Kevin Rudd Citizenship Etc

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Kevin Rudd PM 12-1-2010 C/o R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au . AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Kevin, I have reproduced a copy of my 12-1-2010 correspondence to Banyule City Council regarding the issue of political rights and citizenship albeit I already forwarded a copy of the same earlier to you. Just that for the purpose of this correspondence I held it appropriate to quote the content. Re Brendan MacDowell 7-1-2010 correspondence that is included. . Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942 QUOTE Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham, "sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab initio. END QUOTE . QUOTE FROM BELOW If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament." END QUOTE . As will be shown to some minor extend from the quotations of the submissions made to the court on 19 July 2006 that I did challenge successfully the validity of the Commonwealth of Australias legislative powers as to citizenship and neither the Commonwealth of Australia nor any of the State/Territorian Attorney-Generals challenged this and neither did the Court rule against me and as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that once a party in proceedings raised the constitutional validity of legislation then it is ULTRA VIRES from interception unless the courts declare it to be INTRA VIRES. . What none besides myself realised was that by the courts decision to uphold my cases every person who required Australian citizenship for purpose of appointment, being it politicians/lawyers (including judges)/police officers, etc, all were without valid appointment. Little wonder the Commonwealth of Australia and neither the State/Territorian AttorneyGenerals wanted to engage in a legal battle as none would have a legal standing to do so as they failed to have the required Commonwealth citizenship as it was a unconstitutional FICTIONAL status of nationality! As one Commonwealth lawyer made known to me that he had never come across a person who not only knew so much about the constitution but also could present it in court appropriately that he was even himself having difficulties. (He was filing and
12-1-2010 Page 1 PLEASE NOTE : Until Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up the website Http://www.schorelhlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. Email: schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
10
15
then wanting to withdraw his own evidence when I realised I was using it against him to prove exactly the opposite for which he had filed the evidence! And I made known that even if he withdrew the exhibit I was still entitled to use it!). . The lawyers knew that they were never going to defeat me as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and so opted to try to keep it quite. Well, that is something I never intended to do! . It should be noted that the Commonwealth of Australia, despite many offers by me, refused to deal with me as to try to address the issues concerned and this may underline the ignorance as to the RULE OF LAW ! . It might take time and perhaps a VELVET REVOLUTION to reclaim our constitutional and other legal rights but I have no doubt that in time this will eventuate and there are as I understand it ample of people willing to hold politicians and judges legally accountable for their as is seen treasonous conduct. . QUOTE
While the Federal Parliament has not been granted an express power to make laws with respect to nationality and citizenship, it has been assumed that the Parliament does have such a power. The power is either implied in section 51(xix) [of the Constitution] or is one of the implied national powers. Its exercise by the Federal Parliament, by enactment of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 has certainly not been called into question in any case before the High Court of Australia.
20
25
30
35
40
END QUOTE As is clear the Commonwealth of Australia in 1948 commenced to legislate as to citizenship and no amount of alleged legal advice in 1988 can somehow override the constitutional provisions and limitations. Hence for that it isnt relevant what the Constitutional Commission in 1988 may have concluded because when it comes to the constitution there is no power to twist or infringe the true meaning of the constitution in that regard. Moreover it indicates to me a total incompetence of the Constitution Commission if they assumed this legal position about citizenship where if they had bothered to check the Hansard they would or should have been aware they were totally wrong. What this also underlines that despite my past correspondence about the failure of the Constitution Policy Unit to appropriately advice regarding constitutional matters they nevertheless continued to do so. What is the use of having such kind of legal advisors? . QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration) Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and painstaking consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the consideration was sufficient in law. END QUOTE . I have in the past time and time again raised this issue and now in the end it is finally conceded that all the Commonwealth of Australia relies upon is that the Constitution Commission in 1988 assumed there was legislative powers. . Well, lets make it clear that every day people are losing court cases despite the legal advice they were given they were in the right because when two opposing parties are litigating and each party is given legal advise that they are legally right then in the end one of them discovers their lawyers were wrong all along. .
45
50
10
15
What the Commonwealth of Australia and so its lawyers and neither any State and Territorian Attorney-Generals seemed to understand/comprehend was that the 5-year long epic legal battle was more relevant then any ever could have imagined. Perhaps if they had they would all have lined up with teams of lawyers seeking to defeat me albeit they would still have failed. I was well aware that the High Court of Australia, albeit unconstitutionally, refused to accept on 4 occasions my Section 75(v) application because it was well aware of the hundreds of pages of supportive evidence that none of the judges of the High Court of Australia themselves were validly appointed and so they could neither hear the case because of implied bias. . R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236 QUOTE However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be suck as to lead the parties reasonably to think that the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and then prohibition may issue. Of course, the court which is asked to grant prohibition will not lightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected of bias in this sense; it must be "firmly established" that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered in the minds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553-4, in the passage cited in R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (132 CLR at 262). The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a question, but whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect has occurred (see per Lord Denning MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgment cited with approval by this court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well convey the impression of "protesting to much"... END QUOTE . The High Court of Australia went outside its judicial powers to deny to accept the filing of my cases on four occasions , in particularly where this raised the issue of citizenship, and after it did so for the fourth time then it asked lawyers to challenge citizenship as it had never adjudicated upon it. As such, the court wanted to railroad my case knowing to well it couldnt defeat me and hence hoped some lawyer not knowing the real issues could then pretend to make an application the court could then use to pretend it was all so to say hanky dory. . Just that I was more resourceful and used the same before the County Court of Victoria and as the Framers of the constitution made clear once one place the matter before the courts then the relevant legislation objected against upon constitutional grounds is and remains ULTRA VIRES from interception until and unless if at all the court declares it to be INTRA VIRES. . Because the Commonwealth of Australia and neither any state and or Territorian AttorneyGenerals challenged it then legally where the Court on 19 July 2006 ruling in my favour upholding both cases it then cannot be said that the legislation regarding citizenship somehow still survived because the legal principles embedded in the constitution are binding to all. . QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006 As is quoted below Mr. GORDON.Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
It therefore cannot be held that while the Magistrates Court of Victoria on 4-12-2002 adjourned proceedings so constitutional issues could be dealt with by the High Court of Australia to determine if the legislation objected against upon constitutional grounds could be declared INTRA VIRES somehow the very legislation being now ULTRA VIRES still continues to operate against anyone else as if it is INTRA VIRES . What appears to be is that the Australian Electoral Commission and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions have totally disregarded the rule of law and abused and misused the legal processes to score convictions and otherwise fine people which never was legally justified because once the Magistrate on 4 December 2002 accepted the submission of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions that there were indeed constitutional issues to be adjudicated upon then the legislative provisions subject to the objections were clearly ULTRA VIRES and could not be relied upon against any other person either until and unless the High Court of Australia had declared the legislative provisions subject to constitutional objections to be INTRA VIRES. This never occurred. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that if the legislative provision (it is not law once it is ULTRA VIRES) remained ULTRA VIRES because the High Court of Australia declines to declare it INTRA VIRES then at most a Referendum could provide the kind of legislative powers required to enact such legislation but not retrospective. As such, only legislation passed after such amendment to the Constitution was provided for by a Section 128 of the Constitution referendum could be applied but not made retrospective either. While people often are convicted by retrospective legislation this clearly is contrary to the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution , who did not want people acting within the law be made by hindsight criminals. As after all then no one could rely upon what might be the law. Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. SYMON .-It is not a law which is ultra vires. And Mr. SYMON.-Do you think acquiescence would make a law if the law passed by the Commonwealth Parliament was ultra vires?
25
30
Mr. GORDON.-It would until the law was impugned. If the state did not impugn that law it would remain in force. It is a law, and it could be allowed to be valid by the force of acquiescence. And Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law if it is ultra vires.
35 And
Mr. GORDON.-It would be law by acquiescence. It would remain a law until it was attacked. Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power?
40 And
Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right. Mr. GORDON.Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised.
45
And Mr. HOLDER.-I will answer that interjection, which certainly has great weight.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Will the honorable member answer this question: Supposing a law is affirmed by this process, and afterwards another law involving the same question is proposed, is that also made good, or must there be a referendum for that? 5 Mr. HOLDER.-I have two interjections to answer. I will deal first with that of the Attorney-General of Victoria. In reply to his statement that this makes the law altogether retrospective, I simply say that the proposal is to make the law retrospective in this sense: That during the interval throughout which it was, according to the judgment of the court, ultra vires, the decision of the people afterwards could make it intra vires. Mr. ISAACS.-That might make persons criminals who were not otherwise criminals. It might not have been an offence to do a certain thing if the High Court declared the law to be ultra vires, but if that law was made intra vires from an antecedent date, all the persons who did that thing might be subject to punishment. Mr. HOLDER.-I have great respect for the eminent legal authority of the AttorneyGeneral of Victoria, and he may help me to overcome that difficulty, and attain the advantage I seek to attain. Mr. O'Connor asks me, if this were adopted, and under a certain referendum a certain Bill was declared to be intra vires, whether that position would cover any similar Bill adopted afterwards? My answer to that is this. I wish it [start page 1720] should do so, that the enlargement of the Constitution should be not merely for the inclusion of the particular measure which had been passed, but for the inclusion of the particular matter concerning which otherwise that Bill had been, but for the referendum, ultra vires. I do not profess to be a draftsman, and I gather that the Drafting Committee have been kind enough to undertake-especially for lay members-to put into proper phraseology any resolutions which the Convention has by a majority declared to embody principles which they wish to have included in the Bill. So I am content, if the Convention adopts my proposition as being an indication of its will, to leave the wording of the clause as it shall appear finally entirely in the hands of the Drafting Committee, and shall be very glad of any help they can give to suggest a method of covering what the honorable member has suggested, so that my intentions my be fully met. do feel that in any question where the point of the law ultra vires is raised, not the High Court but the people ought to be the final appeal-that if I or any one else is on the other side of this controversy concerning a measure, and I take the ground that it is ultra vires or that it is not, the final appeal concerning what the Federal Parliament may do ought not to rest with the High Court, which can simply determine it on the dry question of law, but ought to rest with those people who, themselves, have the right to say whether or not the Constitution shall be enlarged to take in the particular question at issue. I do not hesitate to affirm that, if we can place this final appeal in the hands of the people instead of keeping it in the hands of the High Court, we will have done very much indeed to popularize this measure, not only in South Australia, but in other colonies. For I do assure honorable members that the presence of so large a number of lawyers as there are in this Convention has helped to give colour to the suggestion, which is very widely prevalent, that this Constitution is being made for the lawyers and for the courts. Mr. SYMON.-Nonsense! Mr. GLYNN.-That is pandering to the popular cry. 45 Mr. BARTON.-I think my honorable friend ought to do his best to dispel any such base slander as that. Mr. HOLDER.-I can assure my honorable friend that I will do my best to dispel any such base slander as that. I am not stating a matter in which I express my own thought or my own feeling, but I repeat that in what I said just now I am expressing the thought and
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
the feeling of a great many persons outside the Convention who are not so well informed as we are. If we can remove a misapprehension, if we can cure a ground of distrust, by making the people themselves the final arbiters in their own cause, we shall surely be doing well, and by doing that we will not be endorsing, but will be going the very best way possible to refuse an indorsement to that opinion which was dissented from just now. Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why not make them the first arbiters, too? Mr. SYMON.-Why not make them the High Court at once? Mr. HOLDER.-I have already shown that the adoption of my clause would save a large amount of time. It is quite impossible that the people can sit as Judges, because the function of Judges is one thing, and the function of electors of the Commonwealth is quite another thing. I am not confounding these two. The people are absolutely incompetent to judge whether a certain law is or is not ultra vires, and I would not dream of committing that charge to the people, for there are no persons less fit than the general electors-taken all together on a referendum-of any country to decide whether this or that is true law. Mr. ISAACS.-You say the people accept the position in law; but they are asked whether they will change the Constitution. [start page 1721] Mr. HOLDER.-That is exactly it. I would never dream of asking the people to reverse a legal decision arrived at by the High Court. I have been specially careful in the form of the amendment to avoid any such thing. I do not dream that the High Court will on one day say that a certain Bill is ultra vires, and that the people shall the day after, or some months after, say the court was wrong. That is not what I suggest. I suggest that the people should accept the decision of the High Court that the law was ultra vires, but should say it ought not to be ultra vires-that the Constitution should be enlarged so that such a decision could not be given again. I do not wish to leave it to the people to say that the decision was wrong, but to leave them to say that the Constitution should be so enlarged so as to-make such a decision impossible in the future. That is a different thing from making the people Judges or giving them a judicial position. I really feel very hopeless as a layman addressing the Convention on a very technical legal point like this. I quite anticipate-and though this is not a wise thing to say, I do not mind saying it-I quite anticipate defeat before I sit down. At the same time, I shall not cease to regret defeat if it comes, nor shall I cease to believe that this way out, or some other which the Drafting Committee could easily suggest, ought to be adopted, so as to avoid the possibility of anybody outside saying, with any appearance of truth, that this is a lawyer-written Constitution. Where then Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 has been ULTRA VIRES, at least since challenged by the Defendant, albeit it is ULTRA VIRES from when it was originally enacted as any legislation that is ULTRA VIRES because of being beyond constitutional powers is then ULTRA VIRES from when it was enacted, then the fact that nevertheless the Australian Electoral Commission fined tens of thousands of electors itself ought to be a major scandal and indeed requires a ROYAL COMMISSION. Further the fact that despite this the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions continued to pursue enforcement of Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and in deed as is currently before the Court charged the Defendant with FAILING TO VOTE in the 2004 purported federal election, and even scored a conviction on 17 November 2005 also underlines that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is using taxpayers funds to employ lawyers to illegally litigate charges for which in the circumstances there was no legal justification. The onus was upon the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to pursue that the High Court of Australia may declare the
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
legislative provisions INTRA VIRES before any further charges could be pursued, such as in regard of the 2004 purported Federal election. The issue is that at least from 4-12-2002 (albeit it was earlier because of the objections made by the Defendant) Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was ULTRA VIRES and for this any further litigation or other fines by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission and/or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in regard of the same purported 2001 Federal election and/or the subsequent purported 2004 Federal election and/or any by election could not be legally sustained where Section 245 ever since remained ULTRA VIRES. Any legislative provisions that becomes ULTRA VIRES is so not just in regard of the person/Defendant who makes the objection but it becomes ULTRA VIRES to the whole of the Commonwealth of Australia. To every person who otherwise might be subject to this legislative provisions. It would be utter and sheer nonsense if any legislative provisions could be declared ULTRA VIRES for one Defendant but not for other Defendant. Commonwealth of Australia legislative provisions must apply to all and any person without discrimination and so it is either ULTRA VIRES to all people or INTRA VIRES to all people. It would be abhorrent to contemplate that every person has to obtain in their own right a legal decision as then the High Court of Australia could be forced to decide tens of thousands of cases governing the same legal provision. clearly, this is not what is possible. The 1999 HCA 27 Wakim case is a clear example, where the High Court of Australia declared that the so called Cross Vesting Act indeed was ULTRA VIRES, and this applied to anyone not just to Wakim ! END QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006 . Lest look at construction of legislation and consider the issue of CITIZENSHIP with this also considering how the Constitution Commission in its 1988 report assumed legislative powers! . Thompson v Tolmie 27 U.S. 157 (1829) Page 27 U.S. 157, 169 QUOTE When a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question that occurs in the cause; and whether its decisions be correct or not, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought in opposition to them even prior to a reversal.' END QUOTE And QUOTE Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack. END QUOTE . QUOTE Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278 The oath of a justice of this court is ' to do right to all manner of people according to law' Our sworn duty is to the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all. If, then, we find the law to be plainly in conflict with what we or any of our predecessors errornously thought it to be, we have, as I conceive no right to choose between giving effect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, It is not, in my opinion, better that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should be ultimately right.. Whatever else may be said with respect to previous decisions - and it is necessary here to consider the principals upon which a court should act in particular cases - so much at least emerges as is undoubtedly beyond challenge, that where a former decision is clearly
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
wrong, and there are no circumstances countervailing the primary duty of giving effect to the law as the court finds it, the real opinion of the court should be expressed. END QUOTE And 5 QUOTE In my opinion, where the prior decision is manifestly wrong, then, irrespective of the consequences, it is the paramount and sworn duty of this court to declare the law truly.... END QUOTE 10 . QUOTE Braddock v Tillotson's Newspapers Ltd .; Court of Appeal (1949)(1950) 1KB 47 (1949) 2 ALL E.R. 306;65 T.L.R. 553: 93 S.J. 464 Leave to call fresh evidence on appeal in relation to an issue will be granted only when the evidence could not reasonably have been discovered before the trial, and would probably have led to a different result. When the fresh evidence relates to the credit of a witness, its effect must be more certain. END QUOTE . QUOTE Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 H.L.C. (per Lord Wensdayle) In construing wills and indeed, statutes and all written documents, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the word is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical or ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency but no further. END QUOTE . QUOTE Abley v Dale (1850) 20 L.J.C.P. 35 (per Jervis C.J.) We assume the function of legislation when we depart from the ordinary meaning of the precise terms used, merely because we see, or fancy to see, an absurdity or manifest injustices from an adherence to their literal meaning END QUOTE . QUOTE Camden Marquis v Inland Revenue Commissioners (1914) 1 KB 641 (per Latham C.J.) In Bendixon v Coleman (1945) 68 CLR 401 at 415 Stitt v Radford (1926) 26 SR (NSW) 263 at 265 43 WN at 75 Re Rippon housing confirmation order 1938 White v Minister for Health (1939) 2 KB 838 The court takes judicial notice of the meaning of ordinary words, and evidence is not admissible to expound their meaning; though the court, in addition to using its own knowledge, may refer to standard authors and authoritative dictionaries in order to obtain assistance in interpretation. END QUOTE . QUOTE Powell v Trantor (1984) 3 H & C 458 at p461 (159 E.R. 610 at 611) The golden rule of construction is, that words are to be construed according to their natural meaning, unless such a construction would render them senseless, or would be opposed to the general scope and intent of the instrument, or unless there is some cogent reason of convenience in favour of a different interpretation. END QUOTE
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10
. QUOTE Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes 8th Ed. p2; Hotel Kingston Ltd. v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1944) 69 CLR 221; 28 Austin Digest 752 The first and most elementary rule of construction is that it is to be assumed that the words and phrases are to be used in their technical meaning if they have acquired one and in their popular meaning if they have not, and that the phrases and sentences are to be construed according to the rules of grammar; and from this presumption it is not allowable to depart, where the language admits to no other meaning, nor, where it is susceptible of another meaning, unless adequate grounds are found, either in the history or cause of the enactment or in the context or in the consequences which would result from the literal interpretation, for concluding that that interpretation does not give the real intention of the legislature. END QUOTE . In August 2005 I defeated the Commonwealth of Australia lawyers on the issue of AVERMENT that constitutionally it could not interfere with the legal procedures applicable in State Courts, even so exercising federal jurisdiction, and the lawyers still as a bunch of idots persisted to litigate against me and then were comprehensively defeated on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria on all constitutional issues I had raised, including citizenship. . Now, if you are going to try to make out that somehow despite those defeats you still rely upon some outdated and ill conceived assumed legislative powers rather then to ensure that you so to say gave those a advisers a kick under their bum for their idiotic advice and made sure you would get proper advise then you cannot be excused. Fancy you going to court and telling a judge that you relied upon outdated 1988 assumed legislative powers and ignored courts rulings since and all other material presented to you. Do you really think that a judge is going to accept such blatant and sheer ignorance to a responsibility to ensure that matters are appropriately dealt with? Can you imagine what huge claims might be made if people who were deported and./or otherwise were detained discover it was all unconstitutionally done and more over that you presided over it and had the opportunity to be aware of it but rather held it more important to travel the world at huge expenses of taxpayers then to address these issues? . I recall when what is now my step-daughter, making known to the court a decade ago that she held my writings were silly and so she ignored them. With her law degrees it appeared to her that what I was writing about was silly but in court she discovered, albeit too late, that she had misconceived legal issues and in fact as result she lost the case. Likewise many other lawyers learned this kind of a lesson! Ignorance is no excuse and by now for years you were provided with my correspondences and as such had every opportunity to act appropriately and not merely rely upon outdated ill-conceived assumptions. . Dont you have an Attorney-General who is supposed to check all relevant issues and also when the Commonwealth is defeated (as I ensured it was) then this is added to its files so future advice will reflect this? . The reason I have defeated lawyers (and so also judges) is because I know they so to say have been brainwashed to go along with whatever they have been indoctrinated with and lack the capacity and ability to use their brain to think for themselves. Still that is no excuse where the Commonwealth of Australia relies upon them as to the uncalled harm then caused upon many. .
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
It must be clear from the quotations below (and you can check for your self for example the 2 March 1898 Hansard records, even if you are flying once again overseas) to read for yourself that Dr Quick (Later of Quick & Garran) specifically submitted to give legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare citizenship and this was specifically denied by the Delegates to the convention. Now if a Constitutional Commission of 1988 and the Constitution Policy Unit cannot even manage to read and/or understand/comprehend what is so plain from the statements then recorded them you might do better having some imbeciles being employed because they will never give you this kind of nonsense! . It is a very serious matter in that peoples lives have been destroyed time and time again having been detained and/or deported, etc all on basis of non-citizenship while this could have been avoided had the Attorney-General and others done their job in the first place to consider what the real intentions of the Framers of the Constitution was and how this is applicable to the application of the constitution. How on earth can an Attorney-General give advice to the Governor-General to certify a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament is within constitutional provisions if he hasnt got a clue how the constitutional provisions and limitations apply? Why have an Attorney-General if he cant bother to ensure he knows what he is talking about? . I am well aware you have been so to say ignoring my various correspondences and likewise my offer to assist as a CONSTITUTIONALIST in the peter Spencer saga but be warned it so to say might bite your bum one day as if Peter Spencer were to discover that he can start all over again litigating and this time more successful because the court had it so wrong in the past then there could be a mighty compensation claim not just by him but more then likely by a lot of farmers also. . I have the understanding where lawyers in prominent cases ended up having their clients being in prison rather then to pursue the constitutional issues I had made them aware off because after all it was their own self interest to protect themselves rather then their client. . To me it would be an insult to be regarded a lawyer as it would stain my person. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I bow to no one but the constitution and have no alliance with any one who seeks to undermine constitutional provisions and limitations. . For sure, if I were heading the Commonwealths Constitutional Policy Unit then the Commonwealth may discover it may looses some cases in court because its previous legal advise was ill-conceived but surely DEMOCRACY and that is what it is about is more important then to deceive the courts as to succeed in litigation? . I am well aware you might just view it better to so to say sit it out and leave it up to some case in court and then deal with it but if this is to be your modus operandi then you would be a traitor to the constitution as you are obligated to ensure that constitutional provisions and limitations are appropriately applied. . I did what I had to do and served the commonwealth and all Attorney-Generals in 2002 a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and after a 5-year epic legal battle comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia in court on 19 July 2006. As such the court adjudicated in both cases and found in favour of me against the commonwealth of Australia and while I am aware the court refused to hand down a reason of judgment to try to contain the fall-out of its decision nevertheless there was no challenge whatsoever by the Commonwealth of Australia upon any of the about 50 submissions on constitutional matters I had raised and as such the Commonwealth of Australia is now bound to accept the courts verdict, in particular where it never appealed the decision either, and had no cause to do so as it consented to the terms of the orders!
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
. Once the Commonwealth of Australia neglected to challenge any of my submissions and consented to the Court handing down a decision against the Commonwealth of Australia then for all purposes and intend the Commonwealth of Australia conceded that I was right on all constitutional issues I had raised (and so extensively in the material before the court) as if it had not it could have requested the court to hand down a reserved judgment limited to certain matters. Again, the commonwealth of Australia didnt whatsoever challenge any of my material before the Court and as such conceded defeat and it is a bit rich now for the Commonwealth of Australia then to rely upon what the Constitution Commission in its 1988 report may have assumed, as the Commonwealth of Australia is bound by the courts decision! . Because of the publications of my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues I am giving wide coverage to these issues and it is merely a matter of time when someone is going to realise that he can use this to defeat the Commonwealth of Australia! More over; . Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. END QUOTE . Hence by repeatedly writing to you and others, well aware you may disregard the content, I am nevertheless establishing a record of correspondence and so that others may eventually use this to sue you and/or others personally for any harm caused upon them. . It will not be good enough then to claim there was some Constitution Commission report of 1988 as clearly you had ample of material to have checked back what was before the courts since and the fact that the Commonwealth of Australia conceded to my material being correct as implied by its failure to challenge any and to consent to orders being issues against the Commonwealth of Australia, in my favour. . As my step-daughter (with her various law degrees) recently made known to me, that I have trained myself in the way of the old days how lawyers in the United Kingdom learned their trade. . I would look forward if someone were to personally sue you because then it would hit home that when you are Prime Minister you are accountable and when you act outside constitutional provisions in defiance of constitutional limitations then you cannot rely upon ordinary protection of the office of the Prime Minister because you willingly took it upon yourself to ignore the details I provided to you time and again. . My 2 December 2007 request for a ROYAL COMMISSION into the unconstitutional murderous invasion into Iraq still is outstanding and surely by now you should have been aware that the killing of so many innocent people should all along have resulted to a ROYAL COMMISSION? Again, what your conduct appears to amount to in my view is a derelict of your duties and obligations as Prime Minister. Are you relying upon the same advisors for legal advice who advise you about citizenship? .
10
15
Once you leave office you might be known as the one who said a lot but did miserably little to ensure the Commonwealth of Australia was operating according to constitutional provisions and its limitations despite that you claimed before the election to be a federalist! . Do try to understand that the Framers of the Constitution themselves , of who many where eminent lawyers, warned about how to word the constitution as to seek to avoid lawyers so to say having a field day with the meaning of words! Yes, they all along expected that lawyers would not be interested in the proper application of the constitution but would seek to manipulate wording to whatever may suit themselves or so their clients. . HANSARD 18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, END QUOTE . Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution. END QUOTE . Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much care has not been exercised. END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament." END QUOTE
. And also consider: . Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.It is said we have sought to establish a Constitution by analogy to the House of Lords and the House of Commons in England. But we know that there is no analogy, or, if there were an analogy, we should have to consider what would be a very solemn and serious question-whether we should have federation or a general amalgamation. Mr. MOORE .-Unification. Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I hate the word "unification," and will not use it. I have said before that there is much to be said for amalgamation. I can understand that there might be an immense amount of money saved by amalgamation in the way of carrying on the government of the country, and there might be an immense amount of force from the head of the Commonwealth which you cannot get from the partial disintegration which is involved even in federation. But it is not our mission to establish an amalgamation of these colonies. We are here under Bills passed by our various colonies, and there is a claim for federation, and not a claim for merging the colonies in one common concern. END QUOTE . As such, forget about unification because it isnt part of the constitution regardless how much the judges of the High Court of Australia (such as in Sue v Hill) may seek to pretend otherwise. . QUOTE 12-1-2010 correspondence to Banyule City Council WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr Simon McMillan, Chief Executive Officer ( Banyule City Council) 12-1-2010 http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au Fax 94991391 E-mail: enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au . Ref; alleged FAILING TO VOTE-etc Cc; Victorian Electoral Commission Level 8, 505 Collins Street, Melbourne Vic 3000, Fax 9299 0595 Mr Kevin Rudd PM C/o R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au . AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Sir, I received a 4/1/2010 demand for payment of allegedly FAILING TO VOTE in the 2008 council elections and I refer to my numerous previous correspondence regarding the same issue and Banyule City Council had obviously the opportunity to place the matter before the Courts within as I understand 12 months from the date of the election but failed to do so. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of what is constitutionally applicable and have so set out time and time again in past correspondences as well as that on 19 July 2006 before the County Court of Victoria after a 5-year epic legal battle I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth on all constitutional and other legal issues in both cases, and hence Banyule City Council has no legal position to somehow purport to overrule or otherwise seek to deny me the benefits of the courts decisions, in which the State Attoney-General in 2002 was served with a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and decided not to challenge any or all of my submissions. .
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten, END QUOTE And QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE And QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves. END QUOTE . Political Liberty is not subject to what any government or for that any Parliament may hold it can amount to but is precisely as was intended by the Framers of the Constitution intended at the time of federation and so well canvassed by me during the aforementioned litigation in which at the end the court decided both cases in my favour. Hence Banyule City Council, that is if it had a legal position in the first place, which I also have challenged, would first have to somehow have the 19 July 2006 decision overturned and it appears to me that unless you are an absolute idiot and do not understand the legal processes you would be well aware that the opportunity to do so has long since passed where as I stated before the Attorney-General even so given the opportunity at the time failed to challenge and or all of my submissions on constitutional grounds and neither pursued to appeal the courts decisions in either or both cases. . I happen to have received a 7 January 2010 correspondence which I will include hereby merely for your information albeit I do not accept the implied legislative powers as my past material before the courts and provided to you makes this clear; QUOTE 7-1-2010 CORRESPONDENCE Australian Government Department of the Prime minister and Cabinet ONE NATIONAL CIRCUIT BARTON Reference: c09/54418 Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka 107 Graham road VIEWBANK VICTORIA 3084 Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
45
50
Thank you for your email of 24 October 2009 to the prime minister regarding the commonwealths power to legislate over citizenship. I have been asked to reply on the Prime ministers behalf. I apologise for the delay in doing so. 5 Australian citizenship is defined in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Ordinarily, the Government does not disclose its legal advice, including on constitutional issues, I refer you, however, to the following passage from paragraph 4,179 of the Final Report of the constitutional Commission , 1988: While the Federal Parliament has not been granted an express power to make laws with respect to nationality and citizenship, it has been assumed that the Parliament does have such a power. The power is either implied in section 51(xix) [of the Constitution] or is one of the implied national powers. Its exercise by the Federal Parliament, by enactment of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 has certainly not been called into question in any case before the High Court of Australia. Yours sincerely Brendan MacDowell A/g Assistant Secretary Legal Policy Branch 7 January 2010 QUOTE 7-1-2010 CORRESPONDENCE . There are some issues I raise in regard of this, albeit not all! . The commission assumed and the Constitution is not to be assumed but must be appropriately applied. The fact that since 1948 the Parliaments may have legislated is not relevant where it had no specific legislative powers to do so! . The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm QUOTE 37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." END QUOTE And QUOTE The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. END QUOTE Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256) . FURTHER: Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE . Well even as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I found nothing in the constitution that possibly could indicate that the Commonwealth of Australia since 1948 had legislative powers as to Australian citizenship[ or for that regarding citizenship at all! It therefore is not relevant if the Commonwealth legislated the purported Australian Citizenship Act 2007 after it already had been comprehensively defeated by me on this very issue on 19 July 2006! . Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power. . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us. END QUOTE . HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GORDON.The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." END QUOTE . Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on terms that are just to both. Mr. DEAKIN .-It is made for the lawyers under this clause. Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is required at all ; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and, without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would
50
10
15
20
give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at. END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing crime to the Commonwealth , but you do give power to the Commonwealth to make special laws as to alien races; and the moment you do that the power of making such laws does not remain in the hands of the states; and if you place in the hands of the Commonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have described you should not defeat that regulative power of the Commonwealth . I do not think that that applies at all, however, to any power of regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we do not give any such power to the Commonwealth, whilst we do give the Commonwealth power with regard to alien races; and having given that power, we should take care not to take away an incident of it which it may be necessary for the Commonwealth to use by way of regulation. I have had great hesitation about this matter, but I think I shall be prevented from voting for the first part; and as to establishing any religion, that is so absolutely out of the question, so entirely not to be expectedMr. SYMON .-It is part of the unwritten law of the Constitution that a religion shall not be established. END QUOTE And QUOTE Mr. SYMON .-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question ; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union. END QUOTE . Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded the spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has enlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again.
25
30
35
40
45
50
We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution. END QUOTE . It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; British subject, to make persons subjects of the British Empire., with the consent of the Imperial authority, What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship., we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. We have a High Court of Australia that appears to me being political motivated to try to alter the Constitution by stealth by endorsing a substitute Constitution! . Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly , that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted , inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well. END QUOTE . Again QUOTE that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, END QUOTE . Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON .-Then I think they ought to. The whole object of legislating for aliens is that there should be uniformity. Sir EDWARD BRADDON .-They would not have that in the Federal Council.
20
25
30
35
40
Mr. SYMON .-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than 1,000 a year should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament. Mr. HIGGINS .-Why not? Mr. SYMON .-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over
45
our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the amendment will not be accepted. END QUOTE . Again QUOTE Mr. SYMON.We must rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on. END QUOTE . LET ME EXPLAIN, WHEN THE COMMONWEALTH OF Australia legislates in regard of aliens or in regard of any coloured race then those persons subject to such special legislation can automatically loose their right of citizenship. For example the commonwealth while not being able to define citizenship of aliens can place a limitation on when an alien might obtain if at all citizenship due to certain legislative provisions being in place which otherwise could be overturned by those aliens if they had franchise powers. Likewise so with any s51(xxvi) race legislative powers the moment they are subjected to a special legislation they lose their citizenship automatically. Again, that is obviously to prevent such a race to vote and perhaps get rid of the legislation. . In the court I had this far more extensive canvassed and see no need to repeat the same as after all I did publish on 7 July 2006 a book in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues titled: . INSPECTOR-RIKATI & What is the -Australian way of life- really? A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 . This book in CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC contained all relevant documents that were before the court on 19 July 2006 as well as was filed as evidence in the case. Therefore, you can check it all out in the Australian National Library at Canberra or even in the State Library of Victoria if you desire to do so, but at least get of my back about your nonsense because quite frankly I had to do what I did and place the case before the courts and succeeded and entitled to the benefits of the courts decision. If you desire to be an utter idiot not to understand/comprehend how the legal processes operate then get out of the job but stop pestering me with your nonsense about fines and charges. . It should be understood that the Commission was reporting in 1988 at which time the Hansard records of the constitution convention debates were still not permitted (albeit unconstitutionally) by the High Court of Australia and since 1992 the High Court of Australia now relies upon usage of the Hansard records. . Further, on 4 occasions the High Court of Australia in 2003 refused to accept my applications within section 75(v) dealing with citizenship but the same then subsequently was upheld on 19 July 2006 and as such it should be clear that the Constitution Commissions 1988 assumed legislative powers have been superseded by the litigation and 19 July 2006 orders and no longer are relevant. .
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
25
30
There is no such thing as a commission amending the application and or meaning of the constitution as Section 128 provided for a referendum and nothing lese. . What ought to be clear is that the Commonwealth relies upon an assumed legislative power rather then upon real defined powers. And I for one challenged the citizenship issue successfully on 19 July 2006! . As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I also challenged the validity of the purported local government being municipal and shire councils as they are not and never were constitutionally recognised as a level of government and neither so intended by the Framers of the Constitution and the 1988 referendum was vetoed to amend the constitution for this. As such a municipal or shire council would have no legal standing in that regard. . Also, as citizenship is essential to be accepted as a Member of the Bar at a State court and clearly the kind of citizenship referred to in the purported Australian Citizenship Act 2007 is unconstitutional then not a single lawyer/judge can be deemed to be appropriately appointed so who is going to hear and determine any case? This I also successfully litigated on 19 July 2006! . Play with your toes or whatever but get of my back with your nonsense about fines, etc, as you got no legal position to do so! . Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. END QUOTE . Harassing me with utter and sheer nonsense about purported fines better not be continued! .
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

35 . Our name is our motto. . Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA END QUOTE 12-1-2010 correspondence to Banyule City Council . For example, every subject of the British Crown born in the United Kingdom is not and constitutionally never can be an alien or foreigner because the legal principles embedded in the constitution provides that they obtain citizenship the moment they settle in a State citizenship and so also by this automatically acquire Commonwealth citizenship. . And, if by now you still havent got a clue what Commonwealth citizenship is about then let me make it clear it has nothing to do with nationality but refers to a persons political rights, such as franchise. If by now you still dont understand/comprehend what citizenship stands for then I view you better resign because then you will unlikely ever know. Let someone more competent then do the job as after all we taxpayers are paying for it!
40
45
50
. QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006 On 24-3-1897 it was stated; if they desire to exercise their franchise and on 15-4-1897 Mr Gordon proposed to make registration and voting compulsory but this had been rejected and Mr Gordon then withdrew his submission. Hence voting cannot be made compulsory either. The word desire clearly leaves it up to the choice of the elector to vote or not to vote! Hansard 24-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
10
15
20
Sir GEORGE TURNER: It would never do to allow in this Federal Parliament that those representatives who are elected upon the most liberal franchise possible should be outvoted by those who would be elected by a very limited franchise indeed. As this may fairly be regarded as the National House, representing the people of the various States as a nation, we ought to have uniformity in the franchise. We must leave it to the Federal Parliament to say what the franchise should be. At the same time, as some colonies have given the right of voting to those who have not that right in other colonies, it would be unfair and inequitable to take from any who have the right, and therefore whatever uniformity is determined upon we shall have to allow the innovation that no person, man or woman, who has the right to vote shall be deprived of exercising that right, even so far as the elections to the Federal Parliament are concerned. I would go the length of saying that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if they desire to exercise their franchise, should have the opportunity of doing so.
25
30
Again At the same time, as some colonies have given the right of voting to those who have not that right in other colonies, it would be unfair and inequitable to take from any who have the right, and therefore whatever uniformity is determined upon we shall have to allow the innovation that no person, man or woman, who has the right to vote shall be deprived of exercising that right, even so far as the elections to the Federal Parliament are concerned. And I would go the length of saying that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if they desire to exercise their franchise, should have the opportunity of doing so. Desire stands for an expressed wish, option, choice, request, etc, not being compulsory! Because the Commonwealth of Australia could only legislate in regard of qualifications and other rights not to minimize but to increase the rights of any person, then clearly any legislation that is to remove such rights or to force a person to vote against his desire must be deemed unconstitutional, and so ULTRA VIRES. Hence, the Court could not invoke any jurisdiction for this either, as to deal with any charges of FAILING TO VOTE. It should be considered also that the State of Victoria recognize the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and as any federal franchise is based upon State franchise then for this also this is applicable.
35
40
45
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 1

(For general comments on its implementation see http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR+General+comment+12.En?OpenDocument)
50
1. All peoples have the right of self -determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
PART II Article 2
(For general comments on its implementation see http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR+General+comment+3.En?OpenDocument) 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, langua ge, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant. 3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
10
15
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
20 Article 3
(For general comments on its implementation see http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR.C.21.Rev.1.Add.10,+CCPR+Gen )
25
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.
Article 25
(For general comments on its implementation see http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR+General+comment+4.En?OpenDocument)
30
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
35
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
40
45
50
END QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006. . QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006. The Defendants submits , that Australian citizenship can only be obtained by obtaining State citizenship, as it is not a nationality, but has to deal with being a recognised State citizens where one AUTOMATICALLY then obtain Australian citizenship ( Commonwealth citizenship which includes franchise. Because lawyers require to make an Oath of alliance when seeking to be admitted to the BAR to practice, which now is to a LEGAL FICTIONAL Queen of Australia (as set out further in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT ), while being a Subjects of the British Crown, (as also set out further), then there is a clear conflict for any judge to deal with this matter which would in effect involve his/her own personal legal position if qualified to be a judge of this Court. Albeit judicial officers may not be aware that their true constitutionally nationality is and remain to be British nationals and so any
Oath of alliance to a LEGAL FICTIONAL Queen of Australia would be a conflict. Where the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill ousted Heather Hill of being a member of parliament upon the basis that she was having alliance to a foreign Queen, then as set out further in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT, the same applies to all other persons, including judicial officers, who by birth (including all those persons born within the Commonwealth of Australia) or by naturalization are in fact subjects of the British Crown. Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
10
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. Again; we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that.
15
20
25
30
The High Court of Australia deriving its judicial powers within the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) cannot go beyond what is embedded in the Constitution , hence the constitutional problem exist that judicial officers are constitutionally (by birth or naturalization) subjects of the British Crown but wrongly excluded by the Sue v Hill decision as being deemed to be by this having alliance to a foreign Monarch. END QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006. . QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006. Hansard 1-3-1898 Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power? Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right.
35
40
And; Mr. GORDON.Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised.
45
The Constitution does provide in certain Sections; Until the parliament otherwise provides But that must be understood in its proper context!
50 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. BARTON.If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament." Again; we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament." Therefore, whatever electoral provisions may be enacted by the Commonwealth of Australia, it remains subject to what the Framers of the Constitution intended. Mr King clearly failed to pursue this option, to have first matters placed before the Court to validate any legislation that was objected against! It is not the duty of the Magistrates Court of Victoria to sort out the legal mess created by the Federal Parliament as to what Mr King can or cannot do. The appropriate course would have been for Mr King, the informer, acting for the Australian Electoral Commission, to have pursued this before a competent court dealing with constitutional issues. It should have challenged the matter in the High Court of Australia against the Commonwealth of Australia to obtain a judicial ruling for this. END QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006. As such, political rights to vote or not to vote is upon the relevant person to determine. For sure when a person elects to vote he/she should follow proper conduct but if a person doesnt want to exercise his right to vote then that is the end of it! Section 245 of the CEA1918 therefore is in that regard also unconstitutional. . Seems to me, like it or not, that like it or not you would do better to engage me as a CONSTITUTIONAL advisor so finally the Commonwealth of Australia will get some appropriate advise regarding constitutional matters and I challenge any of those currently advising the Commonwealth of Australia to prove me wrong about the constitutional issues such as citizenship. You will find however they never will be able to do so as they themselves never really understood constitutional provisions and limitations in that regard but merely seemed to go by FICTION rather then by FACTS. . If just the Commonwealth of Australia instead of as I view it being arrogant had enlisted my assistance to address appropriately constitutional issues then a lot of problems could have been addressed rather then to escalate. The question is when will you finally take appropriate action before other do it for you? .
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)

Kevin Rudd Citizenship Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Kevin Rudd Citizenship Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 1

(For general comments on its implementation see http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR.C.21.Rev.1.Add.10,+CCPR+Gen )

50 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

You might also like