20210717-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Can The State Government's Force Vaccinations in Conflict With Section 51 (XxiiiA)

20210717-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
ISSUE –
Can the State Government’s force Vaccinations in conflict with Section 51(xxiiiA)
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, did Darren ask you an important question?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I,n my view he did and I will set out below what my views
are.
QUOTE
Can the State Government’s force Vaccinations in conflict with Section 51(xxiiiA) of
the Constitution?
Posted onJuly 16, 2021AuthorDarren
Malcolm Roberts makes incorrect claims in respect of the States having the power to force
mandatory medical procedures.
Section 109 of the Constitution invalidates State laws that are inconsistent with
Commonwealth laws.
https://youtu.be/2CJ9Eh5xNIA
We now present for you the currently valid Commonwealth law that
invalidates any State law that civilly conscripts any Australian into a medical procedure
against their will.
This is the truth and in conflict with the misinformation pushed by Roberts and his so
called legal advisors.
Roberts quite clearly States
(Is he misadvised or does he set out to deceive you?) the States possess the technical legal
power to mandate vaccines.
This is untrue! Roberts says his information is accurate, it is not.
He states there is nothing to gain in misleading you, there is, he is part of the problem, not
the solution.
2 pages.
See Section 2.
Here in the Commonwealth law that is a prohibition against civil conscription, the
prohibition is not just found
within the Commonwealth Constitution as claimed by Malcolm Roberts.
We recommend Mr Roberts find competent legal advice and a new telly prompter.
We also challenge Mr Roberts to a debate as he fails to Act on behalf of the Australian
People!
From the Federal Register of Legislation we can see the Act is currently valid and in Full
force.
END QUOTE
p1 17-7-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® a1 bout 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
Section 51(xxiiiA) in my view is much misunderstood/misinterpreted. The purpose of this
provision was to prevent the Commonwealth to compel any medical person to be drafted into the
services of the commonwealth, for example like soldiers are drafted into the armed forces.
However, when a medical doctor as an example, decides to bill the Commonwealth for certain
services provided to a patient then he is bound to comply with the rules/regulations of the
Commonwealth. (See various High Court of Australia judgments on record for this.)
As such, a person who as a private patient attend to a doctor and in full pays for the service then
the Commonwealth has absolutely no say in how the doctor may charge, if at all, for his services.
However, if the doctor claims back against Medicare certain parts of the cost then the doctor may
be limited to claim only the part as approved by Medicare. As such, if Medicare doesn’t provide
for any claims for a certain service then the doctor cannot claim against Medicare.
Let’s say a person attends to a doctor wanting to have a form of plastic surgery not because it is
needed but for the persons own desire for beautification. Medicare may perhaps provide for
certain cost to be chargeable against it if the doctor can justify that it is needed for say the
persons sanity. A person may have an awful large growth on the tip of the nose that may even
prevent the person to have a proper sight in front of the person and then the doctor may on
medical grounds justify the plastic surgery required. Medicare then can determine if it is
medically justified or not according to its schedules provisions.
However, if a person has say some growth on the arm that say is not causing any obstruction and
may not even visible when the person is dressed, but the person simply desires to get rid of it,
then there might be no medical justification for this to charge Medicare for any part of the cost.
As such, it is important to note that while the commonwealth cannot compel any medical doctor
to perform any service as like a drafted soldier, if however the medical doctor seeks to claim any
part of any cost for medical services against Medicare then the medical doctor, or for that anyone
else providing a medical service, is bound to follow the guidelines of the Commonwealth.
It should be understood that there are associations like the AMA, etc, which are not government
controlled and they too may have certain guidelines for those in the medical profession to follow.
At the time of federation the Commonwealth on 1 January 1901 had absolutely no legislation at
foot for anything. The then Governor-General had on 26 December 1900 commissioned Edmund
Barton to form a government so as to enable this government to work on certain issues such as
the calling of the first federal election, etc. Because this would take about 3 months the Framers
of the constitution held that where it came to matters in Section 51 of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) it was therefore better to allow the States to continue
legislating in matters listed in Section 51 until the Commonwealth was able to legislate. This
was referred to as “concurrent” legislative powers.
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
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
Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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
the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
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?
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
As such, once the Commonwealth had its elected Members of Federal Parliament and was able to
legislate on certain matters listed in Section 51 of the constitution then the moment this
legislation was enacted (Royal Assent) then the States no longer possessed the “concurrent”
legislative powers.
The Framers of the Constitution obviously realized that States could, while exercising
“concurrent” legislative powers, abuse this and so they provided for Section 109, that once the
Commonwealth legislated on any matter then any State (or previous Colonial) legislation may
fall foul upon the Commonwealth legislation.
We then also have the statement:

QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
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
This made it very clear that when it came to legislating as to human diseases, the Commonwealth
had the overall powers as to legislate for quarantine.
HANSARD 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: Let this speech do for the referendum also.
Mr. TRENWITH: I say with these evidences of the desire on the part of the people
for more freedom, for greater facilities for giving effect to the popular will, we ought
to make provision in this Constitution by which the will of the people can become law.
If we do that we shall be doing something which will make it more certain that this
Constitution will be adopted by the people.
END QUOTE
.
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
.
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.-

for 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
.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the
rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power?
Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to

enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right.
END QUOTE
It should be clear that therefore The Commonwealth is limited as to QUARANTINE regarding

“man-kind” deceases and cannot exercise any legislative powers against any person who is not
suffering from a “man-kind” disease, albeit I view can place any person in quarantine who may
be suspected by a medical doctor to be likely infected with a “man-kind” disease.
The States/Territories did retain their powers as to quarantine in that sense when it came to
keeping infected animals out of their state at the borders with another State/Territory, while the
Commonwealth likewise had this legislative powers regarding animals, etc, coming across the
borders of the Commonwealth of Australia. As such, it is to many confusing why the
‘concurrent” legislative powers somehow may no longer apply while still both can legislate.
What it essentially means that a State albeit prohibited from legislating regarding “man-kind”
disease4s once the Commonwealth commenced its Biosecurity Act 1908 which later became
Biosecurity Act 2015, certain internal State powers remained applicable.
This is why to understand the complexity of the constitution, etc, one need to research what was
debated by the Framers of the Constitution to a great extent.
In Macleod Lord Halsbury L.C. quoted (at p 458) the remarks of Parke B. in Jefferys v. Boosey (at p 926 of HLC (p
725 of ER)):
QUOTE
(T)he Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects, that is, persons
natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the
Kingdom.
END QUOTE
.
Then consider
Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
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.
END QUOTE
.
We have for example the WHO (World health Organization) which is in cahoots with the Bill
and Melina Gates Foundation, the WEF (World Economic forum), UN, etc. It is not at all a body
that merely is dealing with medical issues but in my view a political entity.
It is not for the Australian Government or that of the States/Territories to follow the WHO
guidelines/decisions, as those are often conflicting against each other, confusing, lacking proper
merits and medical science, etc. However, as known now 3 Presidents ended up swiftly death
after refusing to engage into contracts with pharmaceutical companies. Many scientist/medical
doctors who exposed the COVID-19 rot also ended up in their graves. What we therefore have is
a DICTATORSHIP of a global power that will assassinate anyone who they view might in any
shape or form undermine their financial interest. Hence, many so called leaders rather betray
those they are to represent (the citizens) then to risk being assassinated. However, their
policies/treaties are worth nothing this is because S44 of the constitution specifically disqualify
any person making any treaties or engage in other conduct for and on behalf of the so to say
foreign enemy. Any in secret contract that for example is claimed to be secret because of
“NATIONAL SECURITY” with a foreign power clearly disqualify those involved in such kind
of contract.
Regarding the Nuremberg Trial conditions as they are not adverse to citizens but protect them
then such a treaty/condition, etc is reliable for citizens to hold against the government. It is
clearly not adverse to citizens rights.
There obviously is another problem and that is that the Federal Government seeking to
circumvent the provisions of “Section 51(xxiiiA)” seeks to enlist private companies like
Bunnings, Woolworth, Coles, Telstra, Qantas, pharmacist, etc, as to do the jabbing (so called
vaccinations). As such, it seeks to avoid any clash with the Nuremberg Code by engaging non-
professionals into jabbing people with “POISON”.
There are ample of reports about people having died soon after being jabbed and yet to have
someone jabbed far from any emergency room facility I view is irresponsible at the very least.
Protect their Dad, Mum, grandparents and others (Greg Hunt Federal Minister for Health) to sow
fear amongst citizens that they need to be jabbed, when in fact numerous articles have been
published by the medical profession that jabbing does NOT prevent a person to become infected,
neither prevent the person once infected to infect others, etc, that therefore what is being
purportrated is an elaborate scam, for depopulation.
I was since August 2020 denied medical care at a hospital because allegedly the doctors refuse to
deal with a person not wearing a mask, regardless if having a medical condition that the person
cannot wear a mask. Last week I was at a hospital and asked a specialist what his views were
regarding COVID-19 and his honest reply as I understood it to be is that he couldn’t discus this
issue because it was not within his knowledge (expertise) yet, in regard of this specialist the
hospital also had claimed that he demanded a person to wear a mask. Actually I was not wearing
any mask or face shield either and he didn’t make any issue about it!
This underlines that the hospital concocted the excuse when in reality there was no such issue of
objection by a doctor.
We obviously have that constitutions are existing both in the Federal and State/Territory levels.
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 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
What we now have is that the Parliaments have taken it upon themselves to blatantly disregard
constitutions and decree about STATE OF EMERGENCY/STATE OF DISSASTER when it
doesn’t exist. Such declaration may be applicable and even justified regarding limited area’s
where there is a flood, bushfire, etc, but cannot be perpetrated upon any constitution merely to
unilaterally claiming to override constitutional rights.
Even in time of war there is no such thing as to override constitutional rights. As a matter of fact,
when the Civil War in the USA ended many citizens then successfully sued the Federal
Government for compensation of their destroyed farms, etc. This underlines, that even in
wartime your constitutional rights do not evaporate.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/spains-top-court-rules-lockdown-was-
unconstitutional
Zero Hedge
Spain's Top Court Rules That Lockdown Was Unconstitutional
What ought to be understood is that ultimately when a Court of law (meaning not politicians
wearing blackrobes pretending to be judges but ignoring their duties and obligations of their
office) hear matters of complaints they must deal with it on a legal basis, regardless if personally
they may support whatever a government may have done in violation of the constitution.
As such, the declaration of any “STATE OF EMERGENCY/STATE OF DISSASTER” must

be legally justified, such as there is an immediate danger to loss of life because of a flood,
bushfire, etc, but not one that is used to essentially undermine constitutional rights of a citizen.
As such, the declaration of “STATE OF EMERGENCY/STATE OF DISSASTER” cannot be
legally justified for any State/Territory regarding a “man-kind” disease as it is exclusive
legislative powers of the Commonwealth and by the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 the
Federal Minister for Health cannot “delegate” his powers. As such, neither can delegate his
powers to any State/Territory Government.
The Federal Minister for Health however can request assistance of the States/Territories but such
assistance cannot mean that the States/Territories can pursue their own goals.
With Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews made known that he received the decision of the Chief
Health Officer as to masks wearing, lockdowns, etc, without any prior communication between
them. This means the CHO is in fact not exercising “administrative” duties but is exercising
“executive” powers. This as he made the decision the Government adapts to.
This not only violates the State constitution but also the Federal Constitution. After all what we
have is that a non-elected State official now is interfering with the powers of the Federal Minister
for Health and so the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015.
In my view any decision as to compulsory mask wearing, social distancing, lockdowns, curfews,
etc, are unconstitutional when so issued by any State/Territory regarding any “man-kind”
disease.
When it comes to the Federal Government then within the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015
it can dictate certain matters but it must be within the legal provisions and require a medical
doctor to be involved. As such, not some health official making a claim affecting millions of
citizens, but a medical doctor who makes a decision/recommendation for a particular person.
For example, say a cruise ship arrives and there is a suspected outbreak of a “man-kind” disease,
the Federal Minister for health can rightfully then demand that each and every passenger/crew
member is assessed by a medical doctor regarding any infection, etc. As such, the Federal
Member for health doesn’t make any unilateral decision to deprive any person of their
constitutional rights but limit it to that each and every person must be medically assessed.

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.
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.
END QUOTE
I had Gaynor J in 2021 declaring that the constitution doesn’t apply to her. It is the biggest fraud
I ever heard a judge stating. Without the constitution no person can hold a judicial position. As
such, we are essentially sold out.
It should be understood that the states/territories do retain certain powers as to “medical
procedures”, not including those regarding “man-kind” diseases, but then still require a court of
law to ultimately make a legal determination if such “medical procedure” is legally acceptable.
It is not uncommon that a hospital institute litigation regarding a patient or family members of a
patient institute legal proceedings against a hospital. Ultimately our constitutional rights
enshrined in the constitution is what should govern all, and not that any government can
artificially erode constitutional rights, such as using compulsory mask wearing, etc.
We have also a problem what Prime Minister Scott Morrison is pursuing a mixture of jabbing (so
called vaccinations) from different pharmaceutical companies, this even so none as such were
properly tested for this purpose. Regretfully the TGA seems to be its lapdog and fail to act.
See also The Epoch Times July 16-22, 2021 “COVID-19 Vaccines Shouldn’t Be Mixed and
Matched: WHO Official”.
Also I recommend you read: The Epoch Times July 16-22, 2021 ”Can the Workplace Force
You to Take the Vaccine?”
See also The Epoch Times July 16-22, 2021 “Combing Through the Science of COVID”
As to your question:
QUOTE
Can the State Government’s force Vaccinations in conflict with Section 51(xxiiiA) of
the Constitution?
END QUOTE
In my view, 51(xxiiiA) plays no roll in this at all, because even if doctors volunteer to work for
the Federal Government (such as those working in the armed forces) they still cannot act in
violation of the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) and the Nuremberg Code.
Neither can the Federal Government, let alone the State/Territory Government, dictate to any
medical doctor how to determine the condition of a “patient”. A doctor cannot in my view treat a
person who is not a “patient”. And, is bound to act in the best interest of the “patient” regardless
whatever any government may otherwise demand. Neither can Prime Minister Scott Morrison
engage anyone who is not a medical doctor regarding the jabbing, and he neither has any position
in the first place to make decisions regarding medical issues, as he is not the Federal Minister for
Health and should butt out. For this also the State/Territory police forces I view have absolutely
no legal powers to enforce something which the State/Territories in the first place lack
legislative/executive powers.
* Oh boy, that was some comprehensive answer.
**#** My aim is to alert the readers that even lawyers may advice something that doesn’t mean
they are right. After all, if doctors were so often wrong as lawyers then they would be deemed
charlatans. If you got 100 cases before the courts with each party legally represented where the
court requires to make the final decision then 50% of the lawyers would be right and the other
50% would be wrong. As such, lawyers do not declare “law” but merely advice what they based
on their knowledge consider to be legally applicable. It is the client who end up to lose or win the
case. I have come across many so called “constitutional lawyers” who I discovered never even
read the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates but merely assumed what the
constitution stands for by whatever they may remember having learned during legal studies or
from some cases. Ultimately, the court decides and even than on appeal it could be overturned.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
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
And do not ignore that in County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
On 19 July 2006 I (representing myself) succeeded in both appeals! As such, my opponent
government lawyers were comprehensively defeated.
I would add that if you desire to keep your sanity and not be brainwashed by any government
propaganda and mantra then The Epoch Times might be your way to go. It provides well set out
articles that goes very deeply into subject issues. Well, that is my view.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
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. (Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)


20210717-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Can The State Government's Force Vaccinations in Conflict With Section 51 (XxiiiA)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

20210717-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Can The State Government's Force Vaccinations in Conflict With Section 51 (XxiiiA)

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

20210717-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Can The State Government's Force Vaccinations in Conflict With Section 51 (XxiiiA)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20210717-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

* Gerrit, did Darren ask you an important question?

p1 17-7-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p2 17-7-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

p3 17-7-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to

It should be clear that therefore The Commonwealth is limited as to QUARANTINE regarding

As such, the declaration of any “STATE OF EMERGENCY/STATE OF DISSASTER” must

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

* Oh boy, that was some comprehensive answer.

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

p8 17-7-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like