20140605-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-etc

8/12/2019 20140605-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-etc

1/13

p1 5-6-2014

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1stedition limited special numbered book on Data DVDISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI seriesby making a reservation, See also

Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog atHttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

WITHOUT PREJUDICEChristine Fyffe, Speaker 5-6-2014

[email protected]

5

Cc: Mr Geoff Shaw MP [email protected]

Mr Ken Smith, Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly Victoria,[email protected]

Daniel Andrews leader [email protected]

Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria [email protected]

10

20140605-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-etcChristine,

There are those lawyers who call themselves constitutional lawyers but that is an

oxymoron, as lawyers are generally to get their client of charges, by seeking so to say to bend the

rules, was a CONSTITUTIONALISTmust remain impartial and reflect the true meaning and15

application of the constitution.

As a (now retired) Professional Advocate I often relied upon the true meaning and application of

the constitution for the party (including lawyers/barristers) I represented and never would in

anyway have sought to twist the true meaning and application of the constitution, as to try to get

a party I represented so to say an easy ride.20

A major problem is that lawyers generally are brainwashed during legal studies and by thisare unable to properly understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of the

constitution.

.25

While the Westminster system is used by our parliaments, the truth is that our constitution

(The Commonwealth of Australia constitution act 1900 (UK)) is providing for a total

diffferent concept in many ways..

HANSARD 4-3-1891Constitution Convention Debates30QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:

The resolutions conclude:

An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be

appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend

upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the35majority.

What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as

similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as

possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here[start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial

advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to40lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other

gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


2/13

p2 5-6-2014





END QUOTE

Hansard 17-3-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people5through 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 their10 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way ofsecuring 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 the15daily 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 an20Executive 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 dealtwith 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:25next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly ,

that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a

court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its

provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the

Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it;but30it 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 the35

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 done40well.

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 8-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates45QUOTE 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 shouldhave to consider what would be a very solemn and serious question-whether we should have federation

or a general amalgamation.50

Mr. MOORE.-Unification.

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I hate the word "unification," and will not use it. I have said before that there

is much to be said for amalgamation. I can understand that there might be an immense amount of

money saved by amalgamation in the way of carrying on the government of the country, and there

might be an immense amount of force from the head of the Commonwealth which you cannot get from55the partial disintegration which is involved even in federation. But it is not our mission to establish an

amalgamation of these colonies. We are here under Bills passed by our various colonies, and there is a

claim for federation, and not a claim for merging the colonies in one common concern.
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/


3/13

p3 5-6-2014





END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 19-4-1897Constitution ConventionQUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:5

Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of

England. But here we are framing a written Constitution.When once that Constitution is framed we

cannot get behind it.END QUOTE

10

Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)QUOTE

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:I am trying to get at the ideas which are underlying the argument of hon.15gentlemen. 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.20

Mr. DEAKIN:The powers of our ministers are limited, and theirs are unlimited!

END QUOTE

WATSON v_ LEE(1979) 144 CLR 374; (JUDGE3 STEPHEN J.)

QUOTE25As Scott L.J. said in Blackpool Corporation v. Locker (1948) 1 KB 349, at p

361 , speaking there of sub-delegated legislation, "there is one quite general

question . . . of supreme importance to the continuance of the rule of law

under the British constitution, namely, the right of the public affected to

know what that law is".The maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse forms the "working30hypothesis on which the rule of law rests in British democracy" but to operate it requires that "the

whole of our law, written or unwritten, is accessible to the public- in the sense, of course, that at any rateits legal advisers have access to it at any moment, as of right".

END QUOTE

Again;35QUOTE

it requires that "the whole of our law, written or unwritten, is accessible to the public - in the sense, of

course,END QUOTE

.40

.

HANSARD 19-4-1897Constitution Convention

QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of

England. But here we are framing a written Constitution.When once that Constitution is framed we45cannot get behind it.

END QUOTE

.

Hansard8-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National AustralasianConvention)50QUOTE

Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.

END QUOTE


4/13

p4 5-6-2014





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

Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

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

END QUOTE5

HANSARD 17-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitutionwill 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 this10 Constitution,the principleswhich it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principlesare enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.

END QUOTE

.15Hansard 19-4-1897Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. CARRUTHERS:

This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE20.

Hansard 22-2-1898Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. SYMON(South Australia).-

That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has

described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common lawof England. This25Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to

this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or

rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and

it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to

understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole30time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is

commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be

appreciated by the people.

END QUOTE

35The constitution must be that even an UNLETTERED PERSON can understand it then I

view any legislation enacted within the constitutional powers also must be that an

unlettered person can understand it. So, why is it that Mr Daniel Andrews is claiming to

have obtained legal advice is beyond me. Does he mean he cannot understand what is

legally applicable and so had to consult a lawyer? And he is supposed to be the alternative40

Premier to be a constitutional advisor to the governor?

.Let us consider what our system is about:

We have the parliament to provide for legislation or repeal or amend itWe have a government who is the executive to ac t within the confines of the constitution45

We have the courts which are to adjudicate upon legal matters but can, and ongoing do so,

nullify legislation when they find for\ example a charge proven but no conviction recorded.

While this is commonly referred as an separation of powers this has been grossly

undermined by government as it has allowed what is referred to as the Sheriffs Office to50

operate unchecked in the courts, the Parliament, etc as some alternative police.

There is a serious danger in this, and I will give some examples..


5/13

p5 5-6-2014





Let us say that Mr X is wanted by the Government for political reasons and Mr X knowing

about the separation of powers then flea into the jurisdiction of the courts. Here however

the Sheriff ordered to apprehend Mr X then simply enters the court as it ordinary does and

arrest Mr X. This in total violation of the court sovereign jurisdiction. No person can be

arrested within the court precinct without the authority of the Chief Justice or those acting5

on his behalf. Hence, a person cannot be arrested in a court precinct for an alleged offence

committed outside the court precinct unless the Chief Justice permits such an arrest to

eventuate.

.

Likewise, say a court orders the imprisonment of Mr X and Mr X happens to flee to the10

Parliament so seek sanction there. If Mr X happens to flee into the legislative assembly then

only the speaker and those authorised to act on behalf of the Speaker can deal with the

matter where Mr X committed no offence against the Parliament t. As such the Sheriffs

Office would have no authority to arrest Mr X merely because they happen to operate

ordinary in the parliament.15

As such, having the Sherrifs Office operating in the Courts and the Parliament would be

very dangerous indeed.

We have seen how the Sheriffs Office terrorist people by having the Police assisting themto stop motorist and then threaten to impound a vehicle or even arrest a motorist not20

because they were there and then committing any crime but be caused the unconstitutional

Infringement Registrar may have issued purported court orders or warrants.

.

What we therefore have is that while the police can only ordinary stop a motorist in regard

of any traffic violation they are now misusing and abusing this power to aid and abet with25

the SheriffsOffice.

Premier D. Napthine is on record to have stated that fines are a form of taxation, this

clearly offends what the Parliament provided for as the Parliament so to say provided for

fines as a manner to punish a motorist for wrongdoing. In my view the premier could be

deemed in contempt of parliament to use legislation for a purpose not at all intended as30such by the parliament..

Sorell v Smith(1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

QUOTE

In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give good35cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 1-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE40 Mr. HIGGINS.-I understood the honorable member to put himself on the very highest pedestal, and bycontrast to put me on the very lowest. At all events, I feel that if this were carried, an unpopular individual, to

obtain his rights and liberties, would have to go cap in hand to and be at the mercy of the Government of the

day. I was thinking of the pig-tail case which occurred in California, and which I alluded to some time

ago, where an abominably unjust law was passed against Chinamen. It was passed to persecute them in45regard to their pig-tails, which they[start page 1689] regard with exceptional reverence. That law was

declared to be unconstitutional as a law passed by a state.END QUOTE

HANSARD 8-2-1898Constitution Convention Debates50QUOTE


6/13

p6 5-6-2014





Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in

saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if

they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.END QUOTE

.5Therefore if infringement notices are used/misused/abused as a form of taxation rather

than for the purpose intended by the Parliament then I view this is contempt of the

Parliament.

Wed should never have the Sheriffs Office operating in the Courts if it is an entity under the10

government. This as it would allow the government to manipulate the sovereign jurisdiction of

the Courts. Hence, any security of the courts must be under the independent control of the Courts

themselves.

.

Likewise with the Parliament, no law enforcement agency has to power to interfere with the15

sovereign powers of the Parliament. Hence any security of the parliament must remain under the

authority of the parliament and not the Government of the Day. Fancy a Government using its

Sheriffs Office to arrest members of Parliament, if anything to prevent them to vote against a

bill to defeat it.

20Both the Courts and the Parliament can be a sanctuary for a fleeing person from persecution and

then the Chief Justice of the court or the Speaker of the House or the President of the Upper

House then have to decide if a person can or cannot be arrested for something that was not an

office within their jurisdiction.

Fancy a person being before the court being intimidated by the Sheriffs Office during the25

hearing, if merely by their presence, that if this person were to say something against the

government (regardless how rightfully this might be) then they will arrest him upon leaving the

court jurisdiction? Fancy a person attending to the Parliament to give evidence being confronted

by Sheriffs Office officers and causing an intimidation not to reveal to the Parliament

wrongdoing by a government or its officials as otherwise this person might be arrested upon30

leaving the Parliament.

I represented a solicitor/barrister who feared to attend to the hearings because he could be

arrested by the security under the control of the government. During these various hearings I

became aware how they were seeking to intimidate myself and other sitting in the public gallery.35

Yet, I did no more but represent a party. Over the decades I understood from many, that they

feared to become witnesses for the Parliaments committees because they feared that if they

exposed the truth then those in security might arrest them on directions of the government.

As such, I for one have no doubt that intimidation, even merely by security being present, is

interfering unduly with the sovereign powers of the courts and the Parliament.40

This in my view has to stop and I urge you as a Speaker for the Legislative Assembly to

ensure that only security under the authority of the Parliament will be employed and noSheriffs Officer under the direction of the government. .

As you may also be aware when it comes to the eligibility of a Member of Parliament to hold a45

seat, the Parliament may either deal with it or leave it in certain circumstances up to the Court of

Disputed Returns to deal with it. As such, if the Court of Disputed Returns were to declare a

person not to be eligible to sit in the parliament then the parliament cannot go behind this and

nevertheless ignore this ruling. After all the Parliament provided for the Court of Disputed

Returns to make such decision. However a Court of Disputed Returns cannot make a judicial50

decision as it is not a judicial court, but a Court acting for and ion behalf of the Parliament.

After all, if the Court of Disputed Returns was able to make a judicial decision then the


7/13

p7 5-6-2014





Parliament could amend the legislation to return the power for itself and then hand down judicial

decisions. Clearly, the separation of powers prevent the Court of Disputed Returns to make a

judicial decision.

This is why also a Court of Disputed Returns ought to bed involving retired judges and not

sitting judges because to avoid to interfere with the separation of powers.5

Fancy Mr X having a ruling against him by the High Court of Australia sitting as a Court of

disputed Returns and then having to appeal this decision on constitutional grounds to the High

Court of Australia in that the judges of the Court of Disputed Returns exercised judicial powers

beyond the Parliament powers

That is so to say to appeal to Dracula that he was sucking your blood as a Vampire.10

And getting back to Mr Daniel Andrews should he not as a mere Member of Parliament have left

it to the Speaker to deal with matters and any legal advice rather than that he somehow seeks to

interfere with the Speakers authority? Isnt this why a Speaker is elected by the Members of the

Legislative Assembly to look after matters within the Legislative Assembly?15

.

If it would be inappropriate for a House of the Parliament to interfere with the decision of a

Court of Disputed Returns made on behalf of the Parliament, then I view likewise where the

speaker handed the matter regarding Mr Geoff Shaw to the Police then likewise it must accept itsdecision.20

.

In my view the privileges committee ought not to have dealt with the matter as the police clearly

were requested to deal with it.

I do not know if the Police, in view of my 23-9-2013 correspondence (provide to you in my25

previous email also) held it would not be justified to proceed with charges against Mr Geoff

Shaw, but clearly it decided n ot to proceed.

Parliament is not there then to use political powers to oust a Member of Parliament.

Nor do I consider it appropriate to refer to Mr Geoff Shaw as being a rough Member of

Parliament. Indeed I view this in itself may be a contempt of Parliament.30How can you expect for me or for that for other constituents to respect any Member of

Parliament if Members themselves are using this kind of language against fellow members of

Parliament?

It must be clear that anyone who is in an Office of Profit, having a financial gain other than an35

allowance as a Member of Parliament is disqualified from being a Member of Parliament.

This is the legal principle embedded in the constitution to which the States within s106 subject

to this constitution were created.

Because Ministers of the Crown are employed by the Monarch, through the Governor, they

therefore are not considered to be in an Office of Profit.40

Likewis,e the Speaker and the President in the Parliament are not in an Office of Profit becausethey are employed by the Parliament itself, not the government.

There is no known constitutional exclusion for a shadow Minister to receive a salary or other

office benefits above that of any independent Member of Parliament and hence any salary or

other financial benefits must be deemed to constitute an office of Profit arrangement and so45

disqualify those Members of Parliament receiving such financial benefits from continuing to hold

their seats in the Parliament.

Where it appears, as I understand it, special arrangements were made for Mr Ted Bailliue to

receive special financial benefits, such as a chauffeur driven car or whatever, then what is the

difference as to the alleged request by Mr Geoff Shaw (and I make clear it is merely alleged and50


8/13

p8 5-6-2014





I do not intend and neither must it be perceived I accept this as being a valid claim) to have a

judicial appointment?

One also has to question why does the speaker allows the Appropriation Bills and Taxation Bills

to be presented in May, less than 2 months before the new financial year commences where if the5

bills fail to be passed then this can cause a financial crisis? Surely the speaker should ensure that

bills are presented to the Legislative Assembly to allow sufficient time to have them, if needed

presented for a second time and failing this an elect ion can be held by DOUBLE

DISSOLUTION and then the bills be presented again prior to the commencement of the new

financial year?10

Because Mr Daniel Andrews is using the media to express his seemingly disapproval of abuses

in the Parliament targeting Mr Geoff Shaw, then let be clear about it all that in my view neither

he or man y other Members of Parliament are acting honourable, and so merely are seeking to

use it for the coming State election then acting honourable.15

.Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National


QUOTE

Mr. CARRUTHERS:As far as my constituents are concerned I should not like to go back and tell them20that by a hard and fast rule we have fixed the number of judges, all of whom will be receiving large Salaries.

The people may think that they are required, but we can leave it to the Federal Parliament to decide this

question. I say there are other matters far larger and of far greater importance which have been left to the

Federal Parliament than a matter of this kind involving the appointment of officers about whose utility or

whose good work we have no judgment at all. Supposing it is found after these judges have been appointed25for two years that there is not enough work to keep them going, then we find that Parliament would be tied up

by this Act and could not reduce the number. Then if the Constitution is to be altered a motion must be

passed by a majority of both Houses, and a referendum of the people taken. I intend to push the matter

to a division.

END QUOTE30

Hansard 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National


QUOTE35

Mr. TRENWITH:I say with these evidences of the desire on the part of the people for more freedom,

for greater facilities for giving effect to the popular will, we ought to make provision in this

Constitution by which the will of the people can become law. If we do that we shall be doing something

which will make it more certain that this Constitution will be adopted by the people.40

END QUOTE.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS(New South Wales).-45It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the constitution shall be obeyed, because a

majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the constitution.

END QUOTE

Hansard 22-2-1898Constitution Convention Debates50

QUOTE Mr. SYMON(South Australia).-


9/13

p9 5-6-2014





That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has

described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common lawof England. This

Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to

this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or

rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and5it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to

understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole

time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is

commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be

appreciated by the people.10

END QUOTE

Hansard 6-3-1891Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for15the 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 theseveral 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 be20practically 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 bodiesthat 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 authority25conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of

such authority.END QUOTE

HANSARD 10-03-1891Constitution Convention Debates30QUOTE

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 power35of 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 dispensed40with, 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

.45While it was claimed that the State constitution was amended, as a CONSTITUTIONALISTI

am not aware a State referendum was held to do so. Hence any amendment to the stateconstitution without a state referendum having approved such an amendment I view is and

remains to be ULTRA VIRES.

.50

As you may have noticed English is used by me what I profess to be my crummy English

as English was not my native language and neither did I have formal education in the

English language, nevertheless it appears to me that those who may seek to criticise me

about this may do better to consider to learn what our constitutional really are about. It is

useless to have so to say highly educated Members of Parliament who cannot even55

understand and comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution! How on


10/13

p10 5-6-2014





earth can they be involved in legislation when they fail to understand the legal principles

embedded in the constitution I may well ask?.Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)5QUOTE

Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the

Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each

state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, from

the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the10Constitution, 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 to15occupy a few minutes in discussing it.

END QUOTE

.

The framers of the Constitution made it verify clear that when you have a constitution you are

bound by it. As such it is not relevant if there might be conventions as if they are in violation20

of the legal principles embedded in the constitution then they are not applicable nor can be

enforceable.Because Mr Daniel Andrews took it upon himself to use the media so to say to stake his claims I

view it therefore appropriate to expose his what I consider own fraudulent conduct in violation to

being a Member of Parliament.25

There has also been a considerable attention as to Mr Geoff Shaws history of conflicts with

others, and so also in the media, and why about him when as I understand it many other

Members of Parliament have their own various convictions, etc.

If a Persons history is relevant than it should have been at the time an election was being held,30

and so of all persons who stood as a candidate and not just single out one particular person.

Perhaps we should have a register of convictions of each candidate who stance for political

office? I do however view that the Police so the DDP had the opportunity to pursue Mr Geoff

Shaw relating to the charges and as they declined to do so then that should be the end of it.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT IS NOT PART OF OUR LEGAL PRINCIPLES.35

QUOTE EMAIL 11-5-2014

Fw: NRL... ??This will open your eyes... - read to the end..

Hans Mitterer The Trash that floats upon DemoCrazy - - greetings Hans I wonder if this

can possibly be true? CAN IT ALL BE TRUE? I hope it's not true! AFL vs NRL...This will

open your eyes... 36 have been accused o40

To Undisclosed-Recipient@

11 May

The Trash that floats upon DemoCrazy - - greetings HansI wonder if this can possibly be true? CAN IT ALL BE TRUE? I hope it's not true!45

AFL vs NRL...This will open your eyes...


11/13

p11 5-6-2014





36have been accused of spouse abuse

7have been arrested for fraud19have been accused of writing bad cheques117have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

3have done time for assault71, repeat71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

8have been arrested for shoplifting

21currentlyare defendants in lawsuits and84have been arrested for drunk drivingin thelast year

Canyou guess which


12/13

p12 5-6-2014





organization this is?AFL? NRL?

Give up yet? . . .. .

Scroll down

Neither,

it's the 535 members oftheAUSTRALIANPARLIAMENT

inCANBERRA


13/13

p13 5-6-2014





Thesamegroup of Idiots that

crank out hundreds of new lawseach year, designed to keep therest of us in line.

You've got to pass thisone on!

END QUOTE EMAIL 11-5-2014

While the above relates to the federal government in Canberra I have little doubt Members of

State Parliament may likewise score considerably in those fields.

So is it a matter of the pot calling the kettle black?5.

What should be kept in mind is that it was a matter of the constituents to decide who was to

represent them and clearly they had elected Mr Geoff Shaw, and as such he was entitled to thebenefit of being elected and not harassed if not stalked by political opponents about his past

while his political opponents do not release their own history or criminal history.10

If Mr Ken Smith as former Speaker is receiving any financial benefit even so no longer being the

speaker regarding having been a Speaker then I view this no longer can be deemed as a position

employed by then Parliament and so must be considered as an Office of Profit and would violate

for him to continue to hold a seat in the Parliament. Again, you must be careful with throwing a15

boomerang not to end up being the one it harms.

The above quoted correspondences may be helpful and I would like to see that taxpayers

will now see that Members of Parliament are not placing themselves above the law.20

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.(Friends call me Gerrit)

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

25

Documents

20140605-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-etc