20221223-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 93 - Part13 - Electors-Candidates-Covid Scam, Etc

Page 1
2 Reece Kershaw (Australian/Victoria date) 23-12-2022

3 Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
4 Forwarded via email commissioner@afp.gov.au
5
6 Cc: acv@health.gov.au Advisory Committee on Vaccines, Therapeutic Goods Administration
7 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Pharmacovigilance and Special Access Branch, MDP 122
8
9 Committees@health.gov.au Committee Support Unit, Therapeutic Goods Administration
10 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Scheduling & Committee Support Section, MDP 122
11
12 Mr A. Albanese (via portal)
13
14 Mr Daniel Andrews Premier daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
15 attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
16
17 Re: 20221223-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the AFP-Suppl 93 -
18 Part 13-Electors-candidates-covid scam, etc
19
20 COMPLAINT
21 Sir,
22 further to my original COMPLAINT of 6 August 2021 I provide a further supplement
23 hereby.
24
25 Now that we seem to have ongoing vilification of the 3 defenders against what appears to me a
26 unlawful armed trespassing let us consider some real facts.
27
28 QUOTE 20221223-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC – COMPLAINT -Part 13
29 Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission 23-12-2022
30 Address: GPO Box 24234, Melbourne VIC 3001
31 Telephone: 1300 735 135
32 Email: info@ibac.vic.gov.au
33
34 COMPLAINT
35
36 20221223-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC – COMPLAINT -Part 13a
37
38 THE ELEBORATE FRAUD PURPETRATED BASED ON A HOAX
39
40 Sir/Madam,
41 in this COMPLAINT ( which will be in several parts) I will address various matters
42 albeit not stated in any order of importance, while some must be considered also as to my past
43 complaints provided to IBAC.
44
23-12-2022 Page 1 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation,
or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 While IBAC may railroad a COMPLAINT on the allegation it is not in the “public interest”
2 reality is many have died needlessly and many more will die to which I view IBAC could have
3 prevented this had it done a proper investigation. I on the other hand have been working for
4 decades to expose the rot and well so to say the chickens are coming home. While IBAC staff is
5 being paid by taxpayers monies and fail to deliver, I on the other hand provide my research free
6 of charge and publish it at my Scribd blog “inspectorrikati” as at least I do care for my fellow
7 human beings!
8
9 Do note what I wrote below:
10 QUOTE 20221223-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Privacy Commissioner-Supplement 1
11 Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC 23-12-2022
12 Email foi@oaic.gov.au
13
14 Further to my 22 December 2022 complaint I view it appropriate to provide this supplement.
15
16 QUOTE
17 And likewise other public positions including that of being a police officer. They may
18 claim to be police officers but lacking the “Australian Citizenship” as “nationality” are
19 actually just “private citizens”. This then may reflect back to the alleged Queensland Police
20 also as if they really were trespassing as “private citizens” then this also is an added
21 problem. Indeed, the conduct of so called police with their tyranny upon citizens about all
22 those unconstitutional mandates may underline that 3 defendants in my view were not the
23 criminals as may be purported but that they exercised their constitutional, legal, human and
24 natural rights to defend themselves against armed trespassers.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 We just to have business day overnight mail deliveries by Australian Post but now receiving the
28 newspaper may take, w1, 2, 3 week or never. This is for example happening with The Epoch
29 Times. As result I often receive mail (bills) well beyond any time indicated to be paid. Yet
30 nothing is done to really address this matter. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
31 1900 (UK) ((v) postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services;) actually specifically
32 was created that postal services were to be in sole control of the Federal government, but well
33 one doesn’t have to be some conspiracy theorist to be able to point out that in violation of this
34 constitutional provision there are numerous private services to deliver mail articles.
35 The term “and other like services” was added because the Framers of the Constitution made
36 clear that in future times new modes of communication may exist and so that would then also fall
37 within the legislative powers of the Commonwealth. Hence, the internet falls within the powers
38 of the Commonwealth and so does mobile phone communication.
39 The Commonwealth then decides to require a certain process regarding activation of sim card so
40 as it would be able to trace the person who activated the simcard if the simcard was used for
41 criminal purposes. That in itself may be deemed well within its legislative powers but one
42 doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that this really is a total failure. To give an
43 example. I have been with Optus for many years but for security but ordinary use a new simcard
44 and a new mobile number when the one I was using expired. There is absolutely no legal
45 obstacle against doing so. However, to give an example I find that at times when I try to activate
46 a simcard it is deemed (by Optus) to be faulty. This would be likely that some other customer in
47 error had typed in the wrong number to active their simcard and so instead of activating their
48 simcard they activate a sincard they do not possess. By this the person who purchased that
49 simcard is prevented from using this simcard as it was previously activated, albeit incorrectly, by
50 another person. As such, a person can lawfully purchase one or more simcards as a store and
Page 3
1 then find that one or more are “faulty” because some other customer may have accidentally
2 activated the simcard without the knowledge and/or consent of the true holder of the simcard.
3 Over time I had this happening but then having taken the simcard already out of the holder card
4 could hardly prove it never was used. So, I decided to keep the simcard secured as was in the
5 holder card to activate. Well I now ended up with 3 cards being unable to be act5ivated. So, I
6 went to an Optus store and they established that indeed the unused simcards were “faulty” but
7 refused to replace them because they claimed I had not purchased them at their store. I attended
8 to another Optus store and well got the same results. Now, let this be clear the simcards were
9 lawfully purchased and therefore any defect that might have eventuated were not due to any
10 thing I did or with my knowledge and/or consent. A simcard could be activated in error by some
11 customer incorrectly trying to activate his/her simcard and then the actual simcard with that
12 number might in fact still be on sale in a store unknow it was wrongly activated. Or it might be
13 wrongly activated after it was purchased by a person who never had the actual simcard in
14 possession.
15 Well I contacted the Ombudsman and months later still no resolve. This is precisely the kind of
16 crap citizens are getting when filing a complaint without any decent assistance. Optus suggested
17 to go again to an Optus store and if the refused yet again to replace the simcards then for that
18 staff to phone (whomever this might be as that was not indicated) Optus. Optus by this refuses to
19 fix the problem by simply directing its agents to replace faulty simcards that are proven never to
20 have been used, as it cannot bother.
21 Obviously this then also places in question what kind of NATIONAL SECURITY system this
22 is for the Commonwealth if a simcard is used for criminal purposes?
23 After all, I can use (albeit lawfully) the identity of another person can activate a simcard (that is
24 not faulty) and use it. Hence the Optus hacking now allows the hackers or anyone else who got
25 the details subsequently to activate simcards on the identity of any person they hold details of.
26 But, I who present personal identifications at a store cannot get a replacement.
27 Then on 2 December 2022 I discovered that my simcard was no longer useable on the internet ,
28 which can be because of limit of downloading, etc) and so decided in the wee early morning
29 hours to activate a new simcard. Well I got all kind of rejections no matter what I tried and so
30 tried using the internet to Optus (for which any old simcard can be used as it bypasses the
31 ordinary system) and so was holding on and holding on getting nowhere. I tried again to activate
32 via the ordinary activation system but to no avail. I then contacted Optus internet communication
33 again and now about 21/2 later was advised that they couldn’t activate the simcard, not because
34 the simcard was faulty but their system wouldn’t allow it to be activated under my identity.
35 However I insisted the simcard to be activated and so I was offered to have a new account, which
36 I accepted. Moment, I had an existing account for many years and now needed another account
37 to activate a simcard this even so my details has not been changed for decades? While the
38 simcard finally got activated, and again on the very same personal detai9ls I used all along for
39 years, one has to ask what on earth is going on when this is supposed to be for security purposes
40 and yet after all those years somehow no proper security system is in place. As I used to be in
41 management of factories I have a reasonable understanding how to address problems but surely
42 it is not my job to micromanage Optus system? Nevertheless I made suggestion how to avoid
43 this kind of accidental activation but as usual no one will bother to address the issue properly.
44 And the Telecommunication Ombudsman seems to be impotent/incompetent/unwilling to
45 address the issue appropriately and has still not resolved the issue either. What this means is that
46 numerous simcard either for sale or already purchased could be in error be activated but we seem
47 to lack competent people to simply implement the suggestions/recommendations I made to
48 Optus how to permanently prevent accidental activations. It seems to me that Optus by having
49 simcards wrongly caused to be faulty may be making monies to sell more cards.
Page 4
1 Because my wife is 90 and suffer from Heart Failure, etc, it is critical that I have a working
2 simcard and not having to go to some store to try yet again to get staff to replace a non-used
3 simcard when in emergencies there would be absolutely no time for this.
4 Optus suggested that I personally attend to an Optus store and purchase there a simcard and get it
5 activated. What an utter and sheer nonsense as why have agents selling the simcards if I need to
6 go to an Optus store to activate it? And if suddenly the simcard refuses to work and I seek to
7 activate a new simcard then why on earth in the middle of the night would I have to wait for a
8 Optus store to open up and be deprived to use the simcard when needed? So, I could activate or
9 for that any hacker a simcard on another person’s name and avoid by this the entire security
10 purpose the Commonwealth implemented but activating a simcard on my own identity details,
11 which has changed for decades, somehow cannot be provided for?
12 I can simply now activate any simcard just as a sickening game on someone’s identity and spend
13 the day doing this with numerous simcard numbers and all those simcards then will become
14 faulty when the real purchasers desire to activate them and there is no system in place to prevent
15 this, even so I suggested/recommended how to avoid this.
16 The above about the simcard problems is just one issue to underline that no matter how much
17 things are going wrong any proper solutions are ignored. This is typical with about everything
18 else and does at times make people’s blood boil.
19
20 The Epoch Times (as I read on Friday 23 December 2022) in its December 15-21, 2022 edition
21 at Page A4 had the headline “Authorities to Investigate Cop Killers’ Motives”.
22 Moment “Cop Killers” which seem to me to indicate they (the property defenders) unlawfully
23 killed Cops!
24
25 The article refers to “Two young constables, Matthew Arnold, 26 and Rachel McCrow, 29
26 were hit with a “hail of gunshots” as they jumped a fence to access the house, according to
27 Queensland Police Union President Ian Leavers.”
28
29 I do not know the layout of the property, but if the police “jumped a fence” then unless they had
30 a warrant authorising them to do so they appear to me to have been trespassing upon the
31 property. If the police “jumped a fence” from the neighbouri9ng property of which the owner
32 also was killed then the property defenders may very well have deemed that he authorising the
33 police to jump the fence using his property he was deemed part of the unlawful entry,
34 irrespective if he didn’t physically participate in any unlawful entry.
35 An image on page 4A also had the statement “Supplied images obtained on Dec. 13 show
36 Constable Matthew Arnold (L) and Constable Rachel McCrow ® who were killed in an
37 ambush at a remote Queensland property on Dec. 12, 2022”. In my view the usage of the
38 word “ambush” may be false reporting. In my view an “ambush” is where one lay in waiting to
39 have unsuspected persons moving by and then are attacked. This is for example in war times.
40 However, if the police “jumped the fence” then I view this is a total different situation as
41 “ambush” cannot be used to this kind of circumstances, as had the police not allegedly “jumped
42 the fence” then Then likely no shooting would have eventuated. I do not intend to address every
43 part of the article but it seems to me to portray the property defenders as “ruthless, murderous
44 trio” even so had the police not “jumped the fence” then nothing may have eventuated.
45
46 The article also refers to issue such as the “1996 Port Arthur Massacre-which triggered
47 Australia’s gun buy back scheme- was a hoax aimed at disarming citizens.”
48 I served in the Royal Dutch Army more than half a century ago and also served then at the Iron
49 Curtain in Germany under NATO and participated in a shooting completion that allowed to use
Page 5
1 different weapons to score a maximum 40 points (And this was in winter time in the snow – not
2 particular a pleasant set of circumstances). Nevertheless I succeeded in first prize achieving 39
3 points. The Second place was 29 points, the 3 rd place was 28 points and the rest lower than that.
4 While I recognise and have written about it and published at my blog that the Framers of the
5 constitution embedded the legal principle that citizens could form militia to fight off any
6 invasion army (this includes then home grown TREATORS/TERRORIST) then obviously
7 there is a need for citizens to have appropriate weapons to defend themselves. As I understand it
8 about 10 years before the Port Arthur Massacre a NSW Premier suggested that to reduce citizens
9 holding weapons something like a Port Arthur massacre was needed. Yes, about m10m years
10 earlier to the actual event! While I have now checked all details of the actual event it is my view
11 that there is no way a single person w, in particularly an untrained sharp shooter, possibly could
12 have accomplished the murders as has been claimed. To my understanding Martyn Bryant was
13 not a person who could have accomplished such kind of killing in the way it was reported.
14 I also understand that the funeral director well prior to the Port Arthur massacre event had
15 ordered a special truck for multi bodies to be transported, as if this was prepared for the Port
16 Arthur massacre in advance.
17 I understand that there actually never was any proper investigation to prove that one person not
18 even properly trained to achieve such death toll could possibly had accomplished this. I
19 understand that witnesses allegedly claimed that the killer was not Martyn Bryant.
20 Personally I since leaving the armed forces never desired to use any firearm because having been
21 trained to use it to kill I see no enjoyment to muse it for entertainment. I can however understand
22 that others may have a different view about this and they are entitled to exercise their
23 constitutional, legal, human and natural rights if they desire to do so in particularly when they
24 take the position that armed intruders are a danger to them.
25 What we really need is a proper IMPARTIAL investigation, not one like the President John F
26 Kennedy assassination where now about 6 decades later it appears to be revealed the CIA was
27 behind this murder. Police will always pursue more and more ways to control citizens but reality
28 is that for example when it came to citizens in Melbourne exercising their constitutional rights to
29 protest the Police were even shooting bullets at parents holding children and notably at the
30 Shrine of Remembrance, Melbourne to unconstitutionally enforce the unconstitutional
31 mandates of Brett Sutton the Chief Health Officer. Their tyranny has been well documented in
32 numerous video’s and as I wrote previously about as published at my Scribd blog “(INSERT:
33 After they sprayed this elderly woman the police simply walked away and as such I view
34 this was uncalled terrorism, not at all to restrain and/or arrest a person!)” the police first
35 pushed the woman to the ground and then spayed this defenceless woman and the police then
36 walked away. This underlines that it was not to subdue some agitator who needed to be
37 restrained but it was pure TERRORISM.
38
39 QUOTE 20211125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian
40 Federal Police-Suppl- 34-RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
41 Let us look at the following image of a 70 year old woman specifically tackled/pushed onto the
42 ground and then sprayed with what I understand was capsicum spray into her face, and there are
43 video’s that show that then the police involved simply walk away. As such, it was not at all to
44 execute any arrest at all. It in my view was a deliberate conduct of calling unduly harm. I look
45 forwards to any links you provide showing you objected to this kind of uncalled violent conduct
46 by the Victorian Police. Was she really such a danger to the Victorian Police while on the
47 ground?
48
49 Video: Cops Ask For Legal Protests
50
Page 6
1
2
3 (INSERT: After they sprayed this elderly woman the police simply walked away and as such I
4 view this was uncalled terrorism, not at all to restrain and/or arrest a person!)
5
6 Video: End Covid Repression, Let Life Resume
7 This young woman (Melbourne) actually had medical condition to be exempt from mask
8 mandate! This however didn’t deter the Victorian Police in its violent aggressive conduct. I look
9 forwards to a link where you in the Parliament objected to this kind of violence!
10
11
12 Video: Australia painted as a ‘dystopian nightmare’ as footage goes viral
13 Here we have images of the Victorian Police dealing with unarmed citizen exercising their
14 constitutional rights to protest and also how the Victorian Police is running after citizens to spray
15 them with what I understand to be capsicum spray. And this while capsicum spray was
16 originally introduced as an alternative of using real bullets. Well they now also use rubber
17 bullets, even at the Shrine of Remembrance to disgrace the fallen. And shooting in to the back of
18 unarmed citizens. Again, I look forwards to any links where you objected to this kind of police
19 violence.
20
21 Video: Police crack down on protesters at St Kilda beach Melbourne protests ABC News

Page 7
1
2
3 Video: Australian Prime Minister Says Its Your Fault If You Took The Vaccine And Died
4 END QUOTE 20211125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the
5 Australian Federal Police-Suppl- 34-RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
6
7 QUOTE 20221026-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the AFP-Suppl-
8 92-HIGH TREASON, etc
9 Video: “Never forget when Melbourne, Australia was a Covid Police State. Excessive
10 violence & brutality”
11
12
13
14
15 All those guns to shoot bullets in the back of even parents carrying a child in a peaceful
16 demonstration!
17
18 While in Melbourne the Victorian Police were using rubber bullets (still no excuse to violate
19 citizens constitutional rights) in Ukraine its NAZI government was not only using real bullets but
20 also bombs, etc, as I wrote about so often in the past. And then we get what I view insane
21 politicians in government who are unable or unwilling to understand/comprehend that Australia
22 has no business to be unconstitutionally involved in mass murder/genocide that for the last 8
23 years was committed by the Ukraine NAZI government upon its own citizens. And now
24 “Travelling Pete” (Anthony Albanese) seems to claim that our fuel prices may increase in 2023
25 by some 50% because of Ukraine. In my view what he really is conveying but not really telling
Page 8
1 us specifically that, first Scott Morrison and now “Travelling Pete” are squandering monies left,
2 right and centre and so increasing the fuel cost will increase taxation collections!
3 END QUOTE 20221026-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the AFP-
4 Suppl- 92-HIGH TREASON, etc
5
6 As I wrote on 22 December 2022:
7 QUOTE
8 I find it very concerning that you refer to citizens exercising their constitutional rights
9 of “political liberty” in demonstrating for their political rights as provided for in the
10 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) to label them “'Selfish,
11 Unlawful, Wrong'” I view is an incitement to police and/or certain citizens that they
12 somehow can justify to resort to violence, etc.
13 END QUOTE
14 And then:
15 QUOTE
16 There was this claim by Premier Daniel Andrews: sorry about excessive rules thru
17 pandemic, lots of damage done, it is a learning process, wrong advises received.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Well tell this to my wife who in the last years of her life has been vilified by the Premier of
21 Victoria Daniel Andrews and that she was part of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” and
22 needed to be “locked out” and was “'Selfish, Unlawful, Wrong'” and in the process was
23 actually denied to even go with me to the local supermarket as only 1 person of the family was
24 allowed to travel maximum 5 kilometres. Meaning she had to be left alone unattended and her
25 life placed at risk. I understand my wife would like to see Daniel Andrews hanging as Mussolini
26 was. The nonsense do it for your “mum, dad, grandmother” where at her age they have been
27 death long ago. Actually her grandmother died more than 90 years ago before she was born.
28 And as now proven that the mask is more harmful to anyone and also that the misnamed
29 “vaccine” is also very harmful to those injected.
30 As I understand the Senate Estimates also showed that Paul Kelly the Chief Medical Officer for
31 the Commonwealth appeared not even to be aware of very important details and that TGA John
32 Skirrit had provided false/misleading details as the Senator then exposed.
33
34 While Mike Burgess may claim that “terrorist and security threats no longer fit the “left wing,
35 right wing, or Islamic extremism” he doesn’t seem to grasp that the real terrorism is from
36 politicians and their minions.
37 As I indicated that for some 37 years I had a special lifeline service under the motto “MAY
38 JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL” and this without any special financial support from the
39 Commonwealth or any state Government, (neither did I charge the people contacting either)
40 dealing with people contemplating suicide, murder and even mass murder and well aware that
41 politicians and their minions will seek to twist the truth to blame citizens no matter their own
42 wrongdoings. Regretfully even the High Court of Australia appears to me to be involved in this.
43 When a citizen aggrieved seeks JUSTICE then generally they are prevented from raising a
44 constitutional matter before the High Court of Australia by for example ordering cost against a
45 person!
46
47 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
48 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
49 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
50 important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
51 END QUOTE
Page 9
1
2 Citizens therefore despite having the view they have a real constitutional issue to be adjudicated
3 nevertheless may not raise the issues for fear of disastrous orders for cost against them if the
4 court rightly or wrongly rules against them.
5
6 In principle I do not support violence albeit do view that citizens are entitled to form militia to
7 deal with home grown TRAITORS/TERRORIST and can use special tribunals that if it
8 convicts a person for hideous crimes then it can order the death penalty to rewards them for their
9 evil doings, as a possible deterrent for others to do the same evil doing.
10
11 I am aware however that no matter what research I may do and no matter if I were to be 100%
12 correct in the end the politicians and their minions will simply disregard this. Premier Daniel
13 Andrews to me is a clear example blaming incorrect advice rather than to be man enough to
14 accept he was the one in charge and failed miserably. Again Mary the receptionist of my wife’s
15 eye doctor was forced to be jabbed to be able to have the hospital to provide cancer treatment
16 and well she paid with her life for this on 1 September 2022! Where is the legal accountability of
17 the hospital and also the premier and his minions?
18 Let it be clear the TGA has in my view all along been in bed in the fraudulent conduct by the
19 pharmaceutical companies, the politicians and their minions by pretending that the Pfizer and
20 Moderna “gene treatment” were “vaccines” this despite that they never were and never
21 intended to be so. Why has as yet TGA John Skerrit not been held legally accountable for this?
22
23 It should be very clear that the system is very corrupt and it will continue so unless those evil
24 doers are held legally accountable.
25 If as is now reported the Queensland Police “jumped the fence” then it appears to me they were
26 acting as common criminals and not protected whatsoever by being police officers. Allegedly
27 they were dealing with a “missing persons” report, but somehow seemed to have the address
28 where the alleged missing person was. It seems to me that the Queensland Police having as like
29 the Victorian Police counterparts were used to terrorise citizens simply couldn’t give one of an
30 iota about the rights of the property owners and so took the law into their own hands to have
31 “jumped the fence” instead of lawfully seek to obtain permission to enter the property.
32
33 While much may be argued that the property owners might be “conspiracy theorist” if one was
34 to get paid say $10 for each occasion an alleged “conspiracy theory” turned out to be the truth,
35 then I would be very rich indeed. Generally the term “conspiracy theorist” and/or “conspiracy
36 theory” is used in particular by politicians and their minions to deflect from the truth to avoid
37 exposure of their actual evil doings.
38
39 It is very sad that anyone end up losing their life because of the blatant abuse of powers that has
40 been going on time and time again. I do not see this to be resolved bny the use of violence and if
41 anything this can be underlined how absurd Premier Daniel Andrews as to cause division
42 amongst citizens to even betray each other for the alleged claim to protect the vaccinated from
43 the unvaccinated when in fact it is proven that the vaccinated are the danger to the unvaccinated.
44 Moreover, why on earth use a “gene treatment”
45 To combat an alleged infectious disease at all?
46 Surely, any competent medical doctor would be well aware that a “gene treatment” cannot
47 combat an infectious disease to prevent infection or the transmission of an infection? Neither
48 would a competent medical doctor agree to use a “gene treatment” for people who have no
49 defect in their gens!
Page 10
1
2 I may not have been trained in formal education regarding medical or science issues but surely
3 even Blind Freddy would be aware that it is utter and sheer nonsense to claim that by
4 deliberately misnaming a “gene treatment” as a “vaccine” then somehow this will change the
5 end result. And yet the Commonwealth still continues its fraudulent pushing of boosters as if
6 they are a “vaccine” and have gullible people going along.
7 And then one wonder why people who were apparently minding their own business at the
8 property having been i9nvaded by what appears to me armed invaders then seek to defend
9 themselves against the intruders?
10 The article also states: “A local sergeant was able to respond to the distress call and arrived
11 at the scene with 15 more police officers who worked to retrieve the bodies of the slain
12 officers.”. What appears to me the 16 additional police officer may likely also have joined in the
13 trespassing and then allegedly killed the 3 defenders. Now to claim that those defenders were
14 “conspiracy theorist” is in my view really to distract from the true set of circumstances. I have
15 a vague recollection that some years ago a similar incident eventuated in the USA where a
16 Federal agent was killed, etc, and the defenders, other than those killed, were charged and the
17 jury found them “NOT GUILTY”.
18 In my view what is needed is to have an INDEPENDENT open and transparent investigation
19 as to why the 4 police officer “jumped the fence” and by this acted unlawfully? Then if the
20 arrival of the subsequent 16 police officers must be considered also trespassing and then they
21 ought to be held legally accountable for the murder/manslaughter of the 3 defenders.
22
23 Over the last 3 years the police have essentially become the “enemy” of citizens by their
24 TERRORISM upon citizens as some referred to above. Trying to blame the defenders who did
25 no more but to defend their property rights is absurd and shows that we are not seeking to
26 resolve anything but rather seek to continue the TERRORISM that the police can blatantly
27 disregard the constitutional;, legal, human and natural rights of citizens. Who of the 4 police
28 officers was in charge and why not have sought lawful access in the first place, after all a
29 missing person report to a known property address hardly could justify a unlawful entering a
30 private property!
31
32 I have my own way to deal with the misfits in public jobs, such as Premier Daniel Andrews, as I
33 pursue the legal way. I am well aware that nevertheless the road to JUSTICE is protracted by
34 the ignorance of the politicians, if any7thing the kidnapping of my grandson Dion is a clear
35 example where they have failed to provide appropriate details.,
36
37 When I became aware of what I consider TREASON by the judges of the High Court of
38 Australia in the Sue v Hill case I he3ld that the better way was to expose the lot, using my
39 knowledge about the constitution. However I was faced with barristers who would deliberately
40 pervert the course of justice as they know that they ordinary can get away with it.
41
42 The following relates to 2 successful appeals in which I represented myself in regard of charges
43 of FAILING TO VOTE in 2001 and 2004.
44
45 ADDRESS TO THE COURT
46 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
47 QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
48

Page 11
1 In May and June 2006 the Defendant provided the Commonwealth Director of Public
2 Prosecutions with correspondences which included most of the submissions the Defendant
3 intended to make to the Court, including for a “PERMANENT STAY” of orders, and also
4 about religious objection, seeking the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to
5 consent to a “PERMANENT STAY” of the proceedings relating to the charges. However,
6 having done so, the Defendant then is faced with the Commonwealth Director of Public
7 Prosecutions being for warned as to what the Defendant intends to do in most issues and as
8 such may seek to counteract those arguments. It is not the counter argument itself that the
9 Defendant is worried about, but the deceptive conduct employed in the past by the lawyers
10 acting for the Australian Electoral Commission in their litigation to the extend as to
11 deliberately replace words in what is claimed to be an Authority being quoted as to pretend to
12 the Court that a judge made a certain ruling even so the ruling is a fraudulent version to
13 deceive the Court. Such as Mr Peter Hanks QC did before the Federal Court of Australia and
14 later again made a deceptive statement to the High Court of Australia.
15
16 For example, checking the transcript of the hearing, it is noted that Mr Peter Hanks QC in his
17 argument in point 22 and 22.1 of the OUTLINE stated the following;
18
19 QUOTE
20 In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred to the
21 general rule that “not less than” so many days refers to clear days – “unless the context or the
22 statutory intention reveals a contrary intention”.
23 END QUOTE
24 His quotation is again false and misleading!
25
26 Mr Peter Hanks QC quoted of the judgment the following;
27 QUOTE
28 “unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention”
29 END QUOTE
30 This ought to be;
31 QUOTE
32 “unless the context or the subject matter reveals a contrary intention”
33 END QUOTE
34
35 Clearly, that is a gross deception. In legal terms there can be a significant difference in a case
36 for the Court to deal with a “statutory intention” versus “subject matter”.
37
38 Mr Peter Hanks QC stated to the Court (7 November 2001);
39
40 The researches of counsel have been unable to find provisions using simular language
41 (“not less that” or “at least” a number of days) where the language is as clear and specific
42 as found in ss156(1) and 157.
43
44 Thousands upon thousands of Internet references can be found upon a search “shall not be
45 less than” or “shall not be less that”. As such this statement by Mr. Peter Hanks QC for the
46 Australian Electoral Commission was a fraudulent statement. Likewise other statement were
47 found by the defendant to be deceptive and/or misleading.
48
49 We also have the fact that Counsel Mr peter Hanks QC argued the authority of the
Page 12
1
2 ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD (1950)
3 81 CLR 161
4
5 What counsel did however was to make a false and misleading presentation of what the case
6 really was on about.
7 As the authority stated:
8
9 The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which
10 was too short by one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position.
11
12 Mr Peter Hank QC didn’t argue that the authority wasn’t relevant, to the contrary he argued
13 its relevance only by misrepresenting how it applied and what the authority really was on
14 about. As such, it had nothing to do with “within” as Mr Peter Hanks QC argued as clearly the
15 usage “within” was in a different context and not at all as Mr Hanks sought to imply and did
16 imply.
17
18 It ought to be considered a serious matter that a barrister employs these kind of tactics, indeed
19 deceptive tactics, but it seems the Australian Electoral Commissioner does not seem to worry
20 about the means as long as it achieves his end results.
21 Because I expect the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to come up with any
22 nonsense and unable to verify the correctness of any claims they may make about any
23 AUTHORITY they may refer to I am left no alternative but to present my own research.
24 Lawyers are “OFFICERS OF THE COURT” but I experienced that when it comes to the
25 Australian Electoral Commissioner being the instructing party then it seems to me from
26 experiences their “oath of alliance” is worthless and they cannot be trusted, as set out also
27 further in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT.
28
29 It is my view, that had Mr Peter Hanks QC not concealed matters and not presented
30 fraudulent Authorities and how they applied then the Federal Court of Australia would not
31 have ruled that it had no legal jurisdiction, and would in fact have granted the orders I sought.
32 And in the end this case would never have eventuated before this Court as then matters could
33 have been addressed appropriately before any federal election had been held!
34 END QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
35
36 There was more to this as on 4 August 2005, after the Commonwealth added the FAILING TO
37 VOTE charge relating to 2004 federal election the prosecutor relied upon “AVERMENT” to
38 not have to provide any evidence as stated in the AEC1918. However, I disputed this as being
39 unconstitutional (consider the Kable case) and the Court ruled that the Commonwealth had to
40 file and serve all evidence it relied upon. The Prosecutor then argued that this would involve
41 “truck loads” of evidence upon which the court made clear this was a matter between the
42 parties. The truth was that the Prosecutor was not telling the truth because as I understand it
43 ballot papers are kept for 12 months after which they are destroyed and as such the 2001 ballot
44 papers were no longer existing. As for the 2004 ballot papers that was in question if they still
45 existed. It was obviously clear that the Prosecutor was or should have been aware he was
46 making a deliberate false and misleading claim to the court in regard of the ballot papers that
47 were already destroyed and as such at least in regard of the 2001 charge could never provide any
48 alleged “evidence”. Where the 2001 charge was to fail then that also would affect the 2004
49 charge, this because I had on 4 December 2002 obtained a court orders regarding the NOTICE

Page 13
1 OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER I had served upon all 9 Attorney-Generals in which I also

2 disputed the constitutional validity of the purported Australian Citizenship Act and the validity
3 of the High Court of Australia Sue v Hill decision that somehow the Commonwealth became an
4 independent nation. The Sue v Hill decision was outside the Courts judicial powers when it
5 came to Australian citizenship issue.
6
8 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
9 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that
10 people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to
11 day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance
12 into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it
13 must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary
14 that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured.
15 It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse,
16 and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to
17 a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we
18 contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the
19 citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of
20 interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of
21 the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to
22 consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee
23 which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we
24 or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I
25 hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for
26 them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
27 Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
28 Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided
29 for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all
30 other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High
31 Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things,
32 have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government
33 shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the
34 Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as
35 a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a
36 perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It
37 is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the
38 Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of
39 saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
40 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution,
41 they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
42 this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then
43 by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in
44 operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained;
45 and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final
46 interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty
47 in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the
48 Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
49 Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
50 well.
Page 14
1 END QUOTE
2 And
3 HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
4 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
5 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a
6 judiciary, there shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as
7 a part of the Constitution-that I believe to be an improvement-and other courts which
8 the Parliament may from time to time create or invest with federal jurisdiction.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 This means the High Court of Australia is a Court that is part of the Constitution and not above
12 it! It6 therefore cannot alter the true meaning and application of the constitution as it purported
13 to do in Sue v Hill.
14
16 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
17 When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should
18 be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great
19 amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we
20 have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of
21 lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the people of United Australia and
22 create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much care has not been
23 exercised.
24 END QUOTE
25 .
27 QUOTE
28 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs)
29 is I think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672]
30 one of those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the
31 provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting
32 together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material
33 they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be
34 incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least
35 degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these
36 provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable;
37 and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be
38 very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no
39 word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in
40 time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and
41 an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words
42 which we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of
43 us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for
44 every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
45 END QUOTE
46 .
48 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
49 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard
50 to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to
51 pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the
Page 15
1 Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the
2 term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
3 END QUOTE
4
5 HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are
8 all alike subjects of the British Crown.
9 END QUOTE
10
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will
14 come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who
15 would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for
16 such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
17 Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it
18 is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two
19 men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
20 citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is
21 meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the
22 state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does
23 not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the
24 whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on the
25 face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not expect will be
26 exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
27 dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the
28 citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from
29 it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to
30 be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the
31 Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of
32 depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would
33 anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody
34 possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting
35 that power in the hands of Parliament.
36 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
37 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest
38 this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a
39 state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no
40 right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one
41 particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
42 END QUOTE
43 .
45 QUOTE
46 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
47 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
48 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
49 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
50 established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
51 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
Page 16
1 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
2 are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
3 is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
4 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be
5 called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
6 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
7 END QUOTE
8 .
9 Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates
10 QUOTE
11 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I am trying to get at the ideas which are underlying the
12 argument of hon. gentlemen. I confess I have not got at them yet. The hon. member, Mr.
13 Deakin, talks about the powers exercised by the ministers of the Crown in Great Britain.
14 They do not differ in any respect from the powers exercised by ministers of the Crown in
15 any other country.
16 Dr. COCKBURN: They are much superior to the powers of ministers here!
17 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH': Not in the east.
18 Mr. DEAKIN: The powers of our ministers are limited, and theirs are unlimited!
19 END QUOTE
20
21 This is why politicians desire to wreck the constitution by now wanting to get the “Voice” so
22 they then can make it out to be whatever never mind what limits they are faced with.
23
24 Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates
25 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
26 In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be
27 defined under this constitution.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 Clearly the High Court of Australia had no judicial powers either to interfere with what the
31 Crown stands for!
32
33
35 The Defendant submits, that the Prosecutor acting under Federal authority himself was
36 bound to act within the scope of relevant federal legislative provisions, for so far they are
37 still enforceable and/or applicable, regardless if this may not apply upon the State Court
38 legal procedures, and ought to have notified each and every State and Territory
39 Governments about constitutional objections raised by the Defendant, such as the issue of
40 the validity of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, this, as by the objection, as like as
41 landholder objecting a police officer to enter his property without lawful authority that is
42 effective from the moment the objection is made by the landholder, the objection was
43 effective, and the validity of the parts of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 objected
44 against became immediately ULTRA VIRES, then this affecting also each and every State
45 and Territorian Government as to the validity of their legislative and/or constitutional
46 provisions based upon the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 provisions had therefore also an
47 direct interest in these matters.
48 The Defendant submits, that the magistrate on 16 and 17 November 2005 could not invoke
49 federal jurisdiction to deal with these and other matters because of the 4 December 2002
50 magistrate orders on foot adjourning the matter to the High Court of Australia. Neither could
51 it be accepted that a magistrate possibly could make a ruling about constitutional matters,
52 even if exercising federal jurisdiction, refusing whatsoever to place it on record in writing by
Page 17
1 way of a comprehensive reason of judgment, why decisions were made. In particularly

2 where State and Federal Governments also are standing to collapse in view of the
3 Australian Citizenship Act 1948 being ULTRA VIRES since the Defendant objected
4 against the validity of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 since 2001 that it is beyond
5 constitutional powers to define/declare citizenship, then it could not be accepted that the
6 magistrate possibly could have acted reasonable in the circumstances.
8
10 The Defendant submits, that because subsection 51(xix) of the Constitution provided for
11 “naturalization” of “aliens” to be granted “British nationality” then any notion by the
12 ULTRA VIRES Australian Citizenship Act 1948 legislation that they were granted
13 “Australian citizenship” is NULL AND VOID in that the were and remain to be actually
14 made “British nationals”.
15
16 The Defendant submits, that because the Victorian constitution relied upon the ULTRA
17 VIRES Australian Citizenship Act 1948 for certain rights and so also further legislation
18 demand certain government functions that the person must be an “Australian citizen” then
19 all such persons, being it police, judicial officers, Members of State parliament, etc, all
20 failing to have “Australian citizenship” as an ULTRA VIRES legislation cannot be
21 enforced, by this all are without legal right in their positions.
22
23 The Defendant submits, that by the ruling in Sue v Hill, that British nationals own
24 alliance to a foreign Monarch cannot hold a seat in Parliament, then for this also all natural
25 born and naturalized persons who are in fact British nationals by this ruling are disqualified
26 from being a Member of Parliament.
27
28 The Defendant submits, that therefore the legal power of any judicial officer involved in
29 this case to adjudicate may be ULTRA VIRES, if this judicial officer made an oath of
30 alliance to the LEGAL FICTION “Queen of Australia”, and it would result that this Court
31 then constitutes to be a STAR CHAMBER COURT, referred to in the Act Interpretation
32 Act 1980 (Vic).
33
34 The Defendant submits, that as the Framers of the Constitution stated, legislative powers
35 as to “citizenship” remains with the States and “Australian citizenship” is
36 AUTOMATICALLY obtained when a person obtains “State citizenship”.
37
38 The Defendant submits, that legislation enacted by any parliament, where persons failed
39 to have Australian citizenship as derived from having State citizenship then any such
40 legislation is and remains ULTRA VIRES, and any legal enforcement by the Court of
41 such legislation that is ULTRA VIRES are NULL AND VOID and so also without legal
42 force.
44
46 The issue of Australian citizenship
47
48 http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/What/media_releases/1998/sep/franchise.htm
49
50 The Franchise ‘Right to Vote’ Timetable
Page 18
1 16 September 1998
2 On October 3 over 12 million Australians will be eligible to vote in the 1998 federal
3 election.
4 In Australia, citizens have the right and responsibility to enrol and vote when they each the age
5 of eighteen years. In fact is it compulsory to do so.
6 But is hasn’t always been so - compulsory enrolment wasn’t introduced until 1911 and
7 compulsory voting wasn’t introduced until 1924.
8 For one quarter of the history of white settlement in Australia nobody voted, and this was for the
9 simple fact that there were no parliaments to vote for.
10 The first parliamentary elections were in 1843 for the New South Wales Legislative
11 Council. But this was an election that not everyone could vote in – only men with land
12 valued at 200 pounds or a house worth 20 pounds annually had the right to vote.
13 For the rest of the century following this election, and even for a time before, there were
14 long struggles over who could vote and what they could vote for. These movements to
15 increase the franchise gained notable victories in the years following the first election in
16 Australia.
17 In 1856 the right to vote was granted to all male British subjects over the age of 21 in
18 South Australia. The other States followed in the years between 1857 and 1896.
19 South Australia again led the way when in 1894 women over 21 were given the right to
20 vote. The other States granted women this right in the years between 1899 and 1908.
21 By 1902 most men and women were able to vote at federal elections. However, what were
22 referred to as ‘Aboriginal natives’ of Australia, Asia, Africa or the Pacific Islands were
23 excluded from enrolment and voting.
24 In 1903 the first federal election under federal law was held with a 46.86% voter turnout.
25 In 1925 the first federal election with compulsory voting was held with 91.31% voter
26 turnout.
27 It was 1949 when Aboriginal people were given the right to enrol and vote at federal
28 elections, and then only as long as they were entitled to enrol for State elections or had
29 served in the defence forces. In 1962 voluntary enrolment and voting at federal elections
30 was extended to all Aboriginal people.
31 In 1973 the qualifying age for enrolment, voting and candidature for all federal elections
32 was lowered from 21 to 18.
33 It was in 1984 that enrolment and voting were made compulsory for Aboriginal people.
34 It was also in 1984 that the qualifications to be eligible to vote was changed to Australian
35 citizenship. Now the only non-Australian citizens entitled to enrol and vote are those
36 British subjects who were on the electoral roll on 25 January 1984, the time at which the
37 eligibility changed.
38
39 One of the first obstacles the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has is to prove that
40 I am an “Australian citizen” within the meaning as referred to by the Framers of the Constitution,
41 as to poses the right to vote in federal elections, rather then to whatever is made out to be by the
42 Federal legislation. If in fact I am not an “Australian citizen”, as to exercise any political powers
43 such as “franchise” then it is irrelevant if the election was constitutionally valid or not (as this is
44 also in contest) as without political right to vote there can be no jurisdiction being invoked for
45 this Court to entertain any charges against me.
46
47 “Citizenship” is used only once in the Constitution as the draft had other references to
48 “citizenship” removed as to avoid misconceptions as to the constitutional powers or the lack
49 thereof by the Federal Parliament. (Hansard records Constitutional Convention Debates 1891,
50 1897 and 1898)
Page 19
1
2 The terms “citizen of the Commonwealth.”, “Australian citizen”, federal citizen”, “State citizen”
3 were all used in an interchanging set of words as to mean “subject of the Queen”. This as after
4 all any person within the realm of the queen (King) is subject to the laws of the British
5 Parliament. It does not matter if they were ‘aliens”, “natural born subjects” or “naturalized
6 subjects”, as they were/are all subject to the laws enacted by the Parliaments under the Imperial
7 powers.
8
9 The meaning of a word or words can they be altered because of international perceptions, etc.;
10
11 Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37, 6-8-2004
12 66. Most of the rules HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
13 bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn63" [64] now recognised as rules of
14 international law are of recent origin. If Australian courts interpreted the Constitution by
15 reference to the rules of international law now in force, they would be amending the
16 Constitution in disregard of the direction in s 128 of the Constitution. Section 128 declares
17 that the Constitution is to be amended only by legislation that is approved by a majority of
18 the States and "a majority of all the electors voting". Attempts to suggest that a rule of
19 international law is merely a factor that can be taken into account in interpreting the
20 Constitution cannot hide the fact that, if that is done, the meaning of the Constitution is
21 changed whenever that rule changes what would otherwise be the result of the case. The
22 point is so obvious that it hardly needs demonstration. But a simple example will suffice to
23 show the true character of what is done if courts take a post-1900 rule of international law
24 into account. Immediately before the rule was recognised, our Constitution had meanings
25 that did not depend on that rule. Either the rule of international law has effect on one or
26 more of those meanings or it has no effect. If it has an effect, its invocation has altered the
27 meaning of the Constitution overnight. As a result, a court that took the rule into account
28 has amended the Constitution without the authority of the people acting under s 128 of the
29 Constitution. It has inserted a new rule into the Constitution. Take this case. The issues are
30 whether ss 189, 196 and 198 are laws with respect to aliens or are exercises by the
31 Parliament and not the federal courts of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. If this
32 Court had to take a rule of international law into account in interpreting those powers, the
33 rule would either confirm what was already inherent in the powers or add to or reduce
34 them. If the international rule is already inherent in the power it is irrelevant. If it is not, its
35 invocation alters the constitutional meaning of "aliens" or "judicial power of the
36 Commonwealth" or both.
37
38 67. Many constitutional lawyers - probably the great majority of them - now accept that
39 developments inside and outside Australia since 1900 may result in insights concerning the
40 meaning of the Constitution that were not present to earlier generations. Because of those
41 insights, the Constitution may have different meanings from those perceived in earlier
42 times. As Professor Ronald Dworkin has often pointed out, the words of a Constitution
43 consist of more than letters and spaces. They contain propositions. And, because of
44 political, social or economic developments inside and outside Australia, later generations
45 may deduce propositions from the words of the Constitution that earlier generations did not
46 perceive. Windeyer J made that point persuasively in Victoria v The Commonwealth
47 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l
48 "fn64" [65] . But that is a very different process from asserting that the Constitution
49 must be read to conform to or so far as possible with the rules of international law. As I
Page 20
1 earlier pointed out, reading the Constitution up or down to conform to the rules of
2 international law is to make those rules part of the Constitution, contrary to the direction in
3 s 128 that the Constitution is to be amended only in accordance with the referendum
4 process.
5
6 68. The issue in Polites HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
7 bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn65" [66] shows what would be the
8 effect of reading the Constitution to conform with the rules of international law. It was
9 arguably a rule of international law in 1945 that aliens could not be compelled to serve in
10 the military forces of a foreign state in which they happened to be. Whether or not such a
11 rule existed HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
12 bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn66" [67] , this Court refused to read the
13 constitutional powers with respect to "defence" HYPERLINK
14 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn67" [68]
15 and "aliens" HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
16 bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn68" [69] as subject to such a rule. If the
17 Court had accepted the argument of the plaintiff in Polites, the international law rule would
18 have become a constitutional rule contrary to s 128 of the Constitution.
19
20 69. Failure to see the difference between taking into account political, social and economic
21 developments since 1900 and taking into account the rules of international law is the error
22 in the approach of those who assert that the Constitution must be read in conformity with
23 or in so far as it can be read conformably with the rules of international law. Rules are
24 specific. If they are taken into account as rules, they amend the Constitution. That
25 conclusion cannot be avoided by asserting that they are simply "context" or elucidating
26 factors. Rules are too specific to do no more than provide insights into the meanings of the
27 constitutional provisions. Either the rule is already inherent in the meaning of the provision
28 or taking it into account alters the meaning of the provision. No doubt from time to time
29 the making or existence of (say) a Convention or its consequences may constitute a general
30 political, social or economic development that helps to elucidate the meaning of a
31 constitutional head of power. But that is different from using the rules in that Convention
32 to control the meaning of a constitutional head of power. Suppose the imposition of tariffs
33 is banned under a World Trade Agreement. If that ban were taken into account - whether
34 as context or otherwise - in interpreting the trade and commerce power HYPERLINK
35 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn69" [70] ,
36 it would add a new rule to the Constitution. It would require reading the power to make
37 laws with respect to trade and commerce as subject to the rule that it did not extend to laws
38 that imposed tariffs. Such an approach, in the words of Dixon J, cannot be
39 "countenanced" HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
40 bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn70" [71] .
41 Again;
42 If this Court had to take a rule of international law into account in interpreting those
43 powers, the rule would either confirm what was already inherent in the powers or add to or
44 reduce them. If the international rule is already inherent in the power it is irrelevant. If it is
45 not, its invocation alters the constitutional meaning of "aliens" or "judicial power of the
46 Commonwealth" or both.
47
48 The point is that albeit International law of late cannot be used to determine the powers and
49 limitations of constitutional provisions, International law as existing at the time of Federation
Page 21
1 can be used to explain the intentions of the Framers, this, as the Framers themselves were
2 debating the issue of how it applied under international law. Further, International law provisions
3 that came after the Federation can not be applied to expand or otherwise alter the true intentions
4 of the Framers of the Constitution but may be an aid to the scope of legislation passed since
5 Federation. As such, it does not impinge upon constitutional provisions at all, but is to be
6 considered as to what was applicable at the time of constitutional valid legislated provisions how
7 they could be applicable within the framework of the Constitution.
8 For example, the issue of conservation;
9
10 Constitution Convention Debates;
11
12 Sub-clause 27 (River navigation with respect to the common purposes of two or more
13 states or parts of the commonwealth), 689. Amendment by Sir Samuel Griffith to provide
14 for the conservation of water, 690; withdrawn, and sub-clause agreed to, 692.
15
17 Mr. MCMILLAN: There is another question which, to a certain extent, I think is
18 connected with my contention in favour of a strong central government. There is in the
19 centre of this great continent, which you may call Central Australia, a large area of land
20 that adjoins three or four colonies. From its peculiar position, from the smallness of its
21 rainfall, it will have to be dealt with in the future separately, from the other portions of
22 Australia. It is not likely with an enterprising people such as we have in these colonies,
23 with every obstacle going down before the race to which we belong that we shall allow the
24 and wastes of the centre of this continent to remain as they are for many years to come.
25 There is no doubt that a system of conservation of water and irrigation must be introduced
26 into that great tract, and if that is done at all it must be done by a united Australia.
27 Consequently there should be some machinery in the central government by which the
28 country in the centre of this continent maybe dealt with differently from other parts of the
29 continent.
30
31 See Section 100 of the Constitution that prohibits to deny “reasonable use” of water. What the
32 framers then discussed was that trade along the rivers (navigation, etc) required the
33 Commonwealth to regulate the use of water drawn from it, but it could not deny “reasonable use’
34 of water. What “reasonable use” stands for was to be assessed by the inter State Commission.
35 However, the general “conservation” of water was held to be a State issue!
36
37 To be able to consider if the Court can or cannot invoke jurisdiction, it requires to ascertain if the
38 subject matter of alleged failure to comply with Commonwealth law (Section 245 of the
39 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) in fact is applicable. After all, if the relevant provision is
40 not applicable then the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is pursuing a vexatious
41 charges and the Court cannot entertain the charges or either one of them. .
42
44 Mr. THYNNE:
45 The union of these colonies must take place in either one or two ways, namely, either by a
46 unification under one all-powerful parliament, or by a federation which gives to the central
47 federal parliament certain limited powers and reserves to the other parliaments all other
48 powers. As I think we may be in danger of overlooking some of the first principles
49 connected with federation, I may be pardoned if I briefly define some of the characteristics

Page 22
1 of a federation. I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its
2 language. He says:
3 One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either
4 legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and
5 beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under
6 the constitution.
7
8 Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278
9 “The oath of a justice of this court is ' to do right to all manner of people according to law'
10 Our sworn duty is to the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all.
11 If, then, we find the law to be plainly in conflict with what we or any of our predecessors
12 errornously thought it to be, we have, as I conceive no right to choose between giving
13 effect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, It is not, in my opinion, better
14 that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should be ultimately right..
15 Whatever else may be said with respect to previous decisions - and it is necessary here to
16 consider the principals upon which a court should act in particular cases - so much at least
17 emerges as is undoubtedly beyond challenge, that where a former decision is clearly
18 wrong, and there are no circumstances countervailing the primary duty of giving effect to
19 the law as the court finds it, the real opinion of the court should be expressed.”
20
21 It is a matter of fact that I was issued with a “Certificate of Australian Citizenship” No.
22 ME9401317C on the 28th day of March 1994. I do not believe that the Commonwealth Director
23 of Public Prosecutions contest the issue of this certificate.
24 The certificate states;
25 QUOTE
26 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
27 Australian citizenship Act 1948
28
29 Certificate of Australian Citizenship
30
31 GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL
32 Born on 7 th June 1947
33
34 having applied for a Certificate of Australian Citizenship, having satisfied the conditions
35 prescribed by the Australian Citizenship Act 19448 for the grant of such Certificate
36 and having undertaken to fulfil the responsibilities of a citizen.
37
38 I the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs,
39 Grant this Certificate of Australian citizenship to the abovenamed applicant who is
40 an Australian citizen on and after 28 th March 1994.
41
42 Issued by the authority
43 Of the Minister
44 For Immigration and
45 Ethnic Affairs.
46 END QUOTE
47
48 By marriage, on 28 March 2001, I became Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka
49
50 Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)
Page 23
1
2 Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state,
3 allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so, with respect
4 to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a
5 substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance and
6 citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of
7 compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie;
8 allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge
9 of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom;
10 allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship
11 may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential differences, the doctrine
12 of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to
13 controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in which the law of allegiance
14 is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously enforced, there are striking
15 deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth, and the homage, which, under
16 every modification of government, must be paid to the inherent rights of man.
17 And
18 These are tacit acknowledgments of the right of expatriation, vested in the individuals; for,
19 though they are instances of adopting, not of discharging, subjects; yet, if Great Britain
20 would (ex gratia) protect a Russian naturalized by service, in her fleet, it is obvious that
21 she cannot do so without recognizing his right of expatriation to be superior to the
22 Empress's right of allegiance. But it is not only in a negative way, that these deviations in
23 support of the general right appear. The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two
24 sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of
25 withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign.
26 And
27 The power of naturalizing has been vested in several of the state governments, and it now
28 exists in the general government; but the power to restrain or regulate the right of
29 emigration, is no where surrendered by the people; and it must be repeated, that, what has
30 not been given, ought not to be assumed. It may be said, however, that such a power is
31 necessary to the government, and that it is implied in the authority to regulate the business
32 of naturalization. In considering these positions, it must be admitted, that although an
33 individual has a right to expatriate himself, he has not a right to seduce others from their
34 country. Hence, those who forcibly, or seductively, take away a citizen, commit an act,
35 which [p*143] forms a fair object of municipal police; and a conspiracy or combination, to
36 leave a country, might, likewise be properly guarded against. Such laws would not be an
37 infraction of the natural right of individuals; for, the natural rights of man are personal; he
38 has no right to will for others, and he does so, in effect, whenever he moves the mind of
39 another to his purpose, by fear, by fraud, or by persuasion.
40 And
41 But naturalization and expatriation are matters of internal police; and must depend upon
42 the municipal law, though they may be illustrated and explained by the principles of
43 general jurisprudence. It is true, that the judicial power extends to a variety of objects; but
44 the Supreme Court is only a branch of that power; and depends on Congress for what
45 portion it shall have, except in the cases of ambassadors, &c. particularly designated in the
46 constitution. The power of declaring whether a citizen shall be entitled in any form to
47 expatriate himself, or, if entitled, to prescribe the form, is not given to the Supreme Court;
48 and, yet, that power will be exercised by the court, if they shall decide against the
49 expatriation of Captain Talbot. Let it not, after all, be understood, that the natural, loco-
Page 24
1 motive, right of a free citizen, is independent of every social obligation. In time of war, it
2 would be treason to migrate to any enemy's country and join his forces, under the pretext
3 of expatriation. 1 Dall. Rep. 53, and, even in time of peace, it would be, reprehensible (say
4 the writers on the law of nature and nations) to desert a country labouring under great
5 calamities. So, if a man acting under the obligations of an oath of office, withdraws to
6 elude his responsibility, he changes his habitation, but not his citizenship. It is not,
7 however, private relations, but public relations; private responsibility, but public
8 responsibility; that can affect the right: for, where the reason of the law ceases, the law
9 itself must, also, cease. There is not a private relation, for which a man is not as liable by
10 local, as by natural, allegiance;--after, as well as before, his expatriation: He must take care
11 of his family, he must pay his debts, wherever he resides; and there is no security in
12 restraining emigration, as to those objects, since, with respect to them, withdrawing is as
13 effectual, as expatriating. Nor is it enough to impair the right of expatriation, that other
14 nations are at war; it must be the country of the emigrant. No nation has a right to interfere
15 in the interior police of another: the rights and duties of citizenship, to be conferred, or
16 released, are matter of interior police; and yet, if a foreign war could affect [p*145] the
17 question, every time that a fresh power entered into a war, a new restraint would be
18 imposed upon the natural rights of the citizens of a neutral country; which, considering the
19 constant warfare that afflicts the world, would amount to a perpetual controul. But the true
20 distinction appears to be this:--The citizens of the neutral country may still exercise the
21 right of expatriation, but the belligerent power is entitled to say, "the act of joining our
22 enemies, flagrante bello, shall not be a valid act of expatriation." By this construction, the
23 duty a nation owes to itself, the sacred rights of the citizen, the law of nations, and the faith
24 of treaties, will harmonize, though moving in distinct and separate courses. To pursue the
25 subject one step further: A man cannot owe allegiance to two sovereigns. 1Bl. Com. He
26 cannot be citizen of two republics. If a man has a right to expatriate, and another nation has
27 a right and disposition to adopt him, it is a compact between the two parties, consummated
28 by the oath of allegiance. A man's last will, as to his citizenship, may be likened to his last
29 will, as to his estate; it supersedes every former disposition; and when either takes effect,
30 the party, in one case, is naturally dead, in the other, he is civilly dead;--but in both cases,
31 as good Christians and good republicans, it must be presumed that he rises to another, if
32 not to a better, life and country. An act of expatriation, likewise, is susceptible of various
33 kinds of proof. The Virginia law has selected one, when the state permits her citizens to
34 depart; but it is not, perhaps, either the most authentic, or the most conclusive that the case
35 admits. It may be done obscurely in a distant county court; and even after the emigrant is
36 released from Virginia, to what nation does he belong? He may have entered no other
37 country, nor incurred any obligation to any other sovereign. Not being a citizen of
38 Virginia, he cannot be deemed a citizen of the United States. Shall he be called a citizen of
39 the world; a human balloon, detached and buoyant in the political atmosphere, gazed at
40 wherever he passes, and settled wherever he touches? But, on the other hand, the act of
41 swearing allegiance to another sovereign, is unequivocal and conclusive; extinguishing, at
42 once, the claims of the deserted, and creating the right of the adopted, country. Sir William
43 Blackstone, therefore, considers it as the strongest, though an ineffectual, effort to
44 emancipate a British subject from his natural allegiance; and the existing constitution of
45 France declares it expressly to be a criterion of expatriation. The same principle operates,
46 when the naturalization law of the United States provides, that the whole ceremony of
47 initiation shall be performed in the American courts; and if it is here considered as the
48 proof of adoption, shall it not be considered, also, as the test of expatriation? If America
49 [p*146] makes citizens in that way, shall we not allow to other nations, the privilege of the
Page 25
1 same process? In short, to admit that Frenchmen may be made citizens by an oath of
2 allegiance to America, is, virtually, to admit, that Americans may be expatriated by an oath
3 of allegiance to France. After this discussion of principles, forming a necessary basis for
4 the facts in this case, it is insisted, 1st, That Talbot was a naturalized citizen of the French
5 Republic at the time of receiving a commission to command the privateer, and of capturing
6 the Magdalena. He left this country with the design to emigrate; and the act of expatriation
7 must be presumed to be regular, according to the laws of France, since it is certified by the
8 municipality of Point a Pitre, by the French Consul, and by the Governor of Guadaloupe.
9 2d, That Redick was also, a naturalized citizen of the French Republic, when he purchased
10 the vessel, and received a commission to employ her as a privateer.
11 And
12 Ballard was a citizen of Virginia, and also of the United States.
13
14 Within the united States of America a person granted naturalization is also granted citizenship,
15 where as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) does not provide for this.
16 Section 51(xix) provides for “naturalization”.
17 As already extensively placed before the magistrates in previous proceedings (upon which I rely
18 before this Court also) some of the “Colonies” (now States) naturalized “aliens” and others
19 didn’t however each and every Colony did have legislation in regard of citizenship and the rights
20 to franchise.
21 The Hansard records of the 2 March and 3 March 1898 Constitutional Convention Debates
22 made clear that “naturalization” powers would be transferred from the Colonies to the newly to
23 be formed Commonwealth of Australia, as it would be approved by the British Parliament but
24 “CITIZENSHIP” legislative powers would be retained by the States in the newly formed
25 Commonwealth of Australia.
26 Mr Quick proposed to give the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to
27 define/declare “CITIZENSHIP” but this was defeated/refused by the Delegates!
28
29 I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the
30 qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our
31 position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution
32 to do that.
33
34 Therefore, even if the amendment of Mr Quick had succeeded it still was not intended to give
35 any legislative powers to the commonwealth of australia to interfere with the rights of any person
36 as a British subject.
37
38 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
39 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are
40 all alike subjects of the British Crown.
41 Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
42 comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in
43 the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the
44 clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of
45 the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in
46 defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering
47 with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
48 Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a
49 Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I see therefore nothing
Page 26
1 unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British subjects, in proposing to place

2 power in this Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the question of
3 federal citizenship. An objection has been raised in various quarters-as by the honorable
4 and learned members (Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Wise)-to the effect that we ought to define
5 federal citizenship in the Constitution itself. I have considered this matter very carefully,
6 and it has seemed to me that it would be most difficult and invidious, if not almost
7 impossible, to frame a satisfactory definition. There is in the Constitution of the United
8 States of America a cast-iron definition of citizenship, which has been found to be
9 absolutely unworkable, because, among other things, it says that a citizen of the United
10 States shall be a natural-born or naturalized citizen within the jurisdiction of the United
11 States, and it has been found that that excludes the children of citizens born outside the
12 limits of this jurisdiction. That shows the danger of attempting definitions, and although I
13 have placed a proposed clause defining federal citizenship upon the notice-paper, the
14 subject, seems to me surrounded with the greatest difficulty, and no doubt the honorable
15 and learned members (Mr. Wise, Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. Symon) would be the first to
16 attack any definition, and would be able to perforate it. In my opinion, it would be
17 undesirable to implant a cast-iron definition of citizenship in the Constitution, because it
18 would be better to leave the question more elastic, more open to consideration, and more
19 yielding to the advancing changes and requirements of the times.
20 Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the
21 Commonwealth will seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of
22 the Commonwealth which will enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it
23 will be merely a dead letter. Is there any citizen of the Commonwealth who is not already a
24 citizen of the state? State citizenship is his birthright, and by virtue of it he is entitled to the
25 citizenship of the Commonwealth. When you have immigration, and allow different people
26 to come in who belong to nations not of the same blood as we are, they become
27 naturalized, and thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship.
28 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they
29 come here.
30 Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of the
31 states, and it is by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens of the
32 Commonwealth. Are you going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens of the
33 Commonwealth?
34 Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.
35 Mr. WALKER.-Is not a citizen of the state, ipso facto, a citizen of the Commonwealth?
37
39 The term “citizenship” was not at all associated with “nationality” but rather covered any
40 “subject of the Queen” residing within the Commonwealth of Australia or for that the
41 continent Australia.
42
43 The terms “Australian citizen”, “Australian citizens” , “Australian citizenship”,
44 “Commonwealth citizens”, “federal citizen”, “citizen of the Commonwealth” were used
45 ongoing by the Framers of the Constitution, as shown below, and as such were terms not
46 as to “nationality” but in regard of citizenship as being a resident in the colonies (now
47 States) and the Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore any constitutionalist, as I am, is or
48 should be aware that the term “Australian citizenship” cannot be held to relate to
49 nationality. Neither that there can be an “Australian nationality” merely because some

Page 27
1 judges happen to desire to make such a declaration as the proper powers to legislate for this
2 is to follow the procedures within Section 128 of the Constitution.
3
4 13-02-1890 Re; Australian citizen
5 13-03-1891 Re; Australian citizens
7 Re; dual citizenship
8 26-03-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
9 29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
10 30-03-1897 Re; federal citizen
13 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
17 15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
19 Re; Commonwealth citizenship
23 28-01-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
24 Re; Commonwealth citizens
29 Re; federal citizenship
45
46 Such as Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
47 Mr. SYMON.-Yes. Mr. Wise asked why should New South Wales or Victoria-to take a
48 case which is extremely unlikely to occur-prohibit a citizen of the neighbouring colony
49 from acquiring property in the legislating colony, or only allow him to acquire it under
Page 28
1 adverse conditions? But why not? The whole control of the lands of the state is left in that
2 state. The state can impose what conditions it pleases-conditions of residence, or
3 anything else-and I am not aware that a state has surrendered the control of the
4 particular administration of its own lands, or of anything that is left to it for the
5 exercise of its power and the administration of its affairs. I would much prefer, if there
6 is to be a clause introduced, to have the amendment suggested by Tasmania, subject to one
7 modification, omitting the words-"and all other persons owing allegiance to the Queen."
8 That would re-open the whole question as to whether an alien, not admitted to the
9 citizenship here-a person who, under the provisions with regard to immigration, is
10 prohibited from entering our territory, or is only allowed to enter it under certain
11 conditions-would be given the same privileges and immunities as a citizen of the
12 Commonwealth. Those words, it seems to me, should come out, and we should confine
13 the operation of this amendment so as to secure the rights of citizenship to the citizens of
14 the Commonwealth. I think, therefore, that with some modification the amendment
15 suggested by Tasmania would be a proper one to adopt.
17
18 As I in legal proceedings disputed the constitutional validity of the Australian Citizenship Act
19 (Cth) then it is and remains ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio unless and until if ever at all a competent
20 court of jurisdiction declares it to be INTRA VIRES. The 4 December 2004 court orders remains
21 active.
22
23 As I disputed the constitutional validity of “compulsory” part of voting this too is and remains to
24 be ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio. Yet we find that despite this the Commonwealth, States and
25 Territories blatantly ignore this and still fine electors, albeit they learned they never again can do
26 so against me.
27
28 As the constitution was enacted in 1900 and so not specifically for me but for all and any
29 Australian and any foreign person within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth then likewise the
30 “compulsory” part of voting is unconstitutional against them also. Yet the Commonwealth,
31 States and Territories still fine electors for FAILING TO VOTE.
32
33 The ATO despite my success on 4 August 2005 nevertheless still use “AVERT” even so it
34 violates the constitutional rights of citizens.
35
36 What I achieved but seems to be overlooked was that where the Commonwealth has no
37 legislative powers as to define/declare citizenship as being some “nationality” then any and all
38 positions/offices, etc, that requires a person to have the “Australian citizenship” as a
39 “nationality” by this is referring to a constitutional non-existing nationality.
40 In plain terms all those required to have Australian Citizenship as a nationality do not have this
41 and for this their positions are invalid in law.
42
43 QUOTE 20221118-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Electoral Commissioner Mr Warwick
44 Gately - COMPLAINT
45 Mr Warwick Gately (VEC) 18-11-2022
46 info@vec.vic.gov.au
47
48 COMPLAINT 20221118-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC – COMPLAINT
49
50 Sir,

Page 29
1 the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) charged me in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka for

2 “FAILING TO VOTE” in the 2001 federal election. Representing myself I filed a NOTICE OF
3 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER and the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg (exercising
4 federal jurisdiction) (by consent of the parties) ordered that the NOTICE OF
5 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS was to be heard and determined by the High Court of
6 Australia. The AEC then in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka charged me for “FAILING TO VOTE” in the
7 2004 federal election. On 4 August 2005 the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg
8 (exercising federal jurisdiction) ordered the Commonwealth to file and serve all evidence it relied
9 upon. I had successfully opposed “averment” to be applicable. On 16 & 17 November 2005 the
10 matter returned before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg (exercising federal
11 jurisdiction) and the Court then made known it would not take consideration of existing orders and
12 convicted me. I appealed this and represented myself again before the County Court of Victoria
13 (Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630) and the Court upheld both appeals noting the
14 Commonwealth had not filed any evidence. As such enforcing the 4 August 2005 orders. At the
15 time, prior to the hearing Attorney-General Rob Hulls informed me that the State of Victoria would
16 accept the ruling of the court. I had submitted to the Court that as I had challenged the
17 constitutional validity of the ‘compulsory’ part of voting, this as the constitution has embedded in it
18 “political liberty” which prevents any government to force a elector to vote where the elector
19 doesn’t desire to do so, then the additional (2004) charge couldn’t sustained against my already
20 existing objection. I also had challenged the constitutional validity purported Australian
21 Citizenship Act (Cth) in the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and hence this
22 purported Act was neither legally valid. As I challenged the validity of the Commonwealth
23 purported legislation Australian Citizenship Act. When a legal objection is made then the
24 legislation and/or part thereof is ULTA VIRES Ab Initio unless and until if ever at all a court of
25 competent jurisdiction declares it to be INTRA VIRES. As anyone wishing to be an elector, and/or
26 a candidate is required to have “Australian Citizenship” as a nationality and the purported
27 legislation is ULTA VIRES Ab Initio then obviously there can be no valid electors, and neither
28 any valid candidates, and therefore neither any Victorian 26 November 2022 election.
29 I therefore object to the holding of the purported Victorian State election. I may assume you will
30 refer this matter to IBAC considering you also made a request of an investigation regarding certain
31 matters. After all if there can be no valid election then IBAC can hardly, at least in my view, pursue
32 matters against anyone who is not a valid candidate due to the lack of the required ‘Australian
33 Citizenship’ nationality that is a requirement to be enrolled as an elector as well as to be a
34 candidate.
35
36 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
37
38 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
39
40 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
41 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

42 (Our name is our motto!)
43 END QUOTE 20221118-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Electoral Commissioner Mr Warwick
44 Gately - COMPLAINT
45
46 As expected the Victorian Electoral Commission as other government bodies, etc, simply
47 ignored this and went ahead with this election even so no valid electors, candidates existed.
48
49 Obviously this also refer to that any politician in any Australian Parliament by Section 44 is also
50 not permitted to sit in a Parliament as they hold an “Australian citizenship” in as an alleged
51 “nationality” in defiance to being a “Subject of the British Crown”.
Page 30
1
2 Obviously the scope of my constitutional challenge, that was never defeated and indeed neither
3 challenged by any of the 9 Attorney-Generals and neither by the commonwealth means that
4 effectively all and any judge of any court is not really a judge because they fail to have the
5 required hypothetical “Australian Citizenship” as a natio0nality. Meaning we have courts but no
6 lawful judges to adjudicate cases. Where they pretend nevertheless to adjudicate those
7 alleged/purported judicial decisions have no legal force.
8
9 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
10 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
11 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
12 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
13 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
14 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
15 authority of the United States”..
16
17 This legal principle is also applicable in the Commonwealth of Australia.
18
19 It is not uncommon that when I submit an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION a purported
20 judge then simply refuses to hold a jurisdictional hearing, well aware that for what is set out
21 above he/she has no judicial authority and cannot make a legal determination in any event where
22 there is a bias or implied bias. In 2012 Gaynor J claimed the constitution doesn’t apply to her and
23 by this instant was acting as a private person without judicial authority.
24
25 All and any court decision therefore technically are without the warrant of law!
26
27 Let us not ignore lawyers, as while they are lawyers by merely having obtained a university
28 degree in law they cannot act as “legal practitioner” because they lack the required “Australian
29 Citizenship” as a nationality. You simply cannot have a non-existing nationality!
30
31 And likewise other public positions including that of being a police officer. They may claim to
32 be police officers but lacking the “Australian Citizenship” as “nationality” are actually just
33 “private citizens”. This then may reflect back to the alleged Queensland Police also as if they
34 really were trespassing as “private citizens” then this also is an added problem. Indeed, the
35 conduct of so called police with their tyranny upon citizens about all those unconstitutional
36 mandates may underline that 3 defendants in my view were not the criminals as may be
37 purported but that they exercised their constitutional, legal, human and natural rights to defend
38 themselves against armed trespassers.
39
41 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
42 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
43 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
44 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
45 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
46 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
47 END QUOTE
48
49 QUOTE Thomas Jefferson:

Page 31
1 "The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible
2 body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little
3 tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until
4 all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as
5 venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.".
6 END QUOTE
7
8 Anyone desiring to take me on in litigation should understand that the above cannot be
9 overcome as to the Australian Citizenship issue and so their case very likely be doomed. While
10 they may get some crooked judge to pretend otherwise any disregard to the legal principles
11 embedded in the constitution will only amount to some private person pretending to be a judicial
12 officer.
13
14 I have ongoing urged people to use the actual rule of law to take on the politicians and their
15 minions and show to be an example how without violence I make progress even if this goes at a
16 snail pace because of the resistance of the TERRORIST/TRAITORS and their minions.
17
18 In my view the various governments could have addressed matters decades ago if they were not
19 so ignorant as Premier Daniel Andrews proved to be. While I refer to him as Premier in legal
20 terms he is not a Premier and neither a Member of Parliament because of Section 44 of the
21 constitution.
22
23 Also the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is no constitution at all, as I have in the past
24 placed before the Courts and this was never challenged by any opponent party because I make
25 solid submissions why I make such statements.
26 Obviously, where citizens discover that despite my legal battles and successes the politicians and
27 their minions are nevertheless flaunting it all then well they may just then decide to STAND
28 THEIR GROUNDS. Obviously the politicians and their minions will twist the facts to suit
29 themselves and this is the added problem that other citizens then likewise rather STAND
30 THEIR GROUND than have unconstitutional/unlawful conduct used against their persons.
31 What is needed is to disarm police forces so they no longer are acting and neither can be seen as
32 BLACKSHIRTS/BROWNSHIRTS to terrorize the general community!
33
34 The fact that Premier Daniel Andrews now had his 20 kilometres hub plans underlines he is not
35 sorry art all and neither learned from numerous errors he made and the destruction to the
36 economy and the harm inflicted upon so many including their deaths.
37
38 The violence so far displayed by police forces may be just an invitation to citizens that if they do
39 not act immediately to seek to cancel out any violence by the police and so any armed
40 trespassing than they might not have another opportunity to do so.
41 Again the Queensland Premier as I understood it was pushing for the “unvaccinated” to be put in
42 the (unconstitutional) quarantine camps, not because they were in any ill health but because of
43 her covid death cult views that people should be injected regardless of the harm eventuating.
44 And then you wonder why people are when faced with armed trespassers going to defend
45 themselves as they may deem appropriate in the circumstances.
46
47 If the police had not “jumped the fence” then the entire pursuing battle may never have
48 eventuated.

Page 32
1 Is anyone considering holding the Queensland Chief Commissioner of police legally accountable
2 for failing to prevent such an incident in the first place?
3 Is anyone holding the Minister for Police legally accountable for having failed to prevent this
4 kind of situation to eventuate in the first place?
5 Is anyone holding the Queensland Premier legally accountable for having spread anxiety, etc,
6 amongst Queenslanders with the nonsense about the so called quarantine camps.
7 How many of the Monkey pox infected citizens were placed in isolation in quarantine camps one
8 has to ask, as after all if those quarantine camps were for the issue of ‘health’ and not merely an
9 excuse of imprisoning citizens unlawfully then why not have actual infected persons placed in
10 quarantine.
11 Why was the Federal Minister for Health no on the job as after all he cannot delegate his
12 responsibilities and so should have been held legally accountable for being MISSING IN
13 ACTION.
14
16
18

22 END QUOTE 20221223-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Privacy Commissioner-Supplement 1
23
24 The Above states must not be ignored as soon or later the time to address matters appropriately
25 will be no more.
26
27 Let those using TREASON/TERRORISM to be held legally accountable!
28
30
32

36 END QUOTE 20221223-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to IBAC – COMPLAINT - Part 13a
37
38 See the above stated and try to actually address the issues appropriately!
39
41


20221223-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 93 - Part13 - Electors-Candidates-Covid Scam, Etc

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

20221223-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 93 - Part13 - Electors-Candidates-Covid Scam, Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

2 Reece Kershaw (Australian/Victoria date) 23-12-2022

23-12-2022 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

23-12-2022 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

23-12-2022 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

23-12-2022 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER I had served upon all 9 Attorney-Generals in which I also

1 way of a comprehensive reason of judgment, why decisions were made. In particularly

23-12-2022 Page 21 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British subjects, in proposing to place

23-12-2022 Page 26 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

23-12-2022 Page 28 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) charged me in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka for

41 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

23-12-2022 Page 30 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

23-12-2022 Page 31 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

34 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

44 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like