20200814-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria-Legal Notice

1
Mr Daniel Andrews Premier& Ors 14-8-2020

daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
5
Cc: all Premiers, First Ministers and Prime Minister
20200814-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria
10 - Legal notice
Sir,
On 8 August 2020 I provided you with “20200808-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr
Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria-FOI REQUEST” however noted that I didn’t receive any
response as to any details/information/documentation, etc, that will be provided to me.
15 While your argument may be that the FOI Act provides for 45 days or something like this to
respond, in the current circumstances where the State Government claims there is a claimed
“infectious” disease that requires the LOCKDOWN, CURFEW, social distancing and masks then
where I challenged the constitutional and other legal validity of this and I understand people are
committing suicide due to the restrictions, etc, then my FOI request ought to have been
20 considered as being a matter of extreme urgency. Essentially, the failure and what eventuated on
10 August 2020 leaves me no alternative but to petition the High Court of Australia to provide a
judicial determination in matters.
I for decades have been writing about constitutional issues but well aware most if not all
25 politicians (commonwealth/state/territories) do not give a darn if it doesn’t fit their political
mantra. Hence what is needed is a constitutional agency under the Governor-General and each of
the Governors who if a complaint has been submitted than this agency if it deems there is a
credible complaint can petition the High Court of Australia for redress, albeit without the
complainant being denied to pursue matters in his/her own right before the High Court of
30 Australia. Regrettably the High Court of Australia in my view is political bias where it will stop
any litigant pursuing matters on constitutional grounds in his/her track regardless if this violates
constitutional provisions. After al, the Framers of the Constitution specifically provided for any
citizen to litigate on basis of constitutional matters without facing “out of pocket expenses” in the
High Court of Australia.
35
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates(Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
40 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
45 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE
p1 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
2
I have over the last few months extensively written about the fact that the ADF cannot be
50 deployed in the States for enforcement of law unless there was “domestic violence” (civil war)
but we find this has been repeatedly ignored. Premiers seem to ignore by this that if they allow
transgression by the Commonwealth onto the sovereign rights of a State then soon or later the
Commonwealth will use this as any excuse to do so again regardless if the State then object.
55 I have written extensively about COVID-19 issues and provided to politicians of State, Territory
and Commonwealth with copies but it generally is ignored. Yet, we have politicians putting in
draconic and unconstitutional measurements in place, purportedly to safeguard citizens when in
fact they in my view could have achieved far better with likely less people dying if just they had
followed proper procedures.
60
I understand that about a week ago a video was made outside “Estia Aged Care Facility in
Ardeer” which has facilities of 53 beds but somehow scored at least (at the time the video was
taken referred to below) not less than 144 alleged positive test. We much hear about “deep
cleaning” but reality is that at least from watching this video no “deep cleaning” may ever
65 resolve the real cause of infections.
As I wrote about in previous documentation we may have to consider that COVID-19 may be
because of a spread of “bacterium” like the Legionnaires Disease relating to certain water towers
and heating systems. Where then staff of kitchens, in nursing homes or elsewhere are donning
PPE but then in the process are going to the dump-master and touching likely highly infected lids
70 to open it and then having emptied the trolley transfer the bacterium onto the trolley and then
went back to the kitchen and transfer it there all around, then obviously this one person can
spread it like wild fire throughout the nursing home, without anyone being able to trace the real
source/culprit. No amount of “deep cleaning” will therefore stop the rate of infections. No
amount of PPE, LOCKDOWNS, CURFEW, SOCIAL DISTANCING, etc, will resolve the
75 issues at hand, because politicians precisely ignore the likely real cause of the infections. Worse,
they are using unconstitutional conditions and it evolves into a dictatorship and prison system
without any court of law having sanctioned it.
THIS NEEDS TO STOP!
80 I demand THAT ALL AND ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS by the

State Government or any of those acting for and on its behalf to enforce a CURFEW
are seize and desist doing so immediately.
I demand THAT ALL AND ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS by the

85 State Government or any of those acting for and on its behalf to enforce a
LOCKDOWN are seize and desist doing so immediately.

State Government or any of those acting for and on its behalf to enforce a “social
90 distancing” are seize and desist doing so immediately.

State Government or any of those acting for and on its behalf to enforce “compulsory
mask wearing” are seize and desist doing so immediately.
95
State Government or any of those acting for and on its behalf to enforce “compulsory
vaccination” are seize and desist doing so immediately.

3
100 Failure to seize and desist leaves me no alternative but to petition the High Court of Australia for
this.
Compulsory vaccinations have been applied even so in recent legal proceedings it was exposed
that for some 32 years no safety checking was done as to any harm that was inflicted. The
105 pharmaceutical companies being protected from being sued for any harm caused as result of a
vaccination therefore could manufacture anything no matter how harmful this might be. Indeed,
it was shown that for the sake of diminishing global population now vaccinations against the flu
actually are designed to sterilise women and men to deny them to have offspring’s. Various
scientist and medical professionals have indicated that vaccinations for the elderly is rather
110 harming them and weakening their immune system and make them more vulnerable to lose their
lives if infected. And, flu vaccinations in fact are causing coronaviruses to be injected into a
person the worst thing to do when a virus is going about.
I below underline various issues but it should be understood that it is so to say merely the tip of
115 the iceberg.
Reportedly we have a Premier Mr Daniel Andrews who received in passengers planes boxes of
surveillance equipment which has absolutely nothing to do with combatting COVID-19 and as
such must be deemed to violate the CURFEW and in fact make matters worse, in view that any
120 or all of those boxes could contain one or more ticks or other creature to spread a new disease
that is going on in Asia.
As such, the CURFEW is not at all to serve to the benefit of citizens but rather to have a period
that the State Government can use it to import equipment from a foreign power.
125 Citizens have their normal life conditions denied and businesses destroyed all for the good of the
vulnerable to protect them while the State Government then to the contrary imports items that
can cause a new disease to spread out and cause havoc amongst the vulnerable and even the
healthy.
I have for long pursued a federal ROYAL COMMISSION regarding COVID-19 but realise that
130 this doesn’t fit the political mantra of the Prime Minister. After all, he is going on about some
“National Cabinet” regardless no “National Government” let alone a “National Parliament” exist.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
135 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 for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
140 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 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
145 occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE
And this is what we now have operating that the Prime Minister, Premiers and First Ministers are
getting together making whatever decision without any Parliamentarian scrutiny. I below set out
150 the issue regarding the British attempt to prorogue the parliament and the Court held that in a
time of crisis the parliament must be able to hold the Government of the Day accountable. This
clearly is not now eventuating with this unconstitutional “National Cabinet” nor with Victoria
having the Legislative Assembly adjourned.
4
155 There are however other issues that I view requires attention.
While business are now denied to operate (I view is unconstitutional and fall within the principle
of “adverse acquisition” where the Government of the Day prevent a person his rightful
entitlement and seek to override the business owner his legal rights by closing down the business
160 while the business owner faces financial and other harm, then the Government of the Day must
be held legally liable to appropriately compensate the business owner for any losses inflicted by
the Government of the Day.
There also should be an immediate seize and desist of unconstitutional purported State land
165 taxation and delegated land taxation known as “council rates” as set out below.
It now is claimed that the Victorian Police without the need of a warrant can enter any residence,
etc. Well, I view this is unconstitutional.
170 QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
175 Therefore, if there is a dispute between the Government of the Day and any citizen then it is for
the courts to determine the rights of the parties!

QUOTE
180 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
185 the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE
190 This means that no matter any kind of legislation that purportedly may authorise a police officer
without warrant to enter in the end such legislation is to be tested in each case before the courts
so an impartial Administration of Justice can determine the rights of each party. Any legislation
that transgresses upon constitutional rights cannot be permitted to be enforced.
195 HALLIDAY v NEVILL [1984] HCA 80; 1984) 155 CLR (6 December 1984)
GEORGE v ROCKETT [1990] HAC 26, (1990) 170 CLR 104 (20 June 1990)
PLENTY V DILLON [1991] HCA5;71CLR 635 F.C. 91/004
NSW v IBBETT [2006] HCA 57; (2006) 231 ALR 485; (2006) 81 ALJR 427
KURU v STATE OF NSW (2008) HCA 26 (12 June 2008)
200
Fancy some police officer using force to enter a property and then discover that he was mistaken
in the process but the home owner in defence may have used force (within his legal rights) and
then we can have a major disaster on our hands. Indeed, the police could contaminate the
property unduly merely by entering and by this may deny the homeowner his rights to be free
205 from not only an unlawful invasion but also of the serenity of the property.
Not uncommon police attend in error to the wrong property and we cannot excuse this where the
police rather than to protect the rights of citizens because the aggressor.
5
210 I understand that the State Government relies upon the purported 1975 Victorian constitution,
however this is not a constitution at all rather is a mere so called Act of Parliament. It is for this
irrelevant if the monarch provided Royal Ascent as if it is unconstitutional then Royal Ascent
cannot somehow validate this.
215 [Rodriques v. Ray Donavan] US Supreme Court ruling

“The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rule, regulation, policy and stautes
are”not the law” [Self v. Rhay] US Supreme court ruling
“All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with
220 God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…”
[Rodriques v. Ray Donavan] US Supreme Court ruling
“The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rule, regulation, policy and stautes
are”not the law” [Self v. Rhay] US Supreme court ruling
225
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no
law , but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its
enactment…In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed….Since an
unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates
230 no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed
under it….A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to
supersede any existing law. indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the
Constitution) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.”
235 [Bonnett v. Vallier] US Supreme court ruling.
STATUTES ARE NOT LAWS

A “Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),
A “Code’ is not a Law,” (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law,)
240 A concurrent or ‘joint resolution ‘of legislature is not “Law,
” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705, 707; Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State
ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165).
As a constitutionalist I communicate with law professors, and others, from around the world and
245 below quote an email I received from a constitutional professor stating:
QUOTE
So the PM prorogued unlawfully because he failed to give a persuasive reason for a long prorogation
when the prorogation had the effect of frustrating the constitutional role of the Parliament in holding
the executive to account.
250 END QUOTE
In my view even so Her Majesty had approved the prorogue of the parliament the Courts didn’t
hold this to be a determining factor. Indeed, the High Court of Australia in Wakim held that the
(purported) Cross Vesting Act was unconstitutional, and as such, the fact that the monarch had
255 provided Royal Ascent did not make any iota of difference.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27 \99)
260 "... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
265
6
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte

Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
270 Constitutional interpretation
1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
275 the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
280 for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event -
someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."
END QUOTE
285 Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by s73 of the Constitution.
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
In my view the suspension of the Legislative Assembly in the circumstances prevailing in the
State of Victoria where there was allegedly a COVID-19 disease allegedly justifying the State
290 Government to LOCKDOWN, CURFEW, MASKS, SOCIAL DISTANCING, ETC, the people
in the State of Victoria that draconically denied ordinary people and businesses their common
law rights to work for a living and earn an income to maintain a viable business enterprise, etc,
that could be considered to be a form of torture cannot be deemed constitutionally neither legally
justifiable.
295 The very issue existing ordinary is that the Parliament (the legislative Assembly) has the power
to vote a NO CONFIDENCE in the Premier, which ordinary means the Premier would resign.
Likewise so regarding any Minister of the Crown who fails to act appropriately.
In New Zealand the Minister for Health resigned for failing to act appropriately. The Hotel
300 fiasco inquiry is not a court and has no powers to remove a grossly incompetent Minister of the
Crown. It is therefore essential that the Parliament in a crisis period must be able to sit to hold the
Government of the Day accountable. It is for this totally irrelevant if the Legislative Assembly
actually would or would not successfully hold a vote of no confidence, as what is relevant is that
it can exercise oversight of the Government of the Day. This is denied when the Legislative
305 Assembly is suspended during a period of crisis.
The mere fact that the Government of the Day has applied draconically measures and have
allowed the Victorian Police to act more as what commonly be deemed Stasi/Nazi storm-troupers
conduct must underline that “DEMOCRACY IS NO MORE!”
310 https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2019/09/lady-hale-gently-determined-president-supreme-court-
overruled-boris-johnson Brexit
24 September 2019
Lady Hale, the gently determined president of the Supreme Court that overruled Boris Johnson
QUOTE
315 Brenda Hale, the president of the UK’s Supreme Court, demonstrated a combination of steely determination
and a warm demeanour when she announced on Tuesday morning that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of
parliament was unlawful. But that’s to be expected.
END QUOTE
7
320 QUOTE (RED COLOURING AND BOLDING ADDED)

[conlawprof] BREXIT: Supreme Court issues stunning constitutional ruling
25 Sep 2019 at 11:07 am
Kim Lane Scheppele <kimlane@princeton.edu>

325 To: Kim Lane Scheppele <kimlane@princeton.edu>,
Catching up to the excellent analysis of the UKSC decision on the conlawprof list. . . .
First, apologies for announcing the decision late and not contributing anything substantive about it until the
end of the day. Today is a day of non-stop teaching, and I actually taught the judgment within hours of its
appearance, so I had my hands full! But I’m delighted to see so many people chiming in on the decision.
330 A few points to make about the revolutionary quality of the case that may not be apparent to those not
accustomed to UK constitutional law – with non-doctrinal matters first:
The decision was unanimous. None of the commentators expected this in advance, and the sight of Lady
Hale and Lord Reed joining forces to present the decision together for a unanimous court was truly
stunning. Lady Hale (court president through January 2020) and Lord Reed (current court vice president
335 who will become president after Lady Hale retires) were on opposite sides of Miller I, which found that
Parliament had to give its consent to triggering Art. 50 TEU starting the Brexit process. Lady Hale was in the
majority on that case, but Lord Reed authored a brilliant and biting dissent. Miller I involved the
prerogative power of the Crown to join and exit treaties without consent of the Parliament, so one might
reasonably have imagined that anyone who, like Lord Reed, found that the prerogative power did not require
340 Parliamentary participation might well have found that that prerogative power should receive deference here
too. But the Court produced a unanimous decision that was very strong indeed and the fact that Lord Reed
presented it along with Lady Hale meant that the whole Court really was in agreement. If anyone thought
that having Lord Reed as president might cause the Court to refuse a substantial role in enforcing
constitutional principles, that thought was dispelled today. Lord Reed seems willing to follow his
345 predecessors Lady Hale, Lord Neuberger and Lord Bingham in the court president’s seat as a strong advocate
of a strong judicial role in the UK constitutional system. None of us knew that before today.
The decision appeared in one single opinion. UKSC decisions are customarily written in seriatim style,
which means that it often takes a while before those who have to parse the case to find lowest common
denominator agreement on points of law have figured out just what the Court did. There has been some
350 movement since the great court reform creating the UKSC in 2009 toward the production of lead opinions
that summarize the facts, procedure and common views of the judges, but this had not – until today –
supplanted individual judgments operating in parallel. This case had ONE opinion for the WHOLE court
with no individual judgments. I believe that this is the first time that has ever happened in a significant case.
So why was a unanimous Court speaking with one voice? I think it is because the Prime Minister had said
355 out of court and his counsel had said in court that the PM would not feel bound in spirit by a decision of the
Court (or for that matter, by a law passed by Parliament). With the very real dangerous of a rogue PM
throwing out the rule of law, I think that the Court was determined not to open up any daylight between the
judges that would have allowed a determined PM to avoid the central effect of the ruling. It reminded me of
the US Supreme Court in the Nixon tapes case when, faced with a very real threat that a rogue President
360 would refuse to follow a decision of the Court, the Court produced a unanimous straightforward decision that
provided no room for maneuver. The UK Supreme Court did that here. Very unusual. But in this case,
quite necessary.
Then, as to the revolutionary doctrinal changes:
If you had asked any random UK constitutional lawyer a month ago, what the UKSC would do in
365 reviewing the prerogative power of the Queen to prorogue Parliament, my guess is that nine of out 10 would
have said that the Court would find the matter non-justiciable. As indeed did the High Court judges in
England and the outer chamber of the Court of Sessions court in Scotland. Why? Because prorogation in
advance of a Queen’s speech is a normal part of most parliamentary cycles and there had never really been
any rule set about how long an “ordinary” prorogation would be. Moreover, the practical effect of THIS
370 prorogation was only to cut one week off the effective time for parliamentary debate, as the Parliament had
already scheduled itself to recess for three weeks for party congresses. In addition the fact that the
Parliament had already legislated to tie the PM’s hands with the Benn Bill meant that Parliament had already
given clear direction to the PM in the upcoming Brexit negotiations. All of that counseled deference to the
8
PM’s decision to prorogue the Parliament. So this decision was really a surprise to many who thought that
375 finding prorogation justiciable was a stretch. Finding the PM’s decision unlawful once the UKSC found the
matter justiciable was an even greater stretch. It’s hard to exaggerate how jaw-droppingly revolutionary this
decision is.
And yet, the decision reads like a normal constitutional judgment. None of the principles that the Court
relies on are new. What is novel is the prominence that these principles have in the decision and the strong
380 conclusions that are drawn from them. The Court relies on two fundamental constitutional principles:
a) parliamentary sovereignty – that laws of the Westminster Parliament are the supreme laws of
the land, yes. But (and this was the new bit),
41. . . . the effect which the courts have given to Parliamentary sovereignty is
not confined to recognising the status of the legislation enacted by the Crown in
385 Parliament as our highest form of law. Time and again, in a series of cases since
the 17th century, the courts have protected Parliamentary sovereignty from
threats posed to it by the use of prerogative powers, and in doing so have
demonstrated that prerogative powers are limited by the principle of
Parliamentary sovereignty.”
390 And then the Court cites a string of cases in support. This is a statement with a very broad sweep,
implying that all prerogative powers are reviewable by courts for their encroachment on
Parliamentary sovereignty. That is a very big expansion in the role of the courts, and it suggests
that Parliamentary sovereignty will severely limit the deployment of all prerogative powers going
forward.
395 b) Parliamentary accountability – that the executive is answerable to the Parliament. As the
Court notes, the PM is not directly elected but is only a democratically legitimate executive by
virtue of his accountability to the Parliament. This requires answering Parliament’s questions,
appearing before parliamentary committees and submitting to parliamentary scrutiny. So the
constitutional question is therefore: How long the executive can act without accountability before
400 the Parliament before this basic principle is breached? As the Court said on this point, “the longer
that Parliament stands prorogued, the greater the risk that responsible government may be replaced
by unaccountable government: the antithesis of the democratic model.” (Para. 48). So how can
the Court determine what is too long? Here the Court lays down a new standard – which is that
the prorogation must be reasoned and reasonable. The PM must give reasons and those reasons
405 must justify the length of time that the Parliament is prorogued. The Court’s analysis:
50. For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the
power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue
Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if
the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable
410 justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as
a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In
such a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to
justify such an exceptional course.
The Court then found that the PM had prorogued the Parliament in a way that frustrated democratic
415 accountability of the executive. That the Court was writing for the ordinary reader and not for the lawyers is
evident from the way these paragraphs are composed (and note the sideways reference to the US):
55. Let us remind ourselves of the foundations of our constitution. We live in a

representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people
have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people
420 (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because
it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy
other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons - and
indeed to the House of Lords - for its actions, remembering always that the
actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts.
425 The first question, therefore, is whether the Prime Minister’s action had the
effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament in holding
the Government to account.

9
56. The answer is that of course it did. This was not a normal prorogation in the
run-up to a Queen’s Speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its
430 constitutional role for five out of a possible eight weeks between the end of the
summer recess and exit day on the 31st October.
Did the PM prorogue the Parliament for that reason? The Court’s analysis of motive is revealing. The
Prime Minister won on this one point: The Court did not find that he had misled the Queen. (My guess is
that the more assertive members of the Court compromised here to get a unanimous judgment.) According
435 to the Court:
58. . . . Of course, the Government must be accorded a great deal of latitude in

making decisions of this nature. We are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s
motive in doing what he did. We are concerned with whether there was a reason
for him to do it. It will be apparent from the documents quoted earlier that no
440 reason was given for closing down Parliament for five weeks.
So the PM prorogued unlawfully because he failed to give a persuasive reason for a long prorogation
when the prorogation had the effect of frustrating the constitutional role of the Parliament in holding
the executive to account.
Having found that the matter was justiciable, deriving the standards of review from the core principles of
445 the UK constitution and finding the PM in breach of them, the Court was then confronted with the question of
remedy. And here the court engaged in what Jerome Frank might call “modern legal magic.” The Court,
following the suggestion made by Lord Pannick in oral submissions, made the prorogation simply disappear:
69. This court is not, therefore, precluded by article 9 or by any wider

Parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself.
450 The logical approach to that question is to start at the beginning, with the advice
that led to it. That advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime
Minister to give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority
were needed, R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. It led
to the Order in Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise
455 unlawful, null and of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual
prorogation, which was as if the Commissioners [who conveyed the order from
the Queen to the Commons] had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of
paper. It too was unlawful, null and of no effect.
70. It follows that Parliament has not been prorogued and that this court should
460 make declarations to that effect. We have been told by counsel for the Prime
Minister that he will “take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any
declaration made by the court” and we expect him to do so. However, it appears
to us that, as Parliament is not prorogued, it is for Parliament to decide what to
do next. There is no need for Parliament to be recalled under the Meeting of
465 Parliament Act 1797. Nor has Parliament voted to adjourn or go into recess.
Unless there is some Parliamentary rule to the contrary of which we are
unaware, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Speaker can take
immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible to decide upon
a way forward. That would, of course, be a proceeding in Parliament which
470 could not be called in question in this or any other court.
So today’s judgment of the UKSC is truly stunning – because it upends what most experts would have
thought was the obvious answer, and it does so without any step in the argument seeming either ungrounded
or even particularly novel. It’s also beautifully written – a terrific introduction to UK constitutional law to be
commended to all. One last quotation, because it is particularly effective for a US audience trying to explain
475 what it would mean to have an uncodified constitution instead of a written one:
39. Although the United Kingdom does not have a single document entitled
“The Constitution”, it nevertheless possesses a Constitution, established over the
course of our history by common law, statutes, conventions and practice. Since
it has not been codified, it has developed pragmatically, and remains sufficiently
480 flexible to be capable of further development. Nevertheless, it includes
numerous principles of law, which are enforceable by the courts in the same way
as other legal principles. In giving them effect, the courts have the responsibility

10
of upholding the values and principles of our constitution and making them
effective. It is their particular responsibility to determine the legal limits of the
485 powers conferred on each branch of government, and to decide whether any
exercise of power has transgressed those limits. The courts cannot shirk that
responsibility merely on the ground that the question raised is political in tone or
context.
Indeed.
490 Best
Kim
From: Kim Lane Scheppele [mailto:kimlane@Princeton.EDU]

Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:39 AM
To:
495 Subject: [conlawprof] BREXIT: Supreme Court issues stunning constitutional ruling
As you have probably heard, the UK Supreme Court issued a stunning judgment this morning. The judgment
was stunning in finding that the UK Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen on prorogation was unlawful
because unreasoned. It was stunning because the Court pronounced the prorogation void – the legal effect
being that the Parliament had never been prorogued. It was stunning because it was unanimous.
500 The judgment is meant to be read by those new to the law – written clearly for a general public but no
less legal for all of that.
Summary of the judgment here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf
Full judgment here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf
And, stunningly, the Court dispensed with seriatim opinions and produced one opinion “for the Court.”
505 Lady Hale as president of the Court and Lord Reed as vice-president (and incoming president) of the Court,
presented the judgment together. Given that they did not appear to see eye to eye in the hearing itself, this is
also stunning.
I’m reminded of the Nixon tapes case, in which the US Supreme Court was pushed toward a unanimous
ruling by the threat that the president might NOT obey a judgment of the Court if there were any wiggle room
510 to avoid the ruling. Boris Johnson had indicated that he might not follow a Court judgment too – and the
Court gave therefore him no wiggle room at all.
Parliament recommences at 11:30 am tomorrow, London time.
Best
Kim
515 --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Discussion list for con law
professors" group.
END QUOTE
520 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
525 .
QUOTE
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
530 in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
END QUOTE
11

QUOTE
535 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
The States were created within Section 106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
540 1900 (UK) “subject to this constitution”. This implies that the States are bound, for so far it
applies to the States, with the legal principles embedded in the Constitution.
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
545 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
550 END QUOTE
And
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
555 people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
560 END QUOTE
Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:
565 Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been
no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
570 There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
575 END QUOTE
At that time the USA had already the 14th Amendments and as such the Framers of the
Constitution implied that our constitution provided at least the same political rights as those
provided to USA citizens.
580
One cannot accept, in my view, that somehow some Premier can unilaterally override the legal
principles embedded in the constitution to deny protesters their peaceful protest merely because
he doesn’t like their kind of protest while on the other hand instruct the police not to issue
infringement notices when thousands upon thousands protest for what he might consider
585 politically advantage to his political mantra.

12
QUOTE
590 Mr. OCONNOR.-I think that the reason of the proposal is obvious. So long as each state has to do only
with its own citizens it may make what laws it thinks fit, but we are creating now a new and a larger
citizenship. We are giving new rights of citizenship to the whole of the citizens of the Commonwealth, and
we should take care that no man is deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law.
Mr. GORDON.-Might you not as well say that the states should not legalize murder?
595 Mr. OCONNOR-That is one of those suppositions that are against the first instincts of humanity.
Mr. GORDON.-So is this.
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it is not. We need not go far back in history to find cases in which the
community, seized with a sort of madness with regard to particular offences, have set aside all
principles of justice. If a state did behave itself in that way, why should not the citizens of the
600 Commonwealth who did not belong to that state be protected? Dr. Cockburn suggested in so
contemptuous a way that there could be no reason for this amendment, that I got up to state again
what had been stated before.
Dr. COCKBURN.-Not contemptuous.
Mr. OCONNOR.-I know the honorable member meant nothing personal, but I thought it necessary to state
605 the reasons of what, had it not been for the honorable member's statement, would have seemed to be a
perfectly obvious proposition. Mr. Clark, of Tasmania, thought the amendment of importance, and pointed
out that it had been put in the United States Constitution. It should also be put in this Constitution, not
necessarily as an imputation on any state or any body of states, but as a guarantee for all time for the
citizens of the Commonwealth that they shall be treated according to what we recognise to be the
610 principles of justice and of equality.
END QUOTE
615 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
So that any citizen of any portion of the Commonwealth would have the guarantee of liberty and safety in
regard to the processes of law, and also would have a guarantee of the equal administration of the law as it
exists. I think Mr. Isaacs will bear me out, that in the United States it has been decided that the title to equal
treatment under the law does not mean that you cannot make a law which differentiates one class of the
620 community from another; but, as has been decided, it means that in the administration of the laws you have
made, all the citizens shall be treated equally. And that should be so. Whatever privilege we give to our
citizens, the administration of the law should be equal to all, whatever their colour. The case I refer to is
one of the Chinese cases-I forget the name of it.
END QUOTE
625
Where the premier instructed the police not to fine thousands of protestors then in my view he
nullified the law in that regard and any fines dished out to other protesters must be considered an
abuse of power and denial of equality.
630 QUOTE
How innocent People on their Own - Get Attacked by Police
10 Aug at 8:43 pm
healthachievers - <healthachievers@hotmail.com>
Hopefully, you can open up Link:
635
https://www.facebook.com/fiona.mcmurdo.1/posts/3067918993320622
Sitting in the Sun alone, no one near me, minding my own business, no one within 10 metres of me waiting for
my fish & chips.
640 Police car swoops in as if they had just spotted a Criminal Stabbing someone.

13
Why are you not wearing a mask?
Officer there is no one around
Why are you not wearing a mask?
Have I disturbed the peace?
645 No answer
You name & address?
Have I disturbed the peace?
Well it’s Law to wear one
No, it’s NOT LAW it just highly recommended
650 I am #peacefullyprotesting
You are under arrest
No, you can’t arrest me I haven’t broken the law.
Violently thrown face down over the bonnet of the car, one arm up my back, sunglasses go flying onto his
windshield, prescription glasses, cost shitloads, other hand reaching for my sunglasses, the demon (which is
655 very angry) throws me to the ground violently and tightly handcuffs me with his KNEE on my NECK!!!
The lady Senior Constable whilst I’m handcuffed reaches into my wallet (no permission) and takes out my
Drivers License.
Check me out - no outstanding warrants
He uncuffs me and tells me he is sending me some TOILET PAPER with numerals on it.
660 I stand and LOOK HIM IN HIS DEMON EYES and tell him “I am NOT someone YOU FUCK WITH”
He has been SERVED NOTICE!
Neither the EMERALD or PAKENHAM Police stations answered their phones.
PUSSIES!
END QUOTE
665
While the Victorian Government had the Victorian Police fining for exercising their democratic
rights to express their opposition to draconically suppressing torturous conditions applied by the
State government, the Victorian Police however fined those persons for doing so.
In my view, this was unconstitutional and a STATUS QUO should be applied to all and any
670 fines issued and this subject to the High Court of Australia determining matters.
.
While the High Court in the Albert Langer case appeared to accept that political liberty was part
of the constitutional framework, reality is that it always was part of the constitution as the
Framers of the Constitution made clear. No government owns the constitution nor can any court
675 amend the constitution as the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
680 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
685 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
690 Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but
every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have
695 made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a
Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other
questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
700 Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided,
first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is
the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be

14
twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting
independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the
705 constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be
above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of
saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve.
What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or
710 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, 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
715 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
I understand that the High Court of Australia held that the wording “peace, order and good
720 government” had no meaning, however I disagree with this as the Framers of the Constitution
made clear:
725 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
730 own territory. 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.
END QUOTE

735 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble,
and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear,
we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass
740 the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too
much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
745 QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
750 the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
755 have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to
it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
760 END QUOTE
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

15
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
I hope that I am at any rate acting in the spirit in which we all labour together, and that the result of our
765 labour will be to found a state of high and august aims, working by the eternal principles of justice and not
to the music of bullets, and affording an example of freedom, political morality, and just action to the
individual, the state and the nation which will one day be the envy of the world.
END QUOTE
770 Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY:
These must seem almost too daring speculations; but, in point of fact, we are marching on to an
altogether new epoch, to new times, and the very essence of the constitution must be this: I heard one
hon. gentleman here state that we must remember that we are legislating for the future; and I agree
775 with him if he meant that we are legislating in such a manner as to enable the future to legislate for
itself-that it is our object that freedom in every respect shall be given, so that as each generation
comes on they shall say, "Blessed be those ancestors of ours who have left us this freedom, so that
nothing can take place-no changes in the state of the world-but we possess all powers to define the
measures most necessary to bring peace and tranquillity at every epoch it comes on." That is the real
780 duty which we should aim to fulfil; and it is only by allowing the people to speak, and at all times to
declare [start page 140] their views and their wishes, and to have them carefully considered, that we
can insure peace, tranquillity, and prosperity to each country in each successive epoch of time as it
arrives.
END QUOTE
785
Therefore the wording “peace, order and good government” must be accepted to apply to any
legislation that is enacted and any rule, regulation, etc exercised within delegated powers.
For example out constitution was founded upon the basis that we are under the British Monarchy
and any person who resides within a State (Territories are quasi States) is by this a “State citizen”
790 and by this AUTOMATICALLY and “Australian citizen” regardless of the nationality this
person holds as long as the person is lawfully in the Commonwealth of Australia.

QUOTE
795 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
800 be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
805 who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and
clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to
810 place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the
right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a
thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should
be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

815 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
820 END QUOTE
16

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
825 Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
END QUOTE
830
I (representing myself in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka succeeded in both appeals (County Court of
Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630) regarding “FAILING TO VOTE” that this
“compulsory” part was unconstitutional, for various reasons.
835 One being that “compulsory” was violating my constitutional rights of “political liberty”.
I am aware that the High Court of Australia has in the past in other cases held that the
requirement to vote could not be enforced considering it was a “secret” ballot, however I view
the Court failed to understand the real issues, this as it seemed to hold that a person had to do no
more but to attend to the polling station.
840 I exercised this right to attend to the polling and then left (after my wife voted, as I was assisting
her due to her poor eyesight) without anyone asking my name, whereas my wife stated her name
and voted. Later it was claimed I had not attend, albeit I had photo graphic evidence proving I
had been there.
A subsequent political voting event I attended and did make my name known and the person than
845 marked my name. However, I refused to accept the ballot papers and left but then went to
observe (through a glass window in the door) what was going to be done with the ballot papers I
had refused. I then noticed the person to call over the Electoral Officer in charge and handing
him the ballot papers. He took it to a desk and I observed him to write on the ballot papers.
Subsequently he placed the ballot papers in the relevant ballot paper boxes. I filed a formal
850 complaint regarding this but never was provided with a satisfactory response.
As such, it is clear that when one doesn’t desire to vote then one simply doesn’t have once name
marked of to avoid fraudulent use of the ballot papers by election officials.
The Victorian legislation appears to me to provide exclusion of voting on religious basis.

855 This likewise is applicable in the Commonwealth election system.
QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
I take the position that Subsection 245(14) of the Constitution is not and cannot be regarded to limit the right of a
objection to be only a (theistic belief ) “religious objection” but includes also any secular belief objection.
860
If Subsection 245(14) was limited to being “theistic belief” then it would be unconstitutional.
QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
865 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
Melbourne Office, 22 nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
870 T01567737 & Q01897630
AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) offend Section 116 if the
Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.
875
Madam,

17
As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate that while using the
“religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider
that this subsection 14 limits an objection only to an “theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in fact it also
880 includes any secular belief based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses as grounds
for an “objection”. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of Australia to limit the
scope of subsection 245(14) to only “theistic belief” based “religious objections”. Therefore, any person having a
purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source of “religious objection” have a valid objection.
Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state his/her religion, and neither
885 which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious objection” as the mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute
what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a “religious objection”. Therefore, the wording “ religious
objection” is to be taken as “objection” without the word “religion” having any special meaning in that regard.
If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.
890
Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
QUOTE 7-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 7-6-2006

895 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 7-6-2006
C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
Melbourne Office, 22 nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
900 Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
T01567737 & Q01897630
AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Re; Charges, etc
Madam,
905 With proceedings due next month, I view it would be more appropriate if you were to make some effort as
to communicate with myself regarding matters relating to the charges and indeed the legal justification of them.
After all, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions may be litigating against many people allegedly failing
to vote, besides myself, and it may be born out by my material that none of such litigation could be constitutionally
valid. In my view, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions must consider ALL RELEVANT
910 MATERIAL as to ensure it is not pursuing vexatious charges.
I assume that while you are a lawyer, more then likely you are not a “constitutionalist”, and as such may lack the
experiences and competence to understand and comprehend the material I am relying upon, and for this you may do
better to perhaps seek to consult a “constitutionalist” who is appropriately trained in these matters. After all, if a
“constitutionalist” were to conclude that indeed I am on the right track that the charges have no constitutional
915 validity then you could surely save the Courts time to hear and determine vexatious charges or even to try to attempt
to do so.
Albeit, I am still working on the DRAFT version of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT, it nevertheless is already
comprehensive and would indicate to a “constitutionalist” that the charges are ill conceived and without any
constitutional bases to proceed with, and as such I am willing to provide an electronic copy to you of the DRAFT,
920 albeit not completed, version so you may perhaps seek advise of a “constitutionalist”.
Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA

END QUOTE 7-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 7-6-2006
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
925
Firstly, I do wish to quote Section 117 and then 116 of the Constitution, both being relevant;
117 Rights of residents in States

930 A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject
in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would
not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen
resident in such other State.
935

18
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,
Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
940
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the
prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it
being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the
words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to
945 formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is
contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose
conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are
950 based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those
whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of
exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should
extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its
955 coverage. Pp. 361-367.
And;
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
960
Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and
support materials provided in the following link:
965 Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation
Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a
recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not
require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious
970 exemption to be challenged.
And
Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law.
You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to
975 submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do
not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
And
Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the
law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are
980 betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.
What appears to be clear is that a “religious objection” is not qualified to a specific religion and neither can be as
this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be associated with any particular religion as
this would also interfere with Section 116 of the Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the “religious
985 objection” Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious
person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNITED
STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the “religious objection” applies as much to non
religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is
entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion mentioned.
990 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
It must be considered that the then Victorian Attorney-General Mr R Hulls made known to
abide by the Courts decision. Where I had served upon all Attorney-Generals a NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS then for all purposes and intend the State of Victoria was
995 bound to accept the court’s decision to uphold both my appeals and should immediately have set
aside any “compulsory” part of voting in political elections. This however it failed to do. This to
me was a violation of the courts ruling to uphold my constitutional rights not to be forced to vote.
19
While electoral officers are aware that at times I do vote, but that is when I consider there is a
candidate standing I view reflects my political views and worthy to vote for. As such, I am not
1000 against voting itself but against the unconstitutional “compulsory” voting part.
As I have set out above, if I attend and provide my name then it is deemed I voted, and that to me
is a violation of my constitutional rights. I have always accepted that if I desire to vote and
exercise this right then I am obligated to follow the voting procedures but if I do not desire to
1005 vote I cannot be forced to attend to some polling station to enable some electoral officer to
fraudulently use the ballot papers I refused to use.
It is in my view clear that the State of Victoria deliberately ignores the rule of law and so a court
decision. Yet it argues that citizens have to follow the rule of law.
1010 .
I urge the Government to place before the Parliament to immediately amend any
legislation that requires/implies “compulsory” voting in political elections on the basis
it violated the legal principles embedded in the constitution of “political liberty”.
1015 Victoria has a Chief Commissioner of Police who was recently appointed and who I understood
to make clear that police already smashed windows of 4 cars and would do so again. As such in
my view the Chief Commissioner of Police let police to operate like NAZI/Statsi storm-troupers
rather than to respect the rule of law.
1020 It should be understood, and I have extensively outlined in my numerous documents that were
provided to the Prime Minister as well as to the Premier of Victoria and others, that masks do not
prevent any alleged COVID-19 infection. No masks as I had been able to ascertain anywhere in
the world is designed specifically to prevent any COVID-19 infection. As a matter of fact, many
manufacturers now warn on the package that the masks are not designed for usage against
1025 COVID-19. There is also ample of medial publications and videos that to use a mask actually can
result in more likely becoming infected with COVID-19 as well as that the mask deprives the
wearer of normal oxygen, etc, and therefore is dangerous. This alone ought to be kept in mind
that a driver of a motor vehicle must not wear a mask as this could deprive the driver of proper
oxygen and may result in motor vehicle accidents and fatalities. The same with a face shield,
1030 they are not manufactured to be used by a driver of a motor vehicle and as such can cause serial
facial injuries in case of an accident, if worn by any person travelling in a motor vehicle.
Positive Tests Are Not COVID Cases - Where's the Epidemic_ - Dr Tim O'Shea
QUOTE
1035 Surgeon General Jerome Adams:
Wearing face masks could actually increase The risk of contracting COVID-19
END QUOTE
www.who.int/publications-detail/advis-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-
1040 settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak
“the wide use of masks by healthy people … is not supported by current evidence… and carries
uncertainties and critical risks….”
1045 “…there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask by healthy can prevent infection with
respiratory viruses including COVID-19”
“Keep a distance of at least 1 meter from other people.”
1050 British Medical Journal: 9 Apr 20

http://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435/rr-40

20
Covid-19: important potential side effects of wearing face mask
1055 “face masks make breathing more difficult. For people with COPD, masks
are in fact intolerable as they worsen their breathlessness.[5] Moreover, a
fraction of carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inhaled at each respiratory
cycle. This may worsen the burden of covid-19.”
1060 ‘…mask fabric ;;; can determine an increase in viral load and therefore they
can defeat the innate immunity … an increase in infections.”
It is not time to act without evidence.”
1065 BMJ 2020 Face mask for public during the covid-19 crisis
H ttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1435
“no random trial of mask so far for COVID-19
“No randomised trials of masks so far for covid-19

1070 “we did not find any published data that directly support the use of masks by the public.”
“10 randomised controlled trials .. that tested the efficacy of face masks… meta-analysis found no
significant reduction in influenza transmission.”
1075 “…31 eligible studies … The evidence is not sufficient strong to support the use of facemasks as a
protective measure against covid-19.”
Must view!! In my Opinion Cop attmpted Sexual Assault.... on a Young Gir
17..
11 Aug at 2:21 pm
1080 healthachievers - <healthachievers@hotmail.com>
https://www.facebook.com/100008876711059/videos/2339868449652356
It appears to me that this 17 year old girl made known to have a medical condition which is
exempted by the Department of health to wear a mask, but the Victorian Police simply ignores
1085 this.
.
Indeed on 10 August 2020 I was given the understanding by the Victorian Police that I had to
leave a shopping centre as it was private property and I was trespassing by not wearing a mask.
However subsequent correspondence from the Centre management made known they were aware
1090 of the mask exemption on medical disability grounds. I had before the police arrived actually
shown to Centre security my medical exemption certificate, which legally was not required to be
done and subsequently also to the Victorian police but nevertheless was required to leave.
As such, it is not enforcement of the rule of law in any shape or from but a dictatorship to deny a
person to exercise his/her constitutional and other rights.
1095 The Acting Sgt made known he was not aware of the exemption provision!
By this innocent motorist not wearing a mask (for safety reasons also) are then having their
windows smashed if they didn’t provide identity even so they do not have to if this is relating to
not wearing a mask for medical condition..
1100 .
https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/face-coverings-work-covid-19#what-does-wearing-a-face-covering-mean
QUOTE
 You must carry a face covering with you when leaving home for one of the four reasons, even if you don’t
need to wear it while undertaking your current activity, for example you can take your face covering off to
1105 eat. If you have a medical condition that prevents you from wearing a face covering at all times you
don’t need to carry it with you.
END QUOTE

21
In my view, the wearing of a mask as such while in charge of a motor vehicle could lead to an
1110 accident. Yet many drivers view they are obligated to wear a mask while driving.
Ordinary the Victorian Police has a right to request a driver of a motor vehicle to provide
identification if the person is lawfully in charge of a motor vehicle. However, we now have that
the Victorian Police target motorist who do not wear a mask. That I view is unconstitutional and
1115 unlawful. This as the police are deliberately targeting drivers not wearing a face mask and so not
performing an ordinary general checking.
QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give
1120 good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the
conspiracy.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 H.L.C. (per Lord Wensdayle)

1125 In construing wills and indeed, statutes and all written documents, the grammatical and ordinary sense of
the word is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency
with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical or ordinary sense of the words may be
modified so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency but no further.
END QUOTE
1130 .
QUOTE Abley v Dale (1850) 20 L.J.C.P. 35 (per Jervis C.J.)
We assume the function of legislation when we depart from the ordinary meaning of the precise terms used,
merely because we see, or fancy to see, an absurdity or manifest injustices from an adherence to their literal
meaning
1135 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Camden Marquis v Inland Revenue Commissioners (1914) 1 KB 641 (per Latham C.J.)
In Bendixon v Coleman (1945) 68 CLR 401 at 415
Stitt v Radford (1926) 26 SR (NSW) 263 at 265 43 WN at 75
1140 Re Rippon housing confirmation order 1938
White v Minister for Health (1939) 2 KB 838
The court takes judicial notice of the meaning of ordinary words, and evidence is not admissible to expound
their meaning; though the court, in addition to using its own knowledge, may refer to standard authors and
authoritative dictionaries in order to obtain assistance in interpretation.
1145 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Powell v Trantor (1984) 3 H & C 458 at p461 (159 E.R. 610 at 611)
The golden rule of construction is, that words are to be construed according to their natural meaning, unless
such a construction would render them senseless, or would be opposed to the general scope and intent of
1150 the instrument, or unless there is some cogent reason of convenience in favour of a different interpretation.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes 8th Ed. p2;

Hotel Kingston Ltd. v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1944) 69 CLR 221; 28 Austin Digest 752
1155 The first and most elementary rule of construction is that it is to be assumed that the words and phrases are
to be used in their technical meaning if they have acquired one and in their popular meaning if they have
not, and that the phrases and sentences are to be construed according to the rules of grammar; and from this
presumption it is not allowable to depart, where the language admits to no other meaning, nor, where it is
susceptible of another meaning, unless adequate grounds are found, either in the history or cause of the
1160 enactment or in the context or in the consequences which would result from the literal interpretation, for
concluding that that interpretation does not give the real intention of the legislature.
END QUOTE
It also ought to be considered that the direction refers to “home” which is a very vague word.
1165 Home for a homeless person might be considered to be the street he/she lives at. However, a
person who travels and for overnight stays at a hotel may not consider this to be his/her home. It

22
might be considered his temporary resident while he status at the hotel/motel or other temporary
accommodation but it hardly could be considered to be a home.
1170 The word “home” does not necessarily mean a house where one may live in because many may
not consider it to be a home for home-life due to the circumstances prevailing. Those who are
unable to pay gas and electricity bills due to the Government so to say throwing them out of their
work, obviously may no longer consider that where they reside is a “home” as one would
ordinary refer to as in homely.
1175
Likewise with the “mask” we are in a multicultural society and the word “mask” could be a
“mask” that is used for festivities purposes such as for a dress up. A mask could be something
criminals may use to hide their facial identity. A mask for a woman might be something they
hold improve their skin and so they place some compound on their face for this purpose.
1180
We also have the Premier of Victoria making known a shawl is a substitute for a mask.
.
And the health official of the Department of Health also announced that mask with ventilators
are not to be used. Meaning that the Department of health had already issued its directive “Stay
1185 at Home Directions (Restricted Areas) (No 4) - 22 July 2020” without having properly
considered at all what kind of mask it was actually referring to. After all had it done so it would
not afterwards have to state that mask with ventilators are not to be used.
QUOTE In the Marriage of Attreed (9180) 6 FLR 453 and 456 Held –
1190 In relation to a charge of contempt, there is an onus of proof upon the applicant to establish each element of the
offence beyond reasonable doubt. One such element is that the offence was committed knowingly and
without reasonable cause or excuse. The respondent is not required to establish on the balance of probabilities
that he had just cause or excuse.
In my view the husband has only to satisfy me on the civil standard of proof
1195 END QUOTE
QUOTE Stancomb v Trowbridge Urban District Council (1910) 2 Ch 190

"On the evidence before me in this case I am satisfied that the respondent has disobeyed the order of the
court. Can it be said then, that such disobedience is more than casual or accidental and unintentional?. It
1200 seems to me that I cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this is so. The parties are in dispute
about the meaning of the order...". "In any event, suspicions, however grave, do not form a sufficient basis
upon which a committal for contempt of court can be made".
END QUOTE
1205 QUOTE In Constantine v Guilfoyle (1915) 32 W.N. (N.S.W.) 74 per Fergusson

No doubt it is the duty of the court to look at the object of an act in determining what is the meaning of the
language which the legislature had used; but it is no part of the duty of the court to endeavour to carry out that
object by making something an offence which the legislature itself has not made an offence.
END QUOTE
1210 .
QUOTE Dowling v Dowling, Exchequer (Ireland) (1869) 10 ICLR 236
Facts showing the circumstances and position of the parties whose conduct is in question are generally relevant
to such conduct. So, evidence of opportunity is relevant to the question whether a certain act was done.
Circumstantial evidence is admissible not only in the absence of direct evidence, but also in aid of direct
1215 evidence.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Ex Parte Lovell; Re Buckley (1938) 38 S.R. N.S.W. 155 at 158; 55 W.N. 63 Jordan C.J.
This court however must take the act as it finds it, and cannot do violence to its language in order to bring
1220 within its scope, cases, which although within its mischief are not within its words.
END QUOTE

23
As the meaning of “mask” is very dubious and can have different meanings to different persons
and the word “home” also has various different meaning then the directive I view was not
1225 enforceable. The mere fact that even the Victorian Police was using violence to enforce a
directive which they appeared to be unaware of was not to be used against any person with a
“medical condition” may underline that the terms were “vague and aloof” and couldn’t be
enforced whatsoever, apart of the unconstitutional/unlawful issues.
1230 http://www.heineraffair.info/site_pages/heiner_affair_quotes.html
"….So far as public confidence in the administration of justice is concerned, the position is even
worse if, as is usually the case, the law enforcement agents or those acting on their behalf are not
brought to account for their criminal acts. In cases of that kind, the courts are brought into
greater disrepute because they give the appearance of sanctioning illegality. And that appearance
1235 is given even if criticism is made of the police conduct involved. Indeed, criticism may well
appear to be mere humbug and, itself, lead to a further erosion of confidence in the courts. "
Justice Gaudron in John Anthony Ridgeway v The Queen F.C. No. 95/016 (1995) 129 ALR 41
(1995) 69 ALJR 484 at 39
1240 http://www.heineraffair.info/site_pages/heiner_affair_quotes.html
“…Our society relies on public confidence in its public institutions otherwise good government can
disintegrate into chaos. Maintaining that public confidence is the highest duty of public officials.
Perception and reality should not divide on this duty, moreover, it cannot afford to. While we
may all have different political and philosophical views about the role of government and life in
1245 general, the heritage given to us by those who have gone before, has decreed that we can all play
the political game without hindrance so long as we stay within the framework of the rule of law
under our Constitutional Monarchy.”
Kevin Lindeberg’s Opening Statement to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs in Brisbane on 16 March 2004.
1250
In my view all fines in regard of these issues should be held over and not be enforced pending
the High Court of Australia ruling on its legal validity.
.
Another matter is the provision of the “Stay at Home Directions (Restricted Areas) (No 4) - 22
1255 July 2020” itself. In my view the Government cannot delegate a decision of this magnitude to a
medical officer who may have next to no understanding/comprehension of if it is constitutionally
permissible. In my view no matter what a Health official may hold should be applied in the end
the relevant Minister must authorise this and be responsible. This as we have a “responsible
Minister system”.
1260
Let’s see what the Framers of the Constitution stated about the telephone, postal and other
services:
1265 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
It is just as important that the Federal Government shall have the care and management of the vehicles which
carry human beings and their goods as that it should have the care and [start page 769] management of
the vehicles or ways which carry letters and telegrams.
1270 END QUOTE
(Writers note: Notice they even refer to “management of the vehicles” not just photo
opportunities for a Minister!)
And:
1275 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
If you give over the telegraph and postal business you thereby hand to the custody of the Federal Government
all the local appointments-the appointing of the postmasters, clerks, and other officers, who do not do

24
1280 national, but the purest local business; and you at once raise up a large army of civil servants , the
influence of which we want to dissociate from our national life
END QUOTE
(Writers note: Notice they refer to appointments of officers etc and “large army of civil servants”
clearly this relates to Commonwealth Management, not some private company)
1285
While this may relate to communication, the legal principle is that a Minister must be so to say
hands on and ultimately is to be held accountable, and not that the Minister somehow can avoid
responsibility by delegating it to others what he/she is responsible for to answer to the
Parliament. Hence with the hotel fiasco ultimately the relevant Minister is accountable to the
1290 Parliament.

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government
1295 END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
1300 responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
END QUOTE
1305 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
The people of Victoria are under many obligations to their distinguished Chief Justice and especially for his
judgment in this suit, in which he has displayed the acumen of the lawyer, the eloquence of the orator, and
the grasp of the statesman. Chief Justice Higinbotham said:
It was the intention of the Legislative Council to provide a complete system of responsible
1310 government in and for Victoria, and that intention was carried into full legislative effect with the
knowledge and approval and at the instance of the Imperial Government by the "Constitution Statute,"
passed by the Imperial Parliament.
He was supported in his opinion by Mr. Justice Kerferd, who for some time was Attorney-General of
Victoria. Mr. Justice Kerferd said:
1315 All the prerogatives necessary for the safety and protection of the people, the administration of the law, and
the conduct of public affairs in and for Victoria, under our system of responsible government, have passed
as an incident to the grant of self-government (without which the grant itself would be of no effect) and
may be exercised by the representative of the Crown in the advice of responsible ministers.
These two quotations embody the belief which was held until lately in Victoria; the majority of our own
1320 Supreme Court overruled this reading. Mr. Justice Williams said:
I have been for years in common with, I believe, very many others, under the delusion (as I must term it)
that we enjoyed in this colony responsible government in the proper sense of the term. I awake to find, as
far as my opinion goes, that we have merely an instalment of responsible government.
Mr. Justice Holroyd considers that we have only a measure of self-government, and two other judges
1325 concur. My colleague, Mr. Wrixon, who argued the case with great force and ability before the Privy
Council, says:
If the reading put by the Supreme Court in Victoria upon our Constitution Act be correct, then not
only in the colony of Victoria, but in all the groups of Australasian colonies, the governments which
we now enjoy are without warrant of law.
1330 That is a strong statement, and the judgment of the majority of our Supreme Court justifies me in asserting
that this Convention cannot too soon face the issue involved in it. I take it that the people of Australasia will
not be satisfied with any "instalment" or any "measure" of responsible government, or any limitations,

25
except such as are necessary to the unity of the empire. We claim, without shadow of doubt or vestige of
qualification, all the powers and privileges possessed by Englishmen. The governor-general, as
1335 representative of the Queen in these federated colonies, should be clothed by statute with all the powers
which should belong to the representative of her Majesty; he should be above all risk of attack, because he
should act only on the advice of responsible ministers, who should be prepared either to obtain the
sanction of Parliament for their acts or vacate office. Parliament, in its turn, should be brought into
intimate relation with the electorates. This is true, popular government.
1340 END QUOTE
The question therefore is raised do we have a “responsible Government” and so “responsible

Minister” or just nothing at all.
QUOTE Mr. MACROSSAN:
As to the ministry being responsible to both houses, I think that is an utter impossibility. I do not see
how a ministry can be held in any way to be responsible to both houses of parliament, especially as one
1350 of those houses is to have a continuity of existence. If the senate was to be placed on the same footing as
the house of representatives, and was to be dissolved on the same occasions, there might be something
in the proposal. But as it will have a continuous life, and as whatever definite responsibility it may have
will be through the nominations of the legislatures of the different states, I do not see how a federal
ministry can be responsible to any house but the house of representatives.
1355 END QUOTE
And this is underlined by the fact that a Minister cannot be removed by a vote of the Upper
House regardless if the Minister is a Member of the Upper House as the function of being a
Minister is left to decide by the Lower House being the legislative Assembly. Hence, the need to
1360 have the legislative Assembly at all times able to be in session, in particular when there is a
crises claimed to be in existence. Where the Premier issued a State of Disaster, then clearly there
is a claim of a crisis and so the Legislative Assembly must be able to supervise the conduct of the
Government of the Day. Ultimately, the Minister and not the delegation to the agents are
accountable to the Legislative Assembly. With the hotel fiasco therefore the Minister was
1365 accountable to the Legislative Assembly and not that the Premier decides the faith of a Minister
in an arrogant unilateral decision regardless of the rights of the members of the Legislative
Assembly, perhaps hoping to ride out any crisis.
https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-related-sars-cov-2-found-chinese-mine-2013-was-sent-wuhan-lab-1515625
1370 Coronavirus Related to SARS-CoV-2 Found in Chinese Mine in 2013 Was Sent to Wuhan Lab
QUOTE
According to the Times investigation, six workers in China came down with severe pneumonia in
spring 2012 after cleaning bat feces from an abandoned copper mine near Tongguan, Yunnan
province.
1375 The miners fell ill with symptoms similar to COVID-19, including a fever, cough, sore limbs, and
breathing difficulties. Two men died initially. The four who survived men were tested for a raft of
infections, but these came back negative.
END QUOTE
1380 https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-related-sars-cov-2-found-chinese-mine-2013-was-sent-wuhan-lab-1515625
Coronavirus Related to SARS-CoV-2 Found in Chinese Mine in 2013 Was Sent to Wuhan Lab
QUOTE
Four of the men were found to have antibodies for an unknown SARS-like coronavirus. One later died.
The coronavirus was not named in the report.
1385 The men died of a fungus according to a recent interview with Shi by Scientific American, but she said
they would have eventually caught a coronavirus had the mine not been quickly shut.
END QUOTE
https://www.newsweek.com/kazakhstan-pneumonia-deadly-china-covid-1516850
1390 China Claims Unknown Pneumonia Deadlier Than Coronavirus Is Spreading in Kazakhstan
QUOTE
26
The Chinese Embassy in Kazakhstan wrote in an alert to its citizens that 1,772 people had been killed by an
"unknown pneumonia," including Chinese citizens, CNN reported
Cases have been rising since mid-June, according to the statement, and 628 people died last month. The
1395 regions of Atyrau, Aktobe and Shymkent were those affected
"The death rate of this disease is much higher than the novel coronavirus. The country's health departments
are conducting comparative research into the pneumonia virus, but have yet to identify the virus," the
statement said, according to the South China Morning Post.
Both CNN and the South China Morning Post reported the statement used the wording "unknown virus." It
1400 was unclear what lead them to make this claim.
The statement said officials have reported hundreds of cases per day in some parts of the country. The
embassy told residents to avoid going outside and to crowded public places. They also advised taking
precautionary measures such as wearing a mask, disinfecting their environment, handwashing, and
ventilating buildings, CNN reported.
1405 However, Kazakhstan's healthcare ministry described Chinese media reports on the "unknown pneumonia" as
"fake news" and "not consistent with reality" on its website.
The ministry said cases of bacterial, fungal, and viral pneumonia, including cases of unclear cause,
were in line with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.
1410 The ministry told Reuters: "The information published by some Chinese media regarding a new kind of
pneumonia in Kazakhstan is incorrect."
According to Reuters, the Kazinform state news agency said pneumonia cases in the country increased "2.2
times" this June when compared with last.
This week, Kazakhstan locked down for the second time in a bid to prevent the spread of the coronavirus
1415 behind the COVID-19 pandemic.
END QUOTE
https://www.newsweek.com/china-batwoman-coronavirus-tip-iceberg-1506427
China's 'Bat Woman' from Wuhan Institute of Virology Says Known Viruses 'Just the Tip of the Iceberg' in
1420 Threat Humans Face
QUOTE
A top Chinese virologist has warned that newly discovered viruses are "just the tip of the iceberg" when it
comes to the potential threat humans face from infectious diseases.
Shi Zhengli, the deputy director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who has been dubbed "bat woman" due
1425 to her team's work on SARS-like coronaviruses in these animals, made the remarks on Monday in an
interview with Chinese state TV station CGTN. The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is believed to have
originated in bats, with another animal thought to have acted as an intermediary host.
Shi said her team's 15 years of work on these pathogens has shown other coronaviruses could pose a threat to
humans. "The unknown viruses that we have discovered are actually just the tip of the iceberg,"
1430 END QUOTE
https://www.newsweek.com/bunyavirus-tick-virus-china-
1523528?amp=1?utm_source=wnd&utm_medium=wnd&utm_campaign=syndicated
Deadly Tick-Borne Virus That Can Be Transmitted Person-to-Person Reemerges in China
1435 QUOTE
The CNA news channel reported 23 people have been infected in the Anhui Province. Five of these patients
died, while two more deaths from the virus were recorded in Zhejiang Province. CNA said a woman in her
60s in Jiangsu Province was diagnosed with the virus after suffering from a fever, coughing and fatigue.
The novel bunyavirus was first discovered in 2009 in the Henan and Anhui provinces. Fatality rates vary
1440 between 1 and 5 percent, with older people more likely to die. "The early symptoms are fatigue and fever;
sometimes there will be a rash," Sheng said.
According to a 2011 NEJM correspondence about the novel bunyavirus, scientists initially thought the virus
could not be transmitted from person to person. However, a cluster of SFTS cases was identified that
appeared to show this route of transmission was possible.
1445 Scientists at the Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention found a case where a 59-year-
old man appeared to have passed the virus to his son-in-law, with laboratory tests showing both had been
infected by the bunyavirus. While the father could have come in contact with ticks carrying it, the son-in-law
had no contact with potential vectors or hosts. He had, however, had contact with bloody secretions and
blood that his father-in-law had vomited.
1450 END QUOTE

27
Reportedly, the Premier dictated that there was a crisis that a Statement of Disaster was to be
declared and a curfew was to be in place and yet reportedly the premier during this curfew goes
out to meet a reported 21 passenger planes albeit without passengers but loaded with cargo. It
1455 defies logic and belief that a Premier places himself above the rule of law. As a matter of fact
considering there is a new outbreak of tick causing dead then to have boxes without proper
decontamination arriving in passengers plane that could set off a wave of deadly infections may
underline that the curfew may have been applied not for combatting the so called COVID-19 but
rather was for ulterior purposes as to secretly have a foreign nation delivering electronic
1460 surveillance equipment nothing to do with COVID.19.
.
It is extra ordinary that businesses had to close down and many are likely bankrupted but the
premier can do whatever he likes. The rule of law is not applicable to him.
1465 The fact that it was announced that all passengers plane were being redirect from Melbourne
airport then why were nevertheless passengers planes landing, or was it that because they
contained cargo for the Premiers political agenda the rule of law doesn’t apply.
.
And what rule of law one has to ask?
1470 .
Our constitution is based upon that the Commonwealth has certain limited legislative powers
mainly stated within Section 51 and 52.
It should be understood that the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the States could
1475 exercise certain legislative powers listed within Section 51 unless and until if ever at all the
Commonwealth commenced to legislate. Once the commonwealth did so than the States had to
retire from this subject matter.
.
1480 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

1490 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
1500 the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
END QUOTE
This means that once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to “weight and measurers”
the States no longer had this legislative powers, but existing laws for so far not in conflict with

28
1505 the Commonwealth legislation could continue, albeit could not be amended after the
Commonwealth exercised its legislative powers.
.
For example, in Sydney Council v Commonwealth, 1904 the High Court of Australia held that
the council was no more but exercising State delegated land taxation. The court held that the
1510 council could not without the consent of the Commonwealth charge any land taxation called
:council rates”.
The Commonwealth legislated for the Land Tax Office (the fore runner of the ATO) to
commence on 11 November 1910 and by this actually wiped out the State Land Taxation
legislative powers and by this the States no longer could delegate land taxation powers to the
1515 municipal/shire councils as to charge it under the name of “council rates”. While in 1952 the
Commonwealth to some extend started to wind back it Land Taxation legislative powers this
however cannot be implied that therefore the States could recommence Land Taxation.
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law
that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union,
1525 because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power,
until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue
for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a
state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has any-
and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be
1530 inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should
say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not
be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Will you briefly restate the point?
Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive
at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working
1540 of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole
of the Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will
have no power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the
necessary revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question
whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes
1545 place on it, it has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the
question? I should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and
should be settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of
Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference. It appears to me that
this sub-section, which is certainly one of the very valuable sub-sections of this clause, affording, as it does,
1550 means by which the colonies may by common agreement bring about federal action, without amending the
Constitution, needs to be rendered more explicit. One point more especially which needs to be rendered clear
is whether, when we have this federal action, there shall not be a federal means of providing for the necessary
revenue that may be required or for imposing the necessary charges under such legislation.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Is that not implied?
1555 Mr. DEAKIN.-If it is implied, would it not be best to make it explicit? The parentage of this clause, as I
have shown-originating as it does in a body with practically no financial power-casts a certain suspicion on
that reading of it, although, of course, the provision when embodied in this Act would have a different effect.
Still, why not make it clear whether we mean that, when the Federal Parliament has passed federal
legislation for some of the colonies, we shall allow that same legislation to deal with any necessary
1560 raising of revenue from those colonies which may be required to give effect to the legislation?

29
Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-I think the point taken by my honorable friend (Mr. Deakin) is one well worthy of
the consideration of the Drafting Committee, and probably the difficulty to which he has drawn attention
could be obviated by some such provision as that which he suggested. But this matter has struck me also
from another point of view, and it seems to me that the provision affords an easy method of amending
1565 the Federal Constitution, without referring such amendments to the people of the various states for
their assent. Now, either when the state Parliaments have referred these matters to the Federal Parliament,
and the Federal Parliament has dealt with such matters, that becomes a federal law, and cannot afterwards be
repealed or revoked by the State Parliaments-that is one position, and in that case, of course, the reference
once made [start page 218] is a reference for all time, and cannot be revoked, so that to that extent it
1570 becomes an amendment of the states' Constitution, incorporated in and engrafted on the Federal
Constitution without the consent of the people of the various states. On the other hand, if that be not so,
and the states can, after making such reference, repeal such reference, what is the result? You have a
constant state of change-no guarantee for continuity or permanence-in this class of laws, and this might lead
to a great deal of confusion and a most unsatisfactory state of things. My principal objection to the provision
1575 is that it affords a free and easy method of amending the Federal Constitution without such amendments being
carried into effect in the manner provided by this Constitution.
Mr. BARTON.-I cannot understand how it gives an opportunity of amending the Federal
Constitution.
END QUOTE
1580
It would be absurd to have a court exercising federal jurisdiction making a decision and later
somehow a state court not exercising federal jurisdiction to overrule the federal court decision or
a court having exercised federal jurisdiction.
1585 Once the Commonwealth commenced to have Land Taxation then the tax must be “UNIFORM”
through the Commonwealth.
1590 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I am saying now that I do not think there is any necessity for clause 95 in its present form.
What I am saying however, is that it should be made certain that in the same way as you provide that the
Tariff or any taxation imposed shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, so it should be
provided with reference to trade and commerce that it shall be uniform and equal, so that the
1595 Commonwealth shall not give preference to any state or part of a state. Inasmuch as we provide that all
taxation, whether it be customs or excise duties, or direct taxation, must be uniform, and inasmuch as
we follow the United States Constitution in that particular-in the very same way I argue that we should
protect the trade and commerce sub-section by not doing anything which will limit its effect. That is the real
logical position.
1600 END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
1605 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
1615 END QUOTE
And

30
1620 QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
1625 sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
END QUOTE
Therefore, once the taxation was “UNIFORM” throughout the Commonwealth then the States
could not reclaim the taxation powers as to land taxation and charge whatever they wanted from
1630 their State residents.
His Honour French J of WA (later French CJ HCA) made clear that Subsection 51(xxxvii) was
only providing powers to the Commonwealth to accept a reference of powers from one or more
states but could not provide the States with powers as this has to be found elsewhere.
1635 .
Obviously, Section 123 is the correct vehicle, in that there is a separation of powers and as such
as the Letters Patent published in the Gazette on 2-1-1901 states the Governor can appoint a
“impartial Administration of Justice”. Hence, any tribunal that is a Government Department
cannot be accepted as a court of law. The so called Infringement Court cannot be accepted as a
1640 Court of Law because it doesn’t allow any ordinary citizen to petition this so called Infringement
Court but only those the Government permits to pursue matters.
.
Australasian Convention),
1645 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
1650 As I experienced a police officer issued me with an infringement notice citing the speed limit to
be 100 km/h and unbeknown to me he later changed this on the copy submitted to the so called
Perin Court to 80 km. I appealed this and the judge made clear that the documentation I had
obtained from VicRoads was in admissible because I didn’t possess this at the time of the
incident. This document proved the officer to have made false evidence under oath. In fact when
1655 I cross examined him as to explain to the court how he used the radar I noticed that he never did
state that he switched on the unit. I asked him again for clarification if he could explain precisely
to the court how he operated the unit and again he did not include any switching on of the radar.
As such, he could simply leave the radar unit on and use it time and time again for whomever.
Obviously, as the Commonwealth was endowed with legislative powers regarding “weight and
1660 measures” then unless the unit was certified by the Commonwealth it couldn’t be used. But the
police claiming to enforce the rule of law simply couldn’t care less to violate the rule of law.
QUOTE Re: Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458 James LJ

A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been
1665 pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or
wrongfully affected his title to something.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Privy Council in Att Gen of Gambia v N'Jie (1961) AC 617
1670 But the definition of James LJ is not to be regarded as exhaustive. Lord M R pointed out in Ex Parte Official
Receiver, re Reed Bowen and Co. (1887) 19 QBD 174 at p178. The words person aggrieved are of wide
import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. They do not include, of course, a mere busy

31
body who is interfering in things that do not concern him; but they do include a person who has a grievance
because an order was made which prejudicially affects his interests.
1675 END QUOTE
.
What ought to be clear is that any so called Infringement Court decision is unconstitutional
where it denied the accused to be heard.
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
1685 Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
1690 END QUOTE
International Finance Trust Company Limited v New South Wales Crime Commission [2009]
HCA 49 (12 November 2009)
QUOTE
1695 In 1864 the Supreme Court of the United States said: "Parties whose rights are to be affected are
entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified." [193]
Under Pt 2 of the Act, there is notification only after the defendant's rights are affected, and no provision for
any opportunity for defendants to argue that orders affecting them should be dissolved. In 1965 the Supreme
Court of the United States said that the opportunity to be heard "must be granted at a meaningful time
1700 and in a meaningful manner."[194]
END QUOTE
Where then reportedly some years ago some 2,000 NSW motorist were wrongly penalised by the
Victorian so called Infringement Court because allegedly the wrong data base was accessed then
1705 this underlines the dangers of allowing some so called Infringement Court to deny citizens their
right to be heard.
KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of Australia

QUOTE
1710 GIBBS C.J. These two matters raise for decision important questions as to
the validity of certain sections of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth),
as amended ("the Act"). (at p175)
END QUOTE
1715 As I understand it the Court failed to grasp that the (purported) Racial Discrimination Act 1975
was in fact unconstitutional, this as one cannot have conflicting legal legislation in place.
Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
1720 The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
1725 END QUOTE
It would be absurd if the Commonwealth using treaty powers somehow could harness legislative
powers that it ordinary didn’t possess and rob gradually the States from their legislative powers.
1730 The Framers of the Constitution made clear:

32

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
1735 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
the aboriginal race in any state.
Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I
understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general
1740 community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the
Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to
do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not
see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if
1745 Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which
are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do
not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
confines of Victoria at all.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
1750 Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I
do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to
debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think
that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
1755 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with
the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have
made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
1760 Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth
should not have power to devise such laws.
1765 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
1770 END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is
1775 co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any
disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
END QUOTE
1780 While the Commonwealth had what I consider if con-job 1967 Ss51(xxvi) referendum as to
include Aboriginals also within its legislative powers, albeit Torres Strait Islanders were not,

33
reality is that Aboriginals who had State franchise by Section 41 also were entitled and did vote
in the first federal election.
As Ss51(xxvi) was created to discriminate against “alien” “inferior” “coloured” “races” it in my
1785 view was a gross deception to include Aboriginals in this. As effectively they lost their equality
as other Australians. You cannot have two opposites in one constitution let alone the meaning of
one section having 2 opposite meanings. This means that if Ss51(xxvi) was to include
Aboriginals then they would be equal to “alien” “inferior” “coloured” “races”. Yet the High
Court of Australia in my view muddled this up with what I consider a “race” card as while the
1790 Commonwealth held that within its legislative powers it could deny “influx of criminals”
(regardless if they were British subjects or not) the High Court of Australia in contradiction to
this declared that 2 persons having convictions and born in New Zealand nevertheless could not
be deported where Aboriginals accepted them. This to me was not only absurd but a violation of
the judicial powers of the High Court of Australia. More over the Racial Discrimination Act is
1795 designed against “the general community” and so violated the legal principle embedded in
Ss51(xxvi). Aboriginals didn’t gain any legitimate status by this amendment of ss51(xxvi) but
rather now by the commonwealth legislating regarding Aboriginals by this automatically lost any
“citizenship”, this as to avoid them to overturn any adverse legislation. But, we have the State of
Victoria nevertheless legislating in regard of Aboriginals even so as shown above they no longer
1800 have such legislative powers. As such any such legislation at times claimed to be a treaty simply
are ultra vires and so without legal force.
1805 QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
1810 interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
1815 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE
“It is never too late to raise the issue of nullity and a person can ignore the void order or claim and
raise it as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461;
Smurthwaite v Hannay [1894] A.C. 494; Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963]; Lord Denning in
1820 MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]). ...
The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-
tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
QUOTE
1825 37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into
which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
END QUOTE
And
1830 QUOTE
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law
constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to
be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be
valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
1835 The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is
in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality
dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
34
Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not
1840 been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties,
confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no
protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to
1845 supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the
land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
END QUOTE
1850 As quoted below the Courts are not above the constitution as no citizen is. The constitution
cannot be amended by any court. The courts can only interpret the true meaning and application
as it born when it was enacted, and not upon the contemporary views of the judges face to make
a judicial determination.
1855 QUOTE Duncan v Queensland (1916) 22 CLR 556, 582 (per Griffith C.J.)
That case (a previous decision of the High Court, Foggit, Jones & Co v NSW (1915) 21 CLR 357) was
very briefly, and I regret to say, insufficiently argued and considered on the last day of the Sydney
sitting..... The arguments which now commend themselves to me as conclusive did not find entrance to
my mind. In my judgment that case was wrongly decided, and should be overruled.
1860 END QUOTE
QUOTE Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278
The oath of a justice of this court is ' to do right to all manner of people according to law' Our sworn duty is
to the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all. If, then, we find the law to be
1865 plainly in conflict with what we or any of our predecessors errornously thought it to be, we have, as I
conceive no right to choose between giving effect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, It
is not, in my opinion, better that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should be ultimately
right..
Whatever else may be said with respect to previous decisions - and it is necessary here to consider the
1870 principals upon which a court should act in particular cases - so much at least emerges as is undoubtedly
beyond challenge, that where a former decision is clearly wrong, and there are no circumstances
countervailing the primary duty of giving effect to the law as the court finds it, the real opinion of the court
should be expressed.
END QUOTE
1875
QUOTE Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278
In my opinion, where the prior decision is manifestly wrong, then, irrespective of the consequences, it is the
paramount and sworn duty of this court to declare the law truly....
END QUOTE
1880
In Sue v Hill the High Court of Australia acted in my view beyond its judicial powers. The Court
purported that somehow the Commonwealth of Australia became an independent nation.
.
1885 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 United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
1890 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 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
1895 by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.

35
QUOTE
1900 Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
1905 I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
1910 decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
1915 END QUOTE
.
I on 4 December 2020 (by consent) having filed and served a notice of constitutional matters was
provided with a court order that the constitutional matters I raised were to be heard and
determined by the High Court of Australia. The High Court of Australia never did so. As such,
1920 the purported legislation is and remains ULTRA VIRES. As such, my legal objection that the
(purported) Australian Citizenship Act 1948 was unconstitutional therefore remains applicable
Ab Initio.

1925 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act
capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let
the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but
trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution.
1930 The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the
Constitution.
END QUOTE
Again:
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
1940 to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
END QUOTE

1945 QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the
provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this
dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is
the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
1950 exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining
the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal
Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why
it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood
who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
1955 having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the
Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am

36
not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for
joining the Union.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Dr. QUICK (Victoria)-I do not propose to be as severe in my criticism of the provision of the honorable and
learned member (Mr. Symon) to-day as he was in his determined opposition to my proposed clause yesterday.
I would point out, however, two difficulties in the way of adopting his provision. The first is that there is no
1965 definition of the status of "citizen." The clause does not say whether a citizen is a ratepayer of a state, an
adult male, or any member of the population of a state-men, women, children, Chinamen, Japanese,
Hindoos, and other barbarians. Who are the citizens of a state?
Mr. SYMON.-That depends upon the law of the state upon the subject.
Dr. QUICK.-So far as I am aware, there is no law in any colony defining colonial citizenship or state
1970 citizenship. I am merely adopting the line of argument which my honorable and learned friend adopted
yesterday, in taking advantage of technical points.
Mr. SYMON.-That was not my line of argument.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
1980 Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
1985 to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
1990 determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
END QUOTE
In my view “Australian citizenship” was repeatedly referred to by the Framers of the
Constitution to denote “being a resident”.
1995 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
The Defendants submits, that “Australian citizenship” can only be obtained by obtaining “State citizenship”, as
it is not a nationality, but has to deal with being a recognised “State citizens” where one AUTOMATICALLY then
obtain “Australian citizenship” (“Commonwealth citizenship” which includes franchise. Because lawyers require
to make an “Oath of alliance” when seeking to be admitted to the BAR to practice, which now is to a LEGAL
2000 FICTIONAL “Queen of Australia” (as set out further in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT), while being a
Subjects of the British Crown, (as also set out further), then there is a clear conflict for any judge to deal with this
matter which would in effect involve his/her own personal legal position if qualified to be a judge of this Court.
Albeit judicial officers may not be aware that their true constitutionally nationality is and remain to be British
nationals and so any “Oath of alliance” to a LEGAL FICTIONAL “Queen of Australia” would be a conflict.
2005 Where the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill ousted Heather Hill of being a member of parliament upon the
basis that she was having alliance to a foreign Queen, then as set out further in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT,
the same applies to all other persons, including judicial officers, who by birth (including all those persons born
within the Commonwealth of Australia) or by naturalization are in fact “subjects of the British Crown.”
2010 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
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.

37
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
2015 when I made my remarks in proposing the clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position
we occupy as subjects of the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal
citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a
2020 Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
Again;
we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be
beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that.
2025
The High Court of Australia deriving its judicial powers within the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) cannot go beyond what is embedded in the Constitution, hence the constitutional
problem exist that judicial officers are constitutionally (by birth or naturalization) “subjects of the British Crown”
but wrongly excluded by the Sue v Hill decision as being deemed to be by this having alliance to a foreign Monarch.
2030 In view that by the Sue v Hill ruling the effect is that all judicial officers within the Commonwealth of Australia then
are having alliance to a foreign Monarch then none of the judicial officers (including those of the High Court of
Australia) could possibly determine their own status as only the Privi Council could do so.
As set out further in this document Subsection 51(xix) of the Constitution was provided for by the British Parliament
to naturalize “aliens” to become “British nationals”, and it never included any purported “Australian nationality”.
2035 The High Court of Australia has no constitutional powers to amend the Constitution as to purport this subsection
51(xix) has a different meaning then intended by the Framers of the Constitution, and hence all persons born in the
Commonwealth of Australia and those “naturalized” are and remain “subjects of the British Crown” with their
alliance to the British Monarch. As also set out extensively further in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT, no one
can have alliance to two Monarchs and therefore any Oath that purports to be to a “Queen of Australia” is a
2040 disqualification to serve as a judicial officer. With laws (legislation) now being enacted under the name of “Queen of
Australia” then all laws so enacted are constitutionally ULTRA VIRES and so without legal force. This applies also
to Proclamations and writs.
2045 Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)
Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well
as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen
from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new
order of things. Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is
2050 the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie;
allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority.
Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude.
Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is
perpetual. With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of
2055 citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in
which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously enforced, there are
striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth, and the homage, which, under every
modification of government, must be paid to the inherent rights of man.
And
2060 These are tacit acknowledgments of the right of expatriation, vested in the individuals; for, though they are
instances of adopting, not of discharging, subjects; yet, if Great Britain would (ex gratia) protect a Russian
naturalized by service, in her fleet, it is obvious that she cannot do so without recognizing his right of
expatriation to be superior to the Empress's right of allegiance. But it is not only in a negative way, that these
deviations in support of the general right appear. The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two
2065 sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of withdrawing
allegiance from a previous, sovereign.
And
The power of naturalizing has been vested in several of the state governments, and it now exists in the
general government; but the power to restrain or regulate the right of emigration, is no where
2070 surrendered by the people; and it must be repeated, that, what has not been given, ought not to be
assumed. It may be said, however, that such a power is necessary to the government, and that it is
implied in the authority to regulate the business of naturalization. In considering these positions , it
must be admitted, that although an individual has a right to expatriate himself, he has not a right to
seduce others from their country. Hence, those who forcibly, or seductively, take away a citizen,
38
2075 commit an act, which [p*143] forms a fair object of municipal police; and a conspiracy or combination,
to leave a country, might, likewise be properly guarded against. Such laws would not be an infraction
of the natural right of individuals; for, the natural rights of man are personal; he has no right to will
for others, and he does so, in effect, whenever he moves the mind of another to his purpose, by fear, by
fraud, or by persuasion.
2080 And
But naturalization and expatriation are matters of internal police; and must depend upon the
municipal law, though they may be illustrated and explained by the principles of general
jurisprudence. It is true, that the judicial power extends to a variety of objects; but the Supreme Court
is only a branch of that power; and depends on Congress for what portion it shall have, except in the
2085 cases of ambassadors, &c. particularly designated in the constitution. The power of declaring whether
a citizen shall be entitled in any form to expatriate himself, or, if entitled, to prescribe the form, is not
given to the Supreme Court; and, yet, that power will be exercised by the court, if they shall decide
against the expatriation of Captain Talbot. Let it not, after all, be understood, that the natural, loco-
motive, right of a free citizen, is independent of every social obligation. In time of war, it would be
2090 treason to migrate to any enemy's country and join his forces, under the pretext of expatriation. 1 Dall.
Rep. 53, and, even in time of peace, it would be, reprehensible (say the writers on the law of nature and
nations) to desert a country labouring under great calamities. So, if a man acting under the obligations
of an oath of office, withdraws to elude his responsibility, he changes his habitation, but not his
citizenship. It is not, however, private relations, but public relations; private responsibility, but public
2095 responsibility; that can affect the right: for, where the reason of the law ceases, the law itself must, also,
cease. There is not a private relation, for which a man is not as liable by local, as by natural,
allegiance;--after, as well as before, his expatriation: He must take care of his family, he must pay his
debts, wherever he resides; and there is no security in restraining emigration, as to those objects, since,
with respect to them, withdrawing is as effectual, as expatriating. Nor is it enough to impair the right of
2100 expatriation, that other nations are at war; it must be the country of the emigrant. No nation has a right to
interfere in the interior police of another: the rights and duties of citizenship, to be conferred, or released, are
matter of interior police; and yet, if a foreign war could affect [p*145] the question, every time that a fresh
power entered into a war, a new restraint would be imposed upon the natural rights of the citizens of a neutral
country; which, considering the constant warfare that afflicts the world, would amount to a perpetual
2105 controul. But the true distinction appears to be this:--The citizens of the neutral country may still exercise the
right of expatriation, but the belligerent power is entitled to say, "the act of joining our enemies, flagrante
bello, shall not be a valid act of expatriation." By this construction, the duty a nation owes to itself, the sacred
rights of the citizen, the law of nations, and the faith of treaties, will harmonize, though moving in distinct
and separate courses. To pursue the subject one step further: A man cannot owe allegiance to two
2110 sovereigns. 1Bl. Com. He cannot be citizen of two republics. If a man has a right to expatriate, and
another nation has a right and disposition to adopt him, it is a compact between the two parties,
consummated by the oath of allegiance. A man's last will, as to his citizenship, may be likened to his
last will, as to his estate; it supersedes every former disposition; and when either takes effect, the party,
in one case, is naturally dead, in the other, he is civilly dead;--but in both cases, as good Christians and
2115 good republicans, it must be presumed that he rises to another, if not to a better, life and country. An
act of expatriation, likewise, is susceptible of various kinds of proof. The Virginia law has selected one,
when the state permits her citizens to depart; but it is not, perhaps, either the most authentic, or the
most conclusive that the case admits. It may be done obscurely in a distant county court; and even
after the emigrant is released from Virginia, to what nation does he belong? He may have entered no
2120 other country, nor incurred any obligation to any other sovereign. Not being a citizen of Virginia, he
cannot be deemed a citizen of the United States. Shall he be called a citizen of the world; a human
balloon, detached and buoyant in the political atmosphere, gazed at wherever he passes, and settled
wherever he touches? But, on the other hand, the act of swearing allegiance to another sovereign, is
unequivocal and conclusive; extinguishing, at once, the claims of the deserted, and creating the right of
2125 the adopted, country. Sir William Blackstone, therefore, considers it as the strongest, though an ineffectual,
effort to emancipate a British subject from his natural allegiance; and the existing constitution of France
declares it expressly to be a criterion of expatriation. The same principle operates, when the naturalization
law of the United States provides, that the whole ceremony of initiation shall be performed in the American
courts; and if it is here considered as the proof of adoption, shall it not be considered, also, as the test of
2130 expatriation? If America [p*146] makes citizens in that way, shall we not allow to other nations, the privilege
of the same process? In short, to admit that Frenchmen may be made citizens by an oath of allegiance to
America, is, virtually, to admit, that Americans may be expatriated by an oath of allegiance to France. After
this discussion of principles, forming a necessary basis for the facts in this case, it is insisted, 1st, That Talbot
was a naturalized citizen of the French Republic at the time of receiving a commission to command the
2135 privateer, and of capturing the Magdalena. He left this country with the design to emigrate; and the act of
expatriation must be presumed to be regular, according to the laws of France, since it is certified by the

39
municipality of Point a Pitre, by the French Consul, and by the Governor of Guadaloupe. 2d, That Redick
was also, a naturalized citizen of the French Republic, when he purchased the vessel, and received a
commission to employ her as a privateer.
2140 And
Ballard was a citizen of Virginia, and also of the United States.
Within the united States of America a person granted naturalization is also granted citizenship, where as the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) does not provide for this.
Section 51(xix) provides for “naturalization”.

2145 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
No one would seek to argue that the European Union is a country. Yet, it doesn’t matter if one is a British national, a
Dutch national, Frenchman, German or else they are all “citizens of the European Union”
2150 Citizenship is not limited to the nationality of the person but by the territory in which the person resides that forms
part of the European Union.
No one could dream of the European Union to become some Monarchy, Republic or Dominion. Likewise, the
Commonwealth of Australia likewise cannot be a Monarchy, Republic or Dominion. It is a federation out of the
States.
2155 The States themselves can perhaps become independent in time and then assume to become a Republic or Monarchy
but not while they remain dominions. If the states cannot become Monarchies or Republics in the current climate
then their Agent, so to say, the Commonwealth of Australia hardly can take on some different constitutional
position.
2160 The term “citizenship” was not at all associated with “nationality” but rather covered any “subject of the Queen”
residing within the Commonwealth of Australia or for that the continent Australia.
The terms “Australian citizen”, “Australian citizens” , “Australian citizenship”, “Commonwealth citizens”, “federal
citizen”, “citizen of the Commonwealth” were used ongoing by the Framers of the Constitution, as shown below,
2165 and as such were terms not as to “nationality” but in regard of citizenship as being a resident in the colonies (now
States) and the Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore any constitutionalist, as I am, is or should be aware that the
term “Australian citizenship” cannot be held to relate to nationality. Neither that there can be an “Australian
nationality” merely because some judges happen to desire to make such a declaration as the proper powers to
legislate for this is to follow the procedures within Section 128 of the Constitution.
2170
13-02-1890 Re; Australian citizen
13-03-1891 Re; Australian citizens
Re; dual citizenship
2175 26-03-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
30-03-1897 Re; federal citizen
2180 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
12-04-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
Re; Commonwealth citizenship
2190 28-01-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
Re; Commonwealth citizens
08-02-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
2195 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
40
Re; federal citizenship
Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
2205 Re; Commonwealth citizenship
10-03-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
There can be no question that the above quotations of the 19 July 2006 appeals clearly also
2215 referred to “CITIZENSHIP” and a lot more was contained in my written submissions. Neither
the Commonwealth or any of the Attorney-Generals opposed any of my submissions and as such
while they had the opportunity to do so, if they desired to do so, decided not to do so.
Judges who had made an oath/affirmation to the British Crown had no legal position to claim that
the Commonwealth was an independent country. It was and remains to be no more but a political
2220 union!
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of
2225 the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute
majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed
amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions
in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the
2230 constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE
Hence despite Sue v Hill HCA decision the Commonwealth remains to be a “political union” in
the same manner as the European Union” to some degree is.
2235 Our constitution cannot provide for a Republic and for the Commonwealth of Australia to
become a Republic it would mean that a complete new constitution would be required. However
the Republican movement seems to be silent about this. The States somehow have progressively
sought to abandon the monarchical system and even pursue charges in the name of the DPP
rather than that of the Queen.
2240 What we have ended up with is that the very Premier pursing the rule of law is in my view one of
the greatest lawbreakers.
Indeed, S92 did not permit to lease the Port of Melbourne for the State to receive a reported $9
billion that was not in total provided for harbor improvements, and as such was an
unconstitutional tax.
QUOTE
Mr. HENRY: I would like to ask Mr. Barton what effect this would have on several Marine Boards and
Harbor Trusts of the colonies which are dependent for their revenues on tonnage rates. This clause, I see,
provides that no tonnage duty should be imposed except by Commonwealth. What position, I would like to
41
2250 know, would the various Harbor Trusts and Marine Boards, which are dependent for a portion of their
revenue on these tonnage dues, occupy till the Federal Commonwealth has had time to legislate upon this
matter.
Mr. BARTON: If the tonnage dues are not an infringement upon the principles of intercolonial freetrade, I
take it that they would remain in force after the establishment of the Commonwealth; but if the State
2255 proposed to take in hand legislation on the subject, it would not be permitted to legislate on that subject
without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
Mr. HIGGINS: If it were only an amendment?
Mr. BARTON: Possibly the only trouble there would be, that a period of six months would elapse before
the Commonwealth Parliament was called together after it is established. So far as the tonnage dues,
2260 mentioned by Mr. Henry, did not infringe upon the principles of intercolonial freedom of trade, there would
be no difficulty.
Mr. GLYNN: I think the last few words of this clause are too comprehensive in their meaning. In South
Australia there is a lot of land which is leased with the right of purchase, and I can see that under the latter
portion of this clause there is considerable danger of defeating the effect of direct taxation.
2265 Mr. O'CONNOR: In a case of that kind the reversion which is in the Crown would not be taxed, but
the letting value would be taxed.
Mr. BARTON: I might mention that the property of the Commonwealth in that land is the reversion upon
the lease. The reversion upon the lease would not be [start page 1002] taxable, but the interest of the lessee in
the property would be taxable.
2270 Mr. GLYNN: I am only pointing out a difficulty that might arise.
Mr. HENRY: I would like to raise a question as to the right of the Commonwealth to tax materials
for State purposes. In the event of a colony importing rails, machinery, engines, &c., for State
purposes, I would like to know whether such exports are to be free from Customs duties. Will the
Federal Parliament have a right to levy duties on materials imported for State purposes?
2275 Mr. BARTON: This is a matter that was discussed very fully in the Constitutional Committee, and I think
my hon. friend Sir George Turner will remember that I consulted the members of the Finance Committee
upon it, intimating to them the opinion of the Constitutional Committee on the point. The words:
Impose any tax on property
do not refer to the importation of goods at all, and any amendment to except the Customs would be
2280 unnecessary. This clause states that a State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the
Commonwealth, impose taxation on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, meaning by that
property of any kind which is in hand, such as land within the Commonwealth. That has no reference to
Customs duties.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Will articles imported by the States Governments come in free?
2285 Mr. BARTON: The question then arises whether articles imported by the States Governments are to
come in free, but this section has nothing to do with that. Under this Bill and in the measure of 1891 I
believe duties would have been collectable upon imports by any State, and after the consultation which
I had with the hon. member and his colleagues on the Finance Committee the Constitutional
Committee decided not to make any exemption in the case of any State.
2290 The CHAIRMAN: I would ask hon. members to confine themselves to the discussion of this clause.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: I propose to carry out your desire, Sir, to restrict my remarks to this particular
clause. In Victoria, as I mentioned the other day, we have an independent body called a Harbor Trust, which
collects a large amount of money and, as far as I can recollect, does it in the way of tonnage dues. If we pass
this clause, and we deprive this body of its revenue, they will simply have to fall back upon the Government
2295 of the State. What is the meaning of the phrase:
Impose tonnage dues?

42
According to the way I read the clause it means that it is not to pass any law which would put on any fresh
dues.
Mr. MCMILLAN: I suppose the States gave these rights to the harbor trust.
2300 Sir GEORGE TURNER: The State passes a law constituting a Harbor Trust and gives over to them the
right to collect these various revenues. What I desire is to preserve that right, whatever it may be. I am in
great difficulty as how this particular clause will affect that body, as well as similar bodies in other colonies
which collect small sums. I would be glad if my hon. friend Mr. Barton can give me any assistance with
regard to this matter, and tell us if this clause will or will not interfere with this existing body. If that be so I
2305 shall be prepared to let the clause pass, and then, before the adjourned Convention is held, we shall have an
opportunity in the different colonies of ascertaining how these dues and rates are collected, and how this
clause will affect them, and whether we should make this amendment. In the meantime I should like Mr.
Barton to give me the real meaning of the clause.
Mr. BARTON: As far as I can gather from this clause and the clause of 1891, it seems to me to refer to
2310 any future legislation on the subject:
The State shall not impose tonnage dues.
[start page 1003]
The question of whether existing legislation would be invalidated would depend, first, upon whether
the dues were an infringement of the equality of trade throughout the Commonwealth, and next upon
2315 whether the Commonwealth passed a law which-if it were in the province of the Commonwealth to past; it-
was in conflict with the law of the State, in which case, to the extent of the difference between the laws, the
law of the Commonwealth would prevail if section 98 were passed. It deals only with future legislation, I
think. but these tonnage dues may incur a prohibition if we find that they are a system of taxation,
because the Parliament of the Commonwealth has power to raise funds by any method of taxation. If
2320 the method of carrying out that power were found to be in conflict with the law of the State, the law of
the Commonwealth would prevail. We have no provision for the Commonwealth taking over harbors or
harbor works, and it may be a question for consideration whether the Commonwealth, as it has power to
legislate on other subjects relating to the regulation of commerce and trade and so on, should not take over
harbor works too. That is what, on the face of it, seems to me to be the effect of the clause.
2325 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think these tonnage dues must be excepted if the Parliament is to take over harbors.
Tonnage dues are simply payment for services rendered, and they do not practically come under the system
of taxation at all. They are levied for something done. If they are not excepted great trouble will ensue,
especially in regard to corporations. Is that System referred to by Sir George Turner administered by a
Minister of the Crown?
2330 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No.
Mr. MCMILLAN: Does it apply then? These. are dues paid by the State as a State, but the case mentioned
is one of a corporation, in which there is a payment for services rendered. Tolls are exacted for the services,
call them dues or wharfage rates or whatever you like; they are the same in essence.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: If we do not guard against it corporate bodies may evade the Act, and the State
2335 may appoint corporations to do work so as to evade it.
Mr. MCMILLAN: Something will have to be done or great trouble may ensue.
Mr. BARTON: With reference to the question of wharfage rates, members will recollect that the United
States Constitution contains a prohibition against the State levying tonnage duties without the consent of
Congress. It has been decided in the case of the Packet Company v. Catlettsburg, 105 U.S., 559:
2340 A city or town on a navigable river may exact a reasonable compensation for the use of the wharf which it
owns without infringing the constitutional provisions concerning tonnage taxes or regulations of commerce.
That would appear to be rather in favor of the exemption of the harbor trust.
Mr. HENRY: It is within my own knowledge that there are Marine Boards in Australia, at all events in
Tasmania, worked as State departments. They are nominee bodies with a Minister practically at their head.

43
2345 Mr. HIGGINS: Who gets the money?
Mr. HENRY: The Customs officers collect the wharfage and tonnage dues, and they pass into the hands of
the Government. I would like to ask Mr. Barton how it would operate in cases where the tonnage rates vary at
different ports in Australia? We might have one harbor with a particular rate and another with double or
treble that rate, so that we would not have an equality of trade. This is one of the difficulties which Mr.
2350 Barton. and others, in considering this matter, should have placed before them. In this clause we are going to
hand to the Federal Government the right to legislate with regard to tonnage dues, and it is desirable that we
should know precisely what we [start page 1004] are doing and how it is going to affect the various harbor
trusts and marine boards.
Mr. BARTON: On considering the matter, I think that the tonnage dues mentioned here-we have altered
2355 the word "duties" into "dues," and they seem to me like the word "tonnage dues" that used to prevail in the
the old country, such as tonnage dues on wines. We find the word referred to in Acts 9 Anne, and 10 George
IV. They were tonnage dues granted to the Queen, and I think those referred to here were the same in the
United States Constitution. Whether that be so or not, the tonnage dues referred to in the clause seem to be
charges for services performed. For instance, a Harbor Trust is formed and carries out improvements and as a
2360 means of recouping themselves the harbor authorities charge dues. Wharfage dues are for the use of a
wharf and have they not a similar meaning in the modern acceptation of the term? One is an impost
for the use of a wharf, the other for the use of a harbor on which money has been spent for the purpose
of rendering it more adapted for shipping. If that is so the words may be left out, and if they are left
out any tonnage due which is not a charge for services performed would be an impost interfering with
2365 the freedom of trade and intercourse, and would come under section 86; that is to say, as soon as
uniform duties have been imposed, trade and intercourse shall be absolutely free, If they interfere they
could only do so so far as they are of the nature of taxes. If they are only charges for services
performed, as I explained in connection with clause 83, then there can be no objection to them. because
charges for use of a wharf are much in the same position as charges of the post office authorities for the
2370 carriage of letters; they are payments for services. If that view is taken I shall offer no objection to it.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Why not for post and telegraphs?
Mr. BARTON: Any mere service that the Commonwealth does not take over is still in the hands of the
State. Clause 86 can only be infringed by something which means an interference with the freedom of
trade and intercourse. Anything that is fairly construable as a payment for services performed is not
2375 handed over-the mere service can be charged for as before, because it is not an interference with trade
and intercourse. In such cases as that, mere service can be charged for as before, because it is not an
interference with trade or intercourse. I think we may well accept that view and leave out the words:
Impose tonnage dues or.
I move that they be left out.

2380 END QUOTE
Therefore, I view Premier Daniel Andrews violated S92 by appropriating monies for ulterior
purposes nothing to do with harbor facilities being improved. It was a taxation prohibited by s92.
The states and territories violated also Section 117 (and regarding trade and commerce) S92 by
2385 locking the borders of the States/Teritories.
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
2390 the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
2395 END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
44
2400 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd clause, is
intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine. That simply applies to
quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
END QUOTE
2405 As such, I hold that the Commonwealth having legislated as to Biosecurity Act 2015 to deal with
“man-kind” diseases would be within the Commonwealth legislative powers of
QUARANTINE.
Obviously, QUARANTINE must be considered to be placed in special isolation to prevent an
infectious disease to be passed on to others. Those who are interstate travellers and those coming
2410 in from other countries must be accepted to fall within this legislative powers of the
Commonwealth. While I can accept the Commonwealth can delegate certain powers to the states
it cannot delegate its legislative powers. Hence, the ultimate responsibility will lie with the
Minister for Health. Where however a State holds on medical evidence that a citizen has an
infectious disease then the State is entitled to petition the Court to issue an order for the infected
2415 person to be confined into quarantine facilities. Such facilities must be appropriate for the kind of
infectious disease this person suffers from and medical evidence has been provided to
substantiate this,
Prime Minister Scott Morrison reportedly claimed that the COVID-19 disease was an invisible
2420 disease. In my view, this would be an absurdity as if one cannot establish the disease then any
justification to isolate a so called infectious person cannot exist.
https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=151356
QUOTE
2425 July 16, Ty & Charlene Bollinger: '8 “Facts” About Coronavirus That Are
Actually Lies'
Posted By: hobie
Date: Sunday, 26-Jul-2020 23:41:07
www.rumormill.news/151356
Published July 16 and making the rounds now vvia e-mail:

=====
https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/8-facts-actually-lies/
8 “Facts” About Coronavirus That Are Actually Lies
Have you ever pondered the fact that the current COVID lockdown, masks, and fear may
be a result of official “facts” that are not facts at all but are, well, actually lies?
In our opinion, the propaganda campaign surrounding this so-called “pandemic” has
achieved its goal. Inundated with voluminous amounts of contradictory information coming
from all angles, people in general have succumbed to “analysis paralysis,” confusion and
fear.
Many have given up trying to actually understand the situation and apparently have decided
that, regardless of how insane or illogical the directives may be, it’s just easier to act like
“robotic sheeple” and obey … even if it means giving up freedom and liberty.
We constantly hear about the “new normal” which includes COVID testing, contact

45
tracing, monitoring, surveillance, mask-wearing, social distancing, quarantine and isolation,
with the possibility of mandatory vaccinations and microchipping coming soon.
But cognitive dissonance has taken over. For instance, multiple studies have confirmed that
sunlight kills COVID in a matter of minutes, as reported in a recent New York Post article.
In light of this fact, why did Gavin “the Dictator” Newsom recently go full totalitarian and
ban activity on the beaches in California? And although multiple studies have shown that
COVID fatality rates are rapidly decreasing, the California “dictator” has arbitrarily (and
capriciously) proclaimed that indoor activities (including churches, gyms, and bars) in over
two dozen counties must be stopped … except for his winery, of course.
This is the stuff of tortured logic, and it’s a primary reason why many “thinking”
Americans are suspicious of government’s COVID guidance, and frustrated with private
business response to the guidance.
There are several official “facts” which have led to this insane state of fear and irrational
and illogical recommendations about COVID, and in this article, we’re going to prove,
without a shadow of a doubt, that they are lies.
OFFICIAL “FACT” #1: If a mayor or governor or other
“official” issues a COVID directive, it’s the same thing as
a law.
For instance, signs like the one below, seen in store windows across the USA, are lies.
There is no national law in America requiring citizens to wear face masks.
There are no state laws in America requiring citizens to wear face masks.
There are “executive orders” … which are not laws.
There are “government recommendations” … which are not laws.

There are “health and safety guidelines” … which are not laws.
OFFICIAL “FACT” #2: The COVID “Virus” Has Been
Identified & Isolated

46
The international lockdown is based upon the idea that there is a new distinct virus SARS-
CoV2 which is spreading, infecting and causing the disease known as “COVID-19.”
However, the virus itself has never been isolated nor thoroughly proven to be causing the
disease.
The fact is that the coronavirus fails Koch’s postulates.

“What are Koch’s postulates?”
Robert Koch (1843-1910) was a German scientist who identified the specific causative
agents of tuberculosis, cholera and anthrax. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1905.
Before he died, Koch established 4 criteria to identify the causative agent of a disease.
These criteria (“Koch’s postulates”) have become a “gold standard” for determining the
existence of an infectious agent and for isolating and verifying what is causing a disease.
They are as follows:
1. The microorganism must be identified in all individuals affected by the disease, but not
in healthy individuals.
2. The microorganism can be isolated from the diseased individual and grown in culture.
3. When introduced into a healthy individual, the cultured microorganism must cause
disease.
4. The microorganism must then be re-isolated from the experimental host, and found to be
identical to the original microorganism.
Firstly, SARS-CoV2 (allegedly causing the disease COVID-19) has not been shown to be
present only in sick people and not in healthy ones. There are countless cases of people
having this virus with absolutely no symptoms. So it FAILS postulate #1. And since it fails
postulate #1, it also FAILS postulate #3.
Secondly, SARS-CoV2 has never been isolated. Proper isolation must be done with
equipment such as electron microscopes and cannot be achieved through CT scans (which
the Chinese were using) or the PCR test (more on this in Assumption 3 below). So it
FAILS postulate #2. And since it fails postulate #2, it also FAILS postulate #4, since re-
isolation cannot take place if isolation has never occurred.
Heck, even a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine admitted that the
coronavirus failed Koch’s postulates.
OFFICIAL “FACT” #3: COVID-19 “PCR” Testing is
Accurate
The most common test for COVID-19 is the “Polymerase Chain Reaction” (PCR) test,
which is able to replicate DNA sequences billions of times. This test has SERIOUS
problems.
The PCR test was developed as a manufacturing technique, not as a diagnostic tool, and it
is qualitative not quantitative.
47
“What exactly does that mean?”
This means that the PCR test can only tell you if a virus is present or not, but it cannot tell
you in what quantities. Most importantly it cannot make any accurate assessment about
whether the virus is actually causing the disease.
Heck, even the CDC itself admits that a positive PCR test does not mean the virus is
causing the symptoms you may have!
These are the actual words of the CDC:

“Positive [test] results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule
out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the
definite cause of disease. … Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and
should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions.
Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and
epidemiological information.”
What? Huh?
If the scientific “gold standard” COVID-19 test (the PCR) doesn’t even provide proof that
the virus causes the disease, why is everyone rushing around like a headless chicken?
The PCR test doesn’t identify or isolate viruses, doesn’t provide RNA sequences of
pathogens, offers no baseline for comparison with patient samples, and cannot determine an
infected from an uninfected sample. That is staggeringly useless and scientifically
meaningless!
The reality is that we have no idea how many people actually have COVID-19. The CDC
cannot “confirm” something for which there is no accurate test.
OFFICIAL “FACT” #4: The COVID-19 Official “Death
Count” is Accurate
When it comes to the COVID-19 “death count,” authorities worldwide are counting the
deaths in a way that makes no sense, whatsoever.
Here’s why:
If someone dies after testing positive for parasitic infection, they are not listed as a
“PARASITE-19” death…
If someone dies after testing positive for fungal infection, they are not listed as a
“FUNGAL-19” death…
If someone dies after testing positive for herpes virus, they are not listed as a “HERPES-
19” death…
But if someone dies after testing positive for Coronavirus, they ARE listed as a “COVID-
19” death…

48
Does anyone see a problem here?
The sleight of hand is achieved by counting those who died with the Coronavirus as dying
from the Coronavirus, even though the CDC admits that a positive PCR test does not
necessarily mean it’s the cause of the symptoms or death.
This one trick alone is responsible for vastly skewing the numbers and turning the
“official” death count into a meaningless charade bereft of any practical value.
OFFICIAL “FACT” #5: COVID-19 is Exploding in the USA!
“Then why do the COVID-19 cases continue to increase?”
The answer is simple: because there is more testing.

Since the Coronavirus is really nothing more than an RNA sequence, it’s far more
pervasive than we have been told, and there are far more asymptomatic people than we
have been told.
The more we test, the more cases we will find. It’s basic mathematics.
OFFICIAL “FACT” #6: Global “Social Distancing”
Directives are Scientific
It’s interesting, depending upon the country, the Coronavirus is able to “travel” different
distances. For instance, in China, Denmark, and France, the “social distance” rule is 1
meter. In South Korea, it’s 1.4 meters. In Australia, Belgium, Germany and Spain, it’s 1.5
meters. In the USA it’s 6 feet (1.8 meters), while in Canada and the UK, it’s 2 meters.
Hmmm. That’s not exactly “scientific” is it?
Over long periods of time, social isolation can increase the risk of a variety of health
problems, including heart disease, depression, dementia, and even death. A 2015 meta-
analysis determined that chronic social isolation increases the risk of mortality by 29%.
OFFICIAL “FACT” #7: The COVID-19 “Mortality Rate” is
VERY HIGH
Most people are more likely to wind up “6 feet under” due to almost anything else under
the sun other than COVID-19.
According to Daniel Horowitz:

For the first time, the CDC has attempted to offer a real estimate of the overall death rate
49
for COVID-19 and under its most likely scenario, the number is 0.26%. Officials estimate a
0.4% fatality rate among those who are symptomatic and project a 35% rate of
asymptomatic cases among those infected, which drops the overall infection fatality rate
(IFR) to just 0.26% — almost exactly where Stanford researchers pegged it a month ago.”
Four infectious disease doctors in Canada estimate that the individual rate of death from
COVID-19 for people under 65 years of age is six per million people, or 0.0006% (i.e., 1 in
166,666) which is about the same chance you have of dying in a car accident or getting
struck by lightning. COVID-19 is not even as bad as the seasonal flu.
OFFICIAL “FACT” #8: Everyone Should Wear a Mask,
Even Healthy People
No studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any
effect on transmission of COVID-19.
The fact is that masks are designed for surgeons or people who are already sick, not for
healthy people, according to the WHO.
Plus, the “masks” many people are wearing (bandanas, handkerchiefs, crochet, and yes,
even lettuce) are a joke if you think they will stop a virus which is measured in nanometers.
They won’t stop a virus.

50
Wearing a mask is like installing a screen door in a submarine. Those who wear them might
as well wear their pants backwards as well. It’s like putting up a chain link fence to keep
out mosquitoes.
It is a “psy-op” faux security measure. And due to the COVID-19 fearmongering from the
mainstream media liars, the lemmings are all wearing masks, despite the fact that on the
box, it says that the mask does NOT protect you from COVID-19.
Just say “NO” to the “new normal” of wearing masks in public, and don’t let people get
away with calling you “selfish” for not wearing a mask! Educate them! Read our articles
on masks. Let them know the truth. For those who have ears to hear, it will resonate.
If we allow “mask shaming” to occur, then according to Dr. Joseph Mercola;
The same strategy will be used to label you a “selfish threat” to the public health if you
don’t agree to be electronically tagged, tested and tracked by health officials when
thousands of COVID-19 “contact tracers” fan out across America to test for COVID-19
infections. It is the same strategy that will be used when you are told you must get an
antibody test and obtain an “immunity passport” before you are given back your freedom
to participate in society — that is until a fast-tracked coronavirus vaccine is licensed and
your passport to life and liberty becomes proof you have received a COVID-19 vaccine —
perhaps simultaneously delivered and tracked via a microneedle quantum dot tattoo on
your skin.”
The decision to wear a mask is a highly personal one and should not be universally
mandated; measures that are meant to protect the community as a whole are ineffective if
they hurt individuals in that community.
So, it’s a slippery slope. Stand up for freedom, before it’s gone.
Let me explain where this is going.
In 2020 – a face mask is required

In 2021 – a vaccine is required
In 2022 – a microchip is required
Is this beyond the realm of possibility?
In summary, it’s clear that “Operation COVID-19” is not only a “scam-demic,” but also a
51
colossal and unprecedented worldwide “psy-op.”
All the “Executive Orders” and other types of power grabs are based on lies.
We are not looking at 1 virus.
We are not looking at 1 cause.

We are not looking at 1 disease.
We are looking at multiple Coronaviruses, a group of related symptoms and diseases, with
multiple causes, inadequate testing, with everything being swept under the COVID-19
“umbrella” to fuel the fake pandemic narrative.
In the words of our friend and investigative journalist, Jon Rappoport:
The stage magic trick is easy to see, once you grasp the tactics: Claim to have discovered a
new virus. Say it is spreading and needs to be contained. Invent an umbrella label for the
epidemic: COVID-19. Start pulling all sorts of people with all sorts of different conditions
under the umbrella and say they’re all “cases.” Use a diagnostic test that will
automatically turn out many verdicts of “infected.” And you have the illusion of a
pandemic.”
The world did not “lock down” during centuries of epidemics of smallpox, and we didn’t
stop working to prevent epidemics of diphtheria or pertussis or measles.
Societies have not closed businesses and schools to prevent TB or even the Spanish flu
pandemic of 1918.
According to Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Tomorrow, the “new normal” in America may well include the order to “show me your
vaccine papers” before you can enter a store or restaurant, go to school, attend a football
game, get on a plane, train or subway, obtain a driver’s license, be admitted to a hospital
or nursing home, get a room at a hotel or walk on a public beach, if health policy and
lawmakers do not use common sense to adopt a more balanced approach to dealing with a
virus that, so far, has changed everything.”
The USA is teetering on a precipice. Are we going to continue to act like “sheeple” ruled
by fear? Or are we brave men and women standing up for freedom and liberty?
When are the states going to reopen?

2430 END QUOTE
What this indicates and I have ample of videos to underlines this is that the hype about the
COVID-19 issue is not substantiated by the claims governments are making.
As Dr Kelly Victory made clear that some high school student for a school project came up with
2435 “social distancing” but it was never founded on scientific grounds. And as for, ask she makes
clear that not only it is not recommended for ordinary health persons but in fact it can be harmful
for them to use a mask, unless they are in a profession to protect the patient/elderly. The “social
distancing” concept was a high school student computer project that never had any
scientific/medical basis.
2440
Dr. Kelly Victory MD presents the Truth about Covid 19 - Must See!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f65PqWdg4g4

52
Dr. Kelly Victory MD presents the Truth about Covid 19 - Must See ...
11 Jul 2020 ... Another highly credentialed Doctor coming forward to expose the lies which have helped strip
2445 away our God give freedoms and liberties. Watch ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYcgfgM33uQ
The Truth and Facts about COVID 19 from Dr Kelly Victory - YouTube
10 Jul 2020 ... Official PPC Youtube:
2450 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMR4SQfGkEoiNfyaG_22Baw/videos People's Party of Canada: ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2rbIDYczvY
A Conversation with Dr. Kelly Victory - YouTube
6 days ago ... Today, I sat down with Dr. Kelly Victory to talk about the latest COVID-19 numbers and why
2455 it's so important to open our schools back up.
https://youtu.be/czCQ4X8dK6o
Dr. Fauci says There is No Reason to Wear a Mask
2460 https://www.stankovuniversallaw.com/2020/07/the-biggest-scientific-fraud-and-political-crime-of-all-times-
no-one-died-of-coronavirus/
No one has died from COVID 19,..another SCAM ‼️

QUOTE
Dr. Aleksov: I want to say again the last sentence, which is that no one has died from the
2465 coronavirus.
The people are dying WITH coronavirus, NOT from it.

There is no need for either the term pandemic or epidemic.
Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and Switzerland – this is what my colleagues from all
those countries said.
2470 END QUOTE
While there might be some some disease going about it is essential that like the Legionnaires
Disease relating to certain water towers and heating systems COVID-19 likely may also be a
“bacterium” that eventuates at certain locations. For example reportedly none of the about 186
2475 public nursing homes have any COVID-19 infections where as numerous private nursing homes
have people being infected as well as its staff.
Melbourne BS-19 2nd Wave EXPOSED!!!!! (https://youtu.be/8bV7eZawOPI) at the 26:52

mark one can see a staff member of the nursing home in PPE (personal protection equipment) having a
2480 gown, gloves, facemask unloading a trolley, from items that appear to be cartons, lifting a dump container
lid and places the cartons in it. This is precisely what I previous wrote about. The lid of the dump-master
may already have bacterium on it. So when the person lifts the lift his gloves will be contaminated. After
he empty the trolley he then goes back into the building with the already contaminated trolley and likely
go back to his kitchen duties where then the bacterium is spread further, likely also on meals prepared in
2485 the kitchen. Estia Aged Care Facility in Ardeer I understand is the location where this video was
recorded. While it only appears to have 53 bed facilities for residents, it allegedly recorded 144 infections.
I understand that nursing homes able to be paid $25,000 or something like this then ask relatives
of the resident that died if they agree to record COVID019 on the death certificate and for this it
will pay for the funeral cost. To me this is fraudulent but also deception by the State Government
2490 as to claim a number of persons died from COVID-19 as to apply its LOCKDOWN, CURFEW,
etc, when in fact this is not true at all. This elaborate deceptive conduct then results to that the
other States/Territories unconstitutionally closes their borders.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

53
2495 QUOTE
117 Rights of residents in States
A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability
or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen
resident in such other State.
2500 END QUOTE

QUOTE
92 Trade within the Commonwealth to be free
2505 On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether
by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
But notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, goods imported before the imposition of uniform duties of
customs into any State, or into any Colony which, whilst the goods remain therein, becomes a State, shall, on
thence passing into another State within two years after the imposition of such duties, be liable to any duty
2510 chargeable on the importation of such goods into the Commonwealth, less any duty paid in respect of the
goods on their importation.
END QUOTE
And the Commonwealth now in violation of s119 deployed ADF (Australian defence Force
personnel) as to enforce the rule of law. Well that is what it claims but reality is that it is not
2515 enforcement of law but of terrorism, this as it violates constitutional provisions.

QUOTE
119 Protection of States from invasion and violence
2520 The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and, on the application of the
Executive Government of the State, against domestic violence.
END QUOTE
There is no “civil war” (that was held to be “domestic violence” at the time of the Constitution
being drafted), and as such while the ADF can be deployed to assist in bushfires, etc, it cannot be
2525 deployed for law enforcement in any state. Yet it is nevertheless.
QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally
2530 immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.
END QUOTE
.
2535 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 proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
2540 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 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
2545 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 unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
such authority.
END QUOTE
2550
54
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
2555 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
2560 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.
2565 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to refutation if I am
2570 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 questions are not
state questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on national lines, and by a national
2575 referendum.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
2580 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
It should therefore be very clear that NO State, Territory, Commonwealth Parliament can amend
its own constitution.
It therefore also means that the purported 1975 Victorian Constitution is no constitutional at all.
2585 It is merely an Act of parliament as the original Colonial Constitution was transformed into state
Constitution albeit the parliament no longer being a “sovereign” Parliament but a “constitutional”
Parliament no longer could without of the electors consent by way of State referendum amend
the constitution. It also means that the 2001 Queensland Constitution is no valid constitution,
either as at the time Premier Peter Beatty pretended to revert back to the colonial constitution and
2590 then enact the 2001 State constitution. The problem being that the old colonial constitution no
longer existed. And the State constitution could not be aborted to be replaced with the 2001
Queensland Constitution without the approval by State referendum.
The same is with any purported “reference” of legislative powers from a State to the
commonwealth. Because of the separation of powers the Parliament of a State cannot remove
2595 judicial powers from the Supreme Court of the State. With a reference of legislative power’s this
would include the transfer of judicial powers relating to this reference of legislative powers and
clearly that is beyond the “constitutional” Parliament powers. As such, any “reference” of
legislative powers must be pursued within Section 123 of the (federal) constitution.
.While I understand lawyers are claiming that the (purported) Health and Welbeing Act (Vic) is
2600 within the legislatives powers of the (purported) 1975 Victorian constitution reality is that as this
is not a valid constitution then one had to go back to the Victorian colonial constitution “subject
to” the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).

55
And, clearly the State has no legislative powers other than the residue not provided to the
Commonwealth. The purported 1975 Victorian Constitution allegedly giving the State all
2605 legislative powers cannot be accepted as it would effectively mean it can disregard the provisions
of s51 and s52 of the (federal) constitution.
For this the purported Health and Welbeing Act (Vic) has no legal validity as it violates the
provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth). Therefore, effectively the State Government lacks
any powers in my view to apply any LOCKDOWNS, CURFEW, social distancing, mask, etc,
2610 enforcement. In my view, it constitutes constitutional terrorism to have the police enforcing
what has no legal foundation nor justification.
Here we had people expressing a political protest against constitutional terrorism and yet the
police are than misusing and abusing their powers against those protesters.
CRUDEN v. NEALE 2 NC 338 Chief Justice Paul de Jersey AC [1796]
2615 http://www.publicnoticeposted.com/cruden.htm
QUOTE
"When we speak of ‘the law’, we contemplate the legislature which enacts it, the police service which
enforces it – at least on the criminal side, and the courts of law which ensure the delivery of justice according
to law.
2620 It must be remembered that the charter of the courts is not to do justice, but to do justice according to law.
Subjective notions of justice vary immensely from person to person. The legal system would be unworkably
uncertain and unpredictable if judges applied their idiosyncratic notions of what is just. Accordingly, judges –
and police officers, are constrained by the law enacted by the people’s elected representatives in the
Parliament.
2625 The stipulation is for equal justice, of which the probably best-known symbol of the Supreme Court is the
statue of Themis standing with dignity before the courthouse in George Street. She is quite regularly
displayed in television coverage of legal proceedings. That regular ‘air time’ probably increases her notoriety,
but more fundamentally, it reflects her enduring iconic status – an ancient goddess whose influential message
still defines modern civil society."
2630 END QUOTE
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0003.f.cas/0003.f.cas.0221.pdf
BENNETT V. BOGGS.
QUOTE
2635 We cannot declare legislative act void because it conflicts with our opinions of policy, expediency or
justice. We are not the guardians of the rights of the people of a state unless they are secured by some
constitutional provision which comes within our judicial cognizance. The remedy for unwise or
oppressive legislation, within constitutional bounds, is by an appeal to the justice and patriotism of the
representatives of the people. If this fails, the people in their sovereign capacity can correct the evil; but
2640 courts cannot assume their rights.
END QUOTE
Ordinary unconstitutional legislation is and remains enforceable unless and until a person
formally object against it. As I did regarding the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948.
2645 When a formal objection is made the purported legislation is no more.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
2650 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
2655

56
Because I formally challenged the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 and none of the
Attorney-Generals challenged me upon this while they had been provided with an opportunity to
do so then they are bound by the court having upheld my appeals. It no longer can be re-litigated.
The same regarding “compulsory” part of voting, etc.
2660
There is absolutely no need for a court to adjudicate that a legislation is unconstitutional as in
Wakim it was made clear “he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour ”.
QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES
It is an organism, as I have tried to explain, for protecting each individual citizen in the undisturbed
possession of his property, in the undisturbed possession of his liberty, and from my point of view the
expense of that government ought to be defrayed in the easiest manner and only to the extent which is
2670 necessary for that purpose, and that taxation is unjustifiable for any other purpose whatever.
END QUOTE
We now have that the Premier unilaterally decided to do a LOCKDOWN based upon some cult
belief that COVID-19 was an infectious disease albeit not placing alleged infected person in
2675 isolated quarantine facilities. As such the political rhetoric was not at all supported by conduct
that ordinary was required if one deals with infectious disease issues.
QUOTE Farrelley v Farrelley 9 ALR Full Court of the High Court at 138 Mason J –
The marriage power enabled the commonwealth to provide for the enforcement of such rights, duties and
2680 obligations as may be created in exercising of the marriage power.
END QUOTE
We now have that allegedly the State government denies persons to get married, this even so it
lacks such a power as it falls within the Commonwealth legislative powers.
2685
QUOTE In R v Hall (Warwick & Asizes, 1-4-1845. Maule J.) (1845)
Be it so; yet you had no right to take the law into your own hands, I will tell you what you ought to have done,
and if you did know, I will tell you that the law conclusively presumes that you did.
END QUOTE
2690 .
This applies to politicians and their officials also. It is to me clear that neither the State
government nor the police had the powers to enforce LOCKDOWN, CURFEW, MASKS,
SOCIAL DISTANCING, etc. There was no reliable evidence of scientist/doctors that these
actions were justified
2695
There is now concern that the State of Victoria will mandate vaccinations of all citizens
regardless of their opposition towards it. This in my view defies belief and is unconstitutional.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
2700 Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
2705 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
2710
QUOTE

57
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
2715 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.
END QUOTE
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
2720 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
2725 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
2730 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
2735 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
https://cairnsnews.org/2018/11/19/u-s-govt-loses-landmark-vaccine-lawsuit/?wref=tp
U.S. GOVT LOSES LANDMARK VACCINE LAWSUIT
2740 NOV 19
Posted by Editor, cairnsnews
Forced vaccinations now can be legally stopped-no quality
control for 32 years
Wide ramifications for Australia
2745 Go to: Update from Doctor in Georgia 20/05/2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JG5b8Qt_CY&feature=youtu.be
https://www.aimintegrativemedicine.com/aim-integrative-medicine-blog/why-kennedy-sued-
the-government-over-vaccine-safety-won
http://icandecide.org/governments/
2750 Case 1:18-cv-03215-JMF Document 18 Filed 07/09/18
Vaccine injury lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,& Del Bigtree, producer of the suppressed anti-
vaccine documentary, Vaxxed and the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) are credited
with this victory. They demanded the relevant government documents proving that all federally
approved vaccines had been tested for quality over the past 32 years — and there were none.
2755
This I view is a very serious issue as with the TTP (Trans Trade partnership) the Commonwealth
may have entered into some agreement that those manufacturing vaccinations cannot be sued.
This I view would violate the rights of Australians to which the Commonwealth lacked any
legislative powers. Neither can the states force compulsory vaccinations where this is harmful to
2760 the person(s) to be vaccinated.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/08/australia-how-have-you-let-it-come-to-this/
Australia, How Have You Let it Come to This?
QUOTE

58
2765 Approximately 99 per cent of all infections for coronavirus have been mild. Of the 515
people in hospitals across Australia with coronavirus, 496 are in Victoria. Most of those
who have died were in their 80s and living in aged-care facilities.[2]
Unfortunately, none of these relevant considerations has prevented the Victorian

government imposing what is by far the greatest violation of fundamental rights in
2770 Australia’s history. Victorians have now been forced into stage 4 lockdown; almost 5
million people have been informed that the police can and will enter their homes for any
reason and without a warrant. Police can also stop anyone anywhere at any time and
demand to see their papers and determine if they have a valid reason to be away of their
homes.
2775 These extraordinary rules imposed on the citizens of Melbourne will remain in force for at
least the next five weeks. They include:
# The police can enter homes to carry out spot checks without permission or a warrant.
# Between the hours of 8.00 pm to 5.00 am nobody is allowed to leave their home except
for work, medical care or caregiving.
2780 # Daily exercise can only take place within a 5-kilometre distance of a person’s home.
# Apart from of maximum 1-hour of daily exercise, never in groups of more than two (even
if they are members of the same household), a person is only allowed to leave home for
essential supplies and food. Such shopping trips are permitted only once a day.
# In the whole of Victoria nobody is allowed to buy more than two of certain essential
2785 items, including dairy, meat, vegetables, fish and toilet paper.
# Schools, childcare and kindergarten have been closed until further notice.
# Golf courses and tennis courts have been closed; fishing is banned
# Weddings are no longer allowed, and funerals limited to only 10 mourners.

# Facemasks are mandatory for any activity outside the home. A farmer on his tractor,
2790 alone in the middle of an empty paddock, must be masked. Thius applies across the entire
length and breadth of the state.
# Nobody can receive visitors unless it is for the purpose of giving and receiving care.
The maximum fine for breaching any of these orders currently stands at $4,999. I am
unaware of any state or country anywhere in the world which levies such enormous on-the-
2795 spot fines for leaving home without what the authorities regard as a legitimate reason. On
just one day, August 6, Victoria Police conducted no less than 4,418 spot checks on homes,
businesses and public places, bringing the total to 234,275 since March 21. Also on that
very day, more than 50 people were fined for not wearing face masks, with a further 43
penalties issued for curfew breaches. One poor unfortunate, as VicPol gloated in a press
2800 release, was hit with a $1700 fine for leaving his home in the wee hours to buy “cigarettes
and lollies”.[3]
Victorians in Melbourne are forced to remain in their homes for what the government sees
as the ideal 23 hours a day. They are permitted out only for very specific reasons, namely a
short period for exercise plus one trip a day for essentials. Police officers have been quick
2805 to tackle any locals on the streets without a ‘valid reason’, an approach reflected in the
17,682 vehicles whose drivers and occupants have been quizzed at checkpoints. “We had
59
to smash car windows and pull people out because they wouldn’t give us details,” declared
a senior Victorian policeman. “They wouldn’t tell us where they’re going!” [4]
END QUOTE
2810
Premier Daniel Andrews appears to play the game that he cares about the health and wellbeing of
citizens. Reality is tghat in my view he couldn’t care less but merely pretents to do so:
END QUOTE 24-10-2016 CORRESPONDENCE
It appears to me that GWMWater fails to provide the appropriate “untreated water”
2815 signage or to that effect since 1 January 2004 when the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003
came into force.
As such GWMWater appears to me to place itself above the rule of law.
While I received yet another purported notice that GWMWater may engage debt collectors
(to that effect) I urge you to apply common sense and to write off the alleged debt (as
2820 referred to also in my 19 October 2016 correspondence) as clearly at least to me
GWMWater has failed in various ways itself to comply with legal requirements.
END QUOTE 24-10-2016 CORRESPONDENCE
My various correspondences did raise the issue that there is a danger not only to residents but
2825 also to others who would visit the area and unaware that the ordinary water taps are infact
proving UNTREATED WATER and not at all Safe Drinking Water.
QUOTE 21-9-2014 correspondence

http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=AS
2830 SEMBLY&speech=23716&activity=Second+Reading&title=SAFE+DRINKING+WATER+BILL&date1=7&da
te2=May&date3=2003&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'safe'%0a%09and+data+contains+'water'+
%29
QUOTE
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave) - It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Safe Drinking Water Bill. This bill forms part of the
2835 government's strategic approach to water management, with specific attention being paid to water quality and risk
management as matters of public health. It is worth noting that this is a debate about public health and about making sure
that each community across our state has access to the highest quality water. It is also worth noting that this bill has been
introduced by the Minister for Health as a matter of public health.
The bill has four specific objectives. Before going on to those I welcome the support shown by the Liberal and National
2840 parties for this bill. Every endeavour has been made to try to provide as much information as possible.
END QUOTE

60
Even in 2020 large part of the Mallee is without “safe drinking water” and this where
2845 GWMWater actually is owned by the State Government.
It also means that “UNTREATED” water is used to grow crops, etc, causing a build-up of
dangerous chemicals in the food supply, that those thinking having a healthy breakfast are
consuming actually loads of poisonous chemicals in their breakfast cereals.
2850 The above stated about that no Parliament can amend a constitution means that all citizens are
“sovereign citizens” as they and they alone on referendums have the ability to veto or approve an
amendment to the Constitution. No Court or politician can do so.
.
When then a person refers to being a “sovereign citizen” this precisely means what it is to be the
2855 ultimate citizen who can vote to amend or veto the constitution.
While I understand the Chief commissioner of Police scoffed upon a person claiming to be a
“sovereign citizen” reality is that those who vote in elections do so as “sovereign citizens”. We
all have the right to challenge the validity of legislation which we hold to be unconstitutional and
there is absolutely no offence in doing so.
2860
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no
2865 citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the
instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the
masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if
you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so
2870 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, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from
dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having
2875 provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE
Any citizen who opposes the rule of law ordinary has the freedom to move to a foreign country
that may have laws that may be more acceptable, however not even a “sovereign citizen” can
2880 blatantly disregard laws that are constitutionally valid. Having stated this, it should never be
assumed that when a “sovereign citizen” objects to special provisions then for this the “sovereign
citizen” is deemed to be in the wrong. I have above clearly explained that laws, regulations,
directions, etc, that violate constitutional rights of “sovereign citizens” are having no legal force
and the police nevertheless seeking with violence or otherwise to enforce it then they are the
2885 lawbreakers.
Commonwealth Constitution of Australia Act 1900 (UK)

101 Inter-State Commission
There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the
2890 Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions
of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.
The wording “There shall be an Inter-State Commission” is mandatory and yet the Commonwealth
ignores this.
2895
While often there are statements as to the 3 branches of Government, in my view one ought to
speak of the 4 branched of nationhood.
1. The Parliament
61
2. The Federal Executives
2900 3. Judiciary
4. Inter-State Commission.

QUOTE
2905 Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-I would like to suggest to the leader of the Convention that the form in
which the amendment of Mr. Grant was carried yesterday necessitates, if effect is to be given to it, the
appointment of an Inter-State Commission, because it provides for certain powers to be exercised by that
body. The amendment now before us turns the power of the Parliament to constitute that commission into a
direction to constitute it, and there would be a difficulty, as has been pointed out by our leader, in giving
2910 effect to that provision. If we intend that there shall be an Inter-State Commission, let us say so in the
Constitution. It seems to me to be idle to put in this Bill a direction to the Parliament to constitute an Inter-
State Commission. If we intend that that commission shall be appointed, let us say, within the four
corners of the Constitution, that there shall be an Inter-State Commission, just as we say in the Bill
that there shall be certain other tribunals. Then it will simply necessitate an executive act to appoint
2915 the commission. Of course, some legislation will be necessary to regulate the powers of the Inter-State
Commission
END QUOTE

2920 QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-My object is to point out that, however defective in some [start page 1522] respects these
provisions may or may not be, there will be no conflict between the powers of the Federal Parliament and of
the state in relation to railway matters which may not be adjusted by the Inter-State Commission. This being
so, it seems to me that the introduction of the Inter-State Commission into the clause providing for this
2925 exemption renders it necessary to make it obligatory under the Constitution to appoint the commission. It
would be absurd to give a protection-I call it an immunity-to the state in relation to these railway matters,
depending upon the action of an Inter-State Commission or any other body, if we did not make the creation of
such a body imperative. It seems to follow almost as a consequent amendment on what we have done that the
permissive provision in the clause should be made obligatory. When we have done this it follows that as
2930 there is an element of policy, the existence of which no one can deny, it will be even more necessary
than in the case of the Federal High Court-which is not to deal with matters of policy, or matters
tainted with policy, to use the expression of another speaker-that the tribunal which we are creating
should be above the breath of political intrigue. To secure this, I think, some provision should be inserted
similar to the provisions which we have inserted in regard to the Judges of the High Court. Whatever may
2935 have been the case as the Bill left us after the Adelaide session, it seems to be imperative now, to give
effect to what has already been done, that we should introduce into the Constitution provisions binding
the Federal Parliament to create an Inter-State Commission, and placing the Inter-State Commission,
when created, on a level which will raise it above the possibility of the suspicion that its judgments or
actions have been in any way influenced by political considerations.
2940 END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-But the Inter-State Commission must be absolutely independent of Parliament.
2945 END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not mean to do so. I was merely about to refer to it in reply to the honorable
2950 member's interjection. My suggestion is this: It is now put to us that we must make the appointment of the
Inter State Commission obligatory. I agree that you must make it obligatory if you preserve the clause in its
entirety, retaining the words [start page 1523] I in the opinion of the Inter-State Commission," but I hope that
we shall not retain those words. With regard to the Inter-State Commission, if they have merely to deal with
matters arising under the provision in regard to freedom of trade and intercourse and preferential rates, there
2955 will not be enough work for them to do.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Their powers would be much larger than that.

QUOTE

62
I understand only on 2 short occasions an Inter-State Commission existed despite that if

2960 mandatory to have a nInter-State commission.
What really is the issue is that politicians like to pork barrel certain parts for political gain and as
such use “Trade and commerce” for this purpose, this even so it should be without political
interference under the Inter-State Commission.
2965
The Inter-State Commission is a creation of the Constitution and as like the judiciary, the
legislature and the executive must always exist.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
2975 invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
This underlines also that the High Court of Australia is subject to the constitution and not above
it. Hence its judicial powers cannot to alter the true meaning and application of the constitution.
2980
QUOTE
The HON. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[8.36]:
2985 Persons who have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power are not to be classed in the same
category as citizens of the country for the purpose of joining in legislation.
END QUOTE
In my view S44 of the constitution applies also:

2990
44 Disqualification
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a
subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power;
2995 or
(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced,
for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for
one year or longer; or
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
3000 (iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the
Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or
(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the
Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an
incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;
3005 shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of
Representatives.
But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen’s Ministers of State for the
Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen’s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or
a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s navy or army, or to the receipt of
3010 pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person
whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.

63
If the judges of the High Court of Australia had sworn an oath or affirmation to the British
Crown then they could in my view not adjudicate as to there being a Queen of Australia. If the
3015 judges had sworn an oath/affirmation to the Queen of Australia then they couldn’t adjudicate as
to matters relating to the British Crown.
The Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK) provide strict limitations such as “external
affairs” to the Commonwealth, however reportedly Premier Daniel Andrews made about 30 trips
3020 to China and committed himself to the Belt and Road plan which obligates him (So the State of
Victoria) to the Chine Government and in fact where already a country could not fulfil its
financial obligations to China then the Chinese Government took its port instead.
In my view the conduct of Premier Daniel Andrews is in violation of S44 of the constitution to
which the States in section 106 are “subject to this constitution” and as such I view this s44 legal
3025 principle also applies to the States.

QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN: According to the amendment proposed, it would prevent any mere slip of procedure
3030 from making invalid an Act which may affect the whole country and its financial operations, but nothing
which we may enact with regard to procedure will prevent any suitor from going to the High Court if
the Act is essentially unconstitutional. That is the way I look at it, and it seems to me that either putting in
"proposed" before "laws," or adding an amendment somewhere or other making it clear that no mere slip of
procedure can invalidate the law, would meet all the difficulties.
3035 Mr. BARTON: This is not proposed to cover mere slips, but everything.
Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not think that could be the intention. We are attempting to legislate for a very
limited possibility. You will get disputes so long as there are lawyers in the world. I do not know
whether Federation will do away with lawyers.
Mr. BARTON: Not until merchants will cease to quarrel.
3040 Mr. MCMILLAN: If so it would simplify our arrangements very much. At the same time it does seem that
there ought to be something introduced to prevent the law being put into operation for a mere breach of
procedure, if there is such a chance.
Mr. SYMON: There is no chance.
Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not suppose that any ordinary moral layman would do it, unless he were
3045 instructed by a less moral lawyer.
END QUOTE
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act1900 (UK)

75 Original jurisdiction of High Court
3050 In all matters:
(i) arising under any treaty;
(ii) affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries;
(iii) in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued
on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party;
3055 (iv) between States, or between residents of different States, or
between a State and a resident of another State;
(v) in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction
is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth;
the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.
3060
76 Additional original jurisdiction
The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on
the High Court in any matter:

64
(i) arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation;
3065 (ii) arising under any laws made by the Parliament;
(iii) of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;
(iv) relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws of
different States.
3070 The Framers of the Constitution specifically provided that any citizen is entitled to petition the
High Court of Australia regarding constitutional issues and do so without facing cost.

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
3075 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE
While the Federal parliament engineered a system that a litigant would have to go to the Federal
3080 Court and if rejected to appeal before being able to have a High Court of Australia court hearing,
I view this is unconstitutional in that the Framers of the Constitution specifically held that an
aggrieved citizen can petition the High Court of Australia directly. Not facing some obstacle
course that effectively is to deter a aggrieved citizen from pursuing justice.
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
I believe that, with certain alterations in the financial provisions, that Bill is a measure under which the
colonies could even now safely federate. Not that I say it is the best Bill that could be framed; but I do
3090 believe it is a well-devised and well-drawn Constitution, and a Constitution [start page 11] under which a
free people-making such amendments from time to time as necessity will require, and the powers
given by the Constitution will allow-might live in perfect freedom and with perfect security.
END QUOTE
3095 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Is it a Constitution which gives all reasonable and liberal guarantees of freedom? That can only be
answered in one way. Is it a Constitution the action of which, until amended by the people, is preserved and
3100 safeguarded? There is only one answer to that. Is it a Constitution which the people themselves, by their
will expressed by their Parliament and themselves, are able to alter to suit their needs under conditions of
reasonable thought, without unreasonable difficulty? There can be no answer but one to. that question.
END QUOTE
3105 Regretfully those freedoms are curtailed draconically and the legal processes are to thwart an
aggrieved citizens to seek a judicial decision. \

QUOTE
3110 Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more comprehensive, and nobler
than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present
when I made my remarks in proposing the clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position
we occupy as subjects of the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal
citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
3115 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 proposing to place power in this Constitution to
enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the question of federal citizenship.
3120 END QUOTE

65
Again:
I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of
3125 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.
It is clear that therefore the High Court of Australia claiming that somehow the Commonwealth
3130 of Australia became progressively an independent nation from being a “political union” in my
view makes absolutely no sense.
The States are the in essence the countries that formed the “political union” and to turn a
“political union” into a country means that effectively the States are no more!
3135 Political parties are “political unions” but they cannot be turned into some “independent
country”.
Convention)
3140 QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-If you were to bring in a Bill to impose one tax, would it include a power to repeal
another on the same subject?
Mr. OCONNOR.-Undoubtedly.
Mr. ISAACS.-Mr. Barton has given an opinion that it would not.
3145 Mr. MCMILLAN.-We have the ablest lawyers divided on this question, and what is the layman to
do?
END QUOTE
3150 Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. TRENWITH.-And yet this clause is throwing legislation into the hands of those people who cannot
agree.
MR. REID.-The lawyers.
3155 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The lawyers?
Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, thrusting it on them.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-That is one of those commonplaces which are always used. There is no clause or sub-
clause of any Bill in the world, even if it were framed by an angel from Heaven, that would not be the subject
of litigation.
3160 Dr. COCKBURN.-The disagreement is not legal, but constitutional.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-You do not got lawyers from Heaven.
Mr. ISAACS.-No, lawyers are sent there; they are not drawn from there.
END QUOTE
3165 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.
END QUOTE
3170
66
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
3175 END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
3180 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.
END QUOTE
3185 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
3190 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE
In my view, the creation of a constitution agency under the Governor-General/Governor would

3195 be the best way to go forwards, so that those who desire to pursue constitutional issues but are
not able to pursue that themselves can possibly pursue the relevant agency to do so. This may
also then avoid litigation that are misconceived. A clear example is that many seek to rely upon
s92 that toll roads are not permissible, however I have never held this view as from my extensive
readings of the Constitutional Convention Debates there was absolutely nothing to indicate this
3200 was to be implied. The right of Harbor Trust charges for the maintenance of the harbour may
underline that likewise road charges to maintain the road can be applied.
It is however the lack of ability to communicate that causes those who have different views even
if honestly mistaken, then result in an escalation that others also will assume something. It is
therefore in my view appropriate that some constitutional agency exist that may be able to deal
3205 with grievances expressed to it without the need for any judicial intervention, where the agency
can perhaps explain to a complainant what its views are regarding certain constitutional issues. It
is then up to the complainant to accept this or seek to litigate.
Obviously we need to stop the pork barrelling by politicians and ensure that the High Court of
3210 Australia issue a Mandamus that the Commonwealth ensures that commissioners are appointed
for the Inter-State Commission. The Murray-Darling water issue may be something to consider
for this!
I invite the Government(s) to work with me for any petition to the High Court of Australia
3215 so that the parties can place before the court the issues of concern in the best manner to
avoid long outdrawn litigation where lives are at stake.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
3220 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

(Our name is our motto!)

20200814-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria-Legal Notice

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

20200814-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria-Legal Notice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Mr Daniel Andrews Premier& Ors 14-8-2020

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

p1 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

80 I demand THAT ALL AND ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS by the

I demand THAT ALL AND ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS by the

I demand THAT ALL AND ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS by the

I demand THAT ALL AND ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS by the

p2 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

215 [Rodriques v. Ray Donavan] US Supreme Court ruling

STATUTES ARE NOT LAWS

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte

320 QUOTE (RED COLOURING AND BOLDING ADDED)

Kim Lane Scheppele <kimlane@princeton.edu>

Then, as to the revolutionary doctrinal changes:

55. Let us remind ourselves of the foundations of our constitution. We live in a

p8 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

58. . . . Of course, the Government must be accorded a great deal of latitude in

69. This court is not, therefore, precluded by article 9 or by any wider

p9 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

From: Kim Lane Scheppele [mailto:kimlane@Princeton.EDU]

Summary of the judgment here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf

Full judgment here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

Parliament recommences at 11:30 am tomorrow, London time.

520 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p11 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. GORDON.-So is this.

Dr. COCKBURN.-Not contemptuous.

p12 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p13 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

770 Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

The Victorian legislation appears to me to provide exclusion of voting on religious basis.

QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006

p16 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

QUOTE 7-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 7-6-2006

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA

117 Rights of residents in States

p17 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

965 Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation

“Keep a distance of at least 1 meter from other people.”

1050 British Medical Journal: 9 Apr 20

p19 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

It is not time to act without evidence.”

“No randomised trials of masks so far for covid-19

p20 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

QUOTE Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 H.L.C. (per Lord Wensdayle)

QUOTE Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes 8th Ed. p2;

p21 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

QUOTE Stancomb v Trowbridge Urban District Council (1910) 2 Ch 190

1205 QUOTE In Constantine v Guilfoyle (1915) 32 W.N. (N.S.W.) 74 per Fergusson

p22 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p23 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p24 14-8-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.