20170820-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Queen of Australia Issue Started It All, Etc & The Constitution

ISSUE: 20170820 - Re The Queen of Australia issue started it all, etc & the constitution
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

While we appear to have a huge constitutional problem in my view it is really the making of the
High court of Australia, and it should overrule the Senator Woods and Senator Heather Hill case
to get back to the true meaning and application of the constitution. Let me use a simplified
example; In Europe numerous countries combined to form the European Union regardless if
some countries have Monarch or not. It has a President, which does not affect the Monarchies of
any of the member countries. So now we look at the Commonwealth of Australia, which is a
POLITICAL UNION. Which means it is created by the Colonies (now called States) which
each were under British rule, and when the Framers of the Constitution debated the federation
they made clear that they couldnt do less for the Commonwealth then the colonies were entitled
to do by the Home Office (10 Downing Street, London) and that was to naturalize aliens to
become British subjects. As they made clear they were not going to allow the Commonwealth
to define/declare citizenship as this remained a State (formerly colony) and it was if s state
provided franchise to a citizen then within s41 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) they had automatically Commonwealth citizenship and so franchise albeit the
franchise depended upon the age the Commonwealth declared adult hood to be. They also made
clear that the Commonwealth had to rely upon the State electoral rolls. The Commonwealth has
no constitutional powers to hold any Commonwealth electoral role because eligibility to be on a
roll depends upon the states, except if the Commonwealth had legislated within s51(xxvi)
regarding a race as then all persons of that race would lose their state/federal citizenship, hence
their franchise also.
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
The Commonwealth however started its Australian Citizenship Act 1948 and by now about
everyone talks about this as being a nationality, regardless that it violates the constitution. Then
politicians desiring to get a republic started their nonsense to pervert what is constitutionally
applicable. Having a person no longer charged in the name of the Queen but in the name of the
DPP is unconstitutional. Worse is that the High Court of Australia seems to me to go along with
this utter and sheer nonsense by holding that Senator Wood being a British subject was in
eligible to sit in the Senate. Moment each of the judges making this ruling themselves were
British subjects!
QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST:
We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born
in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the
commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old
country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of
the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies
p1 20-8-2017 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
should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired
his appointment.
END QUOTE
In my view this was an act of treason by the High Court of Australia to make a ruling in violation
to the true meaning and application of the constitution and I view nothing less than an act of
terrorism. It simply in my view had no judicial powers to make such a ruling and as such it was
NULL AND VOID. However, if the High Court of Australia could abandon the notion of
British subjects then it appeared to me it could block any further appeals to the Privy Council.
Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
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
When then the matter of Sue v Hill came along I view the High Court of Australia went bonkes
to declare the Queen of Australia and somehow that the commonwealth had become
progressively an independent nation.
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
How on earth can within constitutional context a POLITICAL UNION somehow could become
an independent country to me is utter and sheer nonsense in constitutional terms. In fact the
Framers of the constitution made clear the crown couldnt be defined within the Constitution.
As such the High Court of Australia engaged in a violation of the constitution to claim that there
was a Queen of Australia. We then have this nonsense claim of a constitutional Monarchy
where again we are referring to the POLITICAL UNION. What the constitution did was merely
refer to the British monarchy, and did not create any kind of monarchy. Our constitution is a
British Constitution Act and as such the British crown is in place and cannot be replaced by some
hypothetical Queen of Australia. The Framers of the Constitution made clear that the
Commonwealth of Australia would be a federation and not a confederation!
QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
We must not, however, be unmindful of the fact that there can be no federal government without, to a large
extent, the sacrifice of some portion of state rights; and when the word "provinces" is used in this debate, I
ignore its existence altogether. We have been, as it were, chaffed out of our very existence. Those of us who
have spoken within the walls of this building, or who have spoken out of doors to our constituents, and have
endeavoured, in discussing the federal question, to take a strong view of the position in regard to the defence
of the rights of New South Wales, have been pulled to pieces, and called provincialists. I object, in
connection with the independent state of New South Wales-a state as independent as any in the world, even
England itself, so far as the freedom of our position is concerned-to the word "province." There may be
something more dignified in the use of the word "state." We are not going to become provinces. I do
not think we are going to give up the individual rights and liberties which we possess, and which those
who have gone before us have fought for, to become mere provinces under a federal form of
government. We may take the more dignified form of "states." Whilst we have endeavoured to put before
the people of New South Wales, in these resolutions, a sort of opiate, something assuring to their minds that
in joining a federal union we give up nothing of our territorial rights, words have been inserted in them which
I shall do my utmost in Committee to strike out-
except in respect to such surrenders as may be agreed upon as necessary and incidental to the power and
authority of the national federal government.
I do not know the meaning of these words, and no hon. gentleman who has yet spoken has given any clear
interpretation of them. It is sufficient for us, in enunciating a principle upon which the basis of a
constitution shall be prepared, to see that the territorial rights and privileges of each colony shall be
preserved to each state but when you come to consider the condition of a surrender, and the question
of the power of enforcing such surrender is placed in the hands of the federal government, then your
provinces or your states will be no party to the proceeding.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
The remainder, namely, Resolution 2, expresses the chief powers and functions which ought to be
granted to the federated people, in order to secure the complete freedom with which it is proposed to
constitute them. The first is that there should be a Parliament, and next that the Parliament should consist
of two Houses. In support of the general way in which it was thought advisable to frame these resolutions it
may be contended that I should have left the idea of the two Houses out of the resolutions. I take it that we
are a body of gentlemen who have really considered the question, and, inasmuch as we have made
ourselves familiar with the literature on the subject, I take it there is no one here who will for one moment
imagine that any form of government by a Parliament consisting of one House, could be designated a
Federation. The individualism of the States after Federation is of as much interest to each colony as the free
exercise of national powers is essential to that aggregation of colonies which we express in the term
Federation. If the one trenches upon the other, then so far as the provinces assert their individuality
overmuch the fear is an approach to a mere loose confederation, not a true Federation. The fear on the
other hand is, if we give the power to encroach, that is, if we represent the federated people only, and
not the States in their entities, in our Federation, then day by day you will find the power to make
this encroachment will be so gladly availed of that, day by day and year by year, the body called the
Federation will more nearly approach the unified or "unitarian" system of government. We cannot
adopt any form of government the tendency of which will be, as time goes on, to turn the Constitution
towards unification on the one hand, and towards a loose confederacy on the other. (Hear, hear.) We
must observe that principle. or else we do not observe the charge laid upon us by the Enabling Act, which
lays on us the duty to frame a "Federal" Constitution under the Crown.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
It is said we have sought to establish a Constitution by analogy to the House of Lords and the House of
Commons in England. But we know that there is no analogy, or, if there were an analogy, we should have to
consider what would be a very solemn and serious question-whether we should have federation or a general
amalgamation.
Mr. MOORE.-Unification.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I hate the word "unification," and will not use it. I have said before that there is
much to be said for amalgamation. I can understand that there might be an immense amount of money saved
by amalgamation in the way of carrying on the government of the country, and there might be an immense
amount of force from the head of the Commonwealth which you cannot get from the partial disintegration
which is involved even in federation. But it is not our mission to establish an amalgamation of these colonies.
We are here under Bills passed by our various colonies, and there is a claim for federation, and not a claim
for merging the colonies in one common concern.
END QUOTE
Again We must observe that principle. or else we do not observe the charge laid upon us by the Enabling Act,
which lays on us the duty to frame a "Federal" Constitution under the Crown. And this enabling Act did not
permit to create some independent country called Commonwealth of Australia and neither can
s128 of the constitution be used as a referendum power to achieve this. And as the Framers of the
Constitution made clear the High Court of Australia could only INTERPRET the true meaning
and application of the constitution, to what always was applicable. As such, if an independent
nation never was part of the constitution then the High Court of Australia progressively change
to an independent nation is in my view utter and sheer nonsense.
To turn the Commonwealth of Australia into a country means that the states are no more. They
could only become provinces. This is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution rejected.
It are the colonies that were at the time under the British Crown that the federal constitution
maintained this monarchy to be so, without creating the monarchy. As such, the reference in the
constitution about the British Crown is because the colonies who within Section 106 of the
federal constitution became States were and remained under the British Crown. Therefore I view
it is utter and sheer nonsense to claim some Queen of Australia without a country existing.
Indeed I view it is an insult to the Monarchy. It should be kept in mind that despite the 4
December 2002 court orders for this matter also to be placed before the High Court of Australia
the Commonwealth failed to do so, this as it wouldnt suit the politicians to have a person like
myself with his self-professed Crummy-English to expose the rot. Who can forget the failure of
Malcolm Turnbull to succeed in a referendum to turn the Commonwealth of Australia into some
purported Republic? Section 128 of the constitution cannot be used for this! Essentially to get to
a Republic you need at least a VELVET REVOLUTION and a complete new constitution.
Some of the States might then just hop out of the federation and go their own way.
It is remarkable that the very Members of Parliament now at risk losing their seats actually did
nothing about my past writings about these matters. And this is the problem with politicians they
generally do not care less unless it hits them. Well, they got a choice be ousted from the
Parliament and have Amended Taxation Assessments including fines for every year they had tax
free income now no longer to be deemed tax free, including the benefits of travel, mobile, office,
etc, and end up in possible millions of dollars of debt or to stand up and join me in making sure
that we all act as sentries and that the true meaning and application of the constitution is applied.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
The Commonwealth of Australia is not and constitutionally cannot be a country and as such
you cannot be a national of a POLITICAL UNION. As such any claim of nationality of
Australia is in my view utter and sheer nonsense.
It means that those Members of Parliament who gold British nationality (British subject) status
are in fact the only once who are legitimately holding a seat in the Parliament.
One has to ask with more than a 100,000 lawyers in the Commonwealth of Australia and with
numerous judges all around and then all those politicians in the Federal and State/Territory
Governments and none seemed to have a clue that they were being brainwashed all along and
this is like teaching a child from onset to call a cow a dog and then when the child grows up the
child will mean a cow but will name it to be a dog. And this is essentially how about the entire
Australian population has in my view been brainwashed calling Australia citizenship as a
nationality when in fact we are and remain to be British subjects. As for the Westminster Act
well it refers to the Commonwealth of Australia as some colony and not as a POLITICAL
UNION as such not constitutionally valid. Neither could the purported Australia Act 1986 (UK)
(Cth) somehow override the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) nor was it
approved as required by State referendums, etc.
I might use my self-professed Crummy-English, as Dutch is my native language and I had no
formal education in the English language, but at least I seem to be able to have a better grasp on
the true meaning and application of our federal constitution then all the politicians,
lawyers/judges combined. Quite simply, I do not care how idiotic you conduct yourself as long
as you keep your hands of our constitution as it doesnt belong to some unelected judges or even
the politicians as it belongs to We, the People.
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!)

20170820-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Queen of Australia Issue Started It All, Etc & The Constitution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20170820-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Queen of Australia Issue Started It All, Etc & The Constitution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20170820-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Queen of Australia Issue Started It All, Etc & The Constitution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSUE: 20170820 - Re The Queen of Australia issue started it all, etc & the constitution

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

p1 20-8-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 23-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

You might also like