MR John Howard 1 Respondent: Inspector-Rikati® About The Black Hole in The Constitution-Dvd

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY
No. M
of 2003
ON THE MATTER of an Application for Writs of Prohibition and Certiorari and Mandamus against: RE; PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA, MR JOHN HOWARD 1ST RESPONDENT RE; MINISTER FOR DEFENCE SENATOR ROBERT HILL 2ND RESPONDENT RE; MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS MR PHILIP RUDDOCK 3RD RESPONDENT RE; AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER MR ANDREW BECKER 4TH RESPONDENT EX PARTE: GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA
APPLICANT (PROSECUTOR) DRAFT ORDER NISI Justice : DATE and PLACE of hearing; Date of orders ; Where made ;
Appearances
; GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA For the Applicant ; For the Respondent
This affidavit was filed by the Applicant GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA

This document was reproduced from INSPECTOR-RIKATI & There is no Government to go to war, A book on CD About Legal Issues Confronting Australia (0-9580569-5-1 to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-5-3 p1 22-3-2014
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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
-2-
Of: 107 Graham Road, Rosanna, In the State of Victoria, 3084 Phone number: 03 9457 7209 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. (A) The 1st and 2nd Respondents DO SHOW CAUSE WHY A WRIT OF PROHIBITION should not be issued out of this Court directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents NOT commence and/or continue with its conduct to engage in any military action against the sovereign nation named Iraq, without the approval/sanction of the UN (The United Nations), for the duration of these proceedings, unless having obtained an Order of this Court to do otherwise, or by consent of the parties. and WHY A WRIT OF MANDAMUS should not be issued out of this Court directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents that all military personal deployed for purposes of placing pressure upon the sovereign nation Iraq, are forthwith recalled to the Commonwealth of Australia. and WHY A WRIT OF MANDAMUS should not be issued out of this Court directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents not to engage in any military action/conduct against any other foreign nation, unless doing so upon a UN (United Nations) resolution, or in response of any direct attack by any military force aggressor upon the territories of the Commonwealth of Australia. and WHY A WRIT OF MANDAMUS should not be issued out of this Court directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents that all military personal deployed for purposes of placing pressure upon the sovereign nation Iraq, are forthwith recalled to the Commonwealth of Australia. and WHY A WRIT OF MANDAMUS should not be issued out of this Court directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents not to engage in any military action/conduct against any other foreign nation, unless doing so upon a UN (United Nations) resolution, or in response of any direct attack by any military force aggressor upon the territories of the Commonwealth of Australia. Upon the following grounds; (Not stated in any order of importance!) (i) That the 5 October 2001 dated Proclamation of the Governor-General in regard of the Prorogue of the Parliament and the dissolution of the House of Representatives was invalid/defective and/or null and void. That failing there being any duly and proper elected Member of Parliament for the 40th Parliament, there is valid 40th Parliament, there is no valid Federal Executive to advise the Governor-General, as to declare war or otherwise. Hence, no
(ii)

-3-
declaration of war can be issued. Neither is there a Minister of Defence duly and properly appointed. Nor is there a Prime Minister duly and properly appointed. (iii) The Applicant claims that the 1st and 2nd Respondent were not duly elected as Members of Parliament, and their appointment (about 11 December 2001) as Ministers of State expired upon the 3 month period, as provided for in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Section 64. That the 1st and 2nd Respondents were not duly appointed Ministers of State (Federal Executive) and neither being duly elected Members of Parliament, they have no position to then be head of Department of the Commonwealth and all and any of their decisions must be deemed nul and void. That the 10 November 2001 purported election was ULTRA VIRES, and as such, no Member of Parliament was then elected or re-elected and no Parliament exist. That the Applicant has experienced that the Respondents, each in their own right, have acted unreasonably, and unlawful at times, and has left the Applicant no alternative but to seek Orders Nisi this Honourable Court where they have failed/refused to address matters in a lawful and constitutional proper manner. That in view that the sitting Senators, who were not due for re-election, failed to attend to the Parliament for more then 2 months by Section 20 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, they are deemed to have vacated their seats.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii) That a war (so any military deployment and action) against the sovereign nation Iraq is not legal and without legal justification or legitimate. (ix) That the current military deployment is in breach of the intentions of the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill 1898, and unconstitutional That the current military deployment and possible war is in breach of the United Nations Charter and the United Nations Act 1945. In 1945, the federal parliament passed the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945, which, by section 3, approved the charter, the terms of which are set out in the schedule to the Act. The charter was thereby made part of the law of Australia. No military action against any foreign nation is legally legitimate or justified without a declaration of war, or in the alternative of such declaration of war, it being to protect the Commonwealth of Australia from an actual attack upon its soil and/or to assist other nations within the provisions of treaties to act in compliance to the provisions of the relevant treaty.
(x)
(xi)

-4-
(xii)
That the deployment of Australian troops under any treaty, is limited and can only be done to the extend that such treaty falls within the ambit of the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, and this being limited to peace, order and good government.
(xiii) That the 1st and 2nd Respondent are conducted a military deployment of Australian troops which is beyond the constitutional provisions for peace, order and good government, as are provided as constitutional limitations for the Federal Parliament to legislate and for the (Federal Executive) Government to act within. (xiv) That the Senate passed a motion against the Government to deploy troops, for a possible war against Iraq. As such, the Government fails to act with the approval of the Parliament, as is required. That the 1st and 2nd Respondent are conducted a military deployment of Australian troops which is beyond the constitutional provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, as by the intentions of the framers of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, that such Defence forces were only to be used for Defence purposes. That the deployment of Australian troops for an anticipated or possible war against Iraq is neither sanctioned by the United Nations, and is akin of an act of terrorism toward the civil population of Iraq.
(xv)
(xvi)
(xvii) That the 1st Respondent, has been declared by the President and Commander-inchief of armed forces of a foreign power to be a member of the alliance (of the willing), which disqualify the 1st Respondent to be a Member of Parliament. (xviii) That the 1st and 2nd Respondents are using Australian troops in such manner that causes undue tension with other nations, to the extent that the lives of Australians are place in jeopardy. (xix) That the current build-up of military by Australia, with or without troops of other nations, is a violation of the peace. That Australia would not have deployed its troops for a possible attack upon the sovereign nation Iraq, if it had to do so on its own, this then proving that the deployment of troops is not for the best interest of the Australian population, but that deployment is for the benefit of a foreign nation, being the USA. That the 1st and 2nd Respondents are bound to act within the legal provisions of the United Nations Charter, and cannot willy nilly seek to use the United Nations on the one hand to seek to justify military action of so a resolution provides for this, while on the other hand seek to bully other members of the United Nations to make a resolution for war. As the Respondents must be held confined to the limitations of the United Nations Charter.
(xx)
(xxi)

-5-
(xxii) That the 2nd Respondent made statement that the deployment of troops was to pressure the United Nations to sanction a military attack, which is unbecoming of being a member of the United Nations and improper usage of Australian Defence Forces. (xxiii) That there is no obvious eminent known attack upon Australia to justify a military deployment for a possible war against Iraq. (xxiv) That within the permissible number of troops as Defence force for the protection of Australia, the troops are required to protect Australia from any attack upon its shores, and as such, the troops being deployed for a possible war against Iraq, undermines the level of protection Australians, as a nation, are entitled upon. (xxv) That members of the Australian Defence Forces are unduly placed at risk of possible nuclear or other dangerous weapons being used by the USA and/or others. (xxvi) That members of the Australian Defence forces could risk criminal prosecutions where they participate in an unlawful invasion into the sovereign nation Iraq, and likely with the deaths of many civilians. (xxvii) That any engagement by Australian troops upon the sovereign nation Iraq, would result to civilian casualties, which to those civilians would amount to no less being a terrorist attack, then that which was experienced by Australians in Bali. (xxviii)There is no legal justification or legitimacy for Australia to either deploy Australian troops for any possible war against Iraq and/or to invade the foreign sovereign nation Iraq. (xxix) That the deployment of Australian troops already has caused considerable upheaval, in that not only have treats been made against Australia as a nation, so Australians, but the Commonwealth even went as far to distributing leaflets/booklets warning against terrorist attacks, etc, underlining that the conduct of the 1st Respondent (heading the Government) rather has already caused lives of Australians (including that of the Applicant) to be jeopardized. (xxx) Such further and other grounds as may be further presented by the applicant and/or are stated in the supportive material. (B) The 3rd Respondent DO SHOW CAUSE WHY A WRIT OF MANDAMUS should not be issued out of this Court directing tho the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondent that all persons known as refugees/asylum seekers are placed in detention only, where they have or are alleged to have committed a breach of Commonwealth law, for the Governor of the

-6-
applicable State prison system to determine the appropriate form of detention, if any, for those accused. and WHY A WRIT OF PROHIBITION should not be issued out of this Court directing that the 3rd Respondent shall refrain from defining/declaring or otherwise purporting to make out to grant Australian citizenship with naturalization. Upon the following grounds; (Not stated in any order of importance!) (i) That as in ground 1(A)(i), neither was the MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS duly and properly appointed. As ground 1(A)(ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (xxx). The Applicant was issued with a certificate of Australian Citizenship, which appears to be deceptive, in that it portray the Applicant to have obtained Australian citizenship by naturalization on 28 March 1994, where it was beyond the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth of Australia to grand such Australian citizenship. That the 3rd Respondent likewise uses the term non-citizen for the Migration Act unconstitutionally, and make assessments, which result to ongoing litigation at cost of taxpayers (which the Applicant also is) where such assessments are floored in using the basis of non-citizen. That the 1st and 2nd and 3rd Respondents have abused their positions as to unduly harm those seeking refuge in Australia, by suing also at times military force and other unconstitutional/unlawful conduct to force the said refugees/asylum seekers to be subjected to ad time inhumane conduct, including sending people by military force away in unseaworthy boats in breach of Australian and international law and other treaties. That the 3rd Respondent has unlawfully restrained refugees/asylum seekers of their liberty in breach of constitutional provisions. That the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is unconstitutional in regard of defining/declaring and/or granting State and/or Australian citizenship. That Australian citizenship can only be AUTOMATICALLY obtained by way of being granted State citizenship, by a State. The Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to define/declare or grant citizenship.
(ii) (iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)

-7-
(x)
That naturalization does not involve citizenship of any kind, but merely entitles a person to be free from any disability the Commonwealth may have provided for to the alien, as a condition of entering the Commonwealth of Australia, as to not being entitled to obtain citizenship. That Australian citizenship is the political rights of a person in the Commonwealth of Australia, equal to any other person in the same position, derived from being a State citizen, having obtained the political rights of any other citizen of that state in the same position, and is not within the powers of the Commonwealth to deny any person, for as long the person retains his/her State citizenship. The 3rd Respondent (so any person acting on his behalf) cannot make any assessment of asylum seekers upon grounds of religion, as it would offend Section 116, of the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution, for this must assess all aliens, upon an equal basis as to their live being in jeopardy (in the country they fled from), irrespective of the religion they may or may not practice. That the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution do not authorise the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Respondents, or those acting on their behalf, to enforce Commonwealth Law, in the manner this has been done, as the appropriate manner is that any person accused or convicted of any offences against Commonwealth law are handed over to the relevant State authority, as for the State to deal with these matters through the States Court and/or State prison system, as it may deem fit and proper. That the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill 1898 made clear that they didnt want the Commonwealth to have any powers to legislate a Crimes Act, or to enforce its own laws, as if the Commonwealth (so the Federal Parliament) were to enact laws that a State held was an act of tyranny, then the State could use JURY NULLIFICATION to refuse to convict any alleged offender whom was accused of breaching Commonwealth law. That the 3rd Respondent has been on record to claim that (refugees/asylum seekers) detainees had unlawfully escaped from detention and were in breach of law. By this indicating that the detainees were not, so to say, held by ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION but were in fact in DETENTION as being in imprisonment. That the 3rd Respondent unconstitutionally denies children born within the Commonwealth of Australia, its territorial waters and/or in a, so called, Pacific solution centre, of one or two alien parents, their Australian birth right in many cases, and deport such Australian born child unconstitutionally, causing them by this to become Stateless.
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(xiv)
(xv)
(xvi)

-8-
(xvii) THAT AS THE COMMONWEALTH HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS TO ENFORCE ITS OWN LAWS, THEN ANY PURPORTED PROCESSING IMPRISONMENT MUST BE DEEMED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS THE FEDERAL PARLIAMENT CANNOT ENACT LAWS TO SUMMARY INCARCERATE ANY PERSON UNDER WHATEVER TITLE IT MAY SEEK TO BESTOW UPON THE DETAINEES, WHERE NO SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE POWERS EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE. (xviii) That in Victoria the Magna Carta is part of Victorian law, and on that basis, it is unlawful for the Commonwealth to hold people in Maribyrnong Detention Centre without due process of law. The Applicant residing in a Melbourne suburb is concerned as to the unconstitutional conduct to keep people within the State of Victoria. (xix) That the 3rd Respondent charged DETAINEES fees for staying at detention centres, even so those detainees were unlawfully denied their liberty. The Applicant residing in the State of Victoria therefore seeks Victorian laws to be adhered to as per Section 118 of the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution. That the 3rd Respondent, by using the Australian Federal Police unconstitutionally had two boys removed from the State of Victoria, without extradition order, and caused them to be placed again in Woomera Detention Centre unlawfully. The Applicant residing in the State of Victoria therefore seeks Victorian laws to be adhered to as per Section 118 of the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution. That the 3rd Respondent uses the unconstitutional Australian Citizenship Act 1948, to determine if any refugee/asylum seeker is a non-citizen, even so the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to declare/define or to grand Australian citizenship. By this all and any assessment of refugees/asylum seekers are defective and null and void.
(xx)
(xxi)
(xxii) That the 3rd Respondent in breach of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, has confined children within detention centres in facilities that are inhumane and highly inappropriate for children of the relevant ages. (xxiii) That the framers of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution made clear that the commonwealth had the powers to provide such disabilities as it deemed fit to control aliens entering Australia, including to limit their access to State citizenship. However, once a person obtained citizenship of a State then the Commonwealth no longer could interfere with the rights of that alien to remain in the relevant State. Being that State citizenship has got nothing to do with naturalisation. (xxiv) That the 3rd Respondent appears to wanting to deport Timourees, who were on visas in Australia, albeit some of them have resided within Australia for about 10 years, have children born in Australia, and by this have assimilated within

-9-
Australia, and for this their legal states must be deemed to be subject to the rights and interest and wellbeing of their Australian born children. (xxv) That the Respondent has used tactics to use money and other tactics to persuaded refugees/asylum seekers to give in on their demands and to leave the detention area to be transported to another country, which could be held to be to deny the refugee/asylum seeker their rights as governed by Refugees treaty and other principle of laws. (xxvi) That as a naturalized Australian, I consider it horrible and akin of concentration camp treatment that is being bestowed upon refugees/asylum seekers damaging the reputation of Australia uncalled for. (xxvii) That the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondent unlawfully kept refugees/asylum seekers on board of unseaworthy boats and other facilities, without lawful excuse. (xxviii) That the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondent placed the lives of refugees/asylum seekers unduly in jeopardy, indeed with the result of some and/or many having drowned. (xxix) That there was a failure by the Commonwealth to provide any refugee/asylum seeker who was forced to leave Australia waters with appropriate safety equipment and/or other safety facilities for them to make a safe journey. (xxx) That the Australian Federal Police was engaged in conduct that were unlawful for so far it was to unlawfully interfere with the travelling arrangements of refugees/asylum seekers, which included payments to people, to act on its behalf, outside the Commonwealth of Australia. (xxxi) That the 2nd Respondent failed to provide appropriate assistance to refugees/asylum seekers of the boat known as SIEV X, as required by law and other maritime provisions. (xxxii) That the 1st Defendant prevented various people to appear before the Senate inquiry as to, so to say, get to the bottom of why some 353 people, including 146 children, on the boat known as SIEV X were left to perish, and for this has left question marks as to the conduct of the 1st Defendant and so also the armed forces, if the drowning was a deliberate act to withhold rescue services. (xxxiii) That the 1st Respondent was guilty of conduct unbecoming of a Minister of State, as to persist in Children overboard allegations, even so he knew or ought to have known that those allegations were false and misleading. (xxxiv) That the 2nd Respondent (for his predecessor) through staff caused to misled the general public by the usage of photos purporting to be of children overboard claims despite that it was known or ought to have been known to the Respondent that those malicious claims were false.

- 10 -
(xxxv) That the Commonwealth detention centres, or any other detention centre, on behalf of the Commonwealth, in the so called Pacific solution, are unconstitutional. (xxxvi) That on a television program SBS Dateline on 29 January 2003 the 3rd Defendant claimed that detainees were not strictly detained, but for processing and removal. Despite this, reports suggest that there is even cavity searches done upon detainees, they are also handcuffed, and denied appropriate medical attention. Which indicates the 3rd Respondent is playing with words, while in reality conducting their denial of liberty, as if they are in some kind of extermination concentration camp. (xxxvii) That the general conduct of the 3rd Respondent such as to is one to as to make known on national television that a woman Fatima Erfani was being provided with the best medical care in the Detention Centre. Thereafter, however, Fatima Erfani (Age 28) died on Sunday 19 January 2003 at 10.30 am at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Western Australia, amid claims she had been denied appropriate medical treatment. (xxxviii) That the placement of refugees/asylum seekers in the so called Pacific solution, is unconstitutional. (xxxix) That the usage of razor wire and electronic fences, not being used for all convicted criminals, in regard of those refugees/asylum seekers held for assessment is a denial of equal treatment, and in breach of common law rights, Bill of Rights and Magna Carta provisions, and contrary to the intentions of the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill 1898. (xl) That the usage of any private company guards and or Australian Federal Police to keep any refugee/asylum seeker in detention is unconstitutional. That the Australian Federal Police wrongfully withheld Mr Baktiari from lawful custody of his 2 sons, in Melbourne. That the conduct of the Commonwealth to exercise islands of the Commonwealth of Australia to prevent refugees/asylum seekers from being able to claim refugee/asylum status, is tantamount to an undue and improper obstruction to make an application, and as such must be deemed to be construed that the Commonwealth Abandoned any application requirement.
(xli)
(xlii)
(xliii) That the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to deal with children born within the Commonwealth of Australia in regard of the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Sections 51 (xix), (xxvi), (xxvii), as the framers made it specifically clear that its powers would be limited to those aliens who would come into the country. A child born within Australia is not

- 11 -
for those purposes within the constitutional provisions naturalization and aliens and/or emigration and immigration and/or the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws, as such the 3rd Respondent is unconstitutionally holding children and so deprive them of their liberty, even so they are born Australians. (xliv) The Commonwealth by the provisions of Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Sections 51 (xix), (xxvi), (xxvii), cannot deport a person where the person is a parent of an Australian born child and such deportation would be in conflict of the rights of the Australian born child, specifically where within the ambit of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution that provides for parental rights. (xlv) That the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to exercise any part of the Commonwealth for migration purposes, this as the framers provided Section 51(xxvii) for the whole of the Commonwealth, including its territorial waters, and the Commonwealth can therefore not diminish the application of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. For this it neither can purportedly limit the application of law and/or legal requirements.
(xlvi) That for purpose of inhabitants residing on any island, purportedly excised from the migration zone, it would be a denial of the rights of those inhabitants being denied excluded by such excise. (xlvii) That the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is unconstitutional, in that it is not a law that is a special law relating to a specific alien coloured race, but rather is against the general community! (xlviii) That the placement of any refugee/asylum seeker in a prison facility of Nauru, while having been held in detention under commonwealth request, is contrary to the provisions of Section 120 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. (xlix) That the Australian Federal Police and ASIO unconstitutionally invaded the State territories, to invade peoples home, as it was not in regard of enforcement of Section 119 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. (l) That the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to enact any laws relating to a race, which is not specific to a particular alien coloured race, and sets out the grounds of such legislation. That the 1967 amendment of Section 51(xxvi) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution did not alter the application of this subsection, as Australian born Aboriginals are not of an alien coloured race, and therefore, any laws pertaining Aboriginals within Section 51(xxvi) can only deal with Aboriginals whom are of alien coloured race from another nation, not being Australians.
(li)

- 12 -
(lii)
That at Federation Australian born Aboriginals were held to be State citizens, and became Australian citizen and their elector rights in a State was protected upon Federation by Section 41 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. This section, was and remained valid, despite incorrect past High Court of Australia judgments to portray otherwise. Section 30 of the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution is and remains subject to Section 41, as the framers indicated was their intentions. As ground 1(A)(vi), and (xxx)
(liii)
(C) The 1st and 4th Respondents DO SHOW CAUSE WHY A WRIT OF MANDAMUS should not be issued out of this Court directing the 1st Respondent (for this officers acting on his behalf) shall cause to publish all and any Gazette, by whatever name, to be actually published and available for sale to the public, on the date shown on the face of the relevant Gazette, in all capital cities of each State and Territory, of the Commonwealth of Australia, simultaneously. and WHY A WRIT OF PROHIBITION should not be issued out of this Court directing that the 4th Respondent that no person shall be allowed to be and remain to be an elector for the Federal elections of the Commonwealth, unless such person is a State elector, and has obtained State citizenship. and WHY A WRIT OF PROHIBITION should not be issued out of this Court that the 4th Respondent shall not deny any person enrolled as a State elector on the relevant State electoral roll, at the time of the issue of the writs of a federal election, or such additional time as the State may legislate for to enable a person still to enrol, for the purpose of voting in a federal election, nor cause the said elector to be subjected to any form of qualification to be able to vote. and WHY A WRIT OF MANDAMUS should not be issued out of this Court directing that the 4th Respondent shall conduct a federal election for both the House of Representatives and the Senate, in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution and legislative provisions of the Relevant State as to time and place, to replace the purported 10 November 2001 Federal election held. and WHY A WRIT OF PROHIBITION should not be issued out of this Court that the 4th Respondent, so any person acting on its behalf) shall not cause any State elector to be subjected to any form of qualification to be able to exercise his/her rights to vote, other then that is within the provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution. and WHY A WRIT OF PROHIBITION should not be issued out of this Court that the 4th Respondent shall not enrol any person on a Commonwealth electoral roll or otherwise allow any person to be an elector in

- 13 -
Commonwealth elections, unless the person first has obtained enrolment on a State electoral roll. Upon the following grounds; (Not stated in any order of importance!) (i) (ii) As the grounds of 1(A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (xxx) That the 1st and 4th Respondents failed to correct matters, when advised by the Applicant of the errors in the writs that were issued. That the 1st and 4th Respondent persisted in holding a purported 10 November 2001 Federal election knowing or ought to have known that it was not a valid election. That the validity of a Proclamation is not upon the date is it signed, but depends upon the date that it is actually published, both in the Seat of the Federal Parliament, as well as, in each seat of a State/Territory Parliament, to which the proclamation relates. That a Proclamation for the Prorogue of the Parliament and/or the Dissolution of the House of Representatives and/or Double Dissolution must be published prior to the event to occur to be a valid and effective Proclamation. That despite the defective Proclamation dated 5 October being actually published too late, after thee writs already had been issued, no subsequent proclamation was issued to seek to correct the Defective Proclamation. The Applicant claims that the Proclamation dated 5 October 2001 for the Prorogue of the Parliament and the dissolution of the House of Representatives was not actually published until 9 October 2001 in Canberra, and there after only in some States, Victoria on 10 October 2001, Tasmania on 22 October 2001, and by this in the Proclamation was defective and null and void.
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii) That the purported 10 November 2001 (Federal) general election and the Senate elections were unconstitutional/defective and null and void. (ix) That all Senators purportedly elected as successful candidates at the election, held simultaneously with the purported 10 November 2001 general election, were not duly and properly elected, in that the writs were defective, and not in accordance to the relevant State legislative provisions, governing Senate elections. That the Commonwealth fails to have its official documents, such as on the Government Notices Gazette and Special Gazette, printed and shown to be printed by the Government Printer, and by this cannot rely upon the provisions of the Act Interpretation Act 1901 in regard of Government Printer. As such, the Proclamation was not published in a appropriate form, being a Gazette printed by
(x)

- 14 -
the government Printers, and as such, Section 6 of the Act Interpretation Act 1901 does not apply. (xi) That the Applicant was a candidate in the seat of JAGAJAGA, Victoria for the House of Representatives. The Applicant claims that the issue of the writs by the Governor-General, on 8 October 2001, was at a time when no actual vacancies existed, in view that the Proclamation had not been published until later, and also were the product of false and misleading claims by the then Prime Minister Mr John Howard and the Australian Electoral Commission, casing the Governor-General to sign the writs, using the term according to law, unaware that the Governor-General was deceived to sign writs, prepared by the Australian Electoral Commission in breach of legal provisions, by this each and every writ was defective/nul and void.
(xii)
(xiii) The Applicant claims that the 1st Respondent by giving incorrect advise to the Governor-General as to the appropriate lawful election time table, by this also caused, directly/indirectly the Governors of each State to be misled to sign writs using the term according to law which in fact were in conflict to relevant laws. (xiv) That the 4th Respondent made known to the applicant that he could resort to seek legal redress in the Federal Court of Australia, only for the 4th Respondent (by way of Mr Peter Hanks QC) concealing from the Court relevant details, making false and misleading statements and deceiving the Court as to the true application of the legal remedy applicable. That the 4th Respondent has closed the offices of the Australian Electoral Commission, during periods where the relevant act stipulates Shall not be less than . days, by this having denied people entitled to be candidates or people entitled to be enrolled to have access during that period. That the 4th Respondent prepared writs for the Governor-General he knew or ought to have known were false and misleading and not in accordance with the legal requirement of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, such as Section 155, 156, 157, 158
(xv)
(xvi)
(xvii) That the 4th Respondent published incorrect election time table details on its website, in Candidate handbooks, etc. causing by this, directly or indirectly, to misled the 1st Respondent and others as to the true application of electoral laws. (xviii) That the 4th Respondent failed to hold elections for the House of Representatives in accordance to relevant laws. (xix) That the 4th Respondent failed to conduct any and/or all Senate election as to the constitutional and legal applicable requirements.

- 15 -
(xx)
That Section 93 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is unconstitutional in that it relates to a person being denied enrolment in certain circumstances, where no such constitutional powers exist for the Commonwealth to do so. That Section 94, 94A & 95 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is unconstitutional, for so far it provides electoral enrolment for Federal elections, without the person first being a State elector.
(xxi)
(xxii) That Section 155 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is unconstitutional, as it requires a person to enrol whereas this conflicts with the guarantee of Section 41 that an adult elector of a State has a right to vote. (xxiii) That various other Sections of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 offends the intention of the framers, in that only by having the political right of being a voter in a State election, a person can obtain political rights to vote in Federal elections. (xxiv) That the shall not be less than number of days must be calculated from the conclusion of the day on which the relevant Section refers to, until the conclusion of the last day of the shall not be less number of days referred to. (xxv) That none of the writs in regard to the election periods of nominations for the House of Representatives were according to the provisions of Section 156 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. (xxvi) That none of the writs in regard to the election periods of nominations for the Senate, as applicable by the relevant legislative provisions for Senate elections, by State or Commonwealth legislation, were complied with setting out the appropriate period. (xxvii) That none of the writs for the House of Representatives had the appropriate date of polling as required by Section 157 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. (xxviii)That none of the writs issued by the Governor-General or by each Governor of a State had the appropriate polling date as was applicable by the relevant legislative provisions. (xxix) That the Commonwealth Electoral Commission refused electors to be candidates, at or after 12 noon on 18 October 2001, this even so by the relevant State Senate electoral Acts such elector was still entitled to lodge a nomination. (xxx) That the Commonwealth Electoral Commission refuses a elector to vote in each election held as the elector desires, but forces an elector to vote in both Senate and House of Representative election at the same time, by this unduly and improperly interfering with the rights of an elector.

- 16 -
(xxxi) That the Australian Electoral Commission by way of marking the attendance of an elector to a polling station, records an elector for voting in both Senate and House of representative election, rather then to allow the elector to vote for the one poll to his choice, if the elector desires to do so. (xxxii) That the Australian Electoral Commission despite the 7 November 2001 Federal Court of Australia proceedings failed to correct any or all of its false and misleading publications and has continued to publish such false and misleading details. (xxxiii)That the Governors were all misled by the 1st and/or the 4th Respondent directly or indirectly as to the true application of the relevant election timetable regarding the election of Senators for each particular State. (xxxiv) That the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants by virtue of Section 38 vacated their seats where they failed to attend for more then 2 months, after the defective proclamation was published. (xxxv) That Mr Peter Hanks QC for the 1st and 4th Respondents) withheld from Marshall J on 7 November 2001 that in fact the Australian Government Solicitors had accepted service of the then 1st Respondents (being the Governor-General and all Governors) but had failed to advise the each Governor of this and also omitted to state that they had not obtained any instructions from the Governor-General.
(xxxvi) That none of the purported successful candidate of the 10 November 2001 Federal election were appropriate elected and for this their appointment as Members of Parliament was floored. (xxxvii) That the Governor-General has no constitutional powers to appoint/swear in any person, not being duly and properly elected, to be a Member of Parliament. (xxxviii) That Marshall J erred in law as to hold that the applicant sought to challenge the election, where transcript of the 2 November 2001 hearing proves that the applicant challenged all along the validity of the writs. (xxxix) That Marshall J erred that the Court of Disputed Returns was the appropriate Court venue, this as the Court of Disputed Returns has no legal jurisdiction to deal with a challenge of a general election. (xl) That the High Court of Australia, by hearing the case DE NOVO, could use the case then to still order the re-issue of writs as if the 10 November 2001 purported election never had occurred. That the 1st and 4th Respondent (through their various Departments) unduly obstructed the release of details/information, when so requested within the
(xli)

- 17 -
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT provisions or otherwise, by this directly and/or indirectly seeking to conceal the truth, both from the Applicant and the Courts. (xlii) That the 4th Respondents having failed/refused to provide the Applicant with details/information then before the JSCEM (Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters) disclosed details/information that were vital to the litigation on foot before the High Court of Australia as appeal M114 of 2001, such as, the process of the issue of writs, having been prepared by the Australian Electoral Commission upon a mere press release, not upon appropriate lawful processes and legislated provisions as set out in Section 155, 156 and 157 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and/or other relevant legal provisions. (xliii) That the Applicant appeared on 12 August 2001 before the JSCEM, who refused to deal with matters pending litigation of Appeal M114 of 2001 before the high Court of Australia, by this, it basically is a ruling that the parliament does not invoke Section 47 to deal with a dispute of validity of a general election, that cannot be heard before a Court of disputed Return. (xliv) That as the Applicant disputes the validity of all writs, both Senate and House of Representatives the matter is beyond the powers of the Court of Disputed Returns to deal with. (xlv) That the 4th Respondent (so the Australian Electoral Commission) acted without legal authority to hold an election in breach of legislative provisions.
(xlvi) That the issue of defective writs, upon the incorrect advise of the 4th Respondent (directly or indirectly giving such advise), do not override the constitutional and/or other legal requirements of any relevant legislative provisions in regard to what in each case is the appropriate timetable to hold a certain election, and as such cannot be deemed to give the 4th Respondent legal powers, contrary to or in addition to the strict legal provisions as set out in the relevant legal provisions as applicable. (xlvii) That the 1st and 4th Respondent failed in their duty to place before the Federal Court of Australia on 7 November 2001, the relevant facts that Senate elections (in regard of the States), such as in Victoria are not governed by Section 155, 156 and 157 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 but are by Section 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution governed by each relevant State legislation, by which in Victoria shall not be less than 11 days applies, in regard of closure of nominations. (xlviii) That the demand for INDEPENDENT candidates (not being elected Members of Parliament) to have to obtain 50 signatures for nomination, where as others a mere 1 (if Member of a political party) is in defiance of the intentions of the

- 18 -
framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill 1898, that elections ought to be fair and proper. (xlix) That Section (xxxvii) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution does not permit to refer legislative powers of any State to the Commonwealth without a successful Section 128 referendum. (l) That the (purported) Australian Act is not a valid Commonwealth law, in that it was not a law that was within the legislative powers of each State, upon its own as an identity, and neither has been approved by way of Section 128 Referendum as the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill made clear was needed, to have not just the Commonwealth, but also the people accept such reference of legislative powers approved. That the (purported) Australian Act is in conflict to the intentions of the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill 1898 and is ULTRA VIRES. That the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill 1898, made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution would not give any legislative powers for the Commonwealth to alter the position with that of the Crown. Hence, the Australian Act is unconstitutional, so ULTRA VIRES. That the Applicant was entitled to rely upon the intentions of the framers of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, that a person aggrieved about election process issues can seek redress from the Courts prior to the election actually taking place, as the Applicant sought by was of injunction before the Federal Court of Australia on 2 and 7 November 2001.
(li)
(lii)
(liii)
2. A copy of this order nisi and all affidavit and exhibits be served upon the Respondents within seven days of the date hereof by leaving copies with the Australian Government Solicitors office in MELBOURNE
Deputy Registrar


MR John Howard 1 Respondent: Inspector-Rikati® About The Black Hole in The Constitution-Dvd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

MR John Howard 1 Respondent: Inspector-Rikati® About The Black Hole in The Constitution-Dvd

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MR John Howard 1 Respondent: Inspector-Rikati® About The Black Hole in The Constitution-Dvd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY

; GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA For the Applicant ; For the Respondent

This affidavit was filed by the Applicant GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

You might also like