091225-Kevin Rudd PM - Oath of Allegiance

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Kevin Rudd PM 25-12-2009

C/o R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au
5 .
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
. Re: Oath of allegiance - etc
Kevin,
I understood that way back in the late 1940’s the British Parliament held that Australians are
10 “foreigners” and then the commonwealth of Australia started to legislate as to
nationality/citizenship as being Australian citizenship. Just that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST,
and considering what I already previously wrote to you am wondering when was a referendum
held successfully to provide the Commonwealth of Australia the legislative powers it was
specifically denied by the Framers of the Constitution and so at the time by the people of the
15 colonies that voted to accept the constitution?
As the British courts themselves have made clear in their judgments that a constitution act (such
as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) can only be amended I by way
of a proposed amendments to the constitution and not by an ordinary act. Hence, unless the
Constitution was amended by approval of the electors within the provisions of s128 of the
20 constitution it seems to me that as Barton stated;
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
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.
25 END QUOTE
.
Below I will quote some other relevant statements in regard of the true meaning of “Australian
citizenship” and it has nothing to do with “nationality” as well as that as I indicated in my
previous correspondence (such as dated 24-12-2009) that one can’t allow to twist the meaning of
30 the constitution as to infringe upon it. No one is above the constitution.
.
In 2000 I applied for a passport and as yet still have not received a passport that shows that I am
a British subject. I did receive some document purporting Australia nationality but that obviously
has no constitutional validity and I did request to have a proper passport issued and I am still
35 awaiting for a response.
.
The problem with an “alien” as I was at the time coming into the Commonwealth of Australia in
1971 was that I simply had to learn the English language and it just means I had to do it on my
own and trying to work out the meaning of words, etc. Because of this I seem to have a different
40 perception of what is constitutionally appropriate, because I am not so to say brainwashed to
belief in gospel but rather seeks to discover what is reality and what is fiction.
.
Because the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill made clear that Heather Hill was a foreigner
being a subject of the British Crown, then obviously I take the view that as all Australians, born
45 or naturalized are therefore subjects of the British Crown we simply do not have anyone eligible
p1 25-12-2009
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
to be a federal Member of Parliament. Hence the reasons of my request about what oaths every
Member of Parliament made!
.
QUOTE 20-12-2009 reply
5 Australian Government
Attorney-General’s Department
08/14534, MC09/20998
10 20 December 2009-12-24
Mr G H Schorel-Hlavka
107 Graham Road
15 VIEWBANK VIC 3084
Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
I refer to your email of 2 November 2009 to the Prime Minister, forwarded to the Attorney-
20 General, regarding the oaths and affirmations of office sworn by ministers in the Australian
Government. I have been asked to reply to your correspondence.
.
All members of the Commonwealth Parliament are required to subscribe the oath or
affirmation of allegiance to the Queen of Australia set out in the Schedule to the Australian
25 constitution. That is required by section 42 of the Constitution. Oaths and affirmations of
office sworn, in addition, by ministers are not, so far as I am aware, expressed in terms of
allegiance to the Prime Minister (or any other minister). Rather, each minister (including the
Prime Minister), gives a commitment in terms of the particular office he or she holds (for
example, the office of the prime minister, or the office of the Attorney-General, etc).
30
I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
35 James Faulkner PSM

Assistant Secretary
Constitutional Policy Unit.
END QUOTE 20-12-2009 reply
.
40 It seems to me that if current federal Members of Parliament made an oath to the Queen of
Australia then none of them are entitled to be in the Federal Parliament because this is under the
British Crown. The reason we have a constitution is so that politicians in parliament are being
told they have only those legislative powers actually provided to them and they may fancy to
have more but they cannot have it as to do otherwise they are no less TERRORIST then those
45 who are robbing people of their rights otherwise.
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Yes. The Queen is the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army.
50 She has the sole power of making peace and war. According to constitutional
p2 25-12-2009
assumption it is her army. But who exercises the control of the Imperial Army? Is it
not the adviser of the Queen? Would there not, as I said before, be a revolution if the
Queen exercised her powers without consulting her Ministers?
END QUOTE
5 .
Lets be honest, the Framers of the Constitution wouldn’t have bothered to create a constitution
and refer to the imperial army and use other imperial references if it was not relevant. So, the
truth is we are “subjects of the British Crown” and will always remain so unless this is
constitutionally in a proper manner amended. Sure we may have ample of so to say zombies
10 running around pretending that it is differently, but we must always keep in mind that either we
have or we don’t have a constitution but it isn’t going to be a constitution on the terms of
politicians1
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
15 QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education
question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the
Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because
we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy
20 for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no
one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the
Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies
may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the
25 people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal
has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a
few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE
.
30 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
35 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended
there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going
to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is
40 expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
"Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
45 .
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
50 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
p3 25-12-2009
shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any
private person would be.
END QUOTE
.
5 As such you and fellow ministers may continue to disregard matters but let I make it very clear
that the only legitimate powers you and others can exercise is that which was stated by Barton as
follows:
.
10 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
15 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
20 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
25 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
30 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
35 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
40 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
45 bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this
kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions,
then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so
whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people
will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here,
50 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
p4 25-12-2009
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
5 .
And as they also stated;
.
QUOTE
10 Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection
of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE
.
15 QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable
member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to
point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid
if they had another motive.
20 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
25 Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this
case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform
to it.
END QUOTE
.
30 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
35 And
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental
to a power given.
40 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
45 END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
the National Australasian Convention)
50 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
p5 25-12-2009
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
5 Hence, I seek you to show where in the constitution was any legislative powers listed for the
Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare citizenship?
.
QUOTE
10 Dr. QUICK.-I am disposed to think that there ought to be something in the nature of a
definition in the Constitution. In my mind, a reasonably approximate definition would be
that which I have drafted, to the effect that all persons resident in the Commonwealth,
being natural-born or naturalized subjects of the Queen, and not under any disability
imposed by the Federal Parliament, should be citizens of the Commonwealth. That is not a
15 complete definition, it is only an approximation of what I consider a definition. The
conditions of citizenship seem to me to be that the citizen shall be either a natural-born or
naturalized subject of Her Majesty the Queen, and resident within the Commonwealth, and
that he shall not be under any disability imposed by the Federal Parliament.
END QUOTE
20 And
QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
Therefore, it is desirable that the Constitution should define the class of persons for whom
these rights and privileges would be gained. By placing in the Constitution a definition of
citizenship, or by providing for its creation, we do not interfere with the citizenship of the
25 states, which I propose to leave exclusively within the jurisdiction of the states themselves,
nor do we interfere with that wider relationship which affects us all as subjects of Her
Majesty and members of the great British Empire. We are affected by this relationship by
virtue of our position as British subjects.
END QUOTE
30 And
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.
35 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,
40 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
45 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,
p6 25-12-2009
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
5 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?
10 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,
15 and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over
our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the
amendment will not be accepted.
END QUOTE
And
20 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but the term has since disappeared, and it disappeared owing to
objections from members of the Convention. I am inclined to think that the Convention is
right in not applying [start page 1765] the term "citizens" to subjects residing in the
Commonwealth or in the states, but in leaving them to their ordinary definition as subjects
25 of the Crown. If, however, we make an amendment of this character, inasmuch as citizens
of the state must be citizens of the Commonwealth by the very terms of the Constitution,
we shall simply be enabling the Commonwealth to deal with the political rights of the
citizens of the states. The one thing follows from the other. If you once admit that a
citizen or subject of the state is a citizen or subject of the Commonwealth, the power
30 conferred in these wide terms would enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the
political rights of subjects of the states. I do not think the honorable member intends
to go so far as that, but his amendment is open to that misconception.
END QUOTE
And
35 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-If the honorable member's exclamation means more than I have
explained, then the best thing to do is to confide to the Commonwealth the right of dealing
with the lives, liberty, and property of all the persons residing in the Commonwealth,
independently of any law of any state. That is not intended, but that is what the expression
40 "Trust the Federal Parliament" would mean unless it was limited by the consideration I
have laid down. I am sure Dr. Quick will see that he is using a word that has not a
definition in English constitutional law, and which is not otherwise defined in this
Constitution. He will be giving to the Commonwealth Parliament a power, not only of
dealing with the rights of citizenship, but of defining those rights even within the very
45 narrowest limits, so that the citizenship of a state might be worth nothing; or of
extending them in one direction, and narrowing them in another, so that a subject
living in one of the states would scarcely know whether he was on his head or his
heels. Under the Constitution we give subjects political rights to enable the Parliament to
legislate with regard to the suffrage, and pending that legislation we give the qualification
p7 25-12-2009
of electors. It is that qualification of electors which is really the sum and substance of
political liberty, and we have defined that. 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
5 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."
Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and in doing that we give them power to make persons subjects of
10 the British Empire. Have we not done enough? We allow them to naturalize aliens. That
is a power which, with the consent of the Imperial authority, has been carried into
legislation by the various colonies, and, of course, we cannot do less for the
Commonwealth than we have done for the colonies.
Mr. KINGSTON.-Such legislation is only good within the limits of each state.
15 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual
right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and
protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the states. It must be
recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not
among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page
20 1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states. We
do not propose to interfere with them in this Constitution.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
25 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
30 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. I see
therefore nothing unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British subjects, in
35 proposing to place power in this Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament to deal with
the question of federal citizenship. An objection has been raised in various quarters-as by
the honorable and learned members (Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Wise)-to the effect that we
ought to define federal citizenship in the Constitution itself.
END QUOTE
40 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
45 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
p8 25-12-2009
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
5 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.
Question-That the proposed new sub-section (31A) be inserted-put.
10 The committee divided-
Ayes ... ... ... 15
Noes ... ... ... 21
Majority against Dr. Quick's
amendment ... ... 6

15
END QUOTE
.
Did you notice that the amendment of Dr Quick was defeated to have the Commonwealth being
granted legislative powers as to define/declare citizenship?
20 Now, I am well aware that you have been traveling the world as to try to achieve perhaps
grandeur things such as the ETS (for which there is no constitutional powers – if this interest
you?) but really wouldn’t it be better if instead you had bothered to check what really the
constitution stands for as now it seems to me that we do not have a single validly appointed
federal Member of Parliament.
25 .
As author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and other
legal issues I have canvassed extensively numerous other constitutional issues and when they
were raised in the 5-year epic legal battle between the Commonwealth of Australia and myself,
including a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS) then the Commonwealth lawyers
30 and neither the state Attorney-Generals opposed any of my numerous submissions about
constitutional issues and the court on 19 July 2006 unreservedly upheld both my cases. As such, I
took the matters to the courts and succeeded to comprehensively defeat the Commonwealth on
each and every constitutional issue. Hence, more then three years on and a total ignorance as to
the purported federal government seeking to resolve matters appropriately and having failed to
35 contact me for this purpose it is therefore clear to me that there will be no attempts made to do
so.
As I understand it the constitution does provided for;
QUOTE
An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of
40 Australia
[9th July 1900]
WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia,
Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God,
have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the
45 Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the
Constitution hereby established:
p9 25-12-2009
END QUOTE
.
The problem with this is that if there are no validly appointed federal Members of Parliament
then there can be no federation! Remember the Woods case?
5 What we therefore have is that we have a pretended federation that is no more.
.
QUOTE
107 Saving of Power of State Parliaments
Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become or
10 becomes a State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution exclusively
vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from
the Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the
Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the
State, as the case may be.
15
108 Saving of State laws
Every law in force in a Colony which has become or becomes a
State, and relating to any matter within the powers of the
Parliament of the Commonwealth, shall, subject to this
20 Constitution, continue in force in the State; and, until provision is
made in that behalf by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, the
Parliament of the State shall have such powers of alteration and of
repeal in respect of any such law as the Parliament of the Colony
had until the Colony became a State.
25
109 Inconsistency of laws
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the
Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the
extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
30 END QUOTE
.
As far as I understand it Commonwealth legislation is not legally enforceable unless and until it
received royal assent and is gazetted. The problem is that when Isaacs was appointed as
Governor-General the very legal link to validate proposed laws passed by the federal Parliament
35 no longer were validly assented to. I will not bother setting this all out in this correspondence
because I have already done so extensively in my published books.
It means that s109 no longer applies to any purported legislation since 19030, including taxation
provisions.What has been achieved is to create a so to say BANANA REPUBLIC where the
RULE OF LAW really doesn’t exist. You have achieved to be prime banana of the so-called
40 BANANA REPUBLIC!
So to say the Framers of the Constitution would turn in their graves if they knew what you were
doing to their constitution!
All you, and others likewise, are ensuring is that perhaps sooner then later there will be a
VELVET REVOLUTION that people will take no more and demand that their constitutional
45 rights are appropriately provided for, as after all the constitution belongs to them!
There are (purported) Members of Parliament which were born before this whole “foreigner”
nonsense commenced and there can be no doubt that they were then recognized as being British
subjects and somehow despite this they sit in the federal parliament even so Heather Hill
likewise having the same birthright was kicked out by the High Court of Australia for being
50 ineligible to be a member of parliament. Then ask yourself when did the others naturalize? Or
did they never but merely ASSUMED they had somehow naturalized to a queen of the toilet or
whatever because Australia is not a country but a landmass and constitutionally is;
p10 25-12-2009
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
5 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended
there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going
10 to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is
expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
"Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
15 END QUOTE
.
As such, if there is no monarchy there can be no “Queen of Australia”.
If the title of “Queen of Australia” really means the British Crown then Heather Hill clearly was
qualified to be a Member of Parliament.
20 So, make up your mind which way it is! Again consider Calvin’s case 7 coke Report 1a, 77 ER
377 (1608), which I view sets it out considerably.
QUOTE
4. And as to the fourth, it is less than a dream of a shadow, or a shadow of a dream: for it
hath been often said, natural legitimation respecteth actual obedience to the sovereign at
25 the time of the birth; for as the antenati remain aliens as to the Crown of England, because
they were born when there were several Kings of the several kingdoms, and the [7-Coke-27
b] uniting of the kingdoms by descent subsequent cannot make him a subject to that Crown
to which he was alien at the time of his birth: so albeit the kingdoms (which Almighty God
of his infinite goodness and mercy divert) should by descent be divided, and governed by
30 several Kings; yet it was resolved, that all those that were born under one natural
obedience while the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural
born subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright,
cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by
judgment of law a natural subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a
35 matter ex post facto.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
3. Where the King hath several kingdoms by several titles and descents, there also are the
40 ligeances several: but the King hath these two kingdoms by several titles and descents;
therefore the ligeances are several. These three arguments are collected also from the
words of the plea before remembered.
3. Leges. From the several and distinct laws of either kingdom, they did reason thus:
1. Every subject that is born out of the extent and reach of the laws of England,
45 cannot by judgment of those laws be a natural subject to the King, in respect of his
kingdom of England: but the plaintiff was born at Edinburgh, out of the extent and
reach of the laws of England; therefore the plaintiff by the judgment of the laws of
England cannot be a natural subject to the' King, as of his kingdom of England.
END QUOTE
50 And
QUOTE
p11 25-12-2009
By all which it is manifest, that the protection and government of the King is general over
all his dominions and kingdoms, as well in time of peace by justice, as in time of war by
the sword, and that all be at his command, and under his obedience.
END QUOTE
5 And
QUOTE
3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1.
That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his
birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be
10 considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the
ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the
King of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though the
King f' England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France,
Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none
15 born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are
subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times
ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make a
subject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born,
but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a
20 natural subject. And therefore if any of the King's ambassadors in foreign nations,
have children there of their wives, being English women, by the common laws of
England they are natural-born subjects, and yet they are born out-of the King's
dominions. But if enemies should come into any of the King's dominions, and surprise
any castle or fort, and [7-Coke-18 b] possess the same by hostility, and have issue
25 there, that issue is no subject to the King, though he be born within his dominions, for
that he was not born under the King's ligeance or obedience. But the time of his (a)
birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the King of
England, unless at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of
the King. And that is the reason that antenati in Scotland (for that at the time of their
30 birth they were under the ligeance and obedience, of another King) are aliens born, in
respect of the time of their birth.
END QUOTE
.
Again
35 QUOTE
yet it was resolved, that all those that were born under one natural obedience while
the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural born subjects, and
no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright, cannot by any
separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by judgment of
40 law a natural subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a matter ex post
facto.
END QUOTE
.
Despite that for years on end I refuse to vote in elections, refuse to provide tax returns, etc, no
45 more are they taking me to court after the 19 July 2006 debacle when I comprehensively defeated
the Commonwealth of Australia on all constitutional issues I raised because the first issue is
which judge is validly appointed to adjudicate where there is really not a single judge as such!
And which legislation is validly enacted when the very legal bond required by the constitution
for royal assent to be given hasn’t existed since Isaacs became Governor-General? Which lawyer
50 can act for the commonwealth when not a single lawyer is validly appointed lacking to have the
“Australian citizenship” so much required for being validly appointed?
p12 25-12-2009
You see, I have over the years calmly worked on this all and while I am aware politicians are all
about using power, no matter how unlawful, I have slowly been working on how to expose it all.
Do you take the position you are not a subject of the British Crown by birth? As if you take this
position then clearly you cannot be a federal Member of Parliament. Do you claim to be under
5 the Queen of Australia? A non existing fictional entity well then get your monies from her as the
constitution only permits payment from the British Crown
.
QUOTE
66 Salaries of Ministers
10 There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated
Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the
Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament
otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a
year.
15 END QUOTE
.
Did you notice that the wording “until the Parliament otherwise provides” actually is relating
to the amount only and not as to the payment to the Queen.
.
20 What this means is that if you have your fictional Queen then get your salary from her and we
taxpayers will saves ourselves a lot of money. You cannot claim monies from one Queen but
pretend she no longer is applicable and then serve another Queen!
One thing is however clear to me that even if somehow Australia or better to state the
commonwealth of Australia were to become a REPUBLIC the real abuses and misuses will not
25 stop because as long as we do not have a properly constituted constitution bench (which the High
Court of Australia really isn’t even so it was to be) and a constitutional committee that first check
any proposed legislation as to any constitutional conflicts we will continue to suffer of abuse and
misuse of power because ordinary the people have little to no chance to succeed against
unconstitutional conduct.
30 While the State of Victoria now also seeks to replace charges against a citizen from “Queen” to
the “DPP” the truth is that such charges have no legal basis because the States are created from
the former colonies within s106 of the constitution and by this are bound to have charges in the
name of the Monarch. Legislation must be enacted with Royal Assent.
As such, you cannot have a FICTIONAL queen giving Royal Assent and some other person, who
35 himself may be a lawbreaker then in his name conducting litigation. The entire legal system rest
upon the premises that the queen can do no wrong, other then where the constitution specifically
provides otherwise, and it is more then just a symbol.
Take for example the former judge of the High Court of Australia Michael Kirby who I
understood in breach of State law resided in a homosexual relationship and yet was adjudicating
40 from the bench punishing people for breach of law. Surely this is hypercriticism? That is why
you need to have some identity that we take as being not likely a lawbreaker and the Monarch is
for this the more appropriate person. It is the monarch in whose name all legislation is enacted
and therefore in the name of the monarch charges are to be laid.
One day one may find that all people charged and convicted by charges in the name of the DPP
45 (Director of Public Prosecutions) will all be NULL AND VOID and then criminals will not just
walk free from prisons but be able to sue for unlawful detention!
.
QUOTE
50 Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible
government
p13 25-12-2009
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this
5 Constitution is responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any
way that guarantee.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
10 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been
made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but
not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it
embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all
have been the work of Australians.
15 END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the
20 provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the
people.
END QUOTE
.
25 QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains
unwritten,
END QUOTE
And
30 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
35 whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about
40 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
45 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
50 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
p14 25-12-2009
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
5 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
10 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
15 QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we
embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is
no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but
20 constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of
amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of
parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent
body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again,
instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate
25 bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all
that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with,
instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful
judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the
sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
30 QUOTE
.
QUOTE
The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to
35 refutation if I am wrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but,
indisputably, the great bulk of them, are subjects on which no question of state rights and
state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is, as the right hon. gentleman
admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be left for all
time to be determined in a purely states house, or by a state referendum, when those
40 questions are not state questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on
national lines, and by a national referendum.
END QUOTE
.
45 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a
judge under a Federal Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for
from Parliament or Government.
Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.
p15 25-12-2009
Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the
interpreter of the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the
same sense as a federal judge is, the same circumstances remain in part; but where you
will have a tribunal constantly charged with the maintenance of the Constitution against the
5 inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by Parliament, then it is essential that
no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected weakness-for we do not
know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether consciously or
not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which
might be dangerous to the Constitution itself.
10 END QUOTE
.
I can very well understand that politicians desire to ever expand their power base but lets keep in
mind that doing so in a lawful manner cannot be objectionable but when politicians are doing this
in a unlawful manner and then let it to the people to try to counter act this then the politicians no
15 longer are serving the community but are using TYRRANY and DICTATORSHIP and
forgetting that the power base they are creating by this may soon or later come to haunt if not
themselves then their family. We have seen this in so many countries that one would do better to
avoid such unlawful power base being created.
.
20 Those who made an oath are by their own conduct proven to be not worth the paper upon which
the oath was written upon because they lack dignity and reliability and are in my view no less
criminals then those who are put before the courts and are convicted.
You and others may pursue a REPUBLIC of some kind but if you do then let it be in a proper
lawful manner and not trying to use so to say backdoor manners. Personally I couldn’t care less
25 one way or another what is, so to say, at the end of the tunnel as all I care about is that whatever
is done is done in an appropriate manner, and this is as I view it not being done.
People who therefore are setting up their own principalities or whatever else in my view may
very well be right if the Commonwealth of Australia no longer operates under the umbrella of the
constitution. Any de facto government acting under a Queen of Australia has no legitimately.
30 The federal government cannot claim that the constitution applies to everyone but to itself.
The Commonwealth cannot claim that somehow WorkChoices legislation applies because of
s51(xx) but then ignores what the intentions of the Framers of the constitution stated: “. For
instance, our factory laws are left to the state.”!
.
35 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. We are
40 going into a Federation for certain specific subjects. Each state at present has the power
to impose religious laws. I want to leave that power with the state; I will not disturb
that power; but I object to give to the Federation of Australia a tyrannous and over-
riding power over the whole of the people of Australia as to what day they shall
observe for religious reasons, and what day they shall not observe for that purpose.
45 The state of Victoria will be able to pass any Sunday law it likes under my scheme. It
can pass any law of that sort now; but surely it is a proper thing for a state, and it is not a
proper thing for the Commonwealth, to exercise this power. I feel that honorable members
who value state rights reserved [start page 1736] to the states, who value the preservation of
the individuality of the states for state purposes, will agree with me that it is with the state
50 we ought to leave this power, and that we ought not to intrust it to the Commonwealth. For
instance, our factory laws are left to the state. Those laws provide for a certain number
p16 25-12-2009
of hours of rest, and that employes shall not work on Sundays, and so forth. If we leave the
factor laws to the state we should also leave this question of the observance of Sunday
to the state. I will not take it from them. At the same time, I am not going, no matter what
the consequences are, to help to intrust this power to the Commonwealth. I want the
5 people of the different states to manage their own affairs as well as they can.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
10 The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it
occurs.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-
15 We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal
authority. That would be an absolute impossibility in the different states.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
20 Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the
laws of the place where the contract was made.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
25 Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the
Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
30 The people of the various states make their own contracts amongst themselves, and if in
course of their contractual relations disagreements arise, and the state chooses to
legislate in respect of the subject-matter of them, it can do so.
END QUOTE
.
35 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Why should you interfere with the laws in the different colonies
affecting the relations of masters and servants, which are purely a matter of domestic
legislation? Why should you hand over that purely state function to the federal
40 authority?
END QUOTE
.
Again, I acknowledge my English is so to say “crummy English” but I for pone cannot accept
that the High Court of Australia judges were competent in constitutional matters when despite
45 the above quotations they by withholding/concealing these relevant quotations held that the so
called WorkChoices legislation was constitutionally valid. What to me it rather indicates is a
treasonous High court of Australia that is not at all interested in appropriately adjudicating on
constitutional matters but has commenced to so to say amend the constitution by how it hands
down judgments.
50 .
p17 25-12-2009
The question now remains if you are nevertheless going to continue the rot or you are indeed a
man of credibility and seek to rectify matters so that the Commonwealth of Australia operates
within the confinements of the constitution and that those who desire to do otherwise are given a
clear message that as long as they pursue it in a lawful manner then there is no problem.
5 In the mean time I look forwards to you ensuring I am provided with all relevant details
including which federal Member of Parliament was born and where under the British Crown or
otherwise, and if they naturalized or not and if there was any oath of allegiance they made in
conflict to their natural birth rights as subject of the British Crown, etc.
.
10 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
p18 25-12-2009

091225-Kevin Rudd PM - Oath of Allegiance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

091225-Kevin Rudd PM - Oath of Allegiance

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

091225-Kevin Rudd PM - Oath of Allegiance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Kevin Rudd PM 25-12-2009

35 James Faulkner PSM

50 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.

10 The committee divided-

Ayes ... ... ... 15

Noes ... ... ... 21

Majority against Dr. Quick's

amendment ... ... 6

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

You might also like