20210719-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - We Immediately Must Have A Moratorium On Jabbing (Vaccinations)

20210717-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
ISSUE –
We immediately must have a moratorium on jabbing (vaccinations)
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, is this regarding a question Alan L R asked you?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, let me quote Alan’s email:

QUOTE
Gerrit,
Thanks for your words of encouragement.
The quote below by Doctor Cockburn in 1891 that you underlined indicates that any
federal politician, Minister or Prime Minister that claims he or she acts for or represents his
or her "constituents" would have to be regarded as bunkum; given that "parliamentary
sovereignty" was thrown overboard once Federation began.
My memory on the following is a bit vague, but i kind of recall that the term "constituents"
was cited by politicians, etc. after 1986.
So if my vague recall has any merit then the usage of "constituents" might be synonamous
from those serving in a parliament they consider is Sovereign?
And thus with a different type of Queen. (hint: Queen of Australia).
Any correction to the above welcome.
And apparently a Governor cannot make Regulations that aggrieve any of the people.
Regards
END QUOTE
This, as I had also stated:

QUOTE part email
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
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
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

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
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate 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.
END QUOTE
Parliament can "propose" an amendment to the constitution but the "electors" then approve or
veto such proposal.
The Victorian colonial constitution was therefore automatically amended upon federation, and
the powers of the Parliament to amend its own constitution was no more.
Gerrit
END QUOTE part email
The electors are sovereign, and the elected representatives are to act within the authority
provided to them by the sovereign (the People). While the Queen is also considered the
“sovereign” albeit in a different context, Her Majesty however has absolutely no powers to
amend the constitution. Provisions to itself then it hardly can do so for the Commonwealth of
Australia.
The powers of the Members of Parliament are unlimited within the scope of their authority,
subject to relevant constitutional provisions. However in the UK the powers of the Parliament is
not limited by any written constitution but is assessed by the courts pending what historical
background a particular issue may have, albeit seemingly not considering that the UK Parliament
by having enacted constitutions for such as the Commonwealth of Australia and others then in
effect has set rules for the UK in the process. After all, if it cannot apply those constitutional
provisions to the UK then how can it be applicable to the Commonwealth of Australia.
An example is that Her Majesty can on advice of her Privy Council make certain decisions and
yet, the UK courts held that her majesty in proroguing the UK Parliament did so on unlawful
advice of Prime Minister Boris Johnson and so set aside the proroguing of the Parliament.
In Australia the Governor-General exercising this prerogative powers hardly then would be
subject to any court determination, as the constitution makes it iron clad clear that this is a
constitutional power.
The Queen is the “sovereign” but in a different status both for the Commonwealth of Australia
as well as for the states, then the citizens who are in the Commonwealth of Australia the
“sovereign” whom only has the constitutional powers to approve or veto a proposed amendment
of the constitution, being State or Federal.
As for the term “constituents” this was already in use during the Constitutional Convention
Debates. For example:
Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. FRASER
The Bill provides that half of the senators go to their constituents every three years, and that the
members of the other House shall be elected every three years, or probably at shorter intervals.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS: As far as my constituents are concerned I should not like to go

back and tell them that by a hard and fast rule we have fixed the number of judges, all of
whom will be receiving large Salaries. The people may think that they are required, but we
can leave it to the Federal Parliament to decide this question. I say there are other matters
far larger and of far greater importance which have been left to the Federal Parliament than
a matter of this kind involving the appointment of officers about whose utility or whose
good work we have no judgment at all. Supposing it is found after these judges have been
appointed for two years that there is not enough work to keep them going, then we find that
Parliament would be tied up by this Act and could not reduce the number. Then if the
Constitution is to be altered a motion must be passed by a majority of both Houses,
and a referendum of the people taken. I intend to push the matter to a division.
END QUOTE
No question can exist that no State/Commonwealth Parliament can amend its own constitution as
the term “sovereign parliament” no longer applies as they are all “constitutional parliaments”.

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of

this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
the court you are creating here, 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 provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well.
END QUOTE
For the above “parliament sovereignty” was meaning that the Parliament could amend its own
constitution as it desired without the need for a referendum to the people (electors) whereas since
federation they no longer could do so when the colonial constitutions became State constitutions
and by this their position as having a “sovereign parliament” was no more. As such the
Victorian colonial Constitution providing for the “sovereign parliament” to amend its
constitution seized to apply as from federation on 1 January 1901, just that politicians have
ignored this ever since! This however doesn’t make it legally valid.
HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
The Hon. J.H. HOWE: I will bow to the suggestion of the Chairman.
The Hon. J.H, CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[3.46]: 1 hope the Committee will strike out this sub
clause. It is proposed by the legislative assemblies of New South Wales and South Australia, and by the
Council and Assembly of Tasmania, that the sub-clause should be omitted. I can apply no better arguments
than those which the hon. and learned member, Mr. O'Connor, used just now with reference to lunacy. The
hon. and learned member said that where a permissive power was given there was pressure brought to bear
for the exercise of that power, and that when it was exercised in one direction pressure was brought to bear
that it might be exercised to the fullest extent. Applying that argument to lunacy, if we had this power
exercised at all, we should find strong arguments used for the taking over of our lunatic asylums. If the power
in this sub-clause were exercised at all, a strong argument would be offered for the state taking over the
whole of the benevolent institutions of the various colonies which have to deal with children, and they would
become federal institutions. If you do that you must do what the hon. member, Mr. Howe, proposes. If you
interfere with the children in these institutions you will have to take over the institutions for the infirm and
the old. Now, there is a decided objection in this colony to any federal interference with what the people
conceive to be matters most sacred in the family. We have in this colony a law modelled upon the English
law dealing with the custody of children and with parental rights. That question of parental rights is one
which opens up a very large range of questions. We may have all sorts of interference between parents and
their children under a proposal of this character. The state laws, up to the present, have been perfectly
effective to deal with this question, and I think the argument of hon. members against applying federal action
to lunacy apply equally well against federal action in this matter. I shall apply those arguments now in my
vote.
[start page 1083]
The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[3.48]: This may not be a matter of as great importance as are
some of the other matters in the clause, but I think it is worth consideration. I will put it to my hon. friend that
if the commonwealth are empowered to legislate on the subject of marriage and divorce without having the
power to legislate as to the children, the issue of the marriage, this complication may arise-that the judge,
having to pronounce a decree of divorce or of judicial separation, and having also to deal with the question of
the custody of infants, if the commonwealth cannot legislate in regard to both subjects, will administer one
law with respect to the issue relating to divorce, whilst the consequent portion of the decree dealing with the
custody of the children will have to be under a totally different and varying law.
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: Why not add the words "in relation to divorce"?

The Hon. E. BARTON: If the subclause can be amended in the direction which the hon. and learned
member suggests, my objection will have disappeared, and there will be a reasonable consistency in the law. I
think the difficulty might be overcome by inserting before the words "parental rights" the word "also," and at
the end of the sub-clause the words "in relation thereto."
Mr. SYMON (South Australia)[3.51]: Is it worth while to deal with the matter in that way? If you give the
federal parliament power in relation to marriage generally and divorce generally, then anything that concerns
parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants is connected with either one or the other. It seems
to me that if you intrust the federal authority with the power of dealing with marriage and divorce, which
involves everything relating to the highest earthly ties-that of marriage-it ought, consequent on that, also to
regulate the custody of infants. It does not involve what the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, seems to
think is in the minds of many who see some objection to this-that it might empower the federal
authority to interfere with domestic relations in some mysterious manner so as to reduce children to a
position of slavery. This is a control that seems to me to be consequent upon marriage, and which might
come into operation, perhaps, in relation to all matters of divorce; but it is not confined to matters of divorce,
and might depend simply on marriage when the question of divorce does not arise. It will, perhaps, be better
to leave the sub-clause as it is and consider the matter further later on.
The Hon. E. BARTON: Before the hon. and learned gentleman sits down he will, perhaps, deal with what
I forgot, namely, a suggestion from the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, that if this power were granted it would
involve the probability of the commonwealth having to take over the control of the institutions?
Mr. SYMON: I did not think that the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, seriously meant that.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: That argument was successfully used against me in regard to lunatics!
Mr. SYMON: I am sure that the hon. member will be able to successfully dispose of it when it is next used
against him. It would be just as reasonable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member, Mr. Howe, and say
that the federal authority are to take control of all institutions for the care of the aged and infirm. I think that
hon. members will, on consideration, see that there is no parallel between the cases, and, that as this affects
one part of the relationship of the citizens to the commonwealth, it ought fairly to be under a uniform law
and under federal control.
The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.53]: I think that the words as they [start page 1084] stand,
"custody and guardianship of infants," are rather too wide. It seems to me that these words, without
any qualification, would apply to destitute children. It would be better for the state authorities to control
the custody and guardianship of infants, because they are immediately on the spot. They have opportunities
of inquiring into the relationship of the children and their parents, and into their condition if they are destitute
and neglected. Therefore, I think it is advisable to omit those words, and allow the sub-clause to remain as
proposed to be amended by the leader of the Convention.
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER (South Australia)[3.54]: I think it would be better to leave the sub-clause
as it is. I can understand that it will be a very good thing for each state to make its own laws with
respect to parental rights and the custody and guardianship of children; but supposing that the
children went into another state, and were thus taken away from the law of which the previous state
approved, and came under the law of another state which had altogether a different method of dealing
with such matters, and under which the parent was not able to again get the custody of his child, or the
guardian was not able to again get the custody of an infant, what could he do? He could not proceed
under his own law. His own law might be good enough, but the person that he wanted to proceed
against would be out of the jurisdiction of his state.
Mr. SYMON: And the order would not have any force!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: The order would not have any force. The result would be that, however
good his own law was, he would be unable to enforce it because the law of the other state was of a varying
character.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Sub-clause 26 provides for that!

The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: That is only an evidence clause, and will not have the slightest effect in
this matter.
Mr. SYMON: The hon. and learned gentleman's point is a point of jurisdiction!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: Yes; and it has nothing whatever to do with that. The order would be good
enough as a record of the action of the court in the first-named state, but it would not be a record of the court
in the other state; nor would it make the law of the other state subsidiary to the law of the state which
contained that record.
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON: Does the hon. and learned member read the word "recognition" as
meaning proof?
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It is no more than recognition; it means what it says. The word is plain
enough.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Look at sub-clause 25, which says:
The service and execution throughout the commonwealth of the civil and criminal process, and
judgments of the courts of the states.
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: But it must be in respect of a matter over which the court has jurisdiction.
Mr. SYMON: Suppose you change the domicile!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: That will not operate to give jurisdiction. I think that when we have given
the most sacred of all relations-the, relation of marriage-over to the commonwealth, and very properly, it
follows, as a matter of course, that we must do this. Parental rights-that is all we propose to give to the
commonwealth. The commonwealth parliament can make a definition and pass a uniform law.
Mr. SYMON: That is incident to the marriage law!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It comes from the marriage law, and ought to flow as a corollary. It is
a corollary as far as marriage is concerned.
[start page 1085]
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: It would not necessarily follow the law of husband and wife!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: We are only talking about parental rights; that is the right of the
parent over the child!
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: If the hon. and learned member is willing to hand over the rights,
why not the obligations?
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: If the hon. member would like them added I have no objection; but if the
hon. gentleman wants to exclude them, I cannot see that any difficulty need arise. So far as I know, the laws
of all the colonies are exactly the same in respect to the matters mentioned here, and there is very little
probability of their being any different, so far as parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants
are concerned. We want to prevent the possibility of any difference, that is all, and to give the federal
parliament power to legislate on the subject if they please. I can see difficulties that might arise in the
enforcement of state laws through the child or infant being taken away from the custody of its parent
or guardian, and being out of the jurisdiction of the court of the state in which the parent or guardian
resides, and I think it is necessary to have one uniform law on this matter as well as in regard to
marriage and divorce.

The Hon. J.H. GORDON (South Australia)[3.59]: I think we are quarrelling about terms and not about
substance. I believe that the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, agrees with almost everyone of us that as
regards parental rights and the custody and, guardianship of children so far as divorce is concerned,
power should be given to the commonwealth; but this clause goes much further and includes the whole
region of, parental rights and the custody and guardianship of children.
The Hon. E. BARTON: Put in the words "and in relation thereto" before "parental rights "!
The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That will cover the whole ground. All our acts relating to the custody and
guardianship of children have relation to parental rights.
Mr. SYMON: Suppose a child is deserted?
The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That suspends the parental custody; but the parental liability remains. I
think that the amendment suggested by the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, covers the whole
ground.
The Hon. E. BARTON: I move:
That the figures "24" be omitted with a view to the insertion of the words "and in relation thereto."
This will confine the operation of the subclause to the rights and obligations arising out of divorce
suits. The other matters to which attention has been directed will be considered by the Drafting Committee.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[4.3]: I would point out that if we are going to deal
with the service and process of writs in regard to this matter in one state when the parent resides in
another, it will be just as well for the Drafting Committee to consider the aspect of the case in relation
to deserted wives. If the amendment of the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, is carried, I think
we might leave the matter to the Drafting Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Sub-clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

END QUOTE
Do consider:
QUOTE
This will confine the operation of the subclause to the rights and obligations arising out of divorce suits.
END QUOTE
As I mentioned in previous writings, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the
Commonwealth couldn’t deal with children as slaves, yet the Family Court of Australia will
remove a child from custody if the mother refuses to have a child vaccinated, even so the judges
haven’t got a clue as to if it is in the “interest and wellbeing” of the child even so using this
cliché as to justify their decisions to actually inflict harm upon a child.
While it may be argued that certain states in 1896 purportedly referred legislative powers of de
facto marriages to the Commonwealth, in my view that is not permissible without the consent of
the electors by way of referendum.
After all there is a “separation of powers” and you cannot have that a hostile Parli8ament seeking
to undermine the State supreme Court powers then legislate to transfer part of its legislative
powers to the Commonwealth as a way to undermine the State supreme Court judicial powers. It
must be clear that when a reference of legislative powers is done then this includes also the
relevant judicial powers. Hence, a referendum needs to be approved by the electors. Failing any
are referendum being held and/or approved then the referral of powers never were
constitutionally valid.
I recall that some decades ago, I was cross examining various doctors as to the feeding of a baby,
and this related also to what kind of food could be given to a baby. The trial judge interrupted the
cross examination as to what was the difference as after all she (the mother) was not starving the
child to death. This judge showed a complete ignorance to how a baby is to be fed and I did
make clear that one could choke to death a baby if you provided it with food that the baby is
unable to digest because the pieces are too large. So, here we had a trial judge blatantly ignorant
to any proper requirements as how to feed or not to feed a baby. And, this is a judge who then
has to make a decision to what is in the best interest of the child?
If you go to any baby store where they sell baby food you find that they colour coded the lids of
the jars to assist a mother with what is strained food and what is for a much older baby, such as a
toddler. Also, when there was evidence that a child was fed several eggs the judge never
understood that feeding a baby several eggs can cause long turn damage to the child’s renal
system. To my experiences, most male judges lacked even the least amount of understanding
what is appropriate care for a baby whereas the female judges generally knew from practice what
is appropriate. In my view, any judge dealing with issues such as care for a baby/toddler should
be required to have followed a proper parental course where they can demonstrate to not be
ignorant to the real needs of a baby/toddler when called upon to adjudicate upon what is in the
best interest of a child.
It is not the constitution that is at fault, but we simply lack a credible “ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE” where it appears to me that judges when facing to make a decision seem to be
considering what decision might be of benefit to their future career rather than what is just and
proper based upon constitutional provisions and limitations. For example, the state can increase
its fees and charges but so as to not undermine the federal government CPI related pensions
increases.
The states can legitimately charge for the cost of harbor cost but not as Victoria’s Commie Dan
Andrews did to charge billions for a private corporation to lease it. As the private company
would then charge harbor uses to recoup this cost which would result in an unconstitutional form
of taxation!
The States can legislate and regulate regarding health issues but not to inflict deliberate harm
upon a person against his natural common law rights. We no longer live in a time that cult
conduct is permissible, well that is what our politicians seem to ignore, when sacrificing other
people’s health and wellbeing.
As I mentioned in previous writings, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the
Commonwealth couldn’t deal with children as slaves, yet the Family Court of Australia will
remove a child from custody if the mother refuses to have a child vaccinated, even so the judges
haven’t got a clue as to if it is in the “interest and wellbeing” of the child even so using this
cliché as to justify their decisions to actually inflict harm upon a child.
It is not the constitution that is at fault, but we simply lack a credible “ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE” where it appears to me that judges when facing to make a decision seem to be
considering what decision might be of benefit to their future career rather than what is just and
proper based upon constitutional provisions and limitations.
Medical doctors and others in the health industry pretending to care about patients/clients, while
having in consideration that to get patient/client recovering may just put themselves out of work
and so better prolong or even make it worse for the patient/client.

Our constitutional system on every level provides for a JUDICIARY (Judicature) and the
purpose is so that if the State make a demand and the citizen do not agree with it then the Courts
are there to adjudicate what within the context of the constitution is or is not permissible, and
make a ruling accordingly.

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE
Therefore, much depends upon the “motive”. As Brat Hazzard Minister for Health NSW made
clear his motive is to apply the NEW WORLD ORDER, this means his motives are beyond the
constitutional powers and violates Section 44 as to aiding a foreign power, a possible enemy
power. This, I view means that any lockdowns, etc, in NSW is by this unconstitutional, as the
“motive” is purely aiding and abetting with a foreign power! Not at all for the sake of citizens
themselves.
When we come to Victoria Commie Dan Andrews refers to “test” being carried out and about
“positives”, yet for the about 1½ years I am not aware he ever explained that he means with
“test”, as the PCR is not a “test” as its inventor made clear. As for “positives” this is based upon
a PCR test that the WHO (World Health Organization) itself has denounced as being reliable,
well after the disposed by FRAUDULENT election of President Donald J Trump.
Let us look as what is deemed an offence in the view of the Framers of the Constitution:

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: At first I thought it would be necessary to have some provision of this
sort, but now I think it is unnecessary. In the clause it is prescribed that [start page 1183] an elector "shall
have only one vote"; as to the Senate and as to the House of Representatives I intend to move, on the
recommittal of the clause, that the matter shall be turned into a direct prohibition; that is, that "no elector shall
vote more than once." A breach will be a Statutory misdemeanor, and the offender can be punished, this
being an Imperial Statute, in the same way as he would be for a breach of any other Imperial Statute applying
to the colonies, such as the merchant shipping laws. Lest there should be any doubt in connection with the
giving of a vote, when there is a distinct law against it, there is a passage in Russell on "Crimes," which the
legal members of the Convention will be satisfied with. It is in the fifth edition, page 192:
Where an offence is not so at common law, but made an offence by Act of Parliament, an indictment
will lie where there is a substantive prohibitory clause in such Statute, though there be afterward a
particular provision and a particular remedy given. Thus, an unqualified person may be indicted for
acting as an attorney contrary to the 6 and 7 Vict., c. 73, a. 2, although sec. 35 and sec. 36 enact that in
case any person shall so act he shall be incapable of recovering his fees, and such offence shall be
deemed a contempt of court, and punishable accordingly.
That is to say, although the Statute provides a distinct means of punishment, yet if by the disregard of the
prohibition a misdemeanor is committed, a court can convict the offender of that misdemeanor and may fine
or imprison him. The passage continues:
And it is stated as an established principle that when a new offence is created by an Act of Parliament
and a penalty is annexed to it by a separate and substantive clause, it is not necessary for the
prosecutor to sue for the penalty, but he may proceed on the prior clause on the ground of its being a
misdemeanor; and wherever a Statute forbids the doing of a thing, the doing of it wilfully, although
without any corrupt motive, is indictable.
Wherever the Statute, as I intend to ask the House to make it in this case, says that no elector shall vote
more than once, there is a distinct prohibition, and voting more than once wilfully will be a crime and
misdemeanor, and the courts will be able to punish by fine or imprisonment. They will have the distinct
power. There is in all of these colonies an electoral law, and power to alter it, until Parliament otherwise
provides, and if there are not distinct provisions for punishment for such offences, it is still in the power of
the State law to subject the offenders to such punishment as it prescribes. But even if that were not done, the
case is distinctly met by the Statutory prohibition, which will be imposed by the form in which we propose to
put it, and, I think, my hon. friend will agree that his new clause will not be necessary.
Mr. ISAACS: I suppose you propose to put in words to make it a misdemeanor.
Mr. BARTON: If necessary; but where the statute expressly forbids it is a misdemeanor without further
words.
Dr. QUICK: Without any corrupt motive is it indictable?
Mr. BARTON: Although there may be no corruption in the doing of the act, if it is done intentionally it is
indictable.
Mr. HIGGINS: What words do you propose to put in?
Mr. BARTON: I propose to alter the words "each elector shall have only one vote" to "no elector
shall vote more than once," and that being a distinct statutory prohibition will meet the case.
END QUOTE
As such, what is “prohibited” may be a criminal offence, pending the circumstances prevailing.
Not being “jabbed” (allegedly “vaccinated”) is not a criminal offence, unless there is a specific
court order against a particular person. Neither can therefore the State/Territory/Commonwealth
apply any form of sanction against anyone not having been vaccinated. However, if a person has
been vaccinated and is deemed to be a danger because of the vaccination to others then the
relevant government body (Department of Health) could seek an order from the Courts against
such vaccinated person. It cannot however get a court order from a court against a person not
vaccinated and not in any medical assessment ill health merely to suit some dictatorship.
Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. FITZGERALD:
The people of Australia have stretched their limbs. They feel themselves animated by that high spirit
which characterised their ancestors. They feel within them that they are doing a duty inspired by the
same motives as those of their race before them. They know that men of their race have fashioned
and formed a large portion of the globe in a manner that redounds to their honor and credit, and to
the freedom of the world. They know that you cannot advance this country without adding to the
wealth, and the national importance, and the power of that grand empire to which we belong, and
they know that the expansion of the empire means the happiness and the freedom of everybody who
lives under the protection of its flag.
END QUOTE
Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE

The Hon. J.H. HOWE: Not in the case of money bills. The power of the purse is the golden key which
rules everything and opens every door. We know that we have allowed these things to be frittered away,
and for the sake of federation and for the sake of entering into a brotherhood we have actually departed
from the first position which we took up. After we have done that, some hon. members want to bring in
these insidious amendments, so that the states shall have no independent life. Since I joined this
Convention in Adelaide, that fair city of the south, where the people are as free as their air is pure,
and whose freedom I wish to maintain, I have undergone the difficult task of fighting an election.
END QUOTE

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.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about 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.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-It is as follows:-
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-That is the Tasmanian amendment.
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes, it has been adapted by than Tasmanian Assembly to suit our altered circumstances but I
want to point out that it only became necessary to pass that 14th amendment in the United States in order to
provide in the Constitution for the change that was wrought by the Civil War. The rights of citizenship for the
blacks and the abolition of slavery had been won by hard fighting, and this Article 14 had to be rammed down
the throats of the Southern States by the military provision which I referred, to in Sydney. This, together with
the 15th article, which goes with it, had to be passed. The object of it was as I have stated, and that was
recognised by the United States courts in the case of Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 United States Reports,
page 303. We can understand that a Constitution should say who shall be citizens of the United States or
citizens of the Commonwealth. We can also understand that having constituted a citizenship of the
nation, no state should be permitted to abridge that citizenship, and take away any of the privileges or
immunities pertaining to citizens. What are these privileges and immunities? That very question was dealt
with in what are known as the Slaughter House cases in 1872,16 Wallace, 36, and in certain other cases. This
is what the court said-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, to
come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon the Government, to transact any
business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its
functions, free access to its sea ports through which all operations of foreign commerce are conducted, also to
the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justice of the several states. Another privilege of a citizen of the
United States is to demand the care and protection of the Federal Government for his life, liberty, and
property when on the high seas, or within the jurisdiction of a foreign country; the right to peaceably
assemble and petition for redress of grievances; the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; the right to use the
navigable waters of the United States, however they may penetrate the territory of the several states, and all
rights secured to our citizens by treaties with foreign nations; and the right of a citizen of the United States
of his own volition to become a citizen of any state of the Union by bona fide residence therein.
END QUOTE
The right to earn an income within legal provisions, not being criminal proceeds, must therefore
be respected. The lockdowns clearly denied a person’s “common law” rights to do so, where the
person is not subject to any specific court order against this person.

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
It is the failure of the judicature to enforce constitutional provisions that has resulted to mayhem
and abuses of powers. And, the whole republican notion is to make it even worse to strip citizens
of their constitutional rights all together as to be a BANANA REPUBLIC. Back to the dark ages
where the scarifying of lives for cult beliefs are governing the rights of citizens.
With the mantra, around the world, that “the benefits outweigh the risk” without any shred of
evidence to prove this and to the contrary of scientific research that rather the so called
vaccinations (jabbing) are harmful then I view there ought to be a moratorium of all and any
jabbing and any so called “vaccine” must be subjected to rigidly testing where it is proven it
actually can address the prevention of an infection and not merely is a so to say window dressing
for pharmaceutical companies to make a huge amount of monies at cost of the :health, wellbeing
and the lives” of the many citizens.
It should be understood that each Parliament within its sphere of legislative powers can legislate
but not beyond it. As such while the States can legislate as to “health” matters if cannot do in
regard of “man-kind” diseases.

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
One may then ask what is the difference between a person being in health and suffering from say
Alzheimer’s or Dementia versus an infectious disease. Well an infectious disease is within the
reign of the Commonwealth legislative powers, whereas ill health such as Alzheimer’s/Dementia
and other such illnesses are not infectious and as such would fall within State legislative powers.
For many years readers would provide me with all kinds of articles about vaccination issues and
while I would generally save their emails I simply had no time to get involved due to my
research regarding constitutional issues. However, when this mantra about COVID-19 came
around this all changed.
I also because of Olga needed to be protected have since spend thousands of hours researching
video’s and articles and have concluded that had I known decades ago what I know now I likely
would never have had my children so called “vaccinated”. As Del BigTree and Kennedy proved

that the cliché of “vaccines are safe” is a mantra fabricated to deceive people and never based
upon “medical science”.
And, that I view is a very serious issue. No proper “INFORMED” consent ever existed where the
truth of the dangers were concealed by those working in the Department of Health and medical
facilities.
In my FOI request to Prime Minister Scott Morrison I made about 200 questions, upon which he
not even responded to a single one of them. This included that I also exposed that the Department
of Health website is publishing FALSE/DECEPTIVE/MISLEADING details, etc.
Because of general improvements of sanitarian provisions the rate of infectious diseases went
down since 1900 and nothing to do at least in my view as to the so called “vaccination” of
citizen.
If anything as I wrote about previously, the fact that knowingly Australian children were jabbed
with “infected polio” vaccines may underline that those health professionals placed their
commitments to the pharmaceutical companies above that of the rights and wellbeing of each
child. When reportedly about 2 million young girls were what is claimed to be vaccinated ended
up being sterilized with a polio vaccination (as held by the local court) then this may underline
how dangerous it is to trust anyone about any kind of POISON vaccination (jabbing). Hence, I
view all and any so called “vaccination” must be stopped immediately. All and any past approval
must be withdrawn and let the pharmaceutical companies prove the benefits of what they call a
vaccine. And, any pharmaceutical company that has any record of using fraudulent details should
be banned for eternity to ever again being involved in the vaccine industry. While some had to
pay out billions of dollars to them it is basically peanuts compared to the trillion of dollars they
stand to make if successfully deceive people.
Those involved in the pharmaceutical deception should be banned for life, as if they show they
were willing to jeopardize the lives of the many then they should never again be placed in any
position to possibly repeat the same. We must ensure that neither politicians, medical doctors and
others in the health profession will be permitted to what I view are “kick backs/bribes as to
outlaw any financial benefits either directly or indirectly.
“Cases” as I understand it in medical terms is that a person has been subjected to a medical
assessment and found to suffer a particular health issue. Not a mere illusive fabricated number
that a politicians or his health advisers may cock up to pretend some infection going around
without a shred of evidence.
The fact that an 86 year old man allegedly full vaccinated then 24 days after vaccination died
with mRNA found in every one of his organs also ought to be a warning sign that ignoring 2020
concerns raised about this, but ignored, now may result in that those jabbed may have essentially
joined a suicide cult. We very well may have that every parliamentarian now jabbed may not be
around in 3 years time. Some may perhaps hold the view deserve them right, but reality is that
we should never have allowed this to come this far. It is in my view the total failure of the
judicial system and as I have made clear I emailed my case in August 2020 to the High Court of
Australia but the Registrar refused to file it. Well since then many persons were harmed for
various reasons and one may have to consider what if their health, wellbeing and their lives could
have been spared was it not for the refusal of the Registrar (not even being an Officer of the
Court) to unilaterally deny to file an application without sanction of any judge?
What is needed is a ROYAL COMMISSION as to the misuse and abuse of powers by so called
“leaders” and others. Rather than saving people’s lives with a LOCKDOWN it might in fact have
endangered lives. We need to discover the truth!
This document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/459593318/20200503-Press-Release-Mr-g-h-Schorel-hlavka-o-w-b-Issue-
Royal-Commission-Re-Covid-19-In-Search-of-the-Truth-Heroes-or-Villains
It is more than a year now when I raised the issue of a ROYAL COMMISSION into the
COVID misuse and abuse of powers and if just this had then be established we may have
prevented many people having been harmed.
Mass preparation for bedding, etc, for those infected with the Novel Coronavirus is needed badly, but
we seem to lack proper leadership all around. The ruby Princess deplorable issue is a clear example of
it.
This document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/453156476/20200325-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
B-ISSUE-Re-Failing-Leadership-in-Novel-Coronavirus-Issues-Etc
I, since March 2020, urged for appropriate QUARANTINE facilities, but as I indicated we lack
“leadership”.
Margot Gage Witvliet a health professional in her video “I’ve had COVID-19 for a year.
Here’s what I’ve learned” was claiming to have suffered from COVID-19, even so she makes
known that all test came back negative. No doubt considering what she stated was seriously ill,
and even showed to have a mask on, which I view likely might have been part or the whole cause
of her illness. To be open minded she might have suffered from INFLUENZA and then due to
the wearing of the mask this became more complicated I suspect absolutely nothing to do with
COVID-19.
Victoria has its 5th lockdown and while it may destroy as an example small business enterprises,
possibly precisely what the WEF, WHO, UN, NOW, communist are pursuing, it simply will not
stop any so called virus. After all, if you do not know what you are on about and demand
lockdowns that may rather inflate harm rather than reduce it then one cannot claim this is for
“peace, order and good government” but simply to be a TRAIRTOR to serve foreign enemy
powers to destroy the livelihood of the many.
When I understand from reports that even the flu vaccine now are contaminated with graphene
then one has to ask what on earth do we have a TGA for if it neglects its duties and obligations to
ensure that those so called vaccines are not detrimental to the citizens at large.
I for one would like to get rid of all those in the TGA and have them replaced with experts who
will ensure that the health and wellbeing of citizens are their first priority.
We are now in a situation that one cannot rust even medical doctors as to their mantra “vaccines
are safe” as they simply cannot prove this to be so. They might be willing to sacrifice their own
family members for their fi8nancial interest to support some pharmaceutical company but while I
do not seek to imply to condone this it is a different thing altogether to place in jeopardy the
health, wellbeing and the lives of others.
Never again should be allow this kind of circumstances to eventuate and we must pursue that all
so called vaccinations as suspended and any approval is reconsidered and likely withdrawn and
any new approval must be following strict “clinical trials” that have a proven record without any
fraud being involved.
No one in his right mind can claim that a person gave “informed” consent as to the Nuremberg
Code when unknown to any long term harm to be jabbed.
I am not aware for any government ordinary promoting a product for and on behalf of a
manufacturer as it does with the pharmaceutical company, and this in itself may be
unconstitutional but also may underline that the politicians may be so to say in bed with the
pharmaceutical companies, perhaps funding for their re-elections, rather than to be concerned
about any possible harm to the victims. Fancy a car manufacturer selling motor vehicles with
defective airbags, the government will insist that those airbags are replaced at cost of the
manufacturer. Yet, here we have so called “vaccinations” to which the TGA hasn’t got a clue as
to its long term harm that may eventuate and yet claims the “benefits outweigh the risk”. Well
what benefits it doesn’t state and neither what risk as it is a cliché/mantra used all over the world
with a blatant ignorance to the real dangers.
https://principia-scientific.com/first-postmortem-of-covid-vaxxed-patient-body-riddled-with-viral-rna/
First Postmortem Of Covid-Vaxxed Patient; Body Riddled With Viral RNA
Published on June 17, 2021
Then consider also:

John Laws
July 3 at 8:09 PM ·
mRNA VACCINE INVENTOR CALLS FOR STOP OF COVID VAX
Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA vaccine, sits down with Del to give his honest concerns about
why this is the wrong technology to use against #Covid19 and, in particular, the extreme danger it poses to
young people. https://media.livecast365.com/.../content/1624645930372.mp4
#RobertMaloneyMD #mRNA #BloodBrainBarrier #Myocarditis #SpikeProtein #VaccineMandates #T

heHighwire #DelBigtree #HW221
POSTED: June 25, 2021
Let it be very clear that numerous experts in science as well as medical doctors since early 2020
warned against any purported vaccination (jabbing) but they were deemed to be scare mongers,
etc. Well the truth is that they were proven to be right after all.
In our constitutional system as the High Court of Australia in the Albert Langer case made clear
that there is political liberty, etc. However, we have now seen that not only the Democrats
combined their power with the Big Tech companies to “cancel” those who didn’t so to say sing
from the same song book as they did, but even the Australian Government has become involved
doing so. To them “misinformation/disinformation” is anything that is contrary to whatever the
Government mantra might be regardless how wrong the government may be. By this, electors
when going to vote for who shall represent them have been deceived by the parliamentarians by
concealing the truth and the facts from them.
* Let us hope the readers will consider what you have set out above.
**#** Well, as usual I do my writings but it is up to every reader what informed decision he/she
may make, depending each in their particular circumstances.
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!)


20210719-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - We Immediately Must Have A Moratorium On Jabbing (Vaccinations)

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

20210719-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - We Immediately Must Have A Moratorium On Jabbing (Vaccinations)

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, is this regarding a question Alan L R asked you?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, let me quote Alan’s email:

Thanks for your words of encouragement.

Any correction to the above welcome.

This, as I had also stated:

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

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

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. CARRUTHERS: As far as my constituents are concerned I should not like to go

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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

[start page 1083]

p4 17-7-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Sub-clause 26 provides for that!

The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Look at sub-clause 25, which says:

Mr. SYMON: Suppose you change the domicile!

Mr. SYMON: That is incident to the marriage law!

[start page 1085]

p6 17-7-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. SYMON: Suppose a child is deserted?

The Hon. E. BARTON: I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Sub-clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

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

HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. ISAACS: I suppose you propose to put in words to make it a misdemeanor.

Dr. QUICK: Without any corrupt motive is it indictable?

Mr. HIGGINS: What words do you propose to put in?

Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution convention Debates

p10 17-7-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. ISAACS.-It is as follows:-

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-That is the Tasmanian amendment.

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p12 17-7-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p13 17-7-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Then consider also:

#RobertMaloneyMD #mRNA #BloodBrainBarrier #Myocarditis #SpikeProtein #VaccineMandates #T

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

p15 17-7-2021 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like

# INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, let me quote Alan’s email: