20240327-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Buloke Shire Council & Ors

Page 1
1
2
3 Buloke Shire Council & Ors 27-3-2024
4 buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
5
6 Cc: Cr Alan Getley (Mayor) crgetley@buloke.vic.gov.au
7 Cr David Pollard crpollard@buloke.vic.gov.au
8 Cr Carolyn Stewart crstewart@buloke.vic.gov.au
9 Cr Bernadette Hogan crhogan@buloke.vic.gov.au
10 Cr Graeme Milne (Deputy Mayor) crmilne@buloke.vic.gov.au
11 Cr Bronwyn Simpson crsimpson@buloke.vic.gov.au
12 Cr Daryl Warren crwarren@buloke.vic.gov.au
13 Penelope Grant Revenue Officer buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au
14
15 Ref; 20240327-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Buloke Shire Council & Ors
16
17 Sir & Ors,
18 I received a correspondence from Buloke Shire Council regarding alleged “Penalty” re
19 fire hazard and obviously I object to the validity of this and the purported fire notice and any
20 purported penalty must be withdrawn, of which some I did set out in my 20-3-2024
21 correspondence.
22
23 Obviously, had Buloke Shire Council acted to prevent the grain silo property owner from
24 contaminating my property then any alleged fire danger never would have been realised as
25 clearly where I never planted any grain but rather it is blown by the wind onto my property from
26 the grain silo property then Buloke Shire Council simply could have dealt with the offender and
27 ensured that as much as possible it avoided any contamination upon my property by installing
28 panels for this, then this rather may have resolved the issues concerned. By Buloke Shire Council
29 ignoring to take appropriate action it cannot then make a financial windfall from its own
30 wrongdoing not to act appropriately.
31
32 Despite my complaint to Buloke Shire Council that GWMWater failed to provide “safe drinking
33 water” (for more than 2 decades in the Berriwillock area, etc,) it simply to my knowledge did
34 nothing for about 20 years to enforce the rule of law. This prevented me also to have someone
35 residing on the property to deal with the wheat growing on the property. It also prevented me to
36 have my wife enjoying to spend some time of her last years, months, weeks or days to relax at
37 the property.
38
39 There is obviously also the issue that a Fire Notice requires a compliance with in a certain set of
40 times, subject to any alteration of the completion date, and once the last day has passed the onus
41 is upon Buloke Shire Council to as soon as possible check out if there was a compliance. If this
42 was done and compliance was deemed to have occurred then Buloke Shire Council would
43 require a new Fire Notice to be issued if it wanted at a later time again compliance. It cannot
44 issue a Fire Notice and then rely upon it for months or even years on end, when there was an
45 initial compliance. And, this not to disregard that a fire notice can only be valid if the legislation
27-3-2024 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 provides for not just private property owners but also VicRoad, Buloke Shire Council and others
2 to have complied and can be held legally accountable if failing to do so.
3
4 When the Australian Electoral Commission decided to charge me with FAILING TO VOTE it
5 likely never expected that its own failures, etc, would be an issue in the litigation. I obtained
6 within FOI Act provisions documents that proved the purported 2001 federal election for the
7 House of Representatives never was legally valid. That obviously was something the AEC never
8 had counted upon. It in my view essentially participated in the biggest political scam in the
9 Commonwealth o0f Australia to have an unelected (prime) Minister unconstitutionally
10 authorising to go to war murdering innocent civilians in the process who never pursued any harm
11 to the Commonwealth of Australia, such as those residing in Iraq!
12
13 QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780
14 As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on
15 filing institutes the appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all
16 findings of fact and law made in the lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in
17 challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the respondent. All the issues (unless
18 by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the absence of reason
19 for the magistrate’s decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded
20 for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal
21 process, there is the basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their
22 witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to controvert the opposing case are entitled to
23 know, if they lose, why they lost. If they are given no reason they may be entitled to feel
24 the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case not
25 only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
26
27 Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not
28 mere ordinary trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of
29 responsibility which administrations of the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching
30 consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail. [Baker v Baker (1906) 95 LT
31 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and again in Cobb v Cobb (1900) p145] it was
32 stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is
33 the duty of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his
34 decision, but to give the reasons for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his
35 reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required, but the reasons which lead the
36 magistrate to make his order must be explicitly stated.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 There was a lot more, such as that constitutionally the “compulsory” part of voting was
40 unconstitutional. I understand that the Commonwealth and the Attorney-General’s made a deal
41 with the court not to issue a “Reason of Judgment” on 19 July 2006 so as to hide the truth from
42 Australians at large. By this the AEC the State Election Commissions and councils were still
43 continuing their terrorism upon electors that if they failed to vote they be ending up more than
44 likely to be convicted for FAILING TO VOTE. However, I decided to see if Artificial
45 Intelligence (AI) would know about the successful appeals and well the following responses
46 were received:
47
48 QUOTE 20240326-Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I on 19 July 2006 succeeded in both appeals
49 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+in+
50 AEC+v+Schorel-Hlavka+I+on+19+July+2006+succeeded+in+both+appeals%3F
51 Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I on 19 July 2006 succeeded in both
52 appeals?
Page 3
1
2 According to www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Questions Search Engine:
3 Yes, in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I on 19 July 2006, the defendant succeeded in both appeals.
4 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:
51. Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)

62. Legal Database
73. Court Records
8 Web Search Results
9 5 results
10
11 Comments:High Court of Australia dismisses appeal against conviction ...
12 https//en.m.wikinews.org › wiki ›
13 Comments:High_Court_of_Australia_dismisses_appeal_against_conviction,_compulsory_vot
14 ing
15 Comments:High Court of Australia dismisses appeal against conviction ...
16 The defendant claims that he has a right to disregard the will of the majority regarding
17 compulsory voting. I argue here that he does not. A holding to the ...
18
19 Submission-0506-Gerrit-Schorel-Hlavka.pdf
20 https//www.parliament.act.gov.au › __data › assets › pdf_file › 0009 › 1945197 › Submission-
21 0506-Gerrit-Schorel-Hlavka.pdf
22 Submission-0506-Gerrit-Schorel-Hlavka.pdf
23 On 19 July 2006 in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka County Court of Victoria, Case numbers
24 T01567737. 12. & Q10897630 (representing myself) I succeeded in ...
25
26 20190507-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Australian Electoral ...
27 https//www.scribd.com › document › 409006849 › 20190507-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-
28 to-Australian-Electoral-Commission-Re-COMPLAINTS
30 20190507-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Australian Electoral Commission Re
31 COMPLAINTS - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) ...
32
33 ELECTORAL LITIGATION
34 https//www.aph.gov.au › parliamentary_business › committees ›
35 house_of_representatives_committees
36 ELECTORAL LITIGATION
37 Injunctions. Mr Ned Kelly's application on late candidate nomination. On 22 October. 2001,
38 Mr Ned Kelly, previously known as Mr Terry Sharples, filed an.
39
40 20200719-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Victorian Inspectorate ...
41 https//www.scribd.com › document › 469674114 › 20200719-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
42 B-to-the-Victorian-Inspectorate-Reference-11722468

Page 4
1 20200719-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Victorian Inspectorate ...

2 20200719-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to the Victorian Inspectorate-Reference #
3 11722468 - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), ...
4 END QUOTE 20240326-Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I on 19 July 2006 succeeded in both
5 appeals
6
7 QUOTE 20240326-Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I sucessfully challenge the validity of the
8 Australian citizenship Act as being unconstitutional
9 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+in+
10 AEC+v+Schorel-
11 Hlavka+I+sucessfully+challenge+the+validity+of+the+Australian+citizenship+Act+as+being
12 +unconstitutional%3F
13 Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I sucessfully challenge the validity of the
14 Australian citizenship Act as being unconstitutional?
15
17 Yes, in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I successfully challenged the validity of the Australian

18 Citizenship Act as being unconstitutional.
201. University of South Australia (Sue Milne)

212. High Court of Australia
223. Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
23 The information provided in the response is based on the analysis and insights from the
24 University of South Australia’s Sue Milne regarding constitutional challenges to the stripping
25 of Australian citizenship, the rulings and decisions made by the High Court of Australia in
26 cases such as Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs, Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs,
27 and Jones v Commonwealth, as well as the provisions and amendments outlined in the
28 Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).
30 5 results
31
32 Constitutional challenges to the stripping of Australian citizenship
33 https//globalcit.eu › constitutional-challenges-to-the-stripping-of-australian-citizenship-an-
34 update
35 Constitutional challenges to the stripping of Australian citizenship
36 In Alexander, the High Court held the revocation of citizenship for dis-allegiant conduct
37 (foreign incursions and recruitment) unconstitutional ...
38

Page 5
1 https//www.scribd.com › document › 409006849 › 20190507-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-

2 to-Australian-Electoral-Commission-Re-COMPLAINTS
4 46 Electoral Act 1918 being unconstitutional. 47 48 The quotations are reproduced with any
5 typing error as was in the original documentation ...
6
7 Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023
8 https//www.aph.gov.au › Parliamentary_Business › Bills_Legislation › bd › bd2324a › 24bd36
9 Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023
10 Key points. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to repeal
11 the current citizenship cessation provisions ...
12
13 Constitutional cases: October 2022
14 https//www.ags.gov.au › sites › default › files › 2022-10 ›
15 Constitutional%20cases%20_Oct%2022.pdf
16 Constitutional cases: October 2022
17 Steward J dissenting) held that s 36B of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
18 (Citizenship Act) is invalid because it infringes Ch III of the ...
19
20 Intelligence and Security Committee to review new citizenship ...
21 https//www.aph.gov.au › About_Parliament › House_of_Representatives ›
22 About_the_House_News › Media_Releases ›
23 Intelligence_and_Security_Committee_to_review_new_citizenship_repudiation_law
24 Intelligence and Security Committee to review new citizenship ...
25 The review provides the opportunity to examine the operation, effectiveness and implications
26 of the new citizenship repudiation regime, as well ...
27 END QUOTE 20240326-Are you aware that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I sucessfully challenge the validity of
28 the Australian citizenship Act as being unconstitutional
29
30 Let us now go to the “State land tax” issue, including alleged delegated “State land taxation”
31 referred to as “council rates”, and do notice:
32
33 QUOTE
34 No, it is not possible for the States to have legislative powers regarding land taxation
35 returned to them if the Constitution does not provide for such a mechanism to
36 transfer exclusive Commonwealth power back to the States. The Australian
37 Constitution clearly outlines the division of powers between the Commonwealth and
38 the States, and any changes or transfers of powers would require formal amendments
39 to the Constitution through specific processes outlined in Section 128.
40 END QUOTE
41 And
42 QUOTE
43 Any assertion that States could unilaterally reclaim legislative authority over land
44 taxation without a constitutional amendment would be legally unfounded and
45 contrary to the established framework of federalism in Australia. Therefore, unless
46 there is a formal amendment to the Constitution or a change in legislation at the
47 federal level, States do not have the authority to independently control land taxation.
48 In summary, based on the existing constitutional framework and principles of
49 federalism in Australia, it is not feasible for States to regain legislative powers over
50 land taxation without proper constitutional amendments or legal mechanisms.
51 END QUOTE
52
Page 6
1 As I understand it the High Court of Australia has made clear the States can legislate in areas of
2 taxation the Commonwealth has not enacted legislation. Indeed, the Framers of the Constitution
3 themselves also made that clear. This is why State taxation by the States not covered by
4 Commonwealth “exclusive” legislative powers can be valid.
5
6 QUOTE 20240325-0114-20240325-Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting
7 the Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011 claimed
8 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+Bar
9 ry+Collier+MP+Parliamentarian+Secretary+Assisting+the+Treasurer+NSW+on+2+March+2
10 011+claimed+%28to+me%29+that+the+States+had+legislative+powers+regarding+land+tax
11 ation+returned+to+them%3F+Do+you+accept+this+is+possible+when+the+constitution+doe
12 sn’t+provide+for+this+mechanism+to+return+exclusive+Commonwealth+power+back+to+th
13 e+States%3F
14
15 Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the
16 Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011 claimed (to me) that the States had legislative powers
17 regarding land taxation returned to them? Do you accept this is possible when the
18 constitution doesn’t provide for this mechanism to return exclusive Commonwealth
19 power back to the States?
20
22 Answer:
23 No, it is not possible for the States to have legislative powers regarding land taxation returned
24 to them if the Constitution does not provide for such a mechanism to transfer exclusive
25 Commonwealth power back to the States. The Australian Constitution clearly outlines the
26 division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States, and any changes or transfers
27 of powers would require formal amendments to the Constitution through specific processes
28 outlined in Section 128.
29 The Australian Constitution establishes a federal system of government where certain powers
30 are allocated exclusively to the Commonwealth Parliament under Section 51, including
31 taxation. Land taxation falls under this category of powers exclusively vested in the
32 Commonwealth. While there are provisions for concurrent powers and areas where both
33 levels of government can legislate, matters related to land taxation are generally within the
34 domain of the Commonwealth.
35 Any assertion that States could unilaterally reclaim legislative authority over land taxation
36 without a constitutional amendment would be legally unfounded and contrary to the
37 established framework of federalism in Australia. Therefore, unless there is a formal
38 amendment to the Constitution or a change in legislation at the federal level, States do not
39 have the authority to independently control land taxation.
40 In summary, based on the existing constitutional framework and principles of federalism in
41 Australia, it is not feasible for States to regain legislative powers over land taxation without
42 proper constitutional amendments or legal mechanisms.
44 Australian Constitution
45 Legal Principles of Federalism in Australia
46 Division of Powers between Commonwealth and States
47 These sources were consulted to provide accurate information on the distribution of
48 legislative powers in Australia’s federal system and how changes or transfers of such powers
49 would need to adhere to constitutional provisions.
51 5 results
Page 7
1
2 Barry Collier (politician)
3 https//en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Barry_Collier_(politician)
4 Barry Collier (politician)
5 He was a Labor Party member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly from 1999 to
6 2011 and from 2013 to 2015, representing the electorate of Miranda.
7
8 Department of the Legislative Assembly - Parliament of NSW
9 https//www.parliament.nsw.gov.au › la › department › Documents › department-of-the-
10 legislative-assembly-annual-report-for-2009-2010 ›
11 LA%20Annual%20Report%20200910.pdf
12 Department of the Legislative Assembly - Parliament of NSW
13 parliamentary recess between december 2010 and the march 2011 election should provide
14 staffing resources to complete some of these projects.
15
16 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
17 https//api.parliament.nsw.gov.au › api › hansard › search › daily › pdf › HANSARD-
18 1820781676-64586
19 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
20 Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges)
21 Bill 2009. State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Defence Force ...
22
23 Committee Secretary 5-6-2011 Joint ...
24 https//www.aph.gov.au › parliamentary_business › committees ›
25 house_of_representatives_committees
26 Committee Secretary 5-6-2011 Joint ...
27 This did not have the effect of preventing the. States from imposing land tax, but rather
28 returned taxation powers back to them. Accordingly ...
29
30 House of Representatives Official Hansard
31 https//citeseerx.ist.psu.edu › document
32 House of Representatives Official Hansard
33 House of Representatives Officeholders. Speaker—The Hon. David Peter Maxwell Hawker
34 MP. Deputy Speaker—The Hon. Ian Raymond Causley MP.
35 END QUOTE 20240325-0114-20240325-Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary
36 Assisting the Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011 claimed
37
38 As Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011
39 conceded that NSW (so all other states) had no legislative powers as to “land taxation” since
40 1910 then clearly all and any alleged “delegated State land taxation” referred to as “council
41 rates” were unconstitutional and as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
42 unconstitutional tax must be refunded. While Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary
43 Assisting the Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011 claimed that in about 1952 NSWW had again the
44 State land taxation powers it is very clear that Artificial Intelligence (AI) doesn’t agree with
45 this. This supports what I stated in response to Barry Collier MP 2 March 2011 claim.
46 It effectively means that all so called “council rates” (That the High Court of Australia in 1904
47 then was delegated State land taxation powers) must be refunded to all property owners.
48
49 Then also as to land taxation, etc:
50

Page 8
1 QUOTE Doesn't the legal principle of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co. in 1895 also apply to land
2 taxation when the Commonwealth in 11 Nov 1910 commenced to legislate?
3 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Doesn%27t+the+legal+princi
4 ple+of+Pollock+v.+Farmer%E2%80%99s+Loan+and+Trust+Co.+in+1895++also+apply+to+lan
5 d+taxation+when+the+Commonwealth+in+11+Nov+1910+commenced+to+legislate%3F
6
7 Doesn't the legal principle of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co. in 1895 also apply
8 to land taxation when the Commonwealth in 11 Nov 1910 commenced to legislate?
10 Answer:
11 Yes, the legal principle established in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co. in 1895
12 does apply to land taxation when the Commonwealth began legislating on November 11,
13 1910. The decision in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co. held that taxes on real
14 estate, as well as on the rents or income derived from real estate, are considered direct
15 taxes under the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, any legislation related to
16 land taxation by the Commonwealth after this ruling would need to adhere to the
17 principles set forth in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co., particularly concerning
18 direct taxation on real estate and its income. This means that any tax laws enacted by
19 the Commonwealth regarding land or real estate would have to be carefully examined to
20 ensure they comply with constitutional standards regarding direct taxation.
22 United States Reports
23 Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell Law School
24 Supreme Court of the United States
25 Please ask me again and make your question or request clear if you need further information
26 or clarification on this topic.
28 5 results
29
30 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. :: 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
31 https//supreme.justia.com › cases › federal › us › 157 › 429
32 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. :: 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
33 The law, so far as it imposes a tax upon land by taxation of the rents and income thereof, must
34 therefore fail, as it does not follow the rule of apportionment.
35
36 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company
37 https//www.oyez.org › cases › 1850-1900 › 157us429
38 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company
39 The Court held that the Act violated the Constitution since it imposed taxes on personal
40 income derived from real estate investments and personal property such ...
41
42 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company :: 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
43 https//supreme.justia.com › cases › federal › us › 158 › 601
44 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company :: 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
45 Still further, as the matter now stands, it has been decided that a tax upon the income of land
46 is unconstitutional, while the court has made no decision as to ...
47
48 POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRAUST CO. et al. | Supreme Court
49 https//www.law.cornell.edu › supremecourt › text › 157 › 429
50 POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRAUST CO. et al. | Supreme Court

Page 9
1 The law, so far as it imposes a tax upon land by taxation of the rents and income thereof, must
2 therefore fail, as it does not follow the rule of apportionment.
3
4 Was the 1895 Pollock Case Decided Consistently with Existing Tax ...
5 https//www.americanbar.org › groups › taxation › publications › abataxtimes_home › 21sum ›
6 21sum-pop-lincoln-pollock
7 Was the 1895 Pollock Case Decided Consistently with Existing Tax ...
8 The Supreme Court ultimately decided that the tax on carriages, which is a tax on the
9 possession of goods, was not a direct tax and did not have ...
10 END QUOTE Doesn't the legal principle of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co. in 1895 also apply to
11 land taxation when the Commonwealth in 11 Nov 1910 commenced to legislate?
12
13 As to (Dutch) “HOE ZAL DAT BETALEN?” “Who shall pay for that?”, well that is for
14 councillors to work out! After all they are the once who persisted with the scheme despite my
15 complaint in the past, where they ignored my writings and even made attack upon me on the
16 internet, so let them now accept the legal consequences.
17
18 Despite of that the Commonwealth on 11 November 1910 commenced to legislate as to “land
19 taxation” the State of Victoria then did albeit unconstitutionally the same subsequently on 26
20 December 1910.
21

Page 10
1
2
3 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
4 Convention)
5 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
6 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
7 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 One has to ask how many farmers, growers, graziers, etc, lives could have been saved (instead of
11 having ended up committing suicide) if the High Court of Australia instead of unconstitutionally
12 banning the usage of the Hansard records of the Constitutional convention debates had allowed
13 for this, where now farmers, growers, graziers, etc, ended up in bankruptcy, etc, due to the
14 unconstitutional State land taxation?
15
16 Over nearly 4 decades I own the property in Berriwillock, somehow Buloke Shire Council never
17 even managed to put a footpath in front of the property. It has been pestering me time and time
18 again about the wheat, etc, that I never desired in the first place on my property, rather than
19 Buloke Shire Council acting appropriately and well it has major problems.
20
21 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
Page 11
1 QUOTE
2 Mr. GLYNN: I think the last few words of this clause are too comprehensive in their
3 meaning. In South Australia there is a lot of land which is leased with the right of
4 purchase, and I can see that under the latter portion of this clause there is considerable
5 danger of defeating the effect of direct taxation.
6 Mr. O'CONNOR: In a case of that kind the reversion which is in the Crown would
7 not be taxed, but the letting value would be taxed.
8 Mr. BARTON: I might mention that the property of the Commonwealth in that land is
9 the reversion upon the lease. The reversion upon the lease would not be [start page 1002]
10 taxable, but the interest of the lessee in the property would be taxable.
11 Mr. GLYNN: I am only pointing out a difficulty that might arise.
12 Mr. HENRY: I would like to raise a question as to the right of the Commonwealth
13 to tax materials for State purposes. In the event of a colony importing rails,
14 machinery, engines, &c., for State purposes, I would like to know whether such
15 exports are to be free from Customs duties. Will the Federal Parliament have a right
16 to levy duties on materials imported for State purposes?
17 Mr. BARTON: This is a matter that was discussed very fully in the Constitutional
18 Committee, and I think my hon. friend Sir George Turner will remember that I consulted
19 the members of the Finance Committee upon it, intimating to them the opinion of the
20 Constitutional Committee on the point. The words:
21 Impose any tax on property
22 do not refer to the importation of goods at all, and any amendment to except the Customs
23 would be unnecessary. This clause states that a State shall not, without the consent of the
24 Parliament of the Commonwealth, impose taxation on property of any kind belonging to
25 the Commonwealth, meaning by that property of any kind which is in hand, such as land
26 within the Commonwealth. That has no reference to Customs duties.
27 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Will articles imported by the States Governments come in
28 free?
29 Mr. BARTON: The question then arises whether articles imported by the States
30 Governments are to come in free, but this section has nothing to do with that. Under
31 this Bill and in the measure of 1891 I believe duties would have been collectable upon
32 imports by any State, and after the consultation which I had with the hon. member
33 and his colleagues on the Finance Committee the Constitutional Committee decided
34 not to make any exemption in the case of any State.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 Let it be very clear that prior to federation “councils” were known as corporations” as the High
38 Court of Australia in Sydney Munnicipal v Commonwealth 1904 also underlined. It was then
39 about garbage collection, roads, etc. And as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that
40 when it came for example to “customs” the State of Victoria regarding railways sleepers couldn’t
41 be excluded from such charges. Then why would a council such as Buloke Shire Council be
42 excluded from Commonwealth taxation when the Framers of the Constitution made it very clear:
43
44 Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
45 Australasian Convention)
46 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
47 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the
48 Commonwealth. An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must
49 be uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the
50 Commonwealth.
51 END QUOTE
52 .
Page 12

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
4 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 This means that if the GST legislation is valid (something I do not concede to be so) then
8 councils must pay the same as anyone else despite
9
10 https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/view.htm?docid=EV/1051986927516&PiT=99991231235958
11 https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/view.htm?docid=EV/1051986927516&PiT=99991231235958
12 1051986927516 | Legal database - Australian Taxation Office
13 ... v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1834 at [90] ... Melton Highway Pty Ltd
14 [2020] VSC 820at [58]-[70] ... | View related websites - ATO.gov.
15
16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Lees
17 Meg Lees - Wikipedia
18 As party leader, she controversially facilitated passage of the Howard government's Goods and
19 Services Tax (GST). Meg Lees. AO · Leader of the Australian
20
21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_services_tax_(Australia)
22 QUOTE
23 The legislation was passed on 28 June 1999 as A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax)
24 Act (Cth) 1999. It gained assent on 8 July 1999 and came into operation on 1 July 2000.
25 END QUOTE
26 And
27 QUOTE
28 In early 2006, the New South Wales State Government and the Federal Treasurer Peter
29 Costello launched adversarial advertising campaigns [14] concerning distribution of GST
30 revenues to the states. New South Wales Treasurer Michael Costa argued in full-page
31 newspaper advertisements and on televised commercials that New South Wales consumers
32 paid A$13 billion in GST but received only A$10 billion back from the Commonwealth Grants
33 Commission, and therefore New South Wales was subsidising resource rich states
34 like Queensland and Western Australia. A Bill was introduced that gave the federal
35 government no obligation to hand back revenue earned by that state to be divided to other
36 non-performing states. Unlike GST,[15] sales tax revenue went back to the State that generated
37 the sales tax.
38 The federal government counteracted with its own advertising campaign which claimed that
39 New South Wales had breached its contractual obligations under the 1999 GST Agreement by
40 continuing to charge unfair stamp duties and land taxes, which were supposed to have been
41 abolished. After weeks of intense media and public pressure, the New South Wales State
42 Government announced in its budget that it would reduce stamp duty and land tax, but critics
43 argued that the State Government did not go far enough with much broader tax reform in New
44 South Wales required to help encourage investment and business that had been forced
45 elsewhere due to an unfavourable New South Wales business environment. This was in
46 response to the Commonwealth allowing another A$72 million in grants to New South Wales,
47 in addition to existing annual increases.[16]
48 END QUOTE
49
50 Here we had that despite the States since 11 November 1910 not having any land taxation
51 legislative powers the Commonwealth somehow, albeit unconstitutionally, allowed the states to
52 continue to do so, despite itself charging Commonwealth land taxation! All so called
53 constitutional lawyers were asleep behind the wheel.
54

Page 13
1 https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/3806493/Tax-reform-paper-4-ANTS-
2 170521.pdf
3 QUOTE
4 The legislative package, comprising 31 bills, was presented to the Parliament in
5 three parts. The first, with the health insurance rebate, was introduced on 12 November
6 1998. The second, which included the GST legislation, was introduced on 2 December
7 1998. The third, which covered commonwealth-state finances, was introduced on 24
8 March 1999. In introducing the GST bill Costello said ‘This is the most comprehensive
9 reform of taxation in the history of the Federation.’lxx Keating had claimed that mantle for
10 the 1985 reforms - I assess the competing claims below.
11 Securing parliamentary passage of the legislation was an exhaustive process with
12 the bills referred to several committees for scrutiny and the various stakeholders having
13 their say. The focus was almost entirely on the GST.
14 The coalition between the welfare groups and industry bodies, which had
15 facilitating a measured debate in getting the reform considerations to this point, came to an
16 end with the former unable to support a GST with food in it. The welfare groups were then
17 free to advocate for the exclusion of food, while for the industry groups the removal of the
18 business tax issues meant they were united in their support for the package.
19 Other stakeholders had views on the numerous GST design issues that needed to be
20 settled in the legislation. The Government established a Tax Consultative Committee to
21 advise on the many boundaries that needed to be defined in areas such as health, education,
22 financial services, religious services and charities
23 END QUOTE
24
25 Because taxation must be “UNIFORM” churches cannot have any special deals. Actually, any
26 tax exemption for religious bodies and their land holding would be unconstitutional!
27
29 QUOTE
30 Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this
31 Constitution?
32 Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could
33 not receive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
34 [start page 1773]
35 END QUOTE
36
38 QUOTE Mr. BARTON
39 the rights of citizenship are more respected; if the divorce between Church and State becomes more
40 pronounced;
41 END QUOTE
42
43 Any purported delegated State land taxation must be “UNIFORM” and cannot exclude religious
44 bodies or for that not-for-profit (NON-PROFIT) organisations
45
46 https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/3806493/Tax-reform-paper-4-ANTS-
47 170521.pdf
48 QUOTE
49 To support an internationally competitive business tax system, the review recommended
50 allowing imputation franking credits for foreign dividend withholding tax up to 15 per
51 cent.xciii It also recommended strengthening thin capitalisation rules to limit
52 multinationals’ ability to reduce their Australian tax liabilities.xciv
53
Page 14
1 The review also addressed a range of issues with the taxation of financial arrangements
2 and made detailed recommendations on how to proceed.
3
4 Business Entities
5 ANTS committed the Government to consult on taxing trusts and similar entities like
6 companies. The review supported this approach and outlined the nature of a consistent
7 entity tax regime that could be applied. xcv
8
9 Simplifications to the operation of companies’ franking accounts and refundable
10 imputation credits for low-rate or exempt resident taxpayers were recommended. xcvii
11 xcviii xcvi A common definition of distributions for tax purposes across entities, based on
12 the company dividend model, was proposed. The review also supported allowing wholly-
13 owned groups of Australian companies to consolidate their tax position, with internal
14 transaction ignored for tax purposes.
15
16 Specific measures to advantage small businesses, in recognition of their relatively larger
17 tax compliance costs, were supported. Businesses with a turnover of less than $1 million
18 would be allowed the option of a simplified cash flows tax system and generous
19 depreciation, trading stock and capital gains tax provisions.xci
20 END QUOTE
21 And
22 QUOTE
23 The Government gave in-principle support to the proposed tax value method for
24 calculating taxable income but said further consultation on this, and some other measures,
25 was required. A working group of officials and business community representatives led by
26 Dick Warburton as Chairman of the Business Coalition for Tax Reform was established for
27 that purpose.cxi
28 The Government also indicated support for the entities tax regime for the more consistent
29 taxation of entity types (including taxing trusts like companies), refunding excess dividend
30 imputation credits and consolidation for company groups. To reduce the compliance
31 burden for business, though, implementation of these reforms was deferred until 1 July
32 2001.cxii
33 The second stage of the government’s response came on 11 November 1999. This
34 included integrity measures to restrict the use of non-commercial losses to reduce tax on
35 other incomecxiii and restrictions on the alienation of personal services incomecxiv. It also
36 strengthened thin capitalisation rules to limit multinationals reducing their Australian tax
37 liabilitiescxv and provided imputation credits for dividend withholding tax paid by
38 Australian firms operating overseascxvi.
39 The recommendation for a Board of Taxation was also accepted.cxvii It was established
40 in 2000 with a remit to advise the Treasurer on the develop
41 END QUOTE
42
43 By this a small investment my wife’s late husband Mr Jaroslav Hlavka MIE Aust CP ENG
44 had and by probate was granted to his widow (now my wife) the ATO essentially stole monies
45 (tens of thousands of dollars) from the dividend even so the monies were intended towards her
46 medical and other health expenses. Yes, stealing monies from a little old lady who is basically on
47 her death bed but well the ATO do not seem to care less.
48
49 In my view this system of allowing certain companies to calculate taxable income different than
50 others by this violating the constitutional embedded legal principle of “UNIFORM” taxation on
51 a “SLIDING SCALE”. This, as now not the tax brackets applicable applied to all but rather a
52 fancy dance took place where for different purposes different form of taxation was applicable.
Page 15
1 Also, the ATO basically hasn’t got a clue which “end user” has been paying GST! By this
2 preventing people to reclaim their GST payments!
3 Again, the fallacy that councils can say import goods and avoid paying the same level of
4 taxation/customs duties, etc, has to be put to rest and any “tax, customs duties, etc. must be
5 recorded by the ATO as to whom paid ultimately the taxes/duties, etc.
6 The Commonwealth of Australia rest upon the legal principle of “separation of powers” and for
7 this the ATO cannot claim any monies without a court order. Therefore, where at no time my
8 wife was contacted as to any taxes and neither did the ATO (for the Commonwealth) seek leave
9 to intervene in the probate issue, then I view the ATO had absolutely no right to cause any part
10 of the dividends to be taken without my wife’s knowledge and/or consent.
11
12 Moreover, we now have a system where “council” claims it can engage contractors, who then
13 can charge for the work and are caused to pay GST and then council may charge the cost plus
14 GST to the property owner meaning there are 2 levels of GST charged albeit council itself avoids
15 paying any GST, and as such makes a handsome profit, albeit unconstitutionally!
16
17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_services_tax_(Australia)
18 QUOTE
19 Legal framework[edit]
20 All Australian businesses whose turnover is above the minimum threshold (currently
21 $75,000 per annum) are required to register for GST. Businesses whose turnover is below
22 the threshold may register if they wish to.
23 A GST-registered business must charge its customers GST on taxable goods and services it
24 provides, but is entitled to a credit for any GST it has paid for its expenditures on these
25 goods and services as well as capital purchases (called input tax credits). A registered
26 business must periodically lodge Business Activity Statements (monthly, quarterly or
27 annually), and at the same time pay the net amount of GST owed to the tax office (if more
28 GST is paid than collected, a refund is paid by the tax office instead).
29 Some goods and services (notably salaries, wages, fresh food, and real estate) are exempt
30 from GST. Other goods and services (rental income and financial services) are "input-
31 taxed", which means that GST is not charged on the sale, but GST paid by that part of the
32 business is not eligible to be claimed as an input tax credit. [9]
33 Division 9 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth)[10] (GST Act)
34 stipulates that GST is applicable to a supply of goods, services and transactions related to
35 real property, obligations or rights. The supply must be for consideration (GST Act s9-15)
36 to a relevant entity registered for GST (Div 23) in the course of enterprise (s9-20). This
37 does not include employment or hobby income.
38 Products made entirely in Australia, as well as supplies going to or from Australia, and real
39 estate located there, are all taxable. Certain types of supplies are free of GST, examples
40 include fresh unprocessed food, medical services, education courses, childcare, exports,
41 pre-owned real estate and going concerns. When an enterprise purchases goods or services
42 to be consumed or used for resupply to an end customer they may receive a refund (input
43 tax credit) on the amount of GST contained in the price (Div 11), which means in effect no
44 GST is paid on those supplies.
45 New residential and commercial properties are subject to GST but re-sale of existing
46 properties is not. All real estate agent fees on either new or second-hand property are
47 subject to GST. Processed foods such as biscuits, soft drinks, restaurant meals and take-
48 away foods are also subject to GST.
49 Registered enterprises for GST must complete a Business Activity Statement (BAS) for
50 reporting to the Australian Taxation Office on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis
51 (depending on revenue and main activity).
Page 16
1 END QUOTE
2
3 What this indicates is that the GST is not a tax on one item but rather regarding numerous items
4 which in my view makes it unconstitutional, this as the Framers of the Constitution debated this
5 issue specifically and prohibited this in the constitution.
6 Obviously, the question also is if the GST is a direct taxation or an indirect taxation. If it is
7 applied to say dividends then it appears to me to be a “direct” taxation” whereas where it is
8 purportedly applied to businesses who then charge the customer in return then it is essentially an
9 “indirect” taxation. This, as the real target charge with the GST is the end consumer, of which
10 the ATO hasn’t got a clue as to whom that is, as it keeps no record of this, as it admitted in the
11 past to me!
12
13 And with not-for-profit (non-profit) entities they somehow can circumvent paying GST while
14 charging it nevertheless from those who purchase items and by this unduly causes a profit to
15 those who do not pay GST.
16
17 When then customs sought me in 2010 to pay GST for items that had been printed overseas, we
18 have a further abnormality. The GST stands for “Goods and Services” tax, while no goods or
19 services were for this within the Commonwealth of Australia provided when items are imported.
20 Actually when I placed the order within the Commonwealth of Australia I was then already
21 charged GST and I had no control as to where the items I had ordered would be printed.
22 Meaning that the Commonwealth sought to charge me GST over items for which GST was
23 already paid. In the end Customs released the goods without further payments because I knew
24 my constitutional rights and they obviously became aware their scam wasn’t working on me.
25
26 The issue is also is if the GST a State or a Federal tax? Constitutionally the Commonwealth can
27 only provide for “UNIFORM” taxation laws and this also means that if “council rates” were to
28 be claimed to be delegated Commonwealth taxation powers then “council rates” must be uniform
29 throughout the Commonwealth of Australia, and not that each council may have its own “council
30 rates” regime. And then the States such as Victoria have no legislative powers to put a cap on the
31 so called “council rates”.
32
33 This therefore means that no “council” can claim that it exercises “delegated Commonwealth
34 taxation” being it land taxation or otherwise. As the Commonwealth abolished “land taxation”
35 then clearly no “council” can claim that it purportedly exercises Commonwealth delegated land
36 taxation.
37
38 The claim that NSW was to reduce its land taxation because of the GST is utter and sheer
39 nonsense, as the Commonwealth had no legislative powers to allow in any shape or form any
40 State to charge for land taxation since 11 November 1910.
41
42 We also seem to have this nonsense about in the State of Victoria businesses are claiming say
43 10% interest if a bill is not paid by a certain date. Actually I had prepaid most of the electricity
44 bill and was provided with a final gas bill of a balance of about $10.00 but advised that if I didn’t
45 pay by a certain date it would be about $51. Never mind my gas account by the same company is
46 overpaid by about $1,200.00. Somehow, despite that the State of Victoria has no State Banking
47 and as such cannot legislate as to interest rates, etc, companies still are doing so even when the
48 interest rates by the banks were near zero. What a scam and “councils” likewise use this
49 extortion.
50
51 HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
52 QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
Page 17
1 The resolutions conclude:

2 An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to
3 time be appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of
4 office shall depend upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives
5 expressed by the support of the majority.
6 What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of
7 the new nation as similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional
8 advisers who shall stand as nearly as possible in the same relation to the representative of
9 the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial advisers stand is relation to the
10 Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to lay down as a
11 foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite
12 other gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in
13 view.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 It should be obvious that either the Ministers are lacking to be competent to be “constitutional
17 advisers” or they are betraying their oath of office to act within the provisions provided for in
18 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
19
20 In my view the GST defies the legal principles embedded in the constitution!
21
23 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
24 Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties Customs on imports, shall deal with
25 one subject of taxation only.
26 What is meant by one subject of taxation? Suppose a land tax is imposed, you tax posts
27 and rails. That may be argued not to be a law dealing with one subject. There are questions
28 which will certainly arise which will be fruitful in litigation unless we take great care.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 When we have what is called “An act of God” (no religious input intended) then regardless if
32 the farmers harvesting goes banana because of the weather having turned bad, etc, somehow
33 “council” will still claim the unconstitutional purported delegated State Land Tax as “council
34 rates” and increase it with up to 3.5% per annum whereas it then may claim to assist the farmer
35 with being allowed to pay over a certain time period. What therefore a council makes clear you
36 can face whatever “Act of God” problems but we will not relent and still charge you as we will
37 not curtail our own spending. And the same applies to growers, graziers, etc, albeit I understand
38 that somehow, albeit unconstitutionally, Aboriginals are not subjected to the same!
39
40 What we have is that a farmer could have been a descendant for generations having toiled on the
41 land to make it their family business and yet find that anyone who happen to be migrating just
42 before (say weeks ago) into the Commonwealth of Australia somehow has more right then the
43 farmer merely if that person claims to be an Aboriginal, as there are to my knowledge no legal
44 restrictions as to whom can claim to be Aboriginal descent. I understand the alleged population
45 growth regarding Aboriginals is far greater than those actually born in Aboriginal families, this
46 appears to be because now anyone who claim to identify as an Aboriginal can claim to be an
47 Aboriginal and can enjoy the lucrative benefits provided to Aboriginals, regardless having been
48 born overseas and may neither be of Aboriginal descent and have special taxation benefits
49 contrary to the legal principle of “UNIFORM” “SLIDING SCALE” taxation requirements!
50 This also underlines that the tax system is a drastically failure to what legal principles the
51 Framers of the Constitution embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
52 1900 (UK).
Page 18
1 What is needed is that all not-for-profit (non-profit) exemptions should be scrapped as it is and
2 always was unconstitutional. Organisations who genuinely provide assistance to the needy
3 always could apply, as anyone else, for tax deduction permitted to everyone else also. Not that
4 some organisation can make millions without any taxation merely for being registered as a not-
5 for-profit (non-profit) organisation, without any real evidence that the monies are going to
6 charities, etc.
7 Obviously “councils” as a corporation are entitled to charge for collection of garbage (if this
8 actually occurs) but not as some alleged delegated State land taxation, but as originally was
9 before federation, as a corporation. It must then however restrain itself from political input and
10 not charge for alleged “recycling:” when in reality having it dumped in general waste (garbage
11 tip) or dumped overseas to end up in the oceans.
12 However, councils should not get involved in some purported additional level of government and
13 charge property powers for doing something that already are for the State Government to provide
14 for. The very basis of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was that the
15 Commonwealth would have legislative powers within the matters listed within Sections 51 & 52
16 and the States only could exercise “concurrent” legislative powers regarding the matters listed in
17 Section 51 until the Commonwealth itself commenced to legislate.
18 It seems to me to be very obvious that we have a State spending spree by those in government as
19 if there is no tomorrow and instead of Ministers managing their Department effectively they
20 instead are seeking to have councils doing the work for them and let property owners then pay
21 for this double governing in violation of the constitution. Councils should simply reject this
22 alleged delegation of power, but I suspect that councillors are more eager to boost about their
23 powers regardless how it may actually harm local property owners, and well then those ignorant
24 councillors should in my view be held legally accountable and if it means to bankrupt them so be
25 it. Here we had Daniel Andrews allegedly going to receive a about $300,000 a year pension for
26 the rest of his life. Well, if I have my way the constitution will be enforced and he, Scott
27 Morrison, Anthony Albanese and all their collaborators may spend the rest of their lives in
28 prison and all their estates be confiscated as compensation to the harm they inflicted upon the
29 many. Their bloated spending such as regarding the “coviud-19 scam” destroying in the process
30 many businesses besides the unconstitutional mandates regime must be pursued against them.
31 There are many cases the High Court of Australia wrongly decides and only a fool would hold
32 that as long as the High Court of Australia makes a determination then that is what the
33 constitution stands for. There is no such thing of the High Court of Australia and so any other
34 court to override the constitution!
35 Any court order that violates the constitution is no court order at all!
36
37 "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs.
38 Madison 1803, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176.
39
40 “A pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the
41 country is entitled to disregard it”. Chief Justice Latham 1942
42
43 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
44 27 (17 June 1999)
45 QUOTE
46 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue
47 estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the
48 orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he
49 will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying
50 on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
51 END QUOTE
52
Page 19
1 Clearly the High Court of Australia itself made clear that one can “DISREGARD” court orders
2 that violate the constitution!
3
4 Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
5 Convention)
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start
8 page 2092] Higgins) may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision
9 the practice of the High Court, when declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a
10 declaration applied only to the part which trespassed beyond the limits of the Constitution.
11 If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the interpretation of the whole
12 of the Constitution.
13 END QUOTE
14 .
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
18 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
19 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
21 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
22 END QUOTE
23
25 QUOTE
26 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his
27 mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the
28 states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according
29 to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign
30 will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I do not care much
31 about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
32 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains
33 some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either
34 side to attack each other's laws.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 The following also should be considered:
38
40 QUOTE
41 Mr. ISAACS.-If you were to bring in a Bill to impose one tax, would it include a power
42 to repeal another on the same subject?
43 Mr. OCONNOR.-Undoubtedly.
44 Mr. ISAACS.-Mr. Barton has given an opinion that it would not.
45 Mr. MCMILLAN.-We have the ablest lawyers divided on this question, and what is the
46 layman to do?
47 END QUOTE
48
50 QUOTE
51 Mr. TRENWITH.-And yet this clause is throwing legislation into the hands of those
52 people who cannot agree.
53 MR. REID.-The lawyers.
54 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The lawyers?
55 Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, thrusting it on them.
Page 20
1 Mr. MCMILLAN.-That is one of those commonplaces which are always used. There is
2 no clause or sub-clause of any Bill in the world, even if it were framed by an angel from
3 Heaven, that would not be the subject of litigation.
4 Dr. COCKBURN.-The disagreement is not legal, but constitutional.
5 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-You do not got lawyers from Heaven.
6 Mr. ISAACS.-No, lawyers are sent there; they are not drawn from there.
7 END QUOTE
8
10 QUOTE
11 Mr. BARTON: This is not proposed to cover mere slips, but everything.
12 Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not think that could be the intention. We are attempting to
13 legislate for a very limited possibility. You will get disputes so long as there are lawyers
14 in the world. I do not know whether Federation will do away with lawyers.
15 Mr. BARTON: Not until merchants will cease to quarrel.
16 Mr. MCMILLAN: If so it would simplify our arrangements very much. At the same
17 time it does seem that there ought to be something introduced to prevent the law being put
18 into operation for a mere breach of procedure, if there is such a chance.
19 Mr. SYMON: There is no chance.
20 Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not suppose that any ordinary moral layman would do it,
21 unless he were instructed by a less moral lawyer.
22 END QUOTE
23
25 QUOTE
26 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
27 END QUOTE
28
29
30 Let us neither overlook the following:
31
32 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
33 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
34 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
35 Constitution,
36 END QUOTE
37
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by
41 the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in
42 effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies,
43 and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been
44 the work of Australians.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
48 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
49 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
50 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
51 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection
52 and secure to him.
53 END QUOTE
54

Page 21
1 While at the time I was a single parent, caring for 5 of my children of 7 years old and below, I
2 was I recall criticised that I didn’t provide any assistance with the local fire brigade. Well, I was
3 first of all caring for the children and if I had been required to attend to a fire issue where the fire
4 truck uses lights and sound alarms to get as quick as possible to a fire, then hardly it could wait
5 for me to first organise some person to care for my children in the meantime. As such, the
6 criticism was utterly misplaced.
7 I was also doing my constitutional legal studies and well I have the view that I am better (and
8 proved so in numerous cases) to stick to what I know best then to be a possible ball and chain on
9 the fire brigade.
10 Moreover, I also was for some 37 years conducting a Special Lifeline Service MAY JUSTICE
11 ALWAYS PREVAIL® and even had people from Berriwillock and surrounding areas
12 seeking, (successfully) without charge, my assistance/representation in court litigation. As such,
13 I did what I knew I was good in and left the fire brigade to those who were not only available but
14 also trained to perform the best job as after all placing the lives of others at uncalled risk is not
15 what the fire brigade should be about to wait for a person to organise alternative child care, if at
16 all available, and let a fire go on in the meantime and perhaps harm if not kill people.
17
18 I recall and incident in about April 1991 when my sister Willemina had come over, with our
19 uncle from The Netherlands (who regretfully died overnight due to the flight complications), and
20 while we were with one of my daughters driving from Swan Hill to Berriwillock we noticed a
21 huge fire in the distance. We didn’t know what it was but nevertheless I urged residents in
22 Ultima to report the matter to the Fire Brigade. This they did. Well, I discovered they had done
23 so because not long thereafter my daughter wanted to go to the local church in Berriwillock, and
24 so I accompanied her for this, when we later were leaving the captain of the Berriwillock Fire
25 Brigade then made a verbal attack upon me for having caused the Ultima Fire Brigade to spend
26 the night to extinguish the fire at the local garbage tip. Moment, I did my civil duty to have
27 reported a fire and then gets verbally attacked about this when leaving the church service? How
28 on earth did I know what the fire was about? Moreover, surely leaving a large fire going on
29 without being supervised could have ended the town to be burned down or whatever?
30
31 Another time my daughter and I were driving from Berriwillock to Melbourne when having
32 passed Culgoa I noticed a tree on fire. I reported the matter to the fire brigade. About 2 days later
33 on our way back to Berriwillock I became aware the tree was still on fire! And then Buloke Shire
34 Council (then Wycheproof council) is going on about fire dangers? Well, I made thousands of
35 photos in numerous shires/cities showing fire dangers but somehow even so the motor vehicles
36 are travelling there this seems to be of no concern as a fire danger. Some areas have branches
37 stacked up for years on end, I know because year after year I took a photo of the same area! And
38 Buloke Shire Council is so concerned it blatantly disregard my complaint about GWMWater
39 failing to provide Safe Drinking Water, also for use for fire fighters, and well, meaning that fire
40 fighters not just have to deal with the risk to fight fires but then also can become contaminated
41 by the “untreated water”.
42
43 As I understand it the ‘Local Government Association” somehow dictated to ‘councils” that they
44 had to somehow honour Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and so councils commenced to
45 do so. All somehow recognising Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders being the custodians
46 regardless that Torres Strait Islanders were related to Queensland after it was annexed in 1879
47 long after the colony of Victoria already existed since 1855. And well this then spread around
48 Australia and by this States now have this infiltration of this utter and sheer nonsense to even
49 purportedly implemented this into their State government structures, etc. This despite that the
50 States lack any legislative powers regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. With all the
51 lawyers in Australia, which I understand exceeds 100,000 do we not have a single one who
Page 22
1 understand this crap is unconstitutional, as the Commonwealth has exclusive legislative powers
2 as to race (other than relating to Section 25 of the constitution)? And well the same as to “weight
3 and measures”, we have people engaged by the State Government changing the sequence of
4 how traffic lights operate. How speed cameras are measuring and a lot more this even so the
5 states actually have no legislative powers in that regard but dare to tell this some magistrate or
6 judge who was educated the states can because their misconception is they have “concurrent”
7 legislative powers, as they lack proper constitutional education! What we have is that
8 unconstitutional infiltration into Commonwealth EXCLUSIVE legislative powers somehow now
9 is the norm and the very separation of powers the Framers of the Constitution implemented into
10 the constitution in reality seems to be no more. After all, we got councils now issuing “penalty”
11 notices based upon what? Where was the Commonwealth certification for any measurements
12 that was claimed by a council regarding any alleged measurement? Where is the power for a
13 council to act as a judicature? We have this eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant who
14 purportedly issued a $610,000 fine against X (formally Twitter) despite that I wrote extensive to
15 her and the Minister long before that she would have no legal powers to issue any fines due to
16 “separation of powers”! Well in The Epoch times MARCH 21-27, 2024 page A4 under the
17 heading “6 Special Media Platforms Issued With ‘Please Explain’ Notice on Extremist
18 Material” it now was stated “The inquiry resulted in X being fined $610,000 for failing to
19 comply with the eSafety requirements. However, the watchdog recently admitted that it
20 had no power to force X to pay the fine.”! With this it proved I was all along right. What
21 however also ought to be understood is that this nonsense about online mis- disinformation is
22 merely for the governments to try to deny Australians their constitution rights.
23
24 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
25 Australasian Convention)
26 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
27 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
28 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
29 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
30 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
31 embrace and unite.
32 END QUOTE
33 And
35 QUOTE
36 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
37 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
38 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
39 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
40 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
41 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
42 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
43 END QUOTE
44 And
46 QUOTE
47 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
48 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
49 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
50 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
51 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
52 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
53 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
Page 23
1 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
2 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
3 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
4 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
5 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
6 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
7 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 What really is the intention of the government is to silence dissidents as they were seeking to do
11 against those exposing the covid-19 scam!
12 As the then Premier of Victoria as I recall stated he wasn’t interested in human rights.
13
14 We have ample of corporations producing dangerous chemicals and farmers, growers, graziers
15 and their employees and also at time the end users of their produce ending up with severe
16 disabilities and even death. Yet, the purported mis- disinformation legislation would purportedly
17 deny anyone to publish the truth about this while the government and its lackeys can publish any
18 mis- disinformation and sowing death all around to please its masters in the W.E.F. etc,
19 including pharmaceutical companies who are providing in some way or another kickbacks.
20 I discovered that many of my articles of late are “shadow banned” that means that a person
21 would not see the articles that were publish. Financially it makes not one of iota difference to me
22 as I do not charge for anyone to download them, but it is I understand a scheme to try to prevent
23 Australians to read what I expose of the scams pursued by the various governments in violation
24 of the constitution. I just slowly collect the evidence of shadow banning and then later can use
25 this in litigation!
26 As I did state during my speech in the 1999 State election campaign for the seat of Swan Hill
27 that the government was funding Aboriginal landclaims against the farmer who then had to pay
28 his own cost to defend his rights. Likewise that the government was pursuing top reduce the
29 number of school busses to save monies while the children then had to stand in the rain, cold,
30 etc, waiting for a bus and spend extensive times travelling to and from home and school. So the
31 farmer working hard for his family then find that the very children were left at uncalled risk. The
32 same applies now with the so called “childhood” vaccinations. Many children end up with all
33 kinds of heath complications and many end up with for example AUTISM. (3 of my
34 grandchildren have) and well it was as I understand it known for decdades that the numerous
35 vaccinations caused AUTISM but the medical profession concealed it from the general
36 population because they get their financial and other kickbacks.
37 And how does this relate to councils you may ask?
38 Well, councils are having health centres which are involved in those immunisations schemes and
39 well let any parent ,think back and ask what information was I provided at the time when a
40 nurse, doctor or whomever was injecting something into my child as to the harm this may cause
41 in my child? All my children were vaccinated with the so called childhood vaccination and I for
42 one know that not once did anyone explain to me the associated health dangers. It was all “safe
43 and effective” as was the mantra about the at times deadly misnamed covid-19 vaccination
44 which really was a “gene therapy” DEPOPULATION bioweapon. Now the question arises will
45 every past and present and future councillor be held legally liable for the health problems a child
46 suffered having been given some childhood vaccination?
47 Has it not been that farmers were charged “council rates” so the council could using the monies
48 to fund the health centres to inflict even deadly vaccinations upon the child of the farmer?
49
50 Back to the “weight and measure”:

Page 24
1 If you are going to have some council claiming someone’s property has a growth more than 100
2 mm then where is the Commonwealth certification that such measurement actually is correct and
3 not a mere photo to be used for making an allegation when any image can be digitally
4 manipulated and also the alleged GPS that was claimed to be used turned out to be not at all
5 having been applied to all photos. As such, we regretfully have a lost constitutional system
6 where somehow property owners and others are held to account for allegedly violating legal
7 provisions when in fact they may be no more but to be fabricated legal provisions. And then
8 objecting to the jurisdiction of the court to expose this a judge simply seeks to unconstitutionally
9 circumvent this by staking his own claim without any proper legal procedures being applied.
10
11 We now have a system of every citizen essentially becoming a criminal regardless of not being
12 so. This also underlined by the unconstitutional Infringement Court that denies citizens their ‘day
13 in court’ where some alleged ‘law enforcement officer’ simply changed the copy of an
14 Infringement Notice’ without the knowledge of the accused and then the so called Infringement
15 Court purportedly convicts an accused ex parte upon the fraudulent altered Infringement Notice.
16
17 What we need really is a proper investigation about the numerous ways the States are
18 unconstitutionally enforcing their own set of purported legislation.
19
20 But how on earth will we get anywhere if those who are purportedly investigating matters lack
21 the competence to do so?
22
23 Let us consider the following as an example:
24
25 QUOTE 19-3-2010 John Hawkins, Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committee on Economics
26 John Hawkins, Committee Secretary 19-3-2010
27 Senate Standing Committee on Economics
28 PO Box 6100, Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Australia
29 Phone: 02 6277 3550
30 Fax: 02 6277 5719
31 Email economics.sen@aph.gov.au
32 .
33 Ref: Inquiry into TAX EXEMPTIONS for NON PROFIT (NOT-FOR-PROFIT) registered
34 entities – etc.
35 .
36 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
37 .
38 This submission is extensive (At times repeating the same quotations due to needing to be used
39 at those locations) due to the nature is issues canvassed, including GST, Religious tax
40 exemptions, and for the first time a proposed system of obligations to be entitled to a NON
41 PROFIT (NOT-FOR-PROFIT) registration, etc. This as to clamp down on moneys collected
42 being used for ulterior purposes nothing to do with “PUBLIC PURPOSES” Also the issue of
43 taxation used to purchase WATER is addressed below. It should be understood that to explain
44 why certain taxation issues ought to be clamped down on and other comprehensive supportive
45 material has been provided to underline the need for tax reforms.
46 .
47 QUOTE Chapter 0008 SUBMISSION - taxation issues non-profit-etc
48
49 Chapter 0008 SUBMISSION - taxation issues non-profit-etc
50 .

Page 25
1 * Gerrit, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST would you say that the States can tax the
2 Commonwealth and visa versa? Also what about religious finding and tax concessions for NON-
3 PROFIT (NOT-FOR-PROFIT) organizations?
4 .
5 **#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, let’s first attend to the issue of taxation in general, The
6 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)…
7 .
8 * You mean the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act?
9 .
10 **#** No, the title is The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
11
12 http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
13 bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+p
14 arliament%22#fn50
15
16 QUOTE
17 Constitutional interpretation
18 The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the
19 search for the intention of its makers[51].
20 END QUOTE
21 .
22 KING v. JONES ; McEWEN v. HACKERT ; JONES v. JONES. (1972) 128 CLR 221
23
24 Barwick C.J.(1), McTiernan(2), Menzies(3), Walsh(4), Gibbs(5) and Stephen(6)JJ.
25
26 QUOTE Barwick C.J.(1)
27 10. There are some basic propositions of constitutional construction which
28 are beyond controversy. The words of the Constitution are to be read in that
29 natural sense they bore in the circumstances of their enactment by the
30 Imperial Parliament in 1900. That meaning remains, beyond the reach of any
31 Australian Parliament, subject only to alteration by the means provided by s.
32 128 of the Constitution. The connotation of words employed in the Constitution
33 does not change though changing events and attitudes may in some circumstances
34 extend the denotation or reach of those words. These propositions are fully
35 documented in the reported decisions of this Court which has the task of
36 finally and authoritatively deciding both the connotation and the denotation
37 of the language of the Constitution. (at p229)
38 END QUOTE
39 .
41 QUOTE
42 Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of
43 Tasmania, and also an amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a
44 state shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. It is quite
45 possible that this might make lawfull practices which would otherwise be strictly
46 prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the "suttee," and
47 another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other barbarous cruelty, to
48 the devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice.
49 Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.

Page 26
1 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to
2 practise the rites of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of
3 some such words as these:-
4 But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or
5 demoralizing character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
6 The leader of the Convention is, I believe, in a hurry to conclude the evening's
7 proceedings. I will leave the amendment with him, in the hope that he will be able to make
8 something of it.
9 END QUOTE
10 .
11 This document is to be understood to attend to TAXATION matters, and albeit it also refers to
12 “religious “issues this must be appropriately understood to relate to TAXATION matters and not
13 as some kind of witch hunt upon any particular religion. The primary issue is the use/misuse of
14 TAXATION.
15 .
16 http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/6920207/scientology-inquiry-blocked-in-senate/
17 Scientology inquiry blocked in Senate
18 QUOTE
19 Labor frontbencher Joe Ludwig said a Senate inquiry was
20 unwarranted, as there were already two other inquiries looking into
21 taxation matters, including the tax-free status of religious groups.
22 END QUOTE
23 .
24 In my view a specific inquiry by the Commonwealth of Australia into religion is
25 unconstitutional however an inquiry into TAXATION matters dealing with the issue of TAX
26 EXEMPTION referring to NON PROFIT (NOT FOR PROFIT) registered entities legitimately
27 can deal with code of conduct, etc, regarding NON PROFIT (NOT FOR PROFIT) registered
28 entities irrespective it this include religious entities.
29 .
30 It is important to understand that While the first Amendment of the U.S.A. constitution
31 has similarity with s.116 of The Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK) there is a
32 considerable difference in not only that the U.S.A is a CONFERATION and the
33 Commonwealth of Australia is a FEDERATION, but also that the religious prohibition
34 includes this being against the States in the U.S.A. whereas in the commonwealth of
35 Australia s.116 only applies to the commonwealth of Australia and the Framers of the
36 Constitution specifically stipulated not to apply to the States.
37 .
38 For this certain ruling by the Supreme Court of America may not as such apply to the
39 Commonwealth of Australia and/or the States as a reliable Authority. The same for example
40 applies to the issue of “citizenship” the issue of “eminent domain” relating to “FEE SIMPLE”,
41 etc.
42 .
43 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=397&invol=664
44 Frederick WALZ, Appellant, v. TAX COMMISSION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK. No. 135.
45 Argued Nov. 19, 1969. Decided May 4, 1970.
46 QUOTE
47 The exemptions have continued uninterrupted to the present day. They are in force in all 50
48 States. No judicial decision, state or federal, has ever held that they violate the
49 Establishment Clause. In 1886, for example, this Court in Gibbons v. District of Columbia,
Page 27
1 116 U.S. 404 , rejected on statutory grounds a church's claim for the exemption of certain
2 of its land under congressional statutes exempting Washington churches and appurtenant
3 ground from real property taxes. But the Court [397 U.S. 664 , 686] gave not the slightest
4 hint that it ruled against the church because, under the First Amendment, any exemption
5 would have been unconstitutional. To the contrary, the Court's opinion implied that nothing
6 in the Amendment precludes exemption of church property: 'We are not disposed to deny
7 that grounds left open around a church, not merely to admit light and air, but also to add to
8 its beauty and attractiveness, may, if not used or intended to be used for any other purpose,
9 be exempt from taxation under these statutes.' Id., at 407. 6
10 Mr. Justice Holmes said that '(i)f a thing has been practised for two hundred years by
11 common consent, it will need a strong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it ....'
12 Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 , 10 (1922). For almost 200 years the view
13 expressed in the actions of legislatures and courts has been that tax exemptions for
14 churches do not threaten 'those consequences which the Framers deeply feared' or 'tend to
15 promote that type of interdependence between religion and state which the First
16 Amendment was designed to prevent,' Schempp, supra, 374 U.S., at 236 (Brennan, J.,
17 concurring). An examination both of the governmental purposes for granting the
18 exemptions and of the type of [397 U.S. 664 , 687] church-state relationship that has
19 resulted from their existence makes clear that no 'strong case' exists for holding
20 unconstitutional this historic practice. 7
21 END QUOTE
22 .
23 In the Commonwealth of Australia however not only was s.116 of the constitution inserted in
24 1898 but more over the following quotation makes it abundantly clear that the Framers of the
25 Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia didn’t follow this kind of reasoning;
26 .
28 QUOTE
29 Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this
30 Constitution?
31 Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church
32 could not receive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.

34 END QUOTE
35 .
36 QUOTE
37 Peter Costello - Treasurer
38 Tax deductibility of gifts to St Paul's Cathedral restoration fund
39 23 April 2002 – Press Release
40
41 Today I am announcing the Government's decision to amend the income tax
42 law to allow tax deductions for gifts to the value of $2 or more to the St
43 Paul's Cathedral Restoration Fund.
44
45 As a result, gifts made to the Fund from today to 22 April 2004, will be deductible
46 for income tax purposes.
47 END QUOTE
48 .

Page 28
1 It must be clear that to announce an amendment to the income tax specifically for a religious
2 project, as it is a building used for religious purposes, then this is providing “funding” otherwise
3 not permissible in law, being it to claim tax deduction or otherwise.
4 .
5 The mere fact that a person claimed to be the best treasurer of the century, for whatever this
6 might stand for, then goes through the extra ordinary step to announce something for which there
7 is no constitutional power to do so itself may underline that there is a grave deficiency in those
8 involved in taxation to understand and comprehend what is constitutionally permissible. Hence,
9 this document address matters regardless of what any politician/lawyer may claim to know
10 because as like with “citizenship-“ more then likely politicians/lawyers “ASSUME” there is a
11 legislative power even so constitutionally there might be none.
12 .
13 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=450&invol=707
14 THOMAS v. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION
15 ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA. No. 79-952.
16 Argued October 7, 1980. Decided April 6, 1981.
17 QUOTE
18 The "aid" rendered to religion in these latter cases may not be significantly different, in
19 kind or degree, than the "aid" afforded Mrs. Sherbert or Thomas. For example, if the State
20 in Sherbert could not deny compensation to one refusing work for religious reasons, it
21 might be argued that a State may not deny reimbursement to students who choose for
22 religious reasons to attend parochial schools. The argument would be that although a
23 State need not allocate any funds to education, once it has done so, it may not require
24 any person to sacrifice his religious beliefs in order to obtain an equal education. See
25 Lemon, supra, at 665 (opinion of WHITE, J.); Nyquist, supra, at 798-805 (opinion of
26 BURGER, C. J.). There can be little doubt that to the extent secular education provides
27 answers to important moral questions without reference to religion or teaches that there are
28 no answers, a person in one sense sacrifices his religious belief by attending secular
29 schools. And even if such "aid" were not constitutionally compelled by the Free Exercise
30 Clause, Justice Harlan may well have been right in Sherbert when he found sufficient
31 flexibility in the Establishment Clause to permit the States to voluntarily choose to grant
32 such benefits to individuals. [450 U.S. 707, 728]
33 END QUOTE
34 .
35 While the Commonwealth of Australia time and time again seems to allocate different funding to
36 private versus public schools and this always is a point of contention the truth is that the
37 Commonwealth of Australia cannot differentiate between private and public schools as the
38 amount per student spent on a student must be the same where it is for private or public
39 education. It makes not one of iota different if parents have their children attending a private
40 school may be so to say stinking rich or not, as many may just do without ordinary pleasures of
41 life to sacrifice it all for their child, as the issue is that the Commonwealth with student financial
42 aid must ensure that there is no financial difference between State public and private education
43 facilities. The States themselves however are not bound by s.116 of the Constitution and entitled
44 to fund State public schools without having to fund any private (including religious) education
45 facilities.
46 .
47 Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
48 National Australasian Convention)
49 QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:

Page 29
1 where we are giving the people of the country practically a free education-and it should be
2 common to all Australia-we should instil into the minds of our children the necessity for
3 training, and, as a quid pro quo for that free education,
4 END QUOTE
5 .
6 A LAW DICTIONARY ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN
8 UNION
9 With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law by John Bouvier
10 Ignoratis terminis ignoratur et ars. - Co. Litt. 2 a. Je sais que chaque science et chaque art a ses
11 termes propres, inconnu au commun des hommes. - Fleury
12 SIXTH EDITION, REVISED, IMPROVED, AND GREATLY ENLARGED. VOL. I.
13 PHILADELPHIA CHILDS & PETERSON, 124 ARCH STREET 1856
14 QUOTE
15 QUID PRO QUO. This phrase signifies verbatim, what for what. It is applied
16 to the consideration of a contract. See Co. Litt. 47, b; 7 Mann. & Gr. 998.
17 END QUOTE
18 .
19 It is also of concern to me that basically the very ministers in government who may have all
20 benefited from free university education now have done an about face and deny the very
21 opportunity to others to have likewise a free education, even so as is with the State of Victoria
22 FREE EDUCATION is a constitutional provided for.
23 .
24 WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED
25 STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
26 NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
27 QUOTE
28 1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra,
29 and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who
30 in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual
31 analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training
32 and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized
33 worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
34 2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of
35 that provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
36 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by
37 exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic
38 belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To
39 comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose
40 belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
41 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the
42 longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than
43 nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who
44 have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.
45 END QUOTE
46 .
47 With social security benefits there is a further problem in that considering the Welsh case the
48 commonwealth of Australia has a problem that if religious objection is maintainable for a person
49 to refuse to work in a particular position, if not in a weapon manufacturing factory then perhaps
50 in a slaughter house then likewise the same should be applicable for an ATHIES. As one cannot

Page 30
1 claim benefits upon religion that others would be denied as then it would allow a “benefit” to
2 religion to advance a particular religion above that of others.
3 The moment the commonwealth allows exceptions for a person of one religion but not that for
4 another religion or ATHIEST then the commonwealth of Australia would be to enhance the
5 promotion of a certain religion. This likewise can be held having been with Mr peter Costello
6 providing for this Church of a particular religion to gain advantage above other religions and/or
7 ATHIEST who may have their own structure to come together, being it that the room of their
8 building, being it of a gazebo for their BBQ meeting to deliberately abstain from religious
9 indoctrinations or otherwise still would a kind of non-religious practices as like religious
10 practices of a person of a certain religion.
11 .
12 The Selective Serv. Draft Law Cases [Arver v. United States], 245 U.S. 366 (1918) “Exemption
13 of clergy, theology students, and pacifist sects from combat service is constitutional.” Free
14 Exercise Exemptions-Miscellaneous yet again this was subsequently so to say clarified by the
15 Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (plurality) (1970) case regarding “Beliefs held with
16 strength of traditional religious convictions are entitled to conscientious objector status.”
17 Military Service.
18 Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (per curiam) (1971) “Conviction of Black Muslim for
19 refusing induction is reversed when government conceded pacifism and sincerity.” Military
20 Service
21 Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church, 404 U.S. 41 (per curiam) (1972) “Challenge to property
22 tax exemption for church parking lot used for commercial purposes is moot due to change in
23 statute.” Statutory Exemptions for Religious Persons/Entities Tax Exemptions
24 Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) “Denial of unemployment benefits because religious
25 beliefs forbade production of armaments violated First Amendment.” Military Service
26 Unemployment Compensation
27 .
28 Jensen v. Quaring, 472 U.S. 478 (aff'd by equally divided Court) (1985) “Struck down
29 requirement that applicant submit to having photograph taken for affixing on driver's license as
30 unconstitutionally burdening free exercise.” Free Exercise Exemptions-Miscellaneous
31 The last mentioned case however is noticeable that the same cannot apply in any State in the
32 Commonwealth of Victoria as the Framers of the Constitution specifically provided that States
33 could legislate as to religion. The question then is if the Commonwealth of Australia could insist
34 upon photo’s to be provided on driving licenses/passports, etc, and in my view the
35 Commonwealth of Australia legitimately could legislate as the Framers of the Constitution made
36 clear that religious practices could only be permitted for so far they complied with legal
37 provisions. As such if the Commonwealth were to legislate to target a specific religion then it
38 would be unconstitutional
39 .
41 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
42 We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
43 Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this
44 case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform
45 to it.
46 END QUOTE
47 .
49 QUOTE
50 Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes
51 on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
Page 31
1 END QUOTE
2
4 QUOTE
5 Mr. HIGGINS.-A number of laws have been held to be unconstitutional in America
6 because of their reasons and because of their motives. There was a funny case in San
7 Francisco, where a law was passed by the state that every prisoner, within one hour of his
8 coming into the prison, was to have his hair cut within one inch of his head. That looked
9 very harmless, but a Chinaman brought an action to have it declared unconstitutional, and
10 it turned out that the law was actually passed by the Legislature for the express
11 purpose of persecuting Chinamen.
12 Mr. BARTON.-That took place under the next clause in this Bill, which is a similar
13 enactment.
14 Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable
15 member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to
16 point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid
17 if they had another motive. All I want is, that there should be no imposition of any
18 observance because of its being religious.
19 END QUOTE
20 .
21 In the Commonwealth of Australia however it is unlikely that this kind of legislation to prosecute
22 Chinamen would be deemed unconstitutional because of the Framers of the Constitution
23 specifically having provided for s.51(xxvi) which was set out to “DISCRIMINATE” against
24 any particular race. (CLARIFICATION: Personally I oppose discrimination but my personal
25 views cannot interfere with the true meaning and application of the constitution.)
26 .
27 Therefore there is little use for anyone to use all kinds of Authorities and then rely upon this in
28 the courts, and likewise so in the parliament, as if this is applicable because unless one is a
29 CONSTITUTIONALIST, as I am and extensively researched matters as such one can easily
30 misconceive the appropriate application of any authorities, even so the Framers of the
31 Constitution so to say borrowed s.116 of the constitution of the first amendment of the U.S.A.
32 constitution. This, because the Framers of the Constitution didn’t intend to follow the same kind
33 of application and therefore to merely assume what applies in the U.S.A. as to tax exemption
34 versus that in the Commonwealth of Australia would be a gross miscarriage of what is JUST and
35 PROPER. As I understand it the judges appointed to the High Court of Australia do not need to
36 have any competence as to be appointed to this court and to determine constitutional matters and
37 as such basically they are appointed with so to say “training wheels” and tough luck for those
38 appearing before the court and end up with an ill conceived judgment that is detriment to their
39 case. As Wakim HCA 27 of 1999 proved that previously the High Court of Australia had one
40 ruling about the application and standing of the Cross Vesting Act and next they overrule this
41 decision. In my view this kind of conduct is at the very least scandalous and untenable and hence
42 forth a constitutional decision apart of appeal decisions should be erected that have judges sitting
43 at this constitutional bench which are specifically educated in constitutional matters and not as
44 previously occurred a judge declares not to know the constitutional issue and refuse to hand
45 down a judgment and by this the appellant lost the tried 3-3- decision appeal.
46 .
47 Below are a few (Ok a bit more then a few) statements as to contractual meanings and
48 applications including about a grant, etc. This is so as to try to get a common understanding as
49 many persons are not aware that a grant actually is a contract. As such, as was occurring with the
Page 32
1 grants regarding insulation it established a certain contract between the Government and the
2 beneficiaries who obtained the contracts (grants) and as such with any contract a “DUTY OF
3 CARE” is applicable.
4 .
5 TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE v. WOODWARD. February 2, 1819 17 U.S. 518, 4 L.Ed. 629,
6 4 Wheat. 518, (Cite as: 17 U.S. 518) Supreme Court of the United States,
7 END QUOTE 19-3-2010 John Hawkins, Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committee on Economics
8
9 Due to the length of the TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE v. WOODWARD. February 2, 1819 17
10 U.S. 518, 4 L.Ed. 629, 4 Wheat. 518, (Cite as: 17 U.S. 518) Supreme Court of the United States, case I will not
11 include it albeit refer to it. However, while this judgment may portray the powers to exempt a
12 not-for-profit organisation, within the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
13 this is not possible. Charities are generally created with in the environment of a State and a State
14 cannot interfere with the rights of the Commonwealth to tax organisations. Hence any purported
15 State legislation to allow for “charities” cannot be enforced against the Commonwealth in
16 particular where it is limited to legislate as to taxation in a “UNIFORM” manner on a “SLIDING
17 SCALE”.
18
19 The following from the written submissions (ADDRESS TO THE COURT) County Court of
20 Victoria proceedings Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 in which I represented myself and
21 the commonwealth as well as the 9 Attorney-Generals had been served with the NOTICE OF
22 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER which the Court on 2 December 2002 ordered to be heard and
23 determined by the High Court of Australia, which latter after 21 years still has failed to do, albeit
24 the same was before the Court during my successful appeals on 19-7-2006!
25
26 QUOTE County Court of Victoria proceedings Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
27 WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED
28 STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
29 NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
30
31 1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra,
32 and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who
33 in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual
34 analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training
35 and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized
36 worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
37 2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of
38 that provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
39 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by
40 exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief
41 while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with
42 that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from
43 a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
44 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the
45 longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than
46 nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who
47 have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.
48
49 And;
50
51 http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
52
Page 33
1 Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization

2 Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious
3 exemption letter and support materials provided in the following link:
4
5 Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation
6
7 Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and
8 practices of a recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member.
9 However, the law does not require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing
10 your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged.
11
12 And
13 Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than
14 required by law. You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or
15 daycare. The law allows you to submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet
16 the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to describe your
17 religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
18 And
19 Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely
20 unfamiliar with the law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by
21 deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are betting on the fact that you don't
22 know your rights.
23
24 What appears to be clear is that a “religious objection” is not qualified to a specific religion and
25 neither can be as this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be
26 associated with any particular religion as this would also interfere with Section 116 of the
27 Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the “religious objection” Subsection 245(14)
28 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious person as this
29 would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNITED
30 STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the “religious objection” applies
31 as much to non religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her
32 personal reasons to vote clearly is entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion
33 mentioned.
34 END QUOTE County Court of Victoria proceedings Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
35 And
37 IN RE WOOD (1988) 167 CLR 145 F.C. 88/018
38 QUOTE
39
40 The return does not meet the exigency of the writ (Drinkwater v. Deakin, at p 638) because
41 Senator Wood was incapable of filling the 12th place. That is not to say that, putting to
42 one side "a mere abuse of the right of nomination or an obvious unreality" (Harford v.
43 Linskey (1899) 1 QB 852, at p 862 and cf. Pritchard v. Mayor, &c. of Bangor (1888) 13
44 App Cas
45 241), the Electoral Officer who makes a return has authority himself to
46 determine the qualifications of a candidate (who declares and maintains that he is duly
47 qualified: HYPERLINK
48 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s170.html" s.170 (a)(ii) of
49 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" the Act ) or to
50 refuse to return the name of an otherwise successful candidate whose qualifications are in
Page 34
1 issue: see HYPERLINK

2 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s172.html" s.172 of
3 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" the Act and
4 Evans v. Thomas (1962) 2 QB 350. But the performance by the Electoral Officer of his
5 ministerial functions in these respects does not determine the validity of the return or the
6 efficacy of the election of an unqualified person to a vacant place in the Senate.
7 END QUOTE
8
9 Clearly, the declaration by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission itself did not purportedly
10 validate the election and neither any candidate declared elected where there was no valid
11 election.
12
13 Where then Mr John Howard was not elected in 2001, so neither others, then he neither could
14 have been Prime minister for any longer then 3 Months, as Section 64 limits the appointment of
15 a non elected person to no longer then a period of three months.
16
17 Hence, Mr John Howard was neither then Prime Minister to advise the Governor-General for a
18 general election in 2004! Indeed, neither was Mr John Howard in any legal position to be
19 involved in the appointment of the Governor-General Michael Jeffrey and as such that also the
20 appointment also is unconstitutional and invalid (without legal force- ULTRA VIRES).
22 And
24 The Defendant submits, that even so he does not require to state his religion and neither which
25 part of his religion is relevant for a religious objection as it can be a secular objection, he has
26 religious objections and one is that “THOU SHALL NOT KILL” where Mr. John Howard
27 unconstitutionally authorised the murderous invasions into Afghanistan and Iraq. How on earth
28 could anyone expect me to vote by preference voting for what I consider a mass murderer and
29 one who committed treachery, treason, sedition and committed crimes against humanity, and by
30 this voting for anyone who supported the war, such as members of his political party.
31 My right to abstain from voting could not be denied, neither be punished.
32 Likewise, in regard of the 2001 election where unconstitutionally, against International
33 obligations, such as the maritime report in regard of the sinking of the Titanic it is unlawful to
34 allow or to send any boat or ship away that is unseaworthy. Yet, we had the Government using
35 the navy to do so and refugees drowning in the process. We had the Australian Federal Police, a
36 law enforcement agency, being involved in what was claimed to be conduct to discourage people
37 smuggling, but it was being to prevent refugees to come to the Commonwealth of Australia, and
38 in the process we had the sinking of SIEV X, with 363 people aboard of which 146 children, on
39 19 October 2001.
41 And
43 The Defendant submits, that no one in his right mind could enforce any unconstitutional voting
44 electoral laws to force me to vote against me. I value human life to precious and it is my peaceful
45 way to protest against this kind of conduct.
46 The Defendant submits, that the Court rather seeking to enforce unconstitutional legislation
47 against the Defendant it would do better if the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
48 were to occupy the Courts time instead to have Mr John Howard and others facing the Courts as
49 to their unconstitutional and otherwise illegal conduct.
50 To disregard the, what I consider plain murder of refugees, by towing their unseaworthy boats
51 back into the sea and so leave the occupants left to the perils of the sea in my view is

Page 35
1 unacceptable and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, so to say, ought to get his
2 act together and pursue those responsible for their day in Court. After all what are laws for if
3 those in power can unconstitutional authorise a murderous invasion and get away with it?
4 While the Australian Federal Police, as the Defendant understands it, seeks to excuse themselves
5 that they paid people to “discourage” refugees from coming to the Commonwealth of Australia,
6 in the defendants view, where any person acting so then goes to the extend to tamper with boats
7 causing the death of many, then the Australian Federal Police must be held accountable for their
8 deeds.
9 For this also, the Defendant holds that no one could demand nor expect that the defendant was to
10 cast a vote that could be utilised then by any person involved in such criminal conduct as to
11 claim to have the support of the people in view of the votes cast.
12 Because it is a preference voting system, the vote of an elector could turn out to go to a person
13 they never really wanted to vote for by the preference counting still could be.
14 The Defendant submits, that if the elections were held in a manner that an elector could vote
15 for the number of candidates he desire, and once those choices are exhausted then the vote
16 simply no longer is used, but because a preference voting system requires a voter to list all
17 candidates, the elector is by this robbed of a FREE election.
18 As a candidate, I opposed the murderous conduct against refugees in 2001 and for this also was
19 entitled not to vote where the major parties appeared to support the conduct to tow unseaworthy
20 boats in breach of Australian law, as well as International Law, back into Indonesian waters
21 regardless that people died as a result.
23
24 Clearly a parent who claim not wanting to have a child injected with some alleged childhood
25 vaccine doesn’t have to reveal if the objection is on some sort of atheist or religious basis but
26 merely make known that it is a “religious” objection.
27 No one can adjudicate upon another person’s religious/ theistic belief!
28
29 QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
30 QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
31 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
32 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
33
34 C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
35 Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
36 GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
37 Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
38 T01567737 & Q01897630
39 AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
40
41 Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)
42 offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.
43
44 Madam,
45 As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate
46 that while using the “religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of the
47 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an
48 objection only to an “theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in fact it also includes
49 any secular belief based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses
50 as grounds for an “objection”. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the
51 Commonwealth of Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only “theistic belief”

Page 36
1 based “religious objections”. Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or
2 philosophical source of “religious objection” have a valid objection.
3 Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state his/her
4 religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious objection” as the
5 mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a
6 “religious objection”. Therefore, the wording “religious objection” is to be taken as
7 “objection” without the word “religion” having any special meaning in that regard.
8 If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
9 I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.
10
11 Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
12 END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
14
15 We had this nonsense about mask having to be worn regarding the illusive “covid-19 virus” and
16 perhaps they next will require the same regarding the Tooth Fairy?
17
18 Councils, as corporations, should have been at the forefront of standing up for the property
19 owners (including residents) and not roll over to some state government to inflict untold harm
20 upon the local community.
21 Living in Melbourne I refused to give up my constitutional rights and when on 10 August 2020
22 the police made clear to issue a summons I responded I was ready for it. Well, they seemed to
23 realise I was not going to roll over and they never summons me. And the next months I walked
24 in a police station without a mask and well they didn’t bother me about a mask!
25
26 When a person has the balls to stand up for his constitutional rights then the wrongdoers may just
27 capitulate, albeit still continue against the weasels and others who will go along, this in particular
28 where councils are collaborating with them to inflict maximum harm.
29 Look at the Dutch farmer’s protest that overtook about the whole of Europe and ended up with
30 the European Union back peddling.
31 I am well aware that regardless of political association politicians once in power will pursue the
32 same in Australia. And this is why farmers, growers, graziers, etc, should stand up for their
33 constitutional rights and oppose this terrorism upon them. Councils should understand that they
34 are not “enforcing the law” when they seek to enforce unconstitutional” demands.
35
36
37 Lysander Spooner, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/lysander_spooner_quote_654e)
38 And the so-called sovereigns, in these different governments, are simply the heads, or
39 chiefs, of different bands of robbers and murderers.
40
41 Lysander Spooner, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Lysander.Spooner.Quote.DEEB)
42 Our constitutions purport to be established by 'the people,' and, in theory, 'all the people'
43 consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of 'the people'
44 exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the
45 few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being
46 actually given.
47
48 Voltaire, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/voltaire_quote_312a)
49 ...So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize
50 will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any
51 number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
52
Page 37
1 Ludwig von Mises, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/ludwig_von_mises_quote_bca5)

2 This, then, is freedom in the external life of man -- that he is independent of the arbitrary
3 power of his fellows.
4
5 Daniel Webster, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/daniel_webster_quote_3141)
6 The contest, for ages, has been to rescue Liberty from the grasp of executive power.
7
8 Edward Zehr, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/edward_zehr_quote_7281)
9 I wouldn't call it fascism exactly, but a political system nominally controlled by an
10 irresponsible, dumbed down electorate who are manipulated by dishonest, cynical,
11 controlled mass media that dispense the propaganda of a corrupt political establishment
12 can hardly be described as democracy either.
13
14 Ronald Reagan, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/ronald_reagan_quote_73aa)
15 Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a
16 monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of
17 us put in this world has been put there for a reason and has something to offer. It´s so hard
18 for government planners, no matter how sophisticated, to ever substitute for millions of
19 individuals working night and day to make their dreams come true. The fact is,
20 bureaucracies are a problem around the world.
21
22 Immanuel Kant, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/immanuel_kant_quote_a319)
23 Freedom is independence of the compulsory will of another, and in so far as it tends to
24 exist with the freedom of all according to a universal law, it is the one sole original inborn
25 right belonging to every man in virtue of his humanity.
26
27 I can make submissions until I am blue in the face but when dealing with basically uneducated
28 (in constitutional issues) Members of Parliament who haven’t got a clue as to the legal principles
29 embedded in the constitution then it will not get any better rather worse, this as they lack the
30 brain power to consider properly what is submitted and defies all logic in their
31 reports/recommendations. Framers, graziers, growers, etc, at times end up committing suicide
32 because they simply cannot bear the ongoing injustice as no matter any attempt to pursue justice
33 there is generally a blatant ignorance to even listen let alone consider appropriately what are the
34 issues in dispute. My experiences with both Buloke Shire Council and Banyule City Council can
35 underline this! However, for me it was all along to build a case against those who ignore to
36 uphold the true meaning and application of the constitution.
37 Ordinary when a citizen was to vandalise a motor vehicle, commits repeated trespassing,
38 terrorise property owners, causing damages and harm in the process the police would step in but
39 as I have exposed the police are not interested to uphold the rule of law at all.
40
41 For the about 37 years I conducted the Special Lifeline Service MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS
42 PREVAIL®, yes it is for decades a registered trademark, I became well aware how those
43 placed in position of powers would end up misusing/abusing their powers for their own benefits.
44 And it is this what I all along expected to continue. With AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I calculated on
45 this and provided undisputed evidence to the Court that for example the purported 2001 Federal
46 election for the House of Representatives never was lawfully executed. What the Commonwealth
47 should have done was then charge John Howard and his fellow collaborators but the numerous
48 offences they had committed, but surely no one can expect that an Attorney-General will enforce
49 the criminal law against himself and collaborators?
50
51 Over the decades I was given the understanding by many they were willing to give me huge
52 amounts of moneys if I were to pursue certain constitutional issues but I made clear I cannot be
53 expected to do everything while others are sitting on the fence. I do my research and well others
Page 38
1 who desire to litigate could do so, as monies will not get me to pursue matters merely to suit
2 others to avoid paying perhaps incompetent lawyers. However, were I be targeted then obviously
3 I would respond.
4
5 And well, the so to say red line was violated and now I am responding!
6
7 Next time the Commonwealth uses the ATO to pursue claims against a business and seek to rely
8 upon “AVERMENT” then consider what I submitted to the court and neither the Commonwealth
9 or any of the 9 Attorney-Generals challenged me on this in my successful appeals on 19 July
10 2006!
11
13 AVERTMENT
14 Part XXIII Miscellaneous
15 Section 387 384 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
16 (i) section 326 or 327 of this Act or section 28 of the
17 Crimes Act 1914; or
18
19 388 Averments deemed to be proved
20 In any prosecution in a court of summary jurisdiction in respect of
21 a contravention of the provisions of this Act or the regulations
22 relating to compulsory enrolment or compulsory voting, instituted
23 by an officer or by any person acting under the direction of an
24 officer, the averments of the prosecutor contained in the
25 information or complaint shall be deemed to be proved in the
26 absence of evidence to the contrary.
27
28 There is something illogic about this section in that it demands that unless the Defendant present
29 evidence to prove contrary to the averment rule that there is evidence disproving the fact alleged
30 by the Commonwealth director of Public Prosecution there is no requirement for the Director of
31 Public Prosecution to prove anything.
32
33 Now, let take this in the correct prospective by example;
34 A trial commence and the Prosecutor having charged the Defendant with failure to vote then
35 commence his case and using the averment rule does not provide any evidence to prove the
36 charge. The Defendant then pleads NO CASE TO ANSWER, and the judicial officer rejects
37 this on the basis that the averment rule applies. The Defendant then commences to open his case
38 and present evidence contrary to the charge. The Defendant has the conduct of civil standards of
39 proof and as such merely has to state that he/she attended to the polling station. And as such the
40 defendant has completed his contrary evidence. While the Prosecutor can now cross examine the
41 Defendant, something the Defendant was denied to do upon the Prosecutor as to elicit any
42 evidence because the Prosecutor relies upon the averment rule, now the Prosecutor ask all kinds
43 of questions to try to trap one way or another the Defendant to give evidence that he had perhaps
44 not filled in the ballot paper or otherwise did not accept them. The Prosecutor has clearly no
45 legal position to now call witnesses, such as those who were at the polling station as to what
46 actually occurred at the polling station, and so is seeking to use the Defendant to try to prove his
47 case. However, because of the NO CASE TO ANSWER claim the Defendant made before
48 opening his own case, the judicial officer must now find that the failure of the prosecutor to
49 present evidence and to rely now upon the Defendant to give some kind of evidence that he may
50 not actually have filled in any ballot paper is irrelevant as the claim of NO CASE TO
51 ANSWER relies upon what evidence was before the Court PRIOR TO what evidence was
52 before the Court when this claim was made and must disregard any evidence that was given
53 afterwards. A Court of Appeal, if the matter is appealed, re-assess the claim of NO CASE TO
Page 39
1 ANSWER, upon the basis if the Prosecutor in fact had proved “BEYOND REASONABLE
2 DOUBT” the charge and by this must disregard any evidence that was given after the claim of
3 NO CASE TO ANSWER was made. The Prosecutor having the “CRIMINAL STANDARD
4 OF PROOF” there by had the onus to disprove each and every excuse the Defendant may
5 proffer on the “CIVIL STANDARD OF PROOF” and therefore where the Prosecutor takes the
6 gamble of relying upon the averment rule that he takes a CALCULATED RISK that it might be
7 fatal to his case. The judicial officer, who becomes aware , once the Defendant opened his case,
8 that the Defendant in fact on CIVIL STANDARDS OF PROOF had a excuse, then is duty
9 bound to discontinue the trial and make a ruling that the NO CASE TO ANSWER claim by
10 hindsight now is validated. This, as the Prosecutor already had closed his case. To allow for the
11 prosecutor to use cross-examination as a way to try to re-open his case and to try to thereby get
12 away from the averment rule and now seek to rely upon evidence elicited from the Defendant
13 would a be gross abuse of the legal processes and would defeat the entire purpose of what the
14 averment rule is about and interfere with the DUE PROCESSES OF LAW.
15 It, so to say, would giver the Prosecutor another bite on the cherry to re-commence his case,
16 having refused already to present relevant evidence. It also robs the Defendant of a FAIR and
17 PROPER trial as the Defendant is denied to elicit of any witnesses for the Prosecution what he
18 may wish to present as simply by the averment rule application the Prosecutor can conceal
19 evidence from the Court that might be critical to the Defendants case.
20 If for example the Defendant attended to the poling station and notified staff that he had religious
21 objections to vote, which is provided for within Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act
22 1918 for an excuse not to vote, then regardless if the staff member of the Australian electoral
23 Commission then by error or otherwise did not mark of the name of the Defendant is not an issue
24 as within the legislation no charge can be upheld. Therefore, it is not relevant if the Defendant in
25 this example did not receive ballot papers, if his/her name was not marked of rather what is
26 relevant if at the time the Defendant by what occurred at the polling station was excused not
27 having to vote. the staff member having not issued any ballot papers may in his/her mind
28 correctly not mark off the name of the Defendant as after all he/she did not fill in any ballot
29 paper.
30 When then the Prosecutor, having relied upon the averment rule failed to present witnesses that
31 could, so to say, shed a light upon matters then this must be deemed FATAL to the charges and
32 no charges could be legitimately upheld.
33 Therefore, any evidence of by the Defendant during cross examination, if he gave such
34 evidence., that he did not receive any ballot papers, after attending to the polling station is not of
35 any standard of criminal proof by the Prosecutor that the Defendant therefore is guilty of failing
36 to vote.
37 In the proceedings before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg on 16 and 17
38 November 2005 the Prosecutor at no time did cross examine the Defendant in that case, when
39 advised the staff of the Australian Electoral Commission did not issue any ballot papers, if this
40 was because of having been made or being aware of any religious objection. The Prosecutor
41 neither cross examined if the Defendant had not been issued with ballot papers because of having
42 declared perhaps that he had already submitted a postal voting or was to do so that day. And I
43 raised this with the magistrate that the Prosecutor had failed to address this!
44 As such, what we had was a conviction where even if all issues regarding validity of citizenship,
45 writs, proclamation, the appointment of Governor-Generals, etc were all overcome somehow by
46 the Prosecutor, something I view is beyond his capacity to get around, then in the end his own
47 usage of the averment rule is FATAL to his case as he could not now in cross examination call
48 witness , such as staff members of the Australian Electoral Commission to give evidence that
49 either they denied any religious objection having been made or otherwise any postal voting or
50 pre voting was recorded.

Page 40
1 For example, in regard of the 2004 purported federal election, standing as a candidate, I was
2 known to refuse to indicate a preference vote as I opposed the murderous unconstitutional
3 invasion into the sovereign nations Afghanistan and Iraq and did not wish to be seen to support
4 this by giving preference vote indications which may be seen that somehow I supported this
5 humanitarian disaster and warmongering. Hence, it was therefore critical to the Prosecutors case
6 if perhaps the staff member sitting at the table when my wife and I attended at the polling station
7 may have been aware or have been made aware that I opposed any kind of involvement as to the
8 murderous invasions and as such was not issued any ballot papers on that basis.
9 I was well aware during the proceedings that it didn’t matter for me to give whatever evidence as
10 ultimately having made a NO CASE TO ANSWER the magistrate was bound by this to
11 reconsider then if in light of the subsequent evidence his earlier ruling to dismiss my submission
12 of NO CASE TO ANSWER was found to be proven where I presented a reasonable excuse that
13 I had attended to the polling station and as such it was not for the Court to try to score some
14 conviction where the Prosecutor himself had elected not to call witnesses who could have
15 clarified what occurred that day.
16 Again, it was not for the magistrate to assume what may have occurred that day where the
17 Prosecutor himself refused to call witnesses whom could have elaborated on what had occurred
18 on that day! The Defendant was denied the option to cross witnesses in that regard as there were
19 none who could have shed light on this and as such the Prosecutor taking the gamble to prevent
20 the defendant to question any staff of the Australian Electoral Commission by this had
21 overplayed his hand, so to say.
22
24 Mr. DEAKIN:
25 It appears to me that the representatives of the less populous States decline to distinguish
26 sufficiently between the money powers and the general powers to be conferred by a
27 Constitution. Now the distinction is no mere fantasy. It should be recognised in the
28 forefront of the Constitution. In the exercise of both powers there are instances in which it
29 is possible that State interests may be put in jeopardy. State rights cannot be put in. such
30 jeopardy; they are enshrined and preserved under the Constitution and protected by
31 the courts to be established under that Constitution.
32
33 It must be clear that the Framers of the Constitution themselves relied upon certain principles
34 having been embedded in the Constitution, and unless one is a “constitutionalist” as I am by
35 self education, no one really should attempt to use constitutional provisions an limitations or any
36 legislation within that unless it has been checked of its constitutional correctness.
37
38 "A right is not what someone gives you;
39 it's what no one can take from you."
40 HYPERLINK "http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/ramsey+clark" Ramsey Clark
41 U. S. Attorney General New York Times, 2 October 1977
42
43
44 The right to vote exist and cannot be made subject to curtailments. Only if a person exercise a
45 right to vote can appropriate legal provisions regarding the exercise of such right be invoked, if
46 they are constitutionally valid, that is.
47 For example, a person whom obtains a divers licence and is entitled to drive has the right to
48 exercise this but cannot be made obligated to do so. It is only when exercising this right to drive
49 a motor vehicle that then his duties to conform with road rules apply in that regard.
50
51 Hansard 24-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates;

Page 41
1 Sir GEORGE TURNER:

2 I would go the length of saying that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if
3 they desire to exercise their franchise, should have the opportunity of doing so.
4
5 The right to vote cannot be enforced if the person holding this right desires not at that time to
6 exercise that right.
7
8 In Macleod Lord Halsbury L.C. quoted (at p 458) the remarks of Parke B. in Jefferys v. Boosey
9 (at p 926 of HLC (p 725 of ER)):
10 "(T)he Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects, that is, persons
11 natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the Kingdom. The
12 Legislature can impose no duties except on them; and when legislating for the benefit of
13 persons, must, prima facie, be considered to mean the benefit of those who owe obedience
14 to our laws, and whose interests the Legislature is under a correlative obligation to
15 protect." In Delaney v. Great Western Milling Co. Ltd (1916) HYPERLINK
16 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/22clr150.html" 22 CLR 150 , at pp 161-
17 162, Griffith C.J. quoted and applied those remarks.
18
19 I view that the so called “Pacific solution” is not only unconstitutional but the Commonwealth
20 of Australia has no constitutional powers to detain people in breach of constitutional provisions.
21 The Framers of the Constitution specifically made clear that the “ADMINISTRATION” of
22 Commonwealth law enforcement was with the States, and Section 120 of the Constitution was
23 put in place for the detention of any person accused or convicted in State prison system.
24
25 With the “TAMPA” incident and the “CHILDREN OVERBOARD” saga and the
26 unconstitutioinal detention refugees, and the wrongful detention of children who were natural
27 born in Australia but unconstitutionally robbed of their birth right by the Commonwealth of
28 Australia and so unconstitutionally deported as “STATELESS” I took the stand against this, and
29 while legally not entitled to advise people not to vote, I was entitled to refuse to give preferences
30 and make known that I opposed to vote that may somehow be used by preferences that could be
31 used to claim that those involved in those human and unconstitutional disasters were having my
32 support. This is the problem with “preference” voting system that if the other candidates all are
33 in support of conduct that I deem unconstitutional then giving any preference of voting my vote
34 and those of others who follow this preference would automatically go to the next candidate
35 allocated where I would not be elected. Therefore, the preference voting system in effect denied
36 any elector to vote as he/she desires as it basically forces a person to have his/her vote counted
37 for a warmongering candidate where the opponent to warmongering fails to be elected.
38 While it may be argued that the elector can leave his/her ballot paper blank, this would rob the
39 elector of the right to vote for the very candidate that opposed such inhumane and
40 unconstitutional conduct. As such, the very POLITICAL LIBERTY enshrined in the
41 Constitution is denied.
42 Therefore, besides the legal issues governing the validity of the election process there were
43 ample of reasons for me to not vote and to avoid encouraging other to vote for any person I view
44 is deviant. By refusing to give a preference to anyone and making known my opposition to the
45 BANANA REPUBLIC kind of system now in place I did achieve more by this then had I
46 refrained to be a candidate, had withdrawn, etc.
47 I did publish;
48
49 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and the BANANA REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA
50 Dictatorship & deaths by stealth- Preliminary book edition on CD
51 ISBN 0-9580569-3-5
Page 42
1 And
2 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & There is no Government to go to war
3 A book on CD About Legal Issues Confronting Australia
4 ISBN 0-9580569-5-1
5
6 I am due to publish (at the time of drafting this ADDRESS TO THE COURT)
7
8 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
9 A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
10 ISBN 0-9751760-2-1
11
12 And also;
13
14 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP & Why not voting
15 A book on CD about ELECTORAL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS
16 ISBN 0-9751760-1-3
17
18 Therefore no one can deny that I have placed on record time and again my opposition to war
19 mongering my views about the current BANANA REPUBLIC OF AUSTRALIA situation, etc.
20
21 Therefore it neither could be claimed by the Commonwealth director of Public Prosecution that I
22 did not make any attempt in regard of the issues I raise as the records are in tens of thousands of
23 pages.
24
25 Indeed, in;
26 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
27 A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
28 ISBN 0-9751760-2-1
29 END QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
30
31 Any council considering the last quoted of my successful appeals should therefore considering to
32 re-educate any “law enforcement officer” that he/she should not go after residents not voting in
33 any “council” election because councils as corporations cannot force anyone to vote, as much as
34 when shareholders are invited to vote in a corporation election upon directors the corporation
35 merely invited shareholders to vote or to provide a proxy vote but cannot force any shareholder
36 to vote. Likewise, when the ATO pursues evidence, no one can be obligated to so to say
37 incriminate himself/herself. If the ATO can produce evidence to succeed, well that is what it may
38 belief, in prosecution then well the ATO may elect to litigate, that is a decision the ATO is
39 entitled to make but it must present reliable evidence for this.
40
41 I have written in the past there are judicial officers who will sidestep proper legal procedures and
42 this to arrive at a conviction which in law has no legal validity, this was what eventuated before
43 Carmody J when Buloke Shire Council ended up paying out a reported $18,000 to lawyers who I
44 view failed terribly to ensure that proper legal procedures were followed. A judgment that in my
45 view had no legal basis and as was stated in regard of the Gould issue the orders could be
46 ignored.
47 Buloke Shire Council having closed down the local Berriwillock tip (garbage facility) by this
48 also added to the problem that it prevents a property owner to dispose of refuse, such as cut
49 wheat, etc. and by this actually places a landholder in so to say a no win situation having to get
50 rid of the refuse but not having any reasonably nearby facility to do so. By this Buloke Shire
51 Council by its own failures fails to ensure that a property owner can in a safe and proper manner
Page 43
1 dispose of any refuse, yet charges for providing a service that doesn’t exist. In my view as a
2 ‘corporation’ Buloke Shire Council is bound to ensure nearby reasonable facilities are provided
3 and if its argument might be that local facilities are full, when perhaps extending the facility
4 might be a way to go. It can be no excuse to claim that alternative facilities may be available
5 that a property owner may or may not find the facilities to be open and may have to incur
6 additional cost to dispose of refuse (such as additional travelling expenses, etc) merely because it
7 might be convenient for the corporation to not provide appropriate services. Neither should it be
8 ignored that for example Sea Lake garbage tip has all kind of used medical supplies, car bodies,
9 etc, that can contaminate the are in particular when it rains. It may be considered appalling that a
10 corporation from well before federation somehow after more than 124 years still has not been
11 able to get its act together and yet expect property owners nevertheless to be relentlessly
12 prosecuted despite of its own massive failure.
13
14
15 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
16
17 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
18 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
19 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

20 (Our name is our motto!)


20240327-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Buloke Shire Council & Ors

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

20240327-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Buloke Shire Council & Ors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

27-3-2024 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:

51. Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)

27-3-2024 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 20200719-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To The Victorian Inspectorate ...

17 Yes, in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I successfully challenged the validity of the Australian

19 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:

201. University of South Australia (Sue Milne)

27-3-2024 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 https//www.scribd.com › document › 409006849 › 20190507-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-

27-3-2024 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

27-3-2024 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

27-3-2024 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

27-3-2024 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 The resolutions conclude:

27-3-2024 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

27-3-2024 Page 23 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

27-3-2024 Page 24 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

49 Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.

33 [start page 1773]

27-3-2024 Page 27 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

27-3-2024 Page 28 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

27-3-2024 Page 29 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization

1 issue: see HYPERLINK

27-3-2024 Page 34 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

27-3-2024 Page 35 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Ludwig von Mises, Authority quote: (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/ludwig_von_mises_quote_bca5)

27-3-2024 Page 39 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

27-3-2024 Page 40 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Sir GEORGE TURNER:

19 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

27-3-2024 Page 43 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like