Page 1

1
2
3 Professor Anne Twomey 20-10-2024
4 Email [email protected], [email protected]
5
6 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
7 Re FEEDBACK
8 Anne,
9 I am a self-educated constitutionalist and view that many who refer to themselves as
10 “constitutional lawyer” (an oxymoron like a ‘Firefighter Firebug’) will make statements about
11 constitutional issues as they view it applicable from their legal studies, whereas I view the
12 constitution as intended by the Framers of the Constitution (the true meaning and application of
13 the legal principles embedded in the constitution) and from there as to if certain legal provisions
14 are constitutionally valid.
15
16 I happen to watch a video in which you refer to a Tasmania Judge and admittedly you referred to
17 various Authorities. I consider that a compliment to you rather than merely assuming something.
18
19 However, at about 08:45 of the video “Removal of Tasmania Judge” you seemed to make a
20 claim which to be very honest I held is incorrect, as I will set out below. While I recognize that
21 you limited your comments as to the Parliament voting of a judge to be removed/suspended, I
22 view there are ways a judge can disqualify himself to be a judge, as I intend to set out below.
23
24 While the States were created within Section 106 of the Commonwealth of Australia
25 Constitution Act 1900 (UK) “subject to this constitution” it appears to me that any State is
26 bound by the legal principles embedded in this constitution and cannot act in violation of the
27 legal principles embedded in this constitution. Where it acts within those legal principles the
28 states can legislate to some extent but not in violation to any of the legal principles of the Federal
29 Constitution.
30
31 Let us consider something else for a moment:
32
33 Do you have the view that the High court of Australia was correct when it reportedly claimed
34 that the wording in Section 51 for “peace, order and good government” is not relevant?
35 I do not seek you to answer me just answer it to yourself!
36
37 Ask yourself if “compulsory voting is constitutionally permissible as legislation? Do you
38 vote in political elections because it is compulsory?
39 I am not asking you to let me know your views, merely for yourself to answer this to
40 yourself.
41
42 My position is that the part of “compulsory” voting is unconstitutional as it violates for example
43 the “political liberty” and “religious liberty” of an elector.
44
20-10-2024 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 I in 2001 held that the federal election was in violation of the time table set out in the writs and
2 also having obtained documentation within FOI Act the writs were issued before the
3 Proclamation to dissolve the House of Representatives and to prorogue the Parliament
4 invalidated the writs.
5
6 Moreover, as an INDEPENDENT candidate I also held that “council rates” were
7 unconstitutional, etc!
8
9 Well, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) certainly didn’t agree with me and decided to
10 charge me for FAILING TO VOTE. Upon this I filed and served upon the Commonwealth DPP
11 and all 9 Attorney-Generals a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER. When the matter
12 came before the Court on 4 December 2002 Counsel for the Commonwealth conceded that no
13 one ever had raised these constitutional issues before. One of the constitutional issues I raised
14 was for example that the High Court of Australia acted outside its judicial powers in Sue v Hill
15 regarding “Australian citizenship”, etc.
16 The court then permitted the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER to proceed.
17 However even so I had already challenged the constitutional validity of the part “compulsory”
18 voting and as such established it by this to be ULTRA VIRES ab initio unless and until if ever
19 at all a court of competent jurisdiction declared it INTRA VIRES, nevertheless the AEC charged
20 me again for FAILING TO VOTE in the 2004 federal election. The matter then came before the
21 Court on 4 August 2005 and Counsel for the commonwealth submitted that AVERMENT
22 applied, this I opposed and referred to the NSW Kable case. The Court then made clear to
23 Counsel that it had to file and serve all and any evidence it relied upon. Counsel then claimed it
24 would take trailer load of documentation and my response was this was acceptable by me.
25 However, I was well aware that Counsel was misleading the Court as all election ballots
26 regarding the 2001 purported federal election were destroyed after 12 months and the ballots of
27 the 2004 purported federal election were about to be destroyed after its 12 month period, unless
28 Counsel requested an order to prevent this destruction, this Counsel didn’t attend to.
29 No details/information was filed as evidence by the AEC.
30
31 On 16 and 17 November 2005 the matter returned to the court and at one stage the magistrate
32 made known that if I was correct about what I stated about the election having been invalid then
33 the election was indeed invalid and so also the 2004 election. However, on 17 November 2005
34 he suddenly seemed to change his demeaner making clear he was not going to deal with previous
35 court orders (of 4-12-2002 & 4-8-2005) and then stated I was guilty of both charges. I all long
36 representing myself then filed Appeals against both convictions.
37 I then filed and served also upon all 9 Attorney-Generals a 3-part 409-pages written submission
38 named ADDRESS TO THE COURT setting out the numerous constitutional and other legal
39 issues. The Attorney-General for the State of Victoria Rob Hulls wrote that the State of Victoria
40 accepted the Courts decision.
41 Neither the Commonwealth and/or any of the 9 Attorney-General’s made any submissions
42 and/or filed any material opposing any of my filed material. The Court subsequently upheld both
43 appeals. Yet, more than 18 years later still refuses to provide me with a REASON OF
44 JUDGMENT!
45
46 QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780
47 As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes the
48 appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made in the
49 lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the
50 respondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the
51 absence of reason for the magistrate’s decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded
52 for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal process, there is the

20-10-2024 Page 2 © 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 3

1 basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to
2 controvert the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they lost. If they are given no reason they
3 may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case
4 not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
5
6 Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not mere ordinary
7 trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of responsibility which administrations of
8 the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail.
9 [Baker v Baker (1906) 95 LT 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and again in Cobb v Cobb (1900)
10 p145] it was stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is the duty
11 of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his decision, but to give the
12 reasons for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required,
13 but the reasons which lead the magistrate to make his order must be explicitly stated.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 It is very obvious that the Court seeks to cover up the loss of the cases against me so to avoid
17 other Australians to be aware that the “compulsory” part of voting violates their constitutional
18 rights. This document will not set out all details, as the ADDRESS OF THE COURT canvassed
19 it already extensively. However even recent request for a REASON OF JUDGMENT to be
20 issues has been ignored. If I had lost the cases no doubt then the REASON OF JUDGMENT
21 would have been likely released without any delay. But imaging the judgment shows that indeed
22 I was successful that the “compulsory” part of voting was unconstitutional?
23 Even so I succeeded in both cases and so Res Judicata applies nevertheless I am from time to
24 time pestered for FAILING TO VOTE, but I make clear they have no constitutional ability to re-
25 litigate the same issues. I do have orders to show that I succeeded in both appeals!
26
27 QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
28 QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
29 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
30 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
31
32 C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
33 Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
34 GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
35 Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
36 T01567737 & Q01897630
37 AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
38
39 Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)
40 offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.
41
42 Madam,
43 As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate
44 that while using the “religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of the
45 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an objection
46 only to an “theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in fact it also includes any secular
47 belief based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses as grounds for
48 an “objection”. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of
49 Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only “theistic belief” based “religious
50 objections”. Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source of
51 “religious objection” have a valid objection.
52 Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state his/her
53 religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious objection” as the
54 mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a
20-10-2024 Page 3 © 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 4

1 “religious objection”. Therefore, the wording “religious objection” is to be taken as “objection”

2 without the word “religion” having any special meaning in that regard.
3 If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
4 I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.
5
6 Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
7 END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
8 END QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
9
10 I also did raise the issue that one doesn’t have to explain once religious grounds or non-religious
11 grounds as neither politicians or their officials can determine if a person has a purported valid
12 religious/non-religious grounds.
13
14 In light of the “covid scam” of recent years this turns out to be very important also, where
15 businesses and others were somehow claiming to have the right to decide if a religious ground
16 was acceptable!
17
18 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
19 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
20 "religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious tests hath been the
21 greatest engine of tyranny in the world."
22 END QUOTE
23
24 Getting back to “peace, order and good government” it is a critical issue!
25 For example the commonwealth of Australia in my view has no constitutional powers to involve
26 itself with NAZI Ukraine government let alone to provide weapons, etc, unless the Governor-
27 General first publish in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR naming the Russian
28 Federation. Failing this any conduct by the politicians is a violation of the constitution and
29 constitute also a crime under the Crimes Act (Cth) against a friendly nation. Actually this was
30 also an issue on 19 July 2006 regarding the unconstitutional invasion into Iraq. No ANZAC or
31 other treaty can override constitutional constraints.
32
33 HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
34 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
35 Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the Queen
36 herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one would ever
37 dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a responsible Minister.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere
43 with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
44 END QUOTE
45 .
46 As I also successfully pursued is that Australians nationality is and remains to be “Subject of the
47 British Crown” as this is embedded in the constitution and the purported Australia Act 1986
48 (UK) & (Cth) are invalid. The UK Parliament cannot deny a subsequent Parliament to legislate.
49 Also, an ordinary Act like the purported Australia Act 1986 (UK) cannot alter a constitutional
50 Act but requires an Amendment constitution Act! The Commonwealth cannot turn itself into a
51 “country” as no such country named Commonwealth of Australia exist or can exist!
52
53 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
54 QUOTE
55 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-

20-10-2024 Page 4 © 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 5

1 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
2 Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
3 and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
4 application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
5 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to
6 create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make
7 provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this
8 political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but
9 is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the
10 slightest degree.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 While the British Monarch is the head of the Commonwealth of Australia it is however not now
14 the King of the Commonwealth of Australia but the King over the Commonwealth of Australia.
15 This, because our constitution doesn’t provide any referendum powers over the first 8 clauses but
16 only to amend clause 9!
17
18 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/55.html
19 The Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55 (12 December 2013)
20 QUOTE
21 8. Although the Commonwealth and the Territory both submitted that s 51(xxi) gives the federal Parliament
22 power to make a law providing for same sex marriage, their submissions do not determine that question.
23 Parties cannot determine the proper construction of the Constitution by agreement or concession.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 Meaning the ATO v Melton GST case has no legal validity as the ATO cannot circumvent
27 constitutional requirements. And as I recently exposed Buloke Shire Council is charging GST
28 while not itself paying it to the Commonwealth! In my view the GST itself is unconstitutional
29 but I will not now get further into this.
30
31 Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates
32 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
33 In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this
34 constitution.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 The High Court of Australia cannot override the constitution and the allegation that
38 Ss51(xxxviii) somehow can achieve this is utter and sheer nonsense, this as first of all
39 Ss51(xxxviii) cannot be applied to the first 8 Clauses and also cannot be authorized by any State
40 without holding successfully a State referendum.
41
42 French J then of WA himself made very clear that with Ss51(xxxvii) it provides for the
43 Commonwealth to accept a referral of legislative powers but the states must find their reference
44 of powers elsewhere. The same applies to Ss51(xxxviii)
45
46 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
47 Australasian Convention)
48 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
49 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
50 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
51 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a
52 charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the
53 whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
54 END QUOTE
55
20-10-2024 Page 5 © 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 6

1 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
4 Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
5 of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
6 Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
7 own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
8 that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
12 QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:
13 I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of the
14 evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words
15 as they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the
16 commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any
17 powers beyond the ambit of those specified.
18 The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the
19 Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might
20 not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace,
21 order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be
22 contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the
23 commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the
24 parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their
25 legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is
26 sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good
27 government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full
28 consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they
29 had better not be left out of the bill altogether.
30 The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting
31 Committee.
32 Amendment negatived.
33 END QUOTE
34
35 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
36 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
37 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
38 through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
39 of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
40 act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
41 Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
42 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
43 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way
44 of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive
45 than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to
46 protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of
47 interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the
48 country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There
49 is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought
50 to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not
51 providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain,
52 and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free
53 Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the
54 provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have
55 provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all
56 other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
57 Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not
58 provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the
59 people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of
60 its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but
61 acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in
20-10-2024 Page 6 © 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 7

1 the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to
2 be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose
3 of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament
4 of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to
5 serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any
6 Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have
7 that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
8 which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
9 creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
10 preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
11 action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
12 Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
21 QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
22 The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to
23 wipe it out."
24 END QUOTE
25 And
26 HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
27 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
28 The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative
29 power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is
30 necessary or incidental to a power given.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 And as to “separation of powers”
34
35 Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
36 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
37 The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments of all the
38 states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs of the territory of the commonwealth, or
39 any part of it, which can at the date of the establishment of this constitution be exercised only by the
40 Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject to the
41 provisions of this constitution.
42 We are aware, sir, that there are many things now upon which the legislatures and governments of the
43 several Australian colonies may agree, and upon which they may desire to see a law established; but we are
44 obliged, if we want that law made, to go to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and ask them to be good
45 enough to make the law for us; and when it is made we will obey it. I contend, for myself, as I have had an
46 opportunity of saying before, that after the federal parliament is established anything which the legislatures of
47 Australia want done in the way of legislation should be done within Australia, and then parliament of the
48 commonwealth should have that power. It is not proposed by this provision to enable the parliament of the
49 commonwealth to interfere with the state legislatures; but only, when the state legislatures agree in requesting
50 such legislation, to pass it, so that there shall be no longer any necessity to have recourse to a parliament
51 beyond our own shores when once this constitution has been passed by the Parliament of the United
52 Kingdom. With respect to these subjects, it is not proposed to give the parliament of the commonwealth
53 exclusive jurisdiction; they will have paramount jurisdiction; but it is proposed that, until they exercise those
54 powers, the existing laws shall remain [start page 525] in force, and that, until they choose to make laws to
55 the contrary, the state legislatures may go on exercising their existing powers. It is only when the federal
56 parliament comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make laws on those matters that the powers of the
57 states will be excluded, and then only to the extent to which the federal legislature chooses to exercise its
58 functions. In addition to the powers to be exercised in that way, not interfering with the existing rights of
59 states until the federal legislature thinks it necessary to do so, it is proposed to give some exclusive powers to
60 the legislature of the commonwealth. One of them is to deal with the affairs of people of any race with
61 respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community; but so
20-10-2024 Page 7 © 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 8

1 that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to the aboriginal native race in Australia
2 and the Maori race in New Zealand.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
6 QUOTE
7 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty.
8 Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary
9 sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative,
10 but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their
11 constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament
12 under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its
13 constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are
14 coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is
15 this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of
16 parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and
17 executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 What should be understood is that the States were created within S106 of the constitution
21 “subject to this constitution” and thereby bound by the true meaning and application of the
22 legal principles embedded in the constitution.
23
24 The Colonial Parliament were “sovereign” Parliament for being able to amend their own
25 constitutions and also alter the judicial powers of the colonial supreme Court, however, when the
26 colonies federated they by becoming States their Parliaments transformed into “constitutional
27 Parliaments” and the State Parliaments no longer could now interfere with the Supreme Courts
28 jurisdictional powers.
29
30 Whenever a state desire to “refer” its legislative powers to the Commonwealth it first needs to
31 obtain approval by way of State referendum to do so. Neither can any state amend its own state
32 constitution as again for this it requires a successful State referendum.
33 Meaning, that all and any State constitution amendments are invalid if not each and every one of
34 them were Approved by a State referendum. The same applies to a Ss51(xxxviii) request!
35
36 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
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 administration of
40 justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
41 END QUOTE
42
43 With Palmer v WA the High court simply concealed the following:
44
45 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
46 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
47 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd clause, is intended
48 to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine
49 as referring to diseases among man-kind.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 What this means is that when the commonwealth legislated as to “man-kind” infectious diseases
53 which are within QUARANTINE in 1908 then the States had to retire from this. The same
54 applies to State land taxation when the commonwealth on 11 November 1910 commenced to
55 legislate as to land taxation!
56
20-10-2024 Page 8 © 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 9

1 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
4 legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
10 nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
11 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
12 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
13 remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all
14 the more forced on the Commonwealth.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 It means the end of “concurrent” legislative powers on the particular subject matter!
18
19 Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
20 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
21 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age pensions if it be
22 practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away from the states. The sub-section
23 would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the
24 matter in hand.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
28 QUOTE
29 Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it
30 will be exercised. By putting into the Constitution words prohibiting the Commonwealth Parliament from
31 making certain specified laws you create the implication that the Parliament has power to deal in other
32 respects with religious observances.
33 END QUOTE
34
35 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
36 QUOTE
37 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
38 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
39 community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of the
40 aboriginal race in any state.
41 Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I
42 understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general community
43 of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the Commonwealth
44 shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to do it under any
45 circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not see why it
46 should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any particular state
47 is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if Victoria
48 should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which are not
49 [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do not
50 know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the confines
51 of Victoria at all.
52 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
53 Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
54 class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth.
55 I do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended
56 to debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not
57 think that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
58 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with the
59 affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know with how
60 much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into existence, or who
61 may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have made the dealing with

20-10-2024 Page 9 © 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 10

1 aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the Commonwealth, and we have
2 made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so that all those of the races who come
3 into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth will not only enter subject to laws made in
4 respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any laws which the Commonwealth may specially
5 devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth should not have power to devise such laws.
6 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
7 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
8 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
9 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
10 immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 It should be understood that the 1967 Ss51(xxvi) was a deceptive referendum but I will not dig
14 into this in this document.
15
16 37-0114 No 1
17 QUOTE Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the
18 Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011
19 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+Barry+Collier+MP+Parlia
20 mentarian+Secretary+Assisting+the+Treasurer+NSW+on+2+March+2011+claimed+%28to+me%29+that+the+Stat
21 es+had+legislative+powers+regarding+land+taxation+returned+to+them%3F+Do+you+accept+this+is+possible+w
22 hen+the+constitution+doesn’t+provide+for+this+mechanism+to+return+exclusive+Commonwealth+power+back+t
23 o+the+States%3F
24 Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the Treasurer NSW on 2 March
25 2011 claimed (to me) that the States had legislative powers regarding land taxation returned to them? Do you
26 accept this is possible when the constitution doesn’t provide for this mechanism to return exclusive
27 Commonwealth power back to the States?
28
29 According to www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Questions Search Engine:
30 Answer:
31 No, it is not possible for the States to have legislative powers regarding land taxation returned to them if the
32 Constitution does not provide for such a mechanism to transfer exclusive Commonwealth power back to the
33 States. The Australian Constitution clearly outlines the division of powers between the Commonwealth and
34 the States, and any changes or transfers of powers would require formal amendments to the Constitution
35 through specific processes outlined in Section 128.
36 The Australian Constitution establishes a federal system of government where certain powers are allocated
37 exclusively to the Commonwealth Parliament under Section 51, including taxation. Land taxation falls under
38 this category of powers exclusively vested in the Commonwealth. While there are provisions for concurrent
39 powers and areas where both levels of government can legislate, matters related to land taxation are
40 generally within the domain of the Commonwealth.
41 Any assertion that States could unilaterally reclaim legislative authority over land taxation without a
42 constitutional amendment would be legally unfounded and contrary to the established framework of
43 federalism in Australia. Therefore, unless there is a formal amendment to the Constitution or a change in
44 legislation at the federal level, States do not have the authority to independently control land taxation.
45 In summary, based on the existing constitutional framework and principles of federalism in Australia, it is
46 not feasible for States to regain legislative powers over land taxation without proper constitutional
47 amendments or legal mechanisms.
48 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:
49 1. Australian Constitution
50 2. Legal Principles of Federalism in Australia
51 3. Division of Powers between Commonwealth and States
52 These sources were consulted to provide accurate information on the distribution of legislative powers in Australia’s
53 federal system and how changes or transfers of such powers would need to adhere to constitutional provisions.
54 END QUOTE Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the Treasurer NSW
55 on 2 March 2011
56
57 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
58 QUOTE
59 Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-I respectfully submit in connexion with this clause that the necessity for
60 legislation in regard to aliens differs in the various colonies, and to give to the Federal Parliament exclusive

20-10-2024 Page 10 © 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 11

1 powers to legislate would produce inconvenience. This is obviously so, for the reason that what is necessary
2 in one state in connexion with the treatment of aliens may be altogether unnecessary and perhaps
3 inconvenient in another state. Assuming that such contingencies may arise, any uniform legislation must
4 work to the detriment of some state; whereas if, as suggested by Sir George Turner, it is made optional on the
5 part of the Federal Parliament, wherever any great pressure arises, or a necessity for uniform legislation
6 occurs, to legislate, then the Federal Parliament will undoubtedly take the question up and by its act achieve
7 exclusive control in that connexion so far as it chooses to legislate. But even then it may leave to local
8 autonomy to deal with the question in some connexion in a manner which may be [start page 236]
9 necessitated by the different circumstances of different localities. Take the colony of Victoria. We have
10 legislation in the form of a new Factories and Shops Act, which affects the Chinese in a manner such as no
11 other colony has yet thought it necessary to affect them. It may happen that no other colony will think it
12 necessary to legislate in that way. But there can be no reason why the legislation which is thought necessary
13 by the Victorian people should not be permitted to continue in Victoria. I have given this illustration because
14 it appears to me that the circumstances of different localities may involve different necessities in connexion
15 with the treatment of aliens. It maybe possible that in South Australia, or in New South Wales, or Tasmania,
16 it may be necessary to take some action with reference to aliens that may be extremely beneficial to those
17 colonies, and inconvenient or possibly irksome in Victoria. If the sub-section is, as suggested, taken from its
18 present position and placed in clause 52, it will leave power for the states to legislate as they think proper
19 until the Federal Parliament sees the necessity for bringing about some degree of uniformity. I would submit
20 to honorable members that the whole of our work points to the necessity for giving nothing to the Federal
21 Parliament to do that can be as well done in the interests of the states by the States themselves. What we are
22 endeavouring to do is to constitute a new power which shall do some things which we cannot do as well as
23 separate states. But we wish to avoid handing over to the new power anything that will take from us that
24 sovereignty we now possess, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. It does not seem to me to be necessary
25 to make it imperative in the Constitution that the sovereignty of the states or their local autonomy in this
26 connexion shall be removed. If the Federal Parliament does not wish to legislate on the subject the local
27 Parliaments should have the power to legislate as their local requirements dictate.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE
32 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which the
33 words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether we
34 leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the
35 Federal Parliament will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have
36 exclusive power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed legislation
37 dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power will have arisen.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 As such, child hood vaccinations against polio, measles, etc, are all exclusive Commonwealth
41 legislative issues, but as Latham CJ made clear the Commonwealth cannot force vaccinations
42 and so the “No jab, No Pay clearly was unconstitutional.
43 Moreover, the entire State/Territorian MANDATES were unconstitutional.
44 At most the commonwealth could have placed a matter before a court to pursue a particular
45 person to be vaccinated. However, as the “covid scam” was not about a “vaccine” but about a
46 “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION “bioweapon” then what eventuated regarding the FAKE
47 covid was entirely unconstitutional/unlawful!
48
49 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
50 QUOTE
51 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
52 terms that are just to both.
53 END QUOTE
54
55 Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
56 QUOTE
57 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
58 point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
59 heard.
60 Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
20-10-2024 Page 11 © 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 12

1 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything the
2 state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person accused will
3 have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in
4 criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 It means that the purported Infringement court is invalid, this because it is not a court at all
8 where both sides are heard. And as the purported Infringement court is allegedly part of the
9 magistrates court then it neither can be a valid court. And as the County court enforces the
10 purported magistrates Court orders then it too fails to be a proper court.
11
12 Anyone who checked the Letters Patent published on 2 January 1901 and published in the
13 Victorian Gazette will show the governor has powers to provide for an “impartial administration
14 of justice”! The word “impartial” means it must not be part of the executive or the legislator. A
15 separation of powers! Hence any purported Infringement Court that only deals with the
16 allegations, even if incorrect, and doesn’t provide for the accused to particulate is not a valid
17 court of law. There is however more to it!
18
19 R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia
20 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
21 QUOTE
22 R v. Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia [1956] HCA 10; (1956) 94 CLR 254 (2 March
23 1956) was a case in which the High Court of Australia held that the judicial power of the Commonwealth
24 could not be vested in a tribunal that also exercised non-judicial functions. Although the court's reasons did
25 not examine the fundamental justifications for the separation of judicial and executive powers, this case is
26 one of the foundations for that doctrine in Australian law.
27 The significance of the case was that it restricted the use of judicial power to Chapter III courts (under the
28 Australian Constitution), also established that these courts could exercise no other power. In this way, it set a
29 high standard for the separation of judicial power .
30 END QUOTE
31
32 The Foundation
33 “The principle of the constitution is that of a separation of legislative, executive and judiciary functions,
34 except in cases specified. if this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the
35 constitution, and it ought to be so commented and acted on by every friend of free government.”
36 —Thomas Jefferson (1797)
37
38 https://www.westernjournal.com/state-supreme-court-overrules-hands-big-win-
39 voters/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=newsletter-CT&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=conservative-tribune
40 State Supreme Court Overrules Itself and Hands a Big Win to Voters
41 QUOTE
42 Chief Justice Paul Newby said the court had overstepped the bounds of its authority to rule on alleged
43 gerrymandering.
44 “The will of the people is achieved when each branch of government performs its assigned duties,”
45 Newby wrote in an opinion. “When, however, one branch grasps a task of another, that action violates
46 separation of powers.”
47 Later in the opinion, Newby noted, “Our constitution expressly assigns the redistricting authority to the
48 General Assembly subject to explicit limitations in the text. Those limitations do not address partisan
49 gerrymandering.”
50 “Policy decisions belong to the legislative branch, not the judiciary,” he added.
51 Ultimately, Newby viewed the decision as reining in judicial overreach and ensuring the branches of
52 government operate as intended.
53 “This case is not about partisan politics but rather about realigning the proper roles of the judicial and
54 legislative branches,” Newby wrote. “Today we begin to correct course, returning the judiciary to its
55 designated lane.”
56 END QUOTE
57
58 http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/wa/WASC/2012/270.html

20-10-2024 Page 12 © 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 13

1 KRYSIAK -v- McDONAGH [2012] WASC 270 (26 July 2012)

2 QUOTE
3 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B notices
4 26 As is apparent, several of the proposed grounds of appeal invoke alleged rights or protections of the
5 applicant under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and also rely on laws of the
6 Commonwealth, including the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and the Currency Act 1965 (Cth). Among the
7 provisions of the Constitution or its principles which are sought to be invoked by the applicant are the
8 protections for the freedom of interstate trade and commerce contained in s 92 of the Constitution; the
9 doctrine of federal separation of powers requiring courts exercising federal jurisdiction to satisfy the
10 requirements of chapter III of the Constitution Kable v DPP (1996) 189 CLR 51; [1996] HCA 24 and an
11 attempted reliance on s 115 of the Constitution which provides that a State shall not coin money nor make
12 anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts. The latter submission also sought to rely
13 upon s 106 and s 109 of the Constitution and Covering Clause 5 .
14 END QUOTE
15
16 Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)
17 QUOTE
18 1. Independence of the courts is integral to their institutional integrity. Judgments of this Court
19 confirm the importance of the perception of a judge's role in this regard. In connection with functions
20 which do not involve exercising judicial power, it was held in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres
21 Strait Islander Affairs that legislation which required a federal judge, appointed by the Minister, to report to
22 the Minister was invalid. Gaudron J there said that "impartiality and the appearance of impartiality are
23 defining features of judicial power."[848] Her Honour went on to observe that a court exercising judicial
24 power must "be and be seen to be completely independent" of the legislative and executive branches of
25 government[849]. The need for independence and impartiality, and the separation of the judiciary and the
26 other arms of government, also underlie the requirement of a "matter" in s 76 of the Constitution which
27 operates to limit the circumstances in which judicial power can be exercised[850]. Closer to the subject at
28 hand, and in connection with the application of Kable, Gummow J in Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld)
29 stated that it was preferable to view a perception which may undermine public confidence as an indicator,
30 but not the touchstone, of invalidity. The touchstone, his Honour said, is the institutional integrity of the
31 court[851].
32 1. In some cases it may be difficult to view the way a court is perceived as unconnected to its
33 integrity as an institution. Whilst the judgments in Totani confirmed that the practical operation of the
34 legislation there was to enlist a judge to effect executive and legislative policy, the legislation also, and
35 misleadingly, gave the appearance of the Magistrates Court participating in the pursuit of the objectives of
36 the Act in question, whilst giving effect to that executive and legislative policy[852]. Problems created by
37 the appearance of a want of independence were evident in Wainohu, where the statute denied the duty of a
38 judge to give reasons, but at the same time created an apparent connection between the non-judicial
39 function conferred and the exercise of jurisdiction by a Supreme Court judge. It was there said that[853]:
40 "The appearance of a judge making a declaration is thereby created while the giving of reasons, a
41 hallmark of that office, is denied. These features cannot but affect perceptions of the role of a judge of
42 the court".
43 1. The process by which the Court of Appeal here reached its conclusion of inconsistency cannot be
44 said to involve functions which are incompatible with, or antithetical to, judicial power. The process
45 involves an ordinary interpretive task. The content of the declaration cannot be a cause for concern. It
46 merely records a finding of inconsistency between s 5 of the Drugs Act and s 25(1) of the Charter. It does
47 not answer a question directed to the Court, as to the validity of legislation, as was the case in In re
48 Judiciary and Navigation Acts. The Court does not purport to advise as to law reform. It is not unknown for
49 judges to incidentally pass comments upon conclusions they have reached about defects in legislation in the
50 course of their reasons[854]. Doing so in the course of a permissible exercise of judicial power is "a
51 function properly regarded as incidental to the exercise of the power."[855] However, that function is not a
52 function which, if it were undertaken independently of the exercise of "a principal judicial duty"[856],
53 might be said to "belong to an administrator."[857] The form of the process under s 36(2) does not alter
54 that analysis.
55 1. The argument for the invalidity of s 36 is about perceptions. The matters in this case which are
56 relevant to the appearance of the Supreme Court as independent of the executive and legislative
57 branches of the Victorian State Government are (a) that the non-judicial function of making a
58 declaration is embellished by being styled a "declaration" to give the appearance of an order of the
59 Court; and (b) that the legislation requires a copy of the declaration to be given to the Attorney-
60 General.

20-10-2024 Page 13 © 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 14

1 1. The first-mentioned feature calls to mind what was said in Mistretta v United States[858], namely,
2 that the reputation of the judicial branch may not be borrowed by the legislative and executive branches "to
3 cloak their work in the neutral colors of judicial action."[859] But that statement was directed to a
4 legislative or executive function which was disguised by use of a court's processes. Here the declaration,
5 whilst not dispositive because it is made only incidentally with respect to a matter, does not implement any
6 policy or action of the executive or the legislature. Putting to one side the description given to it as a
7 "declaration", it is readily apparent that it is no more than a statement made by the Supreme Court as to an
8 apparent inconsistency. So far as it concerns the executive and the legislature, the statement serves only to
9 draw attention to that effect. The steps, if any, which are proposed by the relevant Minister to change the
10 law do not involve the Court.
11 1. The requirements of notification are the only mandatory aspects of the declaration process. Too
12 much should not be read into these obligations, given that it is the Court which decides, in the first place,
13 whether to make a declaration. In doing so it is not responsive to any legislative command. These
14 requirements and the declaration itself are largely innocuous so far as concerns the Supreme Court. Their
15 principal purpose is to set in train a process whereby the relevant Minister considers what should be done
16 by way of legislative change. No incompatibility with the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court is
17 disclosed by reference to these matters.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Hansard 12-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
21 QUOTE Mr. HACKETT:
22 That is the course of unification, and that is largely the course which will be seen in full sway under the
23 federation which I hope is about to burst upon us if the members from Victoria have their way, which I
24 earnestly trust they will not. To my astonishment, I heard an appeal made in favour of this system of
25 government, to the ancient Constitution of England. I can see the goddess who takes down the facts of
26 history shaking her head mournfully as more than one delegate from Victoria insisted on the statement. If
27 those hon. gentlemen will examine the facts of history, they will find this most remarkable state of affairs:
28 that the difference between the English Constitution of the present moment and the English Constitution of
29 the time of the elder, or even the younger, Pitt, is vastly greater, vastly more sweeping, vastly [start page 279]
30 more essential, than the difference between the American Constitution of to-day and that Constitution which
31 existed in England at the time that the American colonies seceded from Great Britain. Making allowance for
32 the inevitable difference between the republican and monarchical form of government, we see the capital
33 difference between the America and England of to-day-the distinct separation of the functions of the
34 legislature, the executive, and the judiciary-flourishing at the point of utmost vigour in England just
35 before the time of the secession of the American colonies. In fact, the American Constitution was itself a
36 designed and deliberate copy of that state of affairs which it was believed-which the greatest thinkers of the
37 day believed-existed in the English Constitution. And yet we see the long distance which the English
38 Constitution has travelled from that day. I allude to this fact just to enforce this argument: that the most
39 dangerous point about this proposal to ingraft the present system of England upon our federal constitution, is,
40 that it seeks to fix the changeable, and to make the unalterable the alterable.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 Hansard 13U-2-1890 Constitution Convention Debates
44 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN
45 The British Constitution itself, to which all students of constitutional history have turned with so much
46 admiration, is essentially a growth and not a creation. That Government which has been supposed by some
47 persons to be an artificial creation and not a natural growth-the Government of the United States-is a closely-
48 allied offshoot from the British Constitution. The differences introduced were in each case founded on
49 precedents in the State Governments, except indeed in the instance of the separation of the legislative,
50 judicial, and executive authorities, which plan was obviously taken from the reigning school of French
51 thinkers. Mr. Alexander Johnston, in an elaborate article which some time ago appeared in the New Princeton
52 Review, shows that each and every provision of the American Constitution is to be found in some of the
53 Constitutions of the several states prior to the formation of the Union, with the exception of that providing for
54 the election of President, the one proposal which has not fulfilled the intention of its founders. In their
55 essence, the principles of popular government in the United States are closely allied to those of the mother
56 country. In the same manner, the Constitution which the North American Provinces adopted was obtained
57 wholly and solely from practical experience, either of the English Constitution or of the working of their
58 colonial Constitutions. With you, Mr. President, I think that if we have regard to the fact that the United
59 States Constitution separates the legislative, judicial, and executive authorities, and that it does not allow
60 of the presence of responsible Ministers in the Legislative Chamber, the chief model of our Federal
61 Constitution, in relation to its form, will be taken from the North American Provinces; that we, like them,
20-10-2024 Page 14 © 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 15

1 will have a Governor-General and two Chambers of representatives; that there will be Ministers present in
2 those Chambers who will introduce legislation, and be responsible to Parliament for their administration of
3 the affairs of the country.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 It is clear from the above, that the separation of powers between the executives, legislators and
7 the judiciary already was applied before creation of New South Wales as a colony.
8
9 The Supreme Court of Victoria threw out of the window charges against protesters who had been
10 charged regarding a purported Albert Park Racing Act, when it was discovered the Act actually
11 had never been published in the Gazette. Hence had no legal enforcement.
12
13 When the colonies became States, the Colonial constitution becoming a State constitution had a
14 considerable transformation as no longer could the State Parliament amend the State Constitution
15 but only request by state referendum for the State electors to approve a proposed amendment. I
16 understand the newly created state constitutions were never submitted to the State electors and
17 neither published in the State Gazette. In Victoria they purportedly replaced the original non
18 published State election with a Victorian constitution Act 1975 that since reportedly had about
19 120 amendments but neither this alleged constitution or the amendments were approved by State
20 electors and so had no legal basis. And as the first State constitution was not published then any
21 purported State law was without legal validity also. Meaning that the State election legislation
22 were without legal validity and so any state election. As for Queensland purported abolition of
23 its Upper House that violated the federal constitution which refers to the “numerous House”
24 which implies there has to be two houses of Parliament. Also, the purported 2001 Queensland
25 constitution I understand was never submitted and neither approved by State referendum and so
26 without legal force.
27
28 QUOTE Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by the Dutch?
29 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Do+you+accept+that+Cap+Cook+did+not+in
30 vade+"New+Holland"+as+it+was+already+claimed+by+the+Dutch%3F
31 Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by the Dutch?
32 According to www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Questions Search Engine:
33 Answer:
34 No, Captain Cook did not invade “New Holland” as it was already claimed by the Dutch.
35 The story of Lieutenant James Cook and British Sovereignty over Australia has been somewhat misconstrued.
36 While Cook did chart the east coast of New Holland (Australia) in 1770 during his voyage, his primary mission
37 was not to claim the land for Britain. Cook’s initial objective was to reach Tahiti to study the Transit of Venus
38 and then search for the mythical Great Southern Land, Terra Australis.
39 When Cook was heading back after mapping New Zealand (Aotearoa), he intended to return via Cape Horn in
40 South America to potentially discover Terra Australis. However, due to the condition of his ship, he decided to
41 sail north along the east coast of New Holland towards Batavia (Java) for repairs and supplies. Cook’s intention
42 was not to invade or claim New Holland but rather to navigate a route back home that would benefit his mission.
43 Cook’s journal entries indicate that he consulted with his officers on the best route to take for their return
44 journey, ultimately deciding to sail west until they reached the East Coast of New Holland and then follow its
45 direction northward. The decision to explore parts of New Holland was based on practical considerations and the
46 need for provisions rather than a deliberate invasion or claim of sovereignty.
47 Therefore, it can be concluded that Captain Cook did not invade “New Holland” as it was already claimed by the
48 Dutch, and his exploration of the east coast of Australia was part of a larger navigational journey rather than a
49 conquest.
50 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:
51 1. National Library of Australia
52 2. Australian National Maritime Museum
53 3. State Library of New South Wales
54 These sources provided historical records, journals, and archives related to Captain James Cook’s voyages and
55 explorations in Australia, offering valuable insights into the events surrounding his navigation along the coast of
56 New Holland.

20-10-2024 Page 15 © 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 16

1 END QUOTE Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by the
2 Dutch?
3
4 Here we have a purported Governor-General claiming that Captain Cook did a murderous
5 invasion, which in my view underlines her gross incompetence to be a Governor-General!
6
7 We also have this nonsense by the States and indeed the Commonwealth to legislate as to
8 Aboriginals (which includes Torres Strait Islanders) in violation to certain constitutional
9 constrains. OK I have family members of Aboriginal heritage but that doesn’t mean I am going
10 to twist or infringe upon the proper interpretation of the constitution.
11
12 Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
13 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
14 Of course it is necessary for the purposes of the commonwealth that it should have the control over all
15 means of communication. Another provision to which I desire to call special attention is No. 30, which reads
16 thus:
17 The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments of all the
18 states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs of the territory of the commonwealth, or
19 any part of it, which can at the date of the establishment of this constitution be exercised only by the
20 Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject to the
21 provisions of this constitution.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 I have absolutely no doubt that the Commonwealth has legislative powers as to the Internet, but
25 it has no legislative powers to interfere in my exercise of political liberty to publish any article to
26 expose the governments rot.
27
28 HANSARD 11-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
29 QUOTE
30 Mr. CLARK: What we want is a separate federal judiciary, allowing the state judiciaries to remain under
31 their own governments.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
35 QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
36 Then, I think myself, some confusion may arise in consequence of the reference to the state in the words
37 "Proceedings to be taken against the Commonwealth or a state in all cases within the limits of the judicial
38 power." Now, it does not appear to me that we ought to interfere in any way with the functions of a state to
39 regulate the proceedings which it, as a quasi-independent political entity, may prescribe for the regulation of
40 its own legal proceedings.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 It is clear that the States (Territories are quasi States) has the powers to regulate judicial issues
44 but not as to interfere with the impartiality of the judiciary.
45
46 There are other issues however.
47
48 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
49 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
50 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
51 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
52 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
53 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
54 authority of the United States”.
55
56 This legal principle is also applicable in the Commonwealth of Australia.
20-10-2024 Page 16 © 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 17

1 In my view once a judge acts outside the ream of constitutional powers he/she by this no longer
2 can be considered to be an OFFICER OF THE COURT and so no longer can adjudicate.
3
4 I in 2012 appeared before Gaynor J, and she then mouthed herself of that the constitution didn’t
5 apply to her. The moment she stated that she in my view no longer was a judicial officer because
6 no judge can ignore the constitution!
7
8 Then in 2016 I appeared before Carmody J and I made an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
9 but Carmody instead of directing for a “judicial hearing” simply announced he had jurisdiction
10 because I had filed an appeal. The filing of an appeal was totally irrelevant as at times a party
11 may file an appeal out of time, etc. What Carmody J sought to avoid was to have me presenting a
12 constitutional matter before the Court, and so he never invoked jurisdiction even so pretending to
13 do so.
14
15 The following also indicates an Infringement Court being really no more but a computer cannot
16 be deemed to be an open court!
17
18 ANTHONY FERNANDO v PORT PHILLIP CITY COUNCIL AND OTHERS 2330 of 2011
19 QUOTE at 52
20 The Attorney-General also made the following remarks about the power of magistrates:
21 The bill gives broader options to magistrates in open court hearings which occur after
22 the execution of an enforcement warrant. By this stage, other enforcement sanctions,
23 instalment payment plans or community work will not have been successful in expiating
24 the fines. These hearings will consider whether a person should be imprisoned, and will
25 determine whether the individual has extenuating circumstances.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 As for purported State land taxation also referred to as “council rates” the High Court of
29 Australia in Municipal of Sydney v Commonwealth 1904 held that municipal councils were
30 municipal corporations and could not legislate, but only enforce State land taxation as “council
31 rates”. However, as the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to land taxation the States
32 and so the “council rates” became unconstitutional!
33
34 How absurd is it that the AEC never seems to publish the records of when the return of the writs
35 were due, this even so the return of the writs is the day the new Parliament sits and this is the
36 start of the 3-year countdown till the next return of the writs. As such, the election has be held
37 well before the return of the writs.
38
39 Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
40 QUOTE Mr. FRASER
41 The Bill provides that half of the senators go to their constituents every three years, and that the members of
42 the other House shall be elected every three years, or probably at shorter intervals.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 As for the purported commissions of various portfolios to then PM Scott Morrison, the
46 commission is not valid unless and until it has been published in the Gazette. As it never had
47 been than the various purported commissions were without legal force.
48
49 And for what it is worth, municipal corporations cannot legislate, and their purported by-laws
50 have no legal validity! The Commonwealth is the “central government” and the States are the
51 “local government”. And the States, other then regarding Section 25 of the constitution, have no
52 legislative powers as to Aboriginals, etc!
53

20-10-2024 Page 17 © 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 18

1 Once I took on a senior judge of a court, that he had failed to follow proper legal procedures.
2 When the Full Court invited me to present my appeal I as I recall stated: “Your Honours I can
3 see you all have a copy of my written submissions before you and I have nothing further to add.”
4 I presented my appeal in less than a minute. Opposing Counsel then stood up and submitted that
5 the Appeal was to be dismissed for failing to present the case. The senior judge as I recall
6 responded that he wish every lawyer would follow my example. I had filed an 11part about
7 1,000 pages written submission named ADDRESS TO THE COURT setting out all legal issues
8 quoting numerous Authorities. After 6 months the Full Court handed down its judgment in which
9 it upheld the Appeal!
10 I used to tell opposing lawyers “It is not how much you know but that you know what you need
11 to know for the particular case.”
12
13 With Francis James Colosimo he had been placed under Orders of Administration this because 2
14 medical experts had given evidence that Mr Colosimo refused to accept that he was convicted for
15 CONTEMPT OF COURT and therefore was mentally unable to conduct his own affairs. I
16 submitted for an adjournment so I could appear before Her Honour Harbison J (representing Mr
17 Colosimo). When I subsequently appeared before Her Honour Harbison her Honour category
18 denied having convicted Mr Colosimo! Opposing Counsel submitted to withdraw the
19 CONTEMPT OF COURT application this I opposed on the basis that once it was filed it became
20 the property of the court. Her Honour Harbison J handed down her judgment that indeed once
21 filed the party having filed it couldn’t withdraw the application as it became the property of the
22 Court. In my view even blind Freddy would have known that where the Application for
23 CONTEMPT OF COURT was still before her Honour Harbison J then obviously he never could
24 have been already convicted.
25 Her Honour Harbison J did warn me before hand that if I succeeded in my submission that the
26 CONTEMPT OF COURT application couldn’t be withdrawn that Mr Colosimo would still face
27 the CONTEMPT OF COURT application, I agree that this was so.
28 After the decision opposing Counsel provided me with a stack of authorities, well aware there
29 was no way I could read it all there and then. I merely flicked through it and then drew Her
30 Honour Harbison’s attention that one of the authorities actually proved that Mr Colosimo was
31 not at all GUILTY, because the order mr Colosimo allegedly violated was about removing a
32 “secondary residence” whereas Mr Colosimo all along had build a “shed” and had been issued
33 with a certificate that it complied with building regulations, etc. The authority stated that a
34 residence required a closet toilet and a sink with water access, as none of these existed in the
35 shed it clearly was a shed and not a secondary residence. More over no one in the world could
36 comply with removing a “secondary residence” that didn’t exist. Also, the order stipulated 90
37 days, whereas the Council’s Affidavit was f=sworn on the 89th day. I submitted that the
38 application be permanently stayed so the council could not relitigate the matter and only Mr
39 Colosimo could bring the case back, if he desired to do so. Her Honour made those orders. I then
40 requested for the transcript of the 6 hearing (5 before I became involved) to be provided FREE
41 OF CHARGE this as I did not charge Mr Colosimo for my representation and Her Honour
42 Harbison J ordered this. After receiving the 6 transcripts I discovered that Her Honour actually
43 never had formally charged Mr Colosimo! Subsequently, about a year later the Orders of
44 Administration were set aside. This was actually an epic battle in the meantime as Ms Preuss had
45 in a hearing (even so Her Honour Harbison already was on record that she never had convicted
46 Mr Colosimo) lashed out upon Mr Colosimo when he asked her to tone down as he was in ill
47 held that he was the one who had been convicted for CONTEMPT OF COURT. Upon this Mr
48 Colosimo collapsed and Ms Preuss cleared the court room leaving me alone with Mr Colosimo. I
49 had to race downstairs for medical assistance and Mr Colosimo was transported to the hospital.
50 After that I discovered that Ms Preuss had published on the internet that Mr Colosimo had been
51 convicted of CONTEMPT OF COURT, and I responded on the internet that this was a lie, etc.
20-10-2024 Page 18 © 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 19

1 Mr Preuss then through government solicitors demanded I withdraw the statement or face
2 CONTEMPT OF COURT charges. I refused to withdraw. The following year I appeared before
3 Ms Preuss representing Mr Colosimo and Ms Preuss then commenced to read out part of the
4 legislation and requested me to set out why I should not be charged with CONTEMPT OF
5 COURT. I responded with reading out precisely the same part of the legislation and making clear
6 that I had to protection as a solicitor representing a party before the Supreme Court of Victoria
7 and it was my duty and obligation to property represent Mr Colosimo and not fear unlawful
8 demands. As she had falsely claimed Mr Colosimo had been convicted for CONTEMPT OF
9 COURT, I had the duty and obligation to set the record straight. I then submitted that Ms Preuss
10 disqualified herself for being bias. Ms Preuss adjourned the matter briefly and upon her return
11 announced that the Appeal was upheld and Mr Colosimo was free to go.
12 While as a Professional Advocate and constitutionalist I am entitled to charge for representation
13 I simply didn’t desire to do so as I view “JUSTICE” is not for sale.
14
15 The then Attorney-General Rob Hulls demanded I no longer use the word ‘JUSTICE’ in MAY
16 JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® and failing to comply he would take me before the supreme
17 Court of Victoria. I responded that the Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with my trademark
18 as it was a Commonwealth registered trademark. Well that was the end of it.
19
20 I had the Legal Service Commission, the Victorian Police, etc, from time to time investigating
21 me but they always ended up with nothing against me. While the Legal Service Commission
22 pursued, I couldn’t use the word “constitutionalist” I responded that it lacked any legal authority
23 over me as it had no powers to dictate me if I can or cannot be a constitutionalist. Well, they left
24 it by that also.
25
26 Once I was requested to represent an elderly couple against their lawyer daughter. I did so very
27 successfully despite withdrawing the application. Years later I asked my (now) lawyer step-
28 daughter if she was still upset about losing the case and I recall her to respond: “No Dad, you
29 were the better lawyer of the day”. After her mother had become a widow we married and to
30 honour her Late husband (who had become my friend) I suggested we hyphenated his surname
31 and we did. After the successful case her then husband urged me to accept $70,000 for my
32 services but I refused making clear that I took the case FREE OF CHARGE including not
33 charging for my out-of-pocket expenses and I had no intention to change this principle. Actually,
34 I understood later from my wife that besides we had a mutual interest in water issues, he very
35 must liked me, to show that no amount of monies was to change my position to provide FREE
36 OF CHARGE services, not even charge for out-of-pocket expenses!
37
38 Once I was given the understanding that I could earn about $1 million if I were to do a case for
39 some millionaires regarding land taxation. I declined as I was not in it for the monies and if I was
40 to do a land taxation case I would only do it with me controlling the case, meaning doing it for
41 myself. This I am now more than a decade later doing. This way I am not depending upon a
42 party to perhaps withdraw the case as being in charge of the case I ultimately make the decisions.
43
44 In one particular case I collected evidence for a case that didn’t exist until many years later, but I
45 reasonable expected one day there be litigation, as did eventuate!
46 In one case I made a statement about an authority when the trial judge triumphantly responded
47 “you are wrong”. He then took the law Report he had before him and checked out the case and
48 announced it was not listed at all and as he was actually at the time the senior barrister in the
49 case he knew it never was part of the case what I had just stated. I then opened my suitcase and
50 took out the Law Report and handed it to the clerk. He gave it to the trial judge and the judge
51 checking the Law Report commented, as I recall it; “Yes, it is in your Law Report, it is a later
20-10-2024 Page 19 © 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 20

1 edition and yes it is part of the case. You know the case better than I do.” He then asked where
2 did I get the Law Report. My response: “Your Honour from the Salvation Army for 20 cents.”.
3 He smiled, well aware it was none of his business why I had a brand-new edition of the Law
4 Report. With another judge he asked me how come you know so much about legal matters upon
5 which I recall responded: “Your Honour my mother told me to put the book under the pillow and
6 the next morning you know it all.” The judge as I recall replied: “I deserved this”. Actually about
7 2 months ago, pone of my adult daughters reminded me about this and that while she was doing
8 legal studied and had a problem to get through it she would actually put the item under her
9 pillow and the next day she found she suddenly had no problems with grasping what it was
10 about.
11
12 With AEC v Schorel-Hlavka, I prepared for this many years in advance! If constitutional
13 lawyers were so good then why are the governments getting it so often wrong? Also, why has the
14 High Court of Australia from 1904 been wrong about constitutional issues? Let us not ignore
15 Franklin Dam, MABO, Sue v Hill, Sykes v Cleary, deportation of 2 born New Zealanders with
16 criminal convictions prevented, Palmer v WA, Bjelke Peterson re purported Racial
17 Discrimination Act, etc.
18
19 The Framers of the Constitution did not refer to “traditional custodians” or “traditional
20 owners” and made clear to Queensland that any “land rights” regarding the annexation of
21 Murray Islands had to be resolved before federation. They also made clear that all “native
22 born” Australians were equal with those naturalised.
23 Ss 51(xxvi) true intentions was to DISCRIMINATE and the 1967 referendum simply was a
24 violation of that legal principle as you cannot have one Section having opposite meanings
25 pending the race it applies to. I understand that more than a decade before 1967 referendum the
26 then Federal government was warned of the baggage Ss51(xxvi) had and better not amend it. In
27 any event in my view not a single land right legislation/court order has any constitutional validity
28 as I extensively have published about. Also, in my view KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN
29 (1982) 153 CLR 168 was wrongly decided because the External Affairs/Treaty powers never
30 could somehow increase the legislative powers of the Commonwealth, and by this reduce the
31 legislative powers of the states, etc. In my view we lack properly constitutional educated judges!
32
33 So much more to write about, but you may get the gist that there is no such country (independent
34 nation) called Commonwealth of Australia and you cannot transform a “political union” into a
35 country. And King Charles has no constitutional authority to determine if the Commonwealth of
36 Australia is or is not to become an “independent country” and so a neither a republic.
37 Anyone claiming to have the “nationality” of being an Australian citizen” doesn’t appear to me
38 to understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in
39 the of the constitution!
40
41 See also my blog (from which I do not charge for anyone to download the published documents)
42 at https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati. You are welcome to challenge me about my writings,
43
44 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
45
46 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
47 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

48 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

49 (Our name is our motto!)
20-10-2024 Page 20 © 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