Who Can Assist-Represent A Party in Legal Proceedings?

Chapter 0002 Page 1
Chapter Who can assist-represent a party in legal proceedings?

.
* Gerrit, can you assist and/or represent a party in legal proceedings without being a lawyer?
.
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, of course you can. While the High Court of Australia is on record
that for what is called a McKenzie Friend it is up to the Court to permit this and how far such
assistance may be permitted the truth is that the Court has no such powers as to deny a litigant
assistance as he may desire and I will explain this below in a limited terms.
.
What is needed however is to set out also some other relevant matters as to underline why in the
case of Mr Francis James Colosimo a lawyer representing him not only would be undermining his
case and be fatal to his case but that a non-legal practitioner a CONSTITUTIONALIST is better
equipped to actually present his case to pursue DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
.
This is a matter where about 320 lawyers involved in a case against an unrepresented person who
all along OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION of VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative
Tribunal) but it was ongoing ignored and after more then 2 years of VEXATIOUS litigation Mr
Francis James Colosimo then requested my assistance to present his case on 27 January 2009, as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST but despite being accepted to assist Mr Francis James Colosimo VCAT
maintained its position that if could disregard any OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and
enforced this as late as 27 January 2010, a year later.
.
Bowers v Smith (1953) 1 ALL ER 320 (Re Clarke Hall) and (Morrison on Children, 7 Ed ,P3)
QUOTE
"... the first business of the court is to try to issue whether or not the case is bought
within the terms of the statute, and only if this be proven by proper evidence can the
court proceed to decide upon treatment"
(See CROSS v. DE VALLE, 68 U.S. 5 (1863) and other cases in Folder 11 of the CD)
END QUOTE
.
This Chapter is to set out in a limited manner what legal practitioners and others were doing versus
my presentations to pursue DUE PROCESS OF LAW. The battle of LEGAL PRACTITIONERS
versus the CONSTITUTIONALIST! About the denial on 27 January 2010 by VCAT for Mr G. H.
Schorel-Hlavka, even so registered as a interested person within the provisions of the act, to present
Mr Francis James Colosimo’s case as desired because of the argument he is not a legal practitioner.
This Chapter exposes the misuse and abuse by VCAT to maintain VEXATIOUS litigation against
an innocent man!
.
QUOTE CHRONOLOGY
7 or 17-1-2007 DSM (Mr Donald S McCleod) issue 7 or 17-1-2007 CANCELATION OF
BUILDING ORDER TO STOP BUILDING WORK upon the Respondent FJC,
within section 116 of the Building Act 1993. The section used is one relating to an
owner requesting the cancellation of the order and this clearly was applied and as
such must be held to imply that all and any alleged offences despite no corrective
work having been carried out whatsoever was not needed in the circumstance. The
Notice to cancel the order does not specify as such the precise matters upon which
this decision was made and as such can only be deducted from the fact that the
Respondent FJC from onset made known it was a SHED and not a SECOND
DWELLING and he relied upon his rights of FEE SIMPLE, etc. No authority
exist to cancel the 6 December 2006 notice unless the owner complied with the
Chapter 0002 Page 1

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0002 Page 2
relevant legislative provisions in the Building Act 1993 and the Building
Regulations 2006. Therefore for all purposes and intend the cancellation of the
notice implied that the unrepresented Respondent was deemed to be in compliance
with the Building Act 1993 and Building Regulations 2006 provisions.
END QUOTE CHRONOLOGY
.
QUOTE 21-1-2008 State Trustees correspondence
Mrs Mary Colosimo has told us that whilst she appreciates and understands the issues at hand,
and the seriousness of those issues, including that her husband is facing a custodial sentence,
that she will continue to stand by him as the head of the family and, as to his judgement as to
what is right and what is wrong.
END QUOTE
.
One would like to see that a Court/Tribunal may appreciate this and finally operate as can be
expected of a Court of Law or a tribunal claiming to operate as such, Mrs Mary Colosimo will
finally have her husband to herself and not having him being persecuted by the Court/Tribunal,
Moorabool Shire Council, Maddocks solicitors and others.
.
Member Philip Martin in his 30-5-2007 reasons stated;
QUOTE
The size, appearance and nature of the contentious part-finished building is such it can be
characterised as a part-built “dwelling”, rather than being a mere outhouse or shed;
END QUOTE
.
No formal charges had been made out against Mr Francis James Colosimo for building a “second
dwelling” and neither did the “outbuilding” (shed) fulfil the legal requirements applicable to be
considered to be a “dwelling”. And the building had been previously registered with Footscray
Council as being a “shed” of Footscray TAFE college.
.
QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees
The Council has their order and will continue to ensure that it is enforced, this meaning that the
shed will ultimately be dismantled and removed from the property.
END QUOTE
.
It seems that now it is a shed after all? But no order ever existed to remove the shed!
.
QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees
The council have the provision, under the Local Government Act 1989, to engage the
services of a contractor to demolish the building and restore the land to its origina l state.
The council would pay the contrac tor and then charge that cost directly to Mr Colosimo.
Further discussions with the council will be dependent on the outcome of the rehearing, for
the need for an administration order.
The great concern in this matter is that Mr Colosimo, because of his personal beliefs, well
intentioned as they are, may receive a custodial sentence, with a possibility that he may also
lose his family home.
-
Mr Peter Sier will attend the rehearing on behalf of State Trustees.
Chapter 0002 Page 2

Chapter 0002 Page 3
END QUOTE
.
Basically Mr Francis James Colosimo had cleared his land way back in about 1973 to build a
“shed” (And at the time cleared the land in a lawful manner) and finally in 2004 was able to obtain
a previously registered shed and commenced to build it on his property and Moorabool Shire
Council acknowledged this by way of notice dated both 7 and 17 January 2007 that it was in
compliance with the Building Regulations and the Building Act, however a manager of Moorabool
Shire Council nevertheless decided to institute VEXATIOUS litigation against Mr Francis James
Colosimo on 22 January 2007 in VCAT even so the Infringement Act 2006 only permits litigation
in the Magistrates Court of Victoria, and despite objections to jurisdiction by Mr Francis James
Colosimo VCAT totally disregarded any proper form of litigation.
It must also be noted that the various notices issued had major legal problems and so being
defective.
.
Again, while I do not doubt that in ordinary circumstances VCAT can hear and determine matters,
subject to appropriately invoking JURISDICTION, in regard of the Planning and Environment
Act, the Building Act 1993 and other matters, it is a totally different kind of process when a council
relies upon the provisions of the Infringement Act 2006 as to issue a Penalty Infringement Notice
as then it prevents VCAT to deal with matters as it is not a “Court” and as such unable to deal with
matters and so also because the Act requires matters to be dealt with by a court and not by some
body that might imagine to be a Court but as I view it cannot even manage to conduct proceedings
ACCORDING TO LAW.
.
Again
Within the provisions of the Infringement Act 2006
QUOTE 3. Definitions
"Court" means Magistrates' Court;
QUOTE 3. Definitions
.
Hence VCAT is not a Court but a mere Tribunal and neither is the Magistrates Court and if
anything its conduct underlined it cannot even provide an unrepresented Respondent with a FAIR
and PROPER HEARING ordinary applicable in a COURT OF LAW.
.
14-3-2007 Deputy President Helen Gibson hands down orders. It shows that “For Francis
James Colosimo” appearance was by “Mr S Colosimo, in person” while “for the
Respondent” it shows “No appearance”, this even so “Mr Francis James
Colosimo” and the “Respondent” are one and the same person.
.
It cannot even manage to have proper records!
.
R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236
QUOTE
“However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be such as to lead the parties
reasonably 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 not lightly
conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected of bias in this sense; it must be "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 Commonwealth Conciliation and
Chapter 0002 Page 3

Chapter 0002 Page 4
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).”
“The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a
question, but whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect has occurred
(see per Lord Denning MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon (1969) 1
QB 577 at 599, a judgement cited with approval by this court in R v Commonwealth
Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at
553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well convey the impression
of "protesting to much"...
END QUOTE
.
I have concern that it was reported that allegedly on 9 March 2007 VCAT Helen Gibson, Deputy
Chair reportedly stated;
QUOTE
“From the perspective of the tribunal, we are under the jurisdiction of the Planning &
Environment Act, and we are “bound” to continue..”
END QUOTE
.
Here we have an unlettered person objecting to the jurisdiction of VCAT and all the member does is
to refer to legislation that refers to VCAT rather then to make sure that by judicial determination it
can invoke jurisdiction, if it can at all.
.
A brief set out of events leading up to the commencement of litigation;
The 28 September 2006 notice was wrongly dated 1 September 2006 and subsequently
withdrawn on 25 October 2006 but in the process Moorabool Shire Council calculating the 30
days permitted for Mr Francis James Colosimo calculated this from the wrong date 1
September 2006 and on 9 October 2006 issued a Penalty Infringement Notice which on the
correct date of 28 September 2006 would have been clearly incorrect.
On 25 October 2006 Moorabool Shire Council then withdrew the incorrectly 1 September
2006 notice but failed to withdraw the incorrectly issued Infringement Notice, and then
reissued on 25 October a new notice. A further stop work Notice was issued but by notice
dated 7 and 17 January 2006 Moorabool Shire Council then acknowledged that the
“outbuilding” (“shed”) was lawfully erected.
It didn’t cancel the incorrectly issued Infringement Notice and by the provisions of the
Infringement Act 2006 it requires to do so before being able to institute legal proceedings.
Maddocks Lawyers, despite being a legal firm dealing with matters for municipal and shire
councils somehow were unaware of the legal requirements applicable and despite its charges
relate to at least three lawyers having drafted the application of 22 January 2006 none
appeared to bother to check what the relevant legal procedures required were.
.
Indeed, the application was filed in breach of VCAT rules, omitting to serve attachments.
There was a spade of ongoing errors but essentially this has become a battle where those in the legal
profession having held at least 14 VEXATIOUS hearings are now seemingly holding it an offence
that a non-lawyer, a CONSTITUTIONALIST is exposing their numerous errors that are of very
serious nature and has cause considerable harm upon Mr Francis James Colosimo..
.
Mr Francis James Colosimo has from onset pursued that Moorabool Shire Council is not a
constitutional recognised level of government as the Framers of the Constitution stated:
.
MUNICIPAL COUNILS/LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Chapter 0002 Page 4

Chapter 0002 Page 5
.
While in today’s language when we refer to “LOCAL GOVERNMENT” we refer to “LOCAL
COUNCILS” rather then “MUNICIPAL COUNCILS” constitutionally (considering the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) we have a “CENTRALISED
GOVERNMENT” with a “FEDERAL PARLIAMENT” and a “LOCAL GOVERNMENT”
with a “STATE PARLIAMENT”.
When one refers to the Federation and State Governments then “LOCAL GOVERNMENT” refers
to State Governments. When we refer to internal State matters then “LOCAL GOVERNMENT” is
“MUNICIPAL COUNCILS” being “LOCAL GOVERNMENTS”.
.
When dealing with the TWO levels of Governments, being Federal and State Governments, then
the de facto third level of Government “MUNICIPAL COUNCILS” is not to be taken as a level of
Government.
.
Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. PLAYFORD: And that it would be given back to the various local governments in
proportion to the population of their respective colonies. If we consider for a moment that the
federal government must have an executive, and will have to provide the necessary payment
for the federal forces, for the federal executive, and for various other matters, we must see that
they will have to derive a revenue in some way or other; and the most difficult question, I
think, which the members of the Convention will find, when they come to deal with it, will be
the adjustment of that financial part of, if I may so call it, the trouble between the federal
government on the one hand, and the local governments on the other. It may be necessary
that, in certain instances, we should be paid back by the federal government a proportion of
the money that we, as local governments, derive from customs.
END QUOTE
.
DEBATES OF THE CONFERENCES (OFFICIAL RECORD.)
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1890.
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN
Leaving these details, which I have only ventured to touch upon in a fragmentary way, and
sympathizing with the strong stand made by Mr. Playford on the supposition that the powers
and privileges of the different local Governments were to be assailed, and being as prepared
as he is to do my utmost in their defence, I believe that we would act idly unless we admitted
from the first that in the creation of a Federal Legislature and a Federal Executive we meant
them to be the organs of a Sovereign state-a state which would not be a figment or shadow,
nor exist only on the sufferance of the local Parliaments, but which would draw its authority
straight from the people of the different colonies, obtaining from them the plenary powers to
be exercised by it within certain limits. The great lesson taught by Mr. Bryce in his
magnificent work is that the strength of the United States Government lies in this, that
although it is a Federal Government, under which each State of the Union is theoretically and
actually independent in respect to all concerns of local life and legislation, it has
nevertheless sovereign authority in that it is gifted with powers which act directly and
immediately on every citizen of the entire country. It is not dependent on any state for one
cent of its revenue, nor upon state officers for any act of administration , nor upon State
Courts for any decision in its favour. Except that the state legislators elect the members of
the Senate there is no connexion between the states and their Central Government. The
Union is not concerned to have their support, nor does it seek their aid for the forces it
maintains. It is a Sovereign state acting directly, without any intermediary, upon the
Chapter 0002 Page 5

Chapter 0002 Page 6
citizens from which it springs. (Hear, hear.) I am glad that view is concurred with. I am glad
to think that we shall see a Sovereign state in Australasia which will be able to act directly
through its judiciary, and in other ways, on every citizen within its borders, and be in every
respect and in all its powers the equal of any state in the world. Were we to aim at crippling,
maiming, or enfeebling the local Legislatures, we would aim at doing something not only
wholly unnecessary for our purpose, but something which would actually injure the Federal
Government we are seeking to establish. There should be and must be nothing antagonistic
between a Federal Government supreme in its sphere and local Governments supreme in
their spheres. It is perfectly true that there must be a division of authority, that some of the
powers of the local Governments will have to be transferred to the Federal Government, but
the judges of the powers to be given to either body must not be either the local Governments
with their jealousies, or the Central Government with its ambitions. The judgment must
come from those whom both exist only to serve-from the people themselves. So far both the
local and central authorities must be regarded as on the same platform, because as it is
in the national interest that there should be a differentiation of the powers of
Government into central and local Governments so in settling that division only national
interests ought to be considered. What we have to study is how to give the central authority
all the powers which can be best exercised by such a body to the distinct advantage of the
whole of the people. Those powers it ought to have; but it is not to be [start page 27] entitled
to acquire them in such a way as would enfeeble the different local Governments, on whose
healthy life its successful existence must largely depend. As well might it be attempted to
enfeeble municipal institutions in order to aggrandize Parliament, the fact being that
parliamentary Government depends very much for its smooth and easy working upon the
smooth and easy working of the minor local bodies. There are an infinite number of issues
which no central Parliament could deal with, but which necessarily belong to the local
Legislatures, and which they should be able to deal with in the present manner. For my part, I
think we should seek to strengthen the local Legislatures by every possible means. We should,
as Mr. Playford says, leave them every power it is possible for them to exercise in the interests
of the whole community. If more power can be given them for that purpose than is conceded
elsewhere, let it be granted, but let us give the Central Government just as emphatically a
full and unfettered power so far as the interests of the whole people demand it.
END QUOTE
.
State government is “Local government”
Commonwealth government is “Central government”
.
Municipal and shire councils therefore are not “local government’ and cannot purport to be so and
neither have “government” powers and as such neither can charge for government related functions.
Neither can any government (State Parliament) create a level of government without first obtaining
the approval of State electors of the State that desires to create another level of Government. N.S.W.
failed to do so in its 1902 amendment creating purportedly “local government” and hence it remains
ULTRA VIRES.
.
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we
embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no
longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent
bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their
Chapter 0002 Page 6

Chapter 0002 Page 7
constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary

sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to
have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament
being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is
split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference:
When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of
parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers,
legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
QUOTE
.
With the failed 1988 referendum to recognize Municipal and Shire Councils as a level of
government it should be clear that albeit municipal and shire councils have a place in society they
are not a level of Government and as such cannot charge and collect rates relating to a purported
level of government and neither can infringe upon the rights of landowners of FEE SIMPLE.
It would go beyond the principle issue of who can assist-represent Mr Francis James Colosimo or
for that matter any other Respondent/Defendant in court but safe to say that the 8 March 2009
ADDRESS TO THE COURT/TRIBUNAL Part 1 and the 9 March 2009 ADDRESS TO THE
COURT/TRIBUNAL Part 2 extensively canvassed this issue before Her Honour Harbsion J on 16
March 2009 and it was not challenged by the other parties/persons involved. And this material also
sets out the error the High Court of Australia made in regard of dealing with FEE SIMPLE issues
relating to Queensland, etc.
.
What is essential to understand from this Chapter is that “legal practitioners” may have taken
charge of the Parliaments to pursue to make courts/tribunals an exclusive working environment
(close shops) but constitutionally this is not enforceable and ultimately Mr Francis James Colosimo
is entitled to be assisted in litigation by the person most competent in his view to assist him.
As a self educated CONSTITUTIONALIST I may not have the formal education of a lawyer but
on the other hand because of this I am able to understand and comprehend the real intentions of the
Framers of the Constitution and not seek to twist and infringe upon the true meaning and
application of the constitution.
As clear example is that on 30 September 2003 I published:
.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
(ISBN 0-9580569-6-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0
.
In it I exposed that the Commonwealth of Australia specifically was denied by the Framers of the
Constitution any legislative powers as to define/declare “citizenship”.
.
QUOTE 7-1-2010 CORRESPONDENCE
Australian Government
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
ONE NATIONAL CIRCUIT
BARTON
Reference: c09/54418
Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
107 Graham Road
VIEWBANK VICTORIA 3084
Chapter 0002 Page 7

Chapter 0002 Page 8
Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
Thank you for your email of 24 October 2009 to the Prime Minister regarding the
Commonwealth’s power to legislate over citizenship. I have been asked to reply on the Prime
Minister’s behalf. I apologise for the delay in doing so.
‘Australian citizenship’ is defined in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Ordinarily, the
Government 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 with
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 Constitution] or is
one of the implied national powers. Its exercise by the Federal 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.
Yours sincerely
Brendan MacDowell
A/g Assistant Secretary
Legal Policy Branch
7 January 2010
QUOTE 7-1-2010 CORRESPONDENCE
.
There is clearly no such thing as “assumed” legislative powers as the Framers of the Constitution
made it very clear;
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
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 a question of
whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the
Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or
diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am
willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading
inducement for joining the Union.
END QUOTE
And
Chapter 0002 Page 8

Chapter 0002 Page 9
QUOTE
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.
Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the
Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the clause. 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, and in defining
the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our
position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of
a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I see therefore nothing
unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British subjects, in proposing to place
power in this Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the question of federal
citizenship. An objection has been raised in various quarters-as by the honorable and learned
members (Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Wise)-to the effect that we ought to define federal
citizenship in the Constitution itself.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come
under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not
also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such
discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but
it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two
men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is
a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is
meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of
the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That
does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to
the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on
the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not expect will be
exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the
citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it,
and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be
a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the
Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of
depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate
such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than
£1,000 a year should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of
Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest
this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of
a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have
Chapter 0002 Page 9

Chapter 0002 Page 10
no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard
to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on. Subject
to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over our birth right as
citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the amendment will not
be accepted.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. BARTON
He will be giving to the Commonwealth Parliament a power, not only of dealing with the
rights of citizenship, but of defining those rights even within the very narrowest limits, so
that the citizenship of a state might be worth nothing; or of extending them in one
direction, and narrowing them in another, so that a subject living in one of the states
would scarcely know whether he was on his head or his heels. Under the Constitution we
give subjects political rights to enable the Parliament to legislate with regard to the suffrage,
and pending that legislation we give the qualification of electors. It is that qualification of
electors which is really the sum and substance of political liberty, and we have defined that. If
we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to
pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the
Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by
the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and in doing that we give them power to make persons subjects of the
British Empire. Have we not done enough? We allow them to naturalize aliens. That is a
power which, with the consent of the Imperial authority, has been carried into legislation
by the various colonies, and, of course, we cannot do less for the Commonwealth than we
have done for the colonies.
Mr. KINGSTON.-Such legislation is only good within the limits of each state.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual
right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection
under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the states. It must be recollected that the
ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects confided
to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page 1766] the laws regarding
property and personal liberty is still left with the states.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest
this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of
a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have
no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard
to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on. Subject
to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over our birth right as
citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the amendment will not
be accepted.

END QUOTE
.
The amendment of Dr Quick to give legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia
regarding “citizenship” was defeated!
.
Again
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
We allow them to naturalize aliens. That is a power which, with the consent of the
Imperial authority, has been carried into legislation by the various colonies, and, of
course, we cannot do less for the Commonwealth than we have done for the colonies.
END QUOTE
.
Therefore naturalization is embedded in the constitution to be on behalf of the imperial government
and not even the “Imperial government” (so the British parliament) could remove this right as it is
part of the constitution, and the constitution can only be amended by way of a s.128 referendum.
And as the Westminster Act refers to “dominions” and the Commonwealth of Australia never was a
dominion then this legislation couldn’t achieve what cannot be achieved in a direct manner. The
Westminster Act seeks to amend the application of the constitution with a s.128 referendum and this
clearly is not possible. Hence the purported “Australia Act 1986” (Cth a& UK) is ULTRA VIRES.
.
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
QUOTE Barton J,
the parliament cannot give the word a meaning
not warranted by s73 of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving
that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from
day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through
ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this
security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to
the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British
Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no
other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a
different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your
Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under
this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he
has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily
determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the
guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have
sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be
accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will
now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having
provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is

charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore,
it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which
should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal
for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not
provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the
will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution
shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court
appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion
of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as
the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no
citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those
who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the
day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound
to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind,
enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by
slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in
operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be
maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be
the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the
popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this
Convention has done well.
END QUOTE
.
The judges of the High Court of Australia were born as Subjects of the British Crown and were
sworn in as to their judicial offices of their allegiance to the British Crown. None of them changed
their nationality and as such remained to be so at the time of the Sue v Hill judgment and couldn’t
by this hand down any decision that was in direct conflict with their oath of office as the
constitution doesn‘t permit alliance to another Monarch.
.
Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)
QUOTE
Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state,
allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so, with respect
to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a
substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance and
citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of
compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie;
allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a
badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is
freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.
Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential differences,
the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither
serve to controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in which the law of
allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously enforced, there are
striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth, and the homage, which,
under every modification of government, must be paid to the inherent rights of man.
END QUOTE

And
QUOTE
These are tacit acknowledgments of the right of expatriation, vested in the individuals; for,
though they are instances of adopting, not of discharging, subjects; yet, if Great Britain would
(ex gratia) protect a Russian naturalized by service, in her fleet, it is obvious that she cannot
do so without recognizing his right of expatriation to be superior to the Empress's right of
allegiance. But it is not only in a negative way, that these deviations in support of the general
right appear. The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two sovereigns; and taking
an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of withdrawing allegiance from a
previous, sovereign.
END QUOTE
.
Hence, it cannot be that the High Court of Australia was handing down judgments since 1986 under
the British Crown and then somehow suddenly in 1996 claims to have been operating all along as
judges under the purported Queen of Australia and declare Heather Hill to be ineligible to be a
Senator in the Senate because then by this the judges themselves were ineligible to be a judge of the
High Court of Australia as they never sworn any new allegiance themselves, being natural born in
the realm of the British Crown.
.
By this, every lawyer who was born in the realm of the British Crown and was admitted to the bar
suddenly all no longer were legally able to practice law, that includes the judges also.
What we have therefore is that lawyers who have sworn now an allegiance to the Queen of
Australia may also be not legally qualified because:
.
QUOTE Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended
there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to
create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to
make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for
admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a
dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth,"
and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.
The High Court of Australia cannot turn the Commonwealth of Australia being a “POLITICAL
UNION” into some “ASSUMED’ independent country as that is beyond the judicial powers of the
High Court of Australia. Therefore the Sue v Hill judgment is ULTRA VIRES and NULL AND
VOID, and as such without legal force!
.
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
National Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the
administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be
beyond the possibility of suspicion;

END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of
our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
understand.
END QUOTE
.
Ordinary citizens cannot be expected to be mind readers as to what the High Court of Australia may
one day decide is applicable and perhaps makes them criminals by retrospective legislation, because
it ASSUMES something that they judges like to apply without any lawful determination upon the
FACTS before them.
.
Therefore, I might not be a trained lawyer as such but, so to say, have earned my stripes when
having defeated at various times the Commonwealth of Australia in litigation upon constitutional
issues.
.
The 1956 Boiler case made clear that a statutory body (i.e. a private corporation) that is not a court
has no judicial authority and cannot act judicially. With state government being registered as
corporations and so also the Commonwealth of Australia (such as in the U.S.A. then their organs
are inhered corporations organs and cannot be involved in adjudication, and this includes any court
that uses the same business number of the government. This I extensively canvassed on 19 July
2006 before the County court of Victoria and the court upheld both cases without any challenge by
the Commonwealth of Australia and/or any State Attorney-General’s even so all had in 2002 been
served with a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.
.
What we have is that VCAT is seeking to apply CONTEMPT proceedings and to punish a person
with imprisonment but refusing to apply the very legal procedures ordinary applicable in a Court of
law and as such has so to say become judge, jury and executor. A total defiance of the constitution
of a separation of powers of executives, legislators and judiciary. Indeed, the same is with
municipal councils as they are purportedly making by-laws, then enforcing them and then willing to
sell up your home without any rights to any court of law. That is also why the purported structure of
“local government” in relation to municipal and shire councils is totally floored. Any organ that is
set up under State government authority must be reflecting the separation of powers as is the legal
principle embedded in the constitution from which the States by way of s.106 originate.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear also that legislation is bound to be for “peace, order
and good government” and not beyond it. Also that the Magna Charta is very much applicable, etc,
and treaties are not legally enforceable against any person and obviously cannot be a tool to create
somehow additional legislative powers for the Commonwealth to commence to legislate. After all,
if this were the case then the Commonwealth of Australia could enter some treaty in regard of
education and take over by this the legislative powers of the State. Likewise it could do so in every
other State legislative power and the constitution would be utterly worthless.
.
index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635

QUOTE 070520 posting

I am very disturbed to find the following of a quotation to have found this discussion;
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the
Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question.
END QUOTE
.
index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635
QUOTE High Court of Australia
McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of
Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments,
but they do not.
END QUOTE
and
QUOTE
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it
likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if
it wanted to.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I am now speaking of the English law. It has been somewhat modified in the
Straits Settlements, and in one or two other parts of the empire, I believe, by giving a right of
action for tort in certain cases, but I do not think that this extended right of action has ever
been given in any of the colonies. Conditions justifying actions for damages against the
Crown, however, are almost as frequent as actions for breach of contract. In Canada a man
sued the Crown for damages received in connexion with a railway accident, but he was
debarred of remedy there, although he suffered serious injury, because of some defect in the
railway laws not conceding this right. The position has been laid down in regard to the Queen
in the case I have already mentioned, that-
Where the land, or goods, or money, of a subject have found their way into the possession of
the Crown, and the purpose of the petition is to obtain restitution, or if restitution cannot be
obtained, compensation in money; or when a claim arises out of a contract, as for goods
supplied to the Crown or to the public service-the Crown is bound to refer a petition of
right to the courts for decision, because it is provided by Magna Charta that justice
cannot be denied, sold, or delayed. By this action, similar rights of action are given to the
subject against the Crown in cases in which the subject can maintain a claim against another
subject.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
. In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,

END QUOTE

And
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can
reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a
charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
whom it will embrace and unite.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not
intend to enter into any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution
which we have been engaged in framing. But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this momentous occasion.
We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of
union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation,
and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than
this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was
wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of
Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
Again;
QUOTE
the Crown is bound to refer a petition of right to the courts for decision, because it is
provided by Magna Charta that justice cannot be denied, sold, or delayed.
QUOTE
.
Therefore it must be clear that the Framers of the Constitution held that the Magna Charta applied
to the Constitution and it is not for the judges to then seek to amend the Constitution by their own
judgment to deny this to be applicable.
As much as the Magna Charta is applicable likewise so the Bill of Rights.
There is however another disturbing element to what the judges stated;
.
Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUOTE
GUMMOW J: Now these words, "for peace, order and good government" are words of
expansion, not contraction, you see - they are not words of limitation.
McHUGH J: They do not limit the powers. In fact they arguably have no legal effect
whatever, and that is the doctrine of this Court. We do not make a decision as to whether the
law is for the peace, for the order, for the good government. It is assumed that if
Parliament makes it, it is, and the real question is, is it a law with the same respect to trade
and commerce in other countries or whatever the relevant law of Parliament relies on, but
this Court has never attempted to say that a law, on the subject of trade and commerce, for
example, is not "for peace, order and good government". It is, in effect, a parliamentary
expression rather than a legal expression. It does not limit Parliament's power; it is said to
expand them.
MR ESSENBERG: I am not really sure I understand that.
END QUOTE
.
Now lets see what the Framers of the Constitution stated, as set out more extensive in the document
“for the peace order and good government-1-Hansard.doc” in Chapter 034O
.
QUOTE

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I agree that these words appear rather startling. [start page 559]
They are taken from the Federal Council Act of Australasia, and were inserted by the
imperial authorities after consideration and in substitution for more limited words that were
proposed by the Convention that met here in 1883. Finding those words there, and
considering that the powers of the federal parliament are only to make laws for the peace,
order, and good government of the commonwealth, it was thought perfectly safe to adopt
them.
Mr. BAKER: Do I understand that if a ship leaves one of the Australian colonies for a
British port, say London, having a British register, until she actually arrives in Great
Britain, the laws of the commonwealth are binding upon her, and not the laws of Great
Britain?
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: No; but laws of the commonwealth, limited to laws for the
peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, will apply to her on her
voyage. For instance, if it was necessary to send a prisoner to England, only such
provisions as are essential for the laws of the commonwealth outside the 3-mile limit
could possibly apply.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that the
only laws which can apply are laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
That was the Convention which had, I think, to be called in consequence of the New Guinea
affair. Sir Samuel went on:
Finding those words there, and considering that the powers of the Federal Parliament
are only to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth,
it was thought perfectly safe to adopt them.
Sir Samuel Griffith's reply to that interjection was;
No; but laws of the Commonwealth, limited to laws for the peace, order, and good
government of the Commonwealth, will apply to her on her voyage. For instance, if it was
necessary to send a prisoner to England, only such provisions as are essential for the laws of
the Commonwealth outside the three-mile limit could possibly apply.
That is to say, that the laws of the Commonwealth in respect of the matter cannot possibly
affect any law of the Imperial Parliament with which they may be in conflict, but so far as
they are not in conflict they will be applicable to a ship on her voyage for the preservation of
those laws of the Commonwealth which it is necessary to have enforced.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE

Amendment suggested by the House of Assembly of Tasmania:
Omit the words "for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, lines
3, 4, and 5."
The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]: This is an amendment which was made
in the legislature of Tasmania at the instance of the Hon. A.I. Clark. That gentleman has
furnished these reasons for the amendment, and, perhaps, in justice to him, I ought to read
them:
These words are copied from the several acts of the Imperial Parliament providing for the
establishment of legislatures in the various Australian colonies, and are perfectly appropriate
when used in reference to the establishment of the legislature which is to possess plenary
legislative powers, and have unlimited jurisdiction on all questions relating to the protection
of life and property, and the enforcement of contractual rights of every kind; but it is very
doubtful if they ought to find a place in connection with the definition and delegation of
limited legislative powers which do not include matters relating to the daily protection of life
and property, or to enforcement of private rights and obligations in general. It is true that they
find a place in the 91st section of the British North America Act, which establishes a federal
convention for Canada; but the primary object of that act is to limit the powers and
jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, and to vest the residuum of legislative authority in
the Dominion of Canada in the federal parliament. The words in question may, therefore, fitly
find a place in that act, and they were relied upon in the case of "The Attorney-General of
Canada versus the Attorney-General of Ontario, which was decided by the Privy Council last
year[L.R.A.C. 1896] to uphold the act of the Dominion Parliament, which had been
challenged on the ground that it had encroached upon the domain of the provincial
legislatures. That decision, in its effect, appears to me to be, an argument against the insertion
of the words in question in connection with the definition and delegation of the legislative
powers of the parliament of the commonwealth, because they might, in some unforeseen and
unexpected controversy, afford ground for an argument in favour of the jurisdiction of the
parliament of the commonwealth in matters which the several states might claim to be wholly
within their own legislative powers. It cannot be contended that they are required for the
purpose of giving the parliament of the commonwealth full power to legislate with regard to
all the subjects mentioned in the sub-sections of section 52; and, if they are not required for
that purpose, they must inevitably encourage the contention that they are inserted [start page
1037] for some additional purpose. But, if their insertion in not intended to add in any way to
the powers of parliament, in relation to the matters mentioned in the sub-sections of section
52, then they violate the canon of drafting, which requires that no unnecessary words should
be used in giving expression to the intention of the legislature. They are very properly inserted
in section 53, because that section confers upon the parliament of the commonwealth plenary
and exclusive powers in regard to the several matters mentioned in the sub-section of that
section. But their presence in section 52 tends to create a resemblance in the scope of the
powers conferred by the two sections, whereas it would be much more desirable to make the
difference in the purport of each section as apparent and emphatic as possible.
I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover
that any of the evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be
expected from leaving these words as they are. The powers are powers of legislation for
the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth in respect of the matters
specified. No construction in the world could confer any powers beyond the ambit of
those specified.

The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of
the leader of the Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of
Tasmania have proposed to omit might not raise the question whether legislation of the
federal parliament was in every instance for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be contended that certain
navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full
powers to the parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them
to decide whether their legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth? Surely that is sufficient, without our saying definitely that their
legislation should be for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth. I
hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full consideration with a view to seeing
whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had better not be left out
of the bill altogether.
The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the
Drafting Committee.
Amendment negatived.
END QUOTE
Again;
QUOTE
Surely that is sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for
the peace, order, and good government
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 13x-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-The Parliament has by clause 52 full power and authority to make laws
for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to a large
number of matters that are set out. This is a power that is without limitation.
END QUOTE
.
It should be understood that while it was stated
QUOTE
This is a power that is without limitation.
END QUOTE
It is within the limits of being for for the peace, order, and good government!
As such as long as it is within the scope of “for the peace, order, and good government” the
legislative powers is unlimited.
.
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
. In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can

reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a

charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
whom it will embrace and unite.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not
intend to enter into any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution
which we have been engaged in framing. But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this
momentous occasion. We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to
the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this
new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing
of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question
upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter
was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be
given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
.
When then we look at the constitutional provisions of “external affairs” then this to is clearly
limited within “for the order, peace and good government” as well as limited by the powers
otherwise provided for within Section 51, and limited by any treaties or laws of the British
parliament as the latter is superior law for so far it does not clash with constitutional provisions.
Any ordinary British Act not being a constitutional legislation cannot then override Constitutional
provisions. Likewise the Australian Act 1986 (UK) not being a constitution Act therefore cannot be
deemed to have interfered with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and
therefore this Australia Act 1986 (UK) is a nullity where it purports to substitute the real
Constitution. For a more comprehensive set out the following have been quoted from then Hansard
records of the Constitution Convention Debates.
.
QUOTE Sir GEORGE TURNER:
We must see that the new body has absolute control over the Customs and Excise duties and
bounties. There are other matters which I need not go into. There is defence and quarantine,
and similar matters, which will be placed under the Federal Government, and, in fact, we may
say all matters relating to the external affairs, internal commerce, defence, and general
government can safely be placed in the hands of the new body, and the States can retain all
the other powers which they now possess.
END QUOTE
.
It is therefore clear that “external affairs” cannot make any inroads into State legislative powers
because it was related to already existing powers in the constitution and not some tool to add
legislative powers as a way to increase its legislative powers to circumvent the need of a s.128
referendum.
.
National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD)
QUOTE The Right Hon. G.H. REID:
Our difficulty therefore is: Are we to so arrange the constitution that in matters which
are national, which are peculiarly national, the national voice shall prevail, and that in
matters which involve state rights, which are different from the issues which I have
described, the state voice shall not be drowned even by the national voice? Now that is
the problem we have to deal with.

The Right Hon. G.H. REID: That is the point. Under this constitution, with the leading
principle in it that it is not to go beyond what is in it, no principle or subject which is not
expressed within its pages can be dealt with by the federal parliament. Looking that in the
face, I say it is possible to distinguish between the questions in which the voice of the nation
must be supreme, and questions in which the voice of the states must be represented.
END QUOTE
Again;
expressed within its pages can be dealt with by the federal parliament.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Sub-section (29).-External affairs and treaties.
Amendment suggested by the Legislative Council of New South Wales-

Omit "and treaties."
Mr. BARTON.-I propose to strike out the words "and treaties," in accordance with the
suggestion of the Legislative Council of New South Wales.
Mr. GLYNN.-I see an objection to striking out these words in reference to treaties. I am
aware that similar words have been struck out in clause 7, but I doubt the policy of that. It may
be wise to retain them.
The CHAIRMAN.-We must be consistent.
Mr. GLYNN.-I bow to your ruling, sir, but an opportunity for reconsidering the matter
should be provided.
The amendment was agreed to.
Sub-section 30.-The relations of the Commonwealth to the islands of the Pacific.
Mr. BARTON.-It has been suggested that this sub-section is embraced in the preceding
one-"External affairs and treaties." That is arguable; it is quite possible that it may be true;
but there are a very large number of people who look forward with interest to the
Commonwealth undertaking, as far as it can as part of the British Empire, the regulation of
the Pacific Islands. It may be, I think, as there is a doubt as to whether the one thing is
included in the other, and as there are a large number of people who are interested in this
question, that it is better in deference to their views to leave the words as they are. As the
subsection may do some good, and can do no harm, I think that the objection should not be
pressed.
END QUOTE
.
Again
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
as far as it can as part of the British Empire
END QUOTE

.
Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD)
QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
And that is the difference between what we are proposing to do, and [start page 50] what has
occurred in the United States. I quite admit that the United States system suits them; and
if we are simply going to form a republic, and to establish an institution in which the
executive will not be in Parliament, and will not be responsible, the state of affairs will be
totally different. But I am contemplating that this Convention has in view the formation of
true responsible government.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: No; but laws of the commonwealth, limited to laws for the
peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, will apply to her on her
voyage. For instance, if it was necessary to send a prisoner to England, only such
provisions as are essential for the laws of the commonwealth outside the 3-mile limit
could possibly apply.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The words of this clause to which exception has been taken
were framed by the imperial law officers in 1885 in substitution for words of a more limited
application which we proposed to have inserted. The question arose specially, as far as my
memory serves me, with regard to the power to legislate in connection with fisheries and
territorial waters outside the jurisdiction and the extradition of offenders. The laws of the
commonwealth would only have effect within the land territory and 3 miles beyond.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that the
only laws which can apply are laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth.
Sir JOHN DOWNER: "According to their tenor"!
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: As the hon. gentleman reminds me, the words, "according to
their tenor," were inserted in this clause exactly for the purpose of indicating that.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.

END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
No; but laws of the Commonwealth, limited to laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
Commonwealth, will apply to her on her voyage. For instance, if it was necessary to send a prisoner to England,

only such provisions as are essential for the laws of the Commonwealth outside the three-mile limit could
possibly apply.
That is to say, that the laws of the Commonwealth in respect of the matter cannot possibly affect any law
of the Imperial Parliament with which they may be in conflict, but so far as they are not in conflict they
will be applicable to a ship on her voyage for the preservation of those laws of the Commonwealth which it
is necessary to have enforced.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON: I should like to ask Mr. Barton whether there is anything in this point:
A number of German fellow colonists may have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign
power, especially those who have served in the ranks in Germany. Would it not be
necessary to add after "power" in line 27 the words "or who has not since been
naturalised as provided in clause 30"?
Mr. GLYNN: You cannot have two, allegiances.
Mr. BARTON: No; a man might have to go out of our Parliament to serve against us.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: He may be Minister of Defence.

Mr. CARRUTHERS: I would like to put a case to Mr. Barton. It may happen that
treaties may be in force between say England and Japan. There is a treaty almost in
operation on the very lines I am citing that will give to a British subject travelling in
Japan practically the same rights and privileges as he would enjoy as a citizen of his own
country. Surely it is never intended that by a person travelling in another country, who
becomes entitled to privileges conferred on him by a treaty between two high powers, he
should be disqualified from holding a seat in the Federal Parliament. Our members of
Parliament who are hardworked take their summer trips, and it may be that some of
them may come back and find they have lost their seats as a result of this clause.
Clause as read agreed to.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[12.4]: I think it is expected by the Legislative
Council of New South Wales that I should explain what the meaning of this amendment
is. In the first place, the desire of that body is that, inasmuch as the treaty-making power
will be in the Imperial Government, we should omit any reference to the making of
treaties by the commonwealth; in other words, while they concede that we should make
certain trade arrangements, which would have force enough if ratified by the Imperial
Government, the sole treaty-making power is in the Crown of the United Kingdom.
Mr. HIGGINS: Clause 52 refers to treaties!
The Hon. E. BARTON: And, in conformity with the amendment they suggest in this
clause, they desire that the words "and treaties" should disappear from clause 52. There is a
good deal of force [start page 240] in the contention, I think. I do not think the constitution
will be in any way minimised or weakened by the omission of the words. As regards the

remainder of their amendments, they propose to confine the clause to laws, and not to
treaties, and to make its latter part read in this way:
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
The Right Hon. G.H. REID: I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which
my hon. and learned friend has hinted at. This is an expression which would be more in
place in the United States Constitution, where treaties are dealt with by the President
and the senate, than in the constitution of a colony within the empire. The treaties made
by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United Kingdom, and there
is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to
treaties, but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find
them inconvenient, as they neglect them very seriously without involving any important
legal consequences. The expression, I think, ought to be omitted. I will deal with the
other suggested amendments when the time comes.
Amendment agreed to.
END QUOTE
.
If a treaty is not binding upon the people then how on earth could the Commonwealth of australia
then obtain legislative powers to enforce treaties one may ask the High Court of Australia?
.
QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: Because supposing that the commonwealth exercises its
powers to make uniform laws in regard to the shipping of the commonwealth, those laws
can be applied only within the 3-mile limit, and directly a ship gets outside the 3-mile
limit it is outside the territory in respect to which those laws apply. The laws of the
common- [start page 245] wealth with regard to shipping can only have operation within
the 3-mile limit around the coasts of the commonwealth, and when ships pass beyond that
limit they are under British law.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
expressed within its pages can be dealt with by the federal parliament.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE

.
QUOTE
The CHAIRMAN.-I do not think I can rule this proposed amendment out of order. Every
clause, or nearly every clause, in a Bill in some way qualifies the preceding clauses. They
extend the operation of those clauses, and, in some instances they limit the operation of
the clauses. This is not a distinct negative, and I think it would be unduly curtailing the power
of the committee to arrive at such a conclusion as they may think fit if I ruled this out of
order.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should
be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the
great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and
that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the
foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the people of United
Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much care
has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I
think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of
those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of
the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting together the
draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material they found in
every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a great deal of
responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of
the United States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my
honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word
that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no word in it which we do not see
some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to come, when this
Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to
it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may
be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes
into this Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
start page 1020] I think that we ought to be satisfied on these points, and satisfied that if
we leave the clause as it now stands there will, at any rate, be some proviso inserted
which will safeguard the states in the carrying out of any of their state laws over which
the states are to be supreme even under federation.

END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special
court, but the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to
do is to prevent the question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.

END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be
either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above
and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing
under the constitution.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Barton J,
the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by s73 of the
Constitution.
END QUOTE
See also;
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
.
QUOTE Mr. SYMON:
There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of
the rules of the common law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot
be justly applied here.
END QUOTE
.
Considering the Franklin Dam case (THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v.
TASMANIA. THE TASMANIAN DAM CASE (1983) 158 CLR 1 )being related to a river existing
only in Tasmania then clearly Section 101 of the Constitution couldn’t even be applied to this case.
QUOTE
2. Section 9(1)(h) of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 is
valid. In consequence, except with the consent in writing of the Commonwealth Minister, it is
unlawful for any person to do the following acts in relation to particular specified property
adjacent to the Franklin River, including Kutikina Cave and Deena Reena Cave: (a) carrying
out works in the course of constructing or continuing to construct a dam that, when
constructed, will be capable of causing the inundation of that peroperty or any part of it; (b)

carrying out works preparatory to the construction of such a dam; (c) carrying out works
associated with the construction or continued construction of such a dam.
END QUOTE
.
How on earth can any Commonwealth legislation override specific State internal legislation is
beyond me. The Framers of the Constitution specifically related Section 101 to a river through two
or more states. As such Section s.101 is out for this.
.
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: We have to consider this matter simply as an ordinary landlord. The
federal authority will be the landlord of the site of the federal capital, and it is for us to
consider what is the best possible use to which the landlord can put the land. This does
not necessarily touch the question of land nationalisation or of methods of land tenure.
Therefore I feel compelled to vote with Mr. Wise, and in doing that I do not admit that I agree
with the hon. member in all his views. I vote for the amendment because it establishes the
general methods of a sound principle, which is applicable in the present instance, and will go a
long way towards settling the question I have just alluded to.
Mr. HOWE: This land question is really the basis of all public good. So fax as the land laws
of each individual State are concerned, I think they should be left entirely to the
Parliament of that State.
END QUOTE
.
Again:
QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN:
So fax as the land laws of each individual State are concerned, I think they should be left
entirely to the Parliament of that State.
END QUOTE
.
As such, the Commonwealth of Australia was clearly denied any legislative powers as to interfere
as to how any State were to administer land within its legislative powers. The exemption is in
regard of land acquired for constitutional purposes but as we saw with South Australia when the
Commonwealth succeeded in defeating the South Australia as to dump toxic waste in
Commonwealth held territory, upon my urging to the Premier of South Australia Mr M Rann to
appeal the case upon constitutional grounds that the commonwealth had no specific legislative
powers as to toxic waste, subsequently the South australian government successfully appealed. As
such, it must be clear that the commonwealth can only use any territory it has for Commonwealth
purposes, of which it was given specific legislative powers and not even any treaty as to toxic waste
could provide the commonwealth with additional legislative powers it had not been granted by the
Framers of the constitution and any referendum.
.
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS: The hon. member has quoted authorities to show what is the
international law on this subject, but unfortunately in Australia we have a state of
affairs which is perhaps without parallel in any other country in the world. Our rivers
are of a totally different character to the rivers in any known portion of the world, and
we shall have, to at large extent, to make a law unto ourselves.
END QUOTE
.

.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no
doubt that it will be exercised.
QUOTE
.
What we now have is that the Commonwealth claims legislative powers as to Environment because
of the ill-conceived Tasmania Dam judgment, and the States also are legislating on environment
and the municipal and shire councils are adding their by laws making it a triple kind of organisation
and ratepayers/taxpayers are slugged for what?
.
QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth
exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. REID:
We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those
points enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead.
There cannot be two laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I
merely mention as almost a verbal criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the
intention of the framers was not to propose any complication of the kind.
END QUOTE
.
As such, there can’t be three levels of powers to deal with environment as there can be only one.
And the same governs “citizenship” that if the Commonwealth were to have legislative powers as
to citizenship (which I do not concede it has) then the States no longer have this legislative powers.
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard
to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament
to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the
Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by
the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
END QUOTE
.
And clearly the States cannot be robbed of their legislative powers as to “CITIZENSHIP” as it
defies belief that the constitution could be circumvented merely by stacking the High Court of
Australia with enough judges who are willing to twist and infringe upon constitutional powers as
occurred also with the 164-11-2004 so called WorkChoices legislation that remains beyond
constitutional legislative powers. What we have therefore is that if the Commonwealth of Australia
were to have legislative powers to define/declare citizenship then the States no longer would be able
to exercise this right and it means it cannot even provide for franchise in State elections because this
is all tied up in “citizenship”. And, the argument that the Commonwealth of Australia requires
legislative powers as to “CITIZENSHIP” as to be able to provide franchise to people for federal

elections is ill conceived because Australian citizenship is AUTOMATICALLY obtained by a

person the moment that person obtains State citizenship.
.
While the states no longer are constitutional parliaments, because of the federation and no longer
can amend their state constitutions as result but within s123 of the constitution require to pursue an
amendment in a State referendum that electors can approve or veto the amendment, somehow the
State of Victoria purported to have amended its constitution, such as in 1975 to refer to “Australian
citizenship” as if the commonwealth has legislative powers. Because the commonwealth cannot
“ASSUME’ any legislative powers it means that not a single person can legitimately obtain
“Australian citizenship” and neither therefore can be lawfully appointed where there is a legal
requirement to have “australian citizenship” and neither then can any politician, lawyer/judge,
police officer etc, who all require “Australian citizenship” then be deemed to be lawfully appointed.
This is what the result is when people who are lawyers but not CONSTITUTIONALIST start to
mess about with constitutional matters. As such, being a self educated CONSTITUTIONALIST I
have the advantage not to be struck down about the issue of “citizenship” and can assist others with
the true application of constitutional provisions, like with Mr Francis James Colosimo.
.
Lawyers can practice law but not constitutional matters as they are simply ill equipped for to give
legal advice for. Constitutional matters are so to say is a different cattle of fish, that requires to be
open minded and not being left with some tunnel visions thinking along what one is taught in law
courses rather then to interpret the true intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
.
Having defeated the Commonwealth on all constitutional issues raised during the 5-year epic legal
battle without the Commonwealth of Australia or for that matter any State Attorney-General having
challenged those numerous submissions in itself may underline that the fact I wasn’t trained in law
and not being “certified” to practice law doesn’t mean I cannot defeat those who are “certified” to
practice law. Having stated this, if the person so chosen by a Respondent/Defendant is not able to
articulate legal matters and causes problems rather then to be of assistance then the court may make
known certain conditions, however, no court can deny a person assistance of another person merely
because this person happens to expose the wrongdoing by the legal profession.
Mr Francis James Colosimo is well entitled to pursue his political liberty as to Moorabool Shire
Councils not being a constitutionally recognized “local government” and any attempt by VCAT or
for that matter by any Court of law to try to deny his “political liberties” would be unconstitutional.
The Courts exist by virtue of the constitution and are bound to act according to the legal principles
embedded in the constitution. VCAT is not within the provisions of the Constitution as it is a
government organ that as shown below seeks to take over the role of the judiciary and have, so to
say, its own straw-man in place to ensure that any person is completely within its claws. The 1956
Boilermaker case should neither be ignored.
.
It is not known if Kate Morris, lawyer for Maddocs representing Moorabool Shire Council was
in fact related to the president of VCAT Stuart Morris, albeit the unrepresented Respondent
clearly should be entitled to have this clarified if there was an issue of BIAS and/or IMPLIED
BIAS in that regard also.
Version stated in parts 10 & 11 of the judgment by Member Philip Martin of VCAT on 28-5-2007
.
QUOTE at 10
In summary, after the first break, Ms Morris advised that she made contact with the
Respondent Mr Colosimo. Mr Colosimo apparently told Ms Morris that he was “unable” to
attend the hearing due to other commitments, and that he had engaged a lawyer (Professor
Higgins) to attend the hearing on his behalf. Professor Higgins apparently only “engaged” by

the Respondent two days before the hearing (ie on Saturday 26 May 2007). Mr Colosimo
further informed Ms Morris that Professor Higgins works at the Churchill campus of Monash
University.
END QUOTE
And at 11
QUOTE
Although there was a vague suggestion that Professor Higgins was a local barrister at
Churchill, I am struggling to see how this could be, given that to my knowledge there is no
separate group of barristers in the Gippsland area (ie there is only one Victorian Bar, which is
based in Melbourne CBD).
END QUOTE
.
What part 11 indicates is that the Member Philip Martin is introducing his own purported
knowledge of matters rather then to make a ruling upon “evidence” that is actually presented.
.
QUOTE Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the
administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be
beyond the possibility of suspicion; …
END QUOTE
.
What appears to be a part of a transcript of a hearing on 14 February 2008 it was stated by
Harbison, Tribunal Chair,
QUOTE
Mr. Colosimo has attempted to raise “jurisdictional matters”, and has been given the
opportunity to apply to the Supreme Court to have these matters “resolved” but has not
taken the opportunity to do so.
END QUOTE
.
As shown below the onus/duty to prove JURISDICTION is upon the Prosecutor, not the
Respondent/Defendant. Neither can there be NATURAL JUSTICE if the onus is upon an innocent
men to incur cost, and they are considerable, in a Supreme Court to litigate against VEXATIOUS
litigation not to proceed.
.
Edward 3 contained 23 chapters, most of which have long since been repealed.
Chapter 3 bears the sidenote “None shall be condemned without due Process of Law”. The text of
chapter 3 reads as follows:
QUOTE
“That no Man of what Estate or Condition that he be, shall be put out of Land
or Tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to Death,
without being brought in Answer by due Process of the Law.”.
END QUOTE
.
Commons, that no Man be put to answer without Presentment before
QUOTE Part 10
Justices, or Matter of Record, or by due Process and Writ original, according
to the old Law of the Land: And if any Thing from henceforth be done to the
contrary, it shall be void in the Law, and holden for Error.”

END QUOTE
10. The nub of these three Acts is that no-one should be deprived of his life, liberty or property
except in accordance with due legal process involving the laying of formal charges which had to be
tested in a judicial or quasi-judicial setting.
.
42 Edw.2 c.3 (the 1368 Act)
9. The statute passed at Westminster on 1 May 1368 in the 42nd year of the reign of Edward 3
contained 11 chapters. The only chapter in this statute that has survived to the present day is
Chapter 3 which bears the sidenote “None shall be put to answer without due Process of Law.” The
text reads as follows:
QUOTE
“At the Request of the Commons by their Petitions put forth in this Parliament,
to eschew the Mischiefs and Damages done to divers of his Commons by
false accusers, which oftentimes have made their Accusations more for
Revenge and singular Benefit, than for the Profit of the King, or of his People,
which accused Persons, some have been taken, and [sometime6] caused to
come before the King’s Council by Writ, and otherwise upon grievous Pain
against the Law: It is assented and accorded, for the good Governance of the
END QUOTE
4 A suggestion was an allegation or representation lacking formal evidence or proof of the matter
being alleged or represented.
.
The Framers of the Constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
embedded certain legal principles in the constitution and the courts are bound to observe those legal
principles also.
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-It only provides that each citizen of the Commonwealth shall be tried
by due process of law. Why should a state be allowed to pass a law depriving a citizen of
this right?
Mr. KINGSTON.-What does the honorable and learned member mean by the term "due
process of law"?
Mr. OCONNOR.-The amendment will insure proper administration of the laws, and afford
their protection to every citizen.
Mr. SYMON.-That is insured already.

Mr. OCONNOR.-In what way?
Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the alteration
of these Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent the alteration
of these Constitutions in the direction of depriving any citizen of his life, liberty, or
property without due process of law. Because if this provision in the Constitution is carried
it will not be in the power of any state to pass a law to amend its Constitution to do that. It is a
declaration of liberty and freedom in our dealing with citizens of the Commonwealth. Not

only can there be no harm in placing it in the Constitution, but it is also necessary for the
protection of the liberty of everybody who lives within the limits of any State.
END QUOTE
.
What DUE PROCESS OF LAW exist there where in VCAT there is such a disregard for
legislative provisions?
.
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the
observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of
misconception.
END QUOTE
.
The Hansard records are to explain the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other
power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law,
every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a
state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in
the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the
Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998
QUOTE vcaata1998428
62 Representation of parties
(1) In any proceeding a party—
(a) may appear personally; or
(b) may be represented by a professional advocate if—
(i) the party is a person referred to in subsection (2); or
(ii) another party to the proceeding is a professional advocate; or
(iii) another party to the proceeding who is permitted under this section to be
represented by a professional advocate is so represented; or

(iv) all the parties to the proceeding agree; or

(c) may be represented by any person (including a professional advocate)
permitted or specified by the Tribunal.
END QUOTE vcaata1998428
.
* But didn’t Mr Preuss on 27 January 2010 make known that you are not a legal practitioner and
cannot represent Mr Francis James Colosimo?
.
**#** She did indeed and so wrongly because Mr Francis James Colosimo had made known I was
attending to assist him and I was his “Attorney” and as I was already since 27 January 2009 listed
as an interested person in the litigation and have been assisting Mr Francis James Colosimo for
more then one year already she cannot then interfere with my constitutional rights to pursue
constitutional matters to assist Mr Francis James Colosimo merely because she doesn’t like it that I
pursue the proper application of the RULE OF LAW.
.
* Didn’t you assist in the criminal (CONTEMPT) proceedings on 16 March 2009 before Her
Honour Harbison J?
.
**#** I did indeed and from onset stated the following:
QUOTE Transcript 16 March 2009 Before Her Honour Harbison J
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : first of all, I’m not a lawyer. I‘ve no legal training. I’m a
constitutionalist. That means I deal with matters on constitutional matters mainly.
HER HONOUR : All right. Do you have some – you don’t have any legal training?
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : Absolutely not.
END QUOTE
.
What subsequently eventuated was that I exposed to Her Honour Harbison J that despite up to 20
lawyers so far having been involved in the case against Mr Francis James Colosimo the entire case
had been an abuse of the legal processes and had no legal justification as Moorabool Shire Council
a mere 5 days before commencing litigation had formally acknowledged that Mr Francis James
Colosimo actually had lawfully erected an “shed” (outbuilding), the issue of the litigation spanning
at least 6 CONTEMPT hearings.
.
Let see what Victorian Legal Aid stated, and keep in mind that Her Honour Harbison J never
formally charged Mr Francis James Colosimo! ;
QUOTE 30 April 2008
30 April 2008
Mr Frank Colosimo
72 Shuter Avenue
GREENDADALE VIC 3341
Dear Mr Colosimo
Your prosecution for contempt of VCAT
I refer to the above matter, and to my telephone conversation with you on 29 April 2008. I
confirm that:
 the hearing of your prosecution has been adjourned to 29 May 2008, and

 your application for a grant of aid has been refused, based on your apparent equity of
$319,000 in your home;
 you will not demolish the shed on your property.
I enclose a letter from your grants division confirming the refusal of aid. I note that, in your
case. You have not been able to provide evidence that you do not hold a beneficial interest in
your property. You will not obtain aid unless you prove you do not hold such an interest.
Furthermore, given that you are unwilling to demolish the shed on your property, there is a
real question as to wether your case has any merit warranting a grant of aid. As I have
explained to you, the arguments you have tried to advance, about the nature of ‘fee simple’
title and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, have no real prospect of
succeeding. Legal representation will make those arguments no more convincing. It is likely,
unless you purge your contempt by demolishing the shed, that you will be imprisoned for
contempt of VCAT.
Failing any further correspondence from you in relation to your application for a grant of legal
assistance within the next 14 days, I will close your file. If you have any questions, please
contact me on 9269 0331
Yours faithfully
JOEL TOWNSEND
Lawyer
Human Rights and Civil Law Service.
END QUOTE 30 April 2008
.
Mr Francis James Colosimo later added the handwritten comments on this;
QUOTE
10.40 AM I RANG MICHAREL FREEMAN 26.05.08 (WHO TOLD ME THAT IN A
CRIMINAL CASE YOU CAN STILL GET LEGAL AID, WITH YOUR PRESENT
EQUITY) LEFT A MESSAGE NOT IN HIS OFFICE. AT 4.25 PM, JOEL TWONSEND
RANG ME INSTEAD ASKED ME IF I AM GOING TO PULL MY SHED DOWN, I SAID
“NO I DON’T NEED TO”? HE RESPONDED, “WELL YOU ARE IN CONTEMPT OF
VCAT AND YOU WILL GO TO JAIL.”
END QUOTE
.
Of the above stated I fully can endorse;
QUOTE
Legal representation will make those arguments no more convincing.
END QUOTE
This, for the simple reason that as I am not a lawyer but a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am able to
present matters upon FACTS and not FICTION.
Again, I outlined in considerable detail to Her Honour Harbison J that Mr Francis James Colosimo
had not been in breach of the Building Act and/or the Building Regulation and this was
acknowledged by Moorabool Shire Council in its 7 and 17 January 2007 dated NOTICE and as
such there was nothing to litigate about.
This then obviously requires the question why Victorian Legal Aid stated;
QUOTE
Legal representation will make those arguments no more convincing.

END QUOTE
Unless of course it means that lawyers are not competent to understand legal reality.
Still the issue is you have been asked to make assessments upon Mr Francis James Colosimo and
the question then rest as to upon what grounds? If after all as is now exposed that Mr Francis James
Colosimo in fact never was in breach of the Building Act and the Building Regulation then what
on earth was the litigation about?
If in fact Her Honour Harbison J never formally charged Mr Francis James Colosimo with any
offences then why did she hold 6 purported CONTEMPT hearing and also stated;
(Again)
QUOTE Transcript 29/05/2008 Her Honour Harbison J
HER HONOUR : All right. Mr Colosimo, I will allow Mr Higgins to present the case for you,
but I want to make sure that you understand that it’s your case, because you are the
person who has been charged with contempt. You are the person who may go to
goal if you’re found guilty of contempt
END QUOTE
.
It was subsequently after the hearing, when the 6 transcripts were provided, that Her Honour
Harbison J at no time actually had charged Mr Francis James Colosimo with any alleged offences!
What this proves is that because lawyers have a practice certificate doesn’t mean they can then be
right in what they are claiming. Because I do not hold a practicing certificate doesn’t mean I do not
understand/comprehend what is applicable. Indeed, Her Honour Harbison J having heard my
submissions for Mr Francis James Colosimo then acknowledged to accept my presentation and
ordered a PERMANENT STAY of the CONTEMPT proceedings.
.
QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees Limited Peter Sier to VCAT
The council have the provision, under the Local Government Act 1989, to engage the services
of a contractor to demolish the building and restore the land to its original state. The council
would pay the contra ctor and then charge that cost directly to Mr Colosimo. Further
discussions with the council will be dependent on the outcome of the rehearing, for the need
for an administration order.
The great concern in this matter is that Mr Colosimo, because of his personal beliefs, well
intentioned as they are, may receive a custodial sentence, with a possibility that he may also
lose his family home.
-
Mr Peter Sier will attend the rehearing on behalf of State Trustees.
END QUOTE
.
I repeat;
QUOTE
The great concern in this matter is that Mr Colosimo, because of his personal beliefs,
well intentioned as they are, may receive a custodial sentence, with a possibility that he
may also lose his family home.
END QUOTE
Again considering Mr Francis James Colosimo was innocent of any wrongdoing yet was facing a
term of imprisonment and loosing the family home, etc, may underline how severely this could
have ended up for him and his family was it not for a so called non-lawyer, a
CONSTITUTIONALIST to step in and expose this elaborate rot.
.
CONTEMPT ISSUES:

Transcript 14 February 2008 at page 25 Ms Foley Prosecutor for Moorabool Shire Council) at 25 to
page 26 line 2;
QUOTE
Paragraph 54, I submit the fact that the tribunal is a statutory tribunal required by s.98 of the
Act to conduct itself with little formality and technicality as possible should not be regarded as
a licence to disregard the authority of the tribunal and to ignore compliance with its orders. If
there’s some sort of suggestion that they’re somehow lesser authority because they don’t come
from a court I would submit that that should not be the approach that’s adopted.
END QUOTE
And
Transcript 14 February 2008 at page 26 Ms Foley at 7
QUOTE
I submit that the status and integrity of the judicial and administrative structures upon which
our society depend upon, respect for authority for the law and the orders made pursuant to
those laws. Council submits that it’s important the tribunal’s contempt powers are used in
appropriate occasions to preserve the authority and standing of the tribunal.
END QUOTE
.
Transcript 14 February 2008 page 27 at 15;
QUOTE
HER HONOUR : Well I don’t have any mechanism to provide you with a solicitor but can I
say to you, Mr Colosimo, the matters that have been outlined to me this morning are
very serious and you’ve been provided with two folders of documents: I presume this is
the first time that you’ve seen them.
MR COLOSIMO : That’s correct.

END QUOTE
.
Surely it is well overdue that before any Member of VCAT (including any judge) deals with this
case the member first checks out what the status of the case is and if indeed there is any legal basis
for the litigation.
Mr Francis James Colosimo, was given extensive documentation at the commencement of the
hearing without even having been given advance notice as to be able to respond to the material and
as such denied him a FAIR and PROPER trial as well as NATURAL JUSTICE
.
Then it may noticed the following statement by MS FOLEY (Prosecutor);
QUOTE transcript 14-2-2008 page 14
Paragraph 20, the tribunal’s contempt powers, s.137(f) of the Act empowers the tribunal to
find a person guilty of contempt if he or she does any other act that would if the tribunal or the
Supreme Court constitute contempt of that court.
END QUOTE
.
As a Registrar it is well within your powers to institute proceedings against a party that is found to
be in contempt of orders. Hence I request you to ensure that formal proceedings are instituted in that
regard;
.
QUOTE transcript 14-2-2008 page 14
Paragraph 20, the tribunal’s contempt powers, s.137(f) of the Act empowers the tribunal to
find a person guilty of contempt if he or she does any other act 6that would if the tribunal or
the Supreme Court constitute contempt of that court.

END QUOTE
.
What we have is that a TRIBUNAL (Not a court of law and neither able to invoke federal
jurisdiction to determine constitutional matters as such) not bothering about following proper legal
procedures such as to first deal with An OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then somehow
pursues the application of Supreme Court procedures nevertheless even so the hearing of the
CONTEMPT proceedings eventuated without that Her Honour Harbison J during any of the 6
CONTEMPT proceedings had bothered to formally charge Mr Francis James Colosimo and it
seems non of the lawyers involved in the case, including Mr Brendan Hoysted the Duty Officer of
the Office of the Public Advocate or Legal aid lawyers seemed to have an issue with this. And Mr
Errol Higgins purportedly a barrister from New Zealand and professor teaching law courses at
Melbourne universities somehow was willing to concede guilt on behalf of Mr Francis James
Colosimo nevertheless!
.
QUOTE defence and counter claim previously refused for acceptance by Errol Higgins
Errol Higgins,
Law lecturer,
LLB, LLM, BA(Hon), MA(Hon.)
I have been asked by the respondent to act for him as “good friend”
-see the enclosed authority
END QUOTE defence and counter claim previously refused for acceptance by Errol Higgins
.
It is relevant that at this time there is a reference to the content of the document prepared by Mr
Errol Higgins, Law Lecturer, LLB, LLM, BA, BA(HON), MA(Hon)
.
QUOTE
Version No. 010, Legal Profession Act 2004, Act No. 99/2004 (See Folder 02 of the CD)
PART 1.2—INTERPRETATION
1.2.1 Definitions
“admission to the legal profession” means—
(a) admission by the Supreme Court under this Act as a lawyer; or
(b) admission by a Supreme Court under a corresponding law as—
(i) a lawyer; or
(ii) a legal practitioner; or
(iii) a barrister; or
(iv) a solicitor; or
(v) a barrister and solicitor; or
(vi) a solicitor and barrister—
but does not include the grant of a practising certificate under this Act or a corresponding law;
END QUOTE
.
Transcript 29/05/2008 Her Honour Harbison J
QUOTE PAGE 44
HER HONOUR : Ms Foley, you appear for the council
MS FOLEY : Yes, I appear on behalf of the council.
HER HONOUR : Thank you.
MR HIGGINS : My name is Higgins and I appear for the respondent.

HER HONOUR : Mr Higgins, are you a solicitor?
MR HIGGINS :I’m actually a barrister, but not registered in Victoria.
HER HONOUR : So in what State are you registered?
MR HIGGINS : As you’ll see, as best fr4eind. And that’s in the document which should be in
front of you.
HER HONOUR : I’m sorry, I didn’t catch that?
MR HIGGINS : To whom it may concern, Frank Colosimo, the respondent, has authorised me
to appear as his best friend.
HER HONOUR : But you said you were a barrister? So are you a barrister in another State?
MR HIGGINS : I am in New Zealand, but certainly not here.
HER HONOUR : So you’re not a barrister within Australia.
MR HIGGINS : No.
HER HONOUR : You’re a legal practitioner?
MR HIGGINS : No, I am not. I’m a law lecturer, have been for many years.
HER HONOUR : Is there any reason, Ms Foley, why Mr Higgins shouldn’t present the case
for Mr Colosimo?
MS FOLEY : It’s not opposed by the council, your Honour.
person who has been charged with contempt. You are the person who may go to goal if
you’re found guilty of contempt
END QUOTE
.
Transcript 29-5-2009
Mr Higgins page 58 at line 24 “my client” page 58 at line 28 “my client”, page 59 at line 9 “my
client”, page 60 at line 10 “my client’s”, page 60 at line 19 “my client’s”, page 61 at line 8 “my
client”, page 61 at line 28 “my client”,
Her Honour page 62 at line 10 “your client”, page 62 at line 18 “your client”, page 63 at lines
13/14 “your client”, page 63 at line 19 “your client’s”
Numerous other references to “my client” and “your client” are recorded in the transcript.
The transcript at page 57 of 29-5-2008 records;

QUOTE
MR HIGGINS : Well, certainly he’s in breach of the order, yes.

END QUOTE
.
Well, personally I do not accept that Mr Francis James Colosimo was his “client” even if Her
Honour Harbison J accepted it as such, but more over pleading guilty to a breach of order where
one didn’t exist (legally) and not presenting any of the legal issues that I have raised in the
numerous documentation then I think one can do better without a law lecturer or some New Zealand
barrister as this is hardly to the benefit of Mr Francis James Colosimo where he was innocent of
any wrong doings! I do not know if he was ever at all registered in New Zealand as a solicitor or as
a barrister but I for one would not be surprise if he was a con artist because surely a barrister, even
one from New Zealand, and certainly one claiming to be a professor and a Law Lecturer should
have realised from the details, as I did, that it was a complete VEXATIOUS litigation?
In the 16 March 2009 transcripts even my Christian name Gerrit and my surname Schorel-Hlavka
could not be properly stated (albeit this is an issue of the transcribers and not Ms Morris);
.
Transcript 16-3-2009 Harbison J
Ms Morris (for Moorabool Shire Council) at page 10 at line 11 to and inclusive 18
QUOTE
On 23 January 2009, Council’s lawyers also received correspondence from Mr Gerit
Shorel-Hlavkia in which Mr Shorel-Hlavkia asserted that he had been requested to assist the
respondent in his dealings with Council in the tribunal proceedings. And since that date
Council’s lawyers have received a substantial amount of correspondence from Mr Shorel-
Hlavkia.
END QUOTE
.
Transcript 16 March 2009 Ms Morris (for Moorabool Shire Council) at page 12 at lines 18 to and
inclusive 21
QUOTE
and also Mr Gerit Shorel-Hlavkia, who purports to represent or I should say assist the
respondent in both the tribunal proceedings.
END QUOTE
.
Well at least Ms Morris did correct herself as to make clear I “assist”.
The problem is however that Ms Morris at this stage despite acknowledging “And since that date
Council’s lawyers have received a substantial amount of correspondence from Mr Shorel-
Hlavkia.” Did nothing to get rid of the Member Philip Martin orders and as such still persist to
reap the benefits of those invalid orders. Likewise so the State Trustees Limited, which in any
event in the circumstances could not be appointed as set out previously the legislation doesn’t
permit it in the circumstances that were prevailing.
.
QUOTE 18-3-2009 correspondence to Moorabool Shire Council
While Moorabool Shire Council may have previously disregarded my writings on the basis
that I am not a lawyer the facts are now showing that I defeated the lawyers who are doing this
as a way to earn an income and so should be competent in conducting litigation, and this is
because I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST which is not to try to twist legislative provisions or
constitutional provisions as to infringe upon what it stands for but to ensure that the RULE
OF LAW applies to all. EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!
.
In my view Maddocks Lawyers should have advised Moorabool Shire Council from onset
that it had no LEGAL STANDING to institute any proceedings in the magistrates Court and

certainly not in VCAT as the Infringement Act 2006 does not permit VCAT to deal with such
matters.
QUOTE 18-3-2009 correspondence to Moorabool Shire Council
.
Transcript 16 March 2009 Harbison J
QUOTE Her Honour at page 21 line 30
Now, having heard that you can take a seat and I can have Mr Shorel-Hlavkia speak on
your behalf.
Mr Shorel-Hlavkia, what were the matters that you wanted to put?
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : First of all, I’m not a lawyer. I’ve no legal training. I’m a
constitutionalist. That means I deal with matters on constitutional matters mainly.
HER HONOUR : All right. Do you have some – you don’t have any ;legal training?
.
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : Absolutely not.
HER HONOUR : Do you have any qualification in what you say you are?
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : No, I have no – I am a constitutionalist, so I do assist with parties

– with barristers and everything else to assist them with legal work, you know,
constitutional matters and everything else, or the Government. You know, that’s
ongoing. I publish books about it under the Inspector (indistinct) at Trademark, they are
published and (indistinct).
END QUOTE Transcript 16 March 2009 Harbison J
.
In the Marriage of Attreed (9180) 6 FLR 453 and 456
QUOTE
Held – “In relation to a charge of contempt, there is an onus of proof upon the applicant
to establish each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. One such element is that
the offence was committed knowingly and without reasonable cause or excuse. The respondent
is not required to establish on the balance of probabilities that he had just cause or excuse.
In my view the husband has only to satisfy me on the civil standard of proof”
END QUOTE
.
Mr Francis James Colosimo never waived about his constitutional rights and FEE SIMPLE
rights and therefore the onus of criminal standards of proof for any CONTEMPT CONVICTION
is upon the Prosecutor (Moorabool Shire Council’s lawyers).
As such if Mr Francis James Colosimo proffer 101 excuses and the Prosecutor can defeat 100 but
not all then no conviction can occur, as it would not be beyond reasonable doubt.
.
KANPUR INCOME-TAX BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Civil
Misc. Writ Petn. No. 767 of 1997, decided on February 11, 1998. (Folder 31)
QUOTE
22. We would, therefore, hold that any member of the public having sufficient interest can
maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or
from violation of some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such
public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision. This is absolutely
essential for maintaining the rule of law, furthering the cause of justice and
accelerating the pace of realisation of the constitutional objective. ...
END QUOTE

.
In all the circumstances the shed is located in such position that no harm is to the general public and
as such it is a non-issue to pursue the shed issue. Mr Francis James Colosimo having acted in
good faith all along did not set out and neither intended to cause harm to any other person let alone
to the general public.
.
On 3 April 2008 the transcript reveals the following, even so Her Honour Harbison J never did
formally charge Mr Francis James Colosimo nevertheless indicates to request his response to the
non-existing charges;;
QUOTE
HER HONOUR : Well, look, I’m not sure that I need to hear submissions as to penalty, I’ll
certainly hear submissions as to cost, but at the moment I think I’ve had you cover all
the main issues that Mr Colosimo should be aware of. Yes, thank you.
MS FOLEY : Thank you.
HER HONOUR : Now, Mr Colosimo, I’ve also received documents from you dated 28 March
2008 addressed to Tracy Watson - - -
MR COLOSIMO : Yes, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: - - - Senior Registrar of VCAT. Now I’ve given you this opportunity to
provide any evidence, to make any submissions that wish to make. What submissions,
can you tell me have you got some legal advice about your position?
END QUOTE
.
Then on 29 May 2008 I noticed that transcript 29 May 2008 at page 44 at 27page 45
QUOTE
person who has been charged with contempt. You are the person who may go to goal if
you’re found guilty of contempt.
END QUOTE
.
What we now have is that Mr Errol Higgins not registered as a legal practitioner in the
Commonwealth of Australia and so neither in the State of Victoria, but nevertheless a professor of
law at Australian universities presented the following;
.
QUOTE transcript at page 57 of 29-5-2008
MS HIGGINS : On behalf of my client, we’re happy to accept that the property has not been
removed.
HER HONOUR : So the dwelling still remains on the land.
MR HIGGINGS : Exactly.
END QUOTE
.
I do not know if you were “happy” to make that statement but I for one could not perceive Mr
Francis James Colosimo was “happy” about you making such statement. But it get worse!
The transcript at page 57 of 29-5-2008 records;
QUOTE
MR HIGGINS : Well, certainly he’s in breach of the order, yes.

END QUOTE
.
Her Honour Harbison J refers to “So the dwelling still remains on the land.” But reality is that mr
Francis James Colosimo lawfully build an outbuilding that was previously registered as a shed. As
such Mr Higgins was admitting to something that didn’t exist. Worse then he states the following
“Well, certainly he’s in breach of the order, yes.” Even so there never was any breach of order
because no jurisdiction was ever invoked in the first place and also you cannot breach an order that
relates to a non-existing dwelling!
I doubt that in New Zealand litigation is so much different that there they do admit guilt without
even being formally charged! What appears to me is that if this kind of a New Zealand barrister is
teaching law at Australian universities then I hold grave concerns as to the standards of teaching.
From reading the transcript it appears to me clear that Mr Francis James Colosimo never accepted
he was subject to the orders and as such cannot therefore be deemed to have authorised Mr Errol
Higgins to consent to a breach of orders.
As I made clear on 16 March 2009 before Her Honour Harbison J that I was disadvantaged
because I still didn’t have the files ordered by Senior VCAT member Ms Preuss to be provided to
me and so Mr Francis James Colosimo was denied a FAIR and PROPER trial.
.
QUOTE (incorrectly sealed) 27-1-2009 orders senior VCAT member Ms Preuss
Pending the further hearing the administration order remain in place but the Tribunal notes
that State Trustees will take no further action under the administration order save to contact
Maddocks Lawyers and advise them of this order and seek an adjournment of the hearing in
relation to VCAT proceeding numbered V2/2007 listed for March 2009.
END QUOTE (incorrectly sealed) 27-1-2009 orders senior VCAT member Ms Preuss
.
Transcript 16-3-2009 Harbison J with Ms Morris for Moorabool Shire Council at page 12 line 29
continuing on page 30 stating;
QUOTE
So on 2 March 2009, Council wrote to the respondent and Mr Peter Sier and requested
that they indicate whether or not they consented to council’s request to withdraw the
application as soon as practicable. The letter was also copied to Mr Gerit Shorel-
Hlavkaia.
On 7 March 2009, council received an email from mr Shorel-Hlavkia which appeared to
assert that the respondent opposes Council’s request to withdraw the application, and I
have got a copy of that letter if the tribunal would like me to hand it up.
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : If I may, your Honour. A copy was sent also to this court. To the
tribunal.
MS MORRIS : It was, that is true. So the relevant paragraph is the first paragraph that states,
“in view of the 24 February 2009 correspondence”.
HER HONOUR : Yes.
MR MORRIS : And ends in stating that the application is opposed.
HER HONOUR: Yes.
MS MORRIS ; On 12 March 2009 Council received an email letter from Mr Peter Sier of the
State Trustees which indicated that as the current appointed Administrator for the
respondent, the State Trustees consented to the request to withdraw the proceeding. I
have a copy of that too, to hand up to the tribunal.

Then on 13 March 2009, council received a further email from Mr Peter Sier of the State
Trustees supporting to rescind its consent on the basis of the third paragraph of the
tribunal’s order dated 27 January 2009 in respect of the re-hearing of the Administration
order, and Your Honour, you’ll recall that was about the action which the tribunal noted
the Administrator would or would not take leading up to – until the re-hearing was
determined.
END QUOTE
What Ms Morris did was to present there was a request to withdraw the “application” where as the
application for leave actually requested “withdraw this proceeding” and clearly as I submitted to her
Honour Harbison J on 16 March 2009 and Her Honour agreed with this submission as she upheld
it and dismissed the application, that the term “withdraw this proceeding” in a CONTEMPT
hearing is beyond the powers of the applicant as once the contempt proceedings has commenced
then the applicant is no more but a SPECTATOR and the proceedings itself is between the
Court/Tribunal and the Defendant.
.
Transcript 14-02-2008 page 1 line 15 to 26
QUOTE
HER HONOUR : Yes, thank you. Now I’ll explain to you, Mr Colosimo, why this matter is before
me today and then I’ll ask Ms Foley to outline the position of the Moorabool Shire Council
and then I’ll give you the opportunity to say whatever it is that you wish to say about the
matter and then we might need to have some discussion about what further happens.
MR COLOSIMO : Thank you.
HER HONOUR : An order was made by a member of this tribunal some time ago – I’m sorry, it’s
been pointed out to me that there is a recording device, is there a recording device?
END QUOTE
.
Transcript 14-02-2008 page 2 line 21 to page 3 line
QUOTE
HER HONOUR : Now, Mr Colosimo, I’ll explain to you, as I said, the background of why the
matter is before me today. The reason that I’m dealing with this matter is that an order was
made against you some time ago in relation to a building on a property that you own and the
order that was made was for the building to be removed from that property. Now, this is not a
hearing about the issues to do with the building. This is a contempt hearing and what I want to
know is whether or not you’re in contempt of the tribunal for disobeying the order and if I do
find you to be in contempt of disobeying the order then there’s several options open to me.
One of those options is for me to send you to goal. So this is a serious proceeding today and I
want to make sure you understood that. The first thing I want to make sure you understand is
the order has been made, this is not an application to re-open that order.
COLOSIMO : By Member Martin, yes.

HER HONOUR : Yes, it is an application as to whether or not you are in contempt of the tribunal
for failing to obey the order and then secondly, if I find you in contempt, what orders I should
make. So that’s all I wanted to explain to you at the moment. What I want to do have counsel
set out carefully what orders they say you haven’t obeyed, where they say that that’s contempt
of court and then I’ll give you the opportunity to say whatever it is that you wish to say.
MR COLOSIMO : Now, how then do I address you, madam? I thought Judge Bowman would be
proceeding over this case.

HER HONOUR : Yes, well Judge Bowman is not going to be doing the case, I’m doing the case.
MR COLOSIMO : Sure, I know that.
HER HONOUR : My name’s Judge Harbison.
MR COLOSIMO : Judge Harbison, thank you.
HER HONOUR : Thank you. Yes, Ms Foley?
MS FOLEY : Your Honour, I have a written submission and have a folder of documents that we’ll
be relying upon and I’ll hand a copy to Mr Colosimo.
END QUOTE
.
Transcript 14-02-2008 page 12 line 29
QUOTE
HER HONOUR : Thank you. Now, Mr Colosimo, you’re entitled to ask any questions if you wish
of Mr McDonald and particularly I would suggest to you there’s anything he said that you
disagree with you need to put to him so that he’s got the opportunity to give a response to any
of the matters that you disagree with in the evidence he’s just given.
END QUOTE
.
Again:
* Now, this is not a hearing about the issues to do with the building.
* contempt of the tribunal
* goal
* this is not an application to re-open that order.
* contempt of court
.
Her Honour Harbison J did not formally charge Mr Francis James Colosimo and neither did
formally read him his legal rights, such as that he had the right to remain silent and that anything he
says may and can be used against him. It is ordinary, at least in my view, a legitimate defence for a
party (if charged with CONTEMPT that is) to present any excuse within the standards of CIVIL
STANDARDS, that the orders relate to a non-existing “second dwelling” and ordinary a court has
to consider this. If the Prosecutor cannot defeat this excuse, as the prosecutor must prove the
“second dwelling” actually existed, then there can be no conviction. Likewise if the prosecutor
cannot prove that jurisdiction was invoked then the orders neither are legally enforceable.
Transcript 14-02-2008 page 4 line 10

QUOTE
MS FOLEY : This proceeding is an application brought by the council that Francis James Colosimo
be punished for contempt of the tribunal. The application is made pursuant to s.137 of the
VCAT Act and the application was accompanied by a draft charge in the affidavit of Ross
McDonald sworn 4 October 2007. I have on the second folder of documents, s137 extracted
for you and Tab 1 of the council’s folder of documents is the council’s application and you’ll
find Mr McDonal’s first affidavit at Tab 2.
HER HONOUR : Yes.
MS FOLEY : On 3 November 2007, the council’s application and the draft charge and the affidavit
of Mr McDonald, including the exhibits, were served on Mr Colosimo in person at the land
which is the subject of his application and defined the affidavit of service of Max Ainley
sworn 5 November 2007 at Tab 3 of the council’s documents.

HER HONOUR : Yes.

MS FOLEY : The council’s draft charge alleged that by order dated 30 May 2007, the tribunal
made enforcement orders against Mr Colosimo and I’ll be referring to that in shorthand as the
tribunal’s enforcement order pursuant to s. 119 of the Planning and environment Act 1987. do
you a copy of that Act?
HER HONOUR : Yes, I do.
END QUOTE
.
Transcript 14-02-2008 page 6 line 29 to page 7 line 7, Ms Foley;
QUOTE
So paragraph 2 of the council’s draft charge alleged Mr Colosimo has failed to bring the
subject land into compliance with the Moorabool planning scheme. In particular, Mr
Colosimo has continued to construct the second dwelling and has failed to restore the land as
near as practicable to its condition immediately before the unlawful development and works
commenced to the satisfaction of the responsible authority in contravention of the tribunals’
enforcement order in a manner which constitutes contempt of the tribunal
END QUOTE
.
What shows is that there are references to a “draft charge” and the “draft charge” relates to “second
dwelling” whereas no charge in regard of a “second dwelling” was ever laid against Mr Francis
James Colosimo by Moorabool Shire Council in any of its written notices, and as such never could
either have been subject of an “enforcement” order validly issued. It also means that there could
have been no breach of the “Moorabool planning scheme” because unless there was a “second
dwelling” existing in breach of “Moorabool planning scheme” there was nothing being in breach.
In particular where Mr Francis James Colosimo was unrepresented had just dropped upon him a
large file, it would have been absurd to expect him to digest the content of this kind of nonsense of
legal argument and to build a defence. Indeed, without being formally charged he had no way of
knowing what really was before Her Honour Harbison J.
Her Honour Harbison J commenced to have evidence given by ROSS CLIFFORD Mc DONALD
in support of what? Certainly not as to prove a charge of CONTEMPT!
28th August was on the 89th day and the order was for 90 days, as such failing to provide for the
total 90 days! Neither Her Honour Harbison J or for that any other lawyers, including Legal Aid and
the Office of the Public Advocate seemed to bother to address this issue. It seems they all had a
tunnel vision that Mr Francis James Colosimo was GUILTY and why then bother to formally
charge him? Why bother to check the validity of purported evidence? Why indeed bother at all with
any DUE PROCESS OF LAW?
.
Transcript 12-02-2008 page 11 line 9 Ms Foley question in chief the witness ROSS CLIFFORD
Mc DONALD
QUOTE
What was the time frame in which those orders were required to take place? - - -By 28 August
2007, the second building was to be removed, including any footing from the land.
In your role as an enforcement officer of the council, what do you do in order to investigate whether
compliance had been - - -? - - -I went out to the property on 28 August and obtained some
photograph evidence which indicated that the building had not been in any way removed or
dismantled.
END QUOTE
.

Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998)
QUOTE
Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing the statutory
provision in that case: "substantial compliance with the relevant statutory
requirement was not possible. Either there was compliance or there was not."
END QUOTE
Again;
QUOTE
"substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible. Either
there was compliance or there was not."
END QUOTE
.
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445 The true version of the
judgement under 5;
QUOTE
That where an instrument prescribes that a period of time may elapse between one event
and another, the words “at least”, not less than” and “not later than”, unless the context
or the subject matter reveals contrary intention, should be regarded as indicating that a
clear or full period of time must expire between the two events.”
There is some authority for saying that the use, in a statute prescribing a time limit, of such
expressions as "at least" and "not less than" indicate an intention that the specified number of
"clear days" must elapse between two acts or events (see R. v. Justices of Shropshire (1838) 8
Ad & E 173 (112 ER 803); Young v. Higgon (1840) 6 M & W 49 (151 ER 317); Chambers v.
Smith (1843) 12 M & W 2 (152 ER 1085); In re Railway Sleepers Supply Co. (1885) 29 Ch
D 204 and Ex parte McCance; Re Hobbs (1926) 27 SR (NSW) 35; 44 WN 43).
But it is clear, I think, that significance is attached to such expressions as "at least" or "not
less than" only in cases where the immediate purpose of the prescription of a time is to define
a period on the expiration of which an act may be done, and not in cases where the immediate
purpose is to define a period within which an act must be done. In the former class of case
the prescribed number of days must elapse between two acts or events. In the latter class
of case the act must (unless a contrary intention appears) be done before the expiration of the
last of the prescribed number of days (see, e.g. Radcliffe v. Bartholomew (1892) 1 QB 161
and Armstrong v. Great Southern Gold Mining Co. (1911) 12 CLR 382).
END QUOTE
.
Fullagar J in Associated Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v Balford (1950) 81 CLR 161,
QUOTE
There is some authority
for saying that the use, in a statute prescribing a time limit, of such
expressions as "at least" and "not less than" indicate an intention that the
specified number of "clear days" must elapse between two acts or events (see
R. v. Justices of Shropshire (1838) 8 Ad & E 173 (112 ER 803); Young v. Higgon
(1840) 6 M & W 49 (151 ER 317); Chambers v. Smith (1843) 12 M & W 2 (152 ER
1085); In re Railway Sleepers Supply Co. (1885) 29 Ch D 204 and Ex parte
McCance; Re Hobbs (1926) 27 SR (NSW) 35; 44 WN 43). But it is clear, I think,
that significance is attached to such expressions as "at least" or "not less
than" only in cases where the immediate purpose of the prescription of a time
is to define a period on the expiration of which an act may be done, and not
in cases where the immediate purpose is to define a period within which an act
must be done. In the former class of case the prescribed number of days must

elapse between two acts or events. In the latter class of case the act must
(unless a contrary intention appears) be done before the expiration of the
last of the prescribed number of days (see, e.g. Radcliffe v. Bartholomew
(1892) 1 QB 161 and Armstrong v. Great Southern Gold Mining Co. (1911) 12 CLR
382). In the latter case Griffith C.J. said: - "When you talk of doing a thing
within a period of a certain number of days, it is quite clear that the end of
the last day is the furthest limit. It is impossible to say that a thing
required to be done within seven days is done within seven days if done on the
eighth day, and it is impossible to make any alteration of the limit by adding
the word 'clear'" (1911) 12 CLR, at p 388. In the case of s. 55 of the Life
Insurance Act it is plain that the immediate purpose of the prescription of a
period is to fix a time within which cause must be shown. It follows that the
last day on which cause may be shown is the fourteenth day after the date of
the notice. (at p183)
END QUOTE
.
The evidence related to an inspection done on the 89 th day and as such in that regard also failed to
allow for the full 90 days, yet none of the lawyers involved seemed to bother to deal with this
either! As such despite so many lawyers being legal practitioners not a single one of them appeared
to be aware that the entire case was based on falsehood and FICTION!
.
When a person obtains a practicing certificate then this person is lawfully entitled to charge a fee
for services rendered regardless that the legal advise given might be totally wrong upon the real
facts of the case. A person like myself who doesn’t hold a practicing certificate is not denied to
assist a person as the Framers of the Constitution never intended to make litigation a close shop
kind of system where only lawyers can operate regardless how wrong they may be, but rather that I
cannot charge a fee for services rendered!
The court cannot overrule the legal principles embedded in the constitution to close off a litigants
constitutional rights to have assistance in regard of constitutional matters. Indeed, there are times
where a legal practitioner can be harmful to a litigant. For example the issue of “citizenship” a legal
practitioner cannot appropriately pursuer in Court as I did. As the Commonwealth of Australia itself
has acknowledged in its 7 January 2010 correspondence to me that the legislative powers regarding
“CITIZENSHIP” is “ASSUMED”.
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE
.
The case before VCAT as was in my previous successful case on 19 July 2009 before the County
court of Victoria was/is that lawyers are not validly appointed because “Australian citizenship” is
not a nationality and as such where this is a legal requirement to be admitted to the bar of the
Supreme Court of Victoria (See Moller v The Board of Examiners [1999] VSC 55 (10 March
1999) case also) then also consider its statement;
QUOTE
23. The fact that the applicant is a dedicated republican is not to the point. The swearing of the
oath will not change that fact nor will it prejudice the applicant in that regard.

24. By s.8(1) of the Legal Practice Act 1996 a person admitted to legal practice is an officer of
the Supreme Court. Generally speaking that was not previously the case. See s.8 of the
Legal Profession Practice Act 1958.
25. If the applicant is to become an officer of the Court I consider it is appropriate that he swear
an oath of allegiance to the Head of State of this country in the same fashion as any other
officer of the Court.
END QUOTE
.
The truth of the matter is that the “Calvin's Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377” very much is an
example that the Commonwealth of Australia is and remains to be under the British Crown and all
Australians are and remain to be British nationals, but again the chapter about citizenship sets this
out in more details. Save to say that any legal practitioner now having sworn allegiance to the
British Crown is not validly appointed and cannot practice law. Hence, no lawyer could pursue this
kind of legal argument before a court because his own appointment then is in question.
.
QUOTE Mr. GLYNN:
The foundations of our national edifice are being laid in times of peace; the invisible
hand of Providence is in the tracing of our plans. Should we not, at the, very inception of
our great work, give some outward recognition of the Divine guidance that we feel? This
spirit of reverence for the Unseen pervades all the relations of our civil life. It is felt in
the forms in our courts of justice, in the language of our Statutes, in the oath that binds
the sovereign to the observance of oar liberties, in the recognition of the Sabbath, in the
rubrics of our guilds and social orders, in the anthem through which on every public
occasion we invocate a blessing on our executive head, in our domestic observances, in
the offices of courtesy at our meetings and partings, and in the time-honored motto of
the nation.
END QUOTE
This was in reference to the British national anthem to be played at “every public occasion”!
.
Neither can any court determine this matter as to “CITIZENSHIP”, at least not within the
Commonwealth of Australia because every judge would be passing judgment upon his own status
and hence only the Privy Council could determine this issue.
.
R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236
QUOTE
However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be suck as to lead the parties
reasonably 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 not lightly
conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected of bias in this sense; it must be "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 Commonwealth Conciliation 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).
The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a
question, but whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect has occurred
(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 v Commonwealth Conciliation

and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553; In some
circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well convey the impression of "protesting
to much"...
END QUOTE
.
Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 II,L.C. 759
QUOTE
The fundamental rule of English (Australian) law is that "No man can be a judge in his
own case". It has long been held that if there is bias or the appearance of bias such as to
deny justice or create the impression that justice has not been done, then that bias, or
apparent bias, is sufficient to invalidate the decision of those who made the decision.
END QUOTE
Reg v. The London County Council (1894) XI .L.R. 24
Sharp v. Carey (1897) 23 V.L.R. 248 Austin Digest 17.
Reg. v. Moleswort (1893) 23 V.L.R. 582 Austin Digest 17.
Black v. Black (1951) N.Z.L.R. 723
Ex Parte Blume (1958) W.N. (N.S.W.) 411Austin Digest 93,339,457,458
.
Now fancy having a lawyer assisting Mr Francis James Colosimo then submitting to the court that
lawyers are not validly admitted to the bar. The judge may then ask the lawyer what is he doing
then in court! As a self educated CONSTITUTIONALIST I have no such problems.
.
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE
.
It requires a person, not affected by the wrong teaching at alw courses, such as the deceptive
teaching about “Australian citizenship” to understand and comprehend what the proper application
of the constitution really stands for.
One of my daughters has various law degrees (from Monash University) but because it is claimed
that she had no “Australian Citizenship” she is denied to practice law. Her parents at the time of
naturalization (when she was a child) understood she was included in the nationalization and never
realized that the child somehow had been omitted from the ceremony.
In the Chapter dealing with “Australian citizenship” it will be clear that there is no such
nationality and the Framers of the constitution specifically denied the Commonwealth of Australia
to legislate as to “citizenship” and what we have is that lawyers who are educated in law are seldom
ever educated in constitutional matters and many never in their lifetime deal with constitutional
issues and therefore the fact that they hold practicing certificates doesn’t make them any better to
assist in litigation at all. They just are permitted to charge a fee, no matter how wrong their legal
adviCe might be.
.
* Didn’t the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill and the 1982 Pochi case make ruling about
“citizenship”?
.
**#** Both these cases were in my view wrongly decided and it appeared to me that lacking any
competent CONSTITUTIONALIST to provide relevant details the court misguided itself and
make judgment that defied the legal principles embedded in the constitution and no court can
overrule the constitution and as such those judgment for all purposes and intend would be without

legal force. But that is a matter for the chapter relating to nationality and citizenship.
.
* But didn’t the Framers of the Constitution state that the Commonwealth of Australia couldn’t
interfere with the judicial proceedings of a State court?
.
**#** Indeed, it stated;
.
QUOTE
Mr. CLARK: What we want is a separate federal judiciary, allowing the state
judiciaries to remain under their own governments.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
Then, I think myself, some confusion may arise in consequence of the reference to the state in
the words "Proceedings to be taken against the Commonwealth or a state in all cases within
the limits of the judicial power." Now, it does not appear to me that we ought to interfere
in any way with the functions of a state to regulate the proceedings which it, as a quasi-
independent political entity, may prescribe for the regulation of its own legal
proceedings.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
END QUOTE
.
What this means is that the States are entitled to regulate the legal proceedings within its own
environment, and again this was also successfully argued by me on 19 July 2006, albeit the State
being created from the former colonies by way of s.106 of the constitution are bound to apply legal
principles embedded in the constitution as it clearly states: “subject to this Constitution” and as
such cannot disregard the separation of powers, etc.
.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
106 Saving of Constitutions
The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject
to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the
Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the
State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the
Constitution of the State.
END QUOTE
.
What this means is that the States can regulate its court litigation processes as much as they like
provided it doesn’t clash with the legal principles embedded in the Constitution.
What we have found is that Ms Preuss is conducting a kind of litigation in total conflict with the
legal principles embedded in the Constitution and also made clear she is not concerned about the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION that was before her already way back on 27 January 2009,

and as such as I pointed out on 27 January 2010 (a year to the date) that all and any orders she made
are without jurisdiction and as such without legal force.
.
What the State of Victoria effectively has done is to seek to oust as much as people the judicial
proceedings of the courts and to create the unlawful STAR CHAMBER COURT system using
VCAT for this and then have a serving judge of the County Court of Victoria who is to adjudicate
impartially, parading as a Member of VCAT in powers of persona designate. This is a clear conflict
of sworn duties. And when on consider that Her Honour Harbison J, even so never having formally
charged Mr Francis James Colosimo had stated;
.
Transcript 14-02-2008 page 28 lines 27 -30
QUOTE
HER HONOUR : The reason I’m hesitating before letting you go any further with this today is
that it is quite possible that you may be sentenced to prison if I find you guilty of contempt.
END QUOTE
.
To me it seems to be extraordinary for a trial judge to make such a statement to an unrepresented
person who as I understand from the transcripts has not even been formally charged and neither
explained his legal rights!
..
Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court) (See folder 01 on the CD)
QUOTE
A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the burden of
endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by their own advocacy"
This does not mean that the Court is obligated to conduct the case for the unrepresented
Defendant but is obligated to ensure that the proper legal processes are followed in
proceedings before the Court. In law, the defendant is unrepresented and as such this duty
applies.
END QUOTE
.
And while Her Honour Harbison J, even so never having formally charged Mr Francis James
Colosimo nevertheless held 6-CONTEMPT hearings and requested the Office of the Public
Advocate to investigate the competence of Mr Francis James Colosimo to stand trail, it turns out
that Mr Brendan Hoysted, duty officer of the Office of the Public Advocate instead of doing what I
did to establish what, if any charge was laid against Mr Francis James Colosimo simply went about
procuring expert witnesses upon the basis that Mr Francis James Colosimo was in CONTEMPT,
regardless that in law there was no CONTEMPT case..
.
WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374;
QUOTE
To bind the citizen by a law, the terms of which he has no means
of knowing, would be a mark of tyranny.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
As 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 "working hypothesis 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 rate its legal advisers have access to it at any moment, as of right". It was, his Lordship
said (1948) 1 KB, AT p 370 , "vital to the whole English theory of the liberty of the subject,
that the affected person should be able at any time to ascertain what legislation affecting his
rights has been passed". (at p395)
END QUOTE
.
To bind a Defendant to criminal charges of CONTEMPT without having been formally charged
what offence is being prosecuted and so his legal rights seems to be likewise tyranny.
.
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and
secure to him.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
What VCAT effectively is doing is far worse as not only does VCAT seek to oust the judiciary but
also goes about as a STAR CHAMBER COURT which is for long outlawed in the State of
Victoria also.
.
QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
63G. Reciprocal arrangements under the State Trustees (State Owned Company) Act
1994
Nothing in this Part affects the operation of section 12 of the State Trustees (State Owned
Company) Act 1994
END QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
.
How absurd can it be that Moorabool Shire Council an organ of the State government has its case
heard before VCAT another organ of the State government and then has State Trustees Limited
another organ of the State government and the Office of the Public Advocate also an organ of the
State government all ganging up against Mr Francis James Colosimo despite that the matters all
arose out of VEXATIOUS litigation and notably instituted in VCAT even so the Infringement Act
2006 only allows jurisdiction for a Magistrates Court, and all this based despite that Moorabool
Shire Council itself long ago acknowledged that the “shed” (outbuilding) Mr Francis James
Colosimo build wis within the relevant provisions of the Building Act and the Building
Regulations.
Senior VCAT member Ms Preuss also made clear, on 27 January 2010, that if Mr Francis James
Colosimo refused to file details as to his financial circumstances then she would order the Office of

the Public Advocate to obtain such details, this, even so the office of the Public Advocate cannot in
law be permitted to do so.
Here we have that on basis of error of law you might be able to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Victoria but where the legislation provides that “Rule against self-incrimination does not apply”
then a person is denied any FAIR and PROPER trial because the person cannot appeal on this
ground as it is not considered an error of law where the adjudicator applies this, even so it wouldn’t
be valid in ordinary legal proceedings in a court of law.
.
QUOTE vcaata1998428
105Rule against self-incrimination does not apply
(1) A person is not excused from answering a question or producing a document in a
proceeding on the ground that the answer or document might tend to incriminate the
person.
(2) If the person claims, before answering a question or producing a document, that the
answer or document might tend to incriminate them, the answer or document is not
admissible in evidence in any criminal proceedings, other than in proceedings in
respect of the falsity of the answer.
106 Other claims of privilege
(1) Except as provided by section 80(3) or 105, a person is excused from answering a
question or producing a document in a proceeding if the person could not be
compelled to answer the question or produce the document in proceedings in the
Supreme Court.
END QUOTE vcaata1998428
.
16. Powers and duties of the Public Advocate
(1A)It is a reasonable excuse for a person to refuse or fail to provide information that the
person would otherwise be required under sub-section (1)(ha) to provide if providing
the information would tend to incriminate the person.
.
It seems to me extraordinary of the conflict of provisions and more over that you made clear that the
Office of the Public Advocate could be authorise to obtain financial details if Mr Francis James
Colosimo refused to do so as by this it becomes a kind of the outlawed STAR CHAMBER
COURT rather then appropriate legal proceeding.
.
18A. Powers of inspection
(2)Sub-section (1)(d) does not authorise the Public Advocate to inspect—
(a) a person's medical records unless that person consents; or
(b) personnel records unless the person to whom they relate consents.
.
As the Office of the Public Advocate for example without the consent of the person cannot obtain
employment details then I for one cannot accept that VCAT can disregard this and still order the
Office of the Public Advocate to ascertain those details.

.
What appears to me is that the powers of the Public Advocate is rather very limited such as “to
enter any premises on which an institution is situated” and not at all some general powers to
interfere for collection of confidential date from other records merely because VCAT is seeking to
try to build a case against Mr Francis James Colosimo and nothing to do with any care facilities.
.
There clearly was a failure to hold a reassessment within 12 months and no excuses about the
review in progress as the legislation doesn’t provide for this as an excuse.
.
61. Reassessment
(1) The Tribunal must conduct a reassessment of a guardianship order or an
administration order—
(a) within 12 months after making the order, unless the Tribunal orders
otherwise; and
.
63. Order after reassessment
(1) Upon completing a reassessment the Tribunal may by order amend, vary,
continue or replace the order subject to any conditions or requirements it considers
necessary or revoke the order
.
What we had was that Ms Preuss, without clarifying the legal implications as to aborting the review
of the original administration orders, pursued Mr Francis James Colosimo to decide to proceed with
the review or elect a reassessment.
As a review is de novo against the original validity of the orders where as an reassessment is upon
the basis of a valid legal original order the legal consequences are therefore very serious to abort a
review de novo.
It appears to me therefore to be very clear that despite some about 20 lawyers having been involved
in the case the entire litigation is a farce and a VEXATIOUS litigation that in the first place never
was validly instituted in VCAT and despite an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION from onset by
Mr Francis James Colosimo the following was stated;
.
Also, if you check the transcript of the proceedings before senior VCAT Member Ms Preuss you
will find that likewise Ms Preuss ordered this. To date I have not received the corrected transcript
of 16 March 2009-04-05 the transcript of the hearing of
 9-3-2007 before Deputy President Helen Gibson
 28-5-2007 EX PARTE hearing before Member Philip Martin.
 23-11-2007 hearing before Bowman J
 29-10-2008 before Graves (Guardianship List)
 16-11-2008 before Harbison J
 And many other transcripts
.
Despite the 27 January 2009 orders of senior VCAT member Ms Preuss to date I have not been
provided with the files in regard of Mr Francis James Colosimo relating to V2 of 2007, P194 of
2007 and G5449 this includes the formal orders, including corrected orders and the transcripts of 9

March 2007 before Vic President Helen Gibson, 28 May 2007 before Member Philip Martin, 23
November 2007 before Bowman J, 29-10-2008 before Graves (Guardianship List), 14 November
2008 before Harbison J, and the corrected transcript of 16 March 2009 before Harbison J.
.
The 30 May 2007 orders of VCAT member Philip Martin were issued in regard of a
PURPORTED “second dwelling” even so no evidence was before him to show that by the
regulations and other legislative provisions this was not a “shed” but a “dwelling”, where a
“dwelling” required items such as a can, a shower, a kitchen sink, and other items to be
included before it can be accepted by a council to be accepted as conforming to its regulations
as being a “dwelling”.
.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann;
Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel
can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in
Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he
has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying on the earlier
decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
Therefore, Mr Francis James Colosimo was entitled to disregard any orders of VCAT as after all
since the notice dated 7 and 17 January 2007 it was recognised he acted lawfully, and more over no
valid notice remained on foot to justify any litigation in any court whatsoever, let alone VCAT.
.
QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must
be proven."
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,
- "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven" .
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,
- "No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,
(a) "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination."
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Thompson v Tolmie 27 U.S. 157 (1829) Page 27 U.S. 157, 169
When a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question that occurs in the cause;
and whether its decisions be correct or not, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding
in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and orders are
regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a
recovery sought in opposition to them even prior to a reversal.'
END QUOTE
And

QUOTE
Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a
nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be
rejected upon direct collateral attack.
QUOTE
.
Whatever may be argued about this nevertheless Member Philips Martin himself in his 30 May
2007 reasons referred to;
QUOTE
As indicated above, the Respondent did not make its position any easier by failing to provide
the Tribunal with any real arguments against the enforcement orders, apart from the
jurisdictional challenge which the Deputy President Gibson indicated in her 14 March 2007
orders should be pursued at the Victorian Supreme Court rather than at the Tribunal.
END QUOTE
Clearly a judge cannot disregard the respondents claim that there is no jurisdiction and also
his constitutional grounds.
.
The onus was upon the Prosecutor (Moorabool Shire Council) to prove jurisdiction not for the
Respondent to pursue to prove this for the Prosecutor. And as the Infringement Act 2006 only
provides jurisdiction for the magistrates Court to deal with an Infringement Notice then clearly
there never was and could be any jurisdiction. Despite this more then about 14 hearings were held
so far, each disregarding the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and as appears clear from Ms
Preuss a senior member of VCAT she is not bound by having to deal with the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION.
.
The VCAT member Philip Graves 29 October 2008 orders, were obtained from a request that was
of Her Honour Harbison J holding purported CONTEMPT proceedings without having formally
charged Mr Francis James Colosimo and neither having any jurisdiction! As well as that the orders
were obtained as I understand it to be, by purported evidence falsely having been gathered by Mr
Brendan Hoysted, Duty Officer of the Office of the Public Advocate upon the basis that Mr Francis
James colosimo was in CONTEMPT. The formal orders states:
QUOTE
The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed represented person has a disability: is unable by
reason of that disability to make reasonable judgments about their estate: and needs an
administrator.
END QUOTE
.
Let’s also look at the meaning of the statement:
QUOTE
The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed represented person has a disability: is unable by
reason of that disability to make reasonable judgments about their estate: and needs an
administrator.
END QUOTE
.
Seems to me this statement doesn’t at all indicate that Mr Francis James Colosimo is partially
mentally or otherwise unable to conduct his own financial affairs rather I would conclude from this
statement that it is a general assessment that Mr Francis James Colosimo is unable to manage his
own financial affairs, not just that with Moorabool Shire Council. Yet the orders include;
.
QUOTE

6. The administrator is to restrict intervention to areas necessary to achieve resolution of

issues related to disputes with the Moorabool Shire Council concerning overdue rates; and to
matters relating to planning permits and associated issues which are before VCAT.
END QUOTE
.
Nothing in the judgment sets out why Order part 6 is restricted to this rather then to be an overall
order for administration.
In my view this was an elaborate con-job to declare a person is in need of Administration
regarding the conflict with Moorabool Shire Council but otherwise the person could manage
his own affairs.
In the VCAT files there is a copy of a document titled THE CASE SO FAR dated 16/2/2008 by
Mr Francis James Colosimo in which he states on page 3
QUOTE
1) On the 9th of March 2007 at the VCAT practice court Helen Gibson chair told me that she
would not go against council laws and bylaws or in other words, I was not in a just righteous
environment. That meeting was ultra vires, I am aggrieved
END QUOTE
.
It should be made clear I was not aware of the litigation against Mr Francis James Colosimo until
December 2008 and as such his kind of claims were not the product of my encouragement as I
understood counsel for State Trustees Limited sought to alleged at the 2 September 2009 hearing
but where those by Mr Francis James Colosimo himself
.
Re: Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458 James LJ
QUOTE
A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a
decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully
refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something.
END QUOTE
.
Privy Council in Att Gen of Gambia v N'Jie (1961) AC 617
QUOTE
But the definition of James LJ is not to be regarded as exhaustive. Lord M R pointed out in Ex
Parte Official Receiver, re Reed Bowen and Co. (1887) 19 QBD 174 at p178. The words
person aggrieved are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation.
They do not include, of course, a mere busy body who is interfering in things that do not
concern him; but they do include a person who has a grievance because an order was made
which prejudicially affects his interests.
END QUOTE
.
THE ISSUE OF MISFEASANCE;
Commissioner of Taxation v Futuris Corporation Limited [2008] HCA 32 (31 July 2008)
QUOTE
16. What is conveyed by the holding by the Full Court that the Second Amended Assessment
did not represent an exercise by the Commissioner of the power to assess which was bona
fide? That phrase is used in several senses in public law. With cognate expressions, it also
appears in formulations of the tort of misfeasance in public office. This Court has accepted
that in that context it is sufficient that the public officer concerned acted knowingly in
excess of his or her power[13]. The House of Lords has since indicated that in English law

recklessness may be a sufficient state of mind to found the tort[14]. The affinity between tort
law and public law has been remarked upon in this Court[15]; that affinity reflects the
precept that in a legal system such as that maintained by the Constitution executive or
administrative power is not to be exercised for ulterior or improper purposes[16].
END QUOTE
.
The tort of misfeasance in public office is concerned with an intentional misuse of public power by
a public officer. This tort has been referred to in two recent High Court cases.
The Court has found that for this tort to be established the plaintiff must establish that the act is:
invalid or unauthorised;
done maliciously;
done by a public officer;
done in the purported discharge of his or her public duties; and
causes loss to the plaintiff.
.
The Court has also said that the following actions by a public officer will constitute the tort:
action taken in excess of power with an intention to cause harm;
action taken in knowledge that there is no statutory authority and the damage is foreseeable; or
action done with reckless indifference.
.
Therefore, mere negligence by a public officer will not suffice unless it amounts to a reckless
indifference to the harm that it has caused. The tort of misfeasance in public office creates a
personal liability. The State may not be liable for actions of its officers which amount to
misfeasance.
.
In my view so many persons have been involved but other then myself none pursued to have
rectified the miscarriage of JUSTICE perpetrated upon Mr Francis James Colosimo. Despite the
numerous elaborate set outs Moorabool Shire Council, VCAT, Maddocks lawyers, the office of the
Public Advocate, etc all still persist in seeking to proceed with their conduct against Mr Francis
James Colosimo and this underlines that those lawyers involved may be “lawyers” but obviously
lack to understand what is their laid up duties.
.
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
QUOTE
As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or
choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his
client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty
to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his
client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He
owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not
consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not
unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all
relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if
ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the
specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
END QUOTE
.
So far Maddocks Lawyers despite having been made aware of thgeir legal wrongdoings against mr
Francis James colosimo have perisisted to pursue the orders for cost that was wrongly awareded and

Moorabool Shire Council seems to go along with this also, and likewise so the Office of the Public
Advocate and State Trustees Limited, as is Legal Aid Victoria.
.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann;
Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel
can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in
Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he
has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying on the earlier
decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
.
Little help top Mr Francis James Colosimo where VCAT and others were determine to try to
imprison him by their fabricated versions of event and try to sell of his home, etc.
.
So much went so terrible wrong that despite my request on 13 March 2009 to Her Honour Harbison
J associate Mr David Harbison to have the 16 March 2009 hearing aborted because of ill-health of
Mr Francis James Colosimo it was made clear that Her Honour Harbison J would proceed with the
CONTEMPT case even if Mr Francis James Colosimo was in hospital. Again, it should be kept in
mind that this was the 6th CONTEMPT hearing even so Her Honour Harbison J never had formally
charged Mr Francis James Colosimo! As such, it were VEXATIOUS CONTEMPT proceedings.
Mr Francis James Colosimo ended up on 20 March 2009 attending to hospital in regard of heart
complaints. Whatever is deemed to be the purpose of VCAT it must be clear it operates as a
KANGAROO COURT and use STAR CHAMBER COURT tactics and is callous about the
health and general wellbeing of an innocent man!
.
This is the danger when you allow some tribunal to go about unchecked and rights of appeal are
very limited that the tribunal can manipulate its powers as ongoing was being done.
On 22 October 2009 then Mr Wells, lawyer for State Trustees Limited, as I understood it to be,tried
to have me removed from the proceedings but miserably failed and then commenced to make an
indirect attack upon my person by seeking to imply that I might have caused Mr Francis James
Colosimo to get involved in the battle. Upon re-examining Mr Francis James Colosimo it then was
made clear by Mr Francis James Colosimo that he didn’t contact me until December 2008 long after
all the problems already were going on. And this is underlining the problems that instead accepting
that they all were wrong they tried to somehow seek to blame me for the litigation even so it was
raging on for years without any involvement by myself. This is how they sought to tarnish my
person because I dare to expose the truth about their misdeeds against Mr Francis James Colosimo.
It also should be noted that formal complaints were filed with Mr Bell, who is the President of
VCAT and also is a supreme Court judge (I view is a conflict of interest also as on the one hand
requires to be independent and on the other hand is working for the State government) and also
made submissions to the VCAT President Review but nothing eventuated from this to stop this kind
of rot, rather it get worse as it goes on.
.
In the overall it should be clear, and I have no doubt that if there was a judicial inquiry it would find
that they only person who acted legally appropriate would have been myself in assisting Mr Francis
James Colosimo and all those lawyers involved each and all of them failed to act appropriately and
acted unbecoming to that of being a lawyer.
.

* So the point you raise is that not only are you as a CONSTITUTIONALIST entitled to assist mr
Francis James Colosimo and the State cannot legislate against you doing so, and also you were in
any event legally entitled to do so, even by VCAT Act, but also you were the only person
competent enough to understand what the real FACTS of the issues were and exposed them and as
such the issue of not being a “legal practitioner” is a non-issue as it is all about seeking to obtain
JUSTICE, is that it?
.
**#** Well you seem to have the gist of it and obviously there is a lot more to it, as indicated above
also. The Courts are there to provide JUSTICE and not that tribunals are taking over the functions
of the courts and in the process denies a person his legal rights and then seek to prevent him any
right of appeal buy limiting the appeal to errors of law where in fact the entire case is conducted
deceptive. All VCAT needs to do is to pretend there are no errors in law and they can so to say get
away with murder.
.
* What would you like to see happening with VCAT?
.
**#** It should be abolished as a gross denial of JUSTICE as it allows government organs to
manipulate the legal processes. It is not a system of alternative mediation rather compounds
problems and cause undue escalation of cost. In my view if the same matter had been filed in a
Magistrates Court then more then likely it would have been so to say thrown out of the window! It
seems to me that VCAT has a modus operandi of abuse of the legal processes that it has a cancerous
cell within it and members of VCAT simply may no longer be aware what JUSTICE is about and
what DUE PROCESS OF LAW is about.
.
* So, your issue is that it is unconstitutional to deny you to assist/represent a person in need where
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST you are far more aware of the proper application of constitutional
provisions then any of the lawyers involved in the case?
.
**#** That is correct. As I also have pointed out to make it a close-shop for lawyers only it means
that a party seeking to litigate an issue like lawyers are not validly appointed then such a party is
denied a FIAR and PROPER trial being denied appropriate assistance. It should also be
understood that lawyers having to protect their future income may at times not speak up for a client
as they should do and hence so to say burn their clients for their own sake. A
CONSTITUTIONALIST is in a total different status and cannot be denied to assist a person
merely because the CONSTITUTIONALIST is not a legal practitioner. And, as was shown above
Her Honour Harbison J didn’t seem to have any problems with Errol Higgins to be as if he was a
legal practitioner, even so she knew he was not registered in the Commonwealth of Australia, and
even so he wrongly admitted to breach of orders without Mr Francis James Colosimo having been
formally charged of any offence by Her Honour Harbison J. As such, the conclusion in regard of the
above must be that to deny a person to assist a party on the basis of not being a “legal practitioner”
is to deny that party a FIAR and PROPER trial.
.
* Is this the only time you detected this kind of conceptive conduct by lawyers involved?
.
**#** Not at al, just consider the following:
.
I objected to the holding of the 2001 federal election in that the writs were not constitutionally valid
issued, actually the writs were issued a day prior to the Proclamation to prorogue the parliament and
to dissolve the house of Representatives was published. It seems that none of the members of
parliament could bother to check if in fact the proclamation was published in the Gazette. It turns

out the printer didn’t get the work until in the afternoon, even so the prorogue of the Parliament was
to have taken place at 11.59 earlier that day. Anyhow, the writs also were issued with the time table
to be one day short and hence not being valid in law. What happened was that the Commonwealth
of Australia (then under John Howard) found it more important to circumvent constitutional
provisions and unconstitutionally proceed with an invalid election then to uphold the RULE OF
LAW. So they engaged Mr Peter Hanks QC who then went to deceive the Court and to conceal
relevant details, etc. never even bothered to serve me in accordance to the rules of the Court. And
also argued that the Federal Court of Australia had no jurisdiction. That was on 7 November 2001.
On 10 November 2001, some three days later, the same Mr Peter hanks QC then was before Justice
North and obtained orders against One Nation.
.
* But if the Court had no jurisdiction on 7 November 2001 then how can it have jurisdiction on 10
November 2001?
.
**#** the Court all along had jurisdiction but Marshall J pretended otherwise so he would rule in
favour of the Commonwealth of Australia. However, about 5 years later I succeeded in the County
Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 in any event.
.
Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines [2001] FamCA 348 (4 June 2001)
QUOTE
"We think that guidelines must not risk compromising the neutrality of the court, or the
perception of the Court's neutrality. Such neutrality is a key feature of the adversarial system.
Judicial assistance cannot make up for lack of representation without an unacceptable cost to
matters of neutrality. However, in our view, the obligation to provide a fair trial has principal
significance for a court of law and it must take some steps to assist a litigant in person in
order to do justice between the parties with an eye to the reality of the prevalence and
diversity of litigants in person in this jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
"If a change in the normal procedure is requested by the other parties, such as the calling of
witnesses out of turn, to explain to the unrepresented party the effect and perhaps the
undesirability of the interposition of witnesses and his or her right to object to that course."
END QUOTE
.
When then the case ended up before the High Court of Australia it got worse, as the court simply
failed to appropriately deal with my objections and continued, without invoking jurisdiction that is,
to deal with the matter and this even so no proper service had been executed and some material had
not been known to me until after the Application books had been filed already in court, as then and
only then I discovered subsequently what the application was about, that was filed nearly a year
earlier.
I had legal rights and legal obligations. My legal obligations were to make sure that I provided my
objections to both the courts knowledge and that of the other party. I did both over a period of about
6 months, and so was aware to the judges of the High Court of Australia as it was reproduced in the
ADDRESS TO THE COURT, that each judge had.
.
But, Mr Peter Hanks QC did state;
.
Schorel-Hlavka v Governor General & Ors [2003] HCATrans 395 (3 October 2003)
QUOTE

MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: If I may, your Honour, my name is Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-

Hlavka and I am coming here under objection on the basis that I was not served with a notice
of motion, and I have indicated that that notice of motion was defective. It had no hearing
date. I do not believe it is up to the Registrar of the Court supposedly serving it by simply
giving a hearing date.
GUMMOW J: Yes. What do you say about that, Mr Hanks?
MR HANKS: My instructions are that the notice of motion was served. I have not heard any
objection to the competency of today’s hearing on that basis, your Honour, to this point.
END QUOTE
Again;
QUOTE
MR HANKS: My instructions are that the notice of motion was served. I have not heard
any objection to the competency of today’s hearing on that basis, your Honour, to this
point.
END QUOTE
.
Those who care about knowing the truth, will find that in the sub-folder FURTHER READING
MATERIAL, copies of correspondence is included, as to the faxes send to both the Deputy
Registrar of the High Court of Australia, Melbourne Office, and the Australian Government
Solicitors, being the solicitors which instruct Mr Peter Hanks QC.
Mr Peter Hanks QC clearly wasn’t attending to the Court as some private individual, but as a lawyer
representing the Australian Electoral Commission (the Third Respondent) and other Defendants.
Hence, when he stated;
QUOTE
I have not heard any objection to the competency of today’s hearing on that basis,
your Honour, to this point.
END QUOTE
.
He must be deemed to refer to those he represent.
.
It must not be forgotten however, that Mr Peter Hanks QC before Marshall J of the Federal Court of
Australia on 7 November 2001 then claimed;
QUOTE
The researches of counsel have been unable to find provisions using similar language
(“not less that” or “at least” a number of days) where the language is as clear and
specific as found in ss156(1) and 157.
END QUOTE
.
Already since at least 1833 Factory Act the term “not less than” has been used! It is in State
electoral legislation governing Senate elections, and used around the world! And, when doing a
search on the high Court of Australia website, one get more then 11,000 responses when searching
for the term “shall not be less than” or “shall not be less that”! Both versions giving the same
responses.
.
Mr Peter Hanks QC quoted (On 7 November 2001 to Marshall J) of the Forster v Jododex
Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J judgment the following;
QUOTE

“unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention”

END QUOTE
This ought to be;
QUOTE
“unless the context or the subject matter reveals a contrary intention”
END QUOTE
.
While it might be claimed that Emmett J in Kelly v Australian Electoral Commission [2001] FCA
1557 has stated;
QUOTE
Even if expedition were granted, no order could be made restraining the holding of
the election on the ground that the election is affected by invalidity.
QUOTE
The truth is that is not what actually was stated as such. This is the correct version, relates to the
earlier statement;
QUOTE
The Commission contends that there is no jurisdiction in this Court to restrain the holding
of the election on the ground that there is some invalidity involved in the election, such as
the wrongful rejection by the Commission or its officers of the applicant's nomination.
QUOTE
Clearly, it was not the validity of the writ that was in issue, as is in the current case, but if some
person was wrongfully excluded as a candidate.
Mr Peter Hanks QC seems to be an expert of distorting the true meaning of what is stated.
.
Lets give an example how you can distort a statement by leaving part of the statement off.
Say A tells B;
I don’t like going to go to the Sunday market when it rains.
.
B now tells another person that A stated:
I don’t like going to go to the market.
.
What B did was to change the entire meaning of what A had stated by leaving the part referring the
rain off. Clearly A didn’t express to be against going the Sunday market as B seems to convey but
rather didn’t like to go in the rain. As such the rain is the critical issue here.
.
Again, what peter hanks QC did for the commonwealth of Australia was to deceive the Court and to
pervert the legal processes and I view no government should rely upon this kind of abuse of the
legal processes. Worse the High Court of Australia not only permitted this to go on but even were
fraternizing with the First Defendant the Governor-General! As such its decision subsequently was
a nullity in law.
.
That I received a letter dated 25 October 2001 from the Australian Electoral Commission, by way
of correspondence from Kathy Mitchell, director, government and legal Section which also had the
comment;
QUOTE
“The writs for the 2001 Federal election reflects the same timetable as writs for
the many previous elections that have not been challenged on this basis.”
End QUOTE

The 3rd Respondent didn’t deny writs being issued defective/void but merely sought to rely upon
past conduct, the letter also stated:
QUOTE
applying for an injunction in the Federal Court of Australia to prevent the
election being held; or”,
end QUOTE
It ought to be clear that not only did your office and the AEC refuse to cooperate in seeking to
resolve the matters appropriately but frustrated it all by deceptive conduct.
I view that even a first year law student could have produced a better submission then Mr Peter
Hanks QC did.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA v. THE COMMONWEALTH ; NEW SOUTH WALES v. THE

COMMONWEALTH ; QUEENSLAND v. THE COMMONWEALTH (1975) 134 CLR is a clear
example that one does not have to challenge validities in regard of Senators before a Court of
Disputed Returns, or follow the strict legal limitations of the CEA 1918.
Further, the High Court of Australia in WESTERN AUSTRALIA v. THE COMMONWEALTH ;

NEW SOUTH WALES v. THE COMMONWEALTH ; QUEENSLAND v. THE
COMMONWEALTH (1975) 134 CLR 201 held that Senators of the Territories were entitled to
vote in the Senate. The truth is, as the Appellant has set out in his material, the framers of the
Constitution made clear that the Territories could have a representative Senator, but one who was
not entitled to vote. It was an incentive for a Territory to become a State, to be entitled to vote in the
State House (Called Senate).
VICTORIA v. THE COMMONWEALTH AND CONNOR; NEW SOUTH WALES v. THE

COMMONWEALTH ; QUEENSLAND v. THE COMMONWEALTH ; WESTERN
AUSTRALIA v. THE COMMONWEALTH (1975) 134 CLR 81
QUOTE
Following the averment
the proclamation continues: "Now therefore, I (The Governor-General in office)
does by this my Proclamation dissolve the House of Representatives”? (At p129)
If the Senate were in fact dissolved, and if thereafter

writs for an election were issued, the election was held and a new Parliament
was summoned to meet, I can see no difficulty in holding that the new
Parliament would have validly assembled. This of course is not to suggest
that this Court could not intervene to uphold the Constitution and prevent an
invalid proclamation for the dissolution of the Senate from being given
effect. However, these questions need not be further discussed.
End QUOTE
What we have is that the Australian Government Solicitors, with the assistance of Mr Peter Hanks
QC, defrauded the Courts and so it seems got away with it by the judges, so to say, toeing the line
what their masters dictate them to do.
.
This is the danger of a close shop kind of system where the lawyers and the judges are so to say all
in the brotherhood and a non-lawyer then is being railroaded as so to say the hell with the
constitution and JUSTICE long live the brotherhood.
.

* Seem to me it is avery serious issue of Mr Peter Hanks QC did what you stated above and the
High Court of Australia permitted to allow this to go on unchecked.
.
**#** Well, the Framers of the Constitution held that the High Court of Australia were to be the
guardian of the constitution but I experienced time and time again it does anything but that.
.
QUOTE
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Another guarantee of the preservation of the Constitution [start page 2471] until the
electors themselves choose to change it, is contained in the provision that the
interpretation of the Constitution by the High Court is to be final. Of course it will be
argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United
Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of
this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by
which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians. I think it
is right and fit that the highest court in Australia should be left as the guardian of the
expressions of the people, and the sole body to determine finally what the people meant
when they used those expressions.
END QUOTE
.
The truth is that the constitution has its meaning and application twisted and interfered with
ongoing.
When people like myself who are not lawyers and as such have no alliance to any particular so to
say mob-rule being it Free Masons or other such bodies then I can expose the rot without needing to
be in fear that I may be outcaste. A legal practitioner is always at risk that he may be punished in a
way such as that his clientele may be diminished such as not being referred to him or otherwise the
judges will use any trickery to defeat his clients cases. Hence, having legal representation can also
be fatal, if this lawyer is so to say in the black book of a judge. Ample of lawyers gave me the
understanding that they will not take on certain cases because he/she may end up with a bad
reputation amongst judged even so the case is valid on the merits.
.
It is ironic that the parliamentarians and the courts are, so to say, hell bend to stamp out close-shop
practices by say builders unions but when it comes to themselves it is a totally different matter.
.
In the U.S.A the original 13th Amendment of the Constitution actually barred members of the bar to
operate in the Courts. Later this 13th Amendment was replaced.
.
The point is that I have no issue with lawyers representing a party as a legal practitioner and get
paid for it. I have however a problem with the courts and so the lawyers dominated parliament
seeking to make it a close-shop arrangement where anyone else no matter being more competent are
then denied to assist a party.
.
As we have seen with Mr Francis James Colosimo, all the lawyers involved, and that includes the
judges, were, so to say, ganging up against him and because I expose it then even so by the terms of

the legislation I am entitled to assist/represent Mr Francis James Colosimo it is now that Ms Preuss
argues that because I am not a legal practitioner I can no longer do so and by this she disregard the
RULE OF LAW as she violate the very legal provisions she claims provides her power to hold
hearings.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have a competence that most lawyers never will attain in their
lives. Unlike a lawyer trying to twist the meaning of provisions as to try to get a client off, I have no
such conduct as to me the RULE OF LAW, and that includes the constitution, cannot be
vandalized for the sake of a single person.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am actually ranking above the position of a lawyer! A lawyer
merely so to say is a servant to a person such as for example trying by legal trickery or otherwise
get a guilty person of the hook. I have no such obligations or commitments!
.
While I accept that if a person, even those being legal practitioners, is causing undue problems to
the proceedings then a court may be obligated to take appropriate action to stop this but not on basis
of a person being a legal practitioner or not. Every day thousands of people assisted by a lawyer, a
legal practitioner, are being defeated in the courts and as such having a legal practitioner doesn’t
mean you are getting appropriate advice. Yet, a lawyer no matter how wrong he might advise a
client generally still will get paid whereas a non-lawyer who might succeed in every case will
generally be denied any orders for cost. Again the close-front mentality rather then JUSTICE that
is what prevails. Because of not being a lawyer I am very careful not so to say lead someone up the
garden path as to mislead the person as to his position where as a lawyer has generally no such
concerns as win or loose he generally gets paid. Look at the solicitors of Maddock Lawyers, they
failed in numerous ways to conduct the litigation in an appropriate manner and yet still get paid.
Moorabool Shire Council may to some extend have relied upon their legal advise and find it be so
to say holding the bag to pay the cost. And, VCAT is eager to maintain the cost obtains of the
VEXATIOUS litigation rather then to make clear to the lawyers that their deceptive conduct will
not be rewarded and instead they will face orders of considerable cost to make clear as a warning to
lawyers that if you set out to deceive the tribunal then you must accept the consequences.
We have this culture of government using taxpayers monies to litigate in an attempt to defeat a
citizen, no matter how much the citizen might be in the right, and we must deal with this kind of
culture. For example, with Mr Peter Hanks I view he should have his license to practice withdrawn
so he is a warning to others that if you set out to deceive the courts then you are paying the price for
it. Currently there is little to no accountability. In the end the courts never should dictate who can or
cannot assist a person in litigation as it should be none of the courts business provided that any
person who does assist does so to the benefit of the party that is assisted. As such, the court must
never interfere with the right of any person to have assistance of another person, regardless if that
other person is a legal practitioner or not, because ultimately the Court must concern itself to
provide JUSTICE. To therefore curtail assistance by a party to having to rely upon a legal
practitioner who might be as dumb as anything in itself is a denial of a FAIR and PROPER trial,
and a denial of NAURAL JUSTICE. Likewise orders for cost should not be reserved for legal
practitioners only because it is absurd that a lawyer can charge say $10,000 for a case and have cost
awarded but then when it turns out the lawyer deceived the Court and obtained the orders by
falsehood, deception, etc, then somehow the court isn’t willing to order the cost of $10,000 instead
to the other party, as it then argues that cost can only be payable to legal practitioners.
.
What we have then is that the legal practitioners can hold this over an unrepresented party and try to
scare the living daylights out of an unrepresented party that it will face considerable cost if it looses
but get nothing if this unrepresented party succeeds. And, it must be understood that a lot of the

cost claimed by a lawyer is the same for the unrepresented party, such as the cost of filing fees,
Overhead cost such as stationary, faxing, phoning, engaging expert witnesses, etc.
As such the courts have so to say been hijacked to favour lawyers regardless how terrible they
conduct litigation and no matter the INJUSTICE they may inflict upon an unrepresented party while
the court no longer then provides JUSTICE but is the tool of lawyers to provide INJUSTICE.
In simplistic terms the lawyers have stolen the courts from us and have made it their playground
and judges (also lawyers) have in general worked hand in hand with this.
In my view any decent judge would find it repulsive to have his oath of office being tarnished by
conduct unbecoming to that of a judicial officer and would refuse to cooperate to make his/her
court/tribunal the tool of lawyers to deny JUSTICE.
.
Courts are not there to convict or not to convict people. Court are there to provide JUSTICE,
and if in the process of providing JUSTICE it means a person will be punished being it by
conviction or otherwise or be found not guilty then so be it as the Court in providing JUSTICE has
fulfilled its obligation to society at large. It never can permit it self to allow legal trickery to be used
to railroad a case. The conduct of Her Honour Harbison J to claim on 16 March 2009 that she
wasn’t going beyond the terms of the orders in my view was an utter disgrace to the judiciary
because she showed to be willing to knowingly punish an innocent person with a term of
imprisonment! No fair-dinkum judicial can allow himself/herself to go down that road.
.
Ms Preuss likewise seems not be disturbed at all that the litigation are not at all lawfully conducted
but seems to take offence, as it appears to me, that I as a non-lawyer, dare to expose her
wrongdoings. To me this is never any excuse then to deny me the right provided for within
legislative provisions and certainly not the very victim of her VEXATIOUS litigation!
In my view, we should get away from any notion that only lawyers can represent a person in court
because as an Attorney I have done so very successfully in the past despite not being a legal
practitioner. Just that I do not charge for my services as such as I do not want that people who lack
funds cannot obtain JUSTICE. And as shown above the legal advise of Victoria Legal Aid in
disregard that Mr Francis James Colosimo was never formally charged by Her Honour Harbison J
as to any CONTEMP, despite holding some 6 CONTEMPT hearings, may underline also that the
lawyers employed and getting paid to do a job are trying to get a person like Mr Francis James
Colosimo to concede defeat where no defeat is required or justified.
.
And when one consider the Office of the Public Advocate supposing being there to assist a person
like Mr Francis James Colosimo going about to deceive expert witnesses by claiming that Mr
Francis James Colosimo was in CONTEMPT, as to have a case AGAINST him, then surely one
doesn’t need enemies with these kinds of friends purportedly assisting.
.
As Dixon CJ made known that if lawyers do not keep abreast with litigation then aliens from outer
space may do better. Well, I am not an alien from outer space but cam as an alien from The
Netherlands and have shown that Dixon CJ was right by defeating numerous lawyers.
.
Lets from this day onwards never again any judicial person seek to have this close-shop mentality in
practice that only legal practitioners can assist a party because their obligation is to ensure
JUSTICE PREVAILS and not to handicap or otherwise hinder an unrepresented party to attain
JUSTICE!
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka 30-1-2010 http://www.schorel-hlavka.com


Who Can Assist-Represent A Party in Legal Proceedings?

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Who Can Assist-Represent A Party in Legal Proceedings?

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Chapter 0002 Page 1

Chapter Who can assist-represent a party in legal proceedings?

Chapter 0002 Page 1

Chapter 0002 Page 2

Chapter 0002 Page 3

Chapter 0002 Page 4

Chapter 0002 Page 5

Chapter 0002 Page 6

constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary

Chapter 0002 Page 7

Chapter 0002 Page 8

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Chapter 0002 Page 9

Chapter 0002 Page 10

Chapter 0002 Page 11

Chapter 0002 Page 12

Chapter 0002 Page 13

Chapter 0002 Page 14

QUOTE 070520 posting

. In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,

Chapter 0002 Page 15

Chapter 0002 Page 16

Chapter 0002 Page 17

Amendment suggested by the House of Assembly of Tasmania:

Chapter 0002 Page 18

Chapter 0002 Page 19

reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a

Chapter 0002 Page 20

Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Amendment suggested by the Legislative Council of New South Wales-

The CHAIRMAN.-We must be consistent.

Sub-section 30.-The relations of the Commonwealth to the islands of the Pacific.

Chapter 0002 Page 21

Sir JOHN DOWNER: "According to their tenor"!

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Chapter 0002 Page 22

Mr. GLYNN: You cannot have two, allegiances.

Sir GEORGE TURNER: He may be Minister of Defence.

Mr. HIGGINS: Clause 52 refers to treaties!

Chapter 0002 Page 23

Chapter 0002 Page 24

Chapter 0002 Page 25

Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.

Chapter 0002 Page 26

Chapter 0002 Page 27

Chapter 0002 Page 28

elections is ill conceived because Australian citizenship is AUTOMATICALLY obtained by a

Chapter 0002 Page 29

Chapter 0002 Page 30

Mr. SYMON.-That is insured already.

Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions.

Chapter 0002 Page 31

Chapter 0002 Page 32

(iv) all the parties to the proceeding agree; or

Your prosecution for contempt of VCAT

Chapter 0002 Page 33

Chapter 0002 Page 34

Chapter 0002 Page 35

MR COLOSIMO : That’s correct.

Chapter 0002 Page 36

MS FOLEY : Yes, I appear on behalf of the council.

HER HONOUR : Thank you.

MR HIGGINS : My name is Higgins and I appear for the respondent.