ISSUE Australian independence reality check & the constitution.

doc

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

Is Australias independence a fallacy or reality, and in what perspective?
Let me commence with explain the following in light also of the Sue v Hill decision.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/375:unequal-protection-the-deciding-moment
"UNEQUAL PROTECTION": THE DECIDING MOMENT
Friday, 08 April 2011 11:49 By Thom Hartmann, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Serialized Book | Serialized Book
QUOTE
The Republican Conspiracy Theory Collapses
In the 1960s author, attorney, and legal historian Howard Jay Graham came across a previously unexamined
treasure in the personal papers of Chief Justice Waite, which had been gathering dust at the Library of
Congress.
In Waite's private correspondence with J. C. Bancroft Davis (his former recorder of the Court's decisions),
Graham made a startling discovery: the entire thing had been a mistake.
END QUOTE

The same eventuates in the courts as over about 4 decades at the bar table I experienced that even
typist and Registrars alter orders of a federal judge and then seal it with a signature stamp as if
the judge actually ordered it as such, where in one instance I received 5 different versions of the
one set of orders. As typist nor a Registrar are officers of the court and are employed with the
Government and not with the courts it is undermining the independence/impartiality of the
judiciary.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2646888
Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History, and Scholarship, Seth Barrett Tillman
National University of Ireland, Maynooth (NUI Maynooth) - Faculty of Law, November 7, 2015
QUOTE
However, the standard restatement of the facts and holding of Ex parte Merryman appearing in many (if not
most) law review articles is wrong. Moreover, these mistakes are not unique to academic lawyers; a fair
number of judges, historians, and academics in allied fields make the same or very similar mistakes. These
repeated errors are somewhat surprising because Merryman is, if not a leading case, only one short step
removed from the received case law canon. To put it another way, what is frequently written about Merryman
is a series of myths. This Article seeks to disentangle Merrymans many myths from reality.
END QUOTE

This means that since the 1861 case till 2015 for some 154 years so many were wrong and
attributed to President Lincoln being so to say obstinate toward Chief Justice Robert Brooke
Taney when in fact the President was never made a party to the proceedings.
As a student to Hillsbury College (U.S.A.) researching the back ground of the U.S.A.
Constitution I came across the document Federalist 63 (by James Madison) and discovered
that someone had inserted on the second and following pages a heading THE THREE
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT this even so this particular document doesnt at all refer to
the word court or judiciary but is regarding the senate versus the House of Representatives.
p1
2-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Clearly an unsuspected reader would assume that this documents related to THE THREE
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT intending to refer also to the judiciary. And it may be noted
that judges of the High Court of Australia likely having read this kind of document may have
misconceived from this that THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT includes the
judiciary, this even so the Framers of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK)):HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of
the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parl
iament having power to constitute a judiciary, there shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High
Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I believe to be an improvement-and other courts
which the Parliament may from time to time create or invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE

It must be noted that there are actually 4 branches of the constitution:

1, the Legislators
2. the executives (referred to as the government)
3. the section 101 Inter-State commission regarding Trade and Commerce and any other matters
Parliament may provide to it to deal with.
4. the judiciary
While the Parliament can legislate as to Trade and Commerce the government has no
constitutional powers to deal with this as this was specifically left with the Inter-State
Commission. As such the funding of road/rail projects falls within the authority of the Inter-State
commission as do for example Ports. And Ports cannot be leased/sold off for a state government
to make a handsome profit as this violates s92, as set out in a previous PRESS RELEASE.
What we therefore have is the judiciary wrongly assuming to be part of the government, when
they are not, it must be independent/impartial of the government to avoid bias!
An interesting reading also is The-Farmer-Refuted by Alexander Hamilton (1775) as to what
government is about and natural rights. My own example would be that the legislators can
legislate that it must be raining at 2 pm every Tuesday, but the law of nature would not submit to
this. As such any law that defies the law of nature be held invalid.
The Letters Patent published in the Victorian Gazette on 2-1-1901 provides for the following; impartial
administration of justice.
As such, the courts must be both independent as well as impartial.
.

https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=61502
QUOTE H. L. DEMDEN v F. PEDDER High Court of Australia
The Commonwealth and the States are, with respect to the matters which under the Constitution are within
the ambit of their respective legislative or executive authority, sovereign States, subject only to the
restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or
implied. Where, therefore, the Constitution makes a grant of legislative or executive power to the
Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is entitled to exercise that power in absolute freedom, and without any
interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.
END QUOTE

With Sue v Hill the question then must be what on earth were the judges doing if not conducting
themselves as a bunch of constitutional terrorist?
.

Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN:
They have believed that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their present constitution second to none
in the world. When the question of a second chamber comes to be considered, they will assuredly not be
satisfied to possess less freedom. More than this. In framing a federal constitution, we should set out with the
explicit claim to possess and exercise all the rights and privileges of citizens of the British empire to the
same extent that they are possessed and exercised by our fellow-countrymen in Great Britain itself.
Australia is entitled to absolute enfranchisement. In our union we attain political manhood and the stature of a
full-grown democracy.
END QUOTE
p2
2-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN:
The people of this continent were not landed upon its shore to-day ignorant of the responsibilities of selfgovernment. They have amply proved in the past that they are entitled to be trusted with all the powers
appertaining to a free people. They have believed that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their
present constitution second to none in the world.
END QUOTE
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-It really is there, because our Bill provides that the state shall not make or enforce any law
abridging any of the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the other states. At all events, the 14th
amendment is the one under which these decisions were given.
Mr. HOLDER.-We have no definition of citizen.
Mr. ISAACS.-No, not of the Federation. The question of the citizenship of a state is one that will have
to be worked out. It might be held to be an ordinary member of the state, and it might not be confined
to naturalized persons.
Mr. GORDON.-It might be a question of domicile.
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes. It is not wise to use the word "citizen" without any definition. They took care to define
it in the United States. We might use a term that would be found to be of wider import than was intended, but,
however that may be, it seems to me that it is illogical to [start page 670] provide that a state should not make
or enforce any law abridging any privilege or immunity of citizens of other states. We ought to take out the
words "other states," and say that no state should abridge any privilege or immunity of any citizen of the
whole Commonwealth.
Mr. WISE.-That is not the object. This clause has no connexion whatever with the amendment of the
United States Constitution.
Mr. REID.-Will you tell us the object?
Mr. ISAACS.-I will wait to hear what the honorable member has to say.
Mr. REID.-Can the state laws affect any one not in the jurisdiction of the state?
Mr. ISAACS.-It is puzzling to me why a restriction has been made in this way, that the state is not to be at
liberty to abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of other states.
Mr. SYMON.-It is the essence of the Constitution that the state shall have that power within its
legislative jurisdiction. Every state can do that.
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes, within its legislative jurisdiction, and that consideration gives immense force to what I
said at starting, and what Mr. Trenwith said. We are giving to the Federation certain powers of legislation,
and we are reserving all others to the states. If the Federation chooses to exercise its legislative powers
within its sphere, it can over-ride anything a state does.
Mr. SYMON.-There is no object in the limitation of the federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE

In the following local government refers to state government, and central government refers
to federal government.
Hansard 9-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN:
p3
2-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

We know the tendency is always towards the central authority, that the central authority constitutes
a sort of vortex to which power gradually attaches itself. Therefore, all the buttresses and all the ties
should be the other way, to assist those who uphold the rights of the states from being drawn into this
central authority, and from having their powers finally destroyed. The whole history of federation in
America, whether it be the United States or Canada, has proved this: that the tendency is towards
centralisation, and away from that local government which is inseparable from freedom. I have
heard it said that those who advocate state rights are taking a conservative view of the question. I
would like to know since what time have centralisation and democracy been associated? Those who
advocate state rights advocate local government, under whose shadow alone democracy can exist.
There is nothing in common between centralisation and democracy, and if you handicap a house,
which is erected, to preserve state rights, what have you to prevent the establishment, in this huge
island of Australia, of a strong central government which is local only to one portion of the continent,
and as far as the rest of the continent is concerned is distant and central? I maintain that a central
government, just inasmuch as it never can be associated with the power of the people, is inseparably
associated with tyranny, arising either from ignorance or design-frequently from ignorance-because
a central and distant government can never properly appreciate the local conditions for which it is to
legislate. I [start page 708] am surprised that any one in this Convention should for one moment say
that to strengthen in every way the rights of the states, as such-to protect in every way the local
institutions-is the conservative mission. The whole history of federation has proved it is otherwise. It
was in the name of state rights, when the question of the Constitution of America was being
discussed, that the most fervent appeals to liberty that ever stirred the human breast were made, and
all those opposed to state rights were the conservatives, the monarchists of that time. The strongest
upholders of state rights from time to time have been those in favour of government by the people,
and it is only when you have state rights properly guarded, and safeguard local government, that you
can have government by the people. Government at a central and distant part is never government
by the people, and may be just as crushing a tyranny under republican or commonwealth forms as
under the most absolute monarchy. I do hope that hon. members will not allow themselves to be
hoodwinked in this matter. It seems that the crushing majority in favour of the state rights that are
essential to federation, which we had at the commencement of this discussion, has dwindled away. I
maintain that unless the state rights are in every way maintained-unless buttresses are placed to
enable them to stand up against the constant drawing towards centralisation-no federation can ever
take root in Australia. It will not be a federation at all. It will be from the very start a centralisation,
a unification, which, instead of being a guardian of the liberty of the people, will be its most distinct
tyrant, and eventually will overcome it.
END QUOTE

We had a recent statement, as I understood it from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull claiming that the
States refusing his joint income taxation offer then they must manage within their own spheres.
.

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-A rather important point has been raised with regard to sub-section (2),
in regard to the question of uniformity of taxation. While there has been no express decision by the American
courts as to the meaning of the words "uniform throughout the Commonwealth," there are expressions in one
of the cases which render it necessary for us to use caution. I therefore ask for a little more time in which to
consider this matter.
Mr. HIGGINS.-To allow graduations and exemptions, is it?
Mr. BARTON.-My own desire is that the Federal Parliament should be unfettered in the exercise of its
taxing power, if it has to use any direct taxation at all. Whatever my own opinions may be as to the way in
which that power should be exercised, it is necessary that the authority to which it is confided should have the
power in full force. That being so, I wish to see that this authority is properly conserved. For that reason, I
think it advisable to postpone the matter, and I therefore move that it should be postponed until after clause 80
has been considered. It would then come on immediately before the provision relating to finance and trade, to
which it is so nearly related.
The motion was agreed to, and the clause postponed.
END QUOTE
p4
2-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Our constitution was based upon this legal principle and s96 only came about because of concerns that if
the Commonwealth had the overwhelming taxation powers and could exclude state from raising sufficient
taxes then with s96 the Commonwealth could come to the rescue of any state to avoid bankruptcy.
Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-You are referring to paragraph (4) of clause 52?
Mr. HOLDER.-Yes.
Mr. OCONNOR.-But that money could not be spent upon any object the Federal Parliament thought
fit.
Mr. HOLDER.-I want an expression of opinion which shall be authoritative on the point. I see that,
according to the provision I have quoted, there is power given to the Federal Parliament to borrow money on
the credit of the Commonwealth, and I say again that I do not know of any limitation of the expenditure of
that money except the limitation which would be specified in the Loan Act authorizing the borrowing of the
money. Of course, these words cover the raising of the money for the building of railways for instance, and in
such a case the limitation would be the terms of the Loan Act. But is there anything anywhere to prevent a
Loan Act being passed by the Federal Parliament authorizing the raising of a certain sum of money, the
proceeds of which loan might be divided according to the terms of the Act among the states according to their
needs, or upon some other principle?
Mr. GLYNN.-The first three lines of clause 52 affect that point.
Mr. ISAACS.-The money must be expended with regard to "the peace, order, and good government
of the Commonwealth," not of the states.
END QUOTE

With s92 this was to prevent for example States to make money out of wharves. Where a ship from
another country had paid import duties to the commonwealth then the states in which such a ship would
subsequently berth could only charge actual berthing cost without any profits, as to avoid any hidden
taxation. Previous PRESS RELEASES issued by me deal with those issues in greater details and so no
need to repeat the same.
.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
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
.

As such what is relevant is that the States no longer has any rights as to concurrent legislative powers
upon any subject matter once the commonwealth commenced to legislate upon any subject matter
contained within s51, albeit with taxation is relates to subject, such as income tax, land tax, etc.
Hansard 15-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I would like to point out to Mr. Gordon that if we wish to
understand this clause we must go back to the object of it. Its object is not to confer pensions, but to set
p5
2-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

right the gross injustice which must accrue to the servants of the several states who join the Commonwealth,
which will take over their services, and will thereby put an end to their services with the states.
QUOTE

However where it come to superannuation then it remained within the States domain to provide for
superannuation for its own civil service whereas the Commonwealth would for example not be compelled
to take over state superannuation regarding any colonial civil service person who commenced upon
federation to be employed with the commonwealth, as the Commonwealth could for itself determine if it
would or not provide superannuation for its public servants.
.

Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. FITZGERALD:
Another case I understood the hon. member, Sir George Grey, to put was that be favoured the
appointment of the governor-general of the future dominion of Australia being a colonial
appointment. But as long as this country is united to the Crown of England-and I hope that it is a
very long day off indeed when it shall cease to be so-I maintain that the governor-general of the
future dominion of Australia must be the appointee of her Majesty the Queen, our sovereign, who is
the apex of that structure, and whose name we revere and respect in this colony equally as in any
other [start page 165] part of her Majesty's dominions.
END QUOTE

Members of Parliament (nor for that the Governor-General) are not employed with the Commonwealth
and as such not entitled to obtain any salary, as to do so would violate ss41 of the constitution, albeit
Members of Parliament who would be a commissioned by the Governor-General as Ministers would in
fact be employed by the Monarch and for this salaries be payable to the Monarch for the duration of such
a person being a Minister., but also that for that duration the Minister would forfeit any allowance
entitlement while being paid by the Crown (from Consolidated Revenue) a salary.
One therefore have to ask who can be paid this monies?
Based upon what the Framers of the Constitution discussed it would be the British Crown.
Meaning that if one were to accept the nonsense of Sue V Hill then Ministers are employed by the queen
of Australia but they somehow are constitutionally be obligated to be paid by the British Crown.
Obviously one has to consider under which constitutional power does the High Court of Australia possess
any jurisdiction to define the Crown?
.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth
citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really
defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with
it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
END QUOTE
Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this
constitution.
END QUOTE
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,
p6
2-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

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
.

Ok, now I ask where then is the judicial power of the High Court of Australia to fabricate that the
Commonwealth of Australia became gradually an independent nation?
.

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a Federal
Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government.
Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.
Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter of
the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is, the
same circumstances remain in part; but where you will have a tribunal constantly charged with the
maintenance of the Constitution against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by
Parliament, then it is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected
weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether
consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might
be dangerous to the Constitution itself.
END QUOTE
.

Lets try to use a simple example.

Some tenants combine their power and decide that they will become under an imaginary landlord
authority. Meaning that if you were the landlord you suddenly are robbed of any income but still liable to
pay the mortgage upon the properties. No one with common sense would accept this kind of utter and
sheer nonsense.
.

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.
END QUOTE
.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers"
Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
"... But in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
p7
2-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

1.

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."

END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one
which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE

Clearly the intention of the makers of the constitution was not at all to create a kind of republic or other
entity but one of a political union and as such the High Court of Australia cannot act outside this true
meaning and application of the constitution.
The falsehood:
http://www.commonwealthofnations.org/commonwealth/history/
QUOTE
Australia achieved dominion status when its states united as the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. New
Zealand followed in 1907, South Africa in 1910, and the Irish Free State in 1921.
The five dominions and India had their own representation in the league of nations, the forerunner of the UN.
END QUOTE

If tenants purport to be landlords and join some landlord organisation then this hardly can validate them to
be landlords. It is therefore totally immaterial if the Commonwealth of Australia joined the League of
Nations, and later the United Nations, as it can have absolutely no implication as to our constitution.
The Commonwealth of Australia from onset become a political union (asset out above) and never had a
status of being a dominion. There are ample of citizens who claim fake war records and join
organisations like the RSL (Returned Servicemen League) but that doesnt make them returned soldiers,
where in real life they never served in any armed forces!
http://www.commonwealthofnations.org/commonwealth/history/
QUOTE
The Statute of Westminster, passed by the UK parliament in 1931, gave legal recognition to the de facto
independence of the dominions. The parliaments of Canada, South Africa and the Irish Free State swiftly
passed legislation enacting the statute. Australia adopted it in 1942 and New Zealand in 1947. Newfoundland
relinquished its dominion status and was incorporated into Canada in 1949
END QUOTE

It is totally irrelevant that the Commonwealth of Australia adopted the Statute of Westminster this as
the Statue of Westminster is not and never was a Constitutional Amendment Act. It was merely a
legislation that had no legal influence upon the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK.
Therefore, where the Commonwealth of Australia is a political union, as stated by Mr. Symons very
clearly;
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
p8
2-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

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

Then for all purposes and intend the Commonwealth of Australia is and remains to be so and those
committing treachery to purport otherwise should be imprisoned forthwith.
There are issues ongoing such as hospital and education funding. As since 1946 successful the
Commonwealth obtained legislative powers and exercised this then it is sole responsible for the funding
of hospitals and education. It must do so in a uniform manner and cannot (as recently reported) per
student fund private schools more than state schools.
Members of Parliament may have obtained degrees as lawyers but that doesnt make them being
constitutionalist! And certainly may be rather a handicap to understand/comprehend the true meaning and
application of the constitution as I view Mr Malcolm Turnbull is a clear example with his State income
tax nonsense.
.
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 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
END QUOTE
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE

Whatever degrees person in the Constitution Policy Unit are holding advising the government they seem
to me to lack common sense to understand & ability the simple task of the English language in the
constitution stands for, the Framers of the Constitution relied upon would be understood and
comprehended by unlettered persons. As such the States do not need to raise taxes to fund hospitals,
students, etc, because it is a Commonwealth obligation!
If a Prime Minister cannot even understand/comprehend this simple issue then one may wonder what on
earth he does understand/comprehend.
Wanting to be Prime Minister and being a competent Prime Minister is not the same. And I view we have
clear evidence of this.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

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

p9
2-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati