ANNA BLIGHT MP, Premier of Queensland 29-5-2010

ThePremier@premiers.qld.gov.au
5 .
Cc: Mr Peter Wellington MP Member for Nicklin
PO box 265, NAMBOUR old 4560 c/O Nicklin@parliament.qld.gov.au
Frank Davis frankdavis@iinet.net.au
.
10 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
Anna,
I find it regrettable that you have written as you did a 27 May 2010 correspondence to Mr
Peter Wellington MP Member for Nicklin stating the following;
15 QUOTE 27-5-2010 correspondence Anna Blight MP to Mr Peter Wellington MP
The claims that Queensland is now outside the Commonwealth of Australia and is an
independent sovereign state without common law are completely false but may be founded
on claims that, through the introduction of the Constitution of Queensland 2001, the
previous Constitution was repealed without having a referendum.
20
These claims stem from confusion between Queensland’s Constitution and the referendum
requirement in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. While a referendum is
required to alter any part of the Commonwealth Constitution, Queensland’s constitutional
laws are ordinary Acts of our Parliament and they can be changed by passing other ordinary
25 Acts of Parliament.
In the development of the Constitution of Queensland 2001, provisions of Queensland’s
constitutional Acts that were referendum entrenched were not changed, and remain in
force.
30 END QUOTE 27-5-2010 correspondence Anna Blight MP to Mr Peter Wellington MP
.
I take it as a very serious issue that a Premier of Queensland as I view it grossly deceive a
Member of parliament as I view that Peter Wellington MP Member for Nicklin was entitled to a
honest and well researched response from you.
35 .
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+p
arliament%22#fn50
QUOTE
40 Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the
search for the intention of its makers[51].
END QUOTE
.
45 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN:
29-5-2010 Page 1
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be for contact detailsmayjusticealwaysprevail@schorel-hlavka.com
 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.
END QUOTE
.
5 Before however going into details let me explain.
While Pauline Hanson was in prison I then wrote to the then Premier Mr Peter Beattie a 1
September 2003 correspondence in which I requested him also to pass it on to the lawyers of
Pauline Hanson, setting out why the judgments against Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge were
unsound in law. I did set out in very detail the relevant issues.
10 On 30 September 2003 I then published this correspondence in one of my books titled:
.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
(ISBN 0-9580569-6-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0
15 .
To my understanding the then Premier of Queensland Mr peter Beattie concealed this 1
September 2003 correspondence from Pauline Hanson’s solicitors and so the courts.
I then provided Judy Smith, sister of Pauline Hanson, with a copy of the book as well as a print
out of the relevant correspondence and urged her to use it before the Queensland Court of
20 Criminal appeal. Likewise I forwarded a copy of the book to Pauline Hanson and the prison
authorities did confirm receiving it. Subsequently, in November 2003, the Queensland Criminal
Court of appeal made a ruling that was precisely as I had set out nearly two months earlier in my
correspondence to Mr Peter Beattie. Again my book was already published on 30 November
2003 (At which day 4 copies were delivered to the Melbourne Registry of the High Court of
25 Australia) it must be clear I didn’t use the much later judgment of the court at all to set out the
legal issues rather that the judgment vindicated my claims. I am not and never was a member of
Pauline Hanson One Nation and merely did the exercise concerned that she and David Ettridge
were wrongly convicted.
.
30 Albeit I am not a lawyer I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and represent parties on constitutional
matters that ordinary lawyers simply have no clue to understand.
As a matter of fact on 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia
in both cases, after a 5-year epic legal battle, on numerous constitutional issues including that the
Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to compel anyone to vote and as such s.245 of the
35 Commonwealth electoral Act 1918 is unconstitutional. Again, the court upheld both cases!
.
In a more recent case I represented Mr Francis James Colosimo and he already was advised by
the trial judge that she could imprison him. He also was subjected to orders of Administration on
the basis he lacked the mental capacity to arrange appropriately some of his own affairs and this
40 at hand of medical reports of expert witnesses. Mr Francis James Colosimo had also
representation of a Professor of Law, a Mr Errol Higgens, who teaches at universities and who
had conceded that Mr Francis James Colosimo was in breach or orders. More then 20 lawyers
were involved in the case when I was requested by Mr Francis James Colosimo to take over his
case and represent him. Victoria Legal Aid had advised Mr Francis James Colosimo to purge his
45 contempt. The Office of the Public Advocate also gave me the understanding that Mr Francis
James Colosimo refused to comply with the rule of law.
Again, I am not a lawyer but a CONSTITUTIONALIST. On 26 March 2009 I appeared before
Her Honour Harbison (then the 6 th CONTEMPT hearing)and explained to Her Honour that the
lawyers had used her like a fool (it is in transcript) because Mr Francis James Colosimo was
50 innocent of any legal wrongdoing. I will spare you all the details but sufficient to say that her
Honour upon my submission ordered a PERMANENT STAY of proceedings. The material I
had filed before her also related extensively to Queensland constitutional issues because they
related to the issue of FEE SIMPLE and judgments regarding the Burns case.

29-5-2010 Page 2
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be for contact detailsmayjusticealwaysprevail@schorel-hlavka.com
 On 29 March 2010 I then appeared again for Mr Francis James Colosimo and challenged for any
expert witness to give evidence as to Mr Francis James Colosimo as so to say I would wipe the
floor with them because no psychiatric assessment can be reliable that assessed Mr Francis James
Colosimo as being in CONTEMPT orf orders where as I discovered that despite the 6
5 CONTEMPT hearings he never had been formally charged with CONTEMPT by Her Honour
Harbison J and no conviction had ever taken place, even so the Office of the Public Advocate
had advised the expert witnesses that Mr Francis James Colosimo was in CONTEMPT.
At the end of the day all orders for Administration were set aside. As such, I succeeded to get a
man free where I proved Mr Francis James Colosimo was innocent of any legal wrongdoing and
10 more then twenty (20) lawyers involved have been litigating upon falsehoods.
Again, during the submissions before Her Honour Harbison J I filed an 090309 ADDRESS TO
THE COURT/TRIBUNAL Part 2 which was some 659 pages which extensively canvassed the
issue of Queensland constitution. As I did set out that the Queensland government during the
absenteeism of the Governor had appointed a Lieutenant governor and added members to the
15 Upper House to purportedly abolish the Upper House of Queensland but that this was
constitutionally NULL AND VOID and all legislation enacted since without having been passed
by the Queensland Upper House therefore is NULL AND VOID.
.
It should be understood that as from the time of Federation Queensland as like any other state
20 was created by s.106 of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) from the
colonies/province and hence all States were bound by the legal principles embedded in the
Constitution.
.
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
25 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting
privileged classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They
are the complete legislative power of the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so.
From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are
30 proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the several
colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures,
and the royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of
their ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the
states, they will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them
35 that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrently
the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each assembly, each
legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst
within the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and
40 unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
45 Dr. COCKBURN: I think we have nothing whatever to do with deciding the details
of the state constitutions. On the other hand, I think it appertains to the functions of this
Convention to decide that the power of framing a constitution shall be in the hands of the
several states. At present the legislatures of the various colonies can only be altered
with the consent of the Imperial Government. Is it intended that that shall remain? When
50 we have a federated Australasia, in which we have state legislatures and a federal
legislature, is it intended that the state legislatures shall have the power of altering their
constitutions at will or not? From that point of view I think the proposition put forward by
the hon. member, Sir George Grey, is decidedly within the powers of the Convention, the

29-5-2010 Page 3
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be for contact detailsmayjusticealwaysprevail@schorel-hlavka.com
 power to lay down a general rule, without touching the details of any individual
constitution, that the various states should have the power of framing their own
constitutions according to the will of the majority of the people of those states.
END QUOTE
5 .
Again (RE Section 123);
Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY:
Provision should therefore be made in the federal constitution which will [start page
10 478] enable the people of each state to adopt by the vote of the majority of voters,
their own form of state constitution.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
15 QUOTE
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
20 have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
25 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
provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the
people.
END QUOTE
30 .
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains
unwritten,
35 END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
40 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can
reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also
a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
45 .
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about
to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about
50 to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.

29-5-2010 Page 4
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be for contact detailsmayjusticealwaysprevail@schorel-hlavka.com
 END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
5 Mr. BARTON.- 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
10 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
15 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
20 .
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we
25 embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is
no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but
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
30 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
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
35 judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the
sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
40 QUOTE
The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to
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
45 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
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
50 .
It doesn’t matter if you claim you merely substituted the Queensland constitution or not because
a constitutional Parliament cannot amend the constitution as it can only propose by State (s.123)
referendum to the electors to veto or approve an amendment to the State constitution. As such

29-5-2010 Page 5
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be for contact detailsmayjusticealwaysprevail@schorel-hlavka.com
 your position that the constitution is an Act of parliament is incorrect as it no longer was an Act
of Parliament since federation!
Ok they may not have taught you this, and I who came as an ALIEN from The Netherlands held
it important for me to at least know and understand what the constitution is about happens to
5 have so to say my homework, but nevertheless in the end it isn’t relevant what certificates,
diploma’s, education or whatever position anyone has as what is relevant is what is permitted
within the provisions of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and
clearly the legal embedded principles is that no State parliament can amend its own constitution.
.
10 Again:
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
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
15 parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but 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
20 parliaments of a federation are coordinate 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.
25 END QUOTE
.
As such, forget about the purported abolishment of the Upper House and forget about all other
changes to the Queensland constitution since Federation where they were made without approval
of the electors by State referendum because they were all a NULLITY.
30 Therefore this purported Queensland Constitution Act 2001 is no constitution at all and cannot
replace the Queensland State constitution that existed since federation.
Technically all legislation that purportedly enacted since the purported abolition of the Upper
House are unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES because the Upper House was never validly
abolished. And s.41 of the constitution refers to “both” houses and as such Queensland cannot
35 abolish its Upper House.
.
Neither do I view you have any legitimate excuse of not knowing because my past emails with
attached correspondence did set it out but it appears to me you couldn’t bother to read and
consider it or so your staff and like wise so the former Premier Mr Peter Beattie.
40 Well, the people of Queensland are entitled to have appropriate representation and not being
conned into something that is totally invalid and without LEGAL FORCE!
.
As for the Federal Government with it’s (proposed) SUPER TAX this is in my view
unconstitutional as it is not a tax for the “whole of the Commonwealth” as it is restricted to
45 mining companies only. As much as the proposed ETS would be unconstitutional.
.
Hansard 12-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ABBOTT:
The first resolution clearly points out that we are not to interfere with territorial rights; but what I
50 want to be clear about in this colony of New South Wales is that this expression means that there is to
be no interference with our Crown lands. I know, and every member of the Convention knows as well as
I do, that it is not intended that the Crown lands of anyone of the colonies shall be interfered with by
the federal parliament; yet, this is a bogey that has been raised up outside to frighten the people of this
colony into opposition to the proposed federation. In this country-at all events outside the city, the
55 people are most concerned about the settlement of our Crown lands-the occupation and the acquisition
of them-and nothing in this world, to my mind, could more prejudice the proposal for federation than
to assert that our Crown lands are to be taken away from us and given to those colonies which have no
Crown lands at all. I say it was never intended by any of those who initiated this Convention that such a
29-5-2010 Page 6
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be for contact detailsmayjusticealwaysprevail@schorel-hlavka.com
 state of things should be carried out, and, speaking on behalf of this colony, I say that it is a state of
things that would not be tolerated for one moment. I hope there will be no misunderstanding outside.
Our Crown lands are to be our own, and the Crown [start page 303] lands of the other colonies will, I
take it, be their own. What surprised me-talking of Crown lands-was the utterance of the hon. member,
5 Sir James Lee-Steere, that if the Government of Western Australia hands her customs duties over to
the federal government then she would not have anything with which to pay her debt or the interest on
that debt. Now, Western Australia has the largest territory in the whole of the Australian colonies, and I
presume that Western Australia is not going to allow that territory to remain as it is at the present time. I
presume that Western Australia expects to lease or sell that land, and to construct her public works out
10 of the proceeds of it. I am sure that the colonies on the eastern seaboard hope that that will be one of
the results of the responsible government which has been so recently granted to Western Australia.
What is the use of their lands, what is the use of their trying to carry out public works, if they cannot at
the same time get a population to settle upon their lands?
END QUOTE
15 .
And again this whole issue about miners taking over parts of private land to explore for oil,
gasses, or whatever you may find that private landholders may sue the State for permitting this
without their consent (reverse acquisition) and as such I view it would be far better if the
Queensland State Government commenced to consider what is really lawful!
20 This whole sordid constitutional and other legal mess could have been addressed over the years
had the Queensland Government taken more notice of my writings. But as Mr peter Beattie
proved to do way back in 2003 he didn’t properly consider my writings and this is really where
the problem lies because politicians ASSUME they are correct no matter how in the process they
destroy the lives of so many.
25 .
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one
step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the
30 legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the
Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials
shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any
private person would be.
END QUOTE
35 .
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
40 END QUOTE
.
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able
45 to understand.
END QUOTE
.
That is why lawyers can’t understand what is constitutionally appropriate! Still I am here to
assist if they need my assistance instead of causing further havoc amongst constituents, just
50 contact me so the citizens of Queensland may finally have experiences of the RULE OF LAW.
In the meantime I do view you ought to alert Mr Peter Wellington MP Member for Nicklin of
your incorrect claims (they were not made under the protection of parliament, as it appears to
me!)
.

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

29-5-2010 Page 7
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be for contact detailsmayjusticealwaysprevail@schorel-hlavka.com