OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN     (Don't forget the hyphens!)
Reclaim our State and federal constitutional rights and hold politicians and judges accountable!

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS WEBSITE IS IN PROGRESS AND YOU MAY ALSO CHECKOUT http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/ AND THE BLOG AT; http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH 
THIS WEBSITE IS IN PROGRESS





IMPORTANT NOTICE:

 

To whom it may concern,

 

Please do understand that while Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is still on the throne we can safely assume matters will continue with Her Majesty, however were she to abdicate or die then many an agitator or others may seek to use the opportunity to proclaim the REPUBLICAN/MONARCHISTIC views and more then likely to the detriment of the general public.

The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN is seeking to advocate the true position of the constitution and how its applies and it is essential that all people are now concerned about this and not wait until the Queen is no longer at the throne and we are suddenly forced to accept some pretended solution that really does nothing but seeking to install more power for those already abusing and misusing their powers and failing to act where required and the general public suffers as a whole.

.

My issue isn’t if a republican or a monarchistic view is more desired but that the people are not swindled into voting for some form of system that fraudulently has been presented. We need to be clear as to any future choice and it is so to say no skin of the nose of the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN if the electors were to vote to have a monarchy or republican system rather that any such decision should be an “informed” decision on what is truly applicable and as yet where even a mere 7 judges of the High Court of Australia often are so to say in a fist fight about certain constitutional meanings and application then if we cannot trust them then surely we cannot trust politicians. Hence, support the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN and ensures it’s information is considered so that “YOU” ultimately may be able to make an “informed” decision when asked to do so!

.

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka , GUARDIAN  8-7-2009
















 

 

 

YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS NOT TO BE COMPELLED  TO VOTE!

 

Time and again there are articles by the media about the objection to vote compulsory yet they have ongoing for years on end failed to report the epic legal battle that went on between the Crown and myself concluding in a comprehensive defeat of the Crown in regard of its charges FAILING TO VOTE, on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria.

In my view the media neglected its duty towards the general community to inform it of relevant information at hand.

.

Despite of the comprehensive defeat I caused upon the Crown, Banyule City Council now seeks nevertheless to pursue me for FAILING TO VOTE.

.

Obviously, this upsets my 76-year old wife as she views that once I comprehensively defeated the crown after a 5-year epic legal battle then surely this should have been the end of it and Banyule City Council and others should be bound by this decision. In my view, Banyule City Council is committing CONTEMPT OF COURT by disregarding the courts decision and I view the Courts should not tolerate this and deal with the CEO and others for this.

.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Sir JOHN DOWNER.-

I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.

END QUOTE

.

I view the CEAO and others acting for Banyule City Council having been notified about the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria decision cannot disregard this and continue their harassment and stalking upon me but have an obligation to establish what the 19 July 2006 decision was about first of all so as not to act in blatant defiance of the orders.

.

It is not relevant if the State government may have in place certain legislative provisions as I proved that even the Commonwealth legislative provisions were ULTRA VIRES as they were unconstitutional and so without legal force.

.

More over, where neither the Crown in right of the Commonwealth or in rights of the states challenged the 19 July 2006 decision, which was also an elaborate constitutional battle, then they all are bound by it and all and any fines and other cost charged against any elector for allegedly failing to vote in my view was fraudulently pursued as the Crown had an obligation to adhere to the 19 July 2006 decision.

.

What was before the Court at the time in fact was published on 6-7-2006 in;

 

INSPECTOR-RIKATI ®& What is the -Australian way of life- really?

A book on CD on Australian political, religious & other rights

ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3

.

Which in “CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC” had reproduced all relevant material that were before the Court, and a copy of this book was filed as evidence for the 19 July 2006 hearing.

 

As such, Banyule City Council and so its CEO and those others acting for it, cannot excuse themselves that they are not aware of what was before the Court as first of all it is their business to sort out what the case was about as to avoid to defy a court ruling and secondly having been notified by me they cannot disregard this either but are bound to consider this appropriately.

.

Let make it very clear I am not opposed to electors voting but I am opposed first of all against unconstitutional COMPULSORY VOTING as the Framers of the Constitution specifically denied this power to compel anyone to vote, as I placed before the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006.

.

Further, I also then challenged the validity of municipal councils to be “local governments” and as such a municipal council can only hold elections for the purpose of electing councillors for municipality but not to hold elections for councillors for “local government” because constitutionally “local government” is the State government and within Section 106 of the constitution the States are bound by the principles embedded in the constitution.

.

As such, Banyule City Council and neither any other municipal council has a legal standing in that regard to litigate and any orders it purported to obtain through some crooked legal system would be null and void, because the Crown is bound by the DIRECT and COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL those arose of the 19 July 2006 decision of the County Court of Victoria, which being an order in federal jurisdiction therefore applies THROUGHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH.

Where then municipal councils are not constitutionally recognised as a level of government then by this it would fall in the federal jurisdiction challenging its “LEGAL STANDING” to litigate and as such by this bound also by the 19 July 2006 decision of the County Court of Victoria.

The fact that the Victorian Electoral Commission on behalf of Banyule City Council pursues matters makes not one of iota difference because where Banyule City Council has no constitutional standing to hold elections for “local government” then its purported agents neither can have any legal standing, regardless what the State Parliament may have legislated in that regard.

.

The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm

37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."

And

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)

.

As the High Court of Australia in Wakim HCA 27 of 1999 made clear anyone is entitled to disregard a unconstitutional court order.

.

Therefore, Banyule City Council better be careful they do not persist with the harm they are causing, and so also upon my wife by this, as the CEO may just discover he has no immunity for persistently disregarding the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria decision.

.

I placed my cases before the court and the Court adjudicated in my favour against the Crown and as such I am entitled to be without ongoing harassment and if the CEO of Banyule city Council has a problem to understand/comprehend this then he should in my view resign and have a more competent person performing the job.

.

This was an epic legal battle where the might of the Crown was totally and comprehensively defeated on all constitutional issues I raised during the trial and I view every municipal council, state government and also the Commonwealth is bound to accept the decision of the court and not only never again harass any elector about FAILING TO VOTE but also refund all fraudulently obtained fines and other cost.

.

It should be understood that when one makes a constitutional challenge against the validity of legislation then where a court upholds this then the purported legislation never was and as such all fines and other cost since the purported legislation was enacted are refundable to the persons so fined, etc.

.

Take for example Derryn Hinch who I understand refuses to vote because of it may compromise his position. I have no issue with his refusal to vote because he is entitled to do so I have however an issue with that he then was fined to vote where he did no more but exercise his constitutional rights! Hence, he should have refunded all fines and other cost levied against him over the years.

.

The issue isn’t if he care less about getting the monies back but that if it was unconstitutionally obtained from him then it should be paid back, even if he was to have it instead donated to a children hospital or whatever.

.

The same is with the coco pop unconstitutional taxation that was obtained. The Framers of the constitution made clear that if a tax was levied unconstitutionally then the Commonwealth would be bound to refund it. The Commonwealth therefore cannot legislate otherwise to keep the monies but must refund it. If companies who had paid the tax do not regard being entitled to it because they in turn had charged their customers for it then they can always donate it to a children hospital or other charity organization. It does however also underline that the commonwealth never should levy taxation through an intermedia because it should only levy taxes of which it keeps records. The GST also is unconstitutional and neither does the ATO keep records who paid what, but that is another issue I have extensively published already in my books that were published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues.

.

Lets make it very clear the Commonwealth cannot raise taxes on behalf of the States because either it has the legislative powers or the States, not both. As such GST is being raised as a Commonwealth power and it is unconstitutional because it refers to more then two different items being taxed.

.

Getting back however to the issue of VOTING, it should be understood that no elector can be bound to vote in any kind of election! Further, this means no one can ever be fined for failure to vote.

.

The Australian Electoral Commission who actually instituted at the time the litigation against me and was totally defeated nevertheless disregards the courts ruling and this also underlines that the Australian electoral commission is not impartial to conduct fair and proper elections but are a stooge for the Government to fraudulently conduct elections. After all if people were not unconstitutionally forced to vote then the election results might be differently.

.

Likewise do I hold that the square above the line (on ballot papers) in elections is unconstitutional, albeit I am well aware of the High Court of Australia decision in the Abbott case, because the High Court of Australia in its decision totally disregarded the principles embedded in the constitution in that regard. This is also why the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (See http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com/ (Don’t forget the hyphens!) is to address this and numerous other constitutional issues.

.

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!

.

The rule of law applies as much to the governments and those working for it as it applies to anyone else.

.

EITHER WE HAVE A RULE OF LAW OR WE DON’T!

.

It should also be understood that where there is a religious objection to vote provided for then this would be unconstitutional unless it includes secular objections. This too was well canvassed by me before the courts and indeed so successfully.

As such, anyone who objects for whatever reason on that basis also can refuse to vote  (apart of not being compelled to do so) because the mere objection to vote is sufficient in that regard without any need to explain the grounds of objection.

.

Now, lets go to the article;

.

 

 

http://au.news.yahoo.com/opinion/post/-/nickmccallum/33/66

 

Tuesday June 9, 2009

MAD AS HELL!!!

 

By Nick McCallum

 

It's the most un-democratic oddity in our democracy... compulsory voting.

I have just been fined for not voting in our local council election and I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!

It's just plain ludicrous.

Last November I received a pamphlet in the mail introducing council candidates and outlining their policies.

The candidates were drab and uninteresting, their policies the usual motherhood stuff of 'upgrading services' and 'sustainable development.' Boring, meaningless drivel. I followed the campaign in the local paper. None of them appealed to me. None, I thought, deserved my vote.

So on election day, I did not turn up at a polling booth. I did not vote.

I think what I did was democratic, but it was illegal.

My wife turned up to a booth, knowing little about the candidates and cast a donkey vote. She wrote a number beside each name 1 to 8 from top to bottom.

Her vote and those of so many like her who did not even know what the candidates stood for would have affected the result.

I think what she did was undemocratic, but it was legal.

This week I received a 57 dollar fine from the Electoral Commission for not voting.

What a joke!

In a grown-up, modern western-style democracy like Australia there should be a right to vote and a right NOT to vote if you don't support any of the candidates or their policies in any election whether it be Federal, State or Local.

Australia is the only western democracy that has compulsory voting. America doesn't. Britain doesn't. Even New Zealand doesn't! In those countries candidates have to go out on the hustings and court voters, capture their imaginations, and entice them to the polls with good policies. Wouldn't that be nice here?

Some will say... well you don't HAVE to vote in Australia. You can just go into the polling booth, get your name ticked off and leave . The point is in a democracy you shouldn't have to go through that charade.

Some will say... in America voter turnout is often poor. Well, there it's made worse because of a silly tradition of holding elections on Tuesdays, so voting clashes with work. Fortunately we avoid that problem by holding our elections on Saturdays. Much more sensible.

For the record, I did vote in the last Federal election. I supported the Carers' Party because carers are the unsung and unappreciated heroes of our society. Candidates' appearances on TV and in papers about the plight of their families were heart wrenching. They did what political candidates should do... they captured the imagination of a voter and won his vote.

Legal experts say compulsory voting is not enshrined in the constitution, so we don't need a referendum to get rid of it.

It's a matter of one of our political parties having the guts to adopt a policy of dumping compulsory voting and then getting it through parliament.

Now that's a party I WOULD vote for.

 



Lets make it perfectly clear VOTING IS NOT COMPULSORY and I proved this on 19 July 2006 when the County Court of Victoria ruled against the Crown where it had charged me for FAILING TO VOTE in two federal elections, see also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/ and my blog http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH.

Now Banyule City Council is pursuing me for not voting and I have made clear they cannot overrule the court order. This email doesn’t allow me to set it all out and so see my blog that details it extensively but laws that are unconstitutional are no laws at all and can be ignored. The issue is however who has the stamina and endurance to litigate for 5 years and to defeat the Crown! I did, as I stand up for my constitutional rights! That is the real issue! See also my books published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues.

 

.

Do understand that laws that are unconstitutional are not laws at all and have no legal force! Hence laws governing compulsory voting that are unconstitutional are no laws at all!

.

.

Again, I defeated the Crown in court previously and yet the media never covered this! Why not?

.

If you really are mad as hell then I expect you and others finally to expose this and publish it.

.

See also http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com/ and http://www.mayjusticealwaysprevail.com/. 

.

Why not follow up my battle with Banyule city council if they are to succeed against me despite of the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria ruling? Then again, a magistrate has no judicial powers to overrule a County Court decision!

.

The real issue is if one has the stamina and determination to stand up for your constitutional and other legal rights. I have but have you?

.

Gerrit

.

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka.

.

9-60-2009

 

 

http://www.3aw.com.au/action/contactUs

 

Thank you for your Comments

  • Your comments have been passed along to the right people - so thank you once again for your feedback.

.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.3aw.com.au/action/contactUs

 

Thank you for your Comments

  • Your comments have been passed along to the right people - so thank you once again for your feedback.

 





.
The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN is to pursue in particularly the appropriate application of constitutional powers and limitations.
.
Currently the option within section 75(v) of the constitution to hold the Commonwealth accountable has been unduly severely eroded by the High Court of Australia which I view more represents a COURT OF INCOMPETENCE then being the guardian of the constitution!
.
The aim of the
OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN is to eventually provide education facilities for lawyers, politicians and whomever else so that we may finally get Members of Parliament, judges and others being appointed to positions they at least understand and comprehend what the constitution really stands for and by this avoiding undue suffering of individuals.
.
Even so the Framers of the Constitution stated;
.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

 

QUOTE    Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,

END QUOTE
.

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. CARRUTHERS:

This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-

That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be appreciated by the people. 

END QUOTE

.

we find that after more then 100-years of federation not even 7 judges of the High Court of Australia can still agree with each other what the constitution really stands for.
.
This appalling situation must change!
.
The OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN will be operating as a constitutional council that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts, without political bias, as to constitutional powers and limitations.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contact your PM: your message was successfully submitted [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Friday, 29 May, 2009 4:40 PM

From:

To:

inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au


Contact your Prime Minister
---------------------------
Thank you for your message to the Prime Minister.

Below is a copy of your comments to the Prime Minister for your records.

If you have supplied a postal address, a reply may be sent to you via Australia Post. Your message may also be forwarded to other Federal Ministers for their consideration.

This is an automatically generated email. Please do not reply to this email as this address is not monitored. If you have any
problems with this service please contact the Web Administrator through the site feedback service at www.pm.gov.au/feedback/


---------------------  Copy of your comments ------------------------

Name: Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka

Email Address: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au

Postal Address: 107 Graham Road Viewbank Victoria 3084 Australia

Subject: Funding & WEIGHT AND MEASURES

Comment: Kevin,


For years I have promoted the creation of the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN albeit neither the federal government or any state government really showed any interest in the project. Then when I announced on 18 May 2009 via email to proceed myself to set this up the Centre for Human Rights on 19 may 2009 then registered “http://www.officeoftheguardian.com/” seemingly at to undermine my work as a CONSTITUTIONALIST. As such abusing and misusing its funding for ulterior purposes.

QUOTE http://www.godaddy.com/domains/searchresults.aspx?ci=13664

Administrative Contact:
Human Rights, Centre domain-clients@freedbms.net
Centre For Human Rights
POBox M49
Marrickville South, New South Wales 2204
Australia
61295586231

END QUOTE

.

Hence I use the hyphens in the title as an alternative.

.

Today launching the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (albeit its internal structure is still being worked upon) you can have the luck to be provided with its very first statement.

Considering the tens of millions of dollars on outstanding fines all now subject to being questionable to their validity due to the non-compliance with Commonwealth legislation obviously will so to say cost the States/Territories a lot more then had they long ago taken it more serious to set up the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN.

.

The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN will (as is intended) set up education facilities so that all politicians, lawyers (including judges) and others will be able to learn about the true meaning and application of the Constitution.

.

Hence, my request hereby to provide funding for this.

.

It ought to be clear it doesn’t serve either the Commonwealth and or the States/Territories to pursue conduct that turns out to be unconstitutional and for this the cost of funding the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, to advise the Government, the People, the Parliament and the courts as to constitutional powers and limitations would be a far better way to pursue.

.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

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

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE

   Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE

   Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.

END QUOTE

Again;  therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.

Clearly the need for the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN has been demonstrated time and again.

.

I now quote the email and the correspondence to Premier John Brumby;

QUOTE Email 09-05-29

See attachment; 090529-02-WEIGHT AND MEASURES

Friday, 29 May, 2009 3:58 PM

From:

 

 

To:

john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au

Cc:

inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au, premiers@ministerial.qld.gov.au, wa-government@dpc.wa.gov.au, judy.jackson@justice.tas.gov.au, ramsay@parliament.sa.gov.au, governor-general@gg.gov.au, chiefminister.nt@nt.gov.au, premiers.master@premiers.qld.gov.au, thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au

Message contains attachments

090529-02-WEIGHT AND MEASURES.pdf (242KB)

 

 

Premier John Brumby & TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN               29-5-2009

John.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au

.

John,,

 

See attachment; 090529-02-WEIGHT AND MEASURES
.

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

.

29-5-2009

.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia

Ph (International) 61394577209

 

 

"CONSTITUTIONALIST" and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues. 

.

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON'T!

 

.

Website;

http://www.schorel-hlavka.com

Blog;

http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH .

 

 

"JUSTICE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER AND CLOUDED BY HIS/HER SIGHT DEFICIENCY" .

END QUOTE Email 09-05-29

.

QUOTE correspondence 090529

Premier John Brumby & TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN                            29-5-2009

John.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au

.

John,,

       I received various emails headed “Major speeding fine breakthrough!” but there appears to me to be a misconception as to what is or isn’t applicable. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK) provides in Subsection 51(xv) “weights and measures”, and this means that therefore any weight and measures legislation only is valid if enacted through the Federal Parliament, other then any colonial weight and measures legislation that still exist unaltered since federation and/or any State/Territorial weight and measures that were enacted prior to the Commonwealth of Australia legislating for it and then only for so far it doesn’t conflict with any Commonwealth existing weight and measures legislation.

.

Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE

  The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will be exercised.

QUOTE

The decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd, R (on application of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments – Mark (Respondent) v. mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from [2003] EWCA Civ 168 the Court had to consider if the weight and measures of the European Union did override English legislation. The Court held that in view the British parliament had been a party to the signing of the European Union’s Constitution then all and any European Union legislation (within its legislative powers) would override British legislation, and is therefore a clear example that the colonies having accepted the compact of federation by this are bound to the national weight and measures legislation by the Commonwealth and since the Commonwealth commenced to legislate it became exclusive Commonwealth legislative powers and the States/Territories by this no longer could legislate in that regard. In my view it is an error to hold that somehow the States still can legislate in this area of weight and measures as it is now exclusive Commonwealth legislative power. As such, it appears to me as a CONSTITUTIONALIST that all State/Territorial measuring equipments such as radar (speed measurement) devices would be without legal validity if not conforming to federal legislative provisions.

The OFFICE-OF THE-GUARDIAN seeks to facilitate a better understanding regarding constitutional powers and its application and limitations.

.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (GUARDIAN)

END QUOTE correspondence 090529

.

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. CARRUTHERS:

This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.

END QUOTE

.

It is ironic perhaps that so many perceive Iran to be backwards yet they have a system that no legislation comes before the parliament unless first approved by the constitutional council. More then one hundred years after federation not even 7 judges of the High Court of Australia can agree upon what the constitution stands for which underlines the need for the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN to train even those judges who are ought to understand it all!

.

I am looking forwards to your funding cheque as after all considering what was sent overseas, etc (about $40 million) it seems to me the funding of the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN would be a more vital issue as this after all can avoid, in various ways, a lot of waste of taxpayers moneys.

.

Gerrit

.

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (GUARDIAN)

.

OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN

.

29-5-2009

.
.

.
.

Premier John Brumby & TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN                            30-5-2009

John.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au

.

John,

      Further to my 29-5-2009 correspondence I also seek your attention to that while the Trade Measurement Act 1995 (Vic) refers to “the National Measurement Act 1960 of the Commonwealth as amended and in force for the time being” the point is that in my view what is sought to be accomplished with certain parts of this act appears to be unconstitutional.

The Framers of the Constitution made it very clear that for example in regard of import duties on rials the State would be bound to pay relevant duties because it is a commonwealth legislative powers in regard of which a State could not excuse itself. Likewise then neither can the State purportedly exclude itself “5            Application of Act to Crown” from the full force of any WEIGHT AND MEASURES legislation of the Commonwealth and neither can it provide for “6  Exemptions from Act”. Likewise I view weighbridges fall under commonwealth legislative provisions as the Framers of the Constitution pursued the federal compact to allow interstate trading and for this also a national weight and measures system had to be in place and weighbridges obviously must be considered part of this also.

QUOTE

            5            Application of Act to Crown

                       (1)  This Act binds the Crown in all its capacities, in so far as the legislative power of the Parliament permits.

                (2)                Nothing in this Act renders the Crown liable to be prosecuted for an offence.

END QUOTE

.

QUOTE 95-59a013.doc Trade Measurement Act 1995 (Vic)

Version No. 013  Trade Measurement Act 1995 No. 59 of 1995

Version incorporating amendments as at 1 July 2008

The Parliament of Victoria enacts as follows:

Part 1—Preliminary

                1                Purpose

 

The purpose of this Act is to enact uniform trade measurement legislation in Victoria.

                2                Commencement

                (1)                Part 1 comes into operation on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.

                (2)                Subject to subsection (3), the remaining provisions of this Act come into operation on a day or days to be proclaimed.

                (3)                If a provision referred to in subsection (2) does not come into operation within the period of 12 months beginning on, and including, the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, it comes into operation on the first day after the end of that period.

END QUOTE 95-59a013.doc Trade Measurement Act 1995 (Vic)

 

The OFFICE-OF THE-GUARDIAN seeks to facilitate a better understanding regarding constitutional powers and its application and limitations.

.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (GUARDIAN)
.
.

 

 .

 .

Become a member of MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® which funds the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN.
.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® is supported and sponsered by THE ESTATE OF JAROSLAV HLAVKA MIE Aust CP ENG in regard of which further details are provided at http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/
.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® pursues JUSTICE for all irrespective of their political, culteral, religious, social, economical, etc, diversity. 
.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® IS NOT AGAINST LAWYERS/JUDGES, JUST THE CROOKED ONCE!
.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® IS NOT AGAINST POLITICIANS, JUST THE CROOKED ONCE!
.
The honest lawyer (including judges) and politicians are welcome to support our cause for JUSTICE.
.
YOU, that is right YOU can support the cause of JUSTICE in various ways. It can be by spreading the word to others (Now isn't that simple?), by assistingin printing pamphlets and other material such as buperbar stickers, promoting our cause, assisting in field work to assist those in need of assistance, constitutional and other legal research, doing the "PAPERWORK" (I know that is what you have been looking for to fill your boring moments!), etc.  
.
Many an undefendant litigant (defendant orotherwise) could have been successful in court was it not for the lack of proper presentation. I designed, in 1985, the document "ADDRESS TO THE COURT" (also known as THE ADDRESS TO THE TRIBUNAL) which is to make litigation a level playing field (See also http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/ for more information) which since has been used in all levels of courts and tribunals, including the High Court of Australia, in both civil and criminal trials. Many have since benefitted by the usage of the ADDRESS TO THE COURT/TRIBUNAL and a clear example is the story of Mr Francis James Colosimo before VCAT where Her Honour Harbison J of the County Court of Victoria claimed she could imprison him for CONTEMPT, where I then assisted on the 6th CONTEMPT hearing pointing out to Her Honour Harbison J that in fact Frank was guilty of no legal wrongdoing, etc. Her Honour Harbison J then ordered a PERMANENT STAY on the CONTEMPT proceedings and ordered past transcripts to be provided to me. I then discovered that Her Honour Harbison J actually never had bothered to formally charge Fraqnk let alone to explain his legal rights! I was requested by Frank to assist in his case as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and a CONSULTANT and what was clear was that despite his claims from onset about his constitutional rights there was an absolute and total disregard to this. As such we hadupto about 20 lawyers involved in an utter VEXATIOUS litigation, some arguing Frank to plea GUILTY and this for a man facing up to 5-years imprisonment, even so he had doneno legal wrong, and Moorabool Shire Council 5-days before institutiong the litigation through their lawyers MADDOCKS LAWYERS in fact providedto Frank a notice that according to Section 116 of the Act he was within the provisions of the Building Act 1993 and the Building Regulations 2006. As such, there never was any legal justification in the first place to litigate against Frank! On 13 May 2009I personally contacted Mr David Harbison, associate of Her Honour Harbison J to seek the matter listed for 16 March 2009 to be adjourned according to the oral directions of senior VCAT Member Ms Preuss of 27 January 2009 as well as because of the health problems Frank was suffering from but was advised that even if he was ending up in hospital the CONTEMPT case would proceed! Well, on 20 march 2009 Mr Francis James Colosimo ended up at the hospital with hearth complaints! the issue is that if just one tribunal mebmer/lawyer/judge had taken seriously frank's claim about his constitutional rights then so to say the entire case would have been thrown out of the window in the firstplace. Worse is that this case was what I consider an elaborate conspiracy to pervert the course of JUSTICE between Staff of Moorabool Shire Council and its lawyerws MADDOCKS LAWYERS and possibly others by concealing from the member(s)/judge(s) of VCAT relevant detailsand so portray some set of circumstances that was deceptive and misleading, etc.
.

See also;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on VCAT as a STAR CHAMBER & KANGAROO COURT-No1

A Book on DVD about the injustice upon Mr Francis James Colosimo ISBN 978-0-9803712-7-7

.
See also;

                            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
.
.
Below is an example how many defendants are wrongly convicted on unconstitutional state laws where the State Parliament simply approve the usage such as Laser speed detection devices even soit only can be valid if appporved under federal law.
.
Likewise we have the issue about NATIONALITY and CITIZENSHIP and books listed on the http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/ website goes into further details about this all.
.
It doesn't serve the public to have innocent people convicted just to get the politicians/judges boosting about their conviction rates, while the real criminals are left unchecked.
.
many a soldier died to seek to protect our democratic system and yet lawyers/judges/politicians are deliberately misusing and abusing their powers to suit their own ulterior goals rather then to serve the general community.
.
THIS MUST STOP AND YOU CAN JOIN US IN THE FIGHT TO PURSUE JUSTICE! 
.
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON'T!
.

.
.
.
.
 .
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN            (That’s you!)                                                           31-5-2009

.

The OFFICE-OF THE-GUARDIAN seeks to facilitate a better understanding regarding constitutional powers and its application and limitations. For this it presents “Chapter What is your nationality really?” from the forthcoming book;

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

.

QUOTE Chapter What is your nationality really?

Chapter What is your nationality really?

.

* Gerrit, what is the nationality of Australians really?

.

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, on a constitutional basis it is that any Australian born or naturalized within Subsection 51(xix) “naturalization” is a subject of the British Crown.

.

* Didn’t that all change in about 1947 when the British Government declared Australian to be foreigners?

.

**#** The British Parliament had the problem that is could not amend the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) in that it had locked itself into Subsection 128 of the constitution that it could only be amended by way of referendum. Because the principles embedded in the constitution was that it is under the British Crown it neither could alter the first 8 parts of the legislation. As such, the British Parliament simply declared that Australians were foreigners. In essence what this means is that they were foreigners for British purposes but not aliens and still remained to be subjects of the British Crown. There was the same dispute in where a Scottish born person under the Scottish Crown was deemed a foreigner under the British Crown even so not being an alien as the Calvin’s Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377 made clear because the King of Scotland and the King of England were one and the same. This is what  I understood Kirby J referred to in Sue v Hill.

.

The politics is that the Commonwealth of Australia Parliament is very limited in its legislative powers as being a POLITICAL UNION by the colonies (now States) and so trying to achieve independence is that the politicians can exercise more powers like those in the British parliament. Hence, their aim for so called independence is more for more power. When therefore the British government declared that Australians were foreigners the Australian politicians grabbed the opportunity to pretend that from now on Australians would be Australian nationals. The nationalization act later was renamed nationalization act and citizenship act and later to citizenship act. The fact that the Framers of the Constitution specifically denied the commonwealth of Australia to declare/define citizenship was of no concern to the ever power hungry politicians. But in brief, "Australian citizenship" is a term coined by the Framers of the Constitution (as such prior to federation) and referred to the status of a person to reside in Australia irrespective of his/her nationality. At that time Colonies used to nationalise aliens to become British subjects (British nationals) but those who didn't naturalise were still colonial citizens and so Australian citizens. After Federation state citizens would automatically be Australian citizens, and again nothing to do with nationality. Within the Subsection 51(xix) of the constitution the British Parliament allowed the Commonwealth of Australia to naturalise aliens to become British nationals, and this never was amended and as such remains in place. The Framers of the constitution specifically stated they were permitted to do so on behalf of the British Government. British subject”, “to make persons subjects of the British Empire.”, “with the consent of the Imperial authority”,

For example, the Framers of the Constitution promised the Chinese, for example, that if they voted for federation they still would retain their franchise (even so they were of Chinese nationality. As such, at the time Chinese nationals who were Colonial citizens upon federation became State citizens and so Australian citizens even so not being nationalised. 

.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded the spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has enlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again. We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution. 

END QUOTE

.

In Macleod Lord Halsbury L.C. quoted (at p 458) the remarks of Parke B. in Jefferys v. Boosey (at p 926 of HLC (p 725 of ER)):

QUOTE

(T)he Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects, that is, persons natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the Kingdom.

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTES

 What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.”, “we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.

END QUOTES

.

The USA kind of citizenship is different then that of the Commonwealth of Australia and as such do not confuse those. Like it or not, and regardless if the British Parliament and the Commonwealth of Australia agree with it or not we are still British nationals! As such the purported Australia Act 1986 (Cth & UK) did have no change into this because the Commonwealth was already pretending there was an “Australian citizenship” as a nationality and the High Court of Australia in the Pochi case of 1982 already then upheld the deportation (albeit I view wrongly – but that is another issue) referring to Australian Citizenship being a nationality. This was clearly 4-years before the introduction of the purported Australia Act 1986 (Cth & UK) and as such people seeking to argue that because of the Australia act they now have a nationality obviously do not comprehend they have been conned.

.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

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

END QUOTE

.

Now, take for example the judges who were presiding over the Sue v Hill cases. They all were to my knowledge born before 1986 and also lawyers having pledged their alliance to the British Crown. I am not aware that any of those judges in the Sue v Hill case renounced their alliance to the British Crown, and in fact were sitting as judges under the British Crown. Then to me it was TREASON for them to hand down the decision as they did against Heather Hill. The issue of judicial powers also is that none of the judges exercise judicial powers within the provisions of the constitution to declare the British Crown to be alien as they were bound to adjudicate within the provisions of the Constitution and nothing in it gives any judicial officer powers to amend or otherwise interfere with the application of the constitution. The argument that over passing of time the Commonwealth of Australia became an independent country is sheer and utter nonsense. The Commonwealth of Australia

.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-

In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Mr. THYNNE:

The union of these colonies must take place in either one or two ways, namely, either by a unification under one all-powerful parliament, or by a federation which gives to the central federal parliament certain limited powers and reserves to the other parliaments all other powers. As I think we may be in danger of overlooking some of the first principles connected with federation, I may be pardoned if I briefly define some of the characteristics of a federation. I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says: 

  One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution. 

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE   Mr. THYNNE:

The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority.

END QUOTE

.

Therefore the constitution cannot be amended by the Parliaments and/or the judges!

As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that if the High Court of Australia was to declare a law to be INTRA VIRES then it was not because the High Court of Australia enlarged the Constitution but merely declared what the constitution already all along provided for! Anything else would be to amend the constitution in wording and/or application and this was beyond the powers of the High Court of Australia to do so. Therefore any judicial decision of the High Court of Australia has to be confined within what the Framers of the Constitution intended at the time of federation and anything like a progressive change to independence not only never was contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution but in fact made clear the constitution didn’t permit and was prohibited by the way the Constitution was framed!

.

HANSARD 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Mr. MUNRO:

We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us, I am happy to say, are very clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the book which he was good enough to distribute amongst us. He puts it in this form: That it is desirable there should be a union of the Australian colonies. That is one of the principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments. Second, that such union should be an early one-that is, that we should remove all difficulties in the way in order that the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third, that it should be under the Crown. Now, I am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with which we have to deal-that the union that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown. Fourth, that it should be under one legislative and executive government. That also is laid down by our various parliaments.

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-

That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be appreciated by the people. 

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. CARRUTHERS:

This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.

END QUOTE

.

Fancy having 7 judges in the High Court of Australia still not being able to agree with each other what the constitution stands for and this after more then 100-years of federation! This is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution sought to prevent! They tried to make it a very simple constitution but lawyers as they are like to twist to infringe upon the constitution!

.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Mr. BARTON.-

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

END QUOTE

.

Well the High Court of Australia clearly betrayed the people with its Sue v Hill judgment and to me this is a very serious issue. Australians born in the Commonwealth of Australia therefore are and remain to be British nationals and this the British Parliament cannot deny without the consent of the people. Further, “Australian citizenship” is not within the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth to define/declare and is a political right one can only achieve by obtaining “State citizenship“. As to my understanding none of the States/Territories provide for State/Territorial citizenship then effectively not a single person then can be a State/territorial citizen and so neither Australian citizen. While the High Court of Australia sought to pretend that the States and the Commonwealth could in fact request the British Parliament for the Australia Act 1986 as to amend the Constitutional application this argument also must fail because the Framers of the Constitution made clear that no Parliament had legislative powers to amend its constitution as it could only provide for a proposed amendment and then the electors by way of referendum can veto or approve this requested amendment. The purported Australia Act clearly was intended to amend the application of the constitution and therefore was beyond legislative powers of the State and/or the Commonwealth.

.

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   The CHAIRMAN.-I do not think I can rule this proposed amendment out of order. Every clause, or nearly every clause, in a Bill in some way qualifies the preceding clauses. They extend the operation of those clauses, and, in some instances they limit the operation of the clauses. This is not a distinct negative, and I think it would be unduly curtailing the power of the committee to arrive at such a conclusion as they may think fit if I ruled this out of order. 

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE   Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-

When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much care has not been exercised.

END QUOTE

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Dr. COCKBURN: I have raised this point at every opportunity. I do not wish to take up the time of the Convention, but I certainly shall move-an amendment, because the clause is not in accordance with the general provisions of Federation. The States composing the Federation should have full power to deal with local affairs. Essentially, all external relations are taken out of their jurisdiction. I do think they ought to have the power themselves to say what the Constitution under which they live shall be.

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-Of course, the absolute control by a state of everything within its own borders is retained by this Constitution, except in respect to such matters as are expressly handed over to the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE

.

Thu, 31 Oct 2002

QUOTE

Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka

Thank you for your letter.

There is no bias, any more than there would be for a woman judge sitting in a case involving women or a male judge in a rape case.

Your views on the Constitution appear to have overlooked s 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution. If that power were not enough, and none of the other heads of power sufficed, it is true that an amendment of the Constitution might be required. Alternatively, there are cooperative schemes for parallel legislation. Ours is a cooperative federation, as the Constitution itself envisaged.

Sincerely, Michael Kirby

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.

QUOTE

.

Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to refutation if I am wrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but, indisputably, the great bulk of them, are subjects on which no question of state rights and state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is, as the right hon. gentleman admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be left for all time to be determined in a purely states house, or by a state referendum, when those questions are not state questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on national lines, and by a national referendum

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

   Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it.

END QUOTE

.

What therefore should be clear that the states with their internal legislative powers and the Commonwealth with its external legislative powers could not abrogate the principles embedded in the constitution to be a POLITICAL UNION under the British Crown. The judges of the High Court of Australia may have fancied themselves to exercise judicial powers but the truth is they didn’t. The Sue v Hill case is a NULLITY without legal force as it was not within the judicial powers of the judges to determine matters in defiance of their judicial constrains to act within the ambit of the constitution. The judges only can act as interpreters as to what the intention of the Framers of the Constitution was and not how they fancy themselves to twist its meanings.

.

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!

.

This is why the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t forget the hyphens!) is so vital, this as it is intended to set up education facilities so when judges in future are to adjudicate on constitutional issues they at least have some appropriate training as to constitutional matters and never again a judge abstain from handing down a judgment on basis not knowing the constitutional issues litigated before the Court. The nonsense of having the constitution amended pending perhaps what kind of political background or association a judge may have never should have been permitted to occur.

.

The Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia Act 1900 (UK) didn’t provide any option for a republic and it should therefore be clear that the con-job of the High Court of Australia in the Sue v Hill case is one I view is a very serious matter of TREASON.

.

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE    Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,

END QUOTE

People have a right to know their true nationality and not being conned into a misconception. It may very well be that the nationality issue could be very critical when a child is orphaned and then the nationality can determine who can exercise judicial powers as to the future of the child and also as to the immediately care to be provided to a child. Likewise so with when an Australian is abroad and is in difficulties. Australians are Australians not because they reside in the Commonwealth of Australia but because they reside in the continent of Australia. (If one can call it a continent rather then landmass).  Australians are not defined by their nationality as such because as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that if (as was at the time an issue) Queensland did not join the federation it didn’t then stop them being Australians. As such, being an Australian has and had nothing to do with federation! It is not a nationality but merely identifies a person to the place of residence.

.

Again in 1982 the High Court of Australia approved the deportation of Mr Pochi on the basis he didn’t have “Australian citizenship” and this clearly was before the purported Australian Act 1986 (Cth & UK) existed! Hence, it is utter and sheer nonsense to claim that somehow the Australia Act 1986 gave us a nationality or independence, etc, because it was and still is an elaborate con-job as Australians born in the Commonwealth of Australia or naturalized are and remain to be British nationals. There is a lot more to it but I think you got the picture.

.

* Thanks for the “brief” explanation. I hate to think what it is if it isn’t “brief”.

.

**#** That is why the books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series are published on certain constitutional and other legal issues, as to set it out more comprehensively!

.

* Thanks again.

.

**#** You are welcome, and pass the word, will you?

.

* I will.

END QUOTE Chapter What is your nationality really?

.

The need for the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN cannot be disputed when for more then 60-years this nonsense has been going on. After all one cannot expect people to conduct themselves as law abiding citizens when the politicians and judges show such a contempt for constitutional provisions and limitations! Rob a person of his/her identity and you are bound to invite problems!

.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (GUARDIAN)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.


















 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

.

 






 

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

 

To whom it may concern,

 

Please do understand that while Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is still on the throne we can safely assume matters will continue with Her Majesty, however were she to abdicate or die then many an agitator or others may seek to use the opportunity to proclaim the REPUBLICAN/MONARCHISTIC views and more then likely to the detriment of the general public.

The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN is seeking to advocate the true position of the constitution and how its applies and it is essential that all people are now concerned about this and not wait until the Queen is no longer at the throne and we are suddenly forced to accept some pretended solution that really does nothing but seeking to install more power for those already abusing and misusing their powers and failing to act where required and the general public suffers as a whole.

.

My issue isn’t if a republican or a monarchistic view is more desired but that the people are not swindled into voting for some form of system that fraudulently has been presented. We need to be clear as to any future choice and it is so to say no skin of the nose of the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN if the electors were to vote to have a monarchy or republican system rather that any such decision should be an “informed” decision on what is truly applicable and as yet where even a mere 7 judges of the High Court of Australia often are so to say in a fist fight about certain constitutional meanings and application then if we cannot trust them then surely we cannot trust politicians. Hence, support the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN and ensures it’s information is considered so that “YOU” ultimately may be able to make an “informed” decision when asked to do so!

.

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka , GUARDIAN  8-7-2009

Web Hosting Companies