100112 Kevin Rudd Citizenship Etc

8/13/2019 100112 Kevin Rudd Citizenship Etc

1/25

12-1-2010 Page 1PLEASE NOTE : Until Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. Email: [email protected]

Kevin Rudd PM 12-1-2010C/o [email protected]. AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN5Kevin,I have reproduced a copy of my 12-1-2010 correspondence to Banyule City Council regardingthe issue of political rights and citizenship albeit I already forwarded a copy of the sameearlier to you. Just that for the purpose of this correspondence I held it appropriate to quote thecontent. Re Brendan MacDowell 7-1-2010 correspondence that is included.10.Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942

QUOTECommon expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham, "sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of 15 power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled todisregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, butsuch a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is notvalid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it isinvalid ab initio .20

END QUOTE.QUOTE FROM BELOW

If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases withregard to Commonwealth citizenship , not having defined it, we may be enabling the25Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles insertedelsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That isnot what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."

END QUOTE.30As will be shown to some minor extend from the quotations of the submissions made to the courton 19 July 2006 that I did challenge successfully the validity of the Commonwealth of Australias legislative powers as to citizenship and neither the Commonwealth of Australianor any of the State/Territorian Attorney-Generals challenged this and neither did the Court ruleagainst me and as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that once a party in proceedings35raised the constitutional validity of legislation then it is ULTRA VIRES from interceptionunless the courts declare it to be INTRA VIRES..What none besides myself realised was that by the courts decision to uphold my cases every person who required Australian citizenship for purpose of appointment, being it40 politicians/lawyers (including judges)/police officers, etc, all were without valid appointment.Little wonder the Commonwealth of Australia and neither the State/Territorian Attorney-Generals wanted to engage in a legal battle as none would have a legal standing to do so as theyfailed to have the required Commonwealth citizenship as it was a unconstitutional

FICTIONAL status of nationality! As one Commonwealth lawyer made known to me that he45 had never come across a person who not only knew so much about the constitution but also could present it in court appropriately that he was even himself having difficulties. (He was filing and


2/25


then wanting to withdraw his own evidence when I realised I was using it against him to proveexactly the opposite for which he had filed the evidence! And I made known that even if hewithdrew the exhibit I was still entitled to use it!)..The lawyers knew that they were never going to defeat me as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and5so opted to try to keep it quite. Well, that is something I never intended to do!.It should be noted that the Commonwealth of Australia, despite many offers by me, refused todeal with me as to try to address the issues concerned and this may underline the ignorance as tothe RULE OF LAW !10.It might take time and perhaps a VELVET REVOLUTION to reclaim our constitutional andother legal rights but I have no doubt that in time this will eventuate and there are as I understandit ample of people willing to hold politicians and judges legally accountable for their as is seentreasonous conduct.15.QUOTE

Whil e the F ederal Parliament has not been granted an express power to make laws with respect to nationali ty and citizenship, it has been assumed that the Parli ament does have such a power. The power is either implied in section 51(xix) [of the Constitution] or is one of the implied national powers.20I ts exercise by the F ederal Parliament, by enactment of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 has certainly not been called into question in any case before the High Court of Australia.

END QUOTEAs is clear the Commonwealth of Australia in 1948 commenced to legislate as to citizenship and no amount of alleged legal advice in 1988 can somehow override the constitutional25 provisions and limitations. Hence for that it isnt relevant what the Constitutional Commission in1988 may have concluded because when it comes to the constitution there is no power to twist or infringe the true meaning of the constitution in that regard. Moreover it indicates to me a totalincompetence of the Constitution Commission if they assumed this legal position aboutcitizenship where if they had bothered to check the Hansard they would or should have been30aware they were totally wrong.What this also underlines that despite my past correspondence about the failure of theConstitution Policy Unit to appropriately advice regarding constitutional matters theynevertheless continued to do so. What is the use of having such kind of legal advisors?.35QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1ALL ER 694 House of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn : - (Irrelevantconsideration)

Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and painstaking consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the40consideration was sufficient in law.

END QUOTE

.I have in the past time and time again raised this issue and now in the end it is finally concededthat all the Commonwealth of Australia relies upon is that the Constitution Commission in 198845assumed there was legislative powers..Well, lets make it clear that every day people are losing court cases despite the legal advice theywere given they were in the right because when two opposing parties are litigating and each partyis given legal advise that they are legally right then in the end one of them discovers their 50lawyers were wrong all along.

.


3/25


What the Commonwealth of Australia and so its lawyers and neither any State and TerritorianAttorney-Generals seemed to understand/comprehend was that the 5-year long epic legal battlewas more relevant then any ever could have imagined. Perhaps if they had they would all havelined up with teams of lawyers seeking to defeat me albeit they would still have failed.I was well aware that the High Court of Australia, albeit unconstitutionally, refused to accept on54 occasions my Section 75(v) application because it was well aware of the hundreds of pages of supportive evidence that none of the judges of the High Court of Australia themselves werevalidly appointed and so they could neither hear the case because of implied bias..R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 23610QUOTE

However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be suck as to lead the partiesreasonably to think that the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and then prohibition may issue. Of course, the court which is asked to grant prohibition will notlightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected of bias in this sense; it must be15"firmly established" that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered in the minds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v CommonwealthConciliation and arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at

553-4, in the passage cited in R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (132 CLR at 262).20The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged aquestion, but whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect hasoccurred (see per Lord Denning MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon(1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgment cited with approval by this court in R vCommonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969)25122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might wellconvey the impression of "protesting to much"...

END QUOTE.

The High Court of Australia went outside its judicial powers to deny to accept the filing of my30cases on four occasions , in particularly where this raised the issue of citizenship, and after it didso for the fourth time then it asked lawyers to challenge citizenship as it had never adjudicatedupon it.As such, the court wanted to railroad my case knowing to well it couldnt defeat me and hencehoped some lawyer not knowing the real issues could then pretend to make an application the35court could then use to pretend it was all so to say hanky dory..Just that I was more resourceful and used the same before the County Court of Victoria and asthe Framers of the constitution made clear once one place the matter before the courts then therelevant legislation objected against upon constitutional grounds is and remains ULTRA VIRES40from interception until and unless if at all the court declares it to be INTRA VIRES..Because the Commonwealth of Australia and neither any state and or Territorian Attorney-Generals challenged it then legally where the Court on 19 July 2006 ruling in my favour upholding both cases it then cannot be said that the legislation regarding citizenship somehow45still survived because the legal principles embedded in the constitution are binding to all..QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006As is quoted below

Mr. GORDON .-50Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and itleaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised.


4/25


It therefore cannot be held that while the Magistrates Court of Victoria on 4-12-2002 adjourned proceedings so constitutional issues could be dealt with by the High Court of Australia todetermine if the legislation objected against upon constitutional grounds could be declaredINTRA VIRES somehow the very legislation being now ULTRA VIRES still continues tooperate against anyone else as if it is INTRA VIRES .5What appears to be is that the Australian Electoral Commission and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions have totally disregarded the rule of law and abused and misused the legal processes to score convictions and otherwise fine people which never was legally justified because once the Magistrate on 4 December 2002 accepted the submission of theCommonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions that there were indeed constitutional issues to be10adjudicated upon then the legislative provisions subject to the objections were clearly ULTRAVIRES and could not be relied upon against any other person either until and unless the HighCourt of Australia had declared the legislative provisions subject to constitutional objections to be INTRA VIRES . This never occurred.As the Framers of the Constitu tion made clear that if the legislative provision (it is not law once15it is ULTRA VIRES ) remained ULTRA VIRES because the High Court of Australia declinesto declare it INTRA VIRES then at most a Referendum could provide the kind of legislative powers required to enact such legislation but not retrospective. As such, only legislation passed

after such amendment to the Constituti on was provided for by a Section 128 of the Constitution referendum could be applied but not made retrospective either.20While people often are convicted by retrospective legislation this clearly is contrary to theintentions of the Framers of the Constitution , who did not want people acting within the law bemade by hindsight criminals. As after all then no one could rely upon what might be the law.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates25

Mr. SYMON .-It is not a law which is ultra vires .

And

Mr. SYMON .-Do you think acquiescence would make a law if the law passed by the

Commonwealth Parliament was ultra vires ?Mr. GORDON .-It would until the law was impugned. If the state did not impugn that30

law it would remain in force. It is a law, and it could be allowed to be valid by the force of acquiescence.

And

Mr. SYMON .-It is not a law if it is ultra vires .

Mr. GORDON .-It would be law by acquiescence. It would remain a law until it was35attacked.

And

Mr. HIGGINS .-But suppose they go beyond their power?Mr. GORDON .-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to

enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right.40

AndMr. GORDON .-

Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and itleaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised.

And45

Mr. HOLDER .-I will answer that interjection, which certainly has great weight.


5/25


Mr. OCONNOR .-Will the honorable member answer this question: Supposing a law isaffirmed by this process, and afterwards another law involving the same question is proposed, is that also made good, or must there be a referendum for that?

Mr. HOLDER .-I have two interjections to answer. I will deal first with that of theAttorney-General of Victoria. In reply to his statement that this makes the law altogether 5retrospective, I simply say that the proposal is to make the law retrospective in this sense:That during the interval throughout which it was, according to the judgment of the court,ultra vires , the decision of the people afterwards could make it intra vires .

Mr. ISAACS .-That might make persons criminals who were not otherwise criminals. Itmight not have been an offence to do a certain thing if the High Court declared the law to10 be ultra vires , but if that law was made intra vires from an antecedent date, all the personswho did that thing might be subject to punishment.

Mr. HOLDER .-I have great respect for the eminent legal authority of the Attorney-General of Victoria, and he may help me to overcome that difficulty, and attain theadvantage I seek to attain. Mr. O'Connor asks me, if this were adopted, and under a certain15referendum a certain Bill was declared to be intra vires , whether that position would cover

any similar Bill adopted afterwards? My answer to that is this. I wish it [start page 1720]should do so, that the enlargement of the Constitution should be not merely for theinclusion of the particular measure which had been passed, but for the inclusion of the particular matter concerning which otherwise that Bill had been, but for the referendum,20ultra vires . I do not profess to be a draftsman, and I gather that the Drafting Committeehave been kind enough to undertake-especially for lay members-to put into proper phraseology any resolutions which the Convention has by a majority declared to embody principles which they wish to have included in the Bill. So I am content, if the Conventionadopts my proposition as being an indication of its will, to leave the wording of the clause25as it shall appear finally entirely in the hands of the Drafting Committee, and shall be veryglad of any help they can give to suggest a method of covering what the honorable member has suggested, so that my intentions my be fully met. do feel that in any question where the point of the law ultra vires is raised, not the High Court but the people ought to be the finalappeal-that if I or any one else is on the other side of this controversy concerning a30measure, and I take the ground that it is ultra vires or that it is not, the final appealconcerning what the Federal Parliament may do ought not to rest with the High Court,which can simply determine it on the dry question of law, but ought to rest with those people who, themselves, have the right to say whether or not the Constitution shall beenlarged to take in the particular question at issue. I do not hesitate to affirm that, if we can35 place this final appeal in the hands of the people instead of keeping it in the hands of theHigh Court, we will have done very much indeed to popularize this measure, not only inSouth Australia, but in other colonies. For I do assure honorable members that the presenceof so large a number of lawyers as there are in this Convention has helped to give colour tothe suggestion, which is very widely prevalent, that this Constitution is being made for the40lawyers and for the courts.

Mr. SYMON .-Nonsense!

Mr. GLYNN .-That is pandering to the popular cry.

Mr. BARTON .-I think my honorable friend ought to do his best to dispel any such baseslander as that.45

Mr. HOLDER .-I can assure my honorable friend that I will do my best to dispel anysuch base slander as that. I am not stating a matter in which I express my own thought or my own feeling, but I repeat that in what I said just now I am expressing the thought and


6/25


the feeling of a great many persons outside the Convention who are not so well informed aswe are. If we can remove a misapprehension, if we can cure a ground of distrust, bymaking the people themselves the final arbiters in their own cause, we shall surely be doingwell, and by doing that we will not be endorsing, but will be going the very best way possible to refuse an indorsement to that opinion which was dissented from just now.5

Sir EDWARD BRADDON .-Why not make them the first arbiters, too?

Mr. SYMON .-Why not make them the High Court at once?

Mr. HOLDER .-I have already shown that the adoption of my clause would save a largeamount of time. It is quite impossible that the people can sit as Judges, because thefunction of Judges is one thing, and the function of electors of the Commonwealth is quite10another thing. I am not confounding these two. The people are absolutely incompetent to judge whether a certain law is or is not ultra vires , and I would not dream of committingthat charge to the people, for there are no persons less fit than the general electors-taken alltogether on a referendum-of any country to decide whether this or that is true law.

Mr. ISAACS .-You say the people accept the position in law; but they are asked whether 15

they will change the Constitution.[start page 1721]

Mr. HOLDER .-That is exactly it. I would never dream of asking the people to reverse alegal decision arrived at by the High Court. I have been specially careful in the form of theamendment to avoid any such thing. I do not dream that the High Court will on one day say20that a certain Bill is ultra vires , and that the people shall the day after, or some monthsafter, say the court was wrong. That is not what I suggest. I suggest that the people shouldaccept the decision of the High Court that the law was ultra vires , but should say it oughtnot to be ultra vires -that the Constitution should be enlarged so that such a decision couldnot be given again. I do not wish to leave it to the people to say that the decision was25

wrong, but to leave them to say that the Constitution should be so enlarged so as to-makesuch a decision impossible in the future. That is a different thing from making the peopleJudges or giving them a judicial position. I really feel very hopeless as a layman addressingthe Convention on a very technical legal point like this. I quite anticipate-and though this isnot a wise thing to say, I do not mind saying it-I quite anticipate defeat before I sit down.30At the same time, I shall not cease to regret defeat if it comes, nor shall I cease to believethat this way out, or some other which the Drafting Committee could easily suggest, oughtto be adopted, so as to avoid the possibility of anybody outside saying, with anyappearance of truth, that this is a lawyer-written Constitution.

35Where then Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 has been ULTRA VIRES , atleast since challenged by the Defendant, albeit it is ULTRA VIRES from when it was originallyenacted as any legislation that is ULTRA VIRES because of being beyond constitutional powersis then ULTRA VIRES from when it was enacted, then the fact that nevertheless the AustralianElectoral Commission fined tens of thousands of electors itself ought to be a major scandal and40indeed requires a ROYAL COMMISSION . Further the fact that despite this the CommonwealthDirector of Public Prosecutions continued to pursue enforcement of Section 245 of theCommonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and in deed as is currently before the Court charged theDefendant with FAILING TO VOTE in the 2004 purported federal election, and even scored aconviction on 17 November 2005 also underlines that the Commonwealth Director of Public45Prosecutions is using taxpayers funds to employ lawyers to i llegally litigate charges for which inthe circumstances there was no legal justification. The onus was upon the CommonwealthDirector of Public Prosecutions to pursue that the High Court of Australia may declare the


7/25


legislative provisions INTRA VIRES before any further charges could be pursued, such as inregard of the 2004 purported Federal election.

The issue is that at least from 4-12-2002 (albeit it was earlier because of the objections made bythe Defendant) Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was ULTRA VIRES and5for this any further litigation or other fines by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission and/or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in regard of the same purported 2001 Federalelection and/or the subsequent purported 2004 Federal election and/or any by election could not be legally sustained where Section 245 ever since remained ULTRA VIRES.

10Any legislative provisions that becomes ULTRA VIRES is so not just in regard of the person/Defendant who makes the objection but it becomes ULTRA VIRES to the whole of theCommonwealth of Australia. To every person who otherwise might be subject to this legislative provisions. It would be utter and sheer nonsense if any legislative provisions could be declaredULTRA VIRES for one Defendant but not for other Defendant. Commonwealth of Australia15legislative provisions must apply to all and any person without discrimination and so it is either ULTRA VIRES to all people or INTRA VIRES to all people. It would be abhorrent tocontemplate that every person has to obtain in their own right a legal decision as then the High

Court of Australia could be forced to decide tens of thousands of cases governing the same legal provision. clearly, this is not what is possible. The 1999 HCA 27 Wakim case is a clear example,20where the High Court of Australia declared that the so called Cross Vesting Act indeed wasULTRA VIRES, and this applied to anyone not just to Wakim !END QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006.Lest look at construction of legislation and consider the issue of CITIZENSHIP with this also25considering how the Constitution Commission in its 1988 report assumed legislative powers!.Thompson v Tolmie 27 U.S. 157 (1829) Page 27 U.S. 157, 169QUOTE

When a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question that occurs in the30cause; and whether its decisions be correct or not, its judgment, until reversed, is regardedas binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments andorders are regarded as nullities . They are not voidable, but simply void; and form nobar to a recovery sought in opposition to them even prior to a reversal.'

END QUOTE35AndQUOTE

Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings area nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and maybe rejected upon direct collateral attack.40

END QUOTE.QUOTE Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and

278The oath of a justice of this court is ' to do right to all manner of people according to law'45Our sworn duty is to the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all.If, then, we find the law to be plainly in conflict with what we or any of our predecessorserrornously thought it to be, we have, as I conceive no right to choose between givingeffect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, It is not, in my opinion, better that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should be ultimately right..50Whatever else may be said with respect to previous decisions - and it is necessary here toconsider the principals upon which a court should act in particular cases - so much at leastemerges as is undoubtedly beyond challenge, that where a former decision is clearly


8/25


wrong, and there are no circumstances countervailing the primary duty of giving effect tothe law as the court finds it, the real opinion of the court should be expressed.

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE5

In my opinion, where the prior decision is manifestly wrong, then, irrespective of the

consequences, it is the paramount and sworn duty of this court to declare the law truly....END QUOTE

.QUOTE Braddock v Tillotson's Newspapers Ltd .; Court of Appeal (1949)(1950) 1KB 4710(1949) 2 ALL E.R. 306;65 T.L.R. 553: 93 S.J. 464

Leave to call fresh evidence on appeal in relation to an issue will be granted only whenthe evidence could not reasonably have been discovered before the trial, and would probably have led to a different result. When the fresh evidence relates to the credit of awitness, its effect must be more certain.15

END QUOTE

.QUOTE Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 H.L.C. (per Lord Wensdayle)

In construing wills and indeed, statutes and all written documents, the grammatical andordinary sense of the word is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity,20or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case thegrammatical or ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid that absurdityand inconsistency but no further.

END QUOTE

.25QUOTE Abley v Dale (1850) 20 L.J.C.P. 35 (per Jervis C.J.)

We assume the function of legislation when we depart from the ordinary meaning of the precise terms used, merely because we see, or fancy to see, an absurdity or manifestinjustices from an adherence to their literal meaning

END QUOTE30

.QUOTE Camden Marquis v Inland Revenue Commissioners (1914) 1 KB 641 (per Latham

C.J.)In Bendixon v Coleman (1945) 68 CLR 401 at 415Stitt v Radford (1926) 26 SR (NSW) 263 at 265 43 WN at 7535Re Rippon housing confirmation order 1938White v Minister for Health (1939) 2 KB 838The court takes judicial notice of the meaning of ordinary words, and evidence is notadmissible to expound their meaning; though the court, in addition to using its ownknowledge, may refer to standard authors and authoritative dictionaries in order to obtain40assistance in interpretation.

END QUOTE

.QUOTE Powell v Trantor (1984) 3 H & C 458 at p461 (159 E.R. 610 at 611)

The golden rule of construction is, that words are to be construed according to their 45natural meaning, unless such a construction would render them senseless, or would beopposed to the general scope and intent of the instrument, or unless there is some cogent

reason of convenience in favour of a different interpretation.END QUOTE


9/25


.QUOTE Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes 8th Ed. p2;

Hotel Kingston Ltd. v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1944) 69 CLR 221; 28Austin Digest 752The first and most elementary rule of construction is that it is to be assumed that the5words and phrases are to be used in their technical meaning if they have acquired one andin their popular meaning if they have not, and that the phrases and sentences are to beconstrued according to the rules of grammar; and from this presumption it is notallowable to depart, where the language admits to no other meaning, nor, where it issusceptible of another meaning, unless adequate grounds are found, either in the history10or cause of the enactment or in the context or in the consequences which would resultfrom the literal interpretation, for concluding that that interpretation does not give the realintention of the legislature.

END QUOTE

.15In August 2005 I defeated the Commonwealth of Australia lawyers on the issue of AVERMENT that constitutionally it could not interfere with the legal procedures applicablein State Courts, even so exercising federal jurisdiction, and the lawyers still as a bunch of idots persisted to litigate against me and then were comprehensively defeated on 19 July 2006 in theCounty Court of Victoria on all constitutional issues I had raised, including citizenship.20. Now, if you are going to try to make out that somehow despite those defeats you still rely uponsome outdated and ill conceived assumed legislative powers rather then to ensure that you soto say gave those a advisers a kick under their bum for their idiotic advice and made sure youwould get proper advise then you cannot be excused.25Fancy you going to court and telling a judge that you relied upon outdated 1988 assumed legislative powers and ignored courts rulings since and all other material presented to you. Doyou really think that a judge is going to accept such blatant and sheer ignorance to aresponsibility to ensure that matters are appropriately dealt with?Can you imagine what huge claims might be made if people who were deported and./or 30otherwise were detained discover it was all unconstitutionally done and more over that you presided over it and had the opportunity to be aware of it but rather held it more important totravel the world at huge expenses of taxpayers then to address these issues?.I recall when what is now my step-daughter, making known to the court a decade ago that she35held my writings were silly and so she ignored them. With her law degrees it appeared to her thatwhat I was writing about was silly but in court she discovered, albeit too late, that she hadmisconceived legal issues and in fact as result she lost the case.Likewise many other lawyers learned this kind of a lesson!

Ignorance is no excuse and by now for years you were provided with my correspondences and as40 such had every opportunity to act appropriately and not merely rely upon outdated ill-conceivedassumptions..Dont you have an Attorney-General who is supposed to check all relevant issues and alsowhen the Commonwealth is defeated (as I ensured it was) then this is added to its files so45future advice will reflect this?.The reason I have defeated lawyers (and so also judges) is because I know they so to say have been brainwashed to go along with whatever they have been indoctrinated with and lack thecapacity and ability to use their brain to think for themselves. Still that is no excuse where the50

Commonwealth of Australia relies upon them as to the uncalled harm then caused upon many..


10/25


It must be clear from the quotations below (and you can check for your self for example the 2March 1898 Hansard records, even if you are flying once again overseas) to read for yourself thatDr Quick (Later of Quick & Garran) specifically submitted to give legislative powers to theCommonwealth of Australia to define/declare citizenship and this was specifically denied by theDelegates to the convention. Now if a Constitutional Commission of 1988 and the Constitution5Policy Unit cannot even manage to read and/or understand/comprehend what is so plain from thestatements then recorded them you might do better having some imbeciles being employed because they will never give you this kind of nonsense!.It is a very serious matter in that peoples lives have been destroyed time and time again having10 been detained and/or deported, etc all on basis of non-citizenship while this could have beenavoided had the Attorney-General and others done their job in the first place to consider what thereal intentions of the Framers of the Constitution was and how this is applicable to theapplication of the constitution. How on earth can an Attorney-General give advice to theGovernor-General to certify a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament is within constitutional15 provisions if he hasnt got a clue how the constitutional provisions and limitations apply? Whyhave an Attorney-General if he cant bother to ensure he knows what he is talking about?.

I am well aware you have been so to say ignoring my various correspondences and likewise myoffer to assist as a CONSTITUTIONALIST in the peter Spencer saga but be warned it so to say20might bite your bum one day as if Peter Spencer were to discover that he can start all over againlitigating and this time more successful because the court had it so wrong in the past then therecould be a mighty compensation claim not just by him but more then likely by a lot of farmersalso..25I have the understanding where lawyers in prominent cases ended up having their clients being in prison rather then to pursue the constitutional issues I had made them aware off because after allit was their own self interest to protect themselves rather then their client..

To me it would be an insult to be regarded a lawyer as it would stain my person. As a30CONSTITUTIONALIST I bow to no one but the constitution and have no alliance with anyone who seeks to undermine constitutional provisions and limitations..For sure, if I were heading the Commonwealths Constitutional Policy Unit then theCommonwealth may discover it may looses some cases in court because its previous legal advise35was ill-conceived but surely DEMOCRACY and that is what it is about is more important thento deceive the courts as to succeed in litigation?.I am well aware you might just view it better to so to say sit it out and leave it up to some case incourt and then deal with it but if this is to be your modus operandi then you would be a traitor to40the constitution as you are obligated to ensure that constitutional provisions and limitations areappropriately applied..I did what I had to do and served the commonwealth and all Attorney-Generals in 2002 aNOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and after a 5-year epic legal battle45comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia in court on 19 July 2006. As such thecourt adjudicated in both cases and found in favour of me against the commonwealth of Australiaand while I am aware the court refused to hand down a reason of judgment to try to contain thefall-out of its decision nevertheless there was no challenge whatsoever by the Commonwealth of Australia upon any of the about 50 submissions on constitutional matters I had raised and as such50the Commonwealth of Australia is now bound to accept the courts verdict, in particular where itnever appealed the decision either, and had no cause to do so as it consented to the terms of theorders!


11/25


.Once the Commonwealth of Australia neglected to challenge any of my submissions andconsented to the Court handing down a decision against the Commonwealth of Australia then for all purposes and intend the Commonwealth of Australia conceded that I was right on allconstitutional issues I had raised (and so extensively in the material before the court) as if it had5not it could have requested the court to hand down a reserved judgment limited to certainmatters. Again, the commonwealth of Australia didnt whatsoever challenge any of my material before the Court and as such conceded defeat and it is a bit rich now for the Commonwealth of Australia then to rely upon what the Constitution Commission in its 1988 report may haveassumed , as the Commonwealth of Australia is bound by the courts decision!10.Because of the publications of my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certainconstitutional and other legal issues I am giving wide coverage to these issues and it is merely amatter of time when someone is going to realise that he can use this to defeat the Commonwealthof Australia!15More over;.Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER .-I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one20step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of thelegislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in theConstitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officialsshall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as anyprivate person would be.25

END QUOTE.Hence by repeatedly writing to you and others, well aware you may disregard the content, I amnevertheless establishing a record of correspondence and so that others may eventually use this to

sue you and/or others personally for any harm caused upon them.30.It will not be good enough then to claim there was some Constitution Commission report of 1988as clearly you had ample of material to have checked back what was before the courts since andthe fact that the Commonwealth of Australia conceded to my material being correct as implied by its failure to challenge any and to consent to orders being issues against the Commonwealth of 35Australia, in my favour..As my step-daughter (with her various law degrees) recently made known to me, that I havetrained myself in the way of the old days how lawyers in the United Kingdom learned their trade..40I would look forward if someone were to personally sue you because then it would hit home thatwhen you are Prime Minister you are accountable and when you act outside constitutional provisions in defiance of constitutional limitations then you cannot rely upon ordinary protectionof the office of the Prime Minister because you willingly took it upon yourself to ignore thedetails I provided to you time and again.45.My 2 December 2007 request for a ROYAL COMMISSION into the unconstitutionalmurderous invasion into Iraq still is outstanding and surely by now you should have been awarethat the killing of so many innocent people should all along have resulted to a ROYALCOMMISSION ? Again, what your conduct appears to amount to in my view is a derelict of 50your duties and obligations as Prime Minister. Are you relying upon the same advisors for legaladvice who advise you about citizenship?.


12/25


Once you leave office you might be known as the one who said a lot but did miserably little toensure the Commonwealth of Australia was operating according to constitutional provisions andits limitations despite that you claimed before the election to be a federalist !.Do try to understand that the Framers of the Constitution themselves , of who many where5eminent lawyers, warned about how to word the constitution as to seek to avoid lawyers so to sayhaving a field day with the meaning of words! Yes, they all along expected that lawyers wouldnot be interested in the proper application of the constitution but would seek to manipulatewording to whatever may suit themselves or so their clients..10HANSARD 18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention )QUOTE Mr. ISAACS .-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of itsConstitution ,15

END QUOTE.Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the20Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agreewith 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 whichwe 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 an25interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words whichwe have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us nowcontemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for everyclause and every word that goes into this Constitution.

END QUOTE30.Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON .-

When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitutionshould be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause ; when we35consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make anyalteration , and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedlyhave 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 evidentthat too much care has not been exercised.40

END QUOTE

.Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. BARTON .

If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with45regard to Commonwealth citizenship , not having defined it, we may be enabling theParliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles insertedelsewhere 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 QUOTE50


13/25


.And also consider:.Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE5

Sir JOHN DOWNER .-

It is said we have sought to establish a Constitution by analogy to the House of Lords

and the House of Commons in England. But we know that there is no analogy, or, if there were an analogy, we should have to consider what would be a very solemn andserious question-whether we should have federation or a general amalgamation.10

Mr. MOORE .-Unification.

Sir JOHN DOWNER .-I hate the word "unification," and will not use it. I have saidbefore that there is much to be said for amalgamation. I can understand that theremight be an immense amount of money saved by amalgamation in the way of carryingon the government of the country, and there might be an immense amount of force15from the head of the Commonwealth which you cannot get from the partialdisintegration which is involved even in federation. But it is not our mission toestablish an amalgamation of these colonies. We are here under Bills passed by ourvarious colonies, and there is a claim for federation, and not a claim for merging thecolonies in one common concern.20

END QUOTE.As such, forget about unification because it isnt part of the constitution regardless how much the judges of the High Court of Australia (such as in Sue v Hill ) may seek to pretend otherwise..25QUOTE 12-1-2010 correspondence to Banyule City Council

WITH OUT PREJUDI CE Mr Simon McMillan , Chief Executive Officer ( Banyule City Council ) 12-1-2010http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au Fax 94991391E-mail: [email protected]. Ref; alleged FAILING TO VOTE-etcCc; Victorian Electoral Commission

Level 8, 505 Collins Street, Melbourne Vic 3000, Fax 9299 0595

Mr Kevin Rudd PM35C/o [email protected]

. AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERNSir,

I received a 4/1/2010 demand for payment of allegedly FAILING TO VOTE in the 2008council elections and I refer to my numerous previous correspondence regarding the same issue40and Banyule City Council had obviously the opportunity to place the matter before the Courtswithin as I understand 12 months from the date of the election but failed to do so.As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of what is constitutionally applicable and have soset out time and time again in past correspondences as well as that on 19 July 2006 before theCounty Court of Victoria after a 5-year epic legal battle I comprehensively defeated the45Commonwealth on all constitutional and other legal issues in both cases, and hence Banyule CityCouncil has no legal position to somehow purport to overrule or otherwise seek to deny me the benefits of the courts decisions, in which the State Attoney-General in 2002 was served with aNOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and decided not to challenge any or all of my

submissions.50 .


14/25


HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN .- In this Constitution, although much is written much remainsunwritten ,

END QUOTE5AndQUOTE Mr. DEAKIN .-

What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religiousliberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days canreasonably aspire . A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also10a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peopleswhom it will embrace and unite.

END QUOTEAndQUOTE15

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are aboutto commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are aboutto 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 theworld than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to20vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. Thisnew charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.

END QUOTE.Political Liberty is not subject to what any government or for that any Parliament may hold it25can amount to but is precisely as was intended by the Framers of the Constitution intended at thetime of federation and so well canvassed by me during the aforementioned litigation in which atthe end the court decided both cases in my favour.Hence Banyule City Council, that is if it had a legal position in the first place, which I also have

challenged, would first have to somehow have the 19 July 2006 decision overturned and it30appears to me that unless you are an absolute idiot and do not understand the legal processes youwould be well aware that the opportunity to do so has long since passed where as I stated beforethe Attorney-General even so given the opportunity at the time failed to challenge and or all of my submissions on constitutional grounds and neither pursued to appeal the courts decisions ineither or both cases.35.I happen to have received a 7 January 2010 correspondence which I will include hereby merelyfor your information albeit I do not accept the implied legislative powers as my past material before the courts and provided to you makes this clear;QUOTE 7-1-2010 CORRESPONDENCE40

Australian GovernmentDepartment of the Prime minister and Cabinet

ONE NATIONAL CIRCUITBARTON

45Reference: c09/54418

Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka107 Graham roadVIEWBANK VICTORIA 308450

Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka


15/25


Thank you for your email of 24 October 2009 to the prime minister regarding thecommonwealths power to legislate over citizenship. I have been asked to reply on thePrime ministers behalf. I apologise for the delay in doing so.

Australian citizenship is defined in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 . Ordinarily, the5Government does not disclose its legal advice, including on constitutional issues, I refer you, however, to the following passage from paragraph 4,179 of the Final Report of the constitutional Commission , 1988:

While the Federal Parliament has not been granted an express power to make laws 10with respect to nationality and citizenship, it has been assumed that the Parliament does have such a power. The power is either implied in section 51(xix) [of the Constituti on] or is one of the impli ed national powers. I ts exercise by the F ederal Parliament, by enactment of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 has certainly not been called into question i n any case befor e the Hi gh Court of Australi a.15

Yours sincerely

Brendan MacDowell

A/g Assistant SecretaryLegal Policy Branch207 January 2010

QUOTE 7-1-2010 CORRESPONDENCE.There are some issues I raise in regard of this, albeit not all!.25The commission assumed and the Constitution is not to be assumed but must be appropriatelyapplied. The fact that since 1948 the Parliaments may have legislated is not relevant where it hadno specific legislative powers to do so!.

The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to30federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmQUOTE

37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts.Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys35the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts,documents, and even judgments ."

END QUOTEAndQUOTE40

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

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name45of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; sinceunconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the dateof the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is asinoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.50Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes noduties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone,affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .


16/25


A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannotoperate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to thefundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

END QUOTE5Sixteenth American JurisprudenceSecond Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256).FURTHER:Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates10QUOTE

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

END QUOTE15.Well even as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I found nothing in the constitution that possibly couldindicate that the Commonwealth of Australia since 1948 had legislative powers as to Australian

citizenship[ or for that regarding citizenship at all! It therefore is not relevant if theCommonwealth legislated the purported Australian Citizenship Act 2007 after it already had20 been comprehensively defeated by me on this very issue on 19 July 2006!.Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the25Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.

.Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.- The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to30the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is thatwe are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious powerover us.

END QUOTE.35HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. GORDON.-

The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes onthe Constitution we will have to wipe it out."

END QUOTE40.Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Sir JOHN DOWNER .-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the peopleand the states on terms that are just to both.45

Mr. DEAKIN .-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.

Sir JOHN DOWNER .-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," noConstitution is required at all ; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and, without limitation, do what they like.Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very life-blood of the50Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would


17/25


give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this mostimportant part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have alreadyarrived at.

END QUOTE5.Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON .-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing

crime to the Commonwealth , but you do give power to the Commonwealth to make10special laws as to alien races; and the moment you do that the power of making such lawsdoes not remain in the hands of the states; and if you place in the hands of theCommonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have described you should notdefeat that regulative power of the Commonwealth . I do not think that that applies at all,however, to any power of regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we15do not give any such power to the Commonwealth, whilst we do give theCommonwealth power with regard to alien races; and having given that power, weshould take care not to take away an incident of it which it may be necessary for theCommonwealth to use by way of regulation. I have had great hesitation about this matter, but I think I shall be prevented from voting for the first part; and as to establishing any20religion, that is so absolutely out of the question, so entirely not to be expected-

Mr. SYMON .-It is part of the unwritten law of the Constitution that a religion shall not be established.

END QUOTEAnd25QUOTE

Mr. SYMON .-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship , with which the honorable and learnedmember (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is30asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not,of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joiningthe Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution,and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question ; it is a35question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of theCommonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away ordiminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I amwilling to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I amnot prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading40inducement for joining the Union.

END QUOTE.Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE45

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expandedthe spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He hasenlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing onecitizenship . Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship .That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again.50


18/25


We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must berecognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution.

END QUOTE.It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; British5subject , to make persons subjects of the British Empire. , with the consent of theImperial authority , 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 thedual citizenship. , we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. We have a High Court of Australia that appears to me being political motivated to try to alter the Constituti on by stealth10 by endorsing a substitute Constituti on !.Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. BARTON .-

Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving15that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercyfrom day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or driftsthrough ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the peoplehaving this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever anyone may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of 20the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through theirrepresentatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there isno other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make adifferent kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload yourConstitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under25this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitutionhe has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the dailydetermination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is theguarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of ushave sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work 30can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope thecritics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult forthem. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for anExecutive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of thatConstitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have35provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under thisConstitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a FederalJudiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states thatchoose 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,40which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly , that the Constitution shall not, nor shallany 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 asthe arbiter of the Constitution . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no45citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that thosewho 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 arebound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of thiskind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions,50

then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-sowhittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people


19/25


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 willpreserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretextof constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the statesfrom usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things,5I think this Convention has done well.

END QUOTE.AgainQUOTE10

that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted ,END QUOTE.Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE15

Mr. SYMON .-Then I think they ought to. The whole object of legislating for aliens isthat there should be uniformity.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON .-They would not have that in the Federal Council.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, who20would 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 theCommonwealth, 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 maybe two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but25one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenshipmeant. 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 thedual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introducethis clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those who30say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and onewhich we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it ismuch 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 excludeanybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a35citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not wantto place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may beprepared 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 CommonwealthParliament might say that nobody possessed of less than 1,000 a year should be a citizen40of 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 mustrest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that everycitizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth45shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, exceptwith regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,

and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over


20/25


our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope theamendment will not be accepted.

END QUOTE.Again5QUOTE Mr. SYMON .-

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 theCommonwealth 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 to10disabilities, as aliens, and so on.

END QUOTE.LET ME EXPLAIN, WHEN THE COMMONWEALTH OF Australia legislates in regard of aliens or in regard of any coloured race then those persons subject to such special legislation can15automatically loose their right of citizenship. For example the commonwealth while not beingable to define citizenship of aliens can place a limitation on when an alien might obtain if at allcitizenship due to certain legislative provisions being in place which otherwise could beoverturned by those aliens if they had franchise powers.Likewise so with any s51(xxvi) race legislative powers the moment they are subjected to a20special legislation they lose their citizenship automatically. Again, that is obviously to preventsuch a race to vote and perhaps get rid of the legislation..In the court I had this far more extensive canvassed and see no need to repeat the same as after all I did publish on 7 July 2006 a book in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain25constitutional and other legal issues titled:.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI & What is the -Australian way of life- really?A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rightsISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-330

.This book in CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC contained allrelevant documents that were before the court on 19 July 2006 as well as was filed as evidence inthe case. Therefore, you can check it all out in the Australian National Library at Canberra or even in the State Library of Victoria if you desire to do so, but at least get of my back about35your nonsense because quite frankly I had to do what I did and place the case before the courtsand succeeded and entitled to the benefits of the courts decision. If you desire to be an utter idiotnot to understand/comprehend how the legal processes operate then get out of the job but stop pestering me with your nonsense about fines and charges..40It should be understood that the Commission was reporting in 1988 at which time the Hansardrecords of the constitution convention debates were still not permitted (albeit unconstitutionally) by the High Court of Australia and since 1992 the High Court of Australia now relies upon usageof the Hansard records..45Further, on 4 occasions the High Court of Australia in 2003 refused to accept my applicationswithin section 75(v) dealing with citizenship but the same then subsequently was upheld on 19July 2006 and as such it should be clear that the Constitution Commissions 1988 assumed legislative powers have been superseded by the litigation and 19 July 2006 orders and no longer are relevant.50

.


21/25


There is no such thing as a commission amending the application and or meaning of theconstitution as Section 128 provided for a referendum and nothing lese..What ought to be clear is that the Commonwealth relies upon an assumed legislative power rather then upon real defined powers. And I for one challenged the citizenship issue successfully5on 19 July 2006!.As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I also challenged the validity of the purported local government being municipal and shire councils as they are not and never were constitutionally recognised asa level of government and neither so intended by the Framers of the Constitution and the 198810referendum was vetoed to amend the constitution for this. As such a municipal or shire councilwould have no legal standing in that regard..Also, as citizenship is essential to be accepted as a Member of the Bar at a State court andclearly the kind of citizenship referred to in the purported Australian Citizenship Act 2007 is15unconstitutional then not a single lawyer/judge can be deemed to be appropriately appointed sowho is going to hear and determine any case? This I also successfully litigated on 19 July 2006!.

Play with your toes or whatever but get of my back with your nonsense about fines, etc, as yougot no legal position to do so!20.Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER .-

I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance onestep, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the25legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in theConstitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officialsshall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as anyprivate person would be.

END QUOTE30.Harassing me with utter and sheer nonsense about purported fines better not be continued!.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL .35Our name is our motto..Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKAEND QUOTE 12-1-2010 correspondence to Banyule City Council.40For example, every subject of the British Crown born in the United Kingdom is not andconstitutionally never can be an alien or foreigner because the legal principles embedded in theconstitution provides that they obtain citizenship the moment they settle in a State citizenship and so also by this automatically acquire Commonwealth citizenship ..45And, if by now you still havent got a clue what Commonwealth citizenship is about then letme make it clear it has nothing to do with nationality but refers to a persons political rights, suchas franchise.If by now you still dont understand/comprehend what citizenship stands for then I view you

better resign because then you will unlikely ever know. Let someone more competent then do the50 job as after all we taxpayers are paying for it!


22/25


.QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006On 24-3-1897 it was stated; if they desire to exercise their franchise and on 15-4-1897 Mr Gordon proposed to make registration and voting compulsory but this had been rejected and Mr Gordon then withdrew his submission. Hence voting cannot be made compulsory either. The5word desire clearly leaves it up to the choice of the elector to vote or not to vote!

Hansard 24-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Sir GEORGE TURNER: It would never do to allow in this Federal Parliament that those representatives10who are elected upon the most liberal franchise possible should be outvoted by those who would be elected by a very limited franchise indeed. As this may fairly be regarded as the National House, representing the people of the various States as a nation, we ought to have uniformity in the franchise. We must leave it to theFederal Parliament to say what the franchise should be. At the same time, as some colonies have given theright of voting to those who have not that right in other colonies, it would be unfair and inequitable to take15from any who have the right, and therefore whatever uniformity is determined upon we shall have toallow the innovation that no person, man or woman, who has the right to vote shall be deprived of exercising that right, even so far as the elections to the Federal Parliament are concerned. I would gothe length of saying that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if they desire to exercise theirfranchise , should have the opportunity of doing so.20

AgainAt the same time, as some colonies have given the right of voting to those who have notthat right in other colonies, it would be unfair and inequitable to take from any who havethe right, and therefore whatever uniformity is determined upon we shall have to25allow the innovation that no person, man or woman, who has the right to vote shall bedeprived of exercising that right, even so far as the elections to the Federal Parliamentare concerned.

AndI would go the length of saying that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if 30they desire to exercise their franchise , should have the opportunity of doing so.

Desire stands for an expressed wish , option , choice , request , etc, not beingcompulsory!Because the Commonwealth of Australia could only legislate in regard of qualifications and35other rights not to minimize but to increase the rights of any person, then clearly any legislationthat is to remove such rights or to force a person to vote against his desire must be deemedunconstitutional, and so ULTRA VIRES . Hence, the Court could not invoke any jurisdiction for this either, as to deal with any charges of FAILING TO VOTE.

40It should be considered also that the State of Victoria recognize the application of theI ntern ational Covenant on Civil and Poli tical Rights and as any federal franchise is based uponState franchise then for this also this is applicable.

I ntern ational Covenant on Civil and Poli tical Rights 45

Article 1

(For general comments on its implementation seehttp://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR+General+comment+12.En?OpenDocument )

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determinetheir political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.50

PART IIArticle 2


23/25


(For general comments on its implementation seehttp://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR+General+comment+3.En?OpenDocument )

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individualswithin its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant,without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other 5opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary st eps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures asmay be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.10

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized areviolated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto15determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or byany other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, andto develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies whengranted.20

Article 3 (For general comments on its implementation seehttp://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR.C.21.Rev.1.Add.10,+CCPR+Gen )

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women25to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the p resent Covenant.

Ar ticle 25 (For general comments on its implementation see

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR+General+comment+4.En?OpenDocument )Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in30article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosenrepresentatives;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be byuniversal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the35free expression of the will of the electors;

(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.

END QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006..40QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006.The Defendants submits , that Australian citizenship can only be obtained by obtainingState citizenship , as it is not a nationality, but has to deal with being a recognised Statecitizens where one AUTOMATICALLY then obtain Australian citizenship ( Commonwealth citizenship which includes franchise. Because lawyers require to make an45Oath of alliance when seeking to be admitted to the BAR to practice, which now is to aLEGAL FICTIONAL Queen of Australia (as set out further in this ADDRESS TO THECOURT ), while being a Subjects of the British Crown, (as also set out further), then there is aclear conflict for any judge to deal with this matter which would in effect involve his/her own

personal legal position if qualified to be a judge of this Court. Albeit judicial officers may not be50aware that their true constitutionally nationality is and remain to be British nationals and so any


24/25


Oath of alliance to a LEGAL FICTIONAL Queen of Australia would be a conflict.Where the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill ousted Heather Hill of being a member of parliament upon the basis that she was having alliance to a foreign Queen, then as set out further in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT , the same applies to all other persons, including judicialofficers, who by birth (including all those persons born within the Commonwealth of Australia)5or by naturalization are in fact subjects of the British Crown.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates ;Mr. BARTON .-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we

are all alike subjects of the British Crown.10

Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, morecomprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in theConstitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing theclause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship,15and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any wayinterfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond thescope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of acolony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.

20Again;

we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the BritishEmpire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that.

The High Court of Australia deriving its judicial powers within the Constitution 25(Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) cannot go beyond what isembedded in the Constitution , hence the constitutional problem exist that judicial officers areconstitutionally (by birth or naturalization) subjects of the British Crown but wronglyexcluded by the Sue v H ill decision as being deemed to be by this having alliance to a foreignMonarch.30END QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006..QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006.Hansard 1-3-1898

Mr. HIGGINS .-But suppose they go beyond their power?35

Mr. GORDON .-I t is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks toenforce improperly any law the citizen has his right.

And;40

Mr. GORDON .-Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and itleaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised.

The Constitution does provide in certain Sections;45

Until the parliament otherwise provides

But that must be understood in its proper context!50

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


25/25

12 1 2010 Page 25

Mr. BARTON .-

If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases withregard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the5Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles insertedelsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That isnot what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."

Again;10we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all theprinciples inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks anddrakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."

Therefore, whatever electoral provisions may be enacted by the Commonwealth of Australia, it15remains subject to what the Framers of the Constituti on intended.Mr King clearly failed to pursue this option, to have first matters placed before the Court tovalidate any legislation that was objected against!

It is not the duty of the Magistrates Court of Victoria to sort out the legal mess created by the20 Federal Parliament as to what Mr King can or cannot do. The appropriate course would have been for Mr King, the informer, acting for the Australian Electoral Commission, to have pursuedthis before a competent court dealing with constitutional issues. It should have challenged thematter in the High Court of Australia against the Commonwealth of Australia to obtain a judicial ruling for this.25END QUOTE SUBMISSION 19-7-2006.

As such, political rights to vote or not to vote is upon the relevant person to determine. For sure when a person elects to vote he/she should follow proper conduct but if a person doesntwant to exercise his right to vote then that is the end of it! Section 245 of the CEA1918 therefore30

is in that regard also unconstitutional..Seems to me, like it or not, that like it or not you would do better to engage me as aCONSTITUTIONAL advisor so finally the Commonwealth of Australia will get someappropriate advise regarding constitutional matters and I challenge any of those currently35advising the Commonwealth of Australia to prove me wrong about the constitutional issues suchas citizenship . You will find however they never will be able to do so as they themselvesnever really understood constitutional provisions and limitations in that regard but merelyseemed to go by FICTION rather then by FACTS ..40If just the Commonwealth of Australia instead of as I view it b

100112 Kevin Rudd Citizenship Etc

Documents

Transcript of 100112 Kevin Rudd Citizenship Etc