20240903-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 111

Page 1
1
2
3
4 Reece Kershaw (Australian/Victoria date) 3-9-2024
5 Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
6 Forwarded via email [email protected]
7
8 Cc: [email protected] Advisory Committee on Vaccines, Therapeutic Goods Administration
9 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Pharmacovigilance and Special Access Branch, MDP 122
10
11 [email protected] Committee Support Unit, Therapeutic Goods Administration
12 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Scheduling & Committee Support Section, MDP 122
13
14 Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus [email protected]
15
16 Jacinta Allan, Premier [email protected]
17 [email protected]
18
19 Re: 20240903 Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 111
20
21 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
22
23 COMPLAINT
24 Sir,
25 further to my original COMPLAINT of 6 August 2021 I provide a further supplement hereby.
26
27 The document quoted below also can be downloaded from:
28
29 This document sets out why there are no legitimate governments and so purported
30 exercise of powers, etc, and those involved must be held legally accountable for their
31 wrongdoings.
32 You can download the document from:
33 https://www.scribd.com/document/765219670/20240903-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
34 B-to-Banyule-City-Council-Cr-Mayor-Tom-Melican-and-Ors
35
36 Australians have suffered considerably as result of the “covid scam” and more and more is
37 exposed how the Commonwealth, the States/Territories and their henchmen in municipal
38 corporations are unconstitutionally/unlawfully defying the constitutional, legal, human, natural
39 and common law rights of Australians by stealth and otherwise.
40 Despite my extensive writings to the AFP somehow nothing seems to have been done to garnish
41 this ongoing criminal conduct and this appears to be because the AFP itself is criminally
42 involved to allow this to eventuate.
43
44 Olga may now be no longer amongst the living but that doesn’t mean there will be no legal
45 accountability of those who harmed her in various manner.
46 As the Framers of the constitution made clear citizens may have to be the ones to defend
47 themselves with a foreign invasion and I view likewise so against homegrown enemies the
3-9-2024 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 collaborators of foreign corporations, etc, pursuing to rob Australians of their constitutional,

2 legal, human, natural and common law rights!
3 Let it be very clear that those who are involved as such have become the enemy of themselves as
4 well as their families and their own children, etc. they have shown to be TRAITORS, and
5 cowards for the sake of whatever they may hold more valuable than their own integrity and
6 worthiness, etc.
7
8
9 QUOTE 20240903-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council Mayor Cr Tom Melican and Ors
10 Banyule City Council & Mayor Cr Melican & Ors (Australia, Victoria date) 3-9-2024
11 [email protected]
12
13 Cc:
14 Cr Tom Melican Mayor [email protected] Cr Alison Champion [email protected]
15 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos [email protected] Cr Elizabeth Nealy [email protected]
16 Cr Mark Di Pasquate [email protected] Cr Alida McKern [email protected]
17 Cr Peter Dimarelos [email protected] Cr Rick Garotti [email protected]
18 Cr Peter Casteldo [email protected] Jan Richardson [email protected]
19 Janet Redgrave Team Leader Dev.Plan. [email protected] Mr RomanWojtkowski [email protected]
20
21 Re: 20240903-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council Mayor Cr Tom Melican and Ors
22
24
25 Sir & Ors,
26 you may not at times or very often grasp what my writings are about but then again
27 anyone who is small minded has a problem that goes beyond my ability to assist with.
28
29 For decades I objected to the unconstitutional so called “council rates” and both Banyule City
30 Council and Buloke Shire Council are seemingly perusing me for monies. Their problem also
31 being that I in the past repeated wrote to them about it being unconstitutional but both couldn’t
32 give a darn. As a self-educated constitutionalist I do not fear any litigation, albeit a problem both
33 face is that they would have to prove there is an actual powers to lawfully claim the so called
34 “council rates”! Failing that, others may be embolden to follow my example. With the “covid
35 scam” as per 2024 video “Senate Blocks Bill Protecting Aussies from Jab Discrimination –
36 Labor, Greens, Crossbench to Blame!” Pauline Hanson made known that the commonwealth
37 did pend about $18 billion dollars. That I understand did not include the billions of dollars the
38 States/Territories spend regarding the “covid scam”.
39 Obviously, where municipal corporations (councils) are pursuing monies and then used certain
40 monies of this to pay staff to terrorise residents, businesses, etc, with the unconstitutional
41 MANDATES, etc, then any court, that is if it could invoke jurisdiction, which I do not concede it
42 can, would have to consider the usage of monies to pay staff to effectively being involved in
43 mass-murder, crimes against humanity, etc. As a citizen I cannot be forced to participate in any
44 mass murder, crimes against humanity, etc, and where I am aware that monies councils obtain
45 are in part used for this purpose then I am legally bound to not only object but also prevent any
46 funding that may be used for this. It is the blatant ignorance of those in power to consider my
47 writings way back already in 2020 that could have otherwise prevented most victims not to have
48 ended up as victims, let alone having died. I understood that then Premier Daniel Andrews made
49 clear that he didn’t care about people claiming their rights! Well, he in conspiracy with others
50 pushed the deadly “covid scam” and well he and others has to be held legally accountable.
51 As long as I challenge the constitutional validity of the claimed “council rates” there is
52 absolutely nothing any council can do against me or anyone else, as I have objected and by this
53 any purported legislation by this is ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio unless and until if ever at all a
54 court of competent jurisdiction declares it to be INTRA VIRES!

Page 3
1 There is however a major problem, in that the legal issues that were on 19 July 2006 presented to
2 the court for both appeals that were unchallenged by the Commonwealth as well as the 9
3 Attorney-Generals remains applicable. At the time Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls made
4 known to accept the court’s decision!
5
6 While Buloke Shire Council as I understand it did engage an alleged debt collection agency, in
7 real terms there is no debt unless a court has issued an order for a certain debt. And an ex-part
8 hearing would be unconstitutional and as such the orders of any court would be without warrant
9 of law. So, forget about getting around the legal issues I have raised.
10
11 I have already indicated to Buloke Shire Council that for it having trespassed upon my properties
12 and allowed someone else to do so I require a $5 million dollars compensation for each violation
13 of my rights as a property owner as it violates my FEE SIMPLE rights. The same $5 million
14 dollars will apply to each occasions Banyule City Council has staff trespassing upon my and now
15 my late wife Olga’s property.
16
17 There is a video titled “Do Australians have a right to freedom of speech_” within which the
18 presented claims that FREEDOM OF SPEECH is governed by certain Authorities such as
19
20
21
22 However, reality is the High Court of Australia never actually created this FREEDOM OF
23 SPEECH right, as I am well aware it as with human rights, etc, it was all along embedded in the
24 constitution! The rights of the media of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and to be entitled to the truth
25 of matters therefore cannot be denied either.
26 The FOI Act (Freedom of Information Act) actually appears to me to be unconstitutional where
27 it seeks to deny details/information.
28
29 I in the past wrote to the Federal and State Government about “compulsory” voting part being
30 unconstitutional and again I succeeded in both cases on 19 July 2006 on this also on
31 constitutional grounds. Likewise, I informed Buloke Shire Council and Banyule City Council
32 and both nevertheless unconstitutionally fines electors when they exercise their constitutional
33 rights not to vote. Meaning, that both are knowingly terrorising electors to fine them or to threat
34 them to be fined when they do not vote. What kind of purported law enforcement is that?
35
36 We now have that the Victoria Police or whomever is making known that if a person doesn’t pay
37 an Infringement Notice then additional cost will be applied. Moment, an Infringement Notice is
38 not a court decision and the right of a person to challenge an allegation must never be burdened
39 by additional cost. As such, we have another matter I do not fear to litigate about! And
40 Infringement Notice is merely an allegation that can be disposed of by paying the alleged monies
Page 4
1 so claimed. Not paying it means not to accept the allegation and it is absurd to claim that a
2 person doing no more but exercising his/her constitutional rights then can be hit with additional
3 cost.
4
5 The ATO (Australian Taxation Office) for many years has been claiming it fined me and
6 threatened legal action, etc, but their last writings was they are not going to litigate. A fact is they
7 got the message from me they cannot litigate against and they have been deceiving the
8 Administration of Justice for years on end. So, they too are well aware that effectively it is a
9 stale mate.
10
11 Over the years numerous persons contacted me about the harm inflicted upon them and their
12 family members due to the MANDATES and well I am determine to have this eventually
13 litigated in court. If any court were to declare to have jurisdiction then the court cannot ignore
14 the claims of TREASON, TERRORISM, MASS MURDER, CRIMES AGAINST
15 HUMANITY, etc, this because any judicial officer is an OFFICER OF THE COURT and then
16 bound to ensure such matters are properly considered. Meaning, they will be the first issues for
17 the court to deal with as if the judge fails to do this then the judge no longer is acting as a judge
18 but as a private individual and so cannot exercise any official judicial powers.
19
20 The following legal principle also applies in the Commonwealth of Australia:
21
22 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
23 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
24 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
25 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
26 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
27 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
28 authority of the United States”.
29
30 Video: “Rowan Atkinson JUST OBLITERATED The UK Government “He Refuses To
31 Listen”-very good” is about the use of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and the ridicule of it by the UK
32 politicians, police, etc. I have extensively set out that despite what Australians
33 lawyers/judges/politicians may claim otherwise, perhaps lack of their education, Australians do
34 have FREEDOM OF SPEECH embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia constitution Act
35 1900 (UK) and despite of my elaborate writings for decades I have never withdrawn anything I
36 stated.
37
38 While having members of my extended family being of Aboriginal descent I nevertheless will
39 not by this alter my views. The video “ABC ‘slips up’, reveals long history of Aboriginal
40 violence” presented by Andrew Bolt merely reflects what many already acknowledged and again
41 my Scribd blog sets out how the Negritoes reportedly were murdered out by Aboriginals, etc.
42 Also, considering that the Dutch already in the early 1600’s were residing sand their off springs
43 were natives, then to claim that somehow after the Arrival of Capt. Cook more than about 140
44 year later can be deemed why there is violence between Aboriginals themselves comes across to
45 me at utter and total nonsense.
46
47 It are the politicians and their collaborators whom are spreading misinformation/disinformation
48 and of a nature that actually could be at the very least be akin to a person in a theatre calling
49 (falsely) “FIRE”. It are the councillors of the “municipal corporations” (local councils) which
50 are responsible for the hatred, divisions, harm, etc, as much as the TRAITORS in government.
51 Councillors are elected to represent the local community interest, and Banyule Banner, the mat
Page 5
1 times monthly publication of Banyule City Council pretends a deceptive condition that my late
2 wife knows from experiences is fabricated.
3 To my understanding Banyule City Council had staff of its Health Department going about
4 terrorising small businesses that if they were not “vaccinated” then their (specific) business were
5 to be closed down. Yet, no such vaccine existed (as the Courts already have determined) and so
6 what was a form of TERRORISM for small businesses (and their customers) to be jabbed with
7 poison. They might as well have gone about making clear that small businesses and their
8 customers had to be ‘vaccinated” against the tooth Fairy disease, because mainly children were
9 losing their first teeth when growing up. Millions of parents do tell their children that the tooth
10 Fairy came around and replaced a tooth with a coin, and well if million of parents are claiming
11 there is a Tooth Fairy then surely it has to exist! Would millions of people really be crazy to
12 pretend a Tooth Fairy exist? Well, if millions of parents can have made it up (albeit for innocent
13 reasons) then why would it be any different that this SARS-CoV-2 virus is not also made up?
14 Let any councillor having gone along with this non-
15 existing COVID-19 virus prove by the Koch postulate
16 to have isolated and purified this alleged virus and has
17 been able to have another person infected with it!
18
19 Reportedly more than over 1 Billion people have already perished from this alleged covid-19
20 virus jab, and surely it should be easy then to just have one of those who allegedly died from the
21 purported covid-19 virus to be used to establish that this SARS-CoV-2 virus exist. In my view
22 any councillor who cannot prove by the Koch postulate the existence of this purported COVID-
23 19 virus then merely is providing humbug. A dangerous councillor by this. There is a saying that
24 to sleep with dogs you can expect to get infested with flies, and well I am not particularly
25 interested in any municipal corporation election to be as I view it part of a group of mass
26 murderers, etc.
27 Politicians in government do not have any powers if those who are officials, etc, refuse to act in
28 a murderous way and refuse to betray their constitutional obligations, etc. When however, we
29 have mere cowards who may be more interested in what they can get out of it even if in the
30 process placing themselves and their family members on the alter of the covid cult, then I view
31 they are not worthy to be councillors. The same goes for the police, the armed forces, the
32 scientist, medical profession and many more.
33
34 We have this ongoing “climate change” argument, but about 4 decades ago I was then already
35 exposing how those municipal corporations (councils) were pretending to be concerned about
36 environmental issues, only to burn the cartons with the main garbage! So, property holders were
37 swindled to pay for separate collection for recycling, when it was still burned with general waste.
38 Even in recent years, councils were dumping recycled material into general waste, and as such
39 still swindling property owners to pay for something that was not being done properly.
40
41 I understand the following to be from the United Nations!
42
43
Page 6
1
2 Hold on, “There is often little we can do about the hazard itself.”, and this when we get the
3 rubbish that people can act to avoid “climate change’. Well, I challenge councillors to prove that
4 we can somehow alter climate change, that has been going on ever since earth existed, and long
5 before humans were walking around!
6 It is like the Tooth Fairy issue plenty of people are staking their claims but do not have the
7 reliable evidence to back it up! I refer to “reliable evidence” because there are ample of claims
8 by the U.N. that are twisted to try to back up its argument but experts have denounced it as to
9 misuse details to suit their intentions. The Epoch Times published a video about numerous
10 claims about climate change to have shown to be disproven.
11 The ’climate change’ agenda cannot be dictated by some foreign organisation outside our
12 constitutional provisions and the Commonwealth while having powers to engage in certain
13 treaties cannot force it upon Australians and neither can transgress upon the State legislative
14 powers by this either. Neither can the WHO and/or the W.E.F.
15
16 Video “Why is Labor seeking to corporatise Australian homes_” NSW Senator Andrew
17 Braggs (LP) Senate Economics Legislation Committee and Dr Cameron Murray
18 I understand the Commonwealth is pursuing certain arrangements for corporate housing, which
19 is not actually what is within its legislative powers, however it is part of the 15 minutes cities of
20 the W.E.F. goals! Meaning that the federal politicians and so also State and Territorial politicians
21 in general are simply unconstitutionally that is following the directions of the W.E.F and so of
22 the U.N., and in the process municipal corporations (councils) are following those directions
23 also. Meaning they all in my view are TRAITORS!
24
25
26 Long before I married Olga in 2001, I was writing and campaigning about constitutional issues
27 well aware that most people have so to say been brainwashed and it would be an uphill battle.
28
29 Let me use as example that you may considering your past position in the banking industry
30 might be more to your understanding.
31
32 A person may deposit and/or have someone else deposit monies or something to the value of
33 monies into an account and lawfully, apart of any charges, may be entitled to the same value of
34 monies to withdraw. Let us now use an example:
35
36 Hypothetical conversation about a dispute:
37 John: I deposited last week $100 bill serial number xyz01 and like to have it back.
38 Bank teller: Sir, we can provide you to the value of $100 in nominations you desire but we cannot give you
39 back the particular money bill you deposited as it belongs to the State and we merely are using it
40 as we may need to do so but provide you with the legal entitlement for an equivalent of the value
41 of the monies deposited in your account.
42 John: What are you talking about? If I put a dog in care of a veterinarian are you claiming that he can
43 then give me another dog in return?
44 Bank teller: Sir, that is a total different issue that is not comparison with what I explained.
45 John: To me it is. I deposited a specific $100 bill and it was a misprint and is very valuable and I desire
46 it back.
47 Bank teller: Sir, I recognise your desire to have the particular bill back and had you placed it in a safe you
48 would still have it however with banks we just accept monies on face value and not on how much
49 a collector may accept to pay for it and as such we can only provide you with the value of the
50 monies that you deposited.
51 John: How do I know you didn’t sell the $100 yourself?
52 Bank teller: Sir, it is totally irrelevant what may have incurred with the $100 bill as long as you have still the
53 equivalent value you are entitled upon as to what it was worth as printed on the face of the bill.
54 John: Are you saying you stole my $100 bill?

Page 7
1 Bank teller: Sir, I am not in any way indicated someone stole the value as printed on the bill from you. One a
2 customer deposit a money bill into his account then the customer is entitled to the value of this
3 money bill but not to the bill itself, as legally the money bill is and always was the property of the
4 Government, and you merely was entitled to the value of the bill, which remains with you unless
5 you use it or any part thereof leaving whatever balance in your account. You may attend to any
6 bank branch and withdraw monies from your account to the value of what is known by the bank to
7 be your entitlement.
8 John: Can you just check if the particular money bill xyz01 is still in your drawer or in this bank?
9
10 Bank teller: Sir, this is not something the bank would be willing to engage in because as I stated you are
11 entitled to the value of any monies deposited in your account as available when you desire to
12 withdraw monies but the bank is not obligated to search for a particular money bill and therefore
13 your decline for this is declined.
14 John: You stole my money!
15 Bank teller: Sir, I have sought to explain to you banking policy that applies to all banks as government by the
16 government. I can only suggest that in future you do not deposit a specific money bill or coin in
17 your account but rather elsewhere like a secure storage facility if you desire to keep a certain value
18 you view exceeds the face value of the item.
19 John: I will report it as theft.
20 Bank teller: Sir, beyond what I stated we can pay out the equivalent value of what you are entitled upon as
21 shown in your account but beyond that we cannot assist you further. Thank you.
22 END Hypothetical conversation about a dispute:
23
24 The above set out at times have been shown a misunderstanding by certain bank customers that
25 they have the view they can demand the same money bills they deposited.
26
27 Let us use another example:
28
29 Fred deposited into his account the sum of $200 and the next day goes to the bank and request
30 the $200 being paid out to him.
31 Hypothetical conversation about a dispute:
32 Fred: I come to withdraw $200 which I yesterday deposited into my account.
33 Bank teller: Sir, I notice that your account shows that you yesterday deposited $200 via another bank however
34 due to transaction policies this money needs to be cleared first before we can pay out the
35 equivalent value of the monies.
36 Fred: No, it is my own money and I want it now!
37 Bank teller: Sir, perhaps in future you may deposit monies into another branch of our bank which may perhaps
38 avoid the transaction delay but currently we are bound by banking policy. I suggest you check
39 your account when it is cleared to be withdrawn.
40 Fred: I saw before you had monies the previous customer deposited well in excess of $200 and so just
41 give me my $200 from there.
42 Bank teller: Sir, as I explained we cannot payout any monies unless the monies in your account are cleared to
43 do so.
44 Fred: What about I just grab $200 and so you didn’t pay it out but then can deduct it from my monies in
45 the account?
46 Bank teller: Sir, that would constitute theft as I understand it a criminal offence, because at this very moment
47 you are not entitled to any monies unless it is cleared.
48 Fred: I want to talk to the bank manager!
49 Bank teller: Sir, if you take a seat, I will inform the manager you desire to speak to him.
50 END Hypothetical conversation about a dispute:
51
52 Now that you may have understood the “Hypothetical conversation” issues let us refer to the
53 constitution being the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
54
55 Before federation the colonies desired to unit in one Commonwealth but subject to the provisions
56 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and so its implied legal
57 principles embedded in it. Like the bank have “policies” the constitution has “legal principles”.
58
Page 8
1 The (former) Colonies agreed to provide certain legislative powers to the Commonwealth of
2 Australia and the Framers of the Constitution very much debated the ins and outs of the legal
3 principles if which some they placed into written format while others they did not. They simply
4 didn’t want to place all legal principles in the written format of the constitution as to avoid them
5 to be manipulated by a Government of the Day, or by some deceptive Administration of Justice.
6
7 Hence, they stated:
8
9 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
10 Convention)
11 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
12 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the
13 observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of
14 misconception.
15 END QUOTE
16 .
17 Hansard 23-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
18 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
19 We ought to leave it open to this extent, that while we agree upon essentials, and express
20 ourselves fully and freely upon all our views, still, so far as our views are not negatived
21 by any principle here laid down, their embodiment in any resolution may stand over for
22 Select Committee and afterwards [start page 20] for Committee of the whole House,
23 when they may be debated with the freest publicity and fullest freedom. I believe we
24 shall by this process best arrive at conclusions; not that, as many of us would like. we
25 shall be able to drive our own particular views to an issue at once, but we shall discuss all
26 these matters, both constitutionally and otherwise, and then we may arrive at views
27 which, though contrary to our present opinions, shall essentially represent the views
28 of those who sent us here to deal with the problems we have to discuss.
29 END QUOTE
30
32 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
33 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
34 understand.
35 END QUOTE
36 .
38 QUOTE
39 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee
40 will not fail to exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not
41 understand, and that they will put in words which can be understood by persons commonly
42 acquainted with the English language.
43 END QUOTE
44
46 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
47 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
48 END QUOTE
49
51 QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
52 That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position
53 which Mr. Barton has described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the
54 common law of England. This Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to
55 be handed over not to a Convention similar to this, not to a small select body of
Page 9
1 legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or rejection. It is
2 the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it,
3 and it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people,
4 who have to understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for
5 weal or woe during the whole time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot
6 have on the platform, when this Constitution is commended to the people, lawyers on
7 both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be appreciated by the
8 people.
9 END QUOTE
10 .
12 QUOTE
13 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the
14 commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of
15 legislation.
16 END QUOTE
17 .
19 QUOTE Mr. REID:
20 We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of
21 those points enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is
22 dead. There cannot be two laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But
23 that I merely mention as almost a verbal criticism, because there is no doubt,
24 whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any complication of the
25 kind.
26 END QUOTE
27 .
29 QUOTE
30 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load
31 the commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is
32 quite true that this power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is
33 given to the commonwealth to legislate on a particular question, there will be
34 continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to exercise that power. The
35 moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field
36 of legislation.
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
53 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the
54 meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
55 END QUOTE
Page 10
1
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is
5 no doubt that it will be exercised.
6 END QUOTE
7
9 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
10 The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged
11 classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the
12 complete legislative power of the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start
13 page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are proposing to
14 establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the several colonies.
15 The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the royal
16 prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers
17 will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they
18 will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we
19 must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrently the
20 necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each assembly, each
21 legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey again
22 says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the
23 authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go
24 beyond the limits of such authority.
25 END QUOTE
26 .
28 QUOTE
29 Sir GEORGE GREY: I beg to propose that the following resolution stand as resolution
30 No. 5:-
31 The inhabitants of each of the states of federated Australasia ought to be allowed to
32 choose, and if they see fit from time to time to vary, the form of state government under
33 which they desire to live. Provision should therefore be made in the federal
34 constitution which will [start page 478] enable the people of each state to adopt by the
35 vote of the majority of voters, their own form of state constitution.
36 Question proposed.
37 Sir HENRY PARKES: I wish to raise a point of order upon this resolution, and I do
38 it with the utmost respect to the distinguished gentleman who has moved it. My point
39 of order is that the resolution goes beyond our instructions. We have been sent here
40 for one object and one object only, and that is, to prepare a scheme for the framing of
41 a federal constitution. Anything outside of these prescribed words cannot be dealt
42 with under the commission in virtue of which we have come here.
43 END QUOTE
44 And
46 QUOTE
47 Dr. COCKBURN: I think we have nothing whatever to do with deciding the details
48 of the state constitutions. On the other hand, I think it appertains to the functions of this
49 Convention to decide that the power of framing a constitution shall be in the hands of the
50 several states. At present the legislatures of the various colonies can only be altered
51 with the consent of the Imperial Government. Is it intended that that shall remain?
52 When we have a federated Australasia, in which we have state legislatures and a federal
53 legislature, is it intended that the state legislatures shall have the power of altering their
54 constitutions at will or not? From that point of view I think the proposition put forward by
Page 11
1 the hon. member, Sir George Grey, is decidedly within the powers of the Convention, the
2 power to lay down a general rule, without touching the details of any individual
3 constitution, that the various states should have the power of framing their own
4 constitutions according to the will of the majority of the people of those states.
5 END QUOTE
6 .
7 Again (RE Section 123);
9 QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY:
10 Provision should therefore be made in the federal constitution which will [start page
11 478] enable the people of each state to adopt by the vote of the majority of voters,
12 their own form of state constitution.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
16 QUOTE
17 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
18 parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark
19 on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer
20 supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They
21 have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That
22 must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament
23 under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of
24 changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
25 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of
26 being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary
27 sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring
28 into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and
29 executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 The Federal constitution specifically in S52 provide certain exclusive powers and in Section 51
33 also however the Separation of S52 and 51 is that even so it is not specifically stated in the
34 constitution the “policy” aka legal principle) being that because there is this “clearance” (aka
35 time to elect members of the newly created federal Parliament and legislate for Federal laws)
36 then the States existing colonial legislations may be applicable until the Commonwealth
37 commenced to legislate.
38
39 While “Taxation” for example in section 51 is an “exclusive” legislative powers for the
40 Commonwealth it was held as a “policy” that the States could nevertheless continue to raise
41 taxes on a certain subject matter until the Commonwealth commenced to do so. Hence the 19423
42 High Court of Australia judicial decision that the States had to retire from income taxation
43 because the Commonwealth had commenced to do so.
44
45 The same actually was with the State land Taxation, where the Commonwealth commenced to
46 legislate on 11 November 1910 and so that was the end of the States land taxation powers. The
47 State of Victoria however nevertheless on 26 December 1910 legislated from State land
48 Taxation!
49 Obviously, this was in violation of the constitution but let us then consider why this was done
50 so?
51
52 In Municipal of Sydney v Commonwealth the issue was about “council rates” the Court held
53 was in fact a State Land Taxation and as the Municipal of Sydney was a corporation it couldn’t
Page 12
1 therefore exercise any legislative powers but could exercise the rights provided for by the states
2 Land taxation legislation that was in place, but subject to the constitution. However, a
3 remarkable and I would hold idiotic statement by the Court was that the Hansard de bates (that is
4 about the “policy”/legal principles couldn’t be relied upon. As such, the High Court of Australia
5 beyond its judicial powers was wiping the “legal principles” (aka policy) of the face of the earth.
6 Hence, the States as say newborn children now had no “legal principles” to be governed by.
7 However, about 7 decades later the High Court of Australia then reversed that by permitting and
8 indeed itself referring to the Hansard, albeit often not in context as it should have been and/or
9 concealing the true application of the constitution (Palmer v WA as an example).
10
11 In the process the States, as an example, were legislating on basis of what the High Court of
12 Australia at the time had ruled rather then what was constitutionally applicable.
13
14 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
15 Australasian Convention)
16 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
17 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
18 through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
19 of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
20 act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
21 Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
22 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
23 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way
24 of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive
25 than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to
26 protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of
27 interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the
28 country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There
29 is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought
30 to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not
31 providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain,
32 and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free
33 Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the
34 provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have
35 provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all
36 other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
37 Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not
38 provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the
39 people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of
40 its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but
41 acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in
42 the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to
43 be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose
44 of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament
45 of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to
46 serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any
47 Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have
48 that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
49 which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
50 creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
51 preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
52 action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
53 Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
54 END QUOTE
55
56 Those who studied law were tutored by those who grew up with the misconception of what the
57 legal principles aka policy was and so when they entered the judiciary, they too would continue
58 to make the same errors.
Page 13
1
2 I however, without formal legal training and having to learn the English language after my
3 arrival in Australia simply realized that most of the about 100,000 lawyers simply all got it
4 wrong.
5 The Commonwealth of Australia is not a “country” but merely a “political union” in this case
6 between the Colonies that became upon federation “states”.
7
8 By the 1904 High Court of Australia ruling the states simply continued to exercise their now
9 non-existing state legislative powers no matter it being ULTRA VIRES. After all the highest
10 court in Australia made clear they could ignore the “policy” (legal principles” embedded in the
11 constitution!
12
13 When then in 1908 the Commonwealth legislated as to QUARANTINE the states ignored this.
14
16 Convention)
17 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
18 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
19 clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
20 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 Again, in Palmer v WA the HCA twisted the truth to suit WA!
24
25 Constitutionally, since 1908 the states had no longer legislative, executive and/or administrative
26 powers as to “man-kind” diseases for which QUARANTINE was or may be required.
27
28 This includes for example measles, polio, etc. However, the States continued to legislate, etc as
29 after all how would they know when the 1904 HCA decision was applicable.
30
32 Australasian Convention),
33 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
34 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
35 justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
36 END QUOTE
37
38 Actually, it was never applicable, this, because the High Court of Australia acted beyond its
39 judicial powers as it did in cases such as Sue v Hill, Sykes v Cleary, MABO and land rights
40 issues, purported Australia Act 1986, etc!
41
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. TRENWITH: I hope that Mr. Gordon's amendment will be carried. We have no right to assume that
46 the Federal Parliament will not have a good deal to do. All our experience teaches us that, as civilisation
47 advances, the requirements of the people increase, and the tendency to ask Parliament to do things, that in the
48 past have been done by private enterprise, is increasing very rapidly. I feel confident that the Federal
49 Parliament, instead of having less to do as time goes on, will have a great deal more to do. I think that it will
50 be found to the advantage of the States to hand over work to the central Government. Of course, I can
51 understand the objection that any sum is too much, by those who disapprove of the principle of
52 payment of members.
53 END QUOTE
54

Page 14
1 Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
2 Convention)
3 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
4 The people of this continent were not landed upon its shore to-day ignorant of the
5 responsibilities of self-government. They have amply proved in the past that they are
6 entitled to be trusted with all the powers appertaining to a free people. They have believed
7 that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their present constitution second to none in
8 the world.
9 END QUOTE
10
12 Convention)
13 QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN:
14 We know the tendency is always towards the central authority, that the central authority
15 constitutes a sort of vortex to which power gradually attaches itself. Therefore, all the
16 buttresses and all the ties should be the other way, to assist those who uphold the rights of
17 the states from being drawn into this central authority, and from having their powers
18 finally destroyed. The whole history of federation in America, whether it be the United
19 States or Canada, has proved this: that the tendency is towards centralisation, and away
20 from that local government which is inseparable from freedom. I have heard it said that
21 those who advocate state rights are taking a conservative view of the question. I would like
22 to know since what time have centralisation and democracy been associated? Those who
23 advocate state rights advocate local government, under whose shadow alone democracy
24 can exist. There is nothing in common between centralisation and democracy, and if you
25 handicap a house, which is erected, to preserve state rights, what have you to prevent the
26 establishment, in this huge island of Australia, of a strong central government which
27 is local only to one portion of the continent, and as far as the rest of the continent is
28 concerned is distant and central? I maintain that a central government, just inasmuch as it
29 never can be associated with the power of the people, is inseparably associated with
30 tyranny, arising either from ignorance or design-frequently from ignorance-because a
31 central and distant government can never properly appreciate the local conditions for
32 which it is to legislate. I [start page 708] am surprised that any one in this Convention
33 should for one moment say that to strengthen in every way the rights of the states, as such-
34 to protect in every way the local institutions-is the conservative mission. The whole history
35 of federation has proved it is otherwise. It was in the name of state rights, when the
36 question of the Constitution of America was being discussed, that the most fervent appeals
37 to liberty that ever stirred the human breast were made, and all those opposed to state
38 rights were the conservatives, the monarchists of that time. The strongest upholders of state
39 rights from time to time have been those in favour of government by the people, and it is
40 only when you have state rights properly guarded, and safeguard local government, that
41 you can have government by the people. Government at a central and distant part is
42 never government by the people, and may be just as crushing a tyranny under republican or
43 commonwealth forms as under the most absolute monarchy. I do hope that hon. members
44 will not allow themselves to be hoodwinked in this matter. It seems that the crushing
45 majority in favour of the state rights that are essential to federation, which we had at the
46 commencement of this discussion, has dwindled away. I maintain that unless the state
47 rights are in every way maintained-unless buttresses are placed to enable them to stand up
48 against the constant drawing towards centralisation-no federation can ever take root in
49 Australia. It will not be a federation at all. It will be from the very start a centralisation, a
50 unification, which, instead of being a guardian of the liberty of the people, will be its most
51 distinct tyrant, and eventually will overcome it.
52 END QUOTE
53
Page 15
2 Convention)
3 QUOTE
4 Dr. COCKBURN: Local freedom and government by the people are inseparable.
5 END QUOTE
6
10 Not to have legislation merely to protect the people lower down the river Murray; but it is within the
11 cognisance of this Committee that the hon. member has proposed that the Federal Government should
12 undertake the work of cutting a deep water channel at the Murray mouth, so that large ships may come in and
13 out of the Murray with freedom, and that if the Federal Parliament does not do this, authority may be given
14 to the local Government to do it
15 END QUOTE
16
17 Hansard 8-4-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
19 QUOTE Mr. FITZGERALD:
20 Amongst men of common-sense we know what this invitation amounts to, and the manner in which it
21 will be availed of let us go to the Imperial Parliament for any change in the method of the
22 appointment of governors. If the will of the people preponderates in favour of a change, the
23 Parliament of England will not object. Let us not, however, excite party feeling; but let us continue in
24 the path which has brought us happiness, and which has not interfered with the freedom of the
25 people of the colonies.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 It must be very clear:
29
30 Federal Parliament (Commonwealth of Australia) = Central government
31
32 State Parliament (States) = Local government
33
34
37 QUOTE
38 Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I am not particular about that, but I think at all events the
39 Federal Parliament ought to have power to make its own standing orders for the purpose of
40 preventing disorder. When I say this I do not suppose the Commonwealth Parliament
41 would attempt to exercise control with regard to people out of its own doors. But
42 within our own dominion we ought to be absolute. If we summon a witness in any of our
43 local Parliaments to the bar of the House, he can decline to give evidence, laugh at us, and
44 walk away. The case I have just mentioned shows the necessity of Parliament having
45 control over any disorder.
46 Mr. TRENWITH: Anything to stop them throwing stones at labor members.
47 Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In Victoria they took the matter in a wholesale manner, and
48 passed an Act of Parliament declaring that the Victorian Legislature had all the powers,
49 privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons. There was no mincing of matters
50 there, and it was in consequence of the Parliament of Victoria having arrested a man,
51 and it having been decided that they had no power to do so, that they immediately
52 declared they had all of the powers of the House of Commons. The man, I think, was
53 connected with Goldsbrough's Company, and named Glass. He did something, and the
54 Parliament arrested him, brought him to the bar of the House, and it was declared
55 that they had no power to do so. In all the decisions of the Privy Council in reference
56 to the powers of Parliament, the Privy Council has invariably declared that
Page 16
1 Parliament has no power outside the very words of the Constitution Act. In the own
2 of Hampton and Fenton, I think, in Tasmania they had the audacity to tell a great
3 colony like Tasmania that so far as it was concerned it had no greater powers than a
4 municipality.
5 Mr. BARTON: The Speaker only had the power of a chairman of a public meeting.
6 Mr. DOUGLAS: Regarding the case alluded to by the hon. member, I happened to be
7 present when the decision was given. The Privy Council did not declare that the colony
8 had no power, but that any colonial Government, being under a Statute, would have
9 no power beyond that Statute. The result was that the Tasmanian Parliament passed a
10 law giving the powers to which the hon. member has made reference.
11 END QUOTE
12 And
15 QUOTE
16 Mr. HIGGINS: I am strongly of the opinion that the amendment is too wide. Section 8
17 gives this Parliament all the powers, privileges and immunities which the House of
18 Commons has and members also, and we want no more than that. Clause 49 merely makes
19 assurance doubly sure by providing that each House of Parliament shall make Standing
20 Orders for the conduct of its own business, and if the amendment be carried as proposed it
21 means that one House of Parliament is able to make laws although the Constitution means
22 that both Houses must concur in making laws. If one House can make laws it will have a
23 very important bearing on the liberty of the subject and the liberty of the press. The
24 words in the amendment are:
25 As each of them may doom to be necessary, and such Standing Orders shall have the force
26 of laws.
27 There is no question which comes up more than that of libel, and it is important to see that
28 one House of Parliament shall not make any law affecting the freedom of the press in
29 referring to the conduct of members. Any such law ought to be framed by both Houses;
30 but the effect of this is that one House of Parliament is able to make laws to alter the law of
31 libel and such matters. I think the Speaker of New South Wales will see there is no need
32 for this.
33 Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I do not agree with Mr. Barton, when he states that this House of
34 Parliament will have inherent powers. The Privy Council has frequently declared that
35 colonial Parliaments have no inherent powers whatever. They only have the powers
36 given to them by the Constitution Act.
37 END QUOTE
38
40 QUOTE
41 Mr. HIGGINS.-I understood the honorable member to put himself on the very highest pedestal, and by
42 contrast to put me on the very lowest. At all events, I feel that if this were carried, an unpopular individual, to
43 obtain his rights and liberties, would have to go cap in hand to and be at the mercy of the Government of the
44 day. I was thinking of the pig-tail case which occurred in California, and which I alluded to some time
45 ago, where an abominably unjust law was passed against Chinamen. It was passed to persecute them in
46 regard to their pig-tails, which they [start page 1689] regard with exceptional reverence. That law was
47 declared to be unconstitutional as a law passed by a state.
48 END QUOTE
49 .
51 QUOTE
52 Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
53 saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
54 they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
55 END QUOTE
Page 17
1 .
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. BARTON.- The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
5 that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 Any notion that somehow “municipal corporations” are a “Local Government Act” is a
9 constitutional nonsense!
10
11 Any purported State legislation as PURPORTED “Local Government Act” therefore is ULTRA
12 VIRES! This, as the States cannot overrule the federal compact.
13
14 Let me try to get through the ignorance of the many.
15
16 A high rising unit property owner has individual contracts with tenants and well the tenants
17 decide to overrule the property owner which is in violation to their contracts with the property
18 owners. No court could uphold the tenants to do so! Likewise, the states cannot override the
19 constitution (federal contract).
20 On the other hand, the Commonwealth has been ongoing overruling State rights in violation of
21 the Federal constitution and this because the politicians in power rather than the ‘sovereign
22 citizens/electors’ decided this.
23 Environment is a clear example. Franklin Dam case is a clear example. Waterside workers
24 however is another drastically failure where then Minister Peter Reith in my view was grossly
25 incompetent to deal with his actual political powers and hence the Court wrongly ruled against
26 him.
27
28 HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
30 Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten
31 Constitution of England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When
32 once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it.
33 END QUOTE
34 .
36 QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
37 The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it
38 occurs.
39 END QUOTE
40 And
42 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-
43 We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal
44 authority. That would be an absolute impossibility in the different states.
45 END QUOTE
46 And
48 QUOTE
49 Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the
50 laws of the place where the contract was made.
51 END QUOTE
52 And
54 QUOTE

Page 18
1 Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the
2 Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question.
3 END QUOTE
4 .
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. SYMON.-What relation has this to customs duties? The industrial life of the state is
8 considered by all of us (subject to this exception, it may be) a thing of purely domestic
9 concern. We do not want to interfere with the domestic life, or with industrial life, except
10 in the last resort. If you are going to introduce such a thing as this it must be the Federal
11 Ministry which will have to decide, subject to the Parliament, and you will introduce the
12 greatest complication and intensity of feeling that was ever seen.
15 [start page 192]
16 END QUOTE
17 .
19 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
20 The people of the various states make their own contracts amongst themselves, and if
21 in course of their contractual relations disagreements arise, and the state chooses to
22 legislate in respect of the subject-matter of them, it can do so.
23 END QUOTE
24 .
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. SYMON.-Why should you interfere with the laws in the different colonies affecting
28 the relations of masters and servants, which are purely a matter of domestic legislation?
29 Why should you hand over that purely state function to the federal authority?
30 END QUOTE
31 And
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. SYMON.-My honorable friend will hand that over to the Federal Parliament. I do
35 not want to hand over to the Federal Parliament too many of these difficulties. This, in my
36 view, should be solved by the local authorities themselves. They are the people to deal
37 with their own questions of industrialism. I do not want to enter into a discussion as to the
38 modes of carrying out this proposal; that will be a matter for the Federal Parliament if we
39 decide to introduce this power. But I will put to my honorable friend what is a practical
40 question in connexion with this power. Who is to decide as to when an industrial dispute
41 extends beyond the limits of a state? Who is to decide when a dispute originating in South
42 Australia enters into the colony of Victoria, so that Victoria shall be put under some kind
43 of martial law?
44 Mr. ISAACS.-It is a question of fact, like anything else.
45 END QUOTE
46 And
48 QUOTE
49 Mr. SYMON.-What relation has this to customs duties? The industrial life of the state is
50 considered by all of us (subject to this exception, it may be) a thing of purely domestic
51 concern. We do not want to interfere with the domestic life, or with industrial life, except
52 in the last resort. If you are going to introduce such a thing as this it must be the Federal
53 Ministry which will have to decide, subject to the Parliament, and you will introduce the
54 greatest complication and intensity of feeling that was ever seen.
Page 19
3 END QUOTE
4
5 The current union conflict is another issue where the Commonwealth should but out as it in fact
6 has no legislative powers but pretend to exercise it and the courts may wrongly go along, this as
7 the High Court of Australia in my view is corrupt and fails to respect its judicial boundaries such
8 as instead of deciding matters within the confines of the constitution it now is legislating from
9 the bench, such as allowing 2 convicted criminals born in New Zealand to remain in Australia
10 against the orders of the “responsible Minister’ because they are Aboriginals. A racial
11 discrimination that doesn’t belong to members of the judiciary in conflict of the constitution.
12 We on the other hand had the then Premier of Victoria leasing out a port with a reported tag of
13 about $9 billion dollars in violation of Section 92 of the constitution where all the monies were
14 not used for upgrading the harbor itself. I understand about $2 billion may have been used for
15 port upgrades and then the rest effectively the State of Victoria stole from taxpayers.
16
17 Likewise, the purported “council rates” since 11 November 1910 was all monies stolen from the
18 Commonwealth.
19
20 I wrote endlessly about these and numerous other issues such as that the “compulsory” part of
21 voting was unconstitutional” and well the AEC in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka twice took me on. I
22 (representing myself all along) filed and served upon the Commonwealth and all 9 Attorney-
23 Generals a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER and in the end on 19 July 2006
24 succeeded in both appeals unchallenged by the commonwealth and 9 Attorney-Generals despite
25 also having filed and served upon each of them a 3-part 409 pages written submission named
26 ADDRESS TO THE COURT setting out relevant matters.
27
28 Remember:
29
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection
33 of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
34 END QUOTE
35
37 Australasian Convention),
38 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
39 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the
40 administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be
41 beyond the possibility of suspicion;
42 END QUOTE
43
44 Well the court initially didn’t even issue formal orders and only when I specifically asked for it I
45 got copies, not originals and after more than 18-years I still have no REASON OF JUDGMENT!
46
47 QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780
48 As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on
49 filing institutes the appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all
50 findings of fact and law made in the lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in
51 challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the respondent. All the issues (unless
52 by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the absence of reason
53 for the magistrate’s decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded
Page 20
1 for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal
2 process, there is the basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their
3 witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to controvert the opposing case are entitled to
4 know, if they lose, why they lost. If they are given no reason they may be entitled to feel
5 the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case not
6 only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
7
8 Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not
9 mere ordinary trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of
10 responsibility which administrations of the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching
11 consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail. [Baker v Baker (1906) 95 LT
12 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and again in Cobb v Cobb (1900) p145] it was
13 stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is
14 the duty of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his
15 decision, but to give the reasons for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his
16 reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required, but the reasons which lead the
17 magistrate to make his order must be explicitly stated.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 In my view the Court is political rather than “impartial” despite that its judicial powers is limited
21 by the provisions of the Proclamation published in the Victorian Gazette on 2 January 1901 that
22 the governor is to appoint a “impartial Administration of Justice”!
23
24 In other legal proceedings the judges blatantly disregarded my constitutional rights and this
25 includes the High Court of Australia time and time again.
26
27 For example:
28
30 QUOTE
31 The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to refutation if I am
32 wrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but, indisputably, the great bulk of them, are
33 subjects on which no question of state rights and state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It
34 is, as the right hon. gentleman admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be
35 left for all time to be determined in a purely states house, or by a state referendum, when those questions
36 are not state questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on national lines, and by a
37 national referendum.
38 END QUOTE
39 .
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge
43 under a Federal Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament
44 or Government.
45 Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.
46 Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the
47 interpreter of the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same
48 sense as a federal judge is, the same circumstances remain in part; but where you will have
49 a tribunal constantly charged with the maintenance of the Constitution against the inroads
50 which may be attempted to be made upon it by Parliament, then it is essential that no judge
51 shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected weakness-for we do not know exactly
52 what they are when appointed-which may result, whether consciously or not, in biasing his

Page 21
1 decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might be dangerous to the
2 Constitution itself.
3 END QUOTE
4 .
6 QUOTE
7 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-We spend time enough in discussing things here, and when
8 every one is agreed that this clause is not to be adopted in the form in which it is printed,
9 but is only to be a power of the Parliament, it is not worth while to discuss the question of
10 whether it is [start page 1665] absolutely necessary to put in the words. Where there is a
11 wide difference of opinion, it would be safer to do it. I agree with Mr. Barton that there is
12 no power, because sub-section (37) of clause 52 reads-
13 Any matters necessary for or incidental to the carrying into execution of the foregoing
14 powers, or of any other powers vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or Executive
15 Government of the Commonwealth, or in any department or officer thereof.
16 I venture to say that these are not necessary or incidental to the execution of any powers.
17 The Commonwealth will come into existence under this Constitution plus English
18 law, one of whose principles is that the Queen can do no wrong. That is the
19 foundation on which the Constitution is established.
20 END QUOTE
21 .
22 HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
25 Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it
26 is that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that
27 prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or
28 peace without the advice of a responsible Minister.
29 END QUOTE
30
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no
35 desire to interfere with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
36 END QUOTE
37 .
40 QUOTE
41 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: At all events, I would ask hon. members to pause before they
42 determine upon asking the Queen to surrender all her prerogatives in Australia. For my
43 part, I believe that all the prerogatives of the Crown exist in the governor-general as far as
44 they relate to Australia. I never entertained any doubt upon the subject at all-that is so far
45 as they can be exercised in the commonwealth.
46 END QUOTE
47
48 What eventuated was that then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to go to war in regard of
49 the coalition of the willing to mass murder citizens in other countries. By this John Howard and
50 his collaborators decided to do likewise, without the governor-General having published in the
51 Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR naming specific countries. As such it was TREASON!
52 As I proved in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka there was no valid 2001 Federal election and as such the
53 persons commissioned by the Governor-General were therefore always bound by Section 64 of
54 the constitution that they would only be commissioned for the period applicable but no longer
Page 22
1 were if they failed to be elected as a Member of Parliament. Meaning that as it was an invalid
2 election all those Ministers were technically no longer Ministers once the 3 months had expired
3 and they were not formally elected!
4
5 64 Ministers of State
6 The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such
7 departments of State of the Commonwealth as the
8 Governor-General in Council may establish.
9 Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the
10 Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal
11 Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for
12 the Commonwealth.
13 Ministers to sit in Parliament
14 After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office
15 for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a
16 senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
17
18 Now consider:
19
20 106 Saving of Constitutions
21 The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject
22 to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the
23 Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the
24 State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the
25 Constitution of the State.
26
27 This means that in the States it also applies that the Governor can appoint Ministers but they
28 must be within 3 months elected to either State House or no longer hold their commission as
29 Minister.
30
31 As I indicated (in past writings see https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati) the Governor-
32 General never declared war to either Afghanistan or Iraq and we never had a government in 2003
33 and neither a (Prime) Minister who had legal authority to authorise an invasion in a “friendly”
34 country like Iraq and in the process bomb it into State Age and mass murder its citizens, etc.
35
36 And as the State of Victoria had not Gazetted the newly created State constitutions which were
37 considerably different than the former Colonial Victorian constitution Act 1855 then there was
38 no legislative powers for the State of Victoria to legislate and/or hold elections! As such, any
39 purported State government never existed either after the Colonial elected members completed
40 their term in office.
41
42 I was all along very conscious that my exposure of this rot festered within Federal and state
43 environments would be something that I could be targeted.
44 After all, the commonwealth purportedly joining the U.N from conception being in violation to
45 its legal status as it was not a State would be denounced by the political motivate and
46 incompetent judiciary1
47 Likewise, the registration of the Commonwealth of Australia with the District of Columbia
48 (USA) placing it under the legal authority of the US Congress violated Section 44 of the
49 constitution and hence by Section 45 any purported Minister by this was disqualified!
50

Page 23
1 My plan was to prepare for litigation but knowing that if I were to file any case then no matter
2 what I am constitutionally entitled upon the judiciary would railroad my case from onset. The
3 High Court of Australia proved precisely this in regard of my 18 March 2003 lodgement to seek
4 to prevent the ADF (Australian Defence Force) to unconstitutionally invade Iraq. On 19 march
5 2003 the High Court of Australia denied my review referring to the 18 February 2003 application
6 then refused to be accepted for filing. Just that the 18 February 2003 application already had
7 been refused and I had upon suggestions of the Registrar made the relevant amendments and
8 deposited the 18 March 2003 application. As such, on the very day of the invasion into Iraq my
9 18 March 2003 Application remained on foot and still it.
10
11 Well, tell the family members of the soldiers killed that they died in an unconstitutional
12 war!
13
14 Well, tell the soldiers harmed but survived that they were placed in harms way in an
15 unconstitutional war!
16
17 No doubt this and a lot more I was well aware would be for the Federal government, the state
18 government and the so councils to target me. When then the councils started about their
19 nonsense about environment, I realized that more than likely I soon or later would be targeted
20 and so started to take numerous photographs in various councils about the high weed/wheat that
21 did grow everywhere. Banyule City Council, Buloke Shire Council, etc.
22 Well, Buloke Shire Council started to push the barrow some 2 decades ago about wheat growing
23 on my property, this even so I never planted any grain and more over the High Court of Australia
24 had stated:
25
26 20240805-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ESa lawyers & Ors-NOTICE
27 ES&a lawyers (Australia, Victoria date) 5-8-2024
28 C/o Basil L Stafford LLB
29 Email: [email protected]
30
31 Cc: Cr Alan Getley (Mayor) [email protected] Cr David Pollard [email protected]
32 Cr Carolyn Stewart [email protected] Cr Bernadette Hogan [email protected]
33 Cr Graeme Milne (Dep Mayor) [email protected] Cr B Simpson [email protected]
34 Cr Daryl Warren [email protected] Penelope Grant Revenue Officer [email protected]
35
36 Re: 20240805-MrG. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ESa lawyers & Ors-NOTICE
37
39 Sir/Madam,
40 I refer back to previous correspondence in that your client forwarded to me a
41 purported TAX INVOICE regarding alleged slashing of my property on 13-3-2024.
42
43 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/
44 Fee Simple. - Constitution Watch
45 12 July 2022 ... What is an Estate in Fee Simple? Commonwealth v New South
46 Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1. (9 August 1923) .
47
48 There is an excellent article at https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/ which also refers to
49 Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; 919230 33 CLR 1 (9August 1923)
50 QUOTE
51 Fee Simple.
52 Posted onMay 10, 2022AuthorEditor
53 What is an Estate in Fee Simple?
54
Page 24
1 Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1

2 (9 August 1923)
3 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
4 KNOX C.J., ISAACS, HIGGINS, GAVAN DUFFY AND STARKE JJ.
5 THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PLAINTIFF
6 AGAINST
7 THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS
8 1920-1923: SYDNEY, Dec. 1-3, 1920; Mar. 21-29, 1922; Aug. 9, 1923 33 CLR 1
9 Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:-
10 (1920) 33 CLR 1 at 42
11 ISAACS J. In Challis's Real Property, 3rd ed., p. 218,
12 it is stated with perfect accuracy:—
13 “In the language of the English law, the word fee signifies an estate of inheritance as distinguished
14 from a less estate; not, as in the language of the feudists, a subject of tenure as distinguished from
15 an allodium.”
16 “Allodium being wholly unknown to English law, the latter distinction would in fact have no
17 meaning.” “A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in respect to the
18 rights which it confers, of all estates known to the law.”
19 “It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful right to
20 exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which can enter into
21 the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste; and, for all practical
22 purposes of ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a chattel, in nothing except
23 the physical indestructibility of its subject.”
24 “Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute right, both of
25 alienation inter vivos and of devise by will.” 2
26 Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:-(1920) 33 CLR 1 at 45
27 END QUOTE
28
29 In past correspondences I have extensively set out that the High Court of Australia made its
30 ruling about FEE SIMPLE and as such the State of Victoria cannot undermine this by any form
31 of legislation. My previous correspondences at great length also did set out that the State of
32 Victoria had no legislative powers in that regard either!
33 Even if your client holds that the State has legislative powers, not conceded by me, then your
34 client would have to prove this in a court of law, and not merely assume this.
35 END QUOTE 20240805-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ESa lawyers & Ors-NOTICE
36
37 A municipal corporation has no legislative powers and neither can charge GST (itself
38 unconstitutional) and well it is not of concern to me, however Olga was very distressed because
39 it was also her monies (considering our marriage) that was put into the Berriwillock properties
40 and she was effectively prevented from enjoying time at the property. This, because Buloke
41 Shire Council did absolutely nothing to avoid the contamination of my properties at Berriwillock
42 such as the grain blowing onto my property which was the cause of the growing of the wheat,
43 etc. and, in any event, I had my FEE SIMPLE rights that the state couldn’t interfere with. Well
44 the State of Victoria decided that were going to follow the NEW WORLD ORDER/ Global
45 Government directions like that of the U.N. (United nations) as to rob me of my FEE SIMPLE
46 rights. For example, the official documents were then stamped with in red colour letters:
47 DESTOYED
48 CANNOT BE USED FOR ANY
49 LEGAL PURPOSES
50
51 Let’s see the documentation:

Page 25
1
2 Before (about 1988 copied) After (about 2002)
3
4
5
6 Ok, the 50 feet depth seems to be gone also, because to my knowledge the electronic copy
7 doesn’t include it. Well, they may refer to a website but that is not the same as the official
8 document and also anything electronically can be altered without the Title holder’s knowledge
9 and/or permission.
10
11 In any event there is nothing in the original Title that gives the power to any State to alter the
12 original Title provisions or indeed the Title document itself.
13
14 Well,
15
16 I take the position there is no legal powers by the state to authorise the tampering of my Titles.
17
18 But the same was done by Banyule City Council and I understand by other councils also.
19
20 As I indicated the failure to publish in the Victorian Gazette the newly (amended) State of
21 Victoria Constitution Act it effectively never invoked any legislative and so executive and/or
22 administrative powers! What in my view should have been done is to publish the newly created
23 State of Victoria Constitution Act in the Gazette and hold elections, this I understand never
24 eventuated. In the purported Albert Park Racing Act litigation the Supreme Court of Victoria
25 tossed out of the window all charges as the purported Act had not been Gazetted and so couldn’t
26 be enforced!
27 As such, you had colonial elected Members of Parliament that had no legislative powers in the
28 newly created State of Victoria,
29
30 In any event the Governor of Victoria by the 2 January 1901 published Proclamation had powers
31 to commission Ministers but not to rob citizens of their constitutional rights!
32
33 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
34 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
37 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
38 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
39 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection
40 and secure to him.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 The right of FEE SIMPLE cannot be interfered with merely because the state desires to create a
44 computer (electronic) system.

Page 26
1 At no time was my permission requested and neither given to tamper with my official Titles
2 documents and as such it was unlawful vandalism.
3
4 I had some perception that the U.N. was pursuing global powers by unelected officials, which
5 violate the legal provisions in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and
6 those nevertheless pursuing this are automatically disqualified from holding any State/federal
7 position as a Member of Parliament. Not that those give a darn about the constitution!
8
9 Olga’s late father was as I understand it the senior lawyer for the Czechoslovakian railways.
10 When UK Chamberlain for appeasement caved in to Adolf Hitler, her father resigned his
11 position, and as he had a farm with many employees he decided that would be sufficient for him.
12 During WWII he however had 3 bunkers build to have a refuge for his workforce and his family,
13 and used as such. Olga grew then further up in an environment of farming. One day the air-raid
14 alarm went of but this time her father directed everyone (including the work force) to shelter in
15 the main house rather than in the bunkers. Perhaps a gut feeling? I don’t know. However, 3
16 bombs were dropped on the farm and all three bunkers were destroyed, each bomb hitting a
17 bunker, albeit the bunkers were not close to each other. Olga had the perception that these bombs
18 had been discharged merely to get rid of the weight (To enable the planes to have enough fuel to
19 get back to their country), to me it was not likely that 3 bombs happen to be dropped on 3
20 bunkers and nothing else. I view they were deliberately targeted.
21 The Berriwillock residence needed a renovation and so a lot of monies was spend on purchasing
22 items to do the renovations, but then Olga had a health problem in October 2019 and well ended
23 up with heart failure and other comorbidities. That in itself resulting that while Berriwillock is
24 situated in the farming area it would have been nice for Olga to have been able to spend the
25 remaining years enjoying in an environment she was used to live in in the end this never
26 eventuated.
27
29 Sir & Ors,
30 hereby I inform you that earlier today my wife Olga Hlavka-Schorel passed away.
31
32 Despite the spade of criminal conduct that very much affected my wife’s health, in particular
33 regarding the trespassing, etc, on 29 November 2023 it is noted that Banyule City Council never
34 even bothered to apologize regarding the harm inflicted upon her by Banyule City Council and
35 so its staff.
36 END QUOTE 20240808-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council Mayor Cr Tom Melican and Ors
37
38 The 2020 “covid scam” simply made it all worse and this because as I discovered the purported
39 SARS-VoV-2 VIRUS never was actually isolated and purified as per Koch postulate!
40 Allegedly some about 800 persons died in the Melbourne Hotel Quarantine disaster, from the
41 non-existing “covid-19” In my view they were simply injected with poison.
42
43 OK, hold on, that is some claim to make will many state. Well, having spend decades at (court’s)
44 bar tables I am well aware that you need to have reasonable evidence to pursue such a claim.
45
46 Without seeking to repeat the content of my published document in this writing again, I can rely
47 upon it and one can read and even download it without that I charge for this.
48
49 Let’s reward the TRAITORS and TERRORIST if convicted with the DEATH
50 PENALTY to protect Australians for their Constitutional, legal, human, natural and
51 common law rights!
Page 27
2 B-to-Attorney-General-Mark-Dreyfus-LEGAL-ACCOUNTABILITY
3
4 And
5 When the State prevents payment by gold and silver coins then I view no payment is
6 required.
9 B-to-Jacinta-Allan-Premier-Ors
10
11 Yes, the TREASONOUS and TERRORISM conduct continues.
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 Well, the State of Victoria has implemented a digital payment system and while it may provide
18 this kind of payment system it has no legislative, executive and/.or administrative powers to
19 deny a person to use gold and/.or silver coins such as to pay for parking! Yet is gold and silver
20 coins to be used for parking, etc.
21
22 Back to the New world Order (Globalist power) the U.N. was created in the aftermath of WWII
23 and its intention was to seek to have any other such disastrous world war. Well, the globalist
24 decided to hijack the U.N. for it’s own purposes so a non-elected official could then dictate the
25 world.
26
27 The former minister of NSW Health made clear (on video) it was the New World Order. And
28 well he had about 4,000 school students into a arena/stadium to be jabbed with the poisonous
29 “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION “bio weapon” falsely referred to being a “Covid-19 Vaccine”.
30 As the German Government made clear there never was a PANDEMIC. As the US court has
31 made clear that the purported “covid-19 vaccine” is not a vaccine at all!
32
33 Actually, way back on 8 April 2020 I emails to the Victorian Ombudsman a complaint about the
34 State of Victoria using the MANDATES. Simply, the State of Victoria and so any other State or
35 Territory had no legislative, executive and/or administrative powers to pursue MANDATES this
36 because it was “exclusive” Commonwealth powers and even than prevented any compulsory
37 jabbing without a specific court order against the specific person to be jabbed with a poisonous
38 jab not being a vaccine.
39
40 Banyule city council in the background was electronically stalking me at least since 2018.
41 Well, as I so to say was turning up the heat on the Federal and State government so were
42 councils pursuing me. That will claim they were following legal requirements while in reality
43 they were doing anything but that.
44
45 As I all expected them to pursue me more than likely as to environmental issues, I was over the
46 years making photos of how various councils were failing to keep their area’s safe. High weed
47 growth along highways, etc.
48
49 When then Buloke Shire Council commenced to litigate against me, they discovered I had for
50 years already gained ample of photos to expose their DOUBLE STANDARDS.
51
Page 28
1 And then on 6 September 2023 Banyule City Council commend its reign of terror but then the
2 following day went on to vandalise Olga’s motor vehicle. That caused a lot of upset to Olga as
3 particularly Banyule City Council was by then well informed that Olga suffered from heart
4 failure and other comorbidities.
5 It nevertheless continued its reign of terror that on 29 November 2023 two of its staff members
6 again climbed over a side fence and then entered a gazebo and then went to the back of the house
7 where then the male staff member commenced to bang on the backdoor. Firstly entering in
8 violation to our FEE SIMPLE rights our property is unlawful. Secondly entering a property
9 without court order and/or warrant is unlawful.
10 Entering then a Gazebo is unlawful
11 Going to the back of the house is unlawful.
12 Banging on the backdoor is unlawful.
13
14 Moreover, I had fitted a doorbell at the backdoor just in case either Olga or myself in error
15 locked the door from the inside without the other being able to get in. As such, even if there had
16 been lawful entry, which I do not concede eventuated, then using the doorbell is the normal
17 conduct of a mentally sober person and not that of a mentally deranged person. Olga called out
18 to me in feat that someone was trying to break in and well I asked her to do her blood pressure
19 reading while I would check out what was going on. I located 2 Banyule City Council staff
20 members in the backyard and made clear they were trespassing. I asked for their identity but the
21 woman merely gave me a document stating her name as Angela O’Brien. They left again going
22 through the Gazebo.
23
24 One of the issues Banyule City Council seemed to argue about was about some permit.
25 I knew that Olga’s late husband had contemplated in about 1988 to extend the residence but
26 nothing came from that and neither Olga or myself were contemplating to do this extension after
27 Jaroslav had died.
28
29 As I have been a manager in factories, I always was careful how to deal with employees, and
30 show the appropriate respect to them. And my view is that Banyule City Council staff should
31 show respect to citizens. Trespassing and terrorising property owners is in my view not showing
32 the correct kind of respect, let alone causing vandalism to a lawfully registered and parked motor
33 vehicle and causing physical harm. At the very least Banyule City Council could have requested
34 us if any action had been taken regarding the 1988 proposed building extension, that to my
35 knowledge they never did.
36 And even when they trespassed on 7 September 2023 and took all kinds of photos of the
37 property, albeit unlawfully without our knowledge and consent, those photographs would
38 themselves have shown the extension was never built. Not even attempted to build!
39
40 With Buloke Shire Council they were in denial of its staff trespassing onto my property albeit
41 unbeknown to them I was using a camera (as I used to do at Banyule property) that would be
42 triggered to make photos if someone was entering in its view. Regretfully, no clear images
43 eventuated and so useless but nevertheless I was well aware that trespassing eventuated. In
44 litigation, to combat my trespassing claims Counsel for Buloke Shire Council then produced a
45 GPS map claiming that all photos it had been using were shown on the GPS document and so
46 there had been no trespassing.
47 I requested the original GPS map records which Counsel claimed was destroyed when new GPS
48 records were added. Witness for Buloke Shire Council during evidence-in-chief gave evidence
49 that those photos were of my property and as per GPS locations.
50

Page 29
1 When my turn came to cross-examine the witness I commenced with “Mr Wayne Wall I put it to
2 you that you are not telling the truth, are you?” On that the judge interrupted and asked: Are you
3 saying the witness is lying?
4 I responded to let the witness himself explain.
5 Upon this the witness made clear he was telling the truth.
6 After that I showed him 2 photos of his earlier evidence and then asked him if those were of my
7 property. He confirmed.
8 I then pointed out that they were 2 different buildings and could not be the one and same house
9 and explained the difference in the buildings. He then admitted that one of the photos was not of
10 my house. He didn’t know where it was from.
11 The judge then commented that the photo had no GPS details on them as some others neither
12 did.
13 Was it not for my skills in cross-examining witnesses the court may have held that Counsel and
14 the witness were telling the truth while in fact they were not.
15
16 Actually, when I sought to file as an exhibit a stack of photos the judge refused this. However, I
17 then asked the witness if he recalls a certain correspondence, and showed him a copy and he
18 admitted he had received it. I then filed it as an exhibit and pointed out to the judge that the
19 photos he had earlier refused for filing actually were included in this correspondence!
20
21 A fact was that the judge actually never invoked jurisdiction as I had previously objected to the
22 jurisdiction of the court and the judge failed to hold a jurisdictional hearing and as such never
23 invoked jurisdiction in any event.
24
25 With Gaynor J years earlier she commented that the constitution didn’t apply to her!
26
27 The following also applies as a legal principle in the commonwealth of Australia
28
29 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
30 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
31 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
32 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
33 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
34 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
35 authority of the United States”.
36
37 And let not overlook what I have set out in the following document:
38
39 It is very important that citizens do not cave into the terrorism of any council. Hold
40 them legally accountable. Perhaps this document may provide an insight how to do so.
42 https://www.scribd.com/document/682156215/20231104-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-
43 to-Lawyers-Molly-Metcalf-Becklegal-Supplement-2
44
45 surely, for a council to terrorise a dying women should be held to show that the councillors are
46 all grossly incompetent.
47 Before I installed the front gates in about 2019/2020 council officers could have to some extend
48 entered to front of the property in a lawful manner but to my knowledge never did. Why then
49 making targeted aerial images in 2018 when there was no legal justification for doing so? This
50 may underline that my suspicion that they would target me because of what I was exposing was
51 correct.
Page 30
1
2 There are numerous videos on the internet and slowly I am downloading them and then transfer
3 them to a backup hard-drive to prevent any loss of those videos. I then take time to carefully
4 dissect what is stated and then use it in my writings as to show that I am not merely getting
5 involved with what is referred to as “conspiracy theory” but I am factual.
6 Obviously, this add to the Federal and state government to go after me and so I view they have
7 been using councils to do their dirty work. It was shown during the 2010 Ivanhoe state election
8 when council staff were destroying my banners and posters on behalf of a councillor who also
9 was a candidate.
10
11 While the U.N. was created in an attempt to avoid wars like WWII reality is that it’s intend once
12 created was for global powers rather than to pursue peaceful solutions.
13 It globalist intent was what it was all about and using false and misleading narrative about
14 “climate change” was part of its conduct.
15
16 Climate change deception and exposure
17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1e5HAZo4iw
18
19 then let us consider how there will be violent TERRORISM by those placing themselves above
20 the rule of law to enforce the globalist lust for more power.
21
22 QUOTE 20240603-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 110A-
23 Deadly pursuit & arrest, etc
24 The same with the purported “council rates” which are unconstitutional.
25
26 Clearly, way back in the 2001 purported federal election in Jagajaga I made clear that the
27 “compulsory” part of voting was unconstitutional and I succeeded on 19 July 2006 on this also.
28 I also challenged the constitutional validity of the “state land taxation” purportedly delegated as
29 “council rates” and again the councils continue their fraudulent conduct.
30 When then I objected to both Buloke Shire Council and Banyule City Council both for many
31 years simply disregarded this. Banyule City Council commenced LAWFARE against my wife
32 and I causing considerable health problems to her. On numerous occasions Banyule City Council
33 trespassed upon our property despite signages:
34
35 At the gates:
36
37
38
39 The text is very clear:

Page 31
1
2 END QUOTE 20240603-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl
3 110A-Deadly pursuit & arrest, etc
4
6 Banyule City Council & Mayor Cr Melican & Ors (Australia, Victoria date) 28-5-2024
7 [email protected]
8
9 Cc: Tenants of 105 Graham Road, Viewbank
10 Cr Tom Melican Mayor [email protected] Cr Alison Champion [email protected]
11 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos [email protected] Cr Elizabeth Nealy [email protected]
12 Cr Mark Di Pasquate [email protected] Cr Alida McKern [email protected]
13 Cr Peter Dimarelos [email protected] Cr Rick Garotti [email protected]
14 Cr Peter Casteldo [email protected] Jan Richardson [email protected]
15 Janet Redgrave Team Leader Dev.Plan. [email protected] Mr RomanWojtkowski [email protected]
16
17 Re: 20240528-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council Mayor Cr Tom Melican and Ors
18
20 COMPLAINT
21 Sir & Ors,
22 further to my previous writings I will set out some other matters which so far has not
23 been responded upon despite my various previous writings.
24 On 3 January 2024 a Banyule City Council staff member as I understand it unlawfully
25 (trespassing) was on the property of 105 Graham Road, Viewbank, Victoria as I understand
26 twice (Then each time 2 employees of Banyule City Council) was done on 7 September 2023
27 and also twice on 29 November 2023.
28 As my neighbours have 3 small children it obviously is of concern that Banyule City Council
29 employees are trespassing upon the property and so also with cameras. As shown below on 3
30 January 2024;
31
32 It also must be very clear that before entering the property of 105 Graham Road, Viewbank the
33 Banyule City Council staff member did walk to the driveway to enter the property, and as such
34 Was well aware where the driveway was!
35
36
Page 32
1
2 It must be very clear that this person was walking past the living room window of 105 Graham
3 Road, Viewbank which in my view is not the ordinary way any person can enter a property even
4 if seeking to contact the tenants of the property.
5 I understand that ordinary a person may enter a property, that is provided there is no sign
6 prohibiting entry, via the most direct route from a footpath to the front door, and failing anyone
7 to respond then the person must leave via the most direct rout the person entered the property.
8 As I understand it Banyule City Council appears to rely also upon as to what is “detrimental to
9 the general amenity of the neighbourhood in which it is located”. As such, Banyule City
10 Council appears to indicate that its staff can trespass upon anyone’s property without having any
11 legal justification to do so. In my view, it is detrimental to the neighbourhood that perhaps
12 Banyule City Council may employ staff who could be for all I know paedophiles who then use
13 cameras to enter unlawfully a property and by this place the health and wellbeing of residents in
14 jeopardy. Tenants pay a considerable amount of monies to have a place to call home and so safe
15 for their children as much as property owners are entitled upon. In my view Banyule City
16 Council may be guilty of misprision if it has not reported the at least 5 times I understand
17 Banyule City Council employees trespassed upon the property of 5 Graham Road, Viewbank to
18 the Victorian Police. Just in case you may not understand the rule of law, property owners and
19 their tenants have a legal right not to have anyone trespassing and if Banyule City Council
20 desires to enter a property without the consent of the property owner/tenant then it can only
21 pursue for a Court to issue a warrant. Entering a property without a warrant for ulterior purposes
22 I view could be a criminal offence and the tenants who pay a lot of monies to have a safe and
23 secure residence for their family are entitled that Banyule City Council respect their privacy and
24 other legal rights. In my view it is detrimental to the neighbourhood that a Banyule City
25 Council disregard the safety of residents, and a proper police investigation must be conducted
26 to deal with any offender who trespassed.
28
29 It must be clear that so called law enforcement authorities couldn’t give a darn about the rule of
30 law!
31
32 QUOTE Families of slain officers call for change at Wieambilla inquest _ ABC News

Page 33
1
2 END QUOTE Families of slain officers call for change at Wieambilla inquest _ ABC News
3
4 Did you notice this sign:
5
6
7
8 It is easy to blame the Trains about whatever under the horizon but the fact is and remains that
9 there was clearly a sign NO ENTRY and the police blatantly ignored this.
10
11 When Olga in 2019 was in hospital she requested the Victorian Police to do a welfare check and
12 the police as I understand it made clear that she needed to authorize them in view of the sign
13 “ENTRY PROHIBITED” and well Olga gave that authority.
14 Then on 8 August 2024 I called the police and unlocked the front gates so the police, ambulance
15 and funeral staff could enter and also enter the residence. They had clearly my permission to do
16 so! Therefore, where the police despite being employed as “law enforcement officers” still
17 requires appropriate authorisation to enter, either from the property occupiers, the court and/or a
18 warrant then clearly Banyule City Council staff never having any of them were committing
19 serious crimes, as at no time were they provided with any lawful authority to enter, let alone
20 cause damages and physical harm upon very ill heart failure dying Olga in particular! It therefore
21 cannot be held that somehow Banyule city council had any legal authority and yet persisted to
22 continue in their crime spree and having vandalised Olga’s motor vehicle that was lawfully
23 parked in front of our property. And this is part of the TERRORISM I view is to enforce the
24 U.N. globalist compact where municipal/shire councils that are municipal corporations are doing
25 their biddings. One cannot be deemed a “law enforcement officers” when violating the very
26 laws you must respect!
27
28 QUOTE Shocking news emerges that Australians have been robbed by their own Government!

Page 34
1
2 END QUOTE Shocking news emerges that Australians have been robbed by their own Government!
3
4 Yes, the Commonwealth and the state/Territorian Government have been pushing the NEW
5 WORLD ORDER agenda regardless of which political parties they were associated with, as to
6 rob Australian’s blind.
7
8 In fact, NSW has introduced specific legislation for the so called 15 minutes Cities the W.E.F.
9 (World Economic Forum) has dictated.
10
11 QUOTE Official NASA Documents Confirm Plans for 'Mass Extinction Event' in 2025
12
13 END QUOTE Official NASA Documents Confirm Plans for 'Mass Extinction Event' in 2025
14
15
16
17 https://youtu.be/Bq3sBPEEQCM?si=f40EDfuYEHFls9ST
18 QUOTE Australian government transforming private property ownership using catastrophic climate modelling_2
Page 35
1 Climate change
2 United Nations • Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather
3 patterns. Human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to
4 the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.
5 Australian government transforming private property ownership using catastrophic climate
6 modelling
7
8 Kate Mason
9 40,783 views 18 Jul 2024
10 Whatever country is your home, disaster adaption is a global agenda channeled down
11 through the United Nations. If your country signed the Sendai Framework 2015-2030, your
12 country is bound to create climate adaption plans. The adaption plans are manufactured
13 through the United Nations Environment Programme. These plans have serious
14 implications for private property ownership, as well as for people to live where they wish
15 in their own country. Infrastructure will be privatised, and assets will incrementally be
16 owned by corporate entities. In this video I unpack a few of the NSW and Australian
17 Federal government documents outlining the plans. The vast majority of Australian’s have
18 no idea these plans are in motion. You can find the source documents and more in my
19 substack https://kate739.substack.com
20 END QUOTE Australian government transforming private property ownership using catastrophic climate modelling_2
21 And
22 QUOTE
23
24 @rickd955
25 1 month ago
26 I'm from Germany and I find it truly sad what is happening in our world, especially for our
27 children. So here we have a women who clearly sees what is going on and the dire
28 consequences for all. Didn't people like her also existed before and during Covid? And
29 what did the majority do when the madness happened? I'm sorry to say this, but forget
30 about getting out of this mess by trying to wake up the sheep. A sheep still is a sheep when
31 it's awake, it will never be a wolf. Insurance will be a thing of the past, affordable cost of
32 living as well. And those houses that are in areas "they" want to clear will get burned down
33 to the ground with energy weapons. The truth is hars and unforgiving.
34 Show less
35 48
36 Reply
37 6 replies
38
39 @DuckDonald44
40 1 month ago
41 maybe you should link up with Malcom Roberts. He may be able to bring this to a broader
42 viewership with you, and perhaps challenge those models being used now, rather than
43 later.
44 25
45 Reply
46 2 replies
47
Page 36
1 @nolaworsley9651
2 1 month ago
3 Oh! Thank You Kate, we have an urgent need, to now get your hard work out there…Share
4 Share & Share
5 28
6 Reply
7
8 @kayokk-
9 1 month ago (edited)
10 … and there you have it. Let the games begin, again and again and again until you hit the
11 grave and even then they’ll continue with others beyond. The government will always be
12 the greatest narcissist you have ever come across and most probably everything they touch
13 and do in the end turns out to be a scam!
14 10
15 Reply
16
17 @marjorieesteakley1982
18 1 month ago
19 I've noticed an escalation of k 1 I m @ t € engineering and weather war fare here in the
20 US. This is global, not just in Australia.
21 73
22 Reply
23 2 replies
24
25 @anastasiatsatsos2433
26 1 month ago
27 Smart 15 minute cities tried to wake people up

28 8
29 Reply
30
31 @GinginratePayersCollective
32 1 month ago
33 treason /trē′zən/ noun The betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by
34 committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts. The
35 betrayal of someone's trust or confidence. The offense of attempting to overthrow the
36 government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state
37 into the hands of a foreign power; disloyalty; treachery
38 Read more
39 17
40 Reply
41
42 @niceworkabc
43 1 month ago
Page 37
1 24:35 population & growth is blamed for the risk and yet the government is importing
2 people at an unprecedented rate (1.2 million in less than 2 years)

3 10
4 Reply
5
6 @falloutthree370
7 1 month ago (edited)
8 15 minute city developments... all by 2030, WEF agenda.
9 END QUOTE
10
11
12 https://youtu.be/Bq3sBPEEQCM?si=f40EDfuYEHFls9ST
13 QUOTE
14 Chapters View all
15
16 0:00 Introduction
17
18 3:30 Sydney Mini Cities
19
20 5:05 Summary
21
22 8:37 New South Wales
23
24 11:55 Disaster adaption plans
25
26 14:21 Implementation pathway
27
28 15:37 Disaster Philanthropy
29
30 16:38 State Government Plans
31 END QUOTE
32
33 https://vigilantnews.com/post/undercover-video-reveals-un-is-terrified-of-a-second-trump-term-
34 beyond-the-headlines/
35 Undercover Video Reveals UN Is ‘TERRIFIED’ of a Second Trump Term | Beyond the
36 Headlines
37 QUOTE
38 If you need a good reason to vote for Trump, here it is: The United Nations is TERRIFIED
39 of a second Trump term.
40 This news came from a bombshell undercover video exposing Jorge Paoletti, a UN legal
41 officer.
42 Paoletti admitted on tape that one of the UN’s sinister goals is to create a “global citizen,”
43 where people identify more with a global community than with their own country.
44 “I’m the definition of a globalist,” Paoletti said, before lamenting, “I’m not sure the UN is
45 going to survive a second term from Trump.”
46 The fear stems from Trump’s America First stance, which directly opposes the UN’s push
47 for a global governance model.
48 He revealed that 27% of the UN’s funds come directly from the United States and that no
49 other country’s financial backing even comes close.
50 Watch the full video from Mug Club Undercover. It is an eye-opener.
51 END QUOTE
Page 38
1
2 QUOTE Undercover Video Reveals UN Is ‘TERRIFIED’ of a Second Trump Term | Beyond the Headlines
3
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Page 39
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Page 41
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 42
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Page 43
1
2
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 END QUOTE Undercover Video Reveals UN Is ‘TERRIFIED’ of a Second Trump Term | Beyond the Headlines

Page 44
1
2 Now let this sink in you got all those sheeple in power who seem to have the view that if they are
3 TRAITORS and TERRORIST to pursue what the globalist desire then somehow, they will be
4 better off. Well, I have news for you. Those TRAITORS and TERRORIST may be one of the
5 first to be disposed of when their services are no longer needed. What those TRAITORS seem
6 to ignore that not only will they be deemed “useless eaters” but so their family. Hurray, they are
7 actively engaged to murder their own children, etc!
8 With the globalist contemplating to reduce the population from around the world then forget
9 being secure to survive. And, even if you were to survive you may find you put in train that you
10 end up without any property ownership and so your family also, because you supported that rot.
11
12 The High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill never in my view understood the true meaning and
13 application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution1
14
15 HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
17 Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
18 England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
19 cannot get behind it.
20 END QUOTE
21
23 QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST:
24 We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born
25 in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the
26 commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old
27 country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of
28 the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies
29 should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired
30 his appointment.
31 END QUOTE
32
34 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
35 The practice in England has been that when the House of Commons is dissolved, the
36 Gazette which contains the proclamation, or one issued concurrently, also contains a
37 proclamation summoning a parliament to meet on a given day, and all the writs are
38 appointed to be returned on that day.
39 END QUOTE
40 .
43 According to the English practice there is always a parliament either summoned or
44 prorogued. Coincident with the dissolution of the old parliament is the proclamation
45 calling the new parliament.
46 END QUOTE
47
49 QUOTE
50 Sir JOHN BRAY: I am very glad to hear that the committee considered the point,
51 although I think they arrived at a very unwise decision. The hon. gentleman who last spoke
52 is mistaken in what I take to be the drift of all parliaments. No parliament lives out the full
53 term of its existence. It is always dissolved before it actually expires, and so it would be in
54 this [start page 645] case. The practice almost invariably is for the house to be
55 dissolved, and a new house elected, before the expiration of the three years, the object
Page 45
1 being that there shall always be a parliament in existence. The intention is not that the
2 members shall be elected for three years, but that they shall absolutely serve for three
3 years, and the three years ought for the sake of convenience to date from the first meeting
4 of parliament.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 Meaning that there has to be an election held before the expiry of 3 years and candidates are to
8 be “Subjects of the Crown” regardless of all along residing in the Commonwealth of Australia
9 and/or in having just arrived from the United Kingdom!!
10
12 QUOTE Mr. LYNE:
13 First of all, he raised the question of the appointment of the Governor-General for the Federal
14 Executive. Now, I think there is no desire on the part of any large section of this community to take
15 what I may term the first step towards a severance from the mother-country, but the first step would
16 be in the election of the Governor-General instead of allowing his appointment to be made by the
17 Home Government. It is but a small connecting link between the Australasian colonies-between a
18 Federated Australia and the mother-country-to allow the appointment to be made by the Home
19 Government; and I should like to know what power that Government would have over any Governor-
20 General elected in the manner desired.
21 END QUOTE
22 .
24 QUOTE
25 The CHAIRMAN.-I do not think I can rule this proposed amendment out of order. Every clause, or
26 nearly every clause, in a Bill in some way qualifies the preceding clauses. They extend the operation of
27 those clauses, and, in some instances they limit the operation of the clauses. This is not a distinct
28 negative, and I think it would be unduly curtailing the power of the committee to arrive at such a conclusion
29 as they may think fit if I ruled this out of order.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 Meaning, that Section 51 legislative powers are subject to the provisions in subsequent Sections
33 of the constitution!
34
37 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
38 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
39 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
40 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
41 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
42 embrace and unite.
43 END QUOTE
44 And
46 QUOTE
47 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
48 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
49 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
50 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
51 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
52 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
53 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
54 END QUOTE
55
Page 46
1 It is very clear that the latter quotation underlines that a “A charter of liberty is enshrined in
2 this Constitution” and it is therefore imperative to understand what the true meaning and
3 application of the embedded legal principles are, and this I view the High Court of Australia
4 miserably failed in Sue v Hill.
5
6 Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
7 Convention)
8 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
9 I hope that I am at any rate acting in the spirit in which we all labour together, and that the
10 result of our labour will be to found a state of high and august aims, working by the eternal
11 principles of justice and not to the music of bullets, and affording an example of freedom,
12 political morality, and just action to the individual, the state and the nation which will
13 one day be the envy of the world.
14 END QUOTE
15
18 QUOTE Mr. FITZGERALD:
19 Another case I understood the hon. member, Sir George Grey, to put was that be favoured the
20 appointment of the governor-general of the future dominion of Australia being a colonial
21 appointment. But as long as this country is united to the Crown of England-and I hope that it is a
22 very long day off indeed when it shall cease to be so-I maintain that the governor-general of the
23 future dominion of Australia must be the appointee of her Majesty the Queen, our sovereign, who is
24 the apex of that structure, and whose name we revere and respect in this colony equally as in any
25 other [start page 165] part of her Majesty's dominions.
26 END QUOTE
27
30 QUOTE Mr. ADYE DOUGLAS:
31 The governor-general must be the representative of the Queen by direct appointment from her
32 Majesty, and that being the case, the government will be carried on in federated Australia in the way
33 usually adopted now in the different colonies.
34 END QUOTE
35
37 Convention)
38 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
39 I should prefer to rest on the fact that the powers of the Federal Parliament are limited
40 under the Constitution itself, and that the Federal Parliament has no power to do
41 anything except what is expressly given to it, or what is by implication necessary.
42 END QUOTE
43
46 QUOTE Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT:
47 5. A very important consideration is the following:-In every colony possessing a
48 Constitution the legislature is exercising powers created by a Statute of the Imperial
49 Parliament. Its powers are limited by this document, and the document is [start page 972]
50 subject to the interpretation of the Court, of law of the country. The Supreme Court of each
51 of these colonies has jurisdiction to decide that a colonial Act is ultra vires. The power has
52 actually been exercised in this colony in the case of an Act for deporting fugitive ofienders,
53 it being held that the General Assembly of New Zealand is incompetent to provide for the
54 custody of such persons during their passage over-sea to another colony. The difficulty has
55 since been removed by Imperial legislation. Now, it is evident that if the integrity of the
56 empire is to be maintained (which is our common object), the decision of a local court in
Page 47
1 regard to the powers of the local Parliament ought to be subject to review by an Imperial
2 court. Otherwise, all limit to the local power of legislation might be disregarded, and
3 practically set aside, by judges with strong separatist tendencies.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 The following makes it very clear for “public purposes” and therefore the U.N., WHO, W.E.F.
7 globalist goal to rob Australians of their private property for the sake of the private corporations
8 is unconstitutional and neither the State can actually rob the citizens of their private property, as
9 not is pursued by the State of Victoria, N.S.W. etc.
10
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. OCONNOR.-No. The only powers that can be held to be given are those which are
14 expressly given. It will be wise, later on, to add a clause which I think the Convention will
15 see the advisability of adding, restricting the power to acquire land to acquisition for the
16 public purposes of the Commonwealth; and I think it should then be made very clear that
17 no power is given in that clause to acquire land for a federal capital without the consent of
18 the state interested. Because it is quite clear, from the nature of things, that it is quite
19 impossible that a power of that kind could be carried out without such an amount of
20 friction and difficulty as might lead to a great deal of trouble.
21 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why should not the Federal Parliament buy land from a private owner
22 for the purpose of an arsenal without the consent of the state?
23 Mr. OCONNOR.-Exactly so. I do not think the honorable member apprehends what I am
24 saying. I admit that for all such purposes the Commonwealth would have the power either
25 to purchase or to acquire compulsorily on fair terms.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 The High Court of Australia and neither any Parliament can amend the constitution by purported
29 judgements and/or backdoor manner but by “referendum” this as the electors are the “sovereign”
30 over the relevant constitution!
31
33 QUOTE
34 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Nothing should be too easy. We have the power to alter the
35 Constitution, but it is a power that can only be exercised with great difficulty.
36 END QUOTE
37 .
40 Of course it is necessary for the purposes of the commonwealth that it should have the
41 control over all means of communication. Another provision to which I desire to call
42 special attention is No. 30, which reads thus:
43 The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the
44 parliaments of all the states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs
45 of the territory of the commonwealth, or any part of it, which can at the date of the
46 establishment of this constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United
47 Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject to the provisions
48 of this constitution.
49 END QUOTE
50 .
53 QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:
Page 48
1 I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover
2 that any of the evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be
3 expected from leaving these words as they are. The powers are powers of legislation
4 for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth in respect of the
5 matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any powers beyond the
6 ambit of those specified.
7 The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration
8 of the leader of the Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of
9 Tasmania have proposed to omit might not raise the question whether legislation of the
10 federal parliament was in every instance for the peace, order, and good government of
11 the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be contended that
12 certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the
13 commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full
14 powers to the parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to
15 them to decide whether their legislation was for the peace, order, and good
16 government of the commonwealth? Surely that is sufficient, without our saying
17 definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good government
18 of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full
19 consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether,
20 therefore, they had better not be left out of the bill altogether.
21 a. The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered
22 by the Drafting Committee.
23 Amendment negatived.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 As to personal liberty and protection:
27
29 Convention)
30 QUOTE
31 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual
32 right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and
33 protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be
34 recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the
35 subjects confided to the Commonwealth.
36 END QUOTE
37
39 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
40 Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
41 Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
42 END QUOTE
43 .
45 QUOTE
46 Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to
47 the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that
48 we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power
49 over us.
50 END QUOTE
51 .
53 QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
54 The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
Page 49
1 the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."

2 END QUOTE
3
4 As for the expenditure by the commonwealth the following makes it very clear:
5
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?
10 Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!
11 Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole
12 of the expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the
13 services and powers given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred
14 from the States to the Commonwealth.
15 Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?
16 Mr. BARTON: Yes.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 It means that the Commonwealth cannot have Appropriation Bills in excess of the Taxation Bills
20 for that financial year either. The same legal principle applies to the States, where they must also
21 limit their Appropriation Bills (Acts when given Royal Assent and published in the Gazette)
22 within the confines of their Taxation and other legislated powers.
23
24 The following clearly limits the usage of “treaties” and is reserved exclusively to the
25 Commonwealth! No treaties powers exist for the states with its own inhabitants such as those of
26 Aboriginal descent!
27
28 Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
29 QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
30 The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
31 would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
32 Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
33 citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
34 page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
35 END QUOTE
36 .
38 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
39 I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
40 One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally
41 immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
42 legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 As to the covid death cult by the W.E.F., U.N. and WHJO:
46
48 QUOTE
49 Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the
50 Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not
51 going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us.
52 END QUOTE
53
54 The following makes it very clear that while the Governor-General (representing the Monarch)
55 would be considering the Advice of the relevant Minister, it is nevertheless the Governor-
Page 50
1 General and not the Minister who declares war and authorise this by publishing in the Gazette a
2 DECLARATION OF WAR naming each country against which it is issued. There is no
3 constitutional powers for the Minister to declare war or to pursue war mongering but the
4 Minister may respond to any invasion by a foreign enemy that is entering the territory of the
5 Commonwealth of Australia. Hence, the armed invasion into Afghanistan and Iraq were
6 unconstitutional and I view constituted TREASON, and criminal offences as it were attacks
7 upon a ‘friendly’ country in each occasion!
8
10 QUOTE
11 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-We spend time enough in discussing things here, and when every
12 one is agreed that this clause is not to be adopted in the form in which it is printed, but is
13 only to be a power of the Parliament, it is not worth while to discuss the question of
14 whether it is [start page 1665] absolutely necessary to put in the words. Where there is a
15 wide difference of opinion, it would be safer to do it. I agree with Mr. Barton that there is
16 no power, because sub-section (37) of clause 52 reads-
17 Any matters necessary for or incidental to the carrying into execution of the foregoing
18 powers, or of any other powers vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or Executive
19 Government of the Commonwealth, or in any department or officer thereof.
20 I venture to say that these are not necessary or incidental to the execution of any powers.
21 The Commonwealth will come into existence under this Constitution plus English law, one
22 of whose principles is that the Queen can do no wrong. That is the foundation on which the
23 Constitution is established.
24 END QUOTE
25
29 Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it
30 is that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that
31 prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or
32 peace without the advice of a responsible Minister.
33 END QUOTE
34
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no
39 desire to interfere with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
40 END QUOTE
41
44 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
45 In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this
46 constitution.
47 END QUOTE
48
49
52 QUOTE
53 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I am trying to get at the ideas which are underlying the
54 argument of hon. gentlemen. I confess I have not got at them yet. The hon. member, Mr.
55 Deakin, talks about the powers exercised by the ministers of the Crown in Great Britain.
Page 51
1 They do not differ in any respect from the powers exercised by ministers of the Crown in
2 any other country.
3 Dr. COCKBURN: They are much superior to the powers of ministers here!
4 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH': Not in the east.
5 Mr. DEAKIN: The powers of our ministers are limited, and theirs are unlimited!
6 END QUOTE
7
8 The latter quotation is very critical to understand the powers of Ministers in the United Kingdom
9 versus those in the Commonwealth of Australia as was made clear:
10
12 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
13 The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for the
14 whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the whole
15 of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
16 constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
17 several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the royal
18 prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be practically
19 vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the full power
20 and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be
21 in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each assembly,
22 each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey again says-a merely
23 subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority conferred upon it by the
24 constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority.
25 END QUOTE
26
28 QUOTE
29 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty.
30 Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary
31 sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative,
32 but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their
33 constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament
34 under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its
35 constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are
36 coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is
37 this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of
38 parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and
39 executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 Therefore, where there is a separation of powers the State Parliament cannot refer powers within
43 Sections 51(xxxvii) to the Commonwealth without approval by State electors and the State
44 parliament to exercise any powers within the provisions of Section 51(xxxviii) again can only do
45 so within the provisions of holding a State referendum, as in each incident any such powers
46 would interfere with the original jurisdiction of a State Supreme Court and again the separation
47 of powers doctrine prevent a State Parliament to therefore exercise any powers without ythe
48 consent of the State electors.
49
50 If anything, the “covid scam” ought to have been a lesson how the Commonwealth in a sense
51 usurped States legislative powers where the Commonwealth purportedly authorised a foreign
52 enemy organisation such as the U.N., WHO and/or the W.E.F. to dictate matters such as privacy
53 and personal rights, environment, health, housing, private property, etc, which none were within
54 the Commonwealths legislative powers. Hence none of those purported authorisations by the
55 commonwealth therefore can be dictated against the constitutional, legal, human, natural and
56 common law rights of Australians. They simply have no constitutional validity! Neither has the
Page 52
1 State, such as Victoria, any powers to afterwards alter the powers of any FEE SIMPLE rights
2 and/or provide a 3rd party such as some superannuation fund the powers to do so. The Letters
3 Patent published on 2 January 1901 clearly limits the powers of the relevant Minister and it
4 doesn’t include to tamper with the FEE SIMPLE rights of Title holders. The conduct of any
5 Minister to nevertheless do so is an infringement to the provisions of the constitution and by this
6 the Minister must be deemed to have vacated his seat and the conduct to rob a citizen of his/her
7 constitutional rights is without the warrant of law.
8 As set out above Ministers in the Commonwealth of Australia (as such also in states and
9 territories are limited as to the powers as granted by the relevant (if any exist) constitution(s).
10 And let us not ignore/overlook:
11
12 https://thepeoplesvoice.us20.list-
13 manage.com/track/click?u=03adde8baeffb7b9b558e17ca&id=07d003f95e&e=9d2540e6bc
14 Japan Warns COVID Vaccines Causing Global Population Collapse
15 Japan has issued a dire warning about the mRNA vaccines that were administered globally
16 in late 2020 and declared “safe and effective.” According to Japanese scientists, these
17 vaccines are safely reducing the global population and effectively collapsing populations…
18
19 For those who think to perhaps find a rock to hide under to prevent legal accountability, I can
20 assure you I am on a mission to pursue JUSTICE for the victims and will leave no stone/rock
21 unturned to hold the evil doers legally accountable. Each and every councillor must understand
22 that a toddler can make decisions albeit cannot be held legally accountable, but a councillor is
23 supposed to act responsible and failing this must be held legally accountable! No excuse to claim
24 “FOLLOWING ORDERS” or not having been aware of wrongdoings because you cannot make
25 justified decisions when not so to say having done your homework! Crimes against humanity,
26 mass murder, etc, terrorism, etc, can NEVER be excused!
27
28 And as I all along made clear the conduct of Banyule City Council over the many years I view
29 was for political purposes including to inflict harm upon Olga my late wife. How on earth can
30 any councillor justify such harm being inflicted upon a dying little old and very sick lady? This
31 in itself underlines that in my view none of the councillors involved were credible and competent
32 councillors and lacked any integrity and must be held legally accountable!
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!)

20240903-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 111

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20240903-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 111

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20240903-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 111

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

3-9-2024 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 collaborators of foreign corporations, etc, pursuing to rob Australians of their constitutional,

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

3-9-2024 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-9-2024 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-9-2024 Page 17 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-9-2024 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-9-2024 Page 22 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1

3-9-2024 Page 24 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-9-2024 Page 25 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-9-2024 Page 28 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-9-2024 Page 30 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-9-2024 Page 32 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-9-2024 Page 33 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

27 Smart 15 minute cities tried to wake people up

2 people at an unprecedented rate (1.2 million in less than 2 years)

3-9-2024 Page 38 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-9-2024 Page 42 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3-9-2024 Page 43 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."

40 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like