of Government, in my view one ought to
speak of the 4 branched of nationhood, not government. The courts must e without bias and if
they are part of the government instead of being an unbiased arbitrator then we lack the impartial
administration of ice that the Letters Patent of each state dated 2 January 1901 required to have.
1. The Parliament
2. The Federal Executives
3. Judiciary
4. Inter-State Commission.

QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-
We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just
interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE
Let us not ignore:

Page 9
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble,
and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we
shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the
people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much
care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct in
the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to
it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution , and, in fact,
to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
END QUOTE
Citizenship implies where a person resides and not being a nationaality1

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
Page 10
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and
clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to
place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the
right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a
thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should
be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Thomas Jefferson:
"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working
like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless
step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over
the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.".
END QUOTE
Hence citizenship cannot be converted to nationality! However, any can person who holds a seat
in the Parliament but say has offshore investment or other business dealing with foreign powers
then by Section 44 is disqualified from holding a seat in the parliament.
QUOTE
44 Disqualification
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is
a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign
power; or
(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced,
for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for
one year or longer; or
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the
Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or
(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreementwith the Public Service of
the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an
incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of
Representatives.
But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen’s Ministers of State for the
Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen’s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or
a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s navy or army, or to the receipt of
pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person
whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
Hence any candidate who has a (v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement
with the Public Service of the Commonwealth then is not entitled to any seat in the Parliament
even if elected. This means any payment per vote is clearly causing the candidate to be
disqualified from becoming and/or being a Member of Parliament.
Page 11
Any person who holds property of any kind in another country is obviously in violation of
obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, as to be this as the person must comply with the laws
of that foreign power.
Likewise any person who has certain benefits having been born overseas but naturalized but still
has certain rights from the birth country then also are disqualified from being a Member of
Parliament. This becomes even more problematic that for example;
QUOTE
PART I
PRELIMINARY
Citation.
1. This Constitution may be cited as the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Commonwealth citizenship.
139. --(1) In accordance with the position of Singapore within the Commonwealth, every person who is a
citizen of Singapore enjoys by virtue of that citizenship the status of a Commonwealth citizen in common
with the citizens of other Commonwealth countries.
(2) Any existing law shall, except so far as Parliament otherwise provides, apply in relation to a citizen of the
Republic of Ireland who is not also a Commonwealth citizen as it applies in relation to a Commonwealth
citizen.
END QUOTE
Australia being Part of the Commonwealth of Nations then this includes what is referred to as
foreign powers.
The same when Australia is purportedly a Member of the United Nations then this too means that
any Parliamentarian is no more entitled to be a Member of Parliament. The same with the
Commonwealth of Australia being a registered body subject to the District of Columbia.
The United States Congress has ultimate authority over the District.
As such with the Commonwealth of Australia being registered with the District of Columbia it
has placed itself under the direct rule of the USA Congress in violation to Section 44 of the
constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_home_rule
QUOTE
District of Columbia home rule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States Congress has ultimate authority over the District.
The John A. Wilson Building is home to the mayor and the 13 members of the Council of the District of
Columbia.
District of Columbia home rule is District of Columbia residents' ability to govern their local affairs. As the
federal capital, the constitution grants the United States Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in
"all cases whatsoever".
At certain times, and presently since 1973, Congress has allowed certain powers of government to be carried
out by locally elected officials. However, Congress maintains the power to overturn local laws and exercises
greater oversight of the city than exists for any U.S. state. Furthermore, the District's elected government
exists at the pleasure of Congress and could theoretically be revoked at any time.
A separate yet related controversy is the District's lack of voting representation in Congress. The city's unique
status creates a situation where D.C. residents do not have full control over their local government nor do
they have voting representation in the body that has full control.
Page 12
In 2015, D.C. became a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.[1]
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Constitutional provisions[edit]
James Madison explained the need for a federal district on January 23, 1788, in the Federalist No. 43, arguing
that the national capital needed to be distinct from the states, in order to provide for its own maintenance and
safety.[2] An attack on the Congress at Philadelphia by a mob of angry soldiers, known as the Pennsylvania
Mutiny of 1783, had emphasized the need for the government to see to its own security.[3] Therefore, the
authority to establish a federal capital was provided in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
which states that Congress shall have the power:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles
square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the
Government of the United States
The phrase "exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever" has been interpreted to mean that Congress
is the ultimate authority over the District, thereby limiting local self-government by the city's residents.
However, the Founding Fathers envisioned that Congress would devolve some of this power to the local
level. For example, Madison stated in the Federalist No. 43 that "a municipal legislature for local purposes,
derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them."[2]
END QUOTE
As I understand it the Commonwealth of Australia submits its budget papers to the District of
Columbia a\ foreign power!
There is a lot more to it all but it ought to be obvious that we have an utter and total mess.
If appropriate action had been taken from onset we may not have ended up as we have now!

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE
If the Government of the Day refuses to appoint aa commissioner to the Inter-State Commission
because instead it desires the ACCC to be under the relevant Minister and to pork barrel monies
for election purposes, then what if the Government of the Day decides no longer to appoint
judges and we have a High Court of Australia shell without judges. What if it refuses to hold
federal elections? It could claim permanent control of both Houses of Parliament.
What we saw with Mr Tony Abbott was an utter disgrace and I view violates the right of a
candidate as much as it is with defacing electoral posters, etc. It this merely that when Senator
Fraser Anning was subject to a assault by an egg then the politicians didn’t care less about it but
then when Scott Morison was subject to an egg then suddenly it is a criminal offence. Will the
same when some Member of Parliament will be targeted like Mr Tony Abbott was during the
election that then suddenly there is a DOUBLE STANDARD applied?
In my view it should be a federal crime to attack any candidate in a federal election!

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
So that any citizen of any portion of the Commonwealth would have the guarantee of liberty and safety in
regard to the processes of law, and also would have a guarantee of the equal administration of the law as it
Page 13
exists. I think Mr. Isaacs will bear me out, that in the United States it has been decided that the title to equal
treatment under the law does not mean that you cannot make a law which differentiates one class of the
community from another; but, as has been decided, it means that in the administration of the laws you have
made, all the citizens shall be treated equally. And that should be so. Whatever privilege we give to our
citizens, the administration of the law should be equal to all, whatever their colour. The case I refer to is
one of the Chinese cases-I forget the name of it.
END QUOTE
The deception published against candidate Mr Tony Abbott should not be left without proper
legal sanction as it undermined the very basis of having a fair and proper election.
It should be understood that on 4 December 2002 the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg
issued an order with consent by the Commonwealth that the issues I raised in the Section 78
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS were to be heard and determined by the High
Court of Australia.

QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but
the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the
question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and
name of law, is in reality no law , but is wholly void and ineffective for any
purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment…In legal
contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed….Since an
unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties,
confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone,
affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it….A void act cannot
be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to
supersede any existing law. indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the
fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution) it is superseded thereby. No one is
bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
[Bonnett v. Vallier] US Supreme court ruling.
Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942

QUOTE
Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham,
"sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a
law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a
decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law.
The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is
invalid ab initio.
END QUOTE
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
Page 14
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
As the matter (section 78B) has still not be heard and determined the legislation objected to
remains ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio unless and until if ever at all a competent court of jurisdiction
determines it to be INTRA VIRES!
Edmund Barton during the constitutional conventions made clear that the High Court of
Australia when interpreting the constitution then could only declare what all along was the true
meaning and application of the constitution. The High Court of Australia has in fact no judicial
powers to twist and infringe upon the constitution to its true meaning merely because the
unelected judges desire to violate the separation no powers and install their own kind of
legislative provisions by their judgments. As such Sue v Hill and other such decision cannot
stand. Sue v Hill is not an interpretation what always was the constitution but rather is to
circumvent a Section 128 referendum and other legal means and I view wrongly robbed many
persons of their constitutional rights to be a Member of Parliament. Are we next going to have
that some foreign power decides that Australians are all entitled to the benefits of its own citizens
and so every Member of the Australian Parliament instantly loses the seat elected for? It may be
strange but then consider reality. Data retention may have been ignored by the then Attorney-
General George Brandis as not being an issue but now it clearly is. With about 350,000 incidents
a year, about 1,000 a day, surely this is absurd. Next, if not already, politicians may themselves
be subjected to this!
Some Authorities to be considered regarding the above:
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of
common right and common reason are null and void”. Would we not say that these judicial decisions
are straight to the point --that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or
limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward: “The
assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of
practice.”
Davis v. Wechsler , 263 US 22, 24. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be
no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be
converted into a crime.”
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489. “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
exercise of constitutional rights.”
Sherer v. Cullen , 481 F 946. We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, the
Constitution itself answers our question Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the
American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S.
Constitution: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603 "Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them."
Norton v. Shelby County , 118 U.S. 425 p. 442
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it
creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Sherar v. Cullen , 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of
constitutional rights."
Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a
crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the
Page 15
United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation
of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or
judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking
to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S.
200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia,
19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417 "The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of
the law under which he presumes to act."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)
"... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms
and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant
to the constitution is void, and that courts,as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
"In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and
not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the
Constitution, have that rank". "All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution
are VOID". Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United
States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ... or equal
protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual
(in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the
Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no
legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in
a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of
that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart
to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2d. 486, 490; 42
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of his exercise
of constitutional rights."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105
"No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore."
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262
"If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore
the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
Brinegar v. U.S.,388 US 160 (1949)
Probable Cause to Arrest - Provides details on how to determine if a crime has
been or is being committed.
Carroll v. U.S., 267 US 132 (1925)
Probable Cause to Search - Provides details on the belief that seizable property
exists in a particular place or on a particular person.
Draper v. U.S. (1959)
Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are
sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution in the belief that a crime has been or is being
committed. Reasonable man definition; common textbook definition; comes from this case.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v.
Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to
be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905
"... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and
laws."
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)
"Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however in artfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which
we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,
151 Fed 2nd 240 ; Pucket v. Cox,456 2nd 233 Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to
technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as
lawyers.
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Page 16
The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept".
Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the
Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA)
It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per
Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) "The practice of law is an occupation of common right." “Because of
what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what
appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.”
US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187(1956)
􀳦 Supreme Court of the United States 1795 "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an
abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial
persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and
attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any
law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons
and the contracts between them."
S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall.
54), "The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record either by
subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust of the power of government
when leveled against them know that the only protection the citizen has is in the requirement for a fair
trial."
Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-
372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307 Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit...
includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation.
A public official is a fiduciary toward the public,... and if he deliberately conceals material information
from them he is guilty of fraud.
"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all
administrative proceedings."
Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533. “A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the
defendant is void. It is a nullity.”
Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App 2d 573, 576-7, 840 P. 2d 553 (1992) rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093(1993) “The
law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it musts be proven.”
Main v Thiboutot, 100 S Ct. 2502(1980) “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time,” and “Jurisdiction,
once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.”
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 395 F 2d 906, 910
“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.”
Stock v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 289 In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d
532 (1st Dist. 1997) "Where a court's power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the
rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within
the structures of the statute." "The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and
procedure, absent contract." see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court
has stated clearly, “...every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not
bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.”
CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70 "Corpus delecti consists of a showing of "1) the occurrence
of the specific kind of injury and 2) someone's criminal act as the cause of the injury."
Johnson v. State, 653 N.E.2d 478, 479 (Ind. 1995). “State must produce corroborating evidence of
“corpus delecti,” showing that injury or harm constituting crime occurred and that injury or harm was
caused by someone’s criminal activity.”
Jorgensen v. State, 567 N.E.2d 113, 121. "To establish the corpus delecti, independent evidence must be
presented showing the occurrence of a specific kind of injury and that a criminal act was the cause of
the injury."
Porter v. State , 391 N.E.2d 801, 808-809. "When governments enter the world of commerce, they are
subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation" -- U.S. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 See: 22
U.S.C.A.286e, Bank of U.S. vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6L, Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et seq.,
C.R.S. 11-60-103
TREZEVANT CASE DAMAGE AWARD STANDARD
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237,243. (1895) "We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the
law as it existed at the time it was adopted."
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
Page 17
"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999]
HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors
of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event -
someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."
END QUOTE
Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 303 (1885). Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748, (1970) "Waivers of
Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done
with sufficient awareness."
Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516 (1962), "Presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible.
The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show,
that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Anything
less is not waiver."
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can
war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." The constitutional theory
is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents." "The
individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation
is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's
rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be
imposed."
Redfield v Fisher, 292 P 813, at 819 [1930] "...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured
in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance,
misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'individual' , not his official capacity..."
70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability
“Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,”
Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426. “Fraud vitiates everything”
Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210 "Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents
and even judgments."
U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity (See, Owen vs.
City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S.
21; officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges
cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of
the law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing
as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law
therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution
for the United States of America. See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. "When lawsuits are brought against
federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official

Page 18
capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the
powers) and lose the shield of immunity."
Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr,
952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).
"It is the duty of all officials whether legislative, judicial, executive, administrative, or ministerial to so
perform every official act as not to violate constitutional provisions."
Montgomery v state 55 Fla. 97-45S0.879
a. "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind
only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither
actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible.
The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can
concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them."
S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54; and,
b. "the contracts between them" involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as Corporate Entities:
c. "Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union,
are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual
entity"", Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773
Alexander v. Bothsworth, 1915. “Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or authorized. Free
consent is an indispensable element in making valid contracts.”
HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme
Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states: "The "individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional
Rights" as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way. "His power to
contract is unlimited." He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to
open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the
State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights"
are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of
the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the
Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
HALE V. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel is binding on all the courts of the United
States of America until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t. No other Supreme Court case has
ever overturned Hale v. Henkel None of the various issues of Hale v. Henkel has ever been overruled
since 1906, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by the Federal and State Appellate Court systems over 1,600
times! In nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on precedent authority of the cited
case. Compared with other previously decided Supreme Court cases, no other case has surpassed Hale
v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts. "The rights of the individuals are
restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the
agencies of government."
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has
the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.”
(State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
I intent to provide as a Supplement 1 a copy of the Section 78B NOTICE OF

CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and the written submissions ADDRESS TO THE COURT
19 July 2006 which was in the AEC v Schorel-Hlavka successful appeals against FAILING TO
VOTE, etc. Where the constitution was not specifically created for myself but for all citizens
then where I successfully objected to part of COMPULSORY voting (not voting itself) in both
appeals then this should also apply to all other electors!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)


20190607-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Joint Standing Committee On Electoral Matters

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

20190607-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Joint Standing Committee On Electoral Matters

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Page 1

GETUP GETS WAY DOWN AND DOGLIKE | Daily Telegraph

Getup pulls ad showing Tony Abbott refusing to help drowning ...

p2 7-6-2019 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

p3 7-6-2019 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. GORDON.-So is this.

p4 7-6-2019 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Dr. COCKBURN.-Not contemptuous.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p5 7-6-2019 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

p6 7-6-2019 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

The resolutions conclude:

How many parts/pillars are there created by the Constitution?

HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Let us not ignore:

p8 7-6-2019 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-

Citizenship implies where a person resides and not being a nationaality1

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942

Some Authorities to be considered regarding the above:

p17 7-6-2019 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

I intent to provide as a Supplement 1 a copy of the Section 78B NOTICE OF

p18 7-6-2019 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi