Affidavit

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MELBOURNE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY No. M of 2020
Affidavit
I, Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka of 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, Victoria, pensioner,

make oath and say as follows;
1. I am the Applicant in this matter.
2. That this Application for Orders Nisi are made in the national interest of Australia
and for this it is essential that this honourable Court provide for orders that there be
no orders for cost, as not to burden the applicant in any way at all to prosecute the
case, where the Respondents each use taxpayers moneys for their cases regardless
how wrong they may have acted. It would therefore be a denial of a FAIR AND
PROPER hearing, if the Respondents could have unlimited litigation without
personally liable to orders for cost, yet the applicant could face orders for cost for
doing no more but what is required in law, as to place matters before this Honourable
Court to deal with unlawful and unconstitutional matters.
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-
Most of us, when we were candidates for election to the Federal Convention, placed great
stress upon it as affording a means of bringing justice within easy reach of the poor man.
END QUOTE
3. The Applicant is seeking the relief as stated in the DRAFT ORDERS NISI, not as a
way to seek to interfere with the rights of a State Executive to deal with matters as
provided for within constitutional provisions, and subordinate legislation, but to
pursue, that the (purported) State Executive, and others acting on its behalf, conduct
themselves in a manner which is within the defined constitutional powers of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) in Section 106 “subject to
this constitution”, and is prevented to place the wellbeing and interest of Australians
and others residing within the State of Victoria at uncalled risk, and/or abuses
legislative and/or other powers, to unduly cause humane and other suffering, to any
person, in breach of law and/or beyond the constitutional powers provided for and/or
any treaty existing and applicable. As well as, such other reasons as is set out in the
material placed before this Honourable Court.
This affidavit was filed by the Applicant GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA
Of: 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, In the State of Victoria, 3084
Phone number: 03 – 9457 70209

-2-
4. That the Applicant rely upon the following case law:
Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court
“A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the burden of
endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by their own advocacy”
5. That due to the extreme urgency of this case, the Applicant seeks an urgent EX
PARTE hearing, so as to enable Orders Nisi to be issued without delay!
6. That I pursue to keep the main body of this Affidavit to as much a minimum for so far
reasonably possible, however will refer to links of documents/videos which the
Applicant can provide upon a DVD for any subsequent contested hearing.
7. The matter is one in regard of the State of Victoria albeit various matters will likewise
affect other States and also the Commonwealth of Australia and its Territories and as
such I propose to file a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS to be served
upon all Attorney-Generals. Due to the urgency of this matter and having a wife who
(age 87) suffers from heart failure and other medical issues, for which she was in
October 2019 in ICU when hospitalized for 10 days, my ability to prepare
documentation is therefore to some way limited. However, I view that orders NISI in
the meantime could provide immediate relieve to some issues at hand.
8. I migrated to the Commonwealth of Australia 1n 1971 from The Netherlands not

commanding the English language. My wife a linguistic never stops criticising me for
failing to pronounce words properly. However the good think of not knowing the
English language is that I tend to check the true meaning of a word by dictionaries
and not uncommon succeeded in litigation against opponent lawyers because of this.
As such, the handicap of having my own crummy English writing on the other hand
assist me considerably. And this is very relevant also to what I am stated below.
9. I in 1982 commenced a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE
ALWAYS PREVAIL® to assist persons who contemplated suicide, murder and
even mass murder. I did so for 37 years without business or even government
funding. This caused great concern to me that so many persons were denied JUSTICE
for various reasons. Hence I had my own kind of personal (political) protest not to
naturalised until 1994. I then in 2001 stood as an INDEPENDENT candidate in a
Federal political election in Jagajaga and immediately questioned the validity of the
election. Too no avail as I view my case was railroaded. However, this was not the
end of my legal battle whatsoever. I from my research of the Hansard Constitutional
Convention Debates gained considerable knowledge as to the “true meaning and
application of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)”. In my
view there is no better weapon but knowledge. The pen is mightier then the sword.
10. That to explain matters regarding he Victorian Government and relating to the
COVID-19 ISSUES I need to first state that I have an obvious motive to pursue
litigation, and will seek as briefly as possible outline that I view the shocking
ongoing betrayal by the High Court of Australia is one of the core reasons I have
devoted much of my last decades to pursue justice not only for myself but also that
for all other Australians regardless of their standing and position in out society.
-3-
There are those who do no more but their paid job who are awarded with being
Australian of the year, other with being handed a Noble Price awards. Ordinary
citizens who may go well out of their way to assist others generally are ignored as
after all their profile may not attract as much publicity as some sports person, etc. My
desire is to achieve the award that finally we can achieve JUSTICE for all persons
irrespective their financial ability.
When I refer to the shocking betrayal of the High Court of Australia this obviously
mat require some explanation which I will do so below to some extent albeit first
quoting some Authorities that my criticism is within my rights to express:
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right
of everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
END QUOTE
No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:

LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C.
332, at 335
QUOTE
But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice,
is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right
of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path
of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members
of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of
justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to
impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be
allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary man
END QUOTE
.
The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly
applied or acts:
THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER “THE EVENING NEWS”
(1880) N.S.W. LR 211 AT 239.:
QUOTE
The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed.
Our practice of sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always
in the broad light of day, would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our
proceedings were at all times to be rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even
though it be mistaken criticism.
END QUOTE
.
As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and
justice;
(a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368
(b)Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
(c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
(d)SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31
.
LEWIS v. JUDGE OGDEN [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682 Contempt of Court (Vict.)
QUOTE
11. However, mere discourtesy falls well short of insulting conduct, let alone
wilfully insulting conduct which is the hallmark of contempt
END QUOTE
-4-
11. That I have to set out the circumstances to what I view was the shocking betrayal by
the High Court of Australia. I ended up being imprisoned because the High Court of
Australia refused to exercise its supervision roll to stop unconstitutional and unlawful
legal proceedings, where I had applied to the High Court of Australia to do so!
I in 1984 being separated from my 2nd wife took a widow to a dance. After that I
delivered her but when I indicated to go back home she pursued me to stay over.
Initially I didn’t want to however she convinced me to stay. So I slept on my own in
a what could be considered a bed. However, during the night I was awaken finding
the woman on top of me and no need to explain what eventuated but (as I later
discovered) she ended up becoming pregnant. If a man did this to a woman it would
be called “rape”, however when a woman does this to a man he is deemed to be
“lucky”. In December 1984 on of her teenage twin daughters gave me the
understanding that her mother had been bashed by Aboriginals in Morwell and she
had lost the baby.
In July 1985 my (now) Late mother in Law complained about her huge phone bill
and if I could sort it out for her. I noticed numerous STD calls and so asked if she
had made such STD calls, etc. She then gave me the understanding that it had been
about my daughter. I made known that my daughter was living with her mother (My
1st wife) in Melbourne. It is than that my mother-in-law made known that while one
baby was lost the mother had been pregnant of twins and had given birth to one
daughter in March 1985. I asked for the address and it took several weeks that I
finally was provided with the address in Morwell. I drove to Morwell and discovered
a elderly man who appeared to me to be drunk like anything and who was yelling
that if the baby didn’t shut up he would kill her. The mother I understood from the
twins was out playing Bingo. I entered a putrid room where I saw my daughter
crying totally soaked with urine, etc. I asked the twins to provide me with clean
clothing and bedding. I took my daughter out of the cot and placed her head against
my chest. The moment I did so she stopped crying. I softly and gently spoke to my
daughter and then commenced to change her into clean clothing. Also changing the
bed linen. About midnight the mother returned from Bingo.
After that the mother gave me the understanding she had tried to register my
daughter under her late husbands name but the Registrar had refused this as she had
been pregnant when her late husband had died and she already had then given birth
about 2 years ago to that daughter. I then managed to have the Registrar to register
my daughter on my name as being the biological father.
In 1986 I received a phone call from the mother in which she gave me the
understanding that the Department of Human services was taking her the following
day to the children Court regarding sexual abuse by one of her boyfriends with the
twins. I decided to attend in person, and did so. I had the Department of Human
Service agreeing that I would have interim custody of my daughter and also the 2
youngest half sibling being a boy and a girl. However 6 weeks later the Children
Court ordered all 5 children to be placed in wardship with the Department of Human
Services. I became then aware from the court proceedings that the mother had
previously enabled sexual abuse of the wins, etc.
I visited Yallambie and was horrified to the condition existing at Yallambie a
children’s home, under the management of the Department of Human Services. I
lodged a complaint with the Victorian Ombudsman and subsequently the
Ombudsman report held my complaints to be substantiated. I however known the
-5-
reputation of Family court of Australia judges, I held I needed to protect my daughter
and so filed for custody in the Supreme Court of Victoria and also for her to be made
a WARD OF THE SUPREME COURT. Wardship of the Supreme Court of Victoria
means that no other court including the Family Court of Australia could exercise any
jurisdiction over my daughter. I was granted interim custody with special orders that
if the mother had any male present I was entitled to refuse any access to the mother.
When however I refused access (as explained below) I discovered that a WARRANT
was issued, not against me but against my now 2 year old daughter and she ended up
being formally arrested.
I took the matter back before the Supreme Court of Victoria and the Court held the
warrant was unlawful and ordered my daughter to be returned to my care.
I was granted full custody by the Supreme Court of Victoria and my daughter to be
and remain a WARD OF THE SUPREM COURT OF VICTORIA.
The mother now married one of her boyfriend and commenced to institute legal
proceedings in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Morwell, where the magistrate
issues orders exercising federal jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975. I held
that the magistrate had absolutely no legal jurisdiction to interfere with a Supreme
Court order and so pursued an appeal to the Family court of Australia. However the
lawyer I engaged unbeknown to me made a deal for the Court to proceed. Regardless
he did so it is a matter of case law that where a court lacks jurisdiction the parties
cannot overcome this by consenting jurisdiction.
Law Encyclopedia: Coram [Latin, Before; in the presence of.]
The term coram is used in phrases that refer to the appearance of a person before another
individual or a group. Coram non judice, "in the presence of a person not a judge," is a phrase that
describes a proceeding brought before a court that lacks the jurisdiction to hear such a matter. Any
judgment rendered by the court in such a case is void.
Bowers v Smith (1953) 1 ALL ER 320 (Re Clarke Hall) and (Morrison on Children, 7 Ed, P3)
QUOTE
"... the first business of the court is to try to issue whether or not the case is bought within the
terms of the statute, and only if this be proven by proper evidence can the court proceed to decide
upon treatment"
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.
Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court
lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.

Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is
deprived of juris.
END QUOTE
-6-
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/9.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="otherwise%20fell%20out
side%20its%20jurisdiction%20"
Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)
QUOTE
The Full Court on appeal from Maxwell J. held that the review of the Deputy Registrar's decision
was confined to an inquiry whether the parties did in fact consent to the terms of the order and
whether the terms agreed upon were in a form appropriate to the type of order sought and were
enforceable. But the order made by the Deputy Registrar must have been made pursuant to s.79 -
the section which confers power upon the Court to order a settlement of or an alteration in the
property interests of the parties. The Court could not make an order which otherwise fell
outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties consented to it and it follows, a fortiori, that
a Registrar, exercising a delegated power, could not do so. Thus, for instance, under s.80(1)(j) of
the Act the Court may make an order by consent, but only in exercising its powers under Pt VIII.
Section 37A(1)(g) allows the delegation to the Registrar of the power to make an order by consent,
but only where it is a power of the Court. And O.36A, r.2(1)(n) delegates to the Registrar the
power referred to in s.37A(1)(g).
END QUOTE
I decides to terminate the services of the lawyer and represent myself.

Despite the mothers history (as was made known in Children Court proceedings)
having paedophile boyfriends, etc, somehow Legal Aid Victoria nevertheless was
ongoing financing her litigating for custody of my daughter, albeit all unsuccessful.
There was a relentless litigation against me. It would take reams of paper to set it all
out. However in 1992 I was visiting a female friend when she alerted me that my
daughter had pains in her groin area. I decided to immediately take my daughter to
Swan Hill Department of Human Services. I declined to stay with my daughter when
they offered me to do so, this as I didn’t want them to think I was in any way
preventing my daughter to speak the truth. I afterwards was given the understanding
that my daughter refused to talk about what had happened to her. I was than ask if I
touched my daughter inappropriate. I made clear I didn’t I was then asked how then
could I have applied cream that on a previous occasion prescribed my daughter’s
doctor for her groin area. I explained that at that time realising that to apply cream I
might some day at a later time to have inappropriately touched my daughter I had
specifically travelled to Melbourne and stayed there while a lady friend applied the
cream to my daughter.
As DHS was unable to assist, and well aware that as a single father I was the first
who bore any suspicion I nevertheless decided to take my daughter to the Royal
Children Hospital in Melbourne (an about 700 km round trip) and at the hospital the
doctor established that my daughter indeed appeared to have been sexual abused, and
the healing period was about 6 weeks, the last time my daughter had been on access
to her mother. Unbeknown to me at the time, but what I discovered months later in
legal proceedings before Strauss J. my daughters half sibling (about 2 years older)
also then had complained about sexual abuse by her mothers husband and the
Children Court had issued orders for the husband to not come near the matrimonial
home where this child was residing with her mother.
The mother had her custody case struck out on 9 October 1992.by His Honour Guess
when I was conducting my representation from home in Berriwillock while the
mother was in the Family court of Australia at Melbourne represented by her
lawyers, and the court ordered that the mother was not permitted to file any further
custody orders without first obtaining the leave of the court. However, the mothers
lawyers nevertheless filed yet another custody application which came before His
-7-
Honour Strauss J. During the hearing His Honour commented several times that a
change of custody was needed. At one stage without my prior knowledge, the court
had ordered a staff member of Swan Hill DHS to give evidence. The person declined
this based upon confidentiality. Strauss J then threatened him that if he failed to give
evidence he would be held in CONTEMPT OF COURT. I decided to avoid this
problem and advised the court I accepted the witness to reveal all and any
confidential details. The witness then gave evidence and again/Strauss J commented
a change of custody was needed. When the opposing counsel completed his cross
examination (in view the court had called this witness) I then requested the court to
be allowed to cross examine the witness. Strauss J seemed to be puzzled by this as I
understood from his comment that there was sufficient evidence to change custody
and so to say I could only make it worse for myself. In the end he allowed me to
cross examine the witness. It then emerged that the evidence the witness had given
was true and correct but totally misrepresented by opposing counsel and Strauss J
himself. During the hearing Struass J even raised the issue how would anyone know I
had not sexual abused my daughter! This to me showed how despicable the judge
was where I sought no more but to protect my daughter from paedophilia. The end
result was that I retained custody of my daughter. It was my skill in cross
examination to enable the witness to clarify his evidence in contrast to what the
opposing lawyer and the judge had alleged the evidence was about. \It must be stated
that I continued to oppose the jurisdiction of the Family court of Australia all along
that my daughter being a WARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
therefore could not be subjected to any jurisdiction of the Family court of Australia.
While it has been argued that the Victorian Parliament in 1986 provided for the
Family Court of Australia to deal with children not being of a marriage, this Act (as
also explained below) is not one which fell within the powers of any State
government without the approval of state electors as due to the separation of powers
the State parliament cannot give away Supreme Court jurisdiction which it does
when transferring jurisdiction to the Commonwealth. As French J (later French CJ)
made clear Ss51(xxxvii) can only allow for the Commonwealth to accept a referral of
legislative powers but the power for the State to do so must be found elsewhere,
which I view is s123 of the constitution.
In communication with the mothers lawyers I wrote (to that meaning; “Even a first
year law student would know the laws better than Fogarty J”
The mothers counsel made this known in legal proceedings to Fogathy J and well
without charging me reading my legal rights, etc, he convicted me, fined me and
ordered me to pay cost.
I appealed this and on 20 June 1994 I appeared before the Full Court of Australia. I
had already filed a written submission under the title ADDRESS TO THE COURT
of some 11 parts and of more than about 1,000 pages outlining all legal issues.
When the Court invited me to present my case I responded: Your Honours I see you
have my ADDRESS TO THE COURT before you and I have nothing further to add.
His Honour kay J the leading judge then invited opposing Counsel to present his
case. He started that I had failed to present my appeal and so the appeal should be
dismissed. His Honour Kay J I recall responded that he wished that every lawyer
followed my example, as it is all set out in writing and it avoided the court needing to
make notes and having any language problem in understanding., etc. Counsel then
submitted to have an adjournment so he could read the documentation, upon which
His Honour Kay J made clear that Counsel was being paid to represent his client and
-8-
he better proceeded. At the end of the hearing Kay J announced that the court would
adjourn with a judgment to be handed down on a later date.
Even so Strauss J had made certain travel orders for me to do a round trip of 1,000
kilometres to present my daughter for access, as after all the mother was ordered to
pay $20 a week child support and Strauss J made clear he was not interested with
Family court orders regarding 4 of my children of my 2 nd marriage, it became
obvious that this was a problem. In particular as without any motor vehicle I had to
rely to travel from Berriwillock with my daughter on the Friday to Melbourne then
collect 4 of my children by court order, then travel on to Morwell to bring my
daughter to her mother and then be stuck with the 4 children in a motel until the
Sunday so I could collect my daughter return the 4 children to their mother and then
travel home on Monday to Berriwillock.
Sometimes when I delivered my daughter the mother upon arrival made clear she
didn’t want the child but nevertheless I was stuck with 5 children in Morwell as no
immediate return trip was possible.
This is the deliberate conduct by judges when you so to say cross their path to pursue
JUSTICE.
I appeared before Hase J to seek variation of orders but it was refused, this even so
the mother never was paying the $20.00 a week that was ordered and the Child
Support Agency made clear they wouldn’t pursue the enforcement of the orders
because she was a woman and couldn’t be expected to pay child support..
I was with Mr John Abbott in Brisbane for his proceedings of appeal of a registrar
having sold his property in violation of court orders, when I commented to Mr
Abbott that I have been warned by court staff that judges of the Family Court of
Australia has been overheard to discuss how they could teach me a lessen and would
pursue to imprison me no matter what.
I on 5 December 1994 was before Hase J about if I should be charged with
CONTEMPT OF COURT for failing to provide access of my daughter to her mother
in Morwell.
I immediately filed a case in the High Court of Australia and on 8 December 1994
appeared before His Honour Dawson J but His Honour clearly wasn’t interested in
what was constitutionally appropriate as His Honour made clear he wouldn’t
intervene in the litigation. As such, the fact that my daughter was and remained a
WARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA and so the Family court of
Australia couldn’t exercise any jurisdiction seems to be of no interest to His Honour.
On 19 December 1994 The Full Court of The Family Court of Australia upheld my
appeal (heard on 20 June 1094) and held that his Honour Fogarty J had failed to
provide me with my legal rights including failing to charge me, read my legal rights
and allowed me to place my case. The same day Hase J commenced CONTEMPT
OF COURT PROCEEDINGS against me.
Unbeknown to me while the hearing was ongoing Hase J already had issued final
orders for me to be imprisoned for 3 weeks. Those orders were send to Berriwillock,
while I was still in court in Melbourne in the hearings. As such what I had been
advised months earlier that the Court would have been imprisoned to teach me a
lesson became reality.
Due to the unavailability of a witness the Court had to adjourn the case for 2 days
and then the hearing re-commenced. During the hearing I had been mistaken to a
particular date and so this now was used to imprison me for contempt of court. My
-9-
daughter was ordered to spend 4 weeks with her mother and I was prohibited to have
any contact with her whatsoever during those 4 weeks.
Hase J sentenced me to 3 weeks imprisonment. I was handcuffed and taken to the
cells.
As I later was given the understanding from friends that my daughter while at her
mothers had been told she would never again see me and she was crying on the
phone to my friends that she wanted to see me, etc.
When I was in the cells in the Magistrates Court of Victoria in Melbourne I saw a
man crying and so went up to him asking if I could assist. He explained his problems
and I made suggestions as to what to do when he appeared before the magistrate. In
short he did and when he returned he thanked me for having been correct and the
magistrate had made sure he was provided with his rights and been able to talk to his
wife, etc.
I was transferred to Pentridge prison amongst violent prisoners, etc, when a group of
prisoners came to me demanding I provide them with items (even so everything had
already been taken from me when I was placed in handcuffs). Then suddenly the man
I had assisted in the cell came up and explained that I was the “Professor” and I
should be left alone. Because after being placed in a cell I was allowed to have my
law reports with me to prepare my appeal, I also was explaining to inmates what they
could read in those law reports. Often getting the comment that their lawyer never
had told them about certain authorities, etc.
A prisoner cam to me warning me to have overheard that prison guard would visit
me after lockdown and would teach me a lesson. The prisoner indicated that this
generally means that I would leave the prison with feet first in a coffin.
Being pre-warned I decided to hide pencils printed with my name on it, as after all I
expected them to claim they would be looking for drugs. After lock down the were at
least 4 if not more prison guards entering my cell. The moment they opened the door
I announced that I had expected them and had earlier in the day attended to the
doctor and I had no physical bruises, etc. They ordered me to get out of the cell and
commenced ripping up my law reports, etc, claiming to be looking for drugs.
Remarkable they never did check any of the food containers that I had in my cell and
neither searched for say any straws that might contain drugs, as had they done so
they would have located my hidden pencils. As such, it was clear they never were
looking for drugs but to destroy my law reports, etc.
The next morning someone from the Victorian Ombudsman attended (in regard of an
earlier complaint I had made against guards) and then I was transported to the Family
court of Australia to deal with my appeal against the imprisonment.
Even so my daughter appointed child representative and the mother’s lawyers
indicated they didn’t pursue me to be returned to the prison and I submitted that I had
already completed the 3 weeks sentence due to applicable remissions, Nicholson CJ
made clear I was wrong and would have to be returned to the prison to serve the
remaining time. Once I was returned to the cells of the magistrates Court of Victoria
in the city I then made known to the Sergeant in charge that he should contact the
Governor of Pentridge to have me immediately released as I already had served the 3
weeks. The sergeant explained he would have to book me in and then he would do
so. About 15 minutes later he returned to advise me I was free to leave because the
governor had ordered this. I then headed strait back to the Family Court of Australia
at Melburne and advised the Registrar I was released.
- 10 -
The next morning I went to see the Child representative who I noticed was in a court
room, albeit no court in session, and informed him that I was released. Shortly
thereafter I had what appeared to me to be a federal police officer attending to me
giving me the understanding that Nicholson CJ had directed him to arrest me and
return me to the prison. I went with him into the hall way and explained what was
applicable and I would now return to the court room and for him to accompany me so
that in case Nicholson CJ was to jump the bench and attack me then he was to arrest
Nicholson CJ. The officer kindly declined this and left. I entered the court room and
now the Full Court was in session and I positioned myself in front of Nicholson CJ in
the public gallery.
I had in the meantime filed another case in the High Court of Australia and appeared
before Dawson J on 27 February 1995 and explained to His Honour that the orders
had been pre-determined and issued and I (again) challenged the jurisdiction of the
Family Court of Australia as my daughter was and remained a WARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA, however His Honour made clear that as the
appeal was to be heard the following day before the Full Court of the Family Court
of Australia His Honour refused to intervene In my view His Honour deplorably
failed to deal with my objections including that the purported Cross Vesting Act was
unconstitutional.
.
The following day the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (involving notably
Fogarty J also) dismissed my appeal, pretending that the Family Court of Australia
had jurisdiction.
Later the Family Law Act 1975 was amended to prevent a federal prisoner to be
entitled to the same remission of time as other prisoners are entitled upon. By this a
federal prisoner not subject to any Family Law Act orders can enjoy as any other
prisoner remission of time when for example there is a prison officer strike but one
under the orders of the Family Court of Australia will not be entitled to this.
While I was in prison I wrote poetry:
1-1-1995
FOR THE LOVE OF MY CHILD, I WAS JAILED

BUT NO MATTER WHAT, I HAVEN'T FAILED
I WAS CONVICTED UPON FABRICATED ACCESS ORDERS
RATHER THAN THE COURT TO GO BY PRONOUNCED ORDERS
THE TRANSCRIPT VERSION DOESN'T CHANGE, BY ME BEING JAILED
AS NO MATTER WHAT THE COURT HAS FAILED
AS LIKE THE 2-8-1993 MOCK-TRAIL CONVICTION MADE
HAVING BEEN SQUASHED ON THE 19-12-1994 DATE
I HAVE NO DOUBT THE 22-12-1994 CONVICTION TOO
WILL SOON OR LATER PROVE TO BE TABOO
MY SLOGAN "MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL"
PERHAPS MAY ALWAYS BE MY TELLING TALE
THAT NO MATTER THE HARDSHIP SUFFERED NOW
I WILL EVENTUALLY, LEGALLY, OBTAIN JUSTICE, SOMEHOW
IN THE MEAN TIME I DO SEEK
HOPEFULLY WITHIN THIS WEEK
TO ONCE AGAIN GAIN MY FREEDOM
AND BY THIS LOOSE JAIL'S BOREDOM
- 11 -
FIVE OF MY CHILDREN FROM 7 TO 12 YEARS OLD
HAD NO DADDY WITH CHRISTMAS, THEY WERE TOLD
MY CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR SPEND IN JAIL
THAT TOO IS MY SORROW TALE
BUT FOR ALL THOSE WHOM WANT TO KNOW IT
I MAKE IT CLEAR TO FEEL MYSELF FIT
TO BATTLE ON THE PLIGHT TO FIGHT MY DAUGHTERS RIGHT
AS ANY FATHER ALWAYS WOULD KEEP IN SIGHT
FOR THE LOVE OF MY CHILD, I WAS JAILED
THIS AS MY DAUGHTER ALWAYS WILL REMEMBER
THAT HER FATHER, FOR HER RIGHTS, WAS JAILED IN DECEMBER
SHE WILL GROW-UP KNOWING HER FATHERS PLIGHT
TO FIGHT FOR HER, GABRIELLE, HIS DAUGHTERS RIGHT
THE COURT AGAIN CONDUCTED THE CASE CORNEY

AND SOON THEY HAVE TO COFF-UP THE COMPENSATION MONEY
NEXT TIME THEY WANT TO CONVICT ME OF AN ALLEGED CRIME
THEY BETTER CONSIDER THE COMPENSATION IS GOING TO COST A DIME
AND IN THE END
THE MESSAGE BE SEND
MY DAUGHTERS RIGHT'S
REMAINS MY PLIGHT'S
FOR THOSE WHOM WANT TO KNOW, A WELFARE REPORT WAS PROVIDED

THAT MY CONDUCT WAS FOR THE CHILD'S WELLBEING, IT WAS DECIDED
SO, THAN I ASK, IF I ACTED FOR THE WELLBEING OF THE CHILD
THEN WHY SUCH ABSURDITY OF A JUDGE GOING WILD
AS TO JAIL ME IN A RUSH
WITHOUT TO MUCH FUSS
JAILED WITH MURDERERS, RAPIST AND THIEFS
IT STILL HASN'T CHANGED MY BELIEFS
THAT FOR THE LOVE OF MY CHILD, I WAS JAILED
VARIOUS STRIP-SEARCHES AND OTHER DEGRADING CONDUCT IN JAIL

ALSO REQUIRES ME TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF MY SORROW TALE
I AM BRANDED A CRIMINAL FOR LIFE
WHICH FURTHER PUT ME IN MORE STRIFE
AS NO MATTER MY INNOCENCE OF ANY CRIME DONE
MY PERSONAL STATUS AND CREDIBILITY ARE GONE
THE JAIL EXPERIENCES CAUSING LASTING EMOTIONAL HARM

SUCH AS, WHEN TREATED AS IF BEING IN A CHICKEN FARM
LOCKED IN CAGES TITLED "CHOOK'S PEN"
WITHOUT A SHADE FROM A BUSH OR DEN
PRISON GUARD LOCKING AND UNLOCKING PADLOCKS ALL THE TIME

WITHOUT CHARGING PRISONERS OR PRISON-GUARDS A DIME
THEIR USAGE OF FOUL LANGUAGE SEEMS A NORM
SO I WAS TOLD WHEN CREATING A STORM
AS TO DARE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE LANGUAGE USED
WHEN STRIP-SEARCHED AND VERBALLY ABUSED
I DARED TO ASK WHAT ARE THE FORMAL RULES OF THE JAIL

WHICH SEEMED AS IF I HAD ASKED THEM FOR A NAIL
AS IF I WANTED TO USE IT TO PICK LOCKS
AND THEN SOFTLY DISAPPEARANCE ON MY SOCKS
- 12 -
A SCREW ISN'T A THREADED OBJECT USED AS A FASTENER IN A TRADE

BUT A PRISON OFFICER OF WHOM AN INMATE IS SUPPOSED TO BE AFRAID
TO USE A TOILET IN A DOUBLE PRISON CELL

IS HAVING THE OTHER PRISONER WATCHING YOU, DOING WELL
USING THE URINAL IN YARD THREE

IS HAVING A FOOTBATH FOR FREE
THE WASHING MACHINE NEAR THE CLINIC IS SO RUSTED AND OLD
THAT REPLACEMENT IS OVERDUE AND THE OLD ONE FOR SCRAP TO BE SOLD
THE GYM EQUIPMENT IN YARD TWO IS OUT OF ORDER WITH 2 BOLTS MISSING
BUT WHEN I REPORTED THIS, THE PRISON OFFICER BEGAN HISSING
SO MANY PRISON-GUARDS HAVE DEMANDED TO SEE MY BACK CHEEKS SPREAD

THAT I WONDER IF IT BECOMES COMMON KNOWLEDGE, AS A BOOK WELL READ
MOST SEEM TO BE SO AFFIXED TO THE GENITALS THEY SEE
THAT I AM CONSIDERING TO CHARGE A SHOW TIME FEE
THE SHOWER FACILITIES HAVE BARS ONLY FITTED ON TOP

SO THE LADY PRISON OFFICERS CAN SEE, FROM 1ST FLOOR, ANY FLOP
THE ALARM SYSTEM IS OF SUCH GOOD DESIGN, IT IS A BORE

AS I WAS TOLD ALL YOU DO IS TO HIT A PLASTIC CUP ON A SOLID STEEL DOOR
THE GOVERNOR WAS TOTALLY SURPRISED I DIDN'T ACCEPT THIS BEING PROPER
PARTICULARLY NOT IF A PRISONER WAS GOING TO BE A ROPER
I WAS TOLD, IT WAS USED FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS
AND SO IT WAS RIDICULOUS TO HAVE ANY FEARS
AND THE GOVERNOR EXPLAINED TO BE MORE NEEDED AND OCCUPIED
WITH THOSE WHOM WERE TRYING TO COMMIT SUICIDE
IN THE NEW CITY WATCHHOUSE, I CAUGHT A CHEST INFECTION VERY SOON

AND SO DURING THE FIRST NIGHT, LOCKED AWAY WITHOUT SEEING THE MOON
WE WERE KEPT AT A TEMPERATURE OF ABOUT 5 DEGREE CELSIUS AT NIGHT
WITH AN AIR FAN BLOWING ONGOING HEAVY, AND NOT LIGHT
ONE BLANKET AND SOME COVERED FOAM SHEETS WERE A BED
WHERE THE BLANKET WAS SEE-THROUGH LIKE A NET
I GOT THE NEXT DAY A COURT ORDER FOR A DOCTOR TO ATTEND
BUT THE NURSE TOLD ME THAT SHE KNOWS BETTER AND THAT IS THE TREND
SO NO DOCTOR WAS CALLED IN
AS TO DO SO SEEMED A SIN
THE TOILET USE THERE IS VIA CAMERA DISPLAYED ON A T.V. SCREEN IN THE LOBBY
AND YOU MAY GUESS WHAT THE FEMALE POLICE THERE HAVE AS A HOBBY
YES, THEY ARE CONSCIOUS HARD WORKING AND OBSERVANT "COPS"
WHOM WATCHED THOSE SCREENS OF MOVING ITEMS THAT ARE TOPS
THE TAXI FARE, FROM CITY WATCHHOUSE TO JAIL WAS HIGHLY INFLATED
AS IT WAS A PRISON VAN, MORE LIKE A COFFIN THAT WAS STEEL PLATED
SO AT THE END I DIDN'T BOTHER TO PAY A CENT
AFTER ALL WHEN JAILED ALL MY MONEY ALSO WENT
MY HEARING AID'S WERE STRIP-SEARCHED SOMEHOW
AS THEY WERE FOUND RIPPED APART AND UNUSABLE NOW
I TOLD YOU ONLY PART OF MY STORY

BUT THAT ALREADY SHOULD BE A WORRY
ONE DAY, YOU MAY BE THE INNOCENT PERSON JAILED
WHERE THE NORMAL FAIR AND PROPER HEARING HAS FAILED
- 13 -
"MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL" IS MY MOTTO

BUT IT IS MORE BECOMING LIKE WINNING TATTSLOTTO
SO LETS COMBINE TO PURSUE JUSTICE FOR ALL
NO MATTER IF YOU ARE SMALL OR TALL
UNLESS YOU TOO WISH TO DISPLAY THE SPREAD OF YOUR BACK CHEEKS
WHICH MAY BE FOR YEARS, MONTHS OR WEEKS
TIME AND AGAIN UPON STRANGERS DEMAND
WHILE BEING THE GOVERNORS GUEST ON REMAND.
BY. G.H.SCHOREL 1-1-1995
THE WRITER, ENGLISH NOT BEING HIS NATIVE LANGUAGE, USED WORDS AS HE
FEELS IT FIT TO REFLECT HIS EXPRESSIONS RATHER THEN ENGLISH
TERMINOLOGY.
While imprisoned I made myself a promise that I would dedicate my life to pursue
JUSTICE not only for myself but also for others.
I have continued to do so.
In 2008 Mr Francis James Colosimo requested my assistance as he wanted to get rid

of the barrister. He had by then already placed under Orders of Administration and
subjected to more than 5 hearing of CONTEMPT OF COURT. I successfully
appealed the ORDERS OF ADMINISTRATION as well as appeared before Her
Honour Harbison J of the County Court of Victoria which I view is a example for all
judges to follow. I successfully had Her Honour ordering a stay of the CONTEMPT
OF COURT proceedings only to be permitted to recommence upon application by
Mr Colosimo. Her Honour agreed with me when the opponent lawyers sought to
withdraw the CONTEMPT OF COURT application that as I submitted a party filing
a CONTEMPT OF COURT application cannot withdraw it was it becomes the
property of the Court. As always regardless if I represented a lawyer or not I refused
to charge them for my services, including any out of pocket expenses. All I asked
them is to assist others as I assisted them. I may add that I submitted to her Honour
Harbison J to provide me free of charge the transcripts of all previous hearings,
which to the credit of Her Honour this was provided for. I then subsequently
discovered that at no time had Mr Francis James Colosimo (despite then a barrister
legally represented Mr Colosimo) he was never formally charges or read his legal
rights, during the 5 previous hearings.
With Premier Daniel Andrews now pursuing his kind of terrorism allegedly claiming
that by having the curfew he keeps the infection rate down, then this can be used as a
no sensible justification for eternity.
12. That I understand that the High Court of Australia has ruled that the wording “for
peace order and good government” is without any meaning. I hold an opposing view
and it seems to me that judges of the High Court of Australia either lack a proper
understanding of the true meaning and application of the constitution or simply
pursue their own goals despite of what the constitution stands for.
- 14 -
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

QUOTE
Part V—Powers of the Parliament
51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to
make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
Commonwealth with respect to:
END QUOTE
HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:
I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that
any of the evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from
leaving these words as they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order,
and good government of the commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No
construction in the world could confer any powers beyond the ambit of those specified.
The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the
leader of the Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have
proposed to omit might not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in
every instance for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for
instance, navigation laws. Might it not be contended that certain navigation laws were not for
the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, and might there not be litigation
upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the parliament of the commonwealth, and
might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their legislation was for the peace,
order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is sufficient, without our
saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good government of
the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full consideration with
a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had better
not be left out of the bill altogether.
The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting
Committee.
Amendment negatived.
END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the
local Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and
good government of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small
restrictions as are imposed by the Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary
restriction that they can only legislate for their own territory. The position with regard to
this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in
express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE

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
- 15 -
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
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I
think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those
instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the
United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this
Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material they found in every Constitution
before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a great deal of responsibility in
leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is for us to consider,
looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United States,
whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend
(Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and
that we should have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no
question that in time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be
weighed and an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words
which we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now
contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every clause
and every word that goes into this Constitution.
END QUOTE
It should therefore be clear that neither the Commonwealth or the States can legislate
contrary to the “peace, order and good government” and the High Court of Australia
lacks any jurisdiction to willy nilly pretend that certain words in the constitution do
not have any meaning.
Therefore any State legislation must be for the “peace, order and good government”.
In my view the purported Health and Wellbeing Act (Vic) cannot be regarded as such
as it defies the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) and also it allows
unreasonable power such as a Minister allegedly suspending certain legislation,
which I view a Parliament cannot delegate to a Minister.
Indeed I view we have witnessed how the WA Parliament has grossly exceeded and
abuses its powers to so to say seek to prevent Mr Clive Palmer of the benefits of his
court successes by purportedly legislating that the court decisions are not to be
enforced against the State of Western Australia, and no appeal is permissible, as well
as that the Minister of any official is to be held legally liable.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpt50LhqpSs
If a government can do this to Clive Palmer, it can do it anyone
As Mr Alan Jones of Sky News pointed out that if a Parliament can do this to Mr
Clive Palmer then it can do this against anyone else.
The issue is if the WA Parliament (as after all it was the Parliament) has the
legislative powers to legislate in such manner that could deny a person/party the
rights obtained already. In my view the Parliament of a State is bound by the legal
principles embedded in the federal constitution.
- 16 -
For example
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) Section 51:
(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose
in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws;
One then has to ask if the State could simply then acquire a person’s property
without giving the affected persona single cent, and then sell it to the
Commonwealth. In my view a State must abide by the legal principle embedded in
the constitution and as such must also provide a reasonable compensation for any
rights it takes from a citizen/person. The word “property” doesn’t mean just a parcel
of land but can include anything of possession of a person.
.
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
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;

QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
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
But there is more!
The issue is can the WA Parliament set aside any judgment or allow the WA
Government to ignore any settlement and/or other court decision.
In my view it has no powers to act against any court determination regarding another
judiciary. Parliament can only legislate as to matters within its legislative
jurisdiction.
.
Then the question may be ask: Can the WA Parliament override any WA Court
decision.
.
The High Court of Australia held that where a party pleads the non-application of a State Act
because of Commonwealth legislation then the State Court is exercising Federal jurisdiction.
As such if one challenge the validity of the WA legislation to deny once rights and
interest because of the embedded legal principles in the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then I view this would automatically become a federal
jurisdiction issue.
Perhaps the following may also be considered, for so far applicable:

- 17 -
Held by the High Court of Australia that the expression “Court or judge of a State” does not
include a Judge sitting in Chambers exercising the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Wilcox v
Donohoe, (1905) 3 C.L.R. 83; 12 A.L.R. 54.
.
Held by the High Court of Australia that the federal jurisdiction which is conferred on a State
Court by the section is subject to any limitations imposed by the laws of the State upon its state
jurisdiction, unless otherwise expressly declared. Federated Saw-mill Timberyard and General
Woodworkers Employees Association v Alexander, (1912) 15 C.L.R. 308; 19 A.L.R. 22.
.
Held by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland that the police magistrate exercising
Federal jurisdiction is not an officer of a Federal Court within the meaning of this paragraph
(Section 39 of the Judicial Act 1903) R. v. Archdall and Others; Ex parte Taylor, 1919 St. R. Q ld
207; 13 Q.J.P.R. 22 C.L.R. 437 in which the High Court (Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy and Ricch
JJ ; Griffith CJ and Barton J dissenting) held that a Judge of an inferior Court of a State invested
with and purporting to exercise Federal jurisdiction is not an officer of the Commonwealth within
the meaning of s. 75 (v) of the Constitution.
.
Held by the High Court of Australia that a State Court, the appellated jurisdiction of which is
limited by a State Act, has no federal appellated jurisdiction beyond those limits. R. v.
Whitfield and Others’ Ex parte Quon Tat, (1013) 15 C. L.R. 689; 19 A.L.R. 97
.
Held by the High Court of Australia that under this section the Courts of the several States have
federal appellated jurisdiction, as regard the matters enumerated in ss75 and 76 of the Constitution,
to the same extent that, and subject to the same conditions as, under the State laws they have
appellated jurisdiction in matters to which State laws apply. Ah Yick v Lehmert, (1905) 2 C.L.R.
593; 11 A.L.R. 306
.
Held by the High Court of Australia (Williams J.) that under this section 40 of the Judiciary Act
1903 the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth or a State may apply for the removal into the
High Court of a cause or part of a cause whether or not he is a party to the proceedings in which
the cause arises, and if the cause really and substantially arises under the Constitution or involves
its interpretation, the court MUST grant the removal as of right notwithstanding that the matter is
apparently concluded by authority. Any distinct and divisible question may be “part” of such a
cause within the meaning of this section. In re an Application by the Public Service Association
of N.S.W. , (1947) 75 C.L.R. 430
This may be a question that may require to be considered as to if one is dealing with
a WA court exercising federal jurisdiction. I do not know if this case involved federal
jurisdiction, such as any federal Court involvement, however in my view if there was
any federal jurisdiction invoked at anytime, which is a matter that automatically
applies if either party in the past did refer to legal provisions contained within the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
The following is of a Judgment albeit I have misplaced the case law details albeit
your lawyers may easily track this:
QUOTE
10. Magna Carta c 29 embodies a "protest against arbitrary punishment, and against arbitrary
infringements of personal liberty and rights of property" (Holdsworth, Volume II at p 215; Wade
and Bradley, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 10th edition, Longman, London, pp 13-14).
The summary procedure proposed to be undertaken in this case accords with these principles.
Magna Carta may be modified by NSW law
11. Even if the above submission is incorrect, c 29 of the magna carta cannot be availed of in
this case as it does not hold the status of a constitutional provision of NSW, rather it is open
to "affectation and modification" by ordinary legislation enacted by the State Parliament
(Galea v NSW Egg Corporation Court of Appeal, 21 November 1989, Unreported, at 6, Adler v
- 18 -
District Court of NSW (1990) 19 NSWLR 317 at 332; see also Chester v Bateson (1920) 1 KB
829 per Darling J). Such is explicit in s 6 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW) which
declares c 29 to have remained in force in NSW "except so far as affected by any ... State Acts
from time to time in force in New South Wales" (6(b)). The Supreme Court Act and Rules have
affected the asserted right to trial by jury in providing for a procedure whereby contempt may be
prosecuted by summary procedure (see Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 53(3F), Supreme Court
Rules Part 55; Fraser v The Queen (No 2) (1985) 1 NSWLR 680 at 91-3 per McHugh JA).
12. This Court has held on a number of occasions that local law is able to over-ride Magna Carta.
In Chia Gee v Martin (1905) 3 CLR 649 Griffiths CJ said, at 653, "The contention that a law of the
Commonwealth is invalid because it is not in conformity with Magna Carta is not one of serious
refutation." In Re Cusak (198) 60 ALJR 302 Wilso J pointed out that "The validity of laws enacted
by the Commonwealth Parliament falls to be determined by reference to the proper construction of
the Australian Constitution. It is not open to base an argument for validity by reference to alleged
inconsistencies between laws of the Commonwealth and either Magna carta or the Bill of Rights.".
END QUOTE
Considering The Court having made this ruling we must however consider that the
Framers of the Constitution embedded the following legal principle in the
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-
of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and
unite.
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit
to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new
Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of
greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon
which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by
the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of
Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- 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.
END QUOTE
- 19 -
As such this “new Magna Charta” our federal constitution is relevant, and the States
cannot legislation in defiance of the legal principles embedded in it, as they were
created “subject to this constitution”.
But there is more:

One has to consider that there is a separation of powers both in the Commonwealth
and the States (A Territory are a quasi State).
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

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
Therefore while politicians and their agencies and the police may desire to pretend
otherwise in reality no constitutional amendment is valid unless approve by the
“sovereign citizens” by way of referendum. If therefore the WA Parliament in any
way had amended its Colonial constitution since federation without any State
referendum then any such purported amendments would be NULL AND VOID Ab
Initio. The Colonial constitution would be in force subject to the provisions of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) (and so it’s embedded
legal principles also.
.
Because the Colonial Parliaments were “sovereign Parliaments” that could deal with
any constitution and in fact override any court judgment but since federation became
State “constitutional Parliaments”, then it no longer can interfere with any court
order/judgment, etc. What this means is that the WA Government is bound by any
decision the WA courts and/or its arbitration decided.
The Letters Patent of the Governor for WA published on 2 January 1901 may likely
as was with Victoria provide for the Governor to appoint an “impartial
administration of justice”. This means the WA Parliament has no legislative powers
as to interfere and/or override any WA Court decision or delegated decision by an
appointed mediator. While a State Parliament can legislate as to ordinary legal
provisions of a State Court it can however, at least in my view, not disregard/override
a WA Court decision or inappropriately interfere with the courts processes.
- 20 -
As for “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” in my view the WA Parliament cannot apply

“QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” for a person who blatantly disregard the rule of law,
and or deliberately act in violation of court decisions or other legal rights.
The term of “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” is to some extend considered in
CAMPBELL v CHRIS FLORIAN; DAVID TATARSKY and Ors

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/196417.P.pdf
While ordinary a Premier acting within his/her legal position as Premier may claim
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY hoever where he acts deliberate in violation such as the
legal requirements of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) and pursue conduct of
purported State legislation that violates the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015
(Cth) and or in violation of any constitutional provisions such as sections 117 & 92
must be deemed to deny the Premier his/her QUALIFIED IMMUNITY from any
prosecution.
Likewise, I view that the WA legislation to shield the Premier or any official from
any prosecution/liability would be without legal basis.
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
As I understand it from various judgments of the High Court of Australia the States
have been allowed to go wild and do as they like and this has ultimately resulted that
ordinary citizens are robbed of heir constitutional rights. Few if any person would
really realise that it all so to say has gone of the rails.
.
How many persons would bother to check the 2 January 1901 published Gazette of
their State to be aware that an “impartial administration of justice” means a
separation of powers between the Government of the Day and the judiciary. As I set
out below on the one hand we have His Honour Phillips making clear that there is an
interference into the judicial system by the Government and on the other hand we
have a “separation of powers”.
We now have that both WA and Victoria are essentially sidelining the judiciary and I
view the High Court of Australia is duty bound to step in and declare the law as it is
and as such without twisting and perverting the constitution in doing so.
13. As I refused to vote in the 2001 Federal (political) election for various reasons
including that I held that the “compulsory” part of voting was unconstitutional the
AEC decided in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka to charge me, for FAILING TO VOTE.
- 21 -
14. The proceedings came initially before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg
(exercising federal jurisdiction) and I (representing myself) had filed a NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and by consent of the parties the Court ordered that
this NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS was to be heard and determined
by the High Court of Australia. This order is still outstanding.
15. On 4 August 2005 the matter of AEC v Schorel-Hlavka the matter returned before
the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg and now a second charged was added
for FAILING TO VOTE IN THE 2004 Federal (political) election, and I opposed the
usage of “AVERMENT” as my submissions were that Kable NSW made it clear that
the Commonwealth had to accept the State Courts as it found it. While the Victorian
Parliament had legislated for the use of “AVERMENT” regarding Bass Strait it had
not done so regarding the CEA1918 (Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) and hence
I insisted that the Commonwealth had to file and serve all relevant “evidence” it
sought to rely upon. After hearing submissions of both parties the Court directed that
the Commonwealth had to file and serve all “evidence” it relied upon. Counsel
appearing for the Commonwealth concealed from the court that in fact all ballot
papers for the 2001 election of the House of Representatives and the Senate had
already been destroyed and submitted that it would take “truck loads” to file and
serve all documents. The court made clear that this was a matter between the
Prosecutor and the Defendant. No “evidence was filed subsequently to those orders.
On 16 and 17 November 2005 the matter returned to the Court and now the
magistrate as the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg made known not to be
concerned as to previous orders of the court and proceeds to convict me.
16. I lodged an appeal in the County Court of Victoria and filed prior to the hearing a
written submission titled “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” of some 409 pages setting
out all legal issues. All Attorney-Generals had been provided with a copy of this
“ADDRESS TO THE COURT”. The Attorney General Mr Hulls for the State of
Victoria stated that the State of Victoria would abide by the orders of the Court. On
19 July 2006 the matter was heard before the County Court of Victoria Case numbers
T01567737 & Q10897630 exercising federal jurisdiction and the Court upheld both
appeals and noted that the Commonwealth had not filed any evidence. None of the
Attorney-Generals had in any manner opposed any of my written submissions as
stated in the “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” and as such I take the position that all
and any constitutional matters I had raised in my submissions were and remained
unchallenged and hence beyond the ability of any of the parties to re-litigate again.
No appeals were filed by any of the parties regarding the 19 July 2006 orders.
17. Since then, at times I do vote in political elections but only when I view there is a
candidate worthy to vote for. I am aware that the High Court of Australia has
indicated that if one appears to give once name then this essentially complete any
requirement to vote, but reality is that I discovered and complained about albeit it was
ignored, that then the ballot forms was taken by the electoral officer in charge and
appeared to me to fill in the ballot papers I had not used and then deposited them in
the relevant ballot boxes. This clearly undermines the confidentiality of the ballot
papers as well in my view constitute fraudulent use of ballot papers.
- 22 -
18. Having gone through this set out it is relevant because in my NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS subject to the 4 December 2020 order I challenged
also the validity of the purported Australian Citizenship Act 19848, as well as other
matters I deemed to be unconstitutional. Again, none of the Attorney-Generals
despite having the opportunity to do so bothered to challenge me on this. As such I
hold to be entitled that for all purposes and intend where I made clear legal challenges
and my appeals were both upheld unchallenged then I succeeded implied or otherwise
in all constitutional issues I had raised.
19. In my view the problems now faced with Premier Daniel Andrews I view resonate
from what I consider the original conduct of the High Court of Australia as to from
onset refuse to allow the usage of the Hansard Constitutional Convention Debates. I
will set out matters further.
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates(Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to
which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
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
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
Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by s73 of the
Constitution.
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
- 23 -
Likewise, the Commonwealth of Australia cannot turn naturalization into something
else not contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution.
20. For this I rely upon what the Framers of the Constitution stated:
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under
the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be
entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as
would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with
regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons,
it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both
of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would
not be the dual citizenship meant. 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. That does not affect the operation of this clause at
all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr.
O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary
provision, and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and,
therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we
possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude
anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a
state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the
hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the
right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would
anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less
than £1,000 a year should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands
of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state
shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to
withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular
set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
END QUOTE

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 following also must be considered:

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
- 24 -
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
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I
think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those
instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the
United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this
Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material they found in every Constitution
before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a great deal of responsibility in
leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is for us to consider,
looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United States,
whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend
(Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and
that we should have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no
question that in time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be
weighed and an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words
which we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now
contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every clause
and every word that goes into this Constitution.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
understand.
END QUOTE
.
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

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
It is my position that considering the above it is not relevant how some judges may desire to refer to
foreign powers and their legislation what “citizenship” stands for as what is relevant is that judges,
including those of the High Court of Australia are bound by the true meaning and application of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) As otherwise no citizen can avail
himself/herself to what is constitutionally applicable when judges with twist and pervert the true
meaning. Therefore my position is that the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is in violation
of the constitution and hence is ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio.
21. In my view it was because the High Court of Australia banned since its creation to
allow parties to rely upon the Hansard Constitutional Convention Debates records
that this issue as to “citizenship” is one of many other issues that so to say went of the
rials. As I further will set out.
- 25 -
22. At the time of federation there obviously existed no Federal Parliament and as such
neither any federal legislation. For this the Framers of the Constitution held it better
to have a legal principle embedded in the constitution that State legislators were
entitled to legislate in regard of Section 51 listed provisions “until” the
Commonwealth commenced to legislate.
.
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
.
QUOTE Mr. REID:
We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those
points enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There
cannot be two laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely
mention as almost a verbal criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention
of the framers was not to propose any complication of the kind.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the
commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that
this power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the
commonwealth to legislate on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought
to bear on the commonwealth to exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth
exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no
doubt that it will be exercised.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states
will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will,
however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making
these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

- 26 -
QUOTE
My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away from the
states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the meantime
until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
END QUOTE
From this I understand that any concurrent legislation ended when the
Commonwealth commenced to legislate on a certain subject matter.
23. I understand that the Commonwealth Commenced to legislate as to Biosecurity Act 1908 and this was
amended to be the now Biosecurity Act 2015 and as such since the 1908 Act all and any previously
existing “concurrent legislative powers no longer existed and any legislation that existed by any of the
States would remain in force subject to Section 109 of the constitution, provided they had not been
amended subsequently to the Commonwealth commencing legislation.

QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine.
That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
END QUOTE
Therefore, if there was no declaration by the Governor-General at the time applicable

for a STATE OF EMERGENCY then the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) couldn’t even
relied upon to enforce anything to apply their terrorism/tyranny.
While the State Parliament can legislate as to STATE OF EMERGENCY and/or
STATE OF DISSASTER when it comes to issues such as a bush fire, unless federal
legislation were to prevail, it cannot do so regarding “man-kind” disease(s).
24. Obviously one had to delve into the issue why the States are exercising purported
“concurrent” legislative powers in defiance of the Constitution.
25. A major problem appears to me to be that judges who grew up with the notion that
“citizenship” was a Commonwealth legislative power then went along with numerous
other incorrect interpretations. Not strange albeit I view incorrect of judges claiming
to be the “third arm of government”. This in itself underlines the failure by the judges
to understand their constitutional position. If judicial officers of the High Court of
Australia are not aware of their correct position how then can others do any better?
26. I understand from the following quotation that the judicature is the 3 rd part of the
constitution and in fact the Section 101 Inter-State Commission is the 4th Part.
Even so Section 101 provides for “shall be” this is generally blatantly disregarded.
Instead we have an ACCC acting under the direction of a Minister, whereas the Inter-
State Commission is on its own under leadership of experts without politicians
influencing its decisions. Only if the Inter-State Commission was to be held in “error
of law” could the High Court of Australia address this “error of law” but not the
expertise of the Inter-State Commission.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a
judiciary, there shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part
- 27 -
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
As a matter of fact, the Victorian Letters patent for the Governor published on 2-1-
1901 provides for the Governor to commission “impartial administration of justice”.
As such a separation of powers.
The following notes “Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United
Kingdom.” And this Letters Patent was because of the federation. If therefore one
has to hypothetically accept the High Court of Australia ruling in Sue v Hill that we
are under the Queen of Australia and an independent nation, then we do not have any
courts operating as such, because the courts are created to be “impartial
administration of justice” but under the British Crown.
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/other/vic_gazette/1901/2.html
QUOTE
FOURTH SUPPLEMENT
TO THE
VICTORIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
OF FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1900.
Published by Authority.
No. 2.] WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2. [1901.
THE Lieutenant-Governor of Victoria directs the publication of the following Letters Patent under
the Great Seal of the United Kingdom.
ISAAC A. ISAACS.
Government Offices, Melbourne, 2nd January, 1901.
VICTORIA.
LETTERS PATENT PASSEDUNDER THE GREAT SEAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

CONSTITUTING THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR OF TIlE STATE OF VICTORIA AND ITS
DEPENDENCIES, IN TILE COMMONWEALTIL OF AUSTRALIA. 1900.
VICTORIA, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen,
Defender of the Faith, Empress of India To, all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting.
END QUOTE
FOURTH SUPPLEMENT
TO THE
VICTORIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
OF FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1900.
Published by Authority
No. 2.] WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2. [1901.
- 28 -
QUOTE
follows :—
IV. Every person appointed to fill the Office of Governor shall with, all due solemnity,
before entering on any of the duties of his Office, cause’ the Commission appointing to be
Governor to be read and published at, the seat of Government, in the presence of the Chief
.Justice, or some other Judge of the Supreme Court of the State, and of she Members of the
Executive Council thereof, which being done, he shall then and there take before them the
Oath of Allegiance, in the form provided by an Act passed in the Session holden in tile Thirty-
first and Thirty-second years of Our Reign, intituled an Act to amend the Law relating to
Promissory Oaths ; ,and likewise the usual Oath for the due execution of the Office of
Governor, and for the due and impartial administration of justice which Oaths the said Chief
Justice or Judge is hereby required to administer.
END QUOTE
The Office of the Governor (Victoria) as per 2-1-1901 PROCLAMATION, that

was Gazetted requires that the Governor appoints independent judges! As such,
any notion that there being no separation of powers in the states utter and sheer
nonsense.
Therefore, judges who violate this requirement of “impartial administration of

justice in my view are worse than the ordinary criminal, this as they misuse/abuse the
legal processes for ulterior purposes when they know or should know it is unlawful.
This is also very relevant when it comes to purported reference of legislative powers
from a State to the Commonwealth.
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
- 29 -
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
However, if anything I view that the High Court of Australia precisely did what the
Framers of the Constitution made clear it couldn’t do. As I will set out further.
27. It is well known that the EU (European Union) is a “political union” between the
countries in Europe. No one would claim that the EU is a country. It is a “political
union” to which various countries submitted itself to deal with certain issues relation
to all countries who are members.
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-We spend time enough in discussing things here, and when every one is
agreed that this clause is not to be adopted in the form in which it is printed, but is only to be a
power of the Parliament, it is not worth while to discuss the question of whether it is [start page
1665] absolutely necessary to put in the words. Where there is a wide difference of opinion, it
would be safer to do it. I agree with Mr. Barton that there is no power, because sub-section (37) of
clause 52 reads-
Any matters necessary for or incidental to the carrying into execution of the foregoing powers, or
of any other powers vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or Executive Government of the
Commonwealth, or in any department or officer thereof.
I venture to say that these are not necessary or incidental to the execution of any powers. The
Commonwealth will come into existence under this Constitution plus English law, one of
whose principles is that the Queen can do no wrong. That is the foundation on which the
Constitution is established.
END QUOTE
Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
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
What this means is that when the British Government joined the EU the EU laws
became, and still remains, to be (as BREXIT is not completed) overriding ordinary
- 30 -
British Law, but not British constitutional laws. Even with the UK indicating that it
will remain certain EU laws for itself, this however cannot affect the Commonwealth
of Australia legal position as the Commonwealth cannot oust EU laws itself which
were part of “English law”
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as
such considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the
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
It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) albeit not overriding constitutional law,
is complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Serratore Nos. Ca 40642/95 and Crd 72680/95 Criminal Law and
Procedure - Statutes - Human Rights - Telecommunications - Law Reform [1995] NSWSC 154 (14
November 1995)
QUOTE
It is well established that the Court should not impute to the legislature an intention to
interfere with fundamental rights, freedoms or immunities; such an intention must be clearly
manifested by clear and unmistakable language: Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1994)
179 CLR 427 at 436-437. ... The close link between the fundamental right to be secure against
trespass and the right to privacy is illustrated by the observations by Lord Scarman in Morris v
Beardmore (1981) AC 446 ... Parliament itself has ... recognised, in the context of
telecommunications, the fundamental importance of protecting individual privacy, although also
recognising that the value of privacy can be over-ridden where it conflicts with other significant
community values, provided that detailed safeguards are observed. The recognition and protection
of privacy in the Intercept Act, in my view, justifies a restrictive approach to the construction of
the statutory exceptions to the prohibitions on interception. ... where there is a genuine doubt as to
whether the statutory language authorises the use of intercept information for a particular purpose,
that doubt should be resolved in favour of a narrow, rather than a broad construction of the
statutory authorisation.
END QUOTE
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=56647&currpage=T
C.C. No. 122 of 1992 HEADNOTE
Criminal law and procedure - stay of proceedings - principles - Bill of Rights, Articles 10 and 11.
QUOTE
18. So far as the common law is concerned, Duffy J. in Charles Cheung, after referring to Jago;
Norwich Crown Court Ex parte Belsham; Attorney General’s Reference No. 1 and a number of
earlier cases on delay and stay of execution, said:
“It seems to me, therefore, that I should take into account the length of' the delay, the reasons for
the delay, the conduct of the parties, prejudice to the Defendant and the public interest as factors to
be considered in the determination of this issue. There are the important factors whether I am
dealing with a common law abuse or an infringement of rights under the Bill.” (Here he was
referring to the BOR.) “I must conduct a balancing exercise in which all of these factors and all
other related circumstances are weighed, in order to determine whether in this case a stay of the
proceedings should be ordered.”
That is the approach which I have adopted.

- 31 -
19. Turning to the BOR aspect of the case, Duffy J. traced the-history and origin of the BOR and
referred to R. v. Sin Yau-ming, (1992) HKCLR 127. In that case, Silke V-P said at page 141,
“While this court is, in effect, required to make new Hong Kong Law relating to the manner of
interpretation of the Hong Kong Bill" (the BOR) "and consequentially the tests to be applied to
those laws now existing and, when asked, those laws yet to be enacted, we are not without
guidance in our task. This can be derived from decisions taken in common law jurisdictions which
contain a constitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights. He can also be guided by decisions of the
European Court of Human Rights – ‘The European Court' - and the European Human Rights
Commission – ‘The Commission’. Further, we can bear in mind the comments and decisions of the
United Nations Human Rights Committee - 'The Committee'. I would hold none of these to be
binding on us though insofar as they reflect the interpretation of article in the Covenant, and are
directly related to Hong Kong legislation, I would consider them as of the greatest assistance and
give to them considerable weight.”
END QUOTE
http://www.hrlrc.org.au/html/s02_article/default.asp?nav_cat_id=152&nav_top_id=63
The Human Rights Law Resource Centre maintains a database of Victorian cases which refer to the
Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
You can view all of the cases below, or search the database by year, court or tribunal, human right
or section of the Charter, or topic or keyword by clicking on 'HRLRC Caselaw Database' on the
toolbar at the top of this page.
Each case includes a summary and a link to the full text where available.
This database was last updated on: 23 January 2008
http://www.hrlrc.org.au/html/s02_article/default.asp?nav_cat_id=152&nav_top_id=63
QUOTE
Victorian Court of Appeal Makes First Reference to Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities TSL v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2006] VSCA (26 September 2006)
The Victorian Court of Appeal (comprising Callaway AP, Buchanan JA and Coldrey AJA) has
recently made its first reference to the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
The Charter, which received royal assent in July 2006 but does not commence, for the most part,
until 1 January 2007, enshrines a body of human rights derived from the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. Among the mechanisms established by the Charter to protect human
rights is a requirement that, from 1 January 2008, all statutory provisions must be interpreted and
applied, so far as is possible consistent with their statutory purpose, in a way that is compatible
with human rights. The Charter also provides, at s 7, that human rights may only be subject to such
‘reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on
human dignity, equality and freedom and taking into account all relevant factors’.
DPP v TY (No 3) [2007] VSC 489 (28 November 2007) In sentencing a young offender found
guilty of murder, Bell J of the Supreme Court of Victoria had regard to international human rights
principles, including the rights of the child under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in the
exercise of his sentencing discretion. Gray v DPP [2008] VSC (16 January 2008) In the first
decision to substantively consider the Victorian Charter of Human Rights since it became
justiciable on 1 January 2008, Bongiorno J has held that the Charter guarantees the right to a
timely trial and that the appropriate remedies for failure of the Crown to provide such a trial are
release of the accused on bail or, alternatively, a permanent stay of proceedings. R v White [2007]
VSC 142 (7 May 2007) The incarceration in prison of a person with a severe psychiatric illness
may amount to a violation of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights R v Williams [2007] VSC 2
(15 January 2007) Right to Legal Counsel under Charter of Human Rights - ss 6, 7, 4, 25, 49(2)
Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007) In a very significant
decision, the Supreme Court of Victoria has considered the relevance and application of the human
rights to equality before the law, access to justice and the right to a fair hearing under the ICCPR
to the right to a fair trial under Victorian law and the obligations of the court to self-represented
litigants. TSL v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2006] VSCA (26 September 2006)
Extended supervision of convicted sex offender - Limitations on human rights under s 7
- 32 -
END QUOTE
.
Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 38 (14 August 1997)
KIRBY J. : “ One highly influential international statement on the understand of
universal and fundamental rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
That document is not a treaty to which Australia is a party. Indeed it is not a
treaty at all. It is not part of Australia’s domestic law, still less of its Constitution. ”
The latter statement also must be considered in my view considering the application
of English Law and hence EU laws to be incorrect. His Honour Kirby J I view
omitted to consider that the EU laws and so any Human Rights provisions are
applicable albeit complimentary to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) and not despite of it.
Chief Justice French in his speech “The Common Law and the Protection of Human
Rights” to the Anglo Australiasian Lawyers Society on 4th September 2009, said:-
“ We do so against the backdrop of the supremacy of Parliament"

However, as this document makes clear all and any parliament within the
Commonwealth of Australia is a “constitutional parliament” and therefore
parliament supremacy doesn’t exist. Regretfully there are even judges I appeared
before at the bar table who claimed “The constitution doesn’t apply to me.” Her
Honour Gaynor of the County Court of Victoria was one such a judge in 2012.
28. We have however the issue that the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill held that
the Commonwealth of Australia was somehow a 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
It must be clear that a “political union” is not a country as like the EU it consists of
member countries.
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to
amendments of the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be
passed by an absolute majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if
that is done, the proposed amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the
states to be expressed in conventions elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment
is approved by a majority of the conventions in the states it shall become law, subject of
- 33 -
course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the constitution might be amended,
and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is no part of the scheme
proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE

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

QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I am trying to get at the ideas which are underlying the argument of
hon. gentlemen. I confess I have not got at them yet. The hon. member, Mr. Deakin, talks about
the powers exercised by the ministers of the Crown in Great Britain. They do not differ in any
respect from the powers exercised by ministers of the Crown in any other country.
Dr. COCKBURN: They are much superior to the powers of ministers here!
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH': Not in the east.
Mr. DEAKIN: The powers of our ministers are limited, and theirs are unlimited!
END QUOTE
It is my understanding that the judges of the High Court of Australia at the time had sworn/affirmed
their offices to the British Crown and as such in my view it would be treason to somehow create a
Queen of Australia of a non existing country called Commonwealth of Australia. The judicature only
constitutional powers was to “interpret” the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and Sue v Hill clearly was not within this judicial powers to somehow
declare the Commonwealth of Australia to be some independent nation.
Likewise I have an issue with the Mabo case where it appeared to me that the High Court of Australia
instead of interpreting the constitution went beyond this.

QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
We, in Australia-federated Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies to the
whole-have no enemies within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute with us the possession
of the soil; we have no powerful Maori race, to fight, as was once the case in New Zealand, for the
territory the right to which belonged to the Maoris themselves.
END QUOTE
Therefore land rights disputes that were pursued since federation cannot in any way override the
embedded legal principle that there were no land rights issue concerning the federation.
.
The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments
of all the states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs of the territory
of the commonwealth, or any part of it, which can at the date of the establishment of this
constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council
of Australasia, but always subject to the provisions of this constitution.
We are aware, sir, that there are many things now upon which the legislatures and governments
of the several Australian colonies may agree, and upon which they may desire to see a law
established; but we are obliged, if we want that law made, to go to the Parliament of the United
Kingdom, and ask them to be good enough to make the law for us; and when it is made we will
obey it. I contend, for myself, as I have had an opportunity of saying before, that after the federal
- 34 -
parliament is established anything which the legislatures of Australia want done in the way of
legislation should be done within Australia, and then parliament of the commonwealth should have
that power. It is not proposed by this provision to enable the parliament of the commonwealth
to interfere with the state legislatures; but only, when the state legislatures agree in
requesting such legislation, to pass it, so that there shall be no longer any necessity to have
recourse to a parliament beyond our own shores when once this constitution has been passed
by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. With respect to these subjects, it is not proposed to
give the parliament of the commonwealth exclusive jurisdiction; they will have paramount
jurisdiction; but it is proposed that, until they exercise those powers, the existing laws shall remain
[start page 525] in force, and that, until they choose to make laws to the contrary, the state
legislatures may go on exercising their existing powers. It is only when the federal parliament
comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make laws on those matters that the powers of
the states will be excluded, and then only to the extent to which the federal legislature
chooses to exercise its functions. In addition to the powers to be exercised in that way, not
interfering with the existing rights of states until the federal legislature thinks it necessary to do so,
it is proposed to give some exclusive powers to the legislature of the commonwealth. One of them
is to deal with the affairs of people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary
to make special laws not applicable to the general community; but so that this power shall
not extend to authorise legislation with respect to the aboriginal native race in Australia and
the Maori race in New Zealand.
END QUOTE
With this it in my view follows that the purported Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is
unconstitutional. This purported act seeks to achieve precisely what Section 51(xxvi)
sought to achieve.
QUOTE
III. Who is attainted of treason, or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime:
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the Senate or of the House of
Representatives until the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge, or the expiration or
remission of the sentence, or a pardon, or release, or otherwise.
Mr. GORDON: I should like to ask Mr. Barton whether there is anything in this point: A
number of German fellow colonists may have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power,
especially those who have served in the ranks in Germany. Would it not be necessary to add
after "power" in line 27 the words "or who has not since been naturalised as provided in
clause 30"?
Mr. GLYNN: You cannot have two, allegiances.
Mr. BARTON: No; a man might have to go out of our Parliament to serve against us.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: He may be Minister of Defence.
Mr. CARRUTHERS: I would like to put a case to Mr. Barton. It may happen that treaties
may be in force between say England and Japan. There is a treaty almost in operation on the
very lines I am citing that will give to a British subject travelling in Japan practically the
same rights and privileges as he would enjoy as a citizen of his own country. Surely it is
never intended that by a person travelling in another country, who becomes entitled to
privileges conferred on him by a treaty between two high powers, he should be disqualified
from holding a seat in the Federal Parliament. Our members of Parliament who are
hardworked take their summer trips, and it may be that some of them may come back and
find they have lost their seats as a result of this clause.
Clause as read agreed to.

- 35 -
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-It has been suggested that this sub-section is embraced in the preceding one-
"External affairs and treaties." That is arguable; it is quite possible that it may be true; but there
are a very large number of people who look forward with interest to the Commonwealth
undertaking, as far as it can as part of the British Empire, the regulation of the Pacific Islands. It
may be, I think, as there is a doubt as to whether the one thing is included in the other, and as there
are a large number of people who are interested in this question, that it is better in deference to
their views to leave the words as they are. As the subsection may do some good, and can do no
harm, I think that the objection should not be pressed.
END QUOTE
Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among
which would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in
the same way as Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights
and privileges upon the citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in
the exercise of its power, [start page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
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
.
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
From this I have the position that the “treaty” powers is limited to the
Commonwealth of Australia and since the 1967 referendum that included
Aboriginals in Subsection 51(xxvi) all and any State legislation since then is null and
void, including alleged treaties with Aboriginals.
- 36 -
While the Commonwealth can engage in “treaties” with other countries it cannot use
this power to then circumvent the limited constitutional powers or act in defiance of
this to then legislate for the purported Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and as such
this purported act is ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-That is the question-are those dangers non-existent?
Mr. BARTON.-I do not think the fact that we may be held by law to be a Christian community
is any reason for us to anticipate that there will be any longer any fear of a reign of Christian
persecution-any fear that there will be any remnant of the old ideas which have caused so much
trouble in other ages. The whole of the advancement in English-speaking communities, under
English laws and English institutions, has shown a less and less inclination to pass laws for
imposing religious tests, or exacting religious observances, or to maintain any religion. We have
not done that in Australia. We have abolished state religion in all these colonies; we have wiped
out every religious test, and we propose now to establish a Government and a Parliament which
will be at least as enlightened as the Governments and Parliaments which prevail in various states;
therefore, what is the practical fear against which we are fighting? That is the difficulty I have in
relation to this proposed clause. If I thought there was any-the least-probability or possibility,
taking into consideration the advancement of liberal and tolerant ideas that is constantly going on
of any of these various communities utterly and entirely retracing its steps, I might be with the
honorable member. If we, in these communities in which we live, have no right whatever to
anticipate a return of methods which were practised under a different state or Constitution, under a
less liberal measure of progress and advancement; if, as this progress goes on, the rights of
citizenship are more respected; if the divorce between Church and State becomes more
pronounced; if we have no fear of a recurrence of either the ideas or the methods of former days
with respect to these colonies, then I do suggest that in framing a Constitution for the
Commonwealth of Australia, which we expect to make at least as enlightened, and which we
expect to be administered with as much intellectuality as any of the other Constitutions, we are not
going to entertain fears in respect of the Commonwealth which we will not attempt to entertain
with respect to any one of the states. Now, we have shown that we do not intend these words to
apply to our states by striking out clause 109. That might be a provision that might be held to
be too express in its terms, because there may be practices in various religions which are
believed in by persons who may enter into the Commonwealth belonging to other races,
which practices would be totally abhorrent to the ideas, not only to any Christian, but to any
civilized community; and inasmuch as the Commonwealth is armed with the power of
legislation in regard to immigration and emigration, and with regard to naturalization, and
also with regard to the making of special laws for any race, except the aboriginal races
belonging to any state-inasmuch as we have all these provisions under which it would be an
advisable thing that the Commonwealth, under its regulative power, should prevent any
practices from taking place which are abhorrent to the ideas of humanity and justice of the
community; and inasmuch as it is a reasonable thing that these outrages on humanity and
justice (if they ever occur) should be prohibited by the Commonwealth, it would be a
dangerous thing, perhaps, to place in the Bill a provision which would take out [start page
1772] of their hands the power of preventing any such practices.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Do you think that the Commonwealth has that power under the existing Bill?
Mr. BARTON.-I am not sure that it has not. I am not sure that it has not power to prevent
anything that may seem an inhuman practice by way of religious rite.
Mr. HIGGINS.-I want to leave such matters to the states.

END QUOTE

QUOTE
- 37 -
Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth
aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I
suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and
they ought not to be debarred from voting.
Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the
aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree.
Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.
Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought
not to be deducted.
Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in

reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote.
Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.
Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with this matter
is, that when we come to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per capita, if he leaves
out these aboriginals South Australia will have so much the less to pay, whilst if they are
counted South Australia will have so much the more to pay.
Clause, as read, agreed to.

END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the
general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with
respect to the affairs of the aboriginal race in any state.
Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general
community" I understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it
means the general community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying
that the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because
any single state would have the right to do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if
it means the general community of a state-I do not see why it should not be left to the state. We
should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any particular state is forbidden to pass any
distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if Victoria should choose to
enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which are not [start
page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do not
know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
confines of Victoria at all.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in
the same class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of
the Commonwealth. I do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at
all, it seems to me to be intended to debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation,
but purely confined to that state. I do not think that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is
the meaning of it.
- 38 -
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to
deal with the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races,
though I do not know with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth
at the time it is brought into existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth
regulating aliens come into it. We have made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain
degree of coloured immigration, a power of the Commonwealth, and we have made the
dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so that all those of the races who
come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth will not only enter
subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any laws
which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the
Commonwealth should not have power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state
shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to
withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular
set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
END QUOTE
I understand that the UN (United nations) and also Aboriginals themselves all desired
to be included in Ss51(xxvi) even so this subsection specifically was inserted by the
Framers of the constitution to “DISCRIMINATE” against any “INFERIOR”
“COLOURED” “ALIEN” race.
As I understand it the 1967 referendum was not at all as to amend the application
regarding all races and as such the inclusion of “Aboriginals” did no more but to
include them as an “alien” “inferior” “coloured” race. As I understand it in the
1950’s the then Federal government was warned against including Aboriginals in
ss51(xxvi) because of its baggage.
The irony is that the inclusion of Aboriginals in fact robbed them of their citizenship
and so franchise. After al, once one were to legislate against a race and then not
prevent this race to vote in elections then they could overturn the legislation. Hence it
was to deny them to vote and so losing citizenship was the core issue.
In my view the 1967 Section 51(xxxvi) referendum was a con-job referendum as it

couldn’t achieve anything the Aboriginals already had. After all those Aboriginals
who had franchise for State elections already voted in the first federal election. Only
those who were within Section 25 of the constitution denied by a State to have State
franchise were prevented to vote in federal elections. The amendment of Subsection
(xxvi) actually robbed all Aboriginals of their franchise (citizenship) and no
Aboriginal is therefore entitled to be a Member of Parliament.
- 39 -
In my view all court decisions that were based upon the validity of the purported
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 are beyond judicial powers and are without legal
force.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi
[1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can
prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v
Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a
decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek
to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
.
DPP v Field [2001] VSC 472 (29 November 2001)
QUOTE
Section 35 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provides that in the interpretation of
the provision of an Act consideration may be given to any matter or document that is
relevant, including reports of proceedings in any House of the Parliament. The section further
provides that a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying an Act is to be
preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object. Those provisions are
well known.
QUOTE
For the above in my view the decision of KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN

(1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of Australia was beyond the courts determination as
clearly the Commonwealth can enter in any treaty however cannot enforced it against
anyone and certainly not in violation of the embedded legal principles of the
29. I have already canvassed the issue of “concurrent” legislative powers and when it
comes to an end and will raise some other issues in that regard.
The High Court of Australia in Sydney Council v Commonwealth (1904) made clear
that the council was exercising State land taxation delegated powers referred to as
council rates. The Commonwealth on 11 November 1910 commenced its Land
Taxation Office and by this wiped out all and any State land taxation powers as well
as councils delegated land taxation powers called “council rates”. However no one
seemed to know the better of this because of the denial of the Hansard Constitutional
Convention Debates records to be used in the High Court of Australia and so States
and so councils continued ever along for more than 110 years to collect
unconstitutional land taxation. When I took this matter up with the then Premier of
NSW Katrina Keneally her Minister responded that the land taxation powers was
returned to the States. I am not aware that any such provision exist in the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). As the Framers of the
constitution made clear that once it was a matter for Caesar then it will be always so.
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the
Commonwealth. An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be
uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
- 40 -
QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be
necessary for the Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We
have pretty heavy duties in Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may
do serious injury to the colony. The Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform
tariff, and if any reductions made are on a sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
END QUOTE
It therefore must be clear that in that regard all land taxation must be “UNIFORM”
and as such it cannot be claimed that municipal councils are exercising
“DELEGATED” Federal land taxation powers neither that the States are exercising
themselves “Federal land taxation” as clearly each State and each “municipal
council” applies their own rates and none of this ever was deposited in the Federal
Consolidated Revenue Funds.
I am for example charged for my Berriwillock properties so called “council rates” as
well as garbage rates” even so the property has been vacant for numerous years. As
such it cannot be claimed that the “council rates” are to cover “garbage collection” as
there is no garbage collection and still I am charged for “garbage collection” also.
And despite my over the years request to have monies refunded it simply is ignored.
The same regarding my property in Viewbank (Melbourne).
30. While I am aware that the Federal Parliament did amend the Land Taxation
legislation in 1952, 1953, etc, this however cannot alter the fact that once a federal
legislative power than always a federal legislative power. There is no constitutional
mechanism to reverse the legislative powers back to the States.
31. And by this we also now have the dilemma that the States have been referring
legislative powers to the Commonwealth which I view may about all have been
unconstitutional. At I intend to set out below.
32. The colonies had “sovereign Parliaments” which could amend its own constitutions.
The Parliament could also override any court decision as the Colonial Parliament was
supreme. However, this all changed when the Colonies federated into a “political
union”. One has to consider that there is a separation of powers both in the
Commonwealth and the States (A Territory are a quasi State).
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
- 41 -
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

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/federal-court-says-hard-border-best-at-stopping-
coronavirus-from-entering-wa-in-clive-palmer-case/ar-BB18l0af
Federal Court says hard border best at stopping coronavirus from entering WA in Clive
Palmer case
Therefore while politicians and their agencies and the police may desire to pretend
otherwise in reality no constitutional amendment is valid unless approve by the
“sovereign citizens” by way of referendum. If therefore the WA Parliament in any
way had amended its Colonial constitution since federation without any State
referendum then any such purported amendments would be NULL AND VOID Ab
Initio. The Colonial constitution would be in force subject to the provisions of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) (and so its embedded legal
principles also.
.
Because the Colonial Parliaments were “sovereign Parliaments” that could deal with
any constitution and in fact override any court judgment but since federation became
State “constitutional Parliaments”, then it no longer can interfere with any court
order/judgment, etc. What this means is that the WA Government is bound by any
decision the WA courts and/or its arbitration decided.
The Letters Patent of the Governor for WA published on 2 January 1901 may likely
as was with Victoria provide for the governor to appoint an “impartial administration
of justice”. This means the WA Parliament has no legislative powers as to interfere
and/or override any WA Court decision or delegated decision by an appointed
mediator. While a State parliament can legislate as to ordinary legal provisions of a
State Court it can however, at least in my view, not disregard/override a WA Court
decision or inappropriately interfere with the courts processes.
In Victoria we even seem to have a purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975, albeit
without any referendum to approve this purported amendment of the original 1855
Colonial Constitution of Victoria.
I understand that the then Premier Mr Peter Beatty purported to go back to the
Queensland Colonial constitution Act to then create a purported 2001 Queensland
Constitution Act. The problem with this is that the Queensland Colonial Constitution
Act ceased to exist upon federation as it became a State Constitution Act “subject to”
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)! As such the original
“sovereign” Queensland colonial constitution Act was no more to go back to. The
Queensland Parliament upon federation became a “constitutional parliament” and as
- 42 -
such could not go back to any other constitution neither amend it unless there had
been a State referendum approved by the electors but then still limited within the
powers of the State “constitutional” Parliament powers. Therefore the purported
Queensland Constitution Act 2001 in my view is ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio.
It should be understood that because there is a “separation of powers” between the
branches of the constitution and the States are “subject to this constitution” and so
bound by the embedded legal principles then a State parliament cannot sign away its
legislative powers to the Commonwealth without a State referendum to approve this
for the simple reason that it would affect the inherent judicial power of the State
Supreme Court also.
His Honour French J (WA) later French CJ (HCA) wrote about it that Ss51(xxxvii)
did no more but to provide for the Commonwealth to accept a referral of legislative
powers from the States however that the States powers to do so had to be found
elsewhere. In my view Section 123 of the constitution provides for this.
The legal principle that no parliament can deny a subsequent parliament to exercise
its legislative powers cannot be ignored. Actually the same can be applied to the so
called Australian Act 1986, as it purports the British Parliament to then deny any
future British Parliament to legislate as to the Commonwealth of Australia or even to
amend its own Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) which I
view is a legal absurdity.
As already referred to above the EU laws are governing the UK and so also the
Commonwealth of Australia, again, provided they do not conflict with the
As such, the purported Australia Act 1986 cannot prevent EU laws to be applicable
to the Commonwealth of Australia, this as the British Parliament lacked any powers
to overrule the EU legislative powers. Neither could the request of the States within
ss51(xxxviii) have any validity to purportedly pursue an Australian Act 1986 where
this violated what I have already set out above extensively. As such the entire
purported Australia Act 1986 in my view is ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio.
33. We have lately noticed that States/Territory are leasing/selling port facilities. The Port
of Melbourne is a clear example where allegedly this was leased for $9 billion. In my
view this was unconstitutional!
34. The following ought to explain why the $9 billion was in violation of S92 of the
constitution:
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: On considering the matter, I think that the tonnage dues mentioned here-we
have altered the word "duties" into "dues," and they seem to me like the word "tonnage dues" that
used to prevail in the the old country, such as tonnage dues on wines. We find the word referred to
in Acts 9 Anne, and 10 George IV. They were tonnage dues granted to the Queen, and I think
those referred to here were the same in the United States Constitution. Whether that be so or not,
the tonnage dues referred to in the clause seem to be charges for services performed. For instance,
a Harbor Trust is formed and carries out improvements and as a means of recouping themselves
the harbor authorities charge dues. Wharfage dues are for the use of a wharf and have they not
a similar meaning in the modern acceptation of the term? One is an impost for the use of a
wharf, the other for the use of a harbor on which money has been spent for the purpose of
rendering it more adapted for shipping. If that is so the words may be left out, and if they are
left out any tonnage due which is not a charge for services performed would be an impost
interfering with the freedom of trade and intercourse, and would come under section 86; that
- 43 -
is to say, as soon as uniform duties have been imposed, trade and intercourse shall be
absolutely free, If they interfere they could only do so so far as they are of the nature of
taxes. If they are only charges for services performed, as I explained in connection with
clause 83, then there can be no objection to them. because charges for use of a wharf are
much in the same position as charges of the post office authorities for the carriage of letters;
they are payments for services. If that view is taken I shall offer no objection to it.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Why not for post and telegraphs?
Mr. BARTON: Any mere service that the Commonwealth does not take over is still in the
hands of the State. Clause 86 can only be infringed by something which means an interference
with the freedom of trade and intercourse. Anything that is fairly construable as a payment
for services performed is not handed over-the mere service can be charged for as before,
because it is not an interference with trade and intercourse. In such cases as that, mere service
can be charged for as before, because it is not an interference with trade or intercourse. I think we
may well accept that view and leave out the words:
END QUOTE
The leasing of the Port of Melbourne for a reported $9 billion that most have been
used for items not at all relating to improvement of port facilities therefore I view
was a taxation in violation of s92 of the constitution. After all the $9 billion will by
the company leasing it have to be reclaimed against those using the ports. As such
becomes a form of taxation.
Also the leasing of the port has an inherited danger of allowing a foreign power to
control the security of the port facilities which I view undermines national security.
35. I on 18 February 2003 submitted an application for an ex parte Nisi order to prevent
the ADF (Australian Defence Force) to participate with any invasion (so called
Coalition of the Willing) into the sovereign country Iraq without due and proper
authorisation by the Governor-General to publish in the Gazette a DECLARATION
OF WAR naming Iraq as a enemy country. However, the Registrar of the High Court
of Australia Melbourne Registry refused to accept this, I therefore requested a review
from a judge and on 19 February 2003 the Court denied me to file this application.
The Registrar then made recommendations how to reorganise documents and
according to this I on 18 March 2003 again presented the documentation. The
Registrar however refused to accept this for filing also. I requested a review and on
19 March 2003 (the day of the invasion into Iraq) the Court made known to refuse the
filing of the 18 February 2003 documents. As such the 18 March 2003 documents
are still outstanding. The court simply twice refused for the Registrar to accept the
filing of the 18 February documentation but did not deny the filing of the 18 March
2003 documents.
Considering that I all along has a 4-12-2002 Magistrates Court of Victoria order for
the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS to be heard and determined by
the High Court of Australia then I view the refusal was highly irregular if not a
violation of a 4-12-2002 court order. In my view, I was entitled to a proper judgment
from the High Court of Australia why on earth it would refuse to accept documents
relating to the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS. It was my view that
the court simply failed to understand the legal issues I canvassed. For this I will
provide some quotations:
- 44 -

QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-
We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also
for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is
that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that
prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace
without the advice of a responsible Minister.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to
interfere with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: At all events, I would ask hon. members to pause before they
determine upon asking the Queen to surrender all her prerogatives in Australia. For my part, I
believe that all the prerogatives of the Crown exist in the governor-general as far as they
relate to Australia. I never entertained any doubt upon the subject at all-that is so far as they can
be exercised in the commonwealth.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Clause 112-The Commonwealth shall protect every state against invasion, and, on the
application of the Executive Government of a state, against domestic violence.
Mr. GORDON (South Australia).-I beg to move-
That the word "invasion" (line 2) be struck out, and the word "attack" substituted.
Why should the protection of the Commonwealth be confined only to invasion? We are not likely
ever to be invaded, but we are exceedingly likely to be attacked.
Mr. BARTON.-Any attack is an invasion in the sense in which the word is used in this clause.
Mr. GORDON.-The gunning by a cruiser standing off a city is not an invasion, but it is an
attack.
Mr. BARTON.-It is an attack which is part of an invasion; if the attack succeeds invasion
follows.
Mr. GORDON.-I think "attack" is very much better. Of course, if the word "invasion" covers
the ground, well and good; but while "attack" covers "invasion," does "invasion" cover "attack"?
Originally, the amendment I intended to move used both the words "attack" and "invasion."
Mr. REID.-You can repel an invasion 100 miles from the coast.
Mr. GORDON.-But how does the honorable member know that an invasion is intended?
- 45 -
[start page 692]
Mr. REID.-If there was a war between two countries, and a cruiser from the one country
was approaching the other, you would know that it was not on a visit of brotherly love.
Mr. GORDON.-They may not intend to invade the chances are that they do not intend to
invade, but to attack.
Mr. BARTON.-Do you think that the Commonwealth, if a hostile fleet appeared for the purpose
of attacking, and not invading, would keep the batteries silent and the Australian fleet at anchor?
Mr. GORDON.-Something may turn upon this. By this clause the Common-wealth is only
bound to protect every state against invasion. If the Commonwealth neglected its duty, and South
Australia was invaded, South Australia would have a claim against the Commonwealth. But, it
appears to me, that it should have an equal claim against the Commonwealth if it was simply
attacked, and not invaded. However, if the leader of the Convention thinks that "invasion" covers
"attack," I am willing to leave the matter to the Drafting Committee, but I have some doubt on the
point.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am perfectly satisfied that when the guns are booming
there will be no discussion about the meaning of the two words.
Mr. GORDON.-Ought the construction of this Act to be left until the guns are booming? I
thought the object was to prevent the guns booming at all.
Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-I think there is something in the point raised by my honorable
friend (Mr. Gordon). We have previously used separately the terms "naval" and "military." Now,
an attack would be naval, while an invasion would be military.
The CHAIRMAN.-Does the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) press his amendment?
Mr. GORDON.-No. If the leader of the Convention relies on his booming guns I am
content.
The amendment was withdrawn.

END QUOTE
My Application was that without a DECLARATION OF WAR published in the

Gazette by the Governor-General to declare Iraq an enemy country there was no
legal power for the Minister of Defence to authorise any deployment of the ADF into
a war zone. It ought to be clear that despite my extensive set out in the Application
and supportive documentation the Court I view blatantly disregard this. I was by this
denied a proper consideration. While a judge may have certain views about legal
matters there can be no excuse to deny me my very constitutional rights the Framers
of the constitution specifically provided for to litigate regard constitutional issues.
I was not so to say asking the Court to become some “bleeding heart” Court as to
consider political issues, my application was based upon constitutional issues. I
effectively was robbed of this yet again.
36. I in my documentations also outlined that Mr John Howard had no legal position to
authorise an armed invasion into Iraq. As I have outlined above I challenged the
validity of the 2001 Federal (political) election in my 409 written submission
“ADDRESS TO THE COURT” to which not a single Attorney-General made any
objection. As the magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg then noted that if the
2001 Federal election for the House of Representatives was not valid in law then
- 46 -
likewise so for Mr John Howard to call the 2004 Federal (political) election. While
the Governor-General can commission any person regardless of not being a Member
of Parliament (as Edmund Barton neither the other Ministers were at the time of
federation). Section 64 of the constitution limits this to 3 months, after which a person
commissioned but not then became a Member of Parliament no longer is a Minister.
Hence, while Mr John Howard was commissioned to be Prime Minister after the 2001
federal election as the election itself was not valid in law then he seized to be a
(Prime) Minister after the 3 month period had expired and so other Ministers who had
not been validly elected. As such constitutionally we had no government to go to war,
and we neither had a Prime Minister or a Minister for Defence to even petition the
Governor-General to declare war against Iraq.

The practice in England has been that when the House of Commons is dissolved, the Gazette
which contains the proclamation, or one issued concurrently, also contains a proclamation
summoning a parliament to meet on a given day, and all the writs are appointed to be
returned on that day.
END QUOTE
.
According to the English practice there is always a parliament either summoned or
prorogued. Coincident with the dissolution of the old parliament is the proclamation calling
the new parliament.
END QUOTE
There were various issues why the 2001 federal election was invalid. For example
the Governor-General had signed for a Proclamation to dissolve the House of
Representatives at 11.59am and at 12.00 mid day Prorogue the Parliament. The
Proclamation of 8 October 2001 indicated this. However, there was a problem the
special Gazette dated 8 October 2001 was not at all published that day, as I obtained
under FOI the printers records which proved that some Gazette’s had been printed &
dispatched on 9 October 2001 and others on 10 October 2001. Those documents
were included in my 409 pages written submissions “ADDRESS TO THE COURT”.
It was that the person who was to deal with the printing of the Special Gazette was
not at work in the morning and so attended to this in the Afternoon and then
delivered it to the Printer. By then the times in the Governor-General signed
proclamation already had passed. Members of Parliament nevertheless went home.
Then in the afternoon the writs were issued for vacant seats this even so there were
no vacant seats as the Gazette was not printed until 9 October 2001. Hence the writs
having been issued on 8 October 2001, prior to the Governor-General’s proclamation
having been published on 9 October 2001, means there was never any valid writs
issued for the House of Representatives and or for the Territories. As such, no valid
election was possible. What ought to have been done was for the Governor-General
to issue an amendment Proclamation and have this published in the Gazette.
However, this would obviously have caused a delay in the federal election. And as I
had already pointed out the election day was 1 weeks to early anyhow, this as the
legal requirement provided for “not less than 10 days” and as the election was for 9
days period it was therefore on a preceding Saturday. In my view this error was
- 47 -
repeatedly made in other federal elections also. As such in any event the election
called for 11 November 2001 was for all purposes and intent invalid. By this
numerous federal elections were invalid for the same reasons. During the 16 and 17
November 2005 proceeding Counsel for the Commonwealth submitted the Gazette as
evidence, to which I objected, but the Court overruled me. However, when I then
subsequently pointed out that my ADDRESS TO THE COURT outlined the Gazette
was not validly published then Counsel submitted to withdrew the Gazette, but as I
made clear I was still entitled to now use this Gazette as evidence.
It therefore ought to have been very clear that there was no lawful powers for the
ADF to invade Iraq, as first of all there was no Government existing as such, and
even if there had been a lawful government existed a Prime Minister has absolutely
no legal position to declare war or peace. Even if a prime minister was the Minister
of Defence then at most the Minister of Defence could do was to advise the
Governor-General to issue a PROCLAMATION being a DECLARATION OF WAR
to name Iraq as an enemy and have this published in the Gazette. It is only after a
Proclamation is published in the Gazette that it has any legal validity. However,
because the High Court of Australia as I view it sided with the Government perhaps
in the belief to be the 3rd arm of Government rather than to be an independent court
acting upon what is legally applicable we now ended up with the Commonwealth to
participate in mass murder, crimes against humanity, war crimes and bombing Iraq
back into the Stone Age.
37. That I was present when the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia on 24 and 25
October 1994 at the Brisbane, Queensland venue heard the appeal in the matter of
Abbott v Abbott. This was a case where the Registrar of the Court had sold Mr
Abbott’s house in violation of the court orders. I understood that His Honour Kay J
(the senior judge) announced that a Registrars decision was always reviewable, as no
time limit could be applied, regardless of the time limit stated in the Family Law Act
1975. In Mitterer v Mitterer I assisted in the matter and it was submitted to the Court
that the review sought by Mr Mitterer albeit months after the Registrars decision was
reviewable because no time limit could be applied, referring to Kay J comments in
the Abbott v Abbott case. It turn out that Kay J presided over the Mitterer v Mitterer
case and as such was well aware of His Honour’s own ruling and agreed that Mr
Mitterer could proceed with a review of the Registrars decision. Likewise, in the
McGill case I was able to assist that despite that Mr McGills previous lawyer had
claimed that he only could appeal the Registrar’s decision as a review was too late,
the Court however accepted that a review was still applicable. This is relevant to the
18 March 2003 Application as in view that on 19 March 2003 the Court referred to
the 18 February 2003 Application and not the 18 March 2003 Application then as
there is no time limit this application remains on foot.
38. That in my view the High Court of Australia is to a considerable extent also
responsible for the utter legal mess that has been going on since 18 March 2003,
because I view it could have avoided most of it. Many persons may today still be
alive hat the court acted appropriately in the first place in regard of my applications. I
view it is an indictment against the High Court of Australia and the court must accept
this. After all I did what any citizen as a sentry ought to do and that is to seek the
judicial intervention of a dispute between a citizen and the Government. This the
- 48 -
High Court of Australia grossly denied which might be because of its own
preconceived ideas.
39. While many a person might have been mesmerised by the presentation of Mr Colin
Powers to the UN (United Nations) as to claim that Iraq had WMD (Weapons of mass
Destruction) I watching this presentation on television held it was an appalling
deceptive presentation. However, I was acute aware that my views in that regard
would have no particular value unless I appeared before some “bleeding heart” court
that disregard proper legal procedures and merely act upon emotional issues. As such,
when I presented my Applications to the Melbourne Registry of the High Court of
Australia I ensured that I relied upon solid constitutional grounds. However, as I
afterwards discovered that apparently Mr McKillen (a politician) had somehow made
a claim that the Federal Government could upon its own undertaking go to war not
needing any authorisation from the Governor-General. It is beyond me that somehow
judges of the High Court of Australia would be mesmerised by some “assumption”
rather then upon what is constitutionally applicable and permissible. After all despite
my lack of formal English education and using my own kind “Crummy English” I
nevertheless am required and did so present my case based upon what I view is
constitutionally and other wise legally applicable. I therefore had the right and
entitlement that the High Court of Australia likewise would consider my Application
based upon what was constitutionally and otherwise legally applicable and not that
the court is mesmerised (having your attention fixated as though by a spell) as to what
some politician may have let fallen of his lips, no matter how wrong this was.
40. As with His Honour Dawson J on 27 February 1995 instead of dealing with my
objection that the purported Cross Vesting Act was in violation of the Constitution
His Honour simply ignored this. Likewise, that I proved a judge having issued “final
orders” 2 days before the hearing was finished. Upon which His Honour Dawson J
commented that the judge must have made an error, and left it by this. In my view it
was a very serious omission by the High Court of Australia not to denounce the
conduct of the judge and declare the pre-determined orders and the subsequent orders
for the same to be invalid in law. As such, my experiences with the High Court of
Australia is a gross failure to administer judgments according to the rule of law.
41. The Commonwealth of Australia entered into a pack with the U.S.A and much was
claimed about some ANZUS treaty. However, the Commonwealth (Federal
government) cannot use an ANZUS treaty to override constitutional
limitations/prohibitions. As such the attack upon the U.S.A on 11 September 2001
was no excuse for the Commonwealth of Australia to participate into an invasion of
Afghanistan and/or Iraq without a proper DECLARATION OF WAR authorised by
the Governor General and published in the Gazette naming the relevant country to be
invaded.
42. As I understand it the Commonwealth of Australia doesn’t apply the death penalty.
While at times feelings of citizens may run high that the death penalty should be in
place for hideous crimes I for one am too well aware how a person spend even more
than 40 years in prison convicted of a crime that then turns out he never committed.
Who can ignore the man convicted of rape in Victoria when after he changed lawyers
about 19 months sitting in prison his new lawyer discovered that the laboratory had
- 49 -
contaminated the “evidence” and he was then found to be innocent. It was also held
that the Prosecutor had concealed relevant evidence from the Court proving his
innocence. With Lawyer X, Nicola Gobbo, this court rightly held it should be made
known. Nicola Gobbo was also a lawyer at the time representing the Late Mr Carl
Williams. While the person who murdered Mr Carl Williams was convicted,
somehow nothing was done as to what my personal research indicated the
involvement of State Government contracted actors who I view set up this murder.
43. As the Commonwealth of Australia joined the so called “Coalition of the willing” and
having a position not to apply the death penalty, nevertheless when it came to the
(now) Late President Saddam Hussein there was to my understanding absolutely no
objection by the Federal Government not to apply any “death penalty” upon the now
late President Saddam Hussein. To me it was totally irrelevant what may have been
alleged against him, because the propaganda that was being spread and the agitation
to cause fear amongst citizen never could be deemed to provide justice. Even so the
intelligence services miserably failed in being impartial and present “evidence” it
seems to me to play along with the “aluminium tubes” and other rot. None of those in
the intelligence services for so far I am aware were ever legally held accountable.
Likewise so with the politicians who authorised and participated in allowing an
unconstitutional invasion into a friendly nation.
44. As I have indicated the judges of the High Court of Australia to me seems to be more
interested to play along with whomever for future appointments after retirement then
to insist upon the proper functioning of the Court of Law. Indeed, had the Court at the
time heard and determine the case the mass murder, crimes against humanity, war
crimes, etc, in Iraq might have been avoided, as I understood that the U.S.A. very
much depended upon the support of the Commonwealth of Australia as to proceed
with an Iraq invasion. And while Mr John Howard claimed not to have made a
decision (it was not his decision to make in any event) he already had months earlier
send ADF to Tampa, a place in the USA as to prepare for an armed invasion into Iraq.
45. What I learned over the decades is you cannot trust politicians or for that the Courts,
as the true meaning and application of the constitution is in my view too often
disregard and Gaynor J in 2012 made this very clear that the Constitution didn’t apply
to her Honour.
46. It obviously may be asked what on earth has the Iraq invasion to do with the Premier
of the State of Victoria or COVID-19, as after all VOCOVID-19 didn’t then exist and
neither did Premier Daniel Andrews then have the position of being a Premier.
However to me only a small minded person would argue this. After all had the High
Court of Australia at the time heard and determined my Applications, and so also the
outstanding NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS, then the court would
have been also dealing with the issue of “concurrent” legislative powers. The Court
would then have to address if the States could exercise “concurrent” legislative
powers once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate upon a particular subject
matter. Had the court then instead of merely assuming what it might have been
mesmerised by others actually considered the volumes of exhibits I presented to
support my application it in my view would have had no alternative but to hold that
“concurrent” legislative powers sized to exist upon the commonwealth commencing
- 50 -
to legislate upon a certain subject matter listed within Section 51 of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). Also that indeed that the
Commonwealth as a “political union” could not create a nationality other than to obey
constitutional requirements that any Australian or alien who naturalised would be a
“Subject of the British Crown” and not otherwise. It may have avoid numerous
suicides there people lost their cases in court where in law they were correct but the
judges simply ruled against them because they applied laws on basis of “concurrent”
legislative powers that no longer existed. We lack a credible Federal Government as I
view it was bound to oppose any exercise by the States of purported “concurrent”
legislative powers where none existed. When I read a that the High court of Australia
held that 2 criminals born in New Zealand could stay in Australia and couldn’t be
deported if they were held to be members of an Aboriginal tribe then I held this
utterly disgusting and yet another gross failure of the Court to act within the
provisions of the constitution. The Framers of the constitution made clear that the
Commonwealth exercising its constitutional powers against “influx of criminals”
was entitled to even refuse British nationals to enter the Commonwealth of Australia.
As such, I view that the Commonwealth of Australia was entitled to deny 2 criminals
to be entering and/or remaining in the Commonwealth of Australia, regardless of
their family ancestry.
47. That where now hundreds of thousands of citizens were fined based upon instruments
that were not certified by the Commonwealth, and not uncommon the courts find the
instruments not to be reliable for prosecution and dismiss cased because of this) then
again it may ensure to keep members of the legal profession in jobs but the citizens
who are subjected to those fines/prosecutions are unduly caused a lot of harm. And
yet had the High Court of Australia attended to my applications, as I view it should
have, all this could have been avoided to a great extent.
48. It therefore ought to be clear that had the High Court of Australia address the issues I
raised, including the issue of “concurrent” legislative powers then we may never have
ended up with this legal mess of a purported Health and Wellbeing Act (Vic), etc, and
other State legislation regarding “man-kind” disease(s) where the States would have
been aware it was an “exclusive” Commonwealth legislative powers. Then we neither
would have likely ended up with a STATE OF EMERGENCY/ STATE OF
DISSASTER relating to LOCKDOWNS, CURFEWS, SOCIAL DISTANCING,
COMPULSORY WEARING A MASK, border closures, etc, because the States
would have been aware that they cannot exercise any “concurrent legislative powers,
once the Commonwealth commenced way back in 1908 with the then Biosecurity Act
1908 and since updated to be the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth). I am aware that the
Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) does give an indication as to State legislation, etc,
however, this must not be interpreted that the Commonwealth somehow authorised in
some way or manner for the States to exercise legislation as the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) doesn’t provide for this. As such, the
provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) must be understood to deal with any
legislative of a State where it has still legislative powers and for so far such
legislation were not to violate the legal provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth)
the States could still exercise those powers.
For example the State has legislative powers as to harbours but then the Biosecurity
Act 2015 (Cth) may refer to persons who are on a ship (crew members, passengers,
- 51 -
etc. Then the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) may be applied to any person who the
federal Minister may have declared within the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) to be a
person held to be in QUARANTINE, however it would not deny the relevant state
where the ship id in harbour to then exercise other State legislative provisions which
do not conflict with the legal requirements of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth). If for
example a crew member not being subject to any order issued within the legal
provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) was to commit a criminal offence
within the legal provisions of the State legislative provisions then the State could
exercise its legal powers. If a crew member was to subject to a order of the Minister
within the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) and confined say to the ship
the State while observing the confinements of this crew member could nevertheless
then arrange for this person within the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth)
to be questioned by authorities, etc. For this I do not accept that the Biosecurity Act
2015 (Cth) must be perceived to grant the State any legislative powers to legislate
with matters “exclusively” confined to the Commonwealth rather it merely provides
an understanding that with proper consideration and observation of legal
requirements of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) the States can still exercise their
ordinary State legislative powers and functions.
49. That I view that the States since the Commonwealth of Australia commenced to
legislate upon certain subjects matters stated within s51 of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then all amendments of previous existing
colonial/State legislation are no longer legally applicable and neither could the States
create any legislation regarding those subject matters. For example, “weight and
measurers” means that all testing and certification of scales must be performed by the
Commonwealth of Australia to its legal standards as state legislation would be
invalid. The same with speeding detection instruments, traffic lights, etc. Whereas
the Commonwealth allows a certain variation for motor vehicles with their
instruments, such as measuring the speed, to have a plus and minus, the States
however do not allow for this and as such I view motorist are wrongly booked (issued
a fine) when to them their gauge indicates a speed to be on or below the speed limit
but the gauge might be in error due to the allowed variation allowed by
Commonwealth law and then the motorist is by State law convicted unduly. No one
in his/her right mind could expect a motorist to constantly have the gauge checked,
and as tires do wear in usage so will the speed measurements on the gauge. A person
who hires a motor vehicle may expect to rely upon the motor vehicle to be correct,
but may find that new tires having been fitted the gauge speed might be understating
the real speed. With taxi’s which rely upon the measured distance it can mean a huge
difference to the cost of a far pending the taxi having new tires fitted or not. I am not
aware those taxi meters are certified by the Commonwealth of Australia.
50. And then we have the same problem with vaccinations. We have presidents injected
with vaccines that might be utterly useless and indeed very dangerous to them but
somehow a State Government decides to make it compulsory anyhow.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8711611/AstraZenecas-COVID-19-vaccine-trials-hold-
suspected-reaction.html
Oxford and AstraZeneca's COVID vaccine trial is put on HOLD for safety reasons after a
British volunteer had a 'serious' reaction that could have been caused by injection
- 52 -
QUOTE
And Australia, for example, has spent $1.7 billion (US $1.24 billion) to secure access to a supply
of 84 million COVID-19 vaccines, should the clinical trial be a success.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Australia
Australia has confirmed it ordered enough doses of the vaccine to give one to its entire population
of 25million people. It is not clear how many doses the nation has ordered. The UK - with a
population of 66m but an order of 100m - ordered more than it needs.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
'We have got 30 million doses already contracted with AstraZeneca,' he said on UK radio station
LBC.
'In fact they are starting to manufacture those doses already, ahead of approval, so that should
approval come through - and it's still not certain but it is looking up - should that approval come
through then we are ready to roll out.
'The best-case scenario is that happens this year. I think more likely is the early part of next year -
in the first few months of next year is the most likely.
'But we've also bought vaccine ahead of it getting approved from a whole different series of
international vaccines as well.'
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Phase 3 trials for the coronavirus vaccine being developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca
have been placed on a hold after a 'serious adverse event' was reported in a participant in the UK
END QUOTE
Where it uses the wording “has spent” then this means the monies were already paid
out. One has to ask when was the Appropriation Bill for this expenditure been placed
before the Parliament and passed by both House of Parliament, when the budget was
delayed?
Then we have that the vaccine is already being manufactured and well never mind
that there is now a problem, as after all those vaccines pre-produced can always be
sent of to other countries. And as was discovered with the “polio” vaccinations in
Africa, etc, it turned out that they were actually the cause of a polio break out. With
Prime minister Scott Morrison already having indicated to make it compulsory to be
vaccinated in the so called “No Jab, No Pay” system it means that he likely will
blackmail pensioners and others to that they must be vaccinated or their pension and
other payments will be stopped. And Premier Daniel Andrews already indicating as I
understood it that curfews, lockdowns, social distancing, compulsory mask wearing,
etc, all will be until a vaccination might be available.
https://www.ini-world-report.org/2019/12/30/u-s-government-loses-landmark-lawsuit-over-forced-
vaccinations/
QUOTE
- 53 -
U.S. Government Loses Landmark Lawsuit Over Forced Vaccinations
12/30/2019 02:22:00 AM Big Pharma, Citizen Rights, Corruption, FDA, Law, US Government,
USA
U.S. Government Loses Landmark Vaccine Lawsuit
…Vaccine injury lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Del Bigtree, producer of the suppressed anti-
vaccine documentary, Vaxxed and the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) are credited
with this victory. They demanded the relevant government documents proving that all federally
approved vaccines had been tested for quality over the past 32 years — and there were none.
Here are the huge legal and practical implications in this legal victory for the American people:
This means that the US Department of Health and Human Services and all vaccine makers have
been lying to the American people for over 30 years about the effectiveness and safety of
vaccines; this may ultimately mean that continuing the existence — at least in their current form
— of five US “healthcare” agencies are now in doubt: the CDC, the FDA, the IOM, the NIH and
the “Health” part of DHHS itself; this may also threaten the existence of state medical boards and
exclusive medical guilds like the AMA;
This means that vaccine makers have been fraudulently exempt from what all other
pharmaceutical drug makers have been forced to do concerning biannual recertification for quality
and effectiveness — meaning that their vaccines have never been tested for quality and have had
no proven safety or effectiveness for over 30 years; This case can now be legally cited by all
parents fraudulently mandated by any government/organizational regulation/requirements that
they must vaccinate their children for school or any other activity to stop the forced vaccination of
their children;
This case can now be legally cited by all employees being mandated by their employers to be
vaccinated in order to retain their jobs;
END QUOTE
The implications are, if the TGA (Australia) itself conducted any safety checks as to
be tested for its quality of safety progressively over the decades?
The TGA now appears to “fast track” vaccine approvals for use but it may very well
result to the killing of many elderly, etc. With a death rate, attributed to COVID-19,
regardless if this precise or not, it seems absurd that such a hurry is applied when far
more persons die of the “common cold”, influenza, etc.
https://youtu.be/XE0ghqU5Gy8
"This is the video Dan doesn't want you to see”
This video presents that Premier Daniel Andrews was allegedly deceiving citizens
and others about the reason of infections, etc.
https://youtu.be/8kCQnqGP6yM
Melbourne is in marital law due to the ‘megalomania of its premier’
This video sets out that Premier Daniel Andrews had claimed that the STATE OF
DISSASTER was made because of medical advise of the Chief Health Officer,
however the Chief Health Officer since denied having given that advise.
Essentially this means that the Premier unilaterally decides how long any restrictions
will remain in place and he changes this perhaps from day to day using all kind of
psychological tactics to place pressure upon citizens and others and seeking to blame
them and so escalate the tensions amongst citizens and others. Essentially this kind of
disastrous conduct can continue for ever in the day unless the High Court of
Australia intervenes and immediately issue orders Nisi with the parties to further
seek to address the issues in coming weeks or months but that at least this killing of
- 54 -
the economy and the gross denial of “common law”, human, constitutional and other
legal rights is brought to a halt.
The Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) specifically provides that an (Medical) Order must
be issued against a particular person and not somehow against people of an entire
state regardless there is not a shred of evidence anyone deemed medically established
of suffering from a disease.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/dan-andrews-hints-that-lockdowns-won-t-end-for-weeks-
in-melbourne/ar-BB18JvUE?ocid=msedgdhp
Dan Andrews hints that lockdowns 'WON'T end for weeks' in Melbourne
QUOTE
Lockdown restrictions could remain imposed on Victorians for many weeks, Daniel Andrews has
hinted.
The Victorian Premier is set to reveal a decision on Sunday about whether his government will
ease the strict Stage 4 rules that have closed down Melbourne for more than a month.
However, speaking on Saturday as Victoria announced another 76 new coronavirus cases and 11
deaths, Mr Andrews hinted that the prohibitive measures would continue as long as COVID-19
remains a threat.
END QUOTE
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/bride-to-be-slams-state-premiers-for-tough-
restrictions-on-weddings/ar-BB18Jtc1?ocid=msedgdhp
Bride-to-be slams state premiers for tough restrictions on weddings
As “marriages” fall within Commonwealth legislative powers it is my view that a

State cannot deny people to get married. It is up to the Commonwealth to regulate
this. And, where the Commonwealth has not placed any restrictions upon the right to
marry in relation to COVID-19 then I view the States are denying their constitutional
rights.
http://www.renegadetribune.com/canadas-chief-medical-officers-says-you-should-wear-a-mask-
while-having-sex/
Canada’s Chief Medical Officers Says You Should Wear a Mask While Having Sex
September 3, 2020 renegade 7 Comments
I am not even kidding. The world has become completely insane and most people are just
accepting “the new normal.”
It is now that whomever is Chief Health Officer and has ridiculous views the
politicians may get on board just to prevent them being blamed for any outbreak. So,
now it are the Chief Health Officers who are running the Government! Never mind
they may not have a clue what is constitutionally permissible and/or appropriate as
after all they are not held accountable by the Parliament.
.
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Newsletter--September-4th-2020---The-New--Fascist--Normal--
-Dr-s-don-t-agree-with-Dan---National-Freedom-Day---A-message-to-
unit.html?soid=1101800214009&aid=t__8h0vdD7g
QUOTE
Professor Heidi Larson (who has some famous quotes from last year’s WHO Vaccination Summit)
is also not recommending coercive vaccination policies.
University of London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Professor Heidi Larson, who has
spent a decade researching vaccine confidence, said
END QUOTE
- 55 -
The following is a part of a proposed letter but the rest with graphics can be
downloaded using the interlink shown below;
https://principia-scientific.com/template-covid19-complaint-letter-for-politicians-journalists-etc/
QUOTE
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to you as I feel a patriotic duty to bring some focus back to the science and data
around this Covid19 issue. The current approach that our government and advisory panels are
driving, is increasingly inexplicable when considering the science and the data. It is becoming
obvious that we need to foster more open discussion on the big picture here. Is there a good
technical reason to continue with the current level of, quite frankly, destructive interventions?
Firstly, I would like to bring to your attention some basics in this matter (section A), and then
back up the discussion with more detailed and referenced science (section B). The essence of
this document is now agreed with by a very large (and rapidly growing) community around
the world. Countless medical and technical professionals are at this stage, aghast at what is
happening.
SECTION A – The Basics:
As the Epidemic morphed into a Pandemic as determined by the WHO, data from China,
Italy, SE Asia, and other European countries gave us a clearer picture of how this particular
virus was behaving. This data informed us regarding important aspects of Sars-CoV-2
including transmission, immunity, people most likely to succumb to the virus, ICU admission
rates, death rates, seasonality, predisposing factors and much more.
The Global response to the pandemic, apart from some notable exceptions, was to as quickly
as possible lock down our communities and our economies and flatten the curve, thus buying
time to allow us deal with the sick and to continue the race for vaccines and therapies. This
was an understandable and intuitive reaction and to some extent has been a success.
We’ve had ~27,000 cases, and sadly 1774 of our citizens have lost their lives, and my
condolences to all their families and friends. That said, it is important to note that
approximately 95% of the deceased were never admitted to ICU to attempt to save them. This
is almost certainly because they were so aged or suffering from other serious conditions, that
it would have been unethical to attempt to save them with intensive interventions. This, along
with the fact that median age for the deceased was 83, must be kept clearly in mind when
considering impacts.
At this point it is important to state a few indisputable facts that have emerged before and
during this pandemic:
- 56 -
SARS-CoV-2 is a Coronavirus that shares many structural and behavioural properties with
many other coronaviruses that affect human beings. This Coronavirus was referred to as
novel. This is somewhat of a misnomer.
Face Masks at the height of the Pandemic were considered unimportant, we were regularly
informed of this from experts through our media.
Covid 19 (the condition produced by Coronavirus) is a condition that predominantly affects

the elderly and immunocompromised (as mentioned above, median age of death is 83yrs),
it does not affect certain other groups like children and pregnant women in a way that
Influenza, another seasonal killer, does.
A significant number of people succumb to Influenza virus each year, this can vary in its
severity and impact; for example, the 2018 flu season was particularly severe in the UK,
causing approximately 20,000 excess deaths in the month of January alone. The 2019 flu
season was comparatively lighter, thus paving the way for a pathogen such as SARS-CoV-
2 to heavily impact the susceptible in our population – a large group who would have
ordinarily experienced higher mortality during the preceding Flu season.
The death rate has been similar throughout the World (approx. 500 (+/-) deaths per million).
This, and I cannot emphasise this enough, is overwhelmingly independent of lockdown
measures.
The reaction of most Governments has been largely based on the predictive models of
Imperial College London. Experts in Ireland primarily used this model and the predictions
made were mindboggling – one prominent Irish expert claimed that 42,000 deaths would
have occurred, “one in every household in Ireland”, suggesting that the lockdown
measures we implemented had saved 40,000 lives – and that the sacrifices of the Irish
people were hence vindicated. The reality we now know was destined to be less than
1,800. We experienced a similar impact as Sweden did (they with no lockdown, no
masks). Overwhelmingly it was limited to the aged / co-morbid, with care homes
contributing to the majority of the deaths.
The following facts are also indisputable:
 Sweden, who were vilified for their approach, has had a very similar death rate to
other countries. Sweden enacted a light touch response to SARS-CoV-2 (smart social
distancing, smaller crowds, emphasis on hand hygiene), while largely leaving their
economy, including schools, open. According to the now heavily questioned Imperial
College London model, Sweden should have had 11-17 times the number of deaths that it
actually had. This has been backed up by studies and peer reviewed publications such as
The Lancet. Hard lockdown has little impact on the death rates when compared to social
distancing, hand washing, masks if symptomatic etc. This is a hugely important point.
Sweden’s science-based policy has allowed them to emerge from the pandemic with many
sectors of its economy and public health intact. It is close to achieving Herd Immunity, and
all of this was possible without any lockdown.
 Like most countries in Europe Sweden has little or no deaths or ICU admissions from
Covid 19 in recent weeks, without requiring any of the measures imposed by the vast
majority of European countries
 Sweden is not on its own in following this course. There are some contrasting
examples of hard lockdown v light touch response in the US and in South America. Peru
imposed a hard lockdown while its neighbour Brazil was attacked in the media for their
softer approach. Again, we see similar death rates from both. i.e. the military-enforced
- 57 -
lockdown in Peru not showing any significant benefit over Brazil’s lack of any significant
lockdown.
END QUOTE
https://principia-scientific.com/template-covid19-complaint-letter-for-politicians-journalists-etc/
QUOTE
There is a way to avoid the economic Tsunami that awaits us. It resides in a better
understanding of the above, a more consensual way to arrive at desired outcomes, a focus on
nursing homes going forward during any epidemic or severe Flu season, the opening of
schools, of restaurants, of pubs, of nightclubs, of avoiding the environmental carnage of
disposable masks, gloves ,signs, plastic shields. We have co-existed with pathogens since our
inception. Every so often a dreaded killer comes a long that wipes out millions. Our
experience of Covid 19 should serve as a shot across the bow as to how unprepared we were
for such an event. We will prevail against it; the susceptible can get a vaccine to limit impacts
should it rear its ugly head again in the winter. It is time to think about a brighter future and
with the correct science-based thinking and brave political will, it can be realised.
END QUOTE
It therefore seems to me that Premier Daniel Andres has declared a STATE OF

DISSASTER merely upon his own political aspirations, to achieve whatever and be
able to place citizens and others under curfew as if they are convicted criminals in a
prison without any right to object to it as protesters are fined and arrested and there is
no appeal system in place as there is no court judicial decision involved.
Essentially he has shown that he can sideline the entire legal system by merely
having a declared STATE OF EMERGENCY / STATE OF DISSASTER. And allow
the Victorian Police to operate like a criminal gang of thugs to enforce the Premiers
modus operandi by acting also as constitutional terrorist.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/melbourne/daniel-andrews-warns-thousands-will-die-if-lockdown-
were-to-lift/ar-BB18IKKk?ocid=msedgdhp
Daniel Andrews warns 'thousands will die' if lockdown were to lift
QUOTE
Premier Daniel Andrews has warned 'thousands' of Victorians would die if strict coronavirus
restrictions were to be lifted.
Stage Four restrictions in Melbourne, and Stage Three in the rest of the state, are set to lift on
September 13 at 11.59pm after weeks of enduring the miserable lockdown.
But speaking on Saturday, a day ahead of his announcement on easing restrictions, Mr Andrews
said lockdown was unlikely to end.
'To open up with those numbers would, of course, see the total number of coronavirus infections
explode,' Mr Andrews said.
'It would see many, many hundreds, indeed thousands, of Victorians infected with this virus.
END QUOTE
‘Untenable’ to propose states stay closed until vaccine is found

Sky News Australia 5-9-2020
QUOTE
“It is simply untenable to propose that you keep a state shutdown forever, or at least until a
vaccine possibly arrives,” Ms Weisser told Sky News host Chris Kenny.
END QUOTE
As the pharmaceutical companies are still trying to obtain a vaccines regarding

disease 30 years or more ago, then effectively what Premier Daniel Andrews is
making clear that Victorians and visitors will be under a permanent house arrest and
deprived of any “common law” rights and “new Magna Charta”, which actually
implicitly contains the original Magna Charta provisions. We now have that a
- 58 -
Premier can decide the legal rights of any citizen or visitor with the judiciary being
excluded. Which I view constitute DICTATORSHIP and CONSTITUTIONAL
TERRORISM. And as this Affidavit sets out to pursue intervention from the High
Court of Australia might be an illusive perception to seek to obtain justice as after all
the considerable body counts in the graves, if they had any, of the Iraqi’s might be
testament that the rule of law is not particular an issue by the court. To deny to accept
the filing of an Application I view is a clear violation of the intention of the Framers
of the Constitution, and as then Attorney-General Mr George Brandis admitted, when
faced with a question of a Senator, that the High Court of Australia had acted
unconstitutional and allegedly now had corrected it.
51. Never mind the length of this Affidavit, what should be of concern is that regardless
of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) the High Court of
Australia in my view has aided and abetted for this kind of terrorism to eventuate by
its past failure to address relevant issues. I as a citizen seems to be more concerned
about the Rule of Law then I view that the judges of the High Court of Australia
appears to me to be. I am not so to say sucking up to the court as I demand my
constitutional rights that the High Court of Australia also plays it part, as any citizen,
to be a “Sentry” and a guardian of the constitution. That regrettably I view it had
failed to do so considerably.
52. In my view the High Court of Australia to reconsider each and every previous
judgment on the courts records if in light of the Hansard Constitutional Convention
Debates those judgment can be deemed to be authoritative or should have a note
attached to them that in light of the content of the Hansard Constitutional Convention
Debates this case may have to be reconsidered.
53. As we had no lawful government it also means that none of the participants could
claim “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY”
CAMPBELL v CHRIS FLORIAN; DAVID TATARSKY and Ors
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/196417.P.pdf
.
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
What we really ended up with was a total disregard of the rule of law and I view
aided and abetted by the High Court of Australia to prevent my application to be
accepted for filing
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the
administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond
the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
- 59 -
54. We now have this COVID-19 issue and I for one am a person who now as a Senior
citizen having copped numerous berating’s from my wife over the decades to be
ignorant to health issues, now she berates me for having too much interest in the
COVID-19 issue. My wife basically is a walking encyclopaedia about medical issues,
as she used to work in a hospital laboratory, but now suddenly when it comes to
COVID-19 issues I leave her far behind. My interest commenced because my wife
was in ICU with hearth Failure and other underlying health issues it was important for
me to make sure she stays alive. After all who is going to bake me cakes, a hobby she
started in 2019. As such, I have been since COVID-19 became an issue been
collecting thousands of medical articles and videos. In the end this whole COVID-19
by the Federal and State government has been in my view FEAR MONGERING
totally uncalled for. However, this is utterly worthless when it comes to litigation
unless the High Court of Australia becomes some “bleeding heart” court that ignores
the rule of law and become political, unless of course I can present to this court facts
that gives this court the judicial powers to adjudicate upon issues.
55. That I understand from the following article that the issue of COVID-19 might be so
to say an “illusion” and has not at all separately been established to exist. As such any
so called vaccination may in the end turn out not to be useful at all. It is like the so
called flu vaccination that it is claimed it mutates and so even if vaccinated with 4
different types in the end it may not work for 50% or letter of those vaccinated.
However it can be harmful to many. While it might be a political issue for the Federal
Government to have spent $1.7 Billion for a vaccine against a virus that has not as yet
been established, it is however another issue to have the so calmed vaccine be made
compulsory by backdoor manner, when in the end many could die as result, as now
might be precisely as is happening with the residents in certain age care facilities.
https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-vaccine-not-possible-for-a-virus-not-yet-identified/
COVID-19: Vaccine ‘Not Possible’ For A Virus Not Yet Quantifiable
Published on August 6, 2020
Written by Saeed A Qureshi PhD (edited by John O'Sullivan)
QUOTE
Regulatory authorities, such as the CDC/FDA all insist that their handling of the current
Coronavirus pandemic (SARS-CoV2/COVID-19) is based on science and associated data or facts.
This is especially the case in the United States.
We are told that an identified virus causes the infection which in turn causes, or may cause, deaths
– potentially in the millions.
Furthermore, authorities also claim that the viral disease (COVID-19) can only be treated with a
vaccine – which at present does not exist – and must be developed urgently and then made
available to the public worldwide.
Let us evaluate these claims on a proper scientific basis. First of all, let us see if the virus has been
proven to exist in humans. Then more importantly, determine to what extent, if any, it can be
measured as the disease which causes all these alleged deaths.
The presence or absence of COVID-19 in humans has not been determined effectively and
efficiently because of the known current technical (scientific) limitations, as explained below.
In most cases (in fact, in almost all cases) the presence/absence of the virus is established by
indirect testing. These indirect tests are commonly known as PCR and antibody tests. Without
going into technical details, one may consider that these tests monitor specific types of proteins or
related chemicals which are produced by the presence of viruses, not only by SARS-CoV2 or
COVID-19, but by all pathogenic viruses as a defence mechanism to get rid of the viruses and/or
to protect our bodies from their ill effects.
It is important to note here that when someone refers to testing for a virus, one does not determine
the actual virus itself but a marker (such as a protein).
- 60 -
The Irony Is That These Markers Are Not Specific To COVID-19, But Are Generic To All
Viruses To Which We Are Exposed.
Saying it differently, these tests are never sufficiently specific – and scientifically speaking should
not be relied upon for declaring the presence of a specific virus – including COVID-19.
Obviously, if a virus cannot be monitored reliably, then by implication the associated disease or
deaths cannot be established reliably and accurately – at least scientifically.
Hence, we see confusion and the inaccuracies over the predicted death rate which turns out to be
no higher than a normal to severe influenza and concurrent attrition rate. In a simpler and daily life
example, one may explain the situation as akin to establishing car safety by monitoring the air
pressure levels of the tires (the marker) because someone decided that deviation in car tire
pressure is to be the determinant of safety.
It is quite possible (by chance) that a deviation in tire pressure could compromise vehicle
performance/safety. However, it is neither accurate or logical using tire pressure alone as your
safety criteria and to then label “unsafe” any and all cars with one or more tires with somewhat
irregular pressure. One or more tires alone may be the problem – not the car.
Unfortunately, in the extreme, the authorities end up deciding that all car safety will be monitored
only on the basis of tire pressure level. Now this would become a “Regulatory Compliance
Requirement” or the law for car safety assessment.
On top of this comes the irony that these authorities provide their own version of tire pressure
gauges to test all our tires, which happens to show tire failure routinely in otherwise perfectly
acceptable cars.
This is exactly the situation we have with the pandemic and COVID-19 monitoring i.e. a
regulatory compliance requirement that COVID-19 infection will be established based on
PCR/antibody tests (let’s call that the “Official Test”) which, as noted above, is not specific at all
to COVID-19. Worst yet, the authorities are specifying the use of a testing protocol instituted and
“approved/authorized” by them alone.
It is important to understand that the “Official Test” is solely on a regulatory compliance
requirement basis. It is NOT a scientific validation of having COVID-19. Yet it is promoted as
scientific.
While it may be true that believers and promoters of this requirement of testing are experts from
the areas of pharmacy, epidemiology, virology, genetics, microbiology, immunology, medicines,
and biochemistry to name a few. They are not experts in testing.
Where the real capability lies in determining a valid test falls in the category of analytical
chemistry. The multiple aforementioned disciplines named are the users of the tests. They should
not claim to being the developers and/or validators of the test – they lack the required expertise. I
say this as an expert in this field of testing.
To better illustrate the subtlety of this point let us consider the analogy of a baker who uses
agricultural products (e.g. flour) and cooking equipment (e.g. oven) to make bread but then
believes he is somehow also qualified and holds authority over the developing and manufacturing
of the items used to make the bread. If one sees the issue from an analytical chemistry perspective,
it should become immediately obvious that such inexpert testing is scientifically invalid and so,
too, are all the associated claims based upon it.
The reason that current COVID-19 testing should be considered bogus is that these tests do not
meet the basic and fundamental requirements of science (analytical chemistry) which is the
procedure of validation of the tests.
This validation step is commonly based on establishing four parameters: (1) accuracy; (2)
precision; (3) specificity; (4) references used to validate the test.
No analytical test is accepted without meeting these validation requirements – the most essential
scientific requirements.
However, at present no COVID-19 test is used (or is even available) which has such validation. As
such, the current practice is ordinarily considered as a cardinal sin in the scientific community.
Pro-PCR/antibody test scientists often argue that seeking a specific test for COVID-19 (or its
associated disease) is like seeking “absolute truth” which would hinder the current and (to them)
“acceptable” testing/science. This unfortunately is the most deceptive, even fraudulent position
possible and yet it is often supported (and promoted) by the regulatory authorities.
Therefore, at present, regulatory authorities are not implementing the true scientific principles
applicable to this pharmaceutical issue. Instead, their methodology is self-created and an arbitrary
- 61 -
science of “regulatory compliance requirements” with various flashy and catchy marketing
phrases.
Now, if the COVID-19 virus cannot be determined (isolated), and by extension the real nature of
the pandemic, for what purpose is a vaccine being developed?
Again, this is all just a regulatory requirement because regulatory authorities are asking for it, and
as such, it needs to be developed. On the other hand, it is impossible to develop a true vaccine for
COVID-19 because – if we are incapable of actually monitoring the virus or disease – how can the
effectiveness of a vaccine be established?
In short, it cannot!
Therefore, most likely a fake vaccine will be developed to satisfy the regulators’ wishes (as well
as to calm down the created public hysteria and fear). Unfortunately, such vaccines, if developed
and administered, will certainly create potentially dangerous side effects, without any presumed
benefits, by interfering with the body’s own immune system, as well as other related physiological
processes.
The ill-thought out regulatory compliance requirement is not new or just associated with COVID-
19, it is pervasive in other pharmaceutical areas as well. For example, it reigns for the approval
process of traditional pharmaceutical products such as a tablet or capsule – and it has been
standard procedure for at least three decades, which certainly has ruined the science, as well as
pharmaceutical product development and manufacturing.
All kinds of enforceable regulatory requirements have been spawned and implemented in the
name of quality control of the manufactured products. The irony here is that authorities have never
defined what they mean by a “quality product” with some (scientifically) measurable
parameter/criteria.
However, there now exists a huge battery of compliance requirements (such as regulatory
guidance documents) available from authorities, in particular the FDA. The requirements and
guidance, are enforced with or without numerous unrelated testing requirements. They have never
been validated to see if they meet their intended purpose or claim. But industry must comply if it
wants to survive and the public goes on assuming it is receiving “quality” pharmaceutical
products.
In summary, at present there is a serious and fatal flaw in the practice of regulating pharmaceutical
products, development and assessment. This can only be addressed by critically evaluating and
implementing appropriate scientific principles from relevant scientific disciplines and expertise.
PS: If one requires specific references to the views presented here, they could be obtained by
visiting the site (www.drug-dissolution-testing.com) or directly contacting the author
at principal@pharmacomechanics.com.
About the author: Saeed A Qureshi PhD gained extensive (30+ year) experience in conducting
hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research in pharmaceutical areas for regulatory
assessment purposes while working with Health Canada.
He is an internationally recognised expert in the areas of pharmacokinetics, biopharmaceutics,
drug dissolution testing, analytical chemistry as related to characterization of pharmaceuticals, in
particular, based on in vitro (dissolution) and bioavailability/bioequivalence (humans and animals)
assessments.
At present, Dr. Qureshi provides teaching, training and consulting services, in the area of his
expertise as noted above, for improved pharmaceutical products development and assessments.
Dr. Qureshi can be reached by email (principal@pharmacomechanics.com) or Tel (+1 613 797
9815)
The above article is derived from the original version published at www.drug-dissolution-
testing.com
END QUOTE
56. As I have set out that the Commonwealth did legislate in regard of the Biosecurity
Act 2015 (Cth) and also that in view of the “concurrent” legislative powers seize to
exist once the Commonwealth invokes its legislative powers then when it comes to
“man-kind” disease(s) the State no longer can legislate in that regard. But, as I
indicated the High Court of Australia having prevented the Hansard Constitutional
Convention Debates records to be used for more than 70 years the States simply went
on and on in the understanding they still has “concurrent” legislative powers and what
- 62 -
an utter mesh this has created. Even all those laser and other speed detection
equipment the States are using are approved by the Commonwealth and hence all
those fines/convictions are constitutionally invalid. We have heaps of court decisions,
including those of the High Court of Australia which if not considered on what the
true meaning and application of the Constitution stands for then they are considerable
wrong. Yet, courts are still using them as “precedents”.
57. We now have that in the State of Victoria there is some Chief Health Officer who
well is dictating what restrictions are applicable. What are the conditions, etc. Just
that his directions are in my view all violating the legal provisions of the Biosecurity
Act 2015 (Cth)
Obviously I am aware that the courts must be of a last resort as one must first seek to
attempt resolving issues with the parties. Well I commenced on 8 April 2020 to lodge
a complaint with the Victorian Ombudsman. D Glass. I then on 13 April 2020 filed a
complaint with the Victorian Human Rights Commissioner. The latter I am not aware
of bothered to respond. The Victorian Ombudsman held it was a matter for the
Victorian IBAC (Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission) who on
19 May 2020 responded it was not a matter of “public interest”
I requested a review from Victorian Inspectorate (still ongoing. (20200719-Mr G. H.
Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to The Victorian Inspectorate-Reference # 11722468)
Followed by:
20200726-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel Andrews Premier of
Victoria-COMPLAINT
20200801-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck-
Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians & Ors
In the meantime on 8 August 2020 I wrote to Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews
20200808-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel Andrews Premier of
Victoria-FOI REQUEST
While on 31 July 2020 I had obtained a medical exemption certificate on “medical

grounds” from my doctor nevertheless on 10 August 2020 I was ordered by 2 police
officers, first demanding me to show them my drivers license notably when I was
inside Coles getting groceries and as such not driving any motor vehicle, to leave the
Northland Shopping Centre because I was not wearing a mask, this even so they
already had inspected my medical exemption certificate. The police indicated they
were not aware medical exemptions applied.
My complaint that security staff had threatened to use force to evict me from the
premises, but finally accepted that the medical certificate was valid, but then they
called the police nevertheless, to Centre management has neither any success as it
claimed to enforce legal requirement.
20200813-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Northland Centre Management-
COMPLAINT-supplement 1
A few days later, having lodges a complaint with Centre management it was admitted
they knew about the exemption.
Denial of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, POLITICAL LIBERTY, etc;

QUOTE
- 63 -
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has warned those filming themselves arguing with police at
checkpoints will be taken to court.
“They have now been found. I do not believe they received and on-the-spot fine.
That is the low level fine.” He said. “I think they will be charged on summons. That will be a
matter for others and I do not determine those matters but there is the on the spot $1652 fine and if
you go through a court process it is much closer to $10,000 so it is a pretty significant penalty.”
“Why give these people any more air time?” he said
END QUOTE
All kind of business, doctors facilities and hospitals are all setting up their own kind
of system and demands. Even for my wife merely to attend a medical appointment is
extremely difficult where on the one hand Austin Hospital made clear that my wife
due to her “medical condition” doesn’t require any certificate while on the other hand
the same hospital insists my wife provides a certificate. It causes considerable
frustration upon my wife and seeking to avoid a repeat of her collapsing at the
hospital on 29 August I wrote to the CEO of Austin Health (Austin Hospital) but by
now the CEO stayed out of it all letting problems to continue.
Correspondence between Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. and Austin Hospital

QUOTE
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <admin@inspector-rikati.com>
To:ANDREAZZA, Marisa
Cc:Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Wed, 9 Sep at 8:59 pm
Marisa,
As I indicated I have an exemption certificate for both mask and face shield. The Department
of Health has indicated that no medical certificate is required, albeit I have a current one for
both until 29 September 2020.
In my view Austin Hospital cannot mandate me to wear a face shield contrary to my medical
exemption certificate. And this is why I originally directed my correspondence to the CEO so
that the CEO personally could deal with matters.
Austin Hospital is acting in contravention of the Department of Health set out regime.
I am well aware that you so to say are the meat in the sandwich, and do not view my writings
as a criticism upon you personally, as this is not intended as such.
Again, I am not required at all to have a GP medical exemption certificate but nevertheless
obtained one, to seek to void any complications. However, I do not accept that Austin Hospital
can on the one hand demand a medical exemption certificate, in violation of the Department of
Health directives, and on the other hand make known that regardless if I have such an
exemption certificate it will disregard it anyhow and I must wear a face shield.
As I indicated on a previous occasion Olga (my wife who is 87 years old) collapsed (an only
because I cached her she didn't fall onto the ground) when she was told I couldn't stay with her,
and then the nurse changed this and this needs to be avoided to happen again. In my view, the
CEO better get active in this matter and ensure that Austin Hospital manage to have the
appointment for Olga to attend, and I am on her side without being compromised in my rights.
In my view no one can force me to inflict self-harm to wear a mask/shield and I view the CEO
can make the appropriate arrangements to ensure Olga can attend without any added stress to
the appointment.
I intend to provide the details stated in the 9 September 2020 to the High Court of Australia as
well as a copy of the content of this email as to show to the court, as evidence, that there is a
violation of my rights uncalled for.
Olga has given me the understanding that she cannot and will not attend to any appointment
without me as she needs me to be on her side at all times. As such the CEO better get
personally into the issue and make sure that appropriate arrangements are in place for Olga
with me to attend without any conditions that now appears to be stipulated in violation to the
Department of Health provisions.
- 64 -
Gerrit
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
107 Graham Road
Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia
Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and

other legal issues.
THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR

THE DISABLED
On 2020-09-09 16:41, ANDREAZZA, Marisa wrote:

Good afternoon Mr Schorel-Hlavaka
I have informed the Echo/Cardiology Department that Mrs Hlavaka-Schorel is

wanting to attend her appointment for an Echocardiogram on 18 September 2020.
Please see the attached letter stating; as your wife's carer, you can also attend the
Echocardiogram appointment. Please also note the change in appointment time
from 1415 to 1515 hours.
I am not sure of Jacqui's role. However following discussion with senior staff
overseeing the COVID-19 management at Austin Health, you and Mrs Hlavaka-
Schorel are required to have a written exemption from your GP regarding the
wearing of a mask. With the mask exemption from your GP, you and Mrs Hlavka will
be required to wear a face shield, which will be provided by the Hospital. A face
shield is positioned on the head, has a clear visor that covers the eyes, nose and
mouth without touching the eyes, nose or mouth.
This is to protect you and Mrs Hlavka-Schorel, other patients and staff.
The exemption letter from your GP will need to be presented at the Screening Unit at
the entrance to the Hospital and also the Echocardiology Department.
To ensure you and Mrs Hlavka's admission into the Hospital is hassle free, I will make
the COVID-19 Screen Unit Manger aware you have this exemption from your GP.
Please confirm you will be providing an exemption letter from your GP regarding the
wearing of a face mask and you and your wife are prepared to wear a face shield.
I am mindful these are challenging times. Our aim is to provide safe care to our
patients, accompanying carers and staff.
Please feel free to ring me if you want to further discuss.
Kind regards - Marisa
Marisa Andreazza
Consumer Liaison Officer
03 9496 3565
- 65 -
Austin Tower, Level 1

Centre for Patient Experience
145 Studley Road, Heidelberg
PO Box 5555, Victoria, 3084
www.austin.org.au
From: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <admin@inspector-rikati.com>

Sent: Tuesday, 8 September 2020 11:32 PM
To: ANDREAZZA, Marisa <Marisa.Andreazza@austin.org.au>
Cc: Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <admin@inspector-rikati.com>
Subject: Gerrit to Marisa Re Mrs Olga Hlavka-Schorel UR 175639
Marisa,
thank you for your email.
.
Olga desires to keep the 18 September 2020 date, as otherwise it causes havoc with other
issues.
.
I wrote previously to Jacqui about a medical certificate for Olga because of her "medical
condition" and Jacqui made clear that Olga didn't need a medical certificate and referred me to
the Department of Health website. As such it is rather strange you require a medical certificate
when Jacqui made clear none is required.
As for myself again no medical certificate is required, albeit rest assure I have one and it also
exclude a face shield.
I am currently preparing a case for the High Court of Australia as I am sick and tired of what is
going on.
On 19 August 2020 the police ordered me to leave a shopping centre as I was not wearing a
mask, this even so they had inspected my medical certificate. They claimed they were not
aware there were exemptions.
On 28 September 2020 I was physically assaulted by a man 1/3 my age because of not wearing
a mask in the shop, this even so I have an medical certificate for exemption. This is now in the
hands of the police.
There are those who hold a temperature gauge in the shape of a gun to the persons pinelgland
which is utterly ridiculous, this as people from warn torn countries are getting emotional upset
by this and also it can cause calcification and it should be directed to the pols instead a more
secure way to measure a persons temperature.
Olga is concerned that there will be conflict when she attend on 19 September 2020 and I urge
you to ensure that staff understand what the position is and do not traumatise Olga.
This whole COVID-19 issue has been grossly misused and abused and it is well overdue that
the medical profession understand and comprehend what it is really about.
Hospitals should return to normal d demand that the Government prove its case why it should
deny patients proper care!
Earlier today Premier Daniel Andrews was on the radio that he seeks to drive influenza and
"common cold" as such it is not about COVID-19 but now about other viruses. Surely the
medical profession should realise they were taken by the nose for political games. And in the
meantime (out)patients have been denied proper medical care
I include below a part of the Department of Health website details.

- 66 -
So, can you assure that whomever is fooling around with temperatures, etc, they get to
understand what is or isn't appropriate?
And can you liaison with Jacqui (Re Dr Lancefield) that she indicated no medical certificate is
required, so no one bothers Olga?
Gerrit
https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/face-coverings-covid-19#exceptions-for-not-
wearing-a-face-covering
QUOTE 14-8-2020 Victorian Department of Health website

Exceptions for not wearing a face covering
Lawful excuses or exceptions for not wearing a face covering
A face covering is not required in some circumstances including:
 Infants and children under the age of 12 years.
 A person who is affected by a relevant medical condition, including
problems with their breathing, a serious condition of the face, a
disability or a mental health condition.
 Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, where the ability to see the
mouth is essential for communication.
 Persons for whom wearing a face covering would create a risk to that
person's health and safety related to their work, as determined through
OH&S guidelines.
 Persons whose professions require clear enunciation or visibility of their
mouth. This includes teaching or live broadcasting.
 Professional sportspeople when training or competing.
 If you are working on your own property with members of your
household, but no staff or contractors are on site.
 When you are doing any exercise or physical activity where you are out
of breath or puffing. Examples include jogging or running, but not
walking. You must carry a face covering on you and wear it when you
finish exercising.
 When directed to remove the face covering to ascertain identity.
 When you are travelling in a vehicle by yourself or with other members
of your household.
 When consuming food, drink or medication, including when seated at a
restaurant where permitted.
 When undergoing dental treatment or other medical care to the extent
that the procedure requires that no face covering may be worn.
 During emergencies.
You must carry a face covering with you when leaving home, even if you
don't need to wear it while undertaking your current activity. For example,
you can take your face covering off to eat or while you are running, but
you must carry it with you and put it back on when you finish.
I have a medical condition that prevents me from wearing a
face covering, do I need a medical certificate stating I don't
need to wear a face covering?
You do not need a medical certificate stating that you have a lawful
reason for not wearing a face covering. If you have a lawful reason
for not wearing a face covering, you do not need to apply for an
exemption or permit.
- 67 -
If you are stopped by police, they will ask you to confirm the lawful reason
you are not wearing a face covering.
END QUOTE
https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/face-coverings-work-covid-19#what-does-wearing-a-face-
covering-mean
QUOTE
You must carry a face covering with you when leaving home for one of the
four reasons, even if you don't need to wear it while undertaking your
current activity, for example you can take your face covering off to eat. If
you have a medical condition that prevents you from wearing a face
covering at all times you don't need to carry it with you.
END QUOTE
--
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
107 Graham Road
Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia
Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and

other legal issues.
THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE

DISABLED
END QUOTE
https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/face-coverings-work-covid-19#what-does-wearing-a-face-covering-
mean
QUOTE
 You must carry a face covering with you when leaving home for one of the four reasons, even
if you don’t need to wear it while undertaking your current activity, for example you can take
your face covering off to eat. If you have a medical condition that prevents you from
wearing a face covering at all times you don’t need to carry it with you.
END QUOTE
The 9 September 2020 (unsigned and unmade) correspondence stated:

QUOTE
Austin
HEALTH
9 September 2020
To whom it may concern
RE: Mrs Hlavka-Schorel (UR: 175638)

Appointment date/time Friday 18 September 2020 at 3.15pm
The Cardiology Department at Austin Hospital wish to advise that the above mentioned
Patient may have a carer accompany her on 18 September 2020, for her Echocardiogram
Appointment.
The patient and her carer must wear a mask, or provide a letter of exemption from her GP
If the patient and the carer have an exemption from the GP, a face shield must be worn.
- 68 -
If the carer has an exemption regarding the wearing of a mask, a face shield must be worn at all
times in the waiting room.
If the carer wishes to enter regarding the scanning room with the patient, the carer must wear a
mask (regardless of an exemption from the GP).
For further enquiries please contact (03) 9496 5527
Yours sincerely
Cardiology Department
Austin Health
END QUOTE
From this it is very clear that regardless of any medical certificate exemption
nevertheless I am forced to wear a mask and face shield if I wish to remain with my
wife.
The above quoted Department of health directives also underlines there is there is no
legal provision to authorize the Victorian Police to demand a person who has a
“medical condition” as to the person’s I.D. or to attack the person for not wearing a
mask.
The police to my knowledge have not been provided any legal right to challenge a
person who doesn’t wear a mask because of “medical condition” as to why this
person doesn’t wear a mask. All the directive indicates that the police may ask if
there is a “medical condition” but obviously the police would not likely be medical
trained to assess if a person suffers of a certain medical condition. Having therefore a
“medical exemption certificate” should avoid any conflicts but as now proven by the
conduct of the police to direct me to leave a shopping centre on 10 August 2020 and
the hospital demanding on the one hand I provide a medical exemption certificate but
on the other hand stating “If the carer wishes to enter regarding the scanning room
with the patient, the carer must wear a mask (regardless of an exemption from the
GP).” Then clearly once rights are ignored. And so those who may suffer trauma are
forced to nevertheless subject themselves to whatever may be dictated regardless
what may legally applicable.
Then on:
20200814-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria-legal notice
QUOTE
As I wrote about in previous documentation we may have to consider that COVID-19 may be
because of a spread of “bacterium” like the Legionnaires Disease relating to certain water towers
and heating systems. Where then staff of kitchens, in nursing homes or elsewhere are donning PPE
but then in the process are going to the dump-master and touching likely highly infected lids to
open it and then having emptied the trolley transfer the bacterium onto the trolley and then went
back to the kitchen and transfer it there all around, then obviously this one person can spread it like
wild fire throughout the nursing home, without anyone being able to trace the real source/culprit.
No amount of “deep cleaning” will therefore stop the rate of infections. No amount of PPE,
LOCKDOWNS, CURFEW, SOCIAL DISTANCING, etc, will resolve the issues at hand, because
politicians precisely ignore the likely real cause of the infections. Worse, they are using
unconstitutional conditions and it evolves into a dictatorship and prison system without any court
of law having sanctioned it.
THIS NEEDS TO STOP!
- 69 -
I demand THAT ALL AND ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS by the
State Government or any of those acting for and on its behalf to enforce a CURFEW are
seize and desist doing so immediately.

State Government or any of those acting for and on its behalf to enforce a LOCKDOWN
are seize and desist doing so immediately.

State Government or any of those acting for and on its behalf to enforce a “social
distancing” are seize and desist doing so immediately.

State Government or any of those acting for and on its behalf to enforce “compulsory
mask wearing” are seize and desist doing so immediately.

State Government or any of those acting for and on its behalf to enforce “compulsory
vaccination” are seize and desist doing so immediately.
END QUOTE
As usual, the Premier will not even bother to respond to the FOI request or anything
else.
58. On 28 August 2020 while doing groceries shopping I was confronted by a man who
was seemingly filming me with his mobile and I understood he had called the police
because I was not wearing a mask. It wasn’t worrying me because I knew my rights.
He then started about “the law” and I politely suggested he checks the Department of
health website. I even offered my card with the details of my blog and suggested he
check out the relevant details. As I had ice-cream in my trolley I decided to head to
the check out but this man then commenced to run his trolley into me (I understand
from supermarket staff it is all on video) and when they I tried (but did not succeed)
to take a picture of me so I could hand it to the police, he then physically attacked me
further by twisting my arm and demanded my mobile. In the end supermarket staff
demanded he let me go. He repeated it several times and then he let me go and I went
to the supermarket manager, having first paid for the groceries, and made a
complaint. It was then that I notice the man who assaulted me (he was about 1/3 of
my age) at the counter and I then was able to make a picture of him and since
provided this to the Victorian Police. However the Victoria Police indicated they will
not let me make a statement at the police station without wearing a mask. I have
emailed a statement to them but still have the problem they will not witness me to
sign the statement if I do not wear a mask.
59. My wife was advised by her specialist that she doesn’t need a certificate because of
her medical condition but my wife is now scared that if she was to go anywhere then
she could also be attacked.
60. The Victorian police have been time and time on the news about their brutality
against citizens including to grab a 21 year old woman by the throat throwing her
onto the ground and the police officer sitting on top of her, this even so her partner
was making clear she had a medical exemption not to wear a mask. The Chief
- 70 -
commissioner of Police making clear that the police had smashed 4 car windows
already. Also the police had shot into a car, etc.
61. Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius even made clear that the police was not
concerned about people claiming constitutional rights, etc.
The Hyperlink of this article is https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/state/vic/2020/08/28/victoria-

police-virus-
measures/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PM%20Extra%20-
%2020200828
QUOTE
A senior Victoria Police officer has hit out at “bat s–t crazy” people thumbing their noses at
coronavirus rules and peddling dangerous conspiracy theories.
Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius said police were sick of dealing with “so-called sovereign
citizens” and the “tin-foil hat” brigade, who are against masks and vaccinations and believe 5G
causes coronavirus.
END QUOTE
“It’s just crazy,” he said. We also have this statement “A senior Victoria Police
officer has hit out at “bat s–t crazy” people thumbing their noses at coronavirus rules
and peddling dangerous conspiracy theories.”. In my view this labelling of “bat s–t
crazy” also is in my view inflammatory and totally uncalled for.
QUOTE
“It’s bat-s–t crazy nonsense.”
A clearly frustrated Mr Cornelius spoke out after a 76-year-old man was arrested and charged with
incitement on Friday, after a police investigation into a planned rally against Melbourne’s Stage 4
virus restrictions.
“Participating in this proposed protest would be a serious and blatant breach of the chief health
officer’s directions and it jeopardises the health of the entire community,” he said.
Mr Cornelius said the protest, planned for September 5, carried a serious risk of undoing the hard
work of the vast majority of Victorians through weeks of restrictions.
“The tinfoil hat-wearing brigade are alive and well in our community,” he said.
“They’re taking every opportunity to leverage the current situation to serve their own ridiculous
notions about so-called sovereign citizens, about constitutional issues and about how 5G is going
to kill your grandkids.”
Police have also been cracking down on a daily protest in suburban Melbourne, with hundreds of
people gathering in and around a reserve in suburban Dandenong.
Since Monday, police have made nine arrests and handed out 48 fines at the Dandenong protest.
There has been a heavy police presence at a daily protest against lockdown measures in
Melbourne this week. Photo: AAP
Mr Cornelius said people were trying to play the “innocent card” when approached by police and
wasting their resources.
“That’s why this behaviour is so selfish,” he said.
The protest is also illegal under Melbourne’s lockdown.
The police frustration came as Victoria’s chief health officer Brett Sutton said he expected daily
COVID cases to fall below 100 next week – and possibly even as soon as this weekend.
END QUOTE
62. Where a woman was protesting with signage about her political views the police
grabbed the signs, etc.
I am aware that the High Court of Australia in the matter of Albert Langer held that
there was political liberty, however this was not an invention of the High Court of
Australia as it all along existed:
- 71 -
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-
of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and
unite.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit
to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new
Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of
greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this ques tion upon
which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by
the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of
Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
It is my view that the right to protest cannot be made subject to whatever some
politician may deem permissible. Most politicians wouldn’t want anyone to protest
against their decisions.
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
The people of this continent were not landed upon its shore to-day ignorant of the responsibilities
of self-government. 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

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
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
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

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.
- 72 -
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
What we have is I vie a constitutional tyranny with constitutional terrorist pretending

to enforce the rule of law while in fact doing the opposite.
The Victorian Police is a registered corporation and police officers are not “public
servants”
Within the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900

(UK) I view s114 doesn’t permit some private corporation such as the Victorian
Police to be armed like a army and should not even be using weaponry against
citizens doing no more but to exercise their constitutional rights to protest.
114 States may not raise forces. Taxation of property of
Commonwealth or State
A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the
Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or
impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the
Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on
property of any kind belonging to a State.
In my view to single out religious gatherings not to be permitted also is a violation of

their constitutional rights.
I do not practice any religion and can somehow get together with some others and
sing as much as we like but others who are seeking comfort within the environment
of a religious congregation are specifically prevented from doing so but the terms of
the directions by the Chief Health Officer.
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it
is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith
oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision
that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its
theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable
and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that
provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those
whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those
whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be
"neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical
source. Pp. 356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding
policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the
exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been
unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.
And;
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
- 73 -
Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter
and support materials provided in the following link:
Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation
Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and
practices of a recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member.
However, the law does not require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your
religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged.
And
Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required
by law. You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law
allows you to submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the
law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not
required by law.
And
Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar
with the law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately
misrepresenting the law. They are betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth.
Neither do I view the State can deny anyone to travel across borders.
117 Rights of residents in States
A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject
in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would
not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen
resident in such other State.
63. The Victorian Legislative Assembly was adjourned and in my view if there is a real
STATE OF EMERGENCY / STATE OF DISSASTER then the Parliament should be
sitting as to be able to hold Ministers accountable.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2019/09/lady-hale-gently-determined-president-
supreme-court-overruled-boris-johnson Brexit
24 September 2019
Lady Hale, the gently determined president of the Supreme Court that overruled Boris Johnson
QUOTE
Brenda Hale, the president of the UK’s Supreme Court, demonstrated a combination of steely
determination and a warm demeanour when she announced on Tuesday morning that Boris
Johnson’s prorogation of parliament was unlawful. But that’s to be expected.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Kim Lane Scheppele

[conlawprof] BREXIT: Supreme Court issues stunning constitutional ruling
25 Sep 2019 at 11:07 am
Kim Lane Scheppele <kimlane@princeton.edu>
To: Kim Lane Scheppele <kimlane@princeton.edu>,
Catching up to the excellent analysis of the UKSC decision on the conlawprof list. . . .
- 74 -
First, apologies for announcing the decision late and not contributing anything substantive about it
until the end of the day. Today is a day of non-stop teaching, and I actually taught the judgment
within hours of its appearance, so I had my hands full! But I’m delighted to see so many people
chiming in on the decision.
A few points to make about the revolutionary quality of the case that may not be apparent to those
not accustomed to UK constitutional law – with non-doctrinal matters first:
ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165).
END QUOTE Kim Lane Scheppele
As a constitutionalist I communicate with law professors, and others, from around

the world and below quote an email I received from a constitutional professor
stating:
QUOTE Kim Lane Scheppele
So the PM prorogued unlawfully because he failed to give a persuasive reason for a long
prorogation when the prorogation had the effect of frustrating the constitutional role of the
Parliament in holding the executive to account.
END QUOTE Kim Lane Scheppele
While the UK doesn’t actually have a written constitution nevertheless the court acted
as if it has in view of the historic decision. In the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) we have a legal principle of “responsible government”
and as such Parliament cannot in my view be adjourned as long as the is a STATE OF
EMERGENCY / STATE OF DISSASTER applicable.
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-A written Constitution is not exhaustive. We have implanted responsible
government in this Constitution, but we have not said so in so many words. We must have
some regard to the instrument we are framing, and we ought to look upon it as a
Constitution with plenty of elasticity, under which all the constitutional usages will apply and
be interpreted.
END QUOTE

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
- 75 -
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
The people of Victoria are under many obligations to their distinguished Chief Justice and
especially for his judgment in this suit, in which he has displayed the acumen of the lawyer, the
eloquence of the orator, and the grasp of the statesman. Chief Justice Higinbotham said:
It was the intention of the Legislative Council to provide a complete system of responsible
government in and for Victoria, and that intention was carried into full legislative effect with the
knowledge and approval and at the instance of the Imperial Government by the "Constitution
Statute," passed by the Imperial Parliament.
He was supported in his opinion by Mr. Justice Kerferd, who for some time was Attorney-General
of Victoria. Mr. Justice Kerferd said:
All the prerogatives necessary for the safety and protection of the people, the administration of the
law, and the conduct of public affairs in and for Victoria, under our system of responsible
government, have passed as an incident to the grant of self-government (without which the grant
itself would be of no effect) and may be exercised by the representative of the Crown in the advice
of responsible ministers.
These two quotations embody the belief which was held until lately in Victoria; the majority of our
own Supreme Court overruled this reading. Mr. Justice Williams said:
I have been for years in common with, I believe, very many others, under the delusion (as I must
term it) that we enjoyed in this colony responsible government in the proper sense of the term. I
awake to find, as far as my opinion goes, that we have merely an instalment of responsible
government.
Mr. Justice Holroyd considers that we have only a measure of self-government, and two other
judges concur. My colleague, Mr. Wrixon, who argued the case with great force and ability before
the Privy Council, says:
If the reading put by the Supreme Court in Victoria upon our Constitution Act be correct,
then not only in the colony of Victoria, but in all the groups of Australasian colonies, the
governments which we now enjoy are without warrant of law.
That is a strong statement, and the judgment of the majority of our Supreme Court justifies me in
asserting that this Convention cannot too soon face the issue involved in it. I take it that the people
of Australasia will not be satisfied with any "instalment" or any "measure" of responsible
government, or any limitations, except such as are necessary to the unity of the empire. We claim,
without shadow of doubt or vestige of qualification, all the powers and privileges possessed by
Englishmen. The governor-general, as representative of the Queen in these federated colonies,
should be clothed by statute with all the powers which should belong to the representative of her
Majesty; he should be above all risk of attack, because he should act only on the advice of
responsible ministers, who should be prepared either to obtain the sanction of Parliament for
their acts or vacate office. Parliament, in its turn, should be brought into intimate relation with
the electorates. This is true, popular government.
END QUOTE
Let’s see what the Framers of the Constitution stated about the telephone, postal and
other services:
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
It is just as important that the Federal Government shall have the care and management of the
vehicles which carry human beings and their goods as that it should have the care and [start
page 769] management of the vehicles or ways which carry letters and telegrams.
END QUOTE
- 76 -
Notice they even refer to “management of the vehicles” not just photo opportunities
for a Minister!
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
If you give over the telegraph and postal business you thereby hand to the custody of the Federal
Government all the local appointments-the appointing of the postmasters, clerks, and other
officers, who do not do national, but the purest local business; and you at once raise up a
large army of civil servants, the influence of which we want to dissociate from our national life
END QUOTE
Notice they refer to appointments of officers etc and “large army of civil servants”
clearly this relates to Commonwealth Management, not some private company
In my view this means that the “responsible Minister” cannot excuse himself/herself
from the Victorian Hotel fiascos merely because having outsourced this to some
company or companies. Yet, we had Premier Daniel Andres, despite that the Chief
Health Officer made known that 99% of infections resulted from the hotel fiascos to
blame time and time citizens for not complying with the Chief Health Officers
direction. This in turn to cause rage within the community that people are so scared
that they commence to attack others who are not wearing a mask.
67. I at this moment will not include all relevant details regarding issues.
https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-and-mask-mandates-do-not-lead-to-reduced-covid-
transmission-rates-or-deaths-new-study-suggests/
Lockdowns and Mask Mandates Do Not Lead to Reduced COVID Transmission Rates or
Deaths, New Study Suggests
I have indicated at various occasions that more than likely it might be a bacterium
who like with the Legionnaires Disease may be a local infection. After all, while
COVID-19 is a disease and can be harmful it is not the claimed KILLER DISEASE,
as pathologist are making clear. While it might be a contributing factor by escalating
the existing health issues the person already had it is not in itself a deadly disease.
Some examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQN44kjrSQ
Virus Not As Infectious as We Think, 80-90% of Family ... - YouTube
1 Aug 2020 ... 'Virus Not As Infectious as We Think, 80-90% of Family Members of Patients
Do Not Contract COVID'. The Wire.
https://youtu.be/LfeN68Zp-TY
Revealing! Forensic Pathologist Professor Klaus Püschel pulls no punches.
QUOTE
Ten days ago in an interview with a major newspaper,
You said that you hadn’t had a single case of COVID-19
on your dissection table. Not one had
died from the illness COVID-19 alone
without another pre-existing condition.
Is that still the case? – Yes that remains the case.

All [COVID-19] deaths for this region
- 77 -
Which have now passed 100, have been autopsied,
and each one had serious pre-existing diseases.
END QUOTE
https://www.stankovuniversallaw.com/2020/07/the-biggest-scientific-fraud-and-political-crime-
of-all-times-no-one-died-of-coronavirus/
No one has died from COVID 19,..another SCAM ‼️
QUOTE
Dr. Aleksov: I want to say again the last sentence, which is that no one has died from the
coronavirus.
The people are dying WITH coronavirus, NOT from it.
There is no need for either the term pandemic or epidemic.
Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and Switzerland – this is what my colleagues from all those
countries said.
END QUOTE
I have numerous other such reports.
Why on earth use lung strains from an aborted foetus to inject into an elderly
resident of a nursing home which may then cause the immune system to
wrongly attack and destroy the resident’s own lung strains?
https://salmartingano.com/2020/05/the-1918-spanish-flu-only-the-vaccinated-died/
The 1918 Spanish flu only the vaccinated died
Reportedly “Estia Aged Care Facility in Ardeer” has an about 300% infection rate
this while Professor Dileep Mavalankar Director Institute of Public Health,
Gandhinagar, explains how he researched medical reports from all over the world
and that when a member of the household has COVID-19 then 80 to 90% of other
members of the household are unlikely to get infected with COVID-19. Unlike with
nursing-homes in family environment husband and wife sleep together, engage in
sexual intercourse, kissing, not wearing a mask, not social distancing, and despite all
this only about 10 to 20% are infected. Not just in India but this is from medical
reports from around the world.
https://youtu.be/LfeN68Zp-TY
Revealing! Forensic Pathologist Professor Klaus Püschel pulls no punches.
QUOTE
Ten days ago in an interview with a major newspaper, you said that you hadn’t had a single case of
COVID-19 on your dissection table. Not one had died from the illness COVID-19 alone without
another pre-existing condition. Is that still the case? – Yes that remains the case. All [COVID-19]
deaths for this region Which have now passed 100, have been autopsied, and each one had serious
pre-existing diseases.
END QUOTE
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/russia-s-covid-vaccine-might-actually-work-early-data-
suggests/ar-BB18HMrz?ocid=msedgdhp
Russia's Covid vaccine might actually WORK, early data suggests
QUOTE Dr Michael Head, senior researcher in global health at the University of Southampton
Vaccines can be more dangerous in elderly and vulnerable because their immune systems
are too weak to fight off the tiny amounts of virus in the vaccine.
- 78 -
END QUOTE Dr Michael Head, senior researcher in global health at the University of Southampton
And
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/russia-s-covid-vaccine-might-actually-work-early-data-
suggests/ar-BB18HMrz?ocid=msedgdhp
Russia's Covid vaccine might actually WORK, early data suggests
QUOTE Dr Michael Head, senior researcher in global health at the University of Southampton
'Public confidence in any licensed vaccine is vital, and suggestions from both Russia and the
USA that a vaccine may be fast-tracked without the proper research having taken place are
problematic.
'We must be open and transparent about the effectiveness and safety profiles of all vaccine
candidates. Ultimately, we must not pour additional fuel on the anti-vaccine lobby fires.'
END QUOTE Dr Michael Head, senior researcher in global health at the University of Southampton
Reality is that the “anti-vaccine lobby” is not the problem rather the fact that
pharmaceutical companied aided and abetted by politicians and health professionals
because of the funding to most if not all to them they are as charlatans peddling
vaccinations regardless of the harm inflicted to the victims.
What we have appears to be dodgy figures grabbed out of nowhere and the real death
toll relating specifically to COVID-19 may never be known.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR1qC9bXRTmggpniTB
AvlzvAZ-wpZdAsCoFlRwiujGQy01DJlvTM6aOr4HQ
Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics
Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
I understand that the CDC (USA) has without too much fanfare apparently reduced
the death rate regarding covid-19 by about 94%.
Having someone dying in a motor car accident and later art the morgue it was
“assumed” the person had COVID-19 (or just the “common cold”) then his death
certificate showed he died from COVID-19.
.
It appears that the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) actually now used the
same technic to inflate the death rate claimed to be COVID-19 deaths.
The following may underline that people can be harmed if not die because of
vaccines, and while this should not deter the usage of vaccines in general it should be
a warning that vaccines should be used as a last resort and must be strictly monitored
for any ill effects or even death. However as pharmaceutical companies couldn’t be
sued they had really no reason to bother about follow up testing, etc. Ordinary no
other manufacturer may have this kind of exemption of legal liability, and here we
are about even people dying! The issue is not to prevent any vaccination but that any
vaccination must be done responsible where in each case a qualified doctor is
involved in the decision making process and not merely a general decision by some
politician that everyone must be vaccinated as there is no harm in vaccinations. Also
that when a parent is requested to approve vaccination of a child the parent must be
provided in plain English language a set out as to what is in the vaccination, any
dangers to the child having a vaccination, and other relevant issues. No more
vaccinations because politicians/medical doctors may have some backdoor financial
benefit by promoting/enforcing vaccinations. Any doctor who is involved in
prescribing any vaccination must disclose on the documentation if he/she is receiving
- 79 -
any form of benefits from providing the vaccination and disclose who are providing
shall and any financial benefit to him/her.
https://www.tga.gov.au/alert/zostavax-vaccine-0
QUOTE
Zostavax vaccine
Safety advisory - not to be used in people with compromised immune function
6 July 2020
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has previously advised that Zostavax should not be
used in people with compromised immune function, as it is associated with a risk of mild to
serious complications (including death) from infection with the vaccine virus.
Consumers and health professionals are advised that the TGA has received a report of a new case
involving this adverse event in a patient on low doses of immunosuppressive medicine.
The patient, who at the time of vaccination was taking hydroxychloroquine and a low dose of
prednisolone to treat arthritis, died 3 weeks after receiving Zostavax.
The TGA investigation found that Zostavax was used in line with existing recommendations.
However, it is important for health professionals to be mindful of the potential for this very rare
adverse event.
Zostavax is a live, attenuated varicella-zoster virus vaccine that is used to prevent shingles in
patients aged 50 years and older and prevention/treatment of nerve pain associated with the virus
in patients aged 60 years and older.
Zostavax is included on the National Immunisation Program for people aged 70 to 79 years.
END QUOTE
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/un-forced-admit-gates-funded-vaccine-causing-polio-outbreak-
africa?utm_campaign=&utm_content=ZeroHedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email
&utm_source=zh_newsletter
QUOTE
UN Forced To Admit Gates-Funded Vaccine Is Causing Polio Outbreak In Africa
UN Forced To Admit Gates-Funded Vaccine Is Causing Polio Outbreak In Africa
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 09/04/2020 - 23:45
TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrint
Via 21stCenturyWire.com,
This really should be one of the biggest scandals in public health, but it’s given little attention
– mainly because of the high-profile nature of the people and organisations involved.
The United Nations has been forced to admit that a major international vaccine initiative is
actually causing the outbreak of the very disease it was supposed to wipe-out.
While international organisations like the World Health Organization (WHO) will regular boast
about supposedly ‘eradicating polio’ with vaccines, the opposite seems to be the case. Their
decades-long campaign to eradicate polio is now killing scores of innocent young people living in
poor countries.
Now it seems that health officials are beginning to admit that their plan to stop ‘wild’ polio is
backfiring, as scores children are being paralyzed a deadly strain of the pathogen derived from
a live vaccine – causing a virulent of polio to spread.
(image not reproduced)
Health officials administers polio vaccine to children at refugee camp in Maiduguri, Nigeria, Aug.
28, 2016 (AP Photo/Sunday Alamba)
This latest pharma-induced pandemic has broken out in the African countries of Chad and Sudan,
and the culprit has been identified: a vaccine-derived polio virus type 2. Officials now fear this
new dangerous strain could soon ‘jump continents,’ causing further deadly outbreaks around the
world.
Shocking as it sounds, this Big Pharma debacle is not new. After spending some $16 billion
over 30 years to eradicate polio, international health bodies have ‘accidentally’ reintroduced the
disease to in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and also Iran, as the central Asia region was hit by a virulent
- 80 -
strain of polio spawned by the corporate pharmaceutical vaccine distributed there. Also, in 2019,
the government of Ethiopia ordered the destruction of 57,000 vials of type 2 oral polio vaccine
(mOPV2) following a similar outbreak of vaccine-induced polio.
It’s important to note that the oral polio vaccine being pushed on to the African population by the
Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), a consortium which is supported and funded by the
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
All of this should be a cause for concern, especially with western governments and transnational
pharmaceutical giant all rushing to roll-out their new Gates-funded experimental coronavirus
vaccine for the global population.
Currently, the first experimental COVID-19 vaccine is being tested on the African
population through GAVI Vaccine Alliance, another organization funded by the Gates
Foundation. A large round of human trials will take place in South Africa, locally managed by
the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg—yet another Gates-funded institution.
This latest revelation from Africa should prompt media and health advocates to ask hard
questions about the efficacy and safety of the much-hyped COVID ‘miracle’ vaccine.
AP News reports…
The World Health Organization says a new polio outbreak in Sudan is linked to an ongoing
vaccine-sparked epidemic in Chad - a week after the U.N. health agency declared the African
continent free of the wild polio virus.
In a statement this week, WHO said two children in Sudan — one from South Darfur state and the
other from Gedarif state, close to the border with Ethiopia and Eritrea — were paralyzed in
March and April. Both had been recently vaccinated against polio. WHO said initial outbreak
investigations show the cases are linked to an ongoing vaccine-derived outbreak in Chad that was
first detected last year and is now spreading in Chad and Cameroon.
“There is local circulation in Sudan and continued sharing of transmission with Chad,” the
U.N. agency said, adding that genetic sequencing confirmed numerous introductions of the virus
into Sudan from Chad.
WHO said it had found 11 additional vaccine-derived polio cases in Sudan and that the virus
had also been identified in environmental samples. There are typically many more unreported
cases for every confirmed polio patient. The highly infectious disease can spread quickly in
contaminated water and most often strikes children under 5.
In rare instances, the live polio virus in the oral vaccine can mutate into a form capable of
sparking new outbreaks.
Last week, WHO and partners declared that the African continent was free of the wild polio
virus, calling it “an incredible and emotional day.”
(image not reproduced)
On Monday, WHO warned that the risk of further spread of the vaccine-derived polio across
central Africa and the Horn of Africa was “high,” noting the large-scale population movements
in the region.
More than a dozen African countries are currently battling outbreaks of polio caused by the virus,
including Angola, Congo, Nigeria and Zambia.
Amid the coronavirus pandemic, many of the large-scale vaccination campaigns needed to stamp
out polio have been disrupted..
Read more here...
END QUOTE UN Forced To Admit Gates-Funded Vaccine Is Causing Polio Outbreak In Africa
What we now seems to have is that despite vaccinations are causing harm as the anti-
vaxxers all along claimed the Prime Minister Scott Morrison nevertheless made clear
he intent to compel all Australians to be vaccinated. And, Premier Daniel Andrews
appears to likewise insist on that. Never mind that most of the death eventuate in
nursing homes where the elderly are generally needlessly vaccinated that in fact as I
understand it undermine their immune system and then they cannot fight of another
virus.
- 81 -
68. With s44 I view this also must be deemed to be applicable to any State Minister, this
as we have now a so called “national Cabinet” albeit no so called “National
Parliament” to overseas this “national cabinet” and so we cannot have Ministers such
as Premier Daniel Andrews who is I understand heavily involved with the Chinese
Government to be in a Ministerial job. Indeed, reports are that during the curfew
which is from 8pm till the next morning 5 am the Premier nevertheless went during
curfew hours to Tullamarine to welcome about 21 passengers planes albeit they had
no passengers but electronic surveillance equipment. I understand that the Premier
also made a deal with the Chinese Government for a Belt and Road Initiative which I
view is a very dangerous conduct this as I understand that a country failing to repay
the debt of the Belt and Road Initiative then had its port seized by the Chinese
Government. A further issue is that the swab that is dictated to be taken from citizens,
and are stopped along the road by heavy handed police officers, even smashing car
windows, then those swabs are handed over to laboratories that have connections with
the Chinese Government. I have watched a video how the swab is used to obtain the
DNA of the person and as such, the Chinese Government will have access to the
DNA of not only Victorians but also anyone else who travels within Victoria. In my
view the entire set up is more than likely to be a backdoor manner to install a
communist system this as the death toll relating to COVID-19 is far less than that of
the influenza for which no such draconic measurements are put in place.
69. There is also the issue that the Commonwealth of Australia as with the State of
Victoria and others are registered as corporations with the District of Columbia. By
this the treasurers are providing financial details to the USA. In fact, the District of
Columbia is under the control of the US Senate and as such we have Ministers who
have committed themselves in violation of s44 to a foreign power.
70. That we now have that both the Federal Government as well as the Victorian State
government have failed to provide in appropriate time the legal requirements to
provide Appropriation Bills and Taxation Bills. The Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) has a certain mode required that if a Bill fails twice
through both Houses of parliament then a Double Dissolution can be called for
elections of all Senate and House of Representatives seats. Where then the Bills must
be passed prior to the commencement of the 1 of July then allowing for 2 passages
through the House and then a possible DOUBLE DISSOLUTION it must be
submitted to the Parliament about New Year, to allow for a constitutional process to
be complied with. We now however that the so called “budget” is handed down in
May of each year that totally denied any proper constitutional required process, and
regarding this panic about COVID-19 now the Bills haven’t been submitted to the
Parliament at all.
71. We also have that we are faced with so called “mini budgets” where there is mid-year
another so called adjustment budget. This I view is unconstitutional as those who
conduct businesses must be able to rely upon what is applicable at the start of the
financial year so they can engage in contracts to have a certain margin of profit to
remain afloat even in circumstances that may cause some upheaval.
QUOTE
- 82 -
Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?
Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!
Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the
expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services
and powers given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States
to the Commonwealth.
Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?

Mr. BARTON: Yes.
END QUOTE
What we have however now that not only the Appropriation and Taxation Bills are
not passed but we have that draconic system of a Premier closing viable businesses
for the alleged COVID-19 issue. As the States were created within Section 106 of the
constitution “subject to this constitution” then in my view the States must also adhere
to the compensation for acquiring property. Which means where the State
government prevent a business to operate then it must compensate for the losses. We
have however that the Victorian Government even denies landlords to evict non
paying lease holders , this while the property owners themselves still face financial
liabilities to the mortgages they engages into. In my view as the High Court of
Australia held that “property” involves anything that is on a land and under it then I
view the right of anyone to exercise a common law right to be and earn from
employment an income and the Victorian Government prevents this to be allowed
than it must provide appropriate financial compensation for taking away that right.
As much as “adverse acquisition” could be applied where a Government causes the
loss of business such as creating a road through a persons property and/or cutting off
a persons property then likewise I view that the Government must equally be held
liable for all and any denial of a persons right to earn an income being it as an
employee and/or as an employer.
72. As I understand it the Governor-General made a declaration of STATE OF

EMERGENCY on 18 March 2020 which lasted for 3 months and it is only within this
limited period of time that a State government could within the context of the
Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) exercise certain legal powers and not despite of those
legal provisions. With this I view that regardless of the Victorian Parliament having
approved any STATE OF EMERGENCY and/or STATE OF DISASTER in the end
they and as such in my view it is totally irrelevant if the State Parliament did or didn’t
provide for any extension of a STATE OF EMERGENCY because it cannot be
applied cannot be applied to “MAN-KIND” disease like COVID-19 for “man-kind”
disease.
73. What we now have is that the Victorian Police is claiming to act for and on behalf of
the Chief Health Officer this even so this person in my view lacks any competence in
constitutional law and so the rights of citizens. While many criticize President Donald
Trump I for one became aware that President Donald Trump made from onset very
clear that he made the final decision after listening to all the various experts about
science, legal issues, etc. We in Victoria however that the Chief Health Officer who is
not an elected official instead makes the final decisions. In my view this is a violation
of our constitutional system.
- 83 -
74. It was the Chief Health Officer who issued directions as to masks only then
subsequently making known that masks with ventilators are not to be used. As such,
the directions of the masks were issued without proper consideration of what was or
was not appropriate. Ample of medical reports and videos warn about the dangers of
wearing a mask.
75. The police acting in full gear, even riot gear to deal with “political protesters” I view
is not only overhanded but also unlawful. This as they claim to act for the directions
of the Chief Health Officer, and I view the Chief Health Officer cannot engage some
private corporation as his own personal army.
76. I have properties in a small township named Berriwillock (about 350 kilometres from
my residence) and received a notice that I am required by the Country Fire Authority
Act to slash the weed/grass on the house-block property or face a $1,562 fine, etc.
However with the lockdown I am not to travel beyond 5 kilometres other than for
attending to a doctor. It means I am not even allowed to go to a car wash as this is
more than 5 kilometres from my residence. Neither can I put the car in service as I
ordinary do before making a trip as that too is beyond 5 kilometres of my residence,
and neither can I have any service done to repair my ride-on mower needs to slash the
weed/grass. By this I am between a rock and a stone that no matter what I will end up
in court proceedings either by not travelling to Berriwillock to do the work or by
going to Berriwillock for travelling beyond 5 kilometres. Likewise, if I get the car
services, etc. In effect, this means that I cannot use the motor vehicle as it could be
unsafe to drive without a required service.
77. While it was reported to the Victorian Hotel inquiry that 99% of the infections were
resulting from the 2 hotel fiascos nevertheless the directions of the Chief Health
Officer.
78. My wife will be turning 88 before the end of the year and she lived through WWII in
her native Czechoslovakia and thereafter through communism until she escaped but
now gave me the understanding that this condition in Victoria is worse then what she
ever had to live through in the past. After all the dictatorship in Victoria prevent her
at her advanced age to even go to a hairdresser, to walk in the park to have some
exercise without being attacked for not wearing a mask (regardless she doesn’t have
to because of her medical condition) she cannot even go shopping for groceries as
only 1 person in the household can do so. Hence, she cannot go with me to go
shopping. And, she cannot go by taxi because she would need assistance while
shopping and to expect us to finance taxi fares and also someone to stay with her
where I ordinary do so is absurd. She cannot even go out such as buying another
dressing gown because all stores are beyond 5 kilometres from our residence and well
she is not allowed to travel with me, her husband. It is considerably distressing her
and well I cop it as after all there is no one else she can talk to being prevented to
travel anywhere and so basically is under house arrest without any rights to even
challenge this in court.
79. The above stated ought to indicate that both my wife and myself as well as numerous
others are in my view unconstitutionally denied our constitutional rights. We have not
- 84 -
committed any offences neither are suspected of doing so and well are essentially
detained. Imprisoned in our own homes.
80. I have written in the past that even for my wife in her condition to consult a
specialist/doctor it has to be done by telephone as services are otherwise suspended.
Then it has taken up to 4 weeks for my wife to be able to get the medication
prescribed. This is done to a person with heart failure! There has been absolutely no
assistance by the State Government even so it so much claim to care about the elderly
and the vulnerable. When I went to do some shopping the police asked me why I
went to Northland shopping centre and I told them that I had been to others and they
didn’t sell what my wife needed. The police officer asked then if I had already been
to another store, I indicated the previous week. He then commented that I could have
gone to the same store as they might now have items in stock. What on earth is it for
the police now to question a customer on a store why this customer didn’t go to some
other store? This is just part of the utter and sheer nonsense that we are subjected to.
So now the police dictates which store I can or cannot get my groceries!
81. The BLM protests vs COVID-19
I understand that in June there were BLM (BLACK LIVES MATTER) protest at
which time I understood the Premier of Victoria Mr Daniel Andres having directed
the Victorian Police not to fine any person participating in their conduct to
demonstrate. As In understand it protest were held all around the world in regard of
the alleged racial killing of a person named George Floyd. In Melbourne I understand
there was more than 10,000 people protesting for BLM. I understand that images
have surfaced where 3 members of the Victorian Police kneeled in support of the
BLM in Bendigo. I at the time of representing parties at the Bar table always was
aware that one must not simply so to say go by the cover of the book but must
explore the truth. I subsequently have obtained videos of what eventuated prior to the
killing of Mr George Floyd, and it appears it was not a racial killing at all, and the
police officer followed police procedures that in the past also resulted that a person
arrested ended up being killed in this manner. In fact that George Floyd had been
earlier in the police vehicle claiming “I can’t breath” and requested to be taken out of
the police vehicle, etc. As such it was taken out of context and portrayed as if this
was a racial killing. It is not for me to determine the outcome of tany legal
proceedings but what may seem to be a horrific event may in the end turn out an
unintended killing. As I understand it from my research most of the candidates of the
Democrats for the presidential election including VP president candidate Kamala
Harris were funding BLM. I understand that certain persons who are BLM members
appear to be also members of Antifa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5THZGzrXmU
Dan Bongino – Media Sit in Shameful Silence as Pres Sec -KAMALA HARRIS & RIOTs
In this video Kamala Harris is smiling about the riots and made clear that this must
go on not just until the presidential elections but beyond.
From the numerous videos it appears that BLM is a front for the Democratic Party to
use riots and violence to try to prevent President Trump to succeed in the re-election.
- 85 -
Yet, we have Victorian Police officers kneeling in support of the BLM and as such
showing to be political bias.
Yet the same Victorian Police then when a woman Zoe-Lee mother of 2 children and
pregnant for a 3rd one advertises for FREEDOM DAY rally in Bendigo then the
police arrested her and handcuffing her in front of her children while she was at
home in her pyjama. I understand from videos that this pregnant woman who was
arrested at her home had reportedly lost her job, etc, and so planned the protest not
aware that it was unlawful to do a FREEDOM DAY protest. The Victoria Police also
were videoed to attend to a resident of Mr Bartolo and within a minute smashed his
front door as he had not come down to open the door and then arrested him.
Likewise, the Victorian Police arrested other persons who were doing no more but
exercising their political rights enshrined in the constitution. However I understand
that when Construction workers went on a protest then the Victorian Police did not
intervene. From this it appears to me that Premier Daniel Andrews engage in a
political battle that he uses COVID-19 as an excuse to arrest anyone who protest
against his political ambitions but where more than an estimated 10,000 protesters
are protesting then they are i understand aligning with his political view and so no
arrest are made.
82. That from my research I have not once come across any medical/scientific set out or
video that explains that COVID-19 is political bias as to not infect anyone who align
with the Premiers political views. Neither did I come across any medical/scientific set
out that explained that COVID-19 observe a time schedule that it will not infect a
person between the 8pm and 5am curfew hours. I have noticed that despite the
claimed STATE OF EMEREGENCY/ STATE OF DISASTER during curfew hours
road works to create another road along an existing road, as well as road work
fencing, in my area still continues. We also have at times that the Premier announced
days ahead certain restrictions to combat COVID-19 and yet I have not come across
any medical/scientific set out that COVID-19 observes calendar days.
83. The death of any person, regardless of age can be mourned albeit we all are born to
die. As such, with as I understand about 440 people a day dying in Victoria alone of
all kinds of reasons then one has to be careful not to make an issue out of those deaths
out of context and use that as a claimed justification to apply lockdowns, curfews,
social distancing, compulsory mask wearing and certainly not for the ongoing police
violence. My wife and I ordinary do not watch television neither read news papers. At
most we at times listen to 91.5FM Smooth radio news. I on Tuesday 8 September
2020 understood from Premier Daniel Andrews that he urged people with even a mild
cough or so to attend for testing, as he is seeking to drive down influenza and the
common cold. Over the months I have written numerous articles that any testing
would be unreliable this as COVID-19 and influenza as well as the “common cold”
all appeared to be related as a viruses and so testing will not indicate a difference
between one or the other. As such, a test of a person with the “common flu” could be
positive as with “influenza or COVID-19. With nursing homes being permitted by the
ABS (itself strange that it somehow is tangled up in a medical issue I view beyond its
constitutional position) allows anyone “suspected” to have COVID-19 then to be
recorded as such for a death certificate. As such, a person who died with no more but
the common cold from a car accident then nevertheless is recorded as having died
from COVID-19 even if the person was not at all infected with COVID-19. I
- 86 -
understand that nursing homes now are offering the family of a resident who died to
pay for the funeral if they accept to place COVID-19 ON THE DEATH
CERTIFICATE. This as then the nursing home can claim $25,000 to $30,ooo
regarding the death of this person. In my view this is establishing a gigantic fraud
against the Consolidated Revenue Funds to which I view the Premier and others are
aiding and abetting to have such a scheme operating.
84. I am aware that the Main Stream Media does not seem to challenge Premier Daniel
Andrews on the figures he is referring to. However I understand that SkyNews
challenged Premier Daniel Andrews about his figures and on Tuesday 8 September
2020 I understood that the Premier now was referring to wanting to drive down the
deaths of influenza and common cod cases. While it may appear to be a noble
intention reality is that the purported Victorian STATE OF EMERGENCY / STATE
OF DISASTER were not at all pursued on basis of influenza and “common cold”
cases. It appears to me that so to say the Premier got caught with so to say his pants
down that his figures he has been claiming are really not at all in total relating to
COVID0-19 deaths but has been inflated with deaths nothing to do with COVID-19.
This is in my view a serious matter. To my understanding this is the first time ever
that in Australia there was a lockdown because of the “common cold”.
85. I understand from many video and other medical/scientist reports that there is an
escalation of suicides, and other harm to people due to the lockdowns, curfews, social
distancing, compulsory mask wearing, etc.
86. That I understand people now live in fear that the Premier has indicated that the
Victorian Police can enter any person’s residence without the need of a warrant.
I am aware of http://netk.net.au/Australia/Ibbett.asp Networked Knowledge - Law Reports NSW v
Ibbett 2006 HCA 57 and also:
HALLIDAY v NEVILL [1984] HCA 80; 155 clr 1 (6 December 1984)
GEORGE v ROCKETT [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104 (20 June 1990)
PLENTY v DILLON [1991] HCA 5; (1991) 171 CLR 635 f.c.91/004
NSW v IBBETT [2006] HCA 57; (206) 231 ALR 485; (2006) 81 ALJR 427
KURU v STATE OF NSW [2008] HCA 26 (12 June 2008)
However, none of those cases in any shape of form will obliterate the experiences of
those 2 children seeing the police invading their home which is to be of peace and
tranquillity and observe the police to place their mother in handcuffs and in tears.
While Zoe-Lee claimed that she was not aware that it was an offence to pursue a
peacefull political demonstration may not be an excuse not knowing the law, if it
actually was a valid law to deny any political protest, then the police claiming they
didn’t know that there are medical exemptions for not wearing a mask and brutally
physically attack persons as shown in many videos neither can then be an excuse of
not knowing what law was applicable.
87. That on the one hand we have a Chief Health Officer who is issuing directions while
on the other hand the Department of health on its website then provide for exemptions
which the Chief Health Officer simply failed to outline when giving directions.
88. As I experienced personally a Centre management, as other business were also doing,
claiming that they were enforcing “the law” when in fact they were not. If not
knowing the law is no excuse then all those businesses are violating the rule of law
- 87 -
and should be held accountable. After all their enforcement for even employees to
wear a mask despite that the wearing of a mask is very dangerous for that person
means that in the long run many will end up with illnesses resulting from this
compulsory mask wearing.
89. That I understand that the Victorian Parliament allegedly provided for the Minister
during a STATE OF EMERGENCY / STATE OF DISSASTER to suspend any
legislation. While I understand the Victorian Human Rights Commissioner has
claimed that the Minister cannot suspend the Victorian Charter of Human Rights
reality is that police officers are not generally fully educated in constitutional legal
provisions let alone embedded legal principles and as Assistant Commission Luke
Cornelius appears to make clear anyone claiming a constitutional issue is a “TIN
FOIL HAT”. If as is claimed the Minister can suspend any law, and Premier Daniel
Andrews made clear he will continue the restrictions until positives test are below 5
and so deaths, and in Victoria allegedly 440 people dies from all kinds of reasons,
including motor vehicle accidents, then it appears that technically the Minister can
suspend any elections to have the so called “Chairman Dan” (Premier Daniel
Andrews) to forever remain in power as some DICTATOR.
90. That I am also concerned that the Premier of Victoria allegedly labelled Mr Clive
Palmer to be an “Enemy of the State” because of having commenced to litigate
against the State of Western Australia regarding the alleged unconstitutional border
closure in violation of s92 of the constitution. In my this conduct by the Premier
ought to be deemed CONTEMPT OF COURT as his conduct is to cause a rage
amongst Western Australians for Mr Clive Palmer having dared to pursue his
constitutional rights to petition the courts regarding what he considers to be a
violation of s92 of the constitution. In my view no court ought to accept that a party
in legal proceeding is attacked in such manner merely for instituting and continue
legal proceedings. After all this is what courts are for. Obviously, my wife now fears
that Premier Daniel Andrews and his officials and also the Victorian Police may now
likewise commence to attack my person and target ma in various manner. After all, in
December 2018 a former police officer caused the destruction of a new fence I was
building inside my property boundary with an estimated $10,000 damage. I at the
time was exposing that in my view because of my own investigation the Victorian
Police may have been complicit in setting up the murder of Mr Carl Williams in
prison, and well the subsequent destruction of the new fence I was building was
perceived as a warning to better not continue this. Hence, my wife is in fear that the
Victorian Police already violently attacking others may likewise do so upon me. With
the Victorian Police Allegedly now permitted to trespass upon any property without
the need of a warrant further is of concern.
Lorraine <netnews@skymesh.com.au>
Wed, 9 Sep at 5:40 pm
Unwarranted polixe brutality and abuse of power in Victoria.
Subject: [New post] Oz Readers Need To Read This!
QUOTE
ross1948 posted: "The Rebel's newest journalist, Australian Avi Yemini, was hired last Friday. On
his very first assignment, he was arrested by Melbourne cops. Read on... Not just arrested.
Pounced on by half a dozen police. Slammed to the ground. Handcuffed tigh"
The Rebel's newest journalist, Australian Avi Yemini, was hired last Friday.
- 88 -
On his very first assignment, he was arrested by Melbourne cops.
Read on...
Not just arrested.
Pounced on by half a dozen police.
Slammed to the ground.
Handcuffed tightly.
And detained.
Take a look for yourself:
https://www.rebelnews.com/australias_shame_watch_melbourne_police_bodyslam_our_reporter_
covering_a_pandemic_lockdown_protest?e=d29b364fd015f64001b1f66ff50d7e38&utm_source=t
herebel&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=el_australia_shame_avi_yemini&n=7
As you can see, Avi was meticulous in his compliance with the law. He filled out the police state
“permits” to allow him to leave his house. He complied with instructions throughout. And —
contrary to the bald-faced lie told by the bully who arrested him — at no time did Avi hinder or
obstruct police.....
Rebel leader Ezra Levant sends an appeal!
Can you please help me, by signing our petition at www.StandWithAvi.com?
Other than sharing his video, that’s the most important thing you can do for Avi right now.
(Thanks.)
END QUOTE
I oppose violence however I can understand why at times others may seek to resort to
violence when we have a police force violently acting against even a peaceful
journalist. When one look at how those officers were dressed in regard of a political
peace full protest then I view that not just that it was over the top but in fact in itself
should be deemed to have been a criminal offence to deliberate dress up in such gear
to deny political protestor their constitutional and other legal rights to protest.
.
We now seem to have entered a set of circumstances that some people might desire
to use sharp shooters to one by one deactivate police where in their peaceful political
protest they no longer can oppose any constitutional terrorism and tyranny. It is not
the citizens who are violent but rather the Victorian Police. They in my view have on
the video been seen to act with a disregard of rights. The police commander didn’t
even bother to ask Avi if he was entitled to where he was, if that in the first place was
within the police powers. He simply unilaterally deemed Avi to be a person who
should be arrested and did so. Just that I did not see any attempt to even state to Avi
that he was placed under arrest. In my view there was not even any proper police
procedures to advise him he would be arrested and upon what legal basis or that he
could remain silent, etc. He was merely grabbed to be arrested without any provision
or consideration for his legal rights. Neither does it appear to me that the Victorian
Police had any justification to visit him at his home address in the evening as after all
he had not committed any crime. As such I view the police going to his residence
could only be deemed to intimidate Avi. This I view is a serious matter.
In my view where Premier Daniel Andrews instigated all this then I view he should
be charged with unlawfully depriving all the victims of their liberty and should be if
convicted sentence for life in imprisonment considering the millions of persons who
were without legal entitlements and observation of their rights incarcerated. It in my
view is the worst kind of terrorism governing Victoria. We have a Premier who has
committed mass false imprisonments by the restrictions and the lockdowns and
should be used as an example to ever again deter a would be dictator/ constitutional
terrorist to do the same.
- 89 -
I, for example, need to have my laptop repaired but cannot do so as the directions do
not allow me to go anywhere to have it repaired. And driving beyond 5 kilometers to
a computer repair business could and likely will cause considerable problems. As I
am not interested getting such kind of police thugs to smash my car window I am
therefore prevented to have my laptop fixed. Neither can I go to the nearest
telecommunication store to have my mobile attended to as again this is beyond the 5
km range. Actually about 8.4 kilometres range.
We really no longer have any “impartial” administration of justice, this because it
seems to be on the side of whatever the Government dictates. Indeed, the entire so
called Infringement Court violates the very foundations of our constitution that there
must be an separation of powers and a separate judiciary. After all the so called
Infringement Court is not a court where all and any aggrieved person can seek
judicial relief. It is rather a private court dressed up as if it is a court, under the
Magistrates Court of Victoria albeit the so called Infringement Court does not even
have is convictions and warrants recorded under the Magistrates Court of Victoria. It
is a privately run court that operates using unconstitutionally the Magistrates Court of
Victoria facilities to access data even if the access is to the wrong state and those
citizens.
As I experienced that police issue a Infringement Notice and then afterwards alter
details and then have the altered Infringement Notice enforced by the so called
Infringement Court without the accused being made aware of any alterations having
been made.
I cam to Australia without knowing the Language let alone the constitution and/or
any laws that were legislated. However, it didn’t deter me to self-educate and get a
basic grip on what the constitution true meaning and application stands for. It is then
absurd when I become aware how “law makers” those in the Parliament when caught
out having defrauded Consolidated Revenue Funds (meaning the taxpayers) then
often claim they weren’t aware that what they did was unlawful.

QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES
It is an organism, as I have tried to explain, for protecting each individual citizen in the
undisturbed possession of his property, in the undisturbed possession of his liberty, and from
my point of view the expense of that government ought to be defrayed in the easiest manner
and only to the extent which is necessary for that purpose, and that taxation is unjustifiable
for any other purpose whatever.
END QUOTE
The wording “for protecting each individual citizen in the undisturbed

possession of his property, in the undisturbed possession of his liberty” then I
wonder do judges have a profound inability to read plain English that they cannot
understand such plain language whereas I with my self acknowledged “crummy
English” can understand the meaning of this?

QUOTE
Mr. DOBSON.-If it was perfectly plain that a small majority was infringing the
Constitution simply in order to coerce a minority, the law should be declared
invalid.
- 90 -
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-The High Court cannot act unless complaint is made, but the Parliament
can act whenever it likes.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Only on motion.

END QUOTE
Well obviously the Framers of the Constitution never expected to have a High Court
of Australia which will deny a person making a complaint of having the complaint
heard and determined. The complaint doesn’t rest with if a Registrar accept the filing
of the complaint but rest by the person presenting the complaint to the court. The
Registrar so to say is a mere so to say office person who has no legal rights within
our constitutional framework as to rob any person of their right to lodge a complaint
with any court. Hence, a judge must consider any such refusal to accept a complaint
and well my 18 March 2003 application that I at the time left with the Registrar was
never subject to a court order, this because the judge on 19 March 2003 simply
referred again to the 18 February 2003 Application that was then refused to be
accepted. When judges of the High Court of Australia cannot even manage their own
registry and ignore a valid challenge to the purported Cross Vesting Act and ignore
to comply with a 4 December 2002 order of the magistrates Court of Victoria then
what hope does an ordinary citizen have to have what I consider such “vague and
aloof” court where the rule of law as governed by the Constitution is trampled upon.
91. That I very much understood why people contemplated suicide, murder and even
mass murder just that I opposed violence. Hence, I spend about 37 years to avoid
violence. However in that time the courts have become so to say the enemy of the
people. I wasn’t getting paid over all those years to assist so many that they aborted
their horrible intentions time and time again, as I simply sought a peaceful manner to
seek to resolve their aggrieving’s. This while the so to say fatly paid judges appeared
to be more interested to have overseas trips, etc, then to actually improve the access
of the courts and ensure that ordinary citizens were equally before the courts. My
decades of writings to try to assist those who were struggling for justice in the courts
was limited to those I could assist but many others fell on the wayside committing
suicides, etc. When in 2016 I wrote to all federal and state politicians to place
retractable obstacles in tram-tracks to prevent a motor vehicle to enter “Bourke Street
Mall” (Yes, I specifically named “Bourke Street Mall) it was ignored. About 5
months later in December 2016 I repeated the same and again it was ignored. But
then when someone drove the vehicle into “Bourke Street Mall” and subsequently
murdered 6 persons then the politicians were falling over each other pretending to
care. Had the politicians installed the retractable barriers during the 6 months period
leading up to the mass murder then not a single person would have injured, let alone
have died. Essentially it is citizen vs the rest. Meaning that the courts have sided with
the government as if they are the 3rd arm to govern and in their hypocritical conduct
have allowed mass murder, etc, to eventuate. In my view the High Court of Australia
disgraced itself when it so to say threw out Mr Barnaby Joyce because of his
entitlements that his father had New Zealand rights and so he had but the Court never
- 91 -
threw out the entire parliament, after all each and every Australian is entitled to equal
rights as citizens of Singapore.
Australians as like any citizen of Singapore by the provisions of the Constitution of
the Republic of Singapore have the same rights to obtain the benefits of
treaties/laws of other Commonwealth countries, including the abolition of the death
penalty, as is in fact implied to Singapore
QUOTE
Part VA;
"existing law" means any law having effect as part of the law of Singapore immediately before the
commencement of this Constitution;
END QUOTE
QUOTE
"law" includes written law and any legislation of the United Kingdom or other enactment or
instrument whatsoever which is in operation in Singapore and the common law in so far as it is in
operation in Singapore and any custom or usage having the force of law in Singapore;
END QUOTE
Legislation therefore includes all laws inhered from the United kingdom, including
the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and other legislation. More over, it includes also
that the legal provision that the British Parliament can always amend its own laws
remains applicable. Therefore the United Kingdom by signing the European Union
treaty and so its acceptance of its Constitution, in effect has ensured that the right of
the British Parliament to compliment the Constitution of Singapore was never
extinguished.
Again:
"law" includes written law and any legislation of the United Kingdom or other
enactment or instrument whatsoever which is in operation in Singapore
the right of any parliament to amend its own legislation, including a constitution can
only be limited by the provisions of the Constitution, but the right to provide
complimentary legislation, such as the The European Convention for the
protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) is clearly
not avoided, as any legislation applicable to British law automatically applies to all
British law, with the exeption that constiotutional law cannot be interfered with by
implied amendments.
The purpose of the The European Convention for the protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) is not to undermine the THE
REPUBLIC AND THE CONSTITUTION but rather is complimentary to the
provisions of the Constitution.
QUOTE
Equality.
12. --(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Commonwealth citizenship.
139. --(1) In accordance with the position of Singapore within the Commonwealth, every person
who is a citizen of Singapore enjoys by virtue of that citizenship the status of a Commonwealth
citizen in common with the citizens of other Commonwealth countries.
(2) Any existing law shall, except so far as Parliament otherwise provides, apply in relation to a
citizen of the Republic of Ireland who is not also a Commonwealth citizen as it applies in relation
to a Commonwealth citizen.
- 92 -
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Rights, liabilities and obligations.
161. --(1) All rights, liabilities and obligations of Her Majesty in respect of the Government
shall on and after the commencement of this Constitution be rights, liabilities and obligations
of the State of Singapore.
(2) In this Article, rights, liabilities and obligations include rights, liabilities and obligations
arising from contract or otherwise, other than rights to which Article 160 applies.
[104
Existing laws.
162. Subject to this Article, all existing laws shall continue in force on and after the
commencement of this Constitution and all laws which have not been brought into force by the
date of the commencement of this Constitution may, subject as aforesaid, be brought into force
on or after its commencement, but all such laws shall, subject to this Article, be construed as
from the commencement of this Constitution with such modifications, adaptations,
qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with this
Constitution.
END QUOTE
Again;
and all laws which have not been brought into force by the date of the commencement of
this Constitution may, subject as aforesaid, be brought into force on or after its
commencement, but all such laws shall, subject to this Article, be construed as from the
commencement of this Constitution with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and
exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with this Constitution.
This clearly does provide for the application of the The European Convention
for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
ECHR”)!
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and &
Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002)
In support of his submission that, for Article 6(1) to be engaged, it was necessary for the
relevant proceedings to be “directly decisive” of the civil rights in question, Mr Sales referred
to and relied upon what he described as the “consistent” body of European jurisprudence on
this point over the last thirty years (see paragraph 41 of Mr Sales’ written skeleton argument)
in cases such as Ringeisen -v- Austria (No. 1) (1971) 1 EHRR 455 at paragraph. 94, Albert &
Le Compte -v- Belgium (1983) 18 EHRR 533 at paragraph 28, Benthem -v- Netherlands
(1986) 8 EHRR 1, Boden -v- Sweden (1987) 10 EHRR 367 at paragraph 30, H -v- France
(1989) 12 EHRR 74 at paragraphs 46-47 and Barmer-Schafroth -v- Switzerland (1997) 25
EHRR 598 at paragraph 32. In the course of his submissions, Mr Sales referred to the
following passage in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“the ECtHR”) in
the case of Enzi -v- Austria (Application no. 29268/95) as a convenient and succinct statement
of the relevant principles of law upon which he relied:
“The applicability of Article 6 depends on whether there was a dispute over “rights
and obligations” which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised
under domestic law and, if so, whether this “right” was of a “civil” character
within the meaning of Article 6(1) (see the Oerlemans -v- the Netherlands
judgment of 27 November 1991 … paragraphs 45-49). Article 6(1) only applies if
the right is civil in character (see the Benthem -v- the Netherlands judgment of 23
October 1985 … paragraph 32). The “dispute must be genuine and serious; it may
relate not only to the existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its
exercise. The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in
question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to
bring Article 6(1) into play (see the Allan Jacobson -v- Sweden judgment of 25
- 93 -
October 1989 … paragraphs 66-67, and the Masson and Van Zon -v- the
Netherlands judgment of 28 September 1995 … at paragraph 44).”
While the High Court of Australia may never have recognised that the EU laws were
complimentary applicable to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK), nevertheless, it cannot amend the constitution to prevent those laws which
govern the United Kingdom to be relevant. Australians by the relevant EU laws are
for this also entitled to certain rights and privileges of the UK laws, and have been so
ever since the UK entered into agreement with the EU constitution. For this if Mr
Barnaby Joyce was not able to sit in the Parliament because of rights regarding New
Zealand then I view he, or for that anyone else, could not sit in the Parliament where
all Australians are entitled to the benefits of being citizens of the Commonwealth of
nations under the British Crown.

QUOTE
III. Who is attainted of treason, or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime:
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the Senate or of the House of
Representatives until the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge, or the expiration or
remission of the sentence, or a pardon, or release, or otherwise.
Mr. GORDON: I should like to ask Mr. Barton whether there is anything in this point: A
number of German fellow colonists may have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power,
especially those who have served in the ranks in Germany. Would it not be necessary to add
after "power" in line 27 the words "or who has not since been naturalised as provided in
clause 30"?
Mr. GLYNN: You cannot have two, allegiances.
Mr. BARTON: No; a man might have to go out of our Parliament to serve against us.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: He may be Minister of Defence.
Mr. CARRUTHERS: I would like to put a case to Mr. Barton. It may happen that treaties
may be in force between say England and Japan. There is a treaty almost in operation on the
very lines I am citing that will give to a British subject travelling in Japan practically the
same rights and privileges as he would enjoy as a citizen of his own country. Surely it is
never intended that by a person travelling in another country, who becomes entitled to
privileges conferred on him by a treaty between two high powers, he should be disqualified
from holding a seat in the Federal Parliament. Our members of Parliament who are
hardworked take their summer trips, and it may be that some of them may come back and
find they have lost their seats as a result of this clause.
Clause as read agreed to.

END QUOTE
QUOTE
[start page 1012]
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia)[8.33]: Before the Committee proceeds to consider the amendment
which has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, I would suggest that
we make an alteration in the first portion of the clause by adding words to the effect that these
disqualifications shall operate until the federal parliament otherwise provides.
- 94 -
The Hon. E. BARTON: Does the hon. member contemplate the federal parliament making
provision exempting a man who has taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power?
END QUOTE
In my view the meaning of S44 of the constitution must be properly interpreted that a
person like Mr Barnaby Joyce not having made any oath towards a foreign power, as
least not that I am aware off) and not residing in a foreign country and neither hold
any investment in a foreign country should not be denied to be a Member of
Parliament. Indeed, a person might be a Member of Parliament and suddenly
discover that the person he/she held was the biological father turns out not to be so
but some person in a foreign country and then this Member of parliament then
suddenly so to say be kicked out of the Parliament for no fault of his/her own.
Any country could now bestow rights on a Australian and bad luck if the person
never knew about this neither ever went to this country having bestowed rights
means to have to vacate the seat in the Parliament if this person was a Member of
Parliament.
Often I have people complaining that there is a need to become a “Republic” because
of the abuse by police, politicians and the courts and I always seek to clarify that this
is not an issue regarding the constitution or for that to become a republic but simply
that no matter what constitution, if any, was in place that there always will be people
who will pursue to abuse and misuse powers, as I have outlined in this document.
The issue therefore is the failure of the courts to enforce constitutional limitations.
92. when it came to the COVID-19 issue of the Ruby Princess I made my submission in
view of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) but I am not aware this commission even
bothered to hold any federal politician at fault. In my view there is a considerable lack
of proper understanding what our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK) is about and as such the misconceptions are continuing and then when a
person like myself comes around then the judges in their ignorance to understand and
comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution then fail to
appropriately deal with matters presented to the court. I recall an opponent lawyer
who in my view had a misunderstanding about certain legal proceedings and well it
was so to say the demise of her case. The following year I happen to marry her
widowed mother and after that this lawyer confined in me that when she was
attending university her law professors insisted that students had to follow his way of
reasoning and failing that they would not graduate. This to me is a terrible way for
law professors to conduct a law course. And that to me indicates that those law
professors who may have a tunnel vision then causes their students to follow the same
kind of tunnel vision views. When then over time those lawyers become judges then
anyone appearing before them may have a hard time to convince the judge what is
really constitutionally applicable. As a matter of fact I appeared before His Honour
Guess when I off head quoted Prowse v Prowse and His Honour then responded that
he was at the time the Senior Counsel in the case and that what I had just stated was
no part of the case. I invited His Honour to check the Law Reports and His Honour
having done so then made known that indeed it was in the law report and I seemed to
know the case better then His Honour did. I had various other judges likewise
admitting they erred about a case. Often law students are required to learn cases as to
certain legal principles but not able to present their own views as to any other legal
principle. Having been self-educated I would detect legal principles in cases that not
- 95 -
uncommon judges would challenge only to discover I was correct. That is why I rely
upon quotations so seeking to avoid judges to rely upon what they perceive a
Authority was about and by this misconceive my presentation/submissions. However,
when a judge of the High Court of Australia sits there in his chambers and well has an
Application he may lack to understand the constitutional issues relied upon then
having such application denied to be filed without the judge even giving me an
opportunity to explain any questions he may have, I view is a gross denial of justice.
93. That I am aware the High Court of Australia might claim that the 19 March 2003
judgment in error referred to 18 February 2003 instead of 18 March 2003, this I
cannot accept to be reasonable. After all it was a very short judgment and to me failed
even to address the relevant issue I had raised in the Application and also consider the
amount of Exhibits I view it would not have been reasonable for a judge to properly
consider all the constitutional issues I had raised when the judge would unlikely have
had the time to read all relevant exhibits. The 18 February 2003 Application however
was very limited and so was one a judge could have likely considered overnight. And
as such in my view the judge refusing the filing had not considered my 18 March
2003 Application but the 18 February Application that was referred to in the
judgment. I understand from other litigations where a Minister made a decision where
it was deemed by the court the Minister could not reasonably have has sufficient time
to consider the case he had to make a decision about that then the Court directed that
the Minister was to reconsider his decision afresh. As such, where the 18 March 2003
Application with supportive material was of a size that the judge could not have read
it all overnight, even if he had not gone to sleep whatsoever, then t cannot be accepted
the judge did consider the 18 March 2003 Application. As this Application was
therefore never disposed off I hold the view it is still outstanding. In my view it is not
relevant that on 19 March 2003 the ADF invaded Iraq and so regardless of the
application the harm done cannot be made undone, as if this kind of argument was a
basis of litigation then even murderers couldn’t be convicted because the harm was
already done. If anything, as I succeeded on 19 July 2006 unchallenged in my appeals
then this underlines that the High Court of Australia erred as part of my appeals (and
again unchallenged by any of the Attorney-Generals) was that there had been no valid
issues issued on 8 October 2001 and so Mr John Howard and others had not been
elected and therefore had no legal authority once the 3 month period referred to in
S64 of the constitution had expired without any new election having been held. If
anything they ought to have been charged for impersonating to be a Minister and a
Member of parliament and I view defrauding the Consolidated Revenue Funds
collecting monies not entitled upon as well as conspiring to invade a sovereign
country Iraq when no constitutional and/or other legal authority existed to do so and
in violation as I understand it of the Crimes Act s24AA (Cth). It should not be
ignored that prior to the 2001 purported federal (political) election I had notified all
federal politicians, the Australian electoral Commission and others about the failure
of holding the election in a correct manner and that the election couldn’t be held on
11 November 2001 but should be held on 18 November 2001 instead. And this before
I even became aware that in fact the writs were never validly issues on 8 October
2001 as the Proclamation intended for 8 October 2001 was simply not printed until 9
October 2001 too late by then by a day.
- 96 -
94. While I am aware that the High Court of Australia may not desire the length of this
Affidavit to be considered, nevertheless I has little alternative but to do so as it
inflicted the problems upon itself. It could have in my view avoided the very
problems now existing with Premier Daniel Andrews, etc, if it had in the first place
heard and determined my Applications. Despite the length of this Affidavit it is
merely so to say the tip of the iceberg when it comes to other issues. Where I over the
decades (without earning any monies of any of them) was able to assist/represent
parties and by this avoid suicides, murders and mass murders then I view the Court is
the least to complaint about having now to address issues it could have done about 2
decades or more ago.
From The Age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-
courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
The corporatising of our courts
Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria
March 24, 2005
QUOTE
As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional
system, particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the
political arms what they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be
popular with politicians, but while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be
some erosion of this court's independence.
END QUOTE
From The Age

courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
March 24, 2005
QUOTE CORRESPONDENCE 13-1-2015
Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief
executive officer be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be
appointed by and be ultimately answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.
That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's
becoming absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in
particular; for such a movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper
role under the constitution.
END QUOTE
Former Supreme Court of Victoria justice Phillips J stated that the Government has
the courts recorded as “Business Unit 19” and has access to the court computers,
etc, then this may indicate that a judge could decide a decision and wrote his
judgment and then the government can simply access the computer and alter the
judgment and orders as it desires without the trial judge perhaps realising it was
amended without his knowledge and/or consent.

March 24, 2005
QUOTE
- 97 -
political arms what they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if
ever, be popular with politicians, but while I have been sitting here, I have seen what
appears to me to be some erosion of this court's independence.
END QUOTE
Clearly, the wording “As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a
cornerstone of our constitutional system” indicates that this justice held there
was a “separation of powers” within state level.
From The Age
courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
QUOTE
March 24, 2005
In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous
erosion of the court's independence.
For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but
exciting and rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for
much of that time I have had to bite my tongue.
I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on
the bench, and especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change
emerge in the perception of this court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I
want to speak briefly of that now because I have been unable to say much about it until now
and when my resignation becomes effective, I fear that nobody will listen.

political arms what they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever,
be popular with politicians, but while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to
me to be some erosion of this court's independence.
One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the
decision on remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the
very purpose of freeing both Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the
decision-making process over judicial salaries and so ensuring the independence of which I am
speaking.
Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief
executive officer be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer
be appointed by and be ultimately answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what
happened.
That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's
becoming absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in
particular; for such a movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper
role under the constitution.
This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established
as a court of plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and
tribunals, this court is the third arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and
the executive. Its role, inter alia, is to control and to limit those other arms according to law
- 98 -
and to that end to stand between those other arms and the citizen. Hence the emphasis on the
court's independence, especially from the executive.
Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would
you believe - as "Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a
section which indiscriminately includes all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.
This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these
are prescribed by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court
by the department at its discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe
a procedure in this court, apparently in disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such
matters are for rules of court.
And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through
the department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental
officers ordinarily avail themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department
has some controls in place. But access is possible, and that seems to me altogether
inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is the major litigant in this court, and
sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.
Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision
directly, otherwise than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more
insidious. What is evolving is a perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary
within the Department of Justice, a perception which is inconsistent with this court's
fundamental role and underlying independence.
Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court
structure and its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by
some in authority as no different from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is simply not the case; yet the distinction between a
court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over the years, and it must be restored if the
proper constitutional position is not 2to be subverted.
The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen
to be, impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed
once and for all, and ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including
any other arm of government. Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration
tribunal. In contrast to a court, a tribunal, properly so called, exercises administrative functions
but not judicial power, and many things flow from that. Such a tribunal may be an arm of the
executive; its members may be appointed for fixed terms, with the possibility of renewal at the
discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see that their remuneration is fixed
independently of the executive.
You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred.
While the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists
mainly of members appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the
executive - and hence my alarm when, in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was
given some judicial power to exercise, for the latter is altogether inconsistent with such a form
of tenure.
There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is
exercising judicial power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional
acting appointment to this court for a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to
institutionalise such temporary appointments at the discretion of the executive. Judges of a
court properly so called must have security of tenure or, in a relatively small community like
this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts have been remarkably free from any
taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be, and be seen to be, impartial
and so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to conflict or the
appearance of bias.
- 99 -
In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke,
"individuals pass like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is
sometimes accused of remoteness but in one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the
commitment, the total commitment, which is demanded of the appointee.
John D. Phillips is retiring as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. This is part of his
farewell address to the court.
END QUOTE
I in 1985 created the document ADDRESS TO THE COURT (written submissions)

and it may be noted that in SHAW Plaintiff - and - KEYTE AND ORS (Shaw v
Keyte & Ors) HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAVECH in his reason of judgment
(Delivered the 15th day of April 1997) (referring to Counsel Mr Forrest for the
defendant police officers) stated:
QUOTE
Mr Forrest did not ignore these matters. He said in his address to the Court
END QUOTE
I created the document as to circumvent the gross denial by judges to allow an

unrepresented person to have a reasonable opportunity to present his/her case. Judges
generally would allow a lawyer to go on and on no matter how deceptive
presentations were but then when an unrepresented party would seek to present the
facts the trial judge often would interrupt the unrepresented litigant and even deny
any proper opportunity to present submissions.
When I file a submission OBJECTION TO JURISDITION I find that generally it is

ignored, but when an opponent lawyer does so then well it has to be attended to.
And as such I gained the understanding that we do not have any proper courts as
required by the Letters Patent.
95. That in 1986 one of my daughters then 2 years old was subjected to a warrant which
against my objection was executed by the Victorian Police in violation of Supreme
Court of Victoria orders. About 5 days later the Supreme Court of Victoria held the
warrant to have been invalid as it was in violation of existing Supreme Court of
Victoria orders. It was after this that I understood from the son of the alleged JP who
had signed the warrant that in fact he had cancelled her JP commission 10 years
earlier but the Victorian Police nevertheless continue to pest her in the nursing home
despite that she suffered dementia and so couldn’t understand/comprehend what the
warrants were about to still sign warrants. This matter never was properly
investigated of police using warrant signed by a person who no longer was a JP and
so not authorised to issue such warrants.
96. That I understand that the TGA (Australia) approved vaccinations without having
done any follow up testing as to any harm inflicted upon those who were vaccinated.
It appears to me that the death rate amongst the most vulnerable in nursing homes
particularly was amongst those vaccinated. This as by the vaccination their immune
system was weakened. Hence, I pursue that there is an immediate
“MORATORIUM” against any “compulsory” vaccination in Australia and this is
ordered until such order that this Court orders otherwise. It is not intended that such a
“MORATORIUM” is to affect any doctor-patient relationship guaranteed by the
- 100 -
1948 Geneva convention. As it would not prevent a doctor to assist a patient to
voluntarily have a prescribed vaccination in the circumstances prevailing for this
particular patient. I also pursue that the State of Victoria presents to this court all and
any testing of any vaccinations that were compulsory caused upon any person and the
time line of any death or other illnesses following from this including any testing by
the TGA since vaccinations were approved to be used in the Commonwealth of
Australia as to the safety, etc, of such vaccines since having been administered to any
person.
97. I understand that numerous video (of some listed below) internet links no longer may
work, this because the tech companies are removing videos which it deemed are not
according to their mantra. For this, I have downloaded those videos before they were
removed and secured them on a back up hard drive as to be able to present them to
this court if the State of Victoria seeks to challenge me.
I am not and neither seek to claim to be medically trained or some scientist as I rely
upon using “common sense” to make an informed decision considering the ongoing
research I have engaged in regarding COVID-19 and related issues.
Sorry for the stupid question but why do viruses exist? They're not ...
https://www.reddit.com/r/biology/comments/ew138i/sorry_for_the_stupid_question_but_why_do_
viruses/
Sorry for the stupid question but why do viruses exist? They're not living organisms like
bacteria, what's the purpose of them invading and multiplying in a host ...
What is a virus? - Quora

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-virus-2
Why do viruses exist? 22,688 Views · What is the definition of virus? (In biology). 14,509
Views · How big is a single virus? 160,133 Views · What is a "bi-phasic" ...
CoronaVirus or New World Order? - lbry.tv

https://lbry.tv/@EricDubay:c/CoronaVirus-or-New-World-Order:e
Wake Up Sleepers; Hospital Worker Admits The Virus Is A Lie ...

https://www.bitchute.com/video/T0nJ3gVBGrvQ/
3 Apr 2020 ... Wake Up Sleepers; Hospital Worker Admits The Virus Is A Lie [mirrored] ...
Youtube-Channel: https://bit.ly/38Nskhh. ✅ It's FAST, FREE AND ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Hg-HWrdSM
WORLD'S GREATEST HOAX Revealed ! ~YOU CANNOT SPREAD THE C _VIRUS_
FROM PERSON TO PERSON
The HighWire with Del Bigtree - COVID DEATH TOLL IN QUESTION ... Feardemic -
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrOX9bSBKtKQOUVyv8aGJIi2bHoOwgE5Z
COVID DEATH TOLL IN QUESTION? by The HighWire with Del Bigtree. 9:45. BLOWING
THE WHISTLE ON COVID-19. by The HighWire with Del Bigtree. 2:21: ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtZGCpnTNPs&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0Zbx2CIOO
AD1dCSgyBgWBX45tasW9kplQvrOJXJzJUuxGFqSe235Zr22M&app=desktop
“The End Game” (34 minutes video)
YouTube response” This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s Community
Guidelines.
- 101 -
Event 201 https://youtu.be/Eq4lu0xfMq0 The planned Coronavirus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq4lu0xfMq0&feature=youtu.be
https://youtu.be/Xr8Dy5mnYx8
A breakdown of current testing procedure
https://cairnsnews.org/2018/11/19/u-s-govt-loses-landmark-vaccine-lawsuit/?wref=tp
QUOTE
U.S. GOVT LOSES LANDMARK VACCINE LAWSUIT
NOV 19
Posted by Editor, cairnsnews
Forced vaccinations now can be legally stopped-no quality control for 32 years
Wide ramifications for Australia
Go to: Update from Doctor in Georgia 20/05/2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JG5b8Qt_CY&feature=youtu.be
https://www.aimintegrativemedicine.com/aim-integrative-medicine-blog/why-kennedy-sued-the-
government-over-vaccine-safety-won
http://icandecide.org/governments/
Case 1:18-cv-03215-JMF Document 18 Filed 07/09/18
Vaccine injury lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,& Del Bigtree, producer of the suppressed anti-
vaccine documentary, Vaxxed and the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) are credited
with this victory. They demanded the relevant government documents proving that all federally
approved vaccines had been tested for quality over the past 32 years — and there were none.
END QUOTE
This I view is a very serious issue as with the TTP (Trans Trade Partnership) the
Commonwealth may have entered into some agreement that those manufacturing
vaccinations cannot be sued. this I view would violate the rights of Australians to
which the Commonwealth lacked any legislative powers. Neither can the states force
compulsory vaccinations where this is harmful to the person(s) to be vaccinated.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/08/australia-how-have-you-let-it-come-to-this/
Australia, How Have You Let it Come to This?
Lawyer Robert F Kennedy Jr and Del Bigtree just succeed in the USA against the US
Government that compulsory vaccinations is harmful because for the last 30 years no
safety assessments were made at all. All this nonsense by doctors that vaccinations
are safe turn out not to be so at all.
I on 14.00 Wednesday 19 August 2020 heard the 91.5FM radio news that Prime
Minister Scott Morrison made known that most people should have a COVID-19
vaccination and the Federal government will pay for it to be free. One must in my
view be a lunatic to promote a vaccine that doesn’t even exist as being for the
wellbeing of all. What we have is that the major political parties are all in it for the
same. It might be interesting to know how much each political party or its members
are receiving from pharmaceutical companies as contributions!
- 102 -
Many reports claim this to be so and I previously already wrote about this and so will
not delve further into this at this moment. However, consider:
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/just-get-tested-fears-lung-cancer-is-flying-under-radar-
amid-covid-19/ar-BB16ugq5?ocid=msedgdhp
'Just get tested': Fears lung cancer is flying under radar amid COVID-19
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/coronavirus-australias-aged-care-deaths-among-
highest-in-the-world/vp-BB17O1GS
Coronavirus: Australia's aged care deaths among highest in the world
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/covid-19-vaccine-shouldn-t-be-mandatory-because-
persuasion-is-better-than-coercion/ar-BB181nlS?ocid=msedgdhp
COVID-19 vaccine shouldn’t be mandatory because 'persuasion is better than coercion'
https://youtu.be/RJh3TiCFJH4
The Irrefutable Argument Against Vaccine Safety - with Author Del Bigtree
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/if-covid-fatalities-were-90-2-lower-how-would-you-feel-
about-schools-reopening/
If COVID Fatalities Were 90.2% Lower, How Would You Feel About Schools Reopening?
https://www.5gexposed.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/English-Summary-of-The-Invisible-
Rainbow-A-History-of-Electricity-and-Life-3.pdf
The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life
English-Summary-of-The-Invisible-Rainbow-A-History-of-Electricity-and-Life-3
https://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2020/07/5g-whistleblower-coronavirus-test-spreading-virus-
you-cannot-catch-the-coronavirus-covid-19-unless-you-take-the-covid-19-test-or-the-covid-19-
vaccines-exposing-the-covid-19-lie-great-videos-2512992.html
5G Whistleblower- Coronavirus Test Spreading Virus! You Cannot Catch the Coronavirus
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/disease-detectives-baffled-by-mystery-covid-19-
cases-behind-tough-new-lockdown/ar-BB17tcFM?ocid=msedgdhp
Disease detectives baffled by mystery COVID-19 cases behind tough new lockdown
It is not for me to determine what may have resulted to mysterious COVID-19 cases however
it should be of concern for any person working in the health industry that they maybe caused
to follow inappropriate health practices and may be as result more vulnerable then if
matters had been properly addressed.
DR ANDREW KAUFMAN IN CONVERSATION WITH BRIAN ROSE OF LONDON REAL

Andrew Kaufman 1 May 2020
Lunden reel interview 4/29/20 by Andrew Kaufman April 29, 2020 I’m sure this will be
deleted soon but here
DR. JENNIFER DANIELS & DT. ANDREW KAUFMAN: THERE IS NO DEADLY VIRUS.
IT’S ALL A NUMBERS GAME
Andrew Kaufman 24 April 2020 It’s All A Numbers Game w/s/g Dr. Jennifer Daniels by
Andrew Kaufman April 23, 2020 Excerpt from YouTube generated transcript:
.
IS THERE ANY REAL EVIDENCE THAT VIRUSSES CAUSE DISEASE OR IS THIS JUST A
MASSIVE RUMOR?: DR ANDREW KAYFMAN’S ANALYSIS OF THE “SCIENCE”
Andrew Kaufman 22 April 2020
Evidence that Viruses Cause Disease or The Rooster in the River of Rats by Andrew
Kaufman April 29, 2020
.
DR. ANDY KAUFMAN ON UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE COVID TESTS ARE ALL
ABOUT & WHY THE LOCKDOWN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A PANDEMIC
- 103 -
Andrew Kaufman 10 April 2020 US Doctor: How can you make a vaccine for something
never proven to exist? A must-watch by Jamie Icke April
https://youtu.be/6jGIl9JlfNI
Covid time to wake them up
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/S7Edq4L6wZHT/
liabilitymate - BitChute
Covid time to wake them up. Please visit their site & help end this covid madness. WAKE UP
AUSTRALIA. You are being SCAMMED with psychological fear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K66EDRFvEUU
They Want to Kill Six Billion of Us - Here's How They'll Do It
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdpxzgwMrzU
We're the Good Guys, and Good Guys Win
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P27HRClMf2U
What face masks actually do against coronavirus
https://www.bitchute.com/video/E2aJN8OeiJ6U/
Positive Tests Are Not COVID Cases - Where's the Epidemic_ - Dr Tim O'Shea
The following video (as the previous named) waseleted by YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1OAdVDaQH0
Positive Tests Are Not COVID Cases - Where's the Epidemic_ - Dr Tim O'Shea
https://www.vaccinationdecisions.net/where-are-australias-vaccines-made/
Where are vaccines made
Mask Test - Dangerous Co2 Levels OFF THE SCALE! - YouTube

14 Jul 2020 ... Del Bigtree tests the Co2 levels inside a mask worn by his son. The results are
justification for anyone refusing to wear one, on health grounds.
https://www.aier.org/article/how-government-sells-fear-and-sickness-the-case-of-the-flu/
How Government Sells Fear and Sickness: The Case of the Flu
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/brain-tumour-patient-refused-exemption-but-
queensland-welcomes-afl-boss/ar-BB18D3yt?ocid=msedgdhp
Brain tumour patient refused exemption but Queensland welcomes AFL boss
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/fear-mongering-daniel-andrews-claims-not-to-have-
seen-viral-arrest-footage/ar-BB18EyPE?ocid=msedgdhp
‘Fear-mongering’ Daniel Andrews claims not to have seen viral arrest footage
https://www.mondaq.com/australia/public-order/975922/covid-19-the-inadvertent-champion-of-
the-police-state?type=popular
Australia: COVID-19: The inadvertent champion of the police state
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/victoria-police-powers-under-scrutiny-after-fines-
issued-for-exercise-and-going-to-supermarket/ar-BB18DWOK?ocid=msedgdhp
Victoria police powers under scrutiny after fines issued for exercise and going to supermarket
https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/pregnant-woman-zoe-lee-buhler-speaks-after-
victoria-police-arrest-her-for-facebook-post-c-1288498
Pregnant woman Zoe-Lee Buhler speaks after Victoria Police arrest her for Facebook post
Lucy Mae Beers
- 104 -
https://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/wellbeing/australia-s-coronavirus-death-toll-surges-on-aged-
care-fatalities/ar-BB18GSb7?ocid=msedgdhp
Australia's coronavirus death toll surges on aged care fatalities
https://cairnsnews.org/2020/09/05/police-swarm-freedom-day-protest-desecrating-melbournes-
historic-monument-to-freedom/
Police swarm Freedom Day protest, desecrating Melbourne’s historic monument to freedom
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/covid-19-evidence-over-hysteria
COVID-19 - Evidence Over Hysteria
This is a 29 pages well set out, with graphs document as to the real issues regarding COVID-
19.
The above listed videos are merely so to say the tip of the iceberg of videos I have
watched and considered besides other documentation of doctors/scientist.
98. There are yellow trailers along the road warning to keep windows closed, and then
the Victorian Police smashes car windows for not opening the windows. Clearly, this
is contradictive and caused undue confusion and problems.
99. That in my view as with the scam about the WMD (Weapons of mass Destruction)
the State Government and others likewise have now use COVID-19 for their ulterior
political goals. If I as a citizen can amass such huge amount of information from all
around the world (assisted by my readers also) then I view the Chief medical Officer
ought to have been able to do so likewise where he could have used staff for this. I
understand from reports that Premier Daniel Andrews was misleading/deceiving
even the business sector and has been doing so ongoing to blame whomever as to the
spread of virus rather accept that as was submitted to the ROYAL COMMISSION
investigation the hotels fiasco that it was the State Governments own gross
incompetence. By this the premier and others have been so to say fanning the fire by
directly/indirectly causing fear amongst citizens so they then are going against others
who are not so to say following the rules being the direction of the Chief Health
Officer, and hence so the physical violent attack upon my person on 28 August 2020 I
view was the result.
100. That I understand that the Chief Health Officer in violation of the legal regime set
out in the governing Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) ordered about 9 housing complexed
to be sealed by the Victorian Police to prevent every person residing in those housing
complexes to be denied to leave. This all for compulsory testing. In my view this was
at best to be described a “fishing expedition” that has no legal validity in law. Merely
so as to get numbers, even of those merely suffering of a “common cold” to try to
justify lockdowns, curfew, social distancing, compulsory mask wearing, etc. In my
view this was an elaborate conduct to side step any proper legal procedures.
101. That I view that what purported to be placing people in QUARANTINE was
merely to place people in unlawful detention. I watched a video where a person
reported that he and his wife were locked up for 14 days and the windows were sealed
preventing any fresh air. The so called security guards in the hotel were not wearing
any personal protection equipment, etc. Various other videos indicated that there was
a gross abuse of power, such as armed police officers, children having to sleep in a
bathroom because the hotel had no facilities for them, A 600ml water bottle allegedly
- 105 -
costing $7.50, where they needed this for their tender aged child, etc. Which indicates
to me that there was no proper QUARANTINE facilities whatsoever. While much
was touted about QUARANTINE facilities, reality is that ICU beds are not
QUARANTINE facilities. In my view, a proper QUARANTINE facility is one where
a person is held in isolation and any form of infectious disease is prevented to be
transmitted to any other person. Hotels are in my view simply not designed to cater
for such specific QUARANTINE facilities. As such spreading of any disease is rather
facilitated by the detention in hotels.
102. That much has been about the deaths of vulnerable persons in nursing homes.
Then there are videos showing nursing homes being “deep cleaned”. However, when
I watched videos I easily detect that what appears to be kitchen staff member of a
nursing home donned in PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) taking a kitchen
trolley to the dump master ad then proceed to dump the empty cartons into the dump
master and then take the trolley to return to the kitchen. What this indicates to me a
lack of proper hygiene. This as the person donned in PPE doesn’t seem to realise that
by using his gloves on the lid of the dump master he by this can contaminate his
gloves with bacterium. When then this staff member touched the trolley he transfer
also bacterium upon the trolley. And, when then opening and closing doors spread it
further. Then in the kitchen , obviously thinking that with the gloves he/she is
protected, then touched other items and the kitchen they soon is covered in bacterium.
Then when staff and residents are provided with meals from this kitchen the likely
hood of transferring bacterium to all of them I view is highly likely. As such no
amount of “deep cleaning” is going to end any disaster within a nursing home when
just one staff member can cause such devastation, including deaths, amongst
residents. This, I view, is also why regardless of lockdowns, curfews, social
distancing, compulsory wearing of mask, etc, the alleged death s in nursing homes of
any disease may simply continue. It is a matter of housekeeping, or the lack thereof.
No matter my numerous writings to the Premier and others this seems to be an issue
blatantly ignored. Hence, early deaths amongst residents due to bacterium’s rather
than COVID-19 seems to be guaranteed to continue.
103. That I view it is terrible that people at the end of their lives are brutally denied
social contact with family members and friends. In my view, a nursing home could
simply have a room divided by a sealed screen so that on the one side the nursing
home resident can be there and on the other side the visitor. This without risk of
transmission of any disease.
104. While there is classifications of who is or is not part of “essential service” as I

indicated when the Premier is to have non-essential road works performed during
curfew hours that somehow is permissible but someone wanting to exercise his/her
common law rights somehow is prevented if the Premier holds it is not part of
“essential service”. It means that I cannot even have my motor vehicle services for
months on end because as a pensioner I am not part of “essential services”. In fact
when I attended to Bunnings on 10 August 2020 to order an O-ring for my kitchen
water tap (as previously recommended by Bunning staff to do so at the order desk, I
was simply refused entry because I was not a “trade person” and so not classified by
the State Government to be able to enter the store. because I am not a registered
“trades man”. either would I be able to attend to a plumbing store to purchase a vital
- 106 -
part for my hot water service. As such, I am discriminated against merely of not being
a trades person, even so for some 40 odd years I have been a customer of McEwans
that later became Bunnings.
105. As I indicated above regarding the Sue v Hill issue, we somehow have
unconstitutionally that the State of Victoria by backdoor manner is turned into some
DICTATORSHIP REPUBLIC and none of the police, judges, etc, have made an
oath/affirmation to the British Crown under which we still are subjects of the British
Crown as not even the High Court of Australia can amend the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) or its application. I understand that Justice
Kay made comments regarding “common law” rights and also the matter of Andrew
Hamilton vs DPP. Yet, in reality Victorians and others visiting are denied their
common law rights, their right of the “new Magna Charta” our Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) with a Victorian Police force I view acting as
a criminal gang claiming to enforce the Chief Health Officer directions as if now we
are governed by an unelected official.
106. That I understand that regardless if the so-called “national Cabinet” does or
doesn’t agree on certain issues it cannot and never must be accepted to allow inroads
into our constitutional rights.
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 avourable 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
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.
It is one of the great advantages of private persons being able to raise these points, and not
the states or the Commonwealth, that you keep the judicial bench free from the taint of
political partisanship.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
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.
- 107 -
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.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
A state shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws.
So that any citizen of any portion of the Commonwealth would have the guarantee of liberty and
safety in regard to the processes of law, and also would have a guarantee of the equal
administration of the law as it exists. I think Mr. Isaacs will bear me out, that in the United States it
has been decided that the title to equal treatment under the law does not mean that you cannot
make a law which differentiates one class of the community from another; but, as has been
decided, it means that in the administration of the laws you have made, all the citizens shall be
treated equally. And that should be so. Whatever privilege we give to our citizens, the
administration of the law should be equal to all, whatever their colour. The case I refer to is
one of the Chinese cases-I forget the name of it.
END QUOTE
As I indicated above the High Court of Australia failed to provide me with my

constitutional right to have my Application regarding the planned invasion into Iraq
to be properly heard and determined as well as other matters and this ought to be of
concern in particular as the orders sought could have avoided the onslaught of many
Iraqi’s, etc, as well as the consequences of revenge terrorism.
107. That in my view the usage of ADF in regard of law enforcement within a state is a
violation of Section 117 & 119 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK).
108. That I in Family Court proceedings sought the High Court of Australia to
intervene against THE HONOUBLE NICHOLSON CJ ML 2944X of 1989 (1995)
stating also:
QUOTE
2. That the Family Court as a Federal Court is limited to its legal jurisdiction as to only enforce
and interpret legislation so duly and properly validly enacted within the limits of the Australian
Constitution and as such where the Commonwealth Government as legislators failed to poses any
legislative powers as to make Statues for and on behalf of the State of Victoria then it be deemed
that the Family Court neither could act for any State legislation or could itself take State powers
where the Commonwealth Legislature had none!
3.That the Cross Vesting Act purporting to Cross Vest State jurisdiction from State Courts to the
Commonwealth jurisdiction such as the Family Court was unconstitutional.
5.That at no time did the Applicant seek a transfer under the Cross Vesting Act nor was ever any
such application made as to cause the transfer of the case from the Supreme Court of Victoria to
the Family Court! As such, at no time was in that regard any Cross Vesting Act provisions relied
- 108 -
upon by the Applicant nor had the Supreme Court of Victoria ever granted such transfer to
proceed.
6.That the Guardianship, custody and access of a Ward of the Supreme Court is all within the legal
provisions of Court Wardship and as such totally different then the legal powers exercised by the
Family Court under the Family Law Act 1975 legal provisions where such Guardianship, custody
(residence) and access (contact) are apart from any Wardship orders.
END QUOTE
Dawson J however held that the Cross Vesting Act was applicable, albeit in Re
Wakim [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999) the High Court of Australia held that it was
indeed unconstitutional. I consider it a very serious issue that a judge of the High
Court of Australia seemed to merely “assume” that the purported Cross Vesting Act
was valid rather than to consider what I had submitted to the court on basis of law. It
was followed when the High Court of Australia likewise denied to accept my
application on 18 February 2003 and subsequently failed to hear and determine my
19 March 2003 application as well as hear and determine the NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS as per order of the Magistrates Court of Victoria at
Heidelberg of 4-12-2002. I am aware that the High Court of Australia could once
again does the same thing albeit for my readers and others it may demonstrate that
the High Court of Australia is not at all operating as a Court of Law but rather
appears to be partisan to certain parties in proceedings.
109. That on 10 August 2020 I attended to Officeworks Bundoora to print out

documents, where I usually do so, only to be told that I was not permitted to enter
because of Government regulations. While I explained that they misunderstood
matters nevertheless staff insisted that I was prohibited to enter the store.
This places me in a difficult position that I cannot have this (Draft) Affidavit printed
out at Officeworks and so cannot then take it to be sworn in before JP or other
official authorised to witness the swearing in of documentation. In these
circumstances I can only email the documents to the Court with bearing a copy of my
signature and the Court accept the documents as is and at a later time may enable me
to swear the documents when this is facilitated.
While ordinary a Last will and Testament of a person needs to be duly executed it is
at times that the Supreme Court of Victoria Probate Office accept even a cereal box
with some writings as being the equivalent of the deceased last Will and Testament.
As such, it is within the powers of the High Court of Australia considering the
extreme circumstances prevailing that it can accept this my Affidavit as to constitute
an Affidavit for purposes of litigation.
Because of the restrictions, the police and citizens violence I am now placed in a very
dangerous set of circumstances which even is a risk to my health and wellbeing, and
so that to my wife, and this further poses complications to me to attend to the Court,
etc, unless proper security matters are in place.
As I am still having to complete a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
and considering my wife’s ill health, etc, it means that I seek to rely upon interim
orders Nisi sought so that there is sufficient time for me to prepare the NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.
In my view this Affidavit ought to give ample of indication of the many
constitutional issues I am raising and as such I view it should not prevent the court to
issue orders Nisi in the meantime.
- 109 -
110. That despite my FOI request of 8 August 2020 I have not received any response
and this undermines also my ability to present to this court certain issues of concern
and relevant to what I have stated in this my Affidavit.
111. That while closing of this Affidavit I was provided with a link to the TGA website
and held it important to download it and reproduced below. This as there have been
people subjected to all kinds of police conduct I would describe as terrorism and been
fined for refusing testing, etc and now the website of the TGA appears to indicate that
the testing are unreliable.
112. That I understand from the following that Premier Daniel Andrews decided the
curfew from 8pm till 5AM not at all consulting with the Chief Commissioner of
Police about this or having any advice from the Chief Health Officer to do so. as such
this I view was a blatant political ploy to unilaterally deny citizens and others
(visitors, etc) their constitutional and other legal rights for his own political interest:
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/daniel-andrews-defiant-on-melbourne-curfew-after-
police-chief-denies-responsibility/ar-BB18T3Hu?ocid=msedgdhp
QUOTE
Daniel Andrews defiant on Melbourne curfew after police chief denies responsibility
Melissa Davey
The Victorian premier adamantly defended his government’s decision to impose a night curfew as
part of the state’s stage-four lockdown, at a testy press conference on Thursday.
Daniel Andrews was grilled by reporters on the justifications for a curfew after both Victoria’s
police chief and its chief health officer claimed neither were responsible for the policy.
Andrews appeared to shoulder responsibility for the decision to impose a curfew, saying “that’s a
decision that I’ve made”, adding that in matters of health and enforcement, the government was
“free to go beyond” the advice it receives.
Controversy has mounted over the curfew as the government has to date failed to provide data to
show it significantly reduces disease spread, or that enough public health law breaches were
occurring between the curfew hours of 8pm to 5am to justify it.
The government has also failed to provide evidence to show it restricts movement significantly
beyond other measures, such as closure of venues and bans on gatherings.
When pressed by Guardian Australia on data to support the curfew, the premier vowed to “try and
get you some comparisons of some of the enforcement activity, pre-curfew and post-curfew”.
Guardian Australia has followed up on this.
This comes a day after the premier said the state’s Covid-19 restrictions were informed by
“science and data and doctors”. On Thursday, however, the premier was unable to present data to
back the need for a curfew and said government decisions reserved the right to go beyond medical
advice. Epidemiologists have also questioned the measure, along with restrictions on exercise.
Related: Victoria's roadmap out of Covid lockdown is 'a sledgehammer approach', expert says
“If you want to put it to the prime minister, has he ever acted beyond, in any sense, the advice that
[health department secretary Prof] Brendan Murphy or [chief medical officer Prof] Paul Kelly
have given him, I think the answer will be he has,” Andrews said.
“You always have to reserve the right to operationalise and deliver the advice of the medical
experts and the principles that they want achieved.”
The premier’s remarks followed comments from the police commissioner, Shane Patton, to radio
3AW that he did not even know if police had been briefed on the curfew before it was introduced.
“I was never consulted,’’ Patton said. “I’ve made enquiries to determine if anyone in the
organisation was briefed on the matter.”
On Wednesday, the chief health officer, Prof Brett Sutton, said that while he was consulted on the
curfew, it was not a measure he had suggested. “It was a separate decision-making pathway,” he
told 3AW. Asked whether he would have introduced it, he said: “I’m not sure. I haven’t reflected
on it. I think it has been useful. If I put my mind to it, probably.”
- 110 -
Andrews said the only thing the curfew was limiting was the public’s ability to exercise or buy
supplies at night. Told the curfew and exercise limitations had a disproportionate impact on shift
workers, he responded: “I’m not for a moment saying it doesn’t.”
He also said he needed to make the job of police “as simple as possible”. Asked about whether
vulnerable populations were being disproportionately affected by the fines – with community legal
centres reporting they had not successfully overturned fines they challenged on behalf of clients –
Andrews responded: “No”.
“Ultimately, those matters, whether they’re overturned or not ... that’s not a political judgement,
that’s not a policy judgement,” Andrews said. “Each of those matters are dealt with on their merits,
and despite the types of clients that would typically be assisted by a community legal service, that
has no bearing on the matter.”
Related: Victoria police powers under scrutiny after fines issued for exercise and going to
supermarket
Meanwhile, the federal health minister, Greg Hunt, said it was up to the Victorian government to
reveal the origin of the more onerous restrictions. He added: “We were somewhat surprised to
learn that not all of the restrictions were based on medical advice.
“I think that is very important,” Hunt said. “I do know, of course, that Victoria has a strong human
rights charter … [The] Victorian human rights charter sets out under the relevant section that
freedom of movement is a fundamental right in Victoria and so I am sure that that would only
ever, ever be impinged upon if they have the strongest reasons.”
There were 51 cases of the virus recorded in Victoria overnight and seven deaths.
Andrews was asked whether a failure to get on top of Covid sooner in workplace settings, such as
hospitals, had impeded the state’s efforts to control the virus. The government insisted for weeks
that health staff were becoming infected in the community rather than the workplace, before
admitting that the majority of health workers infected during the second wave had acquired the
virus at work.
Andrews responded that hospitals had done an excellent job of protecting staff and providing safe
workplaces, including personal protective gear.
Guardian Australia revealed earlier in September that WorkSafe inspectors had issued hospitals in
the state with five notices for non-compliance with the Covid-19 plan, after conducting 22
workplace visits and 244 compliance checks since 20 July.
END QUOTE
While Premier Daniel Andrews claims that he made that decision to impose a
curfew, the issue is obviously had the Premier any such legal right to do so. Not only
as it appears to fly in the face of the legal provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015
(Cth) but also if he is the “responsible” Minister who can make such a decision also.
If the Minister of Health is the person delegated with any such task then I view the
Premier would have no legal position to make such a decision, but should have left it
to the Minister of Health.
113. It are also the test results Premier Daniel Andrews repeatedly was referring to
make his case that lockdowns, curfew, compulsory wearing a mask, social distancing,
etc, was justified. In that regard I view that Premier Daniel Andrews claiming to save
lives was nothing less than a political stunt to pursue to cause fear and citizens
turning against each other.
https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-testing-australia-information-health-professionals
QUOTE
COVID-19 testing in Australia - information for health professionals
26 August 2020
Tests for COVID-19 aim to detect the causative virus, SARS-CoV-2, or an immune response to
SARS-CoV-2.
The reliability of COVID-19 tests is uncertain due to the limited evidence base. Available
evidence mainly comes from symptomatic patients, and their clinical role in detecting
asymptomatic carriers is unclear.
- 111 -
The indications for conducting a COVID-19 test have changed through the course of the
pandemic. See the current suspect case definition and the testing criteria on the Department of
Health website.
The three main types of SARS-CoV-2 tests are:
Nucleic acid detection tests - to detect SARS-CoV-2 viral (Ribonucleic acid) RNA;
Rapid antigen tests - to detect antigen viral proteins from the SARS-CoV-2 virus; and
Serology tests - to detect IgM and/or IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.
Nucleic acid PCR tests
Reverse transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid
(RNA). Most of these assays typically take several hours (including specimen processing time) to
generate results, and require complex laboratory equipment and trained technicians. There are now
some near patient SARS-CoV-2 PCR instruments available that can be used outside of a
laboratory. These systems can provide quicker results, but cannot do as many tests at once.
PCR tests are currently considered to be more clinically sensitive than serology assays for
detecting early infections and, because they directly detect viral RNA, they are an indicator for
viral shedding. The extent to which a positive PCR result correlates with the infectious state of an
individual is still being determined. Clinical resolution and in special situations, consecutive
negative PCR tests in a previously positive individual are currently being used as criteria when
considering release from isolation. However, this may change with increasing knowledge around
SARS-CoV-2.
The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity has completed a validation study of the
Beijing Genomics Institute SARS-CoV-2 Real time PCR test kit and associated instrumentation
and reagents.
Rapid antigen tests for viral protein
Rapid antigen tests intended for use at the point-of-care detect the presence of viral protein from
SARS-CoV-2 and may be used in the diagnosis of a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a symptomatic
patient. COVID-19 antigen tests are generally intended for use with nasopharyngeal, throat or
nasal swabs and testing should be performed by health professionals in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions for use.
While rapid antigen tests can provide a result within 15-30 minutes, they are generally considered
to be less sensitive than a PCR test which is still currently the gold-standard in SARS-CoV-2
diagnosis.
Rapid antigen tests are best performed within the early stages of acute infection, when viral load is
at its highest levels (i.e. within the first 5-7 days from symptom onset), after which antigen levels
may drop significantly. In conjunction with clinical findings, a positive result is generally
considered to be accurate, however further testing by PCR may be required in some cases. A
negative result in a symptomatic patient, would require further confirmatory testing via PCR
testing. The clinical utility of rapid antigen tests in screening asymptomatic persons has not been
established.
Serology antibody tests

The TGA has received and undertaken an expedited assessment of a number of applications for
laboratory-based serology immunoassay tests and point-of-care (often referred to as PoC or PoCT)
serology tests that utilise lateral flow immunoassay technology.
Point-of-care serology tests are intended to detect IgG and/or IgM antibodies to SARS-CoV-2
from venous or finger prick blood samples that are placed on a test strip. These tests look similar
to common pregnancy tests. Results take about 15–30 minutes.
There is a window period between virus infection and the production of IgM and IgG antibodies,
and the sensitivity and specificity of IgM/IgG antibody tests early in SARS-CoV-2 infection is not
well characterised. Antibodies can take up to two weeks or more to become detectable after
infection with SARS-CoV-2. Because antibody tests do not detect active viral shedding, they
cannot detect if an individual is infectious. Though they provide some useful information when
combined with the clinical picture, a suggestive clinical picture plus a positive point-of-care may
be considered sufficient for a presumptive positive diagnosis and subsequent management.
Human coronaviruses circulate frequently every year and cause a common cold type illness. Cross
reaction with antibodies formed by current and past exposure to seasonal human coronavirus
infections can cause false-positive results. Serology tests can also fail to detect COVID-19 if
testing is performed in the acute phase of the infection prior to the development of detectable
- 112 -
antibodies.
Serology antibody assays generally provide historic information about viral exposure. They can
indicate whether an individual has past exposure to SARS-CoV-2. It is not yet evident that the
detection of antibodies reflects the presence of protective immunity, so the detection of antibodies
may not exclude remaining infectivity in a patient.
COVID-19 test performance
COVID-19 is an emerging viral infectious disease. There is limited evidence available to assess
the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.
Due to the urgent nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of SARS-CoV-2 tests have
undergone an expedited assessment by the TGA to enable their legal supply in Australia. These
expedited assessments are based on the limited clinical and performance data currently available.
All SARS-CoV-2 tests currently approved for supply are required to provide updated evidence to
support the ongoing safety and performance of the tests to the TGA.
The TGA is conducting a post-market review of all approved COVID-19 point-of-care serology
tests to verify their performance and inform their best use. The Department of Health has engaged
the Peter Doherty Institute to assist in the post-market validation of these tests.
Note: In Australia, the supply of self-tests for most serious infectious diseases, including self-tests
for COVID-19, is prohibited under the Therapeutic Goods (Excluded Purposes) Specification
2010.
The TGA will take action in relation to any report of poor or faulty performance of these devices.
Reports can be submitted via the TGA website.
Category:Medical devices/IVDs
Tags:COVID-19 tests
URL:https://www.tga.gov.au/node/904153
END QUOTE
In my view this is a very serious matter as where the test are according to the TGA
unreliable then to destroy the Victorian economy on such kind of test result cannot be
accepted, let alone the harm inflicted upon the many to deny them their common law
rights and other constitutional and legal rights.
114. That despite I have a “medical condition” and a medical exemption certificate
from my doctor I am informed that when attending to Austin Hospital I am
nevertheless required to wear a face shield, when I accompany my wife. As such
regardless that my medical exemption certificate specifically exempt me from both
mask and face shield the hospital nevertheless insist I wear a face shield. My wife
cannot attend the hospital without me. Actually went in July she went for an iron
infusion the nurse told me I could not stay with my wife. My wife then collapsed and
only because I was able to catch her she didn’t reach the ground. The nurse then
immediately made known that I could stay with my wife and she even placed a chair
next to my wife.
To seek to avoid a similar incident I asked the hospital to make sure this is not
repeated. Well they insist I wear a face shield. As such, they are blatantly ignored a
medical exemption certificate, as I made clear in my previous writings that I am
exempt.
115. That I became aware that nurses are pointing a thermostat towards the middle of
the forehead in the shape of a gun to measure temperature. I felt uncomfortable in this
and did comment to the nurse about this. I understand that doing so to the pinelgland
can actually cause calcification and a better alternative is to direct the temperature
measurement instrument toward the pols, as this provides a better accurately.
- 113 -
116. That in my view in particular persons from war torn countries may become
traumatic having a gun pointed at them and for sure small children shouldn’t be
shown such conduct also let alone being subjected to such temperature testing. Yet
there appears to be no proper management in this regard to ensure that any testing is
carried out appropriately without causing undue harm. I understand that most persons
who are performing the testing are not properly trained at all for what they are to do.
117. T
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/nsw-family-s-wish-to-farewell-dying-dad-in-queensland-
poses-little-risk-of-covid-19-expert-says/ar-BB18T370?ocid=msedgdhp
NSW family's wish to farewell dying dad in Queensland 'poses little risk' of COVID-19 , expert says
By Leah White and Claudia Jambor
QUOTE
Provided by ABC News The Queensland Government maintains its tough border restrictions have
been effective, but an expert says there should be a balance between safety and compassion. (ABC
News: Chris Gillette)
A top Australian epidemiologist says the parents and children of a terminally ill Queensland father
would pose "little risk" by crossing the border to say their goodbyes.
The Port Macquarie and Sydney-based family of Mark Keans, a father of four, have been unable to
visit the 39-year-old Brisbane-based cancer patient due to the Queensland Government's strict
border restrictions.
University of New South Wales professor Mary-Louise McLaws said there needed to be a balance
between safety and compassion.
"This family, particularly those from Port Macquarie, pose little risk," she said.
"In fact, the family from Port Macquarie could be at risk going into Queensland — it goes both
ways."
Dr McLaws said state governments could negotiate strict measures – including testing, quarantine
and the donning of face masks or shields – to ensure families could visit seriously ill loved ones.
"Families aren't asking to go across the border to have a holiday," she said.
"They are asking to see their family through a difficult time.
"We really need a national standard that is both sensitive and highly compassionate, particularly in
end of life situations."
Dr McLaws said it was frustrating that the Federal Government had not stepped in to strike a better
balance.
"It's disappointing because Australians and the Australian Government have a reputation of being
caring," she said.
"There is no reason why they cannot factor in a compassionate component to keeping the majority
safe, and have a national approach."
Dad accused of being 'selfish'
Mid North Coast father Bruce Langborne said Queensland Health told him he was being "selfish"
for trying to organise a cross-border family visit for his terminally ill son in Queensland.
Mr Langborne said his son, Mr Keans was undergoing chemotherapy in Brisbane for small-cell
cancer in the lungs, back, brain and blood.
- 114 -
He said it was important his four grandchildren, aged between eight and 13, be allowed to travel
from Sydney to Brisbane to see their dying father before it was too late.
"They've told him he probably won't survive by Christmas," Mr Langborne said.
"As much as we want to see him … the main purpose is to try and get his kids up to see him, and
get them to see him before he gets bedridden and full of morphine and doesn't understand what's
happening.
"I want them to remember him as someone who's still vibrant and alive."
#dayssinceEMBEDfull
Mr Langborne, who lives in Port Macquarie, said there were 11 family members, including
children, parents and siblings, who were applying for an exemption with Queensland Health to
cross the border from NSW.
But he said they were "getting nowhere".
"We were told, one, we had too many people," Mr Langborne said.
"Two, the children wouldn't be allowed.
"We wouldn't be allowed to drive there, we would have to fly and we probably wouldn't get out of
the airport, we would get sent back home.
"We were also [told we were] being selfish because we could infect the other cancer patients."
#growthfactorgraphicEMBEDfull
A Queensland Health spokesperson said they "understood and sympathised" with the challenges
the family faced.
But they said the health directions were designed to protect Queenslanders from COVID-19.
"We are in the midst of a global pandemic and we need to protect our communities, especially the
most vulnerable members of the community," the spokesperson said.
"Queensland's current border restrictions are in place for one purpose — to save lives."
'Loopy politics'
Queensland Opposition leader Deb Frecklington said the family might have had more luck if they
were AFL players or celebrities.
"If the Premier of Queensland thinks it's OK for celebrities and superstars and AFL people to come
into the state, then it's got to be OK for some people who just want to see a dying relative," she
said.
Ms Frecklington raised the case in parliament yesterday and said the border restrictions lacked
consistency, compassion and common sense.
In response, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said if her Government had listened on the 64
occasions the Opposition had asked for the borders to be opened the state may have been "in the
situation of Victoria".
"The leader of the Opposition called for the borders to be opened," Ms Palaszczuk said.
"The consequences would have been diabolical for this state — absolutely diabolical for this
state."
When asked about the family's situation, NSW Health Minister, Brad Hazzard, described the
Queensland Government's border restrictions as "loopy politics".
- 115 -
Mr Hazzard promised to discuss the case with his Queensland counterpart immediately, but said he
was appalled by the situation in general.
"I can only express my anger, my supreme anger at the Queensland Premier's decision," he said.
"In my view … [it's] nothing more than base, loopy politics."

END QUOTE
In my view there is no legal justification for this disgraceful conduct to deny children
to be with their dying father. It only underlines that the Rule of Law is no more but
pure terrorism and dictatorship. This is why the High Court of Australia MUST
intervene in the “PUBLIC INTEREST” and issue interim orders to ensure that all
and any such conduct is no longer permitted to go on and on.
118. That the following article underlines that the Victorian Police will continue to
deny citizens their constitutional rights to protest.
Patton says police will 'take all actions we can' against Tan marchers
David Estcourt and Simone Fox Koob

QUOTE
Anti Lockdown Rally Melbourne at the Shrine. Melburnians fed up with Victoria's Stage Four
lockdown restrictions protest in defiance of the emergency laws. Police making an arrest after a
scuffle with protestors.
Protesters have reposted details of a planned anti-lockdown mass gathering in Melbourne after
Facebook removed the listing as police warn they will take the same same hardline approach as
they did last weekend.
On Wednesday more than a thousand anti-lockdown protesters signalled their intention to take part
in a "Freedom Walk" on the Tan this Saturday after last weekend's clashes between demonstrators
and police saw 17 people arrested and several charged.
But the event was pulled down by Facebook just a few days ahead of the planned rally, prompting
organisers to relist it under the same name "Melbourne Freedom Walk".
Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton said authorities would take the same approach
to protests as they did last weekend which saw violent clashes between police and marchers.
"It should absolutely not be occurring, it would be illegal, protesting isn't allowed and we will take
all actions we can to stop it occurring," he told radio station ABC Melbourne.
"The [Chief Health Officer] tells us if we have mass gatherings of people we will risk the spread of
the virus ... we don't want to abuse the powers of the [Chief Health Officer], we understand the
level of trust that needs to be in us as an organisation, we understand it can sometimes be a fragile
trust and confidence.
Anti Lockdown Rally Melbourne at the Shrine. Melburnians fed up with Victoria's Stage Four
lockdown restrictions protest in defiance of the emergency laws. Protesters fighting with police
when they were being arrested.
"For us it's about using discretion but we won't step away from our responsibilities to enforce."
Mr Patton said police have taken a different response to the anti-lockdown protests compared with
the Black Lives Matter protest in June because of the differing contexts in which they took place.
"A major consideration and distinction then is we did not have the absolute spread of the virus that
we do have now, and that would have put a completely different framework around the decision
making process," Mr Patton said.
Tony Pecora, who is organising Saturday's gathering, called on supporters to spread the message
that police say violate the terms of the Chief Health Officer's orders.
On Thursday, he had relisted the event with the same wording and name but with the additional
note: "The Original ???Event' was taken down with 1500+ participants. Time to reboot."
Mr Pecora - an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist dropped by Clive Palmer as his party's
candidate for the seat of Melbourne at the last federal election - called on supporters to spread
details of the march, something police say violate the terms of the Chief Health Officer's orders.
- 116 -
"Please like and share and spread the word," the event details on Facebook says.
Mr Pecora told The Age on Wednesday that the Tan march would become a weekly event that
grows in size and that the events were designed to remain compliant with stage four restrictions.
Mr Pecora said he had encouraged people to wear masks and practise social distancing.
Facebook, who has not yet provided specific details about why they remove specific events and
how they deal with those events when they are re-listed, took the event down after about 1500
people had indicated an attendance or interest.
A spokesperson said Facebook was "currently investigating the issue".
Police estimated about 200 people gathered at the Shrine of Remembrance last Saturday
morning after people used social media to tout "Freedom Day" rallies across the country.
Organisers, of that event however, suggested police estimates are low and that turnout was much
higher.
About 100 police were in and around the Shrine early in the day.
Mounted officers were used to move the crowd on about midday amid chants of "Dictator Dan"
and "Let the kids live".
Police arrested 17 people at a gathering on Saturday that began at the Shrine of Remembrance and
moved on to Albert Park Lake.
After that event, protesters vowed to continue taking to the streets in defiance of coronavirus
restrictions.
Last Wednesday officers arrested pregnant Ballarat woman Zoe Buhler and charged her with
incitement over a Facebook post in which she encouraged people to attend a rally.
END QUOTE
It is clear to me that what our constitution stands for has absolutely no value where
the High Court of Australia continues to fail to act to ensure that no one is above the
law and so neither above the constitution and therefore Governments must only act
within the confinements of the constitution.
If the Court of Australia fails to act appropriately, and perhaps railroad this
Application, upon whatever technicality then I expect that Law and Order is no more.
119. That in view I have since 8 April 2020 sought to have matters properly considered
but the Defendant if anything acted contrary to what I sought to be resolved and
escalated problems considerably and ongoing ignored my writings I am left no
alternative but in the circumstances prevailing to seek this court to intervene within
its judicial capacity.
120. That in my view the application of seeking a “MORATORIUM” against any

“compulsory” vaccination in the State of Victoria at the very least is a matter of
extreme urgency. That such order Nisi is and remains in place until further orders of
this Honourable Court. ( consider also details at https://childrenshealthdefense.org/)
121. That I seek orders Nisi that the Respondent refrains from enforcing any Chief
Health Officer directions which are in violation of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth).
122. That I seek an order Nisi that the Respondent will stay all and any fines, legal
proceedings in regard of political protests as well as any alleged violation of the Chief
Health Officer until further orders of this Court.
123. That I seek an order Nisi that the Respondent shall refrain from applying and/or
enforcing any STATE OF EMERGENCY and/or STATE OF DISSASTER in regard
- 117 -
of “man-kind” disease(s) in violation to the legal provisions of the Biosecurity Act
2015 (Cth)
124. That I seek an order Nisi that the Respondent shall immediately undertake such
action/conduct to diminish any conflict or agitation and avoid fear mongering
amongst citizens.
125. That the Respondent provides this court with a set out as to all and any tests
performed how they establish to be COVID-19 positive versus being positive of any
other virus.
126. That the Responded provides this court with a tabulated set out as to all and any
stated numbers by the Premier of Victoria Daniel Mr Andrews in regard of deaths in
nursing homes and otherwise to which his statements referred with this the number of
deaths which by pathology were established to have COVID-19 as the sole cause of
death and which other COVID-19 was detected but not the cause of death.
127. That the Respondent provides this court with a detailed set out as to all and any
compulsory vaccinations that have been applied in the last 30 years and also what, if
any, safety test were conducted as to the effects, if any of anyone subjected to such
compulsory vaccination.
128. That the Respondent shall provide this court with a detailed set out as to all and
any compulsory vaccination performed in any nursing home and/or care facility and
as to the time line of any health problems and/or deaths subsequently to such
vaccination
129. That the Respondent shall immediately withdraw all and any police or any ADF
personal within the State of Victoria which are preventing citizens and/or visitors to
travel across state borders from state to state as to any “man-kin” disease(s) issue.
130. That the court issue such further and other orders it may deem appropriate to
achieve that the State of Victoria will no longer deny any citizen his/her rights with
arbitrary lockdown(s) / curfew(s), compulsory mask wearing, social distancing, etc
but that in each instances where there is a medical issue the State of Victoria places
this matter regarding each citizen before a court of competent jurisdiction to allow the
citizen targeted to oppose any such restriction(s).
Sworn at this 10th day of September Two Thousand and Twenty
Before me
…………………………………… ……………………………………
Justice of the Peace GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA

Applicant/Prosecutor
Filed by; Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka

107 Graham Road,
Viewbank, Vic 3084

Affidavit

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Affidavit

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

I, Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka of 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, Victoria, pensioner,

1. I am the Applicant in this matter.

This affidavit was filed by the Applicant GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA

Of: 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, In the State of Victoria, 3084

Phone number: 03 – 9457 70209

8. I migrated to the Commonwealth of Australia 1n 1971 from The Netherlands not

No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:

QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

QUOTE Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

QUOTE Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.

I decides to terminate the services of the lawyer and represent myself.

While I was in prison I wrote poetry:

FOR THE LOVE OF MY CHILD, I WAS JAILED

THE COURT AGAIN CONDUCTED THE CASE CORNEY

FOR THOSE WHOM WANT TO KNOW, A WELFARE REPORT WAS PROVIDED

VARIOUS STRIP-SEARCHES AND OTHER DEGRADING CONDUCT IN JAIL

THE JAIL EXPERIENCES CAUSING LASTING EMOTIONAL HARM

PRISON GUARD LOCKING AND UNLOCKING PADLOCKS ALL THE TIME

I DARED TO ASK WHAT ARE THE FORMAL RULES OF THE JAIL

A SCREW ISN'T A THREADED OBJECT USED AS A FASTENER IN A TRADE

TO USE A TOILET IN A DOUBLE PRISON CELL

USING THE URINAL IN YARD THREE

SO MANY PRISON-GUARDS HAVE DEMANDED TO SEE MY BACK CHEEKS SPREAD

THE SHOWER FACILITIES HAVE BARS ONLY FITTED ON TOP

THE ALARM SYSTEM IS OF SUCH GOOD DESIGN, IT IS A BORE

IN THE NEW CITY WATCHHOUSE, I CAUGHT A CHEST INFECTION VERY SOON

I TOLD YOU ONLY PART OF MY STORY

"MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL" IS MY MOTTO

BY. G.H.SCHOREL 1-1-1995

In 2008 Mr Francis James Colosimo requested my assistance as he wanted to get rid

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;

But there is more!

Perhaps the following may also be considered, for so far applicable:

Magna Carta may be modified by NSW law

But there is more:

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

As for “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” in my view the WA Parliament cannot apply

CAMPBELL v CHRIS FLORIAN; DAVID TATARSKY and Ors

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

The following also must be considered:

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Therefore, if there was no declaration by the Governor-General at the time applicable

OF FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1900.

No. 2.] WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2. [1901.

Government Offices, Melbourne, 2nd January, 1901.

LETTERS PATENT PASSEDUNDER THE GREAT SEAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

The Office of the Governor (Victoria) as per 2-1-1901 PROCLAMATION, that

Therefore, judges who violate this requirement of “impartial administration of

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates

That is the approach which I have adopted.

“ We do so against the backdrop of the supremacy of Parliament"