20160315-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council - APPEAL-15-2502-ADDRESS To The COURT-Supplement 5

Page 1 AP 2502 ADDRESS TO THE COURT Suppl 5, Hearing date 22-2-2016 (or alternative date if allocated)
ADDRESS TO THE COURT (Written submissions) Supplement 4

County Court of Victoria
Ballarat venue (and/or alternative venue)
Cc:
Elliott Stafford and Associated

lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
County Court of Victoria crim.reg@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Melinda Hampshire Melinda.Hampshire@courts.vic.gov.au , registry.ballarat@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Reference AP 2502 Buloke Shire Council for State of Victoria (s114 of the constitution) v Schorel-Hlavka
Sir/Madam,
I in 1985 created the document ADDRESS TO THE COURT (written submissions)
and it may be noted that in SHAW Plaintiff - and - KEYTE AND ORS (Shaw v Keyte & Ors) HIS
HONOUR JUDGE RAVECH in his reason of judgment (Delivered the 15th day of April 1997)
(referring to Counsel Mr Forrest for the defendant police officers) stated:
QUOTE
Mr Forrest did not ignore these matters. He said in his address to the Court
END QUOTE
It is for the above therefore well recognised in total separate proceedings that when a person
makes submissions from the Bar Table it is held to be an ADDRESS TO THE COURT.
The fact that I created the written version/concept about 17 years prior to this hearing cannot
deny me my legal rights, yet Registrar Melinda Hampshire appears nevertheless to refuse placing
my ADDRESS TO THE COURT (and any supplements) on court file. While His Honour
Mullaly J referred to EX PARTE proceedings at the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St
Arnaud, as the appeal documentation was so marked, in reality where there was then also an
ADDRESS TIO THE COURT then clearly it cannot be deemed an EX PARTE hearing.
I have so to say put on notice the judiciary that it cannot be trusted for various reasons, as
well as that judges fail to be my peers. And obviously have the obligation to set out why I hold
those views. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have the benefit of having extensively researched
what the constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) stands for and
find that the courts do not operate within our democratic system that also provides political
liberty this, as for example so to say it pays lip service to ASIO, regardless how
deceptive/misleading ASIO might be. I have below referred to Mr Oliver Bridgeman situation
for this also
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
As I refer to below:
https://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/persons-of-interest-view-the-digitised-asio-files-from-the-naa/
QUOTE
PERSONS OF INTEREST? VIEW THE DIGITISED ASIO FILES FROM THE NAA
END QUOTE
This program showed how ASIO would interfere with the rights, etc, of citizens, including
preventing them certain employment. Nothing to do with NATIONAL SECURITY but to deal
with political opponents of the Government of the Day, as to try to keep it in power. Hence, as
long as the Courts seems to sanction this kind of (former) Russian KGB system I have for this
p1
15-3-2016
Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502
Deponent: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. 107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084, Victoria admin@inspector-rikati.com
(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers
also no confidence that judges I appear before are not under pressure or otherwise to railroad
my case.
The mere fact that the courts go along with even children to be taken into custody without
anyone (that is of the community) being allowed to know this eventuated may underline how the
courts are paying homage to the terrorism now perpetrated upon ordinary citizen.
Reports that people, including children, disappear and never are located may possible be
associated with ASIO having perhaps tortured to death a citizen, regardless of this was
deliberately or accidental, and the courts fail to protect the rights of citizens to avoid this.
The courts also have paid homage to the Infringement court system where unconstitutionally
computers operated by a private company are recording court orders and even warrants. Anyone,
like myself, challenging the validity of this unconstitutional system then finds that instead of the
accuser taking matters to a (legitimate?) court of law the accused is to choose to pursue to do
so, or face the unconstitutional Infringement Court issuing orders/warrants. As such the notion of
innocent until proven guilty has become guilty until proven innocent.
It is not that the Prosecutor has to prove beyond reasonable doubt any charges because we find
(as I experienced) that the Infringement Court issues orders based upon any fabrication by an
informant and then the victim has to challenge this in another court.
What the government has done is to use its powers to access court computers, to manipulate the
judiciary, and to comprehensively pervert the course of justice by obstructing the course of
justice, and yet I find that a judge like His Honour Mullaly J then on 30 November 2015 states,
as I recall, No evidence is required for ex parte (criminal) hearing and lashes out to me,
without a shred of evidence before the court to justify this, You are the kind of person who
holds that the law applies to everyone but yourself..
There is no such thing as NATIONAL SECURITY that involves SECRECY because
politicians, their staff and Government Department and others operating within delegated powers
only can operate as AGENTS for the people!
In the Dutch language agent refers to (in English) a police officer who is to look after the
interest and wellbeing of the community, and not despite of this.
In the Commonwealth of Australia we have this meaning set out as follows:
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- 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.
END QUOTE
As I understand it with my self-professed crummy English (And proud of it!) an agent can
only act within the confines of what the grantor provided for. Hence, the agent is bound by the
legal principles embedded in the constitution:
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the
provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
As such, the political liberty referred to above cannot be interfered with by ASIO or any other
Government sponsored terrorism organisation but yet it nevertheless (albeit unconstitutionally)
eventuates and the judiciary are paying homage to this rather than to denounce/deplore it and
refusing to accept such unconstitutional secrecy to be part of any litigation.
This then places the question to me of so to say what kind skeletons might there be involving
ever judicial officers that ASIO may use to control members of the judiciary. After all for any
judicial officer to go against his/her oath of office surely may underline that the judicial officer
concerned has some dark past that he/she is afraid ASIO may use against him/her?
p2
15-3-2016
As I understand it former High Court of Australia judge Michael Kirby was in violation of
N.S.W. laws living in a homosexual relationship and yet sitting at the bench dealing with alleged
offenders against N.S.W laws. It is only after being appointed to the High Court of Australia that
he so to say came out! As such ASIO may have had plenty to expose while he was a judge of a
court in N.S.W.. Likewise we have many politicians who are later found to have been in
violation of various laws, and again this clear provides ASIO with the opportunity to put such a
parliamentarian under pressure to do what it may demand or the politicians may be exposed.
I wonder was this baseless attack by His Honour Mullaly J upon my person without a shred of
evidence to support this kind of harassment/bullying also because His Honour Mulally J was
instructed to do so? After all anyone who would be aware that there was not a shred of evidence
before the court to justify such kind of remarks/statements would wonder why on earth His
Honour Mullaly J acted as he did.
.
We have a constitution, and judicial officers who do not desire for whatever reason to conform to
the true meaning and application of the constitution in my view do not belong at the bench, and
better find themselves a job to their liking that doesnt result in denying citizens of their
constitutional rights for fair and proper hearing and to pursue justice.
In my submission the judiciary should make it very clear to anyone seeking to rely upon
ASIO details/information that unless the details/information are provided in open court
and can be verified by the accused/defendant it will not be acceptable as evidence, this
includes any details/information obtained by unlawful means.
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
1.The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted,
the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the
historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."
QUOTE
As the High Court of Australia itself noted in Wakim It does not mean peeking inside the
skulls of people dead for centuries, yet now ASIO details/information seems to rely upon
what might have been in the skull/mind of Mr Oliver Bridgeman and upon this enable a
warrant issue. Surely this is a gross absurdity that any judicial officer would fall for this utter and
sheer nonsense.
I have absolutely no doubt that if it can be proven that Mr Oliver Bridgeman intended to join
some organisation in violation to law then on evidence he may be convicted, but that would have
to be as an issue to be litigated in court before a conviction could be recorded. It cannot be
assumed that he may have had any intent merely because ASIO (well known about the WMD
fiasco) but that is totally different then to cancel his passport on basis of what may or may not
eventuate in the future.
Lets look at what the Framers of the Constitution debated!
p3
15-3-2016
Hansard 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: At first I thought it would be necessary to have some provision of this sort, but now I think
it is unnecessary. In the clause it is prescribed that [start page 1183] an elector "shall have only one vote"; as
to the Senate and as to the House of Representatives I intend to move, on the recommittal of the clause, that
the matter shall be turned into a direct prohibition; that is, that "no elector shall vote more than once." A
breach will be a Statutory misdemeanor, and the offender can be punished, this being an Imperial Statute, in
the same way as he would be for a breach of any other Imperial Statute applying to the colonies, such as the
merchant shipping laws. Lest there should be any doubt in connection with the giving of a vote, when there is
a distinct law against it, there is a passage in Russell on "Crimes," which the legal members of the
Convention will be satisfied with. It is in the fifth edition, page 192:
Where an offence is not so at common law, but made an offence by Act of Parliament, an indictment
will lie where there is a substantive prohibitory clause in such Statute, though there be afterward a
particular provision and a particular remedy given. Thus, an unqualified person may be indicted for
acting as an attorney contrary to the 6 and 7 Vict., c. 73, a. 2, although sec. 35 and sec. 36 enact that in
case any person shall so act he shall be incapable of recovering his fees, and such offence shall be
deemed a contempt of court, and punishable accordingly.
That is to say, although the Statute provides a distinct means of punishment, yet if by the disregard of the
prohibition a misdemeanor is committed, a court can convict the offender of that misdemeanor and may fine
or imprison him. The passage continues:
And it is stated as an established principle that when a new offence is created by an Act of Parliament
and a penalty is annexed to it by a separate and substantive clause, it is not necessary for the
prosecutor to sue for the penalty, but he may proceed on the prior clause on the ground of its being a
misdemeanor; and wherever a Statute forbids the doing of a thing, the doing of it wilfully, although
without any corrupt motive, is indictable.
Wherever the Statute, as I intend to ask the House to make it in this case, says that no elector shall vote
more than once, there is a distinct prohibition, and voting more than once wilfully will be a crime and
misdemeanor, and the courts will be able to punish by fine or imprisonment. They will have the distinct
power. There is in all of these colonies an electoral law, and power to alter it, until Parliament otherwise
provides, and if there are not distinct provisions for punishment for such offences, it is still in the power of
the State law to subject the offenders to such punishment as it prescribes. But even if that were not done, the
case is distinctly met by the Statutory prohibition, which will be imposed by the form in which we propose to
put it, and, I think, my hon. friend will agree that his new clause will not be necessary.
Mr. ISAACS: I suppose you propose to put in words to make it a misdemeanor.
Mr. BARTON: If necessary; but where the statute expressly forbids it is a misdemeanor without further
words.
Dr. QUICK: Without any corrupt motive is it indictable?
Mr. BARTON: Although there may be no corruption in the doing of the act, if it is done intentionally it is
indictable.
Mr. HIGGINS: What words do you propose to put in?
Mr. BARTON: I propose to alter the words "each elector shall have only one vote" to "no elector
shall vote more than once," and that being a distinct statutory prohibition will meet the case.
END QUOTE
Clearly an intentional conduct to violate legal provisions can be subject to litigation in a

competent court of law, but I do not accept that this can be used by a Minister to merely assume
something and then suspend a passport on so called secret information, nor for the courts to
issue a warrant.
p4
15-3-2016
We must guard against incremental inroads into citizens constitutional/legal rights and yet the
judiciary is seemingly bending backwards to accommodate so to say for their political masters.
Former judges are speaking out about this, but failed to do so when they were still judges at the
bench. Even Phillips J waited until retirement to speak out. This underlines that the judiciary is
so to say afraid to speak up while serving as judicial officers. And that ought to be of concern.
Both as to how judicial officers fear to speak out as well as how they may have acted in violation
of constitutional/legal rights of a party appearing before them and so inflicted undue harm upon
a party for the sake of protecting their own careers.
As I set out below as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I hold the Federal Government is well entitled
to prevent the influx of criminals where they have been or suspected of having been persons
convicted of criminal offences. But it would be absurd to use this against any person who never
was convicted of any criminal offence but then use it to bat the person and perhaps prevent this
person than a fair and proper hearing to as His Honour Mullaly J seemed to claim no evidence is
required for an ex parte (criminal) hearing as to then score a conviction and use this backdated.
To provide for such unconstitutional conduct would endanger our fabrics of democracy. Anyone
no matter never have been subjected to any criminal conviction can then be denied entry as
afterwards the system will allow by corrupt/incompetent judiciary to score a conviction.
While courts hold generally that police officers are trusted and so the courts give more weight to
the evidence/claims of a police officer versus that of an accused/defendant, there is no
system in place where when a police officer has been found to have lied/perjured himself/herself
this than is place on court records and raised whenever this police officer gives evidence in court.
As such the courts are bias in that regard also, this as if the accused/defendant were to have such
a judgement against him/her then the Prosecutor could use this to challenge the credibility of the
witness.
The following also in regard of police officer Griffin:
Shaw v Keyte & Ors
QUOTE
That extract from the document was read out on the 15th day of the trial during which time Mr Griffin, along
with every body else who came into contact with the Court, had had many opportunities to see Miss Shaw. It
was very apparent that she did not have a pock marked face, let alone one which was severely so, and
Mr Griffin readily agreed with Mr Hore-Lacy that Miss Shaw did not then and, more importantly had not, in
1992, a pock marked face. Griffin agreed that he had said Shaws face was pock marked knowing it was
not true and that it was a deliberate lie.
END QUOTE
Below, I quote further parts of the reason of judgment, as it ought to be clear that Municipal Fire
Prevention Officer without having obtained a warrant to authorise my property entered the
property and allegedly obtained images as to present his kind of claims but out of context as to
deceive the court of the real circumstances then existing and by this having persisted to do so and
in violation to the legal requirement of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 then not only his
conduct to issue an invalid Fire Prevention Notice but to maintain this kind of conduct
continually (Hence amount to stalking as provided for in the Crimes Act (Vic), and then to
institute litigation and persist in this kind of conduct must not only be denounced by the court but
held to be a serious denial of my rights of freedoms. Being it an arrest or trespassing in the end it
is a denial of my legal rights. As Mr Wayne Wall was purportedly exercising his delegated
powers by the state of Victoria, who despite being provided with copies of my ADDRESS TO
THE COURT and its supplements ignores to address issues appropriately then this undermines
the credibility of the court where it instead of deploring this kind of conduct rewards it with
orders adverse to me as eventuated on 17 September 2015 in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at
St Arnaud. I have been made a victim by conduct of Mr Wayne Wall by his patronising and
insulting conduct that somehow I acted or failed to act in compliance to legal requirements of
the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 even so no such admissible evidence was ever presented to
the court.
p5
15-3-2016
Shaw v Keyte & Ors
QUOTE
However the onus in regard to the reasonableness of Griffins belief lies on him not with the plaintiff.
END QUOTE
Shaw v Keyte & Ors
QUOTE
Alcock and OHare failed to see any real difference in the Paula Shaw they strip searched and the young
woman who gave evidence. Constable Alcock said of her as Shaw sat in the Court, that she looked cheap or
common. I can only say that not only did I think she did not and that those terms were wholly inappropriate,
but that taken together with the look on Constable Alcocks face they sounded both patronising and
insulting.
END QUOTE
Shaw v Keyte & Ors
QUOTE
4.11 begins To deprive a person of his liberty is a serious matter ...
In Christie v. Leashinsky (supra) a decision of the House of Lords, Lord Simon said at page 575 ... I would
say that it is the right of every citizen to be free of arrest unless there is ... the right to arrest him. I would say
next that ... he should be entitled to resist arrest unless that arrest is lawful. How can these right be reconciled
with a proposition that he may be arrested without knowing why he was arrested?
................................................................................... Blind unquestioning obedience is the law of tyrants
and slaves. It does not yet flourish on English soil ... it is a condition of lawful arrest that the man arrested
should be entitled to know why he is arrested .......................................... the subject is entitled to know why
he is deprived of his freedom if only in order that he may without a moments delay take up such steps
as will enable him to regain it.
One such step (see Gillies The Law of Criminal Investigation at p. 150) is to explain away, as Lord
Simon says at p. 576 of Christies case, the charge that is made.
END QUOTE
Shaw v Keyte & Ors
QUOTE
It is common ground - at least so far as Counsel are concerned - that Griffin made a mistake in
forming a belief that an indictable offence had been committed. It is my opinion that there were no
reasonable grounds for that mistake. He did not take such steps as a reasonable man would have taken
to explore, check or verify the suspicions he claims to have formed. Those suspicions, as they stood,
were quite insufficient to form the basis for a reasonable belief that Paula Shaw was guilty of an
indictable offence.
END QUOTE
Shaw v Keyte & Ors
QUOTE
Mr Forrest submitted that if those findings, or any of them, were made, then the sixth defendant, the State of
Victoria, was vicariously liable. In his final submissions Mr Rose did not suggest otherwise and was, in his
usual way, helpful in guiding me to the relevant legislation and principles of law.
S.23(1)(b) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1958 says: The Crown shall be liable for the torts of any
servant or agent of the Crown or independent contractor employed by the Crown as nearly as possible
in the same manner as a subject is liable for the torts of his servant or agent or of an independent
contractor employed by him.
END QUOTE
Shaw v Keyte & Ors
QUOTE
In Myer v. Soo (1991) 2 VR 597, Murphy J. said, at p.603, ls.15 to 18: The damages in an action for
false imprisonment are generally awarded not for a pecuniary loss but for loss of dignity, mental
suffering, disgrace and humiliation. Any deleterious effect on the plaintiffs health will also be
compensated.
END QUOTE
Shaw v Keyte & Ors
QUOTE
Aspects of Loss of Dignity, Mental Suffering, Disgrace and Humiliation It has never been suggested in
this trial that the plaintiff did not suffer a loss of dignity nor that she was not grossly humiliated. Indeed, there
is positive evidence of her distress from virtually all police members with whom she came in contact. As the
p6 15-3-2016 Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502
trial continued and the plaintiffs distressed state was readily (if at times patronisingly) conceded - the word
distress began to lose its strength. It seemed to me, at times, that synoyms like anguish, misery and
wretchedness might equally have been used. To be dragged out of a telephone booth without
explanation, arrested for no apparent reason, pulled into the back of a police divisional van, driven to a
police station and strip searched, can only have been disgraceful, mortifying and ignominious for the
plaintiff. It is easy to empathise with the fear engendered by so Kafkaesque a situation. I accept that the
plaintiff was insulted by the young person on work experience. Having seen the area involved, I think that the
plaintiff was wrong as to her belief that a group of police deliberately sat at a table outside the door of the
interview room discussing her in derogatory terms. I accept, nevertheless, her expressed belief that she felt
that those with whom she came into contact in the downstairs portion of the police station, treated her with
contempt. It has been submitted that the strip search, involving the bending over and the examination
of her genital parts was the ultimate put-down. I have no difficulty with accepting that submission.
In Lindley v. Rutter (1981) QB 128 - a case concerning police rights to search - Donaldson, LJ. observed at
p.134: It is the duty of courts to be ever zealous to protect the personal freedoms, privacy and dignity of all
who live in these islands. Any claim to be entitled to action which infringes those rights is to be examined
with very great care. and while searches may be prima facie reasonable the officer conducting them
should appreciate they involve an affront to dignity and privacy of the individual. I do not believe that
Constables OHare and Alcock were in any way appreciative of any affront to the dignity and privacy of the
plaintiff either in the station or at the time of the trial. Dr Strauss said that the plaintiff had been through an
experience which was well beyond the range of normal human experience. I believe that the attitude of the
four defendants to the plaintiff was such that their actions in relation to her were quite without pang,
concern or scruple and that even now Dr Strauss statement would seem to them to be quite puzzling.
At ls. 22 to 24 of Myer v. Soo (supra) Murphy, J. said: Damages for an initial false imprisonment may be
granted by persistence in the assertion of facts which continue the slur on the plaintiffs reputation
damaged by the false imprisonment.
He then continued:
Laurence, J. in Walter v. All Tools stated that this continued up to the moment when damages are
assessed.
His Honour drew an analogy in such conduct with defamation cases. At ls. 31 to 34 he said:
Persistence in the accusation is evidence of malice, not necessarily in spite or ill will, though such
would constitute malice, but rather in the enlarged sense of the jurist, as evidencing unreasoning
prejudice or motivation which the law does not approve.
His Honour continued at ls. 47 to 50:
The estimate of damages may be coloured so to speak by disapproval of the defendants conduct (and in the
opinion of the Court legitimately so) though it be not a case for vindictive or exemplary damages in the
proper sense. (Pollock on Torts, 15th ed., p.142.)
As to the conduct of the case, the following passage is to be found in Gatley, 8th ed., para.1329: The
conduct of the defendants case at the trial may also be urged in aggravation of damages. The jury in
assessing damages, are entitled to take into consideration the conduct of the defendant before the
action, after action and in court at the trial of the action...... The jury may take into consideration the
fact that the defendant persists at the trial in imputation which he admits he cannot prove to be true
....
END QUOTE
Shaw v Keyte & Ors
QUOTE
However, such actions and conduct both on the day in question and since do, in my opinion, merit the award
of aggravated damages. Having regard to the effect on the plaintiffs health and those matters pertaining to
insult, humiliation, loss of dignity, mental suffering and disgrace, I propose to award her the sum of $50,000.
There will be a joint judgment against the five defendants in that sum.
END QUOTE
Shaw v Keyte & Ors
QUOTE
It seemed to me that the necessity was dire. Mr Griffin, then, is a self-confessed liar. I do not on that account
reject all his evidence. Much of it is common ground. His difficulty with that lie is, as he himself recognised
when he described his submission to the reviewing officer as self-serving, is that it was a desperate (his
word) attempt to recover ground and justify himself. But the self-service and attempts at justification didnt
stop there. They have been persisted with (Mr Griffin is clearly a dogged and determined man) in this trial.
END QUOTE
What is so important about the last quotation is that this is a police officer who himself admitted
having lied, and the court found so, and yet when this police officer appears in any other
p7
15-3-2016
litigation the court will hold that a police officer will be telling the truth. As such the court is
bias. In my submission the courts should have a record that where a police officer has been held
by a court to have lied and/or perjured himself//herself then whenever this police officer is before
the courts giving evidence the history of this police officer should be made known to both the
court as well as to the opponent party. After all if an accused has been found guilty of doing so
then the Prosecutor likely will; use that to challenge the credibility of the witness where the
accused is the witness.
The courts in essence currently applies DOUBLE STANDARDS in that regard.
Our judicial system is in my view so corrupt that I for one do not trust any judicial officer.
Hence, if any charge were to proceed against me it would have to be dealt with by a jury.
Obviously, I will set out below why I have such views, as at the very least I ought to explain this.
Judicial officers are in my view too often blinded by so to say conventions rather than to
ensure that the courts operate as sovereign entities within our constitutional system.
.
While one find at court entrances and/or within the court precinct signage that recording devices
and recording of legal proceedings are prohibited, yet, police and other so called security staff
albeit not employed by the sovereign judiciary nevertheless can enter court facilities. When
then a magistrate prohibited police to enter the court room with capsicum spray there was this
loud protest and the police in the end was permitted to do so, even so here we had a Magistrate
who pursued to apply the rule of Law that the police is in no better position than the ordinary
citizen attending to a court facility, and did no more but deal with all persons equally before the
court. I found that when required to pay for an audio recording then I am advised that due to
court technicalities one day recording was a failure. However, in my view it was more that the
magistrate made a statement that by hindsight was or could be deemed to be against the
Government (Prosecutor) and for this then the recording is claimed to have failed to prevent this
to be used on appeal. This is similarly where when one call a telecommunication business they
advise to record matters allegedly for training purposes, and have an audio record and so nilly
willy can then use it or claim it was a failure of recording, pending how it may suit them. In fact
in one incident it was a chat as such in writing, and besides that I copies and past the chat I
also requested and was in that case provided with a copy of the transcript. Then some time later
when I called the same telecommunication company the staff member completely denied what I
stated, etc. It is only when I read out from the transcript what had been stated that the staff
member then conceded I was correct after all.
Appeals can fall or succeed because of transcripts and where a party fails to provide a transcript
then generally the courts may refuse to entertain an appeal. As such this disadvantage an
Appellant to have to incur huge cost to obtain a transcript. Yet, if the court merely claims that the
audio recording failed (regardless it succeeded) then somehow the appelated court will then
proceed for the appeal. This clearly is another denial of justice, as many citizens lack the finances
to pay for expensive transcripts and shouldnt have to do so. If the court denies recordings by
parties then it should in my submission pay for the transcript to be provided.
Lets look the horrible consequences of how the judiciary operates to how politicians can get
away with anything well aware the courts in its way shield them from any unconstitutional
conduct.
.

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE
Reality is that when a citizen seeks to hold a Government accountable for acting in violation of
the constitution the citizen so to say risk basically life and limb in order of cost if the court rules
p8
15-3-2016
against the citizen, this even so the court by adhering to conventions rather than to the true
meaning and application of the constitution may hand down a finding that is utterly wrong.
As such many a citizen will avoid holding a government accountable because they dont trust the
judiciary and do not desire to end up risking everything while the offending government officials
will use taxpayers monies to hire the most expensive lawyers to pervert the course of justice.
.

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
Let us use an example hoe the Government can be totally wrong on constitutional basis but who
will risk to go to court?
It is well known that the Federal Government had the Carbon Tax legislation (now abolished) but
this was an environmental legislation outside the reams of the Commonwealth legislative
powers.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Yes, the reservation clause. Now, that clause has a twofold operation. It means, first, that
the power to deal with water conservation and irrigation, which, if you rely on sub-section (1) alone,
finds no mention in this Constitution, and, therefore, is not a power given to the Commonwealth, but a
power retained in the states absolutely.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
. I should prefer to rest on the fact that the powers of the Federal Parliament are limited
under the Constitution itself, and that the Federal Parliament has no power to do anything
except what is expressly given to it, or what is by implication necessary.
END QUOTE
It is only when it relates to navigation that the commonwealth can use any incidental powers.
Clearly the Carbon tax environmental legislation has no part of navigation.
However, the Ports such as Darwin and Melbourne are part of the navigational system and
therefore fall within Commonwealth legislative powers.
Even if the commonwealth were to sanction the lease/sale of any Port it is still bound by the legal
principles embedded in the constitution such as s92:
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
92 Trade within the Commonwealth to be free

On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the
States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free. But
notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, goods imported before the imposition of uniform
duties of customs into any State, or into any Colony which, whilst the goods remain therein,
becomes a State, shall, on thence passing into another State within two years after the imposition of
such duties, be liable to any duty chargeable on the importation of such goods into the
Commonwealth, less any duty paid in respect of the goods on their importation.
END QUOTE
My 24-11-2015 PRESS RELEASE may underline that any Government seeking to lease/sell port
facilities causing an increase of wharfage and so in real terms applying a tax/duty beyond the
ordinary cost of providing wharfage would act in violation of s92 of the constitution.
p9
15-3-2016
QUOTE 24-11-2015 PRESS RELEASE
ISSUE: ISSUE - Billionaire Clive Palmer regarding Port Darwin & the constitution
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am obviously aware of and considering the legal principles embedded
in the constitution. In the article Billionaire Clive Palmer calls on Coalition Government to take
control of Darwin Port, raising fears Chinese Government may use it as starting point for secret
invasion November 23, 2015 2:52pm - CHRISTOPHER WALSH NT News it was stated: Chief
Minister Adam Giles called Mr Palmers remarks anti-Chinese hysteria. We should consider
what Mr Clive Palmer M.P. pursue in the proper constitutional context.
Hansard 25-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not mean to do so. I was merely about to refer to it in reply to the honorable member's interjection. My
suggestion is this: It is now put to us that we must make the appointment of the Inter State Commission obligatory. I agree that you must make
it obligatory if you preserve the clause in its entirety, retaining the words [start page 1523] I in the opinion of the Inter-State Commission," but I
hope that we shall not retain those words. With regard to the Inter-State Commission, if they have merely to deal with matters arising under the
provision in regard to freedom of trade and intercourse and preferential rates, there will not be enough work for them to do.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Their powers would be much larger than that. END QUOTE
Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-That all depends. If there is an Inter-State Commission, that
commission, having to carry out the provisions for freedom of trade and intercourse, would have to decide. I want it to be clearly illegal that
there shall be any derogation from the freedom of trade or intercourse between the colonies. END QUOTE
Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution convention Debates QUOTE
( Mr. HOLDER.-) Would you be willing to leave the question as to what extent it is a preferential or a differential rate between the
different states to a commission to be appointed?
Mr. Eddy.-You will find it will be absolutely necessary to do that. It would be impossible for a body like this, engaged in the drafting of
a Constitution, to go into so much detail as to be able to indicate, even in a small degree, the lines on which the commission that they
would create to carry out certain functions for them should go.
The Chairman.-Personally, as the chief railway administrator of New South Wales, that is your view?
Mr. Eddy.-Yes; with certain safeguards, viz., the absolute prohibition of preferential rates between the traffic of adjoining colonies, the
creation of a strong commission, free from influence, to see that the spirit of the Constitution is carried out, the commission to be of such
a nature that it would carry the confidence of all the states. END QUOTE
Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-But if designed sinisterly it would be declared unconstitutional.
Mr. BARTON.-Quite so; END QUOTE
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place
under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if
they had another motive. END QUOTE
It is my view, and one may also consider the various quotations below, that the sale of any port
or the 99 year lease of any port is unconstitutional as it causes undue charges upon wharfage as it
is for the profit of a State/Territory and not within s92 & s101 Inter-State Commission powers.
Hence, the alleged 99 lease in my view is unconstitutional. And as Mr Clive Palmer M.P. as I
understand it also seems to indicate that such a lease is in violation of our national security. We
have all this so called anti-terrorism laws that does no more but to undermine/deny the
constitutional rights of ordinary citizens while on the other hand our essential services (including
port facilities) are being handed over to foreign corporations which would allow any foreign
nation to do no more but to prevent the usage of the essential services and our national security is
no more. It is clear that the suggested sale/lease of the Port of Melbourne also would be
unconstitutional as effectively it is for a government to raise funds and not at all being cost of
providing wharfage. This may suit the intentions of Republicans to get rid of constitutional
restrains but We, the People, cannot tolerate this to be left unchecked. It is not an issue for the
Foreign Investment Board to decide the matter because it is the Inter-State Commission function
as to charges rates, and only where it is within constitutional; context, and I view this is not.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all relevant issues/details.
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

Supplement: PRESS RELEASE Billionaire Clive Palmer regarding Porft Darwin & the constitution
Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HENRY (Tasmania).-I desire to call the attention of the honorable member (Mr. Barton) to the manner in which this clause will affect
harbor trusts and marine boards. I directed attention to this matter in Adelaide. I think this clause will prevent any state or body authorized by a
state from levying any impost or charge on imports. We know that marine boards and harbor trusts are dependent for their revenues upon
wharfage rates on imports. Although those rates are for services rendered, I am afraid that under the clause in its present form it would be
impossible for a marine board or harbor trust constituted by a state to levy charges on imports. In the amendment suggested by the Assembly
p10
15-3-2016
and Council of Tasmania there is a provision to meet this difficulty. As the honorable member (Mr. Barton) is going to amend the clause, I
hope he will take this question into consideration
Mr. BARTON.-A wharfage rate is merely a charge for services rendered, and is no tax on imports.
Mr. HENRY.-I shall not enter into a verbal controversy with the honorable member, but the language of this clause is that a state shall not
levy any impost or charge. A wharfage rate is a charge on imports, and Mr. A.I. Clark prepared the amendment which was passed in our
Parliament. That makes it quite clear that the state would have the power, when services are rendered, to levy a charge on imports. I hope
that the honorable member (Mr. Barton) and other eminent lawyers will make this matter clear, so that no difficulty shall arise in
future which might prevent marine boards and trusts throughout Australia from having the necessary authority to raise their
revenue by means of a charge on imports.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I cannot lay my hand on the passage now, but in Adelaide I pointed out American decisions which
would clearly apply to such a case as this. It was held that a charge of wharfage is not a charge on imports or exports. Here is one case, which
is handed to me by my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Isaacs), the case of the Ouachita Packet Company v. Aiken, where it was held thatA municipal ordinance which provides for rates of wharfage, to be measured by the tonnage of the vessel landing thereat and using such
wharf, is not in conflict with the Constitution.
There is also the case of the North-Western Union Packet Company v. St. Louis:Where a municipal corporation or a state has by the law of its organization an exclusive right to make wharfs, collect wharfage, and regulate
wharfage rates, it can consistently with the Constitution charge and collect such wharfage, proportioned to the tonnage of the vessel, from the
owners of enrolled and licensed steam-boats landing and mooring at its wharfs constructed on the banks of a navigable river.
The effect is that wharfage is not an impost on imports, and a tax on imports is not in any sense a charge for services. A [start page 652]
charge for wharfage made upon vessels coming into port is purely analogous to that which might be made for storage.
Mr. SYMON.-But if designed sinisterly it would be declared unconstitutional.
Mr. BARTON.-Quite so; but if it were a mere charge to enable the expenses of wharfage to be met-that is, for the mere use of a wharf for
the time being-that would not be a charge on imports at all, and would not come under the clause. So that the objection would be met in either
case. I would suggest that we might for the time being negative the amendment from Tasmania, which is a very long one, and I will see
whether it is necessary to make some shorter amendment which will embody generally the same views.
The CHAIRMAN.-The amendment before the committee is that suggested by the Legislative Council of New South Wales.
Mr. BARTON.-I think the committee might very well reject that.
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-The purpose of the Parliament of Tasmania will be effected by inserting the words "or by way of payment
for services actually rendered in improvement or maintenance of ports or harbors, or in aid of navigation, after the word "state" (line 5). That
would accomplish the meaning of the Tasmanian amendment. As regards the words proposed to be struck out by the Legislative Assembly of
New South Wales, the position is somewhat anomalous if they are retained. Payment must be made, and the money must go to the
Commonwealth; so that a man will have to pay although it will really be illegal to pay. It would be a question of payment under a law passed
by the state, which law is bad. The man will have made a payment under a law which maybe annulled by the Federal Parliament.
Mr. OCONNOR.-That does not matter; he will have his action against the state.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes, because the state took his money.
Mr. GLYNN.-But the Commonwealth will have possession of the man's money, which should not have been paid at all. As Mr. Henry
wishes me to do so, I beg to moveThat, after the word "state" (line 5), the following words be inserted:-or by way of payment for services actually rendered in improvement or
maintenance of ports or harbors or in aid of navigation.
Suppose an improvement were made by New South Wales, by locking one of its rivers, surely it would be possible for New South Wales to
charge tonnage on vessels passing through those locks? If such a charge could not be made by New South Wales, the improvement would not
take place, for the reason that there could not be payment for services rendered.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I ask the committee to be rather chary of accepting the portion of the Tasmanian amendment referred
to, because there is a vast difference between a charge for wharfage, which is for the maintenance of a wharf belonging to a state, and a
charge in aid of navigation or for ports and harbors; because here you come upon ground on which there may be conflict with the rest of the
Commonwealth. The insertion of these words might lead to such a conflict, would be very dangerous, and would not effect the desired result
at all.
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I beg leave to withdraw my amendment in order to give time for further consideration.
Mr. Glynn's amendment was withdrawn.
END QUOTE
Hansard 24-2-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-I think that all through the framing of this Constitution Bill, from the time when it was first drafted and
approved of in 1891 up to the present time, all the speeches we have heard have referred to freedom of trade and intercourse between all
the colonies as one of the greatest blessings-in fact, the greatest boon-that we would acquire when we become a Federated Continent. We
all understood, and I think we have all expressed, that after Australia was federated trade would be allowed to go free and untrammelledthat the barriers of Custom-houses would be removed, and that trade would go in the direction that it thought best-that is, in the direction
which was most beneficial, without being [start page 1482] trammelled by Tariffs and barriers of Custom-houses.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-No, I am putting it that in Melbourne we will charge lower rates all round with the view of bringing trade here, by
making the port of Melbourne more attractive than the port of Sydney. What would be the result of declaring our Melbourne charges null
and void? Why, that we could not make a charge at all.
Mr. CARRUTHERS.-That will cure itself, then.
Mr. ISAACS.-I doubt it, because the greatest barrier we could erect would be to make no charges at all in our port-to do services for
nothing. If offering special opportunities to foreign trade and arrangements for attracting trade to Melbourne as against Sydney, for
example, constitute a barrier to freedom of trade, then, of course, the greatest barrier we could erect is to do things for nothing.
Mr. GORDON.-That is a reductio ad absurdum.
Mr. ISAACS.-I want to meet the argument that has been put before the Convention-that the insertion in this Bill of a clause providing
that any law of the Commonwealth, or of a state, with a view of attracting trade to ports of one state as against ports of another state shall
be null and void will carry out the object honorable members have in view.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
p11
15-3-2016
Mr. BARTON.-No one imagines that intercolonial free-trade means such a thing as a freeing of traffic from payment for services rendered
for the conveyance of goods and passengers. Yet it is out of this difficulty that all these arguments seem to arise. There is nothing in this
clause to prevent anything done by way of service from being paid for, whether it is by a state or by a common carrier.
END QUOTE
QUOTE (Mr. KINGSTON:)
With reference to the 2nd resolution-that trade and intercourse between the federated colonies, whether by means of land carriage or
coastal navigation, shall be absolutely free-I consider it, following the course adopted by preceding speakers, in connection with the 3rd
resolution, giving to the federal Government power to impose customs duties; and presuming that the intention is that inter-colonial freetrade should be established at the time of, but not before, the adoption of a federal tariff, I am prepared to give the proposition my
heartiest support.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We prescribe in the Constitution that trade and intercourse shall be free; we also give the Commonwealth power to
regulate trade and commerce. By the combined effect of these two provisions, and by further words, if necessary, we wish to obtain that
the authority of the Commonwealth shall be paramount in securing proper and effective intercourse, whether internal or external.
Mr. DOBSON.-Yes, between state and state.
Mr. BARTON.-Not merely between state and state. If a ship sails from Sydney for the Swan River, or from some port in Victoria for
the Derwent or Tamar, is that not commerce between state and state?
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I should like to reply to the criticisms which have been made upon my amendment, but I will do so very
briefly. The leader of the Convention says that if this control is to be given in regard to any waters it should be given with regard to all
navigable rivers, even with regard to the Snowy River, the Darling, the Tamar, and the Yarra. I join issue with the honorable member. I
do not think we should give to the Federal Parliament the control over the Derwent, the Tamar, the Swan River, the Yarra, or
the Brisbane River. These are purely state concerns. More than that, under the United States Constitution there is no such power
given. I have a passage here which makes it clear that under the United States Constitution there is a power which we have often had
referred to during the last few days-to regulate trade and commerce. Now, Story, in his work on the Constitution of the United States,
says thatIt is not doubted that it extends to the regulation of navigation, and to the coasting trade and fisheries, within as well as without any state,
wherever it is connected with the commerce or intercourse with any other state, or with foreign nations. But it does not extend to the
navigation of a river wholly within one state, separated from tide water by an impassable fall, and not forming part of any continuous
track of commerce between states, or with a foreign country.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Quite so. Sir George Turner says that this amendment stops irrigation. It does not. It simply leaves irrigation
as it was, but subject to such paramount laws as the Federal Parliament may enact for the purpose of securing navigation. I
admit that this amendment is not the one that I should have liked to have. I have already indicated what I should have. liked, and
eighteen members of the Convention have voted for it. But this amendment does say that the Federal Parliament shall secure the
navigability of all inter-state rivers. That is all I wish to do here. Mr. Isaacs has said that this amendment puts navigability in the first
rank. I admit that he is right; it does. I will be as frank with the committee as I can. I should have liked to leave the whole question to
the Federal Parliament to say whether irrigation or navigation should be in the first rank. But if we come to the question of what is
right between states, I do think that all that South Australia could fairly claim would be that navigability should be kept up to such a
degree as nature has allowed navigability. But that is all. South Australia cannot claim more than that. [start page 541] If she achieves
the result of having maintained such navigability as nature gave the Darling and the Murray when their waters come to South
Australia, she will be able to make use of those waters for irrigation or for any other purpose which will not interfere with the
use of the waters above.
END QUOTE
It may very well be that for commercial purposes rather than pure navigation purposes more
water may need to be provided to port operators which could pose problems to inter-State rights
regarding water supplies. Also the absurdity to lease over a 99 year period not knowing what the
future holds, likewise the usage of the ports for anti-national security issues cannot be ignored!
And there is a lot more to it all!
END QUOTE 24-11-2015 PRESS RELEASE
What we have is that despite the Inter-State Commission within s101 is compulsory to exist the
Federal Government has blatantly disregarded this as to control the alternative ACCC so it can
politically use it.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
101 Inter-State Commission
There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the
Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of
the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce,
and of all laws made thereunder.
p12
15-3-2016
END QUOTE
Clearly all trade and commerce (which includes navigation and so the ports) are to fall within
the Authority and decision making process of the Inter-State Commission a separate identity
from the Federal Government, which decisions are final other than that a decision can be
appealed on error of law to the High Court of Australia.
Where then the Northern Territory and now the State of Victoria are leasing/selling of ports then
for monies not reinvested in port facilities but as some by the back door taxation this then is
unconstitutional.
But where does a citizen go when the courts as I view it lack integrity and may be deemed
corrupt?
As Phillips J in his speech upon retirement made clear that the government (of Victoria) has
access to the court computers. And indeed the government has provided a document that Tenix
Solutions IMES Pty (a private company) can access court computers, and as such blatantly
disregarded the separation of powers, and then what stops the Government to say overnight alter
a reason of judgment and orders of a trail judge so that when it is handed down the government
instead of losing the case then has succeeded?
As such, even with the extensive knowledge I have as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I know that
even if somehow I were to be ab le to have an informed judge dealing with the case and the judge
were to accept that my set out is the correct one, then I still am left that the judge can write up
his/her reason of judgment and orders only for the government overnight to access the courts
computer and amend the reason of judgment and orders to its advantage. Unlikely the trail judge
may notice it if it is handed down without reading, and even if a judge were to discover the
tampering of the reason of judgment and orders he/she would unlikely concede this as it would
be deemed to undermine the integrity of the judiciary.
Shaw v Keyte & Ors
QUOTE
............................ Blind unquestioning obedience is the law of tyrants and slaves.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-No; I do not think that there is anything in the Bill that takes it away. Very well, then, if a
state law, or the action of the state, or the action of a citizen of a state, does not contravene Commonwealth
legislation under that power of legislation, granted in this Bill. the state law is still valid, and cannot be
touched or interfered with, and that I conceive is sufficient for the purpose of New South Wales under this
Constitution. Now, my honorable friend (Mr. Isaacs) yesterday, in that remarkably able and statesmanlike
speech which he made-one of the best speeches addressed to this Convention since it began its sittings in
Adelaide-mentioned state laws with regard to irrigation in the United States, especially state laws passed with
reference to the and country, and with reference to California. Now, while my honorable friend mentioned
those in support of his argument, all those instances are evidences that, under the operation of the trade and
commerce clause in America, the right is retained to the states, under the United States Constitution, to deal
with these matters, and is recognised by the courts. And if there were any doubt about that in our own' case,
we have only to refer to clause 99 of this Bill, which tells us thatAll powers which at the establishment of the Commonwealth are vested in the Parliaments of the
several colonies, and which are not by this Constitution exclusively vested in the Parliament of the
Commonwealth, or withdrawn from the Parliaments of the several states, are reserved to, and shall
remain vested in, the Parliaments of the states respectively.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That is the reservation clause.
p13
Mr. BARTON.-Yes, the reservation clause. Now, that clause has a twofold operation. It means, first, that
the power to deal with water conservation and irrigation, which, if you rely on sub-section (1) alone,
finds no mention in this Constitution, and, therefore, is not a power given to the Commonwealth, but a
power retained in the states absolutely. And it means, in addition to that, that the states will retain
15-3-2016 Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502
their power of dealing with the navigation of their rivers, except so far as those rivers fall under the
domination-if you like to use that large word-of the legislation of the Commonwealth, when the
Commonwealth chooses to legislate on the subject of navigation. So that the position of the state is
secure as regards the conservation and use of its waters, except to the extent that there may be an
actual navigation law passed by the Commonwealth, which may have the effect of limiting the state use
of the water of the rivers within that state.
END QUOTE
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-09/victorian-opposition-reaches-agreement-with-port-privatisation/7232428
QUOTE
Port of Melbourne privatisation bill to go

before Victorian Upper House
By Jean Edwards
Updated Wed at 6:24pmWed 9 Mar 2016, 6:24pm
(image not included)

Photo: The deal was reached after months of political wrangling over the terms of the port lease. (Lucas Dawson)
Related Story: Victorian Government makes significant concession on port privatisation plan
Map: Melbourne 3000
The Port of Melbourne could be privatised by the end of the year after the Victorian Opposition agreed to pass legislation
to sell the long-term lease for billions of dollars.
Key points:
State Government hopes to reap about $6 billion from privatising port
Bill expected to pass Upper House on Thursday
10pc of sale proceeds to improve regional transport infrastructure

The bill is expected to pass the Upper House on Thursday, bringing months of political wrangling over the terms of the
lease, and empty Government threats to bypass the Parliament, to an end.
Opposition Leader Matthew Guy said the Coalition was determined to get the best possible deal.
"The amended bill is one that is sensible and far more reasonable," he said.
"Importantly the proposed amended bill does not preclude the development of a second container port for Victoria."
The Government hopes to reap about $6 billion from privatising the country's biggest container port to fund the removal
of 50 railway level crossings over two terms.
Under the agreement, up to $700 million, or 10 per cent of the proceeds of the sale, will be spent on improving transport
infrastructure in regional areas.
Treasurer Tim Pallas said the state's interests had won over the "dross of politics".
"It's been a tough negotiation and it went a lot longer than I would like. I probably wouldn't have settled on the terms
offered had we lived in a perfect world," he said.
Mr Pallas said Labor hoped to lease the port for a minimum of $5.3 billion, a price factored in by the former Napthine
government.
Despite setting a "rock-hard" deadline for the bill to pass last month, the Andrews Government caved in to Opposition
demands to limit a compensation regime entitling the leaseholder to a payout if a rival port opened for business to 15
years.
The deal also includes a competitive neutrality clause ensuring a competing port would not be treated more favourably
than the Port of Melbourne.
END QUOTE
p14
15-3-2016
It must be clear that $6 billion dollars is not for purpose of wharfage improvement and as such
must be taken as a tax in violation to s92 of the constitution. Yet taking this to the court more
than likely the courts will in my view railroad the case.
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of the
constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute majority of
both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed amendment must be
submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions elected for the purpose,
and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions in the states it shall become law,
subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the constitution might be amended, and by
a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.
How absurd that without a referendum and in violation to the legal principles embedded in the
constitution the High Court of Australia somehow decides to change the nationality of millions
of people without any of them having any opportunity to submit their cases, and to change the
true meaning and application of the constitution regarding Australian citizenship as set out in
previous supplements. As I did also set out there is no constitutional validity in what the High
Court of Australia ruled as it is not above the constitution. As a matter of fact I submitted matters
to the High Court of Australia on 4 occasions and each time it refused to accept it for
consideration, while then asking a some legal practitioner to pursue the issue of citizenship.
Whereas when subsequently I placed the same matter on 19 July 2006 before the County Court
of Victoria (exercising federal jurisdiction) none and I repeat none of my submissions ion that
regard were challenged.
While there may be people arguing that the High Court of Australia decision in Sue v Hill is final
and all court have to follow that decision this would be a misconception by them as the High
Court of Australia itself in Wakim HCA 27 of 1999 stated:
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers"
Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted,
the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the
historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of the text
in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It
p15
15-3-2016
does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best
sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities,
speaking or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion."
END QUOTE
(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
.
The latter makes it very clear that no issue estoppel can exist against the constitution (But
between the same litigants where the constitutional matter already was fully considered) and as
such where I litigated this extensively on 19 July 2006 and without any Attorney-General
challenging my submissions even so all having been served with a s78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS then for all purposes and intend.
Held by the High Court of Australia (Williams J.) that under this section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 the AttorneyGeneral for the Commonwealth or a State may apply for the removal into the High Court of a cause or part of a
cause whether or not he is a party to the proceedings in which the cause arises, and if the cause really and
substantially arises under the Constitution or involves its interpretation, the court MUST grant the removal as of
right notwithstanding that the matter is apparently concluded by authority. Any distinct and divisible question may
be part of such a cause within the meaning of this section. In re an Application by the Public Service Association
of N.S.W. , (1947) 75 C.L.R. 430
At the time none of the Attorney-Generals exercised the option to apply for removal of the
matters to the High Court of Australia, neither challenged any of my submissions!
As it was put then to the court that there was no state legislation as to citizenship existing then
not a single judge can claim to have state citizenship. This means that none, no matter which
court they are appointed to have any validly appointed judicial officers.
.
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
Because the lack of /State citizenship is critical to the validity of any judge appointed to any
court, then all there could be is a public interest case to be placed before the Privy council as
to determine if the illusion created by the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill was validly
arrived to and somehow did override the true meaning and application of the constitution
regardless it was never approved by the majority of the electors in the Commonwealth of
Australia let alone by the majority of State electors in the states as it was never submitted to the
electors, or that the 19 July 2006 successful appeals is to be held to have set the record straight
that Australian citizenship indeed only can be obtained by obtaining State citizenship and
where none of the States has any State citizenship legislation then no judge can be deemed to
have been validly appointed as to pass judgment as a peer.
It should be kept in mind that where the Prosecutor had submitted issues and I had failed/declines
to challenge them then the court is entitled to hold that the unchallenged submissions were
accepted by me. This in particular if they were subject to an s78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.
.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1986/11.html
p16
15-3-2016
BROWN v. THE QUEEN [1986] HCA 11; (1986) 160 CLR 171 No. F.C. 86/010 (20 March 1986)
QUOTE
3. The question for decision is whether s.80 contains an imperative and indispensable requirement that the
trial must be by jury whenever the accused is charged on indictment with an offence against a law of the
Commonwealth, or whether the section is intended to secure for the benefit and protection of any person so
charged a right or privilege which the accused may waive if the law governing the conduct of the trial permits
it. The argument that the requirement is indispensable and cannot be waived is an obvious enough one. The
words of s.80 appear to be both clear and mandatory; read literally, they appear to mean that "if there be an
indictment, there must be a jury", as Higgins J. said in R. v. Archdall and Roskruge; Ex parte Carrigan and
Brown (1928) 41 CLR 128, at p 139, and they do not expressly admit any exception to that rule.
4. It then becomes necessary to consider the purpose which the framers of the Constitution had, or must be
supposed to have had, in including the provisions of s.80 in the Constitution. The requirement that there
should be a trial by jury was not merely arbitrary or pointless. It must be inferred that the purpose of the
section was to protect the accused - in other words, to provide the accused with a "safeguard against the
corrupt or over-zealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge": Duncan v.
Louisiana (1968) 391 US 145, at p 156 (20 L.Ed.2d 491, at p 500). Those who advocate the retention of the
jury system almost invariably place in the forefront of their argument the proposition (sometimes rhetorically
expressed but not without some truth) that the jury is a bulwark of liberty, a protection against tyranny and
arbitrary oppression, and an important means of securing a fair and impartial trial.
The successful appellant pays cost!
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
END QUOTE
Yet the High Court of Australia nevertheless struggles to understand/comprehend what our
constitutional system of representative government stood for.
Subject: Ex-judge hits out at 'elected dictatorship'
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/exjudge-hits-out-at-electeddictatorship/2007/05/15/1178995158740.html
QUOTE
The High Court in McGinty had to choose between these competing views. In doing so, it effectively had to
establish a position on two fundamental, complex and interrelated questions of constitutional theory
associated with developing and protecting rights. First, to what extent was the Court entitled to interpret the
Constitution in accord with its own view of what representative democracy or representative government
required rather than according to orthodox legal analysis of the Constitution's text and structure? Second,
where should the political balance of power in the Australian polity lie between the Parliament, the High
Court and the people?
47 Above n l at 295-6 per Brennan CJ. Dawson J at 310 stated that "it is fallacious reason-ing" to draw an
implication of a system of representative government "for which the Con-stitution does not provide"
from an "extrinsic source".
McHugh J declined to follow this analysis of the earlier cases, however, regarding any invocation of an
implied principle of representative democracy in the fieedom of political communication cases as
"fundamentally wrong and as an alteration of the Constitution without the authority of the people under s
128".53 He argued that to decide cases by reference to what the principles of representative democracy currently require is to give this court a jurisdiction which the Constitu- tion does not contemplate
and which the Australian people have never a~thorised.~~
p17
15-3-2016
END QUOTE
What is required is to have a constitutional court (Different than that of the current High Court
of Australia operations, albeit it can and should be part of the High Court of Australia,) where
only judges are at the bench presiding over constitutional matters who have extensive knowledge
about the true meaning and application of the constitution (This, appears to me currently to be an
illusion considering for example the absurd ruling in Sue v Hill.), and so all litigation regarding
constitutional issues to be at cost of taxpayers. As such never any orders against a sentry who
pursued the true meaning and application of the constitution to be decided upon. Now the court
has so to say sold its soul to those who can afford to litigate and ordinary citizens are hamstrung
to litigate regardless how important the constitutional issue might be.
And with it we require to have the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the
hyphens!), which is a constitutional councils that advises the Government, the People, the
Parliament and the courts as to the true meaning and application of the constitution. Such
constitutional council would be a separate but advisory body and enable judges to make informed
decision rather than to depend on time constrains or ill-conceived views.
I am caused constantly to be before judicial officers who know next to nothing about the true
meaning and application of the constitution and somehow I am to educate those unwilling
judiciary officers to try to overcome their ill-conceived views as to constitutional issues, when
they argue they do not desire to waste court time, when they themselves are doing so!
We need to look at that when a person enters a court precinct the person enters a sovereign
jurisdiction as like that if one enters the Parliament and/or either Houses of the Parliament. That
is why the Framers of the Constitution debated the issue that a constitutional Parliament (so
either House) has no inherited sovereign powers unless provided for by legislation that the
Parliament can punish a person violating the peace of the Parliament. Likewise the Court cannot
punish for Contempt of Court unless there is provided legislation to do so.
When a citizen is ordered to attend to a court venue, the person is actually requested/ordered to
enter a sovereign area where the rule of law is different than where the person ordinary may
reside. The citizen then can under the banner of a white flag (OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION) enter this sovereign court venue without giving up any of his/her ordinary
legal rights and if the court were to dismiss this OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then it
must nevertheless adhere to the White Flag principles and let this citizen leave the court venue.
Authorities cannot arrest a person merely because of leaving the courts building, perhaps using
the court as some baiting station to get the person coming to court on any nonsense so as to get
their hands on the person, as I view this would be an abuse and misuse of the judicial system. As
much as if I were to verbally or otherwise attack an opponent travelling from home to the court
and visa versa I could be held in contempt of court as I am bound to the free passage of a party in
litigation, I view that equally Authorities such as the police are bound by this.
It should also be understood that where a citizen is fleeing from authorities, such as the police,
and enters a court venue, then the police cannot chase the person into the court venue and arrest
the person unless the police has first obtained from the Chief Justice permission to do so.
As such the police have no powers within the court venue (and so any walkway for a citizen to
enter a court venue (such as in a privately owned building where the court leases part of the
building) cannot be exercised, again, unless specifically authorised so by the chief Justice.
Hence, police cannot be permitted to carry weapons, recording units, mobiles, capsicum spray,
etc, where they enter a court venue unless on each occasion specifically authorised by the Chief
Justice to do so. This is essential as to avoid intimidation upon any citizen who may attend to the
court venue. While one may see police arresting a person outside the court room, this I view is
unconstitutional as it defies the independence of the judiciary and the sanctity of the court venue,
unless the police are on each occasion specifically authorised for this. A general permission is
not constitutionally acceptable.
p18
15-3-2016
We have the Sheriffs Office going about purportedly enforcing court orders but then merely
acting as a Debt Collector for the government. Going in and out of court venues as if they have
all the powers to operate wherever. Again, unless the sheriff Officers are employed directly by
the judiciary and not by the Government as public servants the sheriff Officers cannot be deemed
to lawfully operate within the court venue. Likewise the so called PSOs which often are lurking
around in court rooms. The security of court rooms are within the powers of the Chief Justice and
not the government. As such the Sheriff Officer, PSO, Police, etc if not employed by the
judiciary must be deemed to have no powers to operate within a court venue as it ordinary would
outside the court venue.
I did state in my earlier supplement 4:
QUOTE Supplement 4
there is no doubt that the courts are concerned, and in certain ways justified by the escalation of
domestic anti-government (so called) sovereign citizens also referred to as domestic terrorist, in
particular where the aim is to cause an avalanche of litigation by persons who on the one hand accept
government provisions such as payments but on the other hand opposes the rule of law such as legislative
provisions regardless that they may be constitutionally valid. The judiciary seems to be working towards a
solution to prevent this gigantic disruption to the legal processes which in the process obstructs genuine cases
to be heard, due to the time consuming litigation by the so called sovereign citizens.
END QUOTE Supplement 4
The problem that has surfaced is what integrity if any does the judiciary have?
.
I have to again refer back to what I understood His Honour Mullaly J having stated on 30
October 2015:
They do not need evidence in a (criminal) ex parte proceedings
You are a person who holds the law applies to everyone else but not to you!
"The most odious of all oppressions are those which mask as justice."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, Krulewitch v United States.
R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236
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
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"...
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.) 411 Austin Digest 93,339,457,458
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.
Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 II,L.C. 759
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.
Reg v. The London County Council (1894) XI .L.R. 24
p19
15-3-2016
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
R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236
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"...
In the Marriage of P.N. and J.S. Axtell (1982) 7 FLR 931
Held, per curiam: (i) The test of judicial bias as laid down by the High Court is whether it has been
established that it might reasonably be suspected by a fair minded person that the judge might not
resolve the question before him with a fair and unprejudiced mind.
R. Watson; Ex parte Armstrong: Full Court of the HIGH COURT: (1976) 1 Fam LR 11, 297;
9 ALR 551; (1976) FLC 90-059, applied.
Re Lusink; Ex parte Shaw (1980) 6 Fam LR 230; 32 ALR 47; [1980] FLC 90-884, referred to.
(ii) In Re Watson the High Court appeared to draw a distinction between specific matters of fact such as
the credit of parties as to which a judge may not express a preconceived opinion without raising a
suspicion of bias and more general matters of principle about which a judge may express opinions
without being disqualified to hear the case.
R. Watson; Ex parte Armstrong: Full Court of the HIGH COURT: (1976) 1 Fam LR 11, 297;
9 ALR 551; (1976) FLC 90-059, discussed.
(iii) An appellate court has to consider whether on a reading of a transcript it should conclude that a fair
minded person would consider that the husband did not have a fair hearing and that the issues raised by his
case were not fairly considered.
It is not for me to go through each and every judge as to establish his/her bias, where it is clear
already that the courts are not operating independent/impartial but are essentially money raising
entities as Business Unit 19 and where the courts has set itself up to deal with so called
sovereign citizens perceived as domestic terrorist regardless if they are not, and the court
goes along with denial of fair and proper litigation/hearings where it concerns ASIO regardless if
ASIO may have fabricates any alleged evidence.
As the High Court of Australia stated:
(at 2) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
QUOTE
The Australian Constitution limits the power of parliaments to impose burdens on freedom of
communication on government and political matters. No Australian parliament can validly enact a law
which effectively burdens freedom of communication about those matters unless the law is reasonably
appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the
constitutionally prescribed system of [government in Australia.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The term "implied freedom of communication concerning government and political matters" has been
well established in Australian constitutional discourse since the implication was first posited in Nationwide
p20
15-3-2016
News Pty Ltd v Wills1 and in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth 2. However, as
Dawson J said in Levy v Victoria3:
QUOTE
(at 102-103)
Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 &
S179/2012,
QUOTE
Applicable principles
102
103
The Constitution provides for a system of representative and responsible government. Sections 7 and 24 of
the Constitution provide that the two Houses of the Parliament must be "directly chosen by the people".
Section 64 requires that no Minister of State hold office "for a longer period than three months unless he is
or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives". Those who are elected as members of
the Parliament and those who are appointed as Ministers of State are necessarily accountable to "the
people" referred to in ss 7 and 24. Additionally, s 128 provides that the Constitution shall not be altered
except in the manner provided in that section; in particular, only "if in a majority of the States a majority of
the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the
proposed law". As the whole Court said in Lange4, it follows from these and other provisions that
"[f]reedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable incident of
that system of representative government which the Constitution creates".
Because freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an
indispensable incident of the constitutionally prescribed system of government, that freedom cannot
be curtailed by the exercise of legislative or executive power5 and the common law cannot be
inconsistent with it. But the freedom is not absolute and it follows that the limit on legislative power
is also not absolute.
QUOTE
QUOTE
In the setting of the Australian Constitution, a system of representative government is the constitutional
imperative upon which the implied freedom is founded.
END QUOTE
With, for example, Mr Oliver Bridgeman it should be asked if the Federal Government is more
about seeking to prevent exposure of its political wrongdoing than anything else.
North Korea appears now to pursue a possible preventive strike as after all this was the basis of
argument by the Federal Government (To disregard what President Saddam Hussein has
presented with his numerous DVDs to provide evidence that no Weapons of Mass Destruction
existed, and yet launched a unconstitutional murderous invasion into a sovereign country Iraq,
without any declaration of war, and the High Court of Australia on 18 February 2003, 19
February 2003, 18 March 2003 and on 19 March 2003 each time refused to accept the filing of
applications to hear and determine the issue if the armed murderous invasion was constitutionally
permissible). The judges appeared to rely upon conventions art least what they ill-conceived
then to rely upon the true meaning and application of the constitution, as to prevent this highly
contentious issue to be litigated on constitutional issues. In the process the Commonwealth of
Australia now has become a more dangerous place which might have been avoided has so to say
the High Court of Australia not sold its soul to the politicians.
p21
15-3-2016
The High Court of Australia so to say has paid homage to secrecy of the Government so that
citizens no longer will be aware the identity of certain persons in regard of which litigation is
conducted before the High Court of Australia regarding unauthorised persons, and by this also
prevent citizens who may have the knowledge of relevant information to the case are by this
denied their ability to present this before the court, if they wished to do so. On the one hand the
High Court of Australia in Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27
February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012, makes clear about political liberty and on the other
hand itself is so to say aiding and abetting with the Federal government to keep identities secret
preventing citizens their ability to know what is going on and if they may seek to intervene, etc.
As I did point out that ASIO seems to consider sovereign citizens to be domestic terrorist
and domestic anti-government but when we have a close look at how the courts operate then it
appears to me that the Courts are so to say taking ASIO (Australia Security Intelligence
Organisation) statements as gospel that it has to adhere to;
.

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE
Ex Parte hearings obviously do not provide for this.

.
As I also previously quoted:

Marriage of Baines (No. 2) (1981) 7 Fam LR 232 at 237;QUOTE
We recognise that each party is entitled to a Fair and Proper trial and to an adequate opportunity to adduce
relevant evidence and to test the quality and veracity of the evidence adduced by the other party.
END QUOTE
.
Marriage of Baines (1981) 7 Fam LR 226 at 229

QUOTE
The adversary system involves the presentation of facts ascertained by questions put to witnesses, or legal
representations to the court. The role of the judge is that of adjudicator.
END QUOTE
A judge cannot be an adjudicator if there is no evidence placed before the court to consider (such
as on 17 September 2015 before the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud) and neither
could an accuse challenge the non-existing evidence as to the veracity of the non-existing
evidence. But there is a lot more to it all.
As I quoted previously Phillips J when retiring made clear that the Courts are registered with the
government as Business Unit 19, and this clearly violated the separation of powers and the
independence of the judiciary.
.
I have challenged for some years now the validity of the purported Infringement Act 2006 but
despite an extensive FOI Act request on 9 December 2015 noting that it related to court
proceedings no reply whatsoever was forthcoming.
This much reminds me to the Queensland Heiner Affair where documents were destroyed by the
government. Albeit the government may not have destroyed documentation it nevertheless is
concealing them in violation to the FOI Act. As such the quotations below may be read Victoria
for Queensland and Infringement Court for Heiner and most of it fits.
.
p22
15-3-2016
Not uncommon there are claims that the government can overrule constitutional
requirements/limitations in time of war or under the pretext or otherwise of national security
but no such provision exist in the constitution. As shown below however in the Bridgeman case
it seems ASIO seems to decide matters for the courts.
Obviously the question ought to be asked is ASIO is constitutionally permissible to operate
within the States, and in my view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I hold it would be
unconstitutional as much as for the Australian Federal Police to do so.
QUOTE
let us set our face once and for ever against the creation of anything like a military despotism.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within.
END QUOTE
There is absolutely no constitutional power for any Parliament, Government,

Governor/Governor-General or even the judiciary to suspend the true meaning and application of
the constitution.
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
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
p23
15-3-2016
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
While a government may declare a state of emergency it cannot override the constitution and so
neither its embedded legal principles.
.
Yet, when it comes to ASIO it seems that the courts are so to say bending backwards to suit
ASIO and its intelligence was proven with the WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) where it
so called secret sources effectively was fabricated. Regretfully as result people in Iraq were
bombed out of their beds into oblivion. Yet I am not aware a single judicial officer, despite being
OFFICERS OF THE COURT and having a legal duty to act where a criminal offence occurs, did
anything to intervene. To me they became traitors to their own oath of office! And some 10 years
ago when I made my submissions to the court on 19 July 2006, and none where challenged by
any of the Attorney-Generals nevertheless the judiciary failed to act against the alleged
offenders. To me this indicates the judiciary is aligned with the treasonous conduct of the
Government, and cannot be trusted.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have written numerous articles and books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues and in
particularly also about the federal government exercising its constitutional rights to deny entry of
criminals, regardless if they are ordinary residents of the Commonwealth of Australia.
The constitution specifically includes the legislative powers as to "influx of criminals" as to
prevent any person who has British nationality (which includes Australians as we are under a
British constitution) to deny entry if it relates to criminal conduct.
The Framers of the Constitution were well aware that without this provision criminals holding
British nationality could otherwise enter the Commonwealth of Australia.
QUOTE
Clause 113.-Every state shall make provision for the detention and punishment in its prisons of persons
accused or convicted of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth and the Parliament of the
Commonwealth, may make laws to give effect to this provision.
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I think the words "or detention" should be inserted after "the detention."
At present the clause reads-"The state shall make-provision for the detention and punishment in its prisons of
persons accused or convicted," &c. We do not want to punish "persons accused." I beg to moveThat the words "or detention" be inserted after "detention."
The clause will then read-"For the detention or detention and punishment," &c.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I do not think that amendment would quite do. I could understand the
clause being amended so as to make it read-"detention or punishment of persons accused or convicted." The
object of the clause, as it stands, is to keep together the terms "accused or convicted," so, that the relation,
both of accusation and conviction, to the laws of the Commonwealth may be made clear. The clause only
applies to accusations or convictions in respect of laws of the Commonwealth, and, therefore, these words
"accused or convicted" are kept together just before the words "offences against the laws of the
Commonwealth." I think that if my honorable [start page 693] friend (Mr. Glynn) would alter his amendment
so as to make it read "detention or punishment," there can be no misreading of the clause.
p24
15-3-2016
Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I think the words should stand as they are. You have to make
provision for both things.
Mr. GLYNN.-Not for the punishment of accused persons.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Provision has to be made both for detention and punishment. I think the clause is
clear enough as it stands at present.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I believe that my honorable friend's (Mr. Glynn's) feeling is that, by
leaving the words as they are, the clause might be interpreted to enable the federal authorities to demand from
the state the detention and punishment of persons who were not convicted, but I do not apprehend that
there is the slightest difficulty on that score. I do not think any court would interpret the words to mean
the punishment of a person accused and not convicted.
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-My contention is that, as the clause stands, the words are to be read
conjunctively in relation to the word "accused." The clause says that each state shall make provision for the
detention and punishment of persons accused or convicted. You must read the word "punishment" in relation
to "accused," as well as to "convicted." The clause should read-"For the detention, or detention and
punishment, as the case may be, of persons accused or convicted," &c.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I think the clause might be amended to get out of the difficulty
which has been pointed out. As it stands at present, it provides that the state shall make provision for the
detention and punishment in its prisons of persons accused or convicted. Now, evidently, the detention is for
those who have not yet been convicted, and the punishment is for those who have been convicted, and I
think that those two classes ought to be separated.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have an amendment which I think will meet the case, and enable us
to get on. I beg to moveThat the clause be amended by striking out the words after "detention" down to "Commonwealth," and
substituting in lieu thereof the words "in its prisons of persons accused of offences against the laws of the
Commonwealth, and the punishment of persons convicted of such offences."
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I would point out that, under the clause as now proposed to be
amended, a state might make provision for whipping persons convicted, but not for detaining them in
prison.
Mr. ISAACS.-Detention may be part of the punishment.
Mr. GLYNN.-But the punishment may not be detention, it may be flagellation. Are you going to allow a
state to make provision for the character of the punishment for an offence against the Commonwealth?
Mr. Barton's amendment was agreed to.
END QUOTE
Clearly sending even so called refugees to of shore detention facilities would be unconstitutional
because a person must be placed in detention with a State. And even then a person must be
accused and not without formal being accused placed in detention. In my view unless a
person is formally charged as an accused no detention can be justified. It places the onus upon
the Commonwealth to formally charge every so called refugee and/or other unauthorised person
immediately with whatever offence the person is alleged to have made, or must let the person go
free in movement. This then places the onus upon the commonwealth to deal speedily with any
charge because justice delayed is justice denied and then the courts could free a person held too
long in detention.
QUOTE
ISSUE: Minister Peter Dutton about Australian suspected terrorists & the constitution
p25
15-3-2016
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am obviously aware of and considering the legal principles

embedded in the constitution. Minister Peter Dutton was on the news (Friday 20-11-2015) making
known that Australians returning from the Middle East have a constitutional right to return to Australia.
Excuse me Minister, in what world are you living? Have you ever studied and researched the constitution
before opening your mouth? The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) includes Ss51
(xxviii) the influx of criminals;", and let us have a proper look at this!
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir
EDWARD BRADDON.-The amendment is to omit clause 110, and insert the following now clause:- The citizens of each state, and all other
persons owing allegiance to the Queen and residing in any territory of the Commonwealth, shall be citizens of the Commonwealth, and shall be
entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the Commonwealth in the several states, and a state shall not make or enforce any law
abridging any privilege or immunity of citizens of the Commonwealth, nor shall a state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws. Now, there is a clause that covers the whole
ground-a clause that is all-sufficient for the purpose-bearing in mind that every provision is made for securing to the Commonwealth that its
citizens shall not be people of alien races to any considerable extent. There are in India some 150,000,000 British subjects, but of those
150,000,000 people very few indeed could stand the test applied by the Natal Immigration Restriction Act, which I think has been adopted
already in Western Australia; which will no doubt be adopted in other colonies. of Australasia, and which will be effective in keeping from our
shores the natives of India who cannot pass the education test that is applied under the Natal Act. This education test is one which would debar
some 149,000,000 at the least out of 150,000,000 from qualifying, and would so keep them out of Australia. There you have a very much wider
disability-and I think a very wholesome disability-which goes far and away beyond that suggested by the learned and honorable member (Mr.
Isaacs). I think if we took this clause into our consideration, it might be found to do all that is required for us. END QUOTE
At the time British nationality was not held to be a guarantee to be allowed to enter the Commonwealth of
Australia, and this also regarding anyone being a criminal. While the High Court of Australia purported in
Sue v Hill that we have an Australian nationality the constitutionally embedded legal principle remains
that anyone, regardless of nationality, who is a criminal can be barred from entering the Commonwealth
of Australia. HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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. END QUOTE
I do not know of any successful referendum to have caused an amendment to the constitution to alter our
British nationality and as such I view Sue v Hill is utter and sheer nonsense.
HANSARD 9-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. KINGSTON: QUOTE There are one or two questions which might almost be
associated with the question of, defence. I regard as second only to the necessity of protecting our shores against actual invasion, the necessity of
protecting Australia against the influx of aliens, Asiatics, criminals, paupers, and other undesirable classes. In the legislation which we have
been already compelled to adopt on these subjects, we know that there has been a striving after uniformity; but that uniformity has seldom been
obtained. It is idle for one state, unless it erects a hostile barrier on its inter-colonial boundaries, to attempt to pass useful legislation prohibiting or
restricting an influx of that character, if there is no community of action on the part of the rest of the colonies; and when the doors of Australia are
thrown open by the omission of one state to do its duty, the undesirable class which any colony wishes to guard against may come in, not at the
front door, but at the back-not at her own sea ports, but through the territory of her neighbours. END QUOTE HANSARD 22-9-1897
Constitution Convention Debates The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[3.16]: QUOTE I take it that the exclusion of lunatics is
as much a matter of federal concern as is the exclusion of criminals. END QUOTE HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention
Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I do not think it is necessary to add the words proposed. The words "influx of criminals" were inserted in the
Bill in 1891 for a specific purpose, which it is not necessary to specify now, particularly as it is a purpose of which honorable members are well
aware. END QUOTE HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown in prosecuting
criminals are. END QUOTE HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. TRENWITH.- QUOTE We have an indication of
that from what was said by the right honorable member (Sir Edward Braddon) as to the difficulty in Tasmania in dealing satisfactorily with
British subjects coming from Hindostan. He says that is a difficulty there, and that it will have to be met by special legislation. END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power? Mr. GORDON.-It
is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right. END QUOTE
In my view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST the Minister is entitled to prohibit the re-entry of any criminal
or suspected criminal, provided that the Minister decision can be challenged in the courts, where a person
is suspected but not convicted having been engaged in criminal activities abroad. How this process is to
be worked out is for the Commonwealth of Australia to work out, but those who are found to have
offended, for example, against section 24 of the Criminal Act (Cth) may find irrespective of their
nationality may be prevented from entering/re-entering the Commonwealth of Australia.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all relevant issues/details.
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

END QUOTE
We also have the case of Mr Oliver Bridgeman where he is left stranded in Syria, as his passport
was cancelled by the government, and the Australian Federal Police either itself issued a warrant
(One wonders how?) or had obtained a warrant issue upon ASIO so called national security
secret evidence. The Federal Government is entitled to prevent the influx of criminals but
when it comes to suspected criminals then it is bound to act appropriately.
Issuing an arrest warrant while preventing the person to re-enter the Commonwealth of Australia
in my view is contradictive. It shows the Commonwealth is not genuine in the obtaining for the
p26
15-3-2016
warrant. An arrest warrant must be deemed a court order and as such the Federal Government
preventing Mr Oliver Bridgeman to re-enter the Commonwealth of Australia by this effectively
made clear it never had any intention to comply with the warrant issue. In my view this may
amount to contempt of court and perverting the course of justice.
Where the Commonwealth specifically acts to deny a person to return to the Commonwealth of
Australia without this person having been convicted of any alleged crime, then I view the onus is
upon the Commonwealth to provide appropriate financial and other support for the person to
remain where he/she is left stranded until the matter has been sorted out. Also, the Government
must ensure that the person so stranded is provided with appropriate facilities to challenge the
cancellation of the passport, etc. In my view the government by its conduct to prevent Mr Oliver
Bridgement to re-enter has effectively nullified the warrant issue by this.
Our constitution provides for an accused to be heard and he is entitled to test the veracity of
alleged evidence. ASIO was setup as a political tool, as SBS program
(https://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/persons-of-interest-view-the-digitised-asio-files-from-the-naa/
(https://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/.../persons-of-interest-view-the-dig... Jan 16, 2014 - The first two episodes of
the SBS documentary Persons of Interest have ... people in Australia by ASIO between the late 1940s and late
1970s.) exposed against political opponents of the government, and I view therefore cannot either
be held to act as a valid national security entity.

A problem the Federal Government faces is that if it allows Mr Oliver Bridgement to re-enter
and then it is held by a court that he was in violation of Australian law that he could be deemed a
terrorist or associated with terrorist then deporting him would be extremely difficult, whereas
preventing him to re-enter may have been the best option, and then have the warrant issue used to
have him arrested in a foreign jurisdiction and have him formally charged.
The problem is however, as I presented on 19 July 2006, in the court (and so unchallenged) that
the Federal Government itself unconstitutionally invaded Iraq and by this committed war crimes,
crimes against humanity, etc. But as like in the Heiner Affair not a single Minister was ever
charged regarding these very serious war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc, despite that the
world is not at all a safer place but rather a more dangerous place. As I understand it Australian
Military are unconstitutionally bombing Syria, somehow on request of Iraq, as if this somehow
justify such unconstitutional armed invasion, and yet somehow the courts are sanctioning this by
its inaction while finding that without any proper evidence that is open to be challenged Mr
Oliver Bridgeman somehow can be punished by a passport cancelation without any conviction.
It is not my function to determine if Mr Oliver Bridgeman is guilty or not of Australian legal
provisions but the Courts in my view, at least if it is independent and impartial cannot apply
DOUBLE STANDARDS to ignore the Federal Governments own conduct in Syria while
somehow taking issue with a person who is also in Syria but no evidence to any war mongering
as the Federal Government is.
As I have previously stated the Victorian Government defies the Rule of Law in many ways and
yet the court silence is deafening.
Because judges hold themselves to be the 3rd arm of Government instead of being part of the
constitution and so must be impartial and independent, the courts have essentially aided and
abetted with the criminal conduct of the various governments.
A clear example is that the Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud ordered me to pay the cost
of an Infringement Notice of about $1,461.00 without a shred of evidence before it that I had
actually committed any offence. And As His Honour Mullaly J made clear that the court doesnt
need any evidence in a (criminal) ex parte hearing. On that basis why do we need a court at all if
a mere allegation seems to be sufficient to make it a crime without any evidence?
.
One may consider that section 51(xxviii) regarding influx of criminals require that the person
must have a conviction as a criminal or is suspected of having been convicted and not that the
p27
15-3-2016
person might be convicted. In that regard Section 51(xxviii) may in fact not be used against Mr
Oliver Bridgeman. And this is an important issue because if the courts were to sanction the
misuse of the constitutional powers then a Government of the Day may seek to prevent the return
of any political opponent and so prevent this person from being involved in an election or
otherwise have this person banned from Parliament for failing to attend, even so this person may
never have been convicted of any wrongdoing. Hence the narrow reading of s51(xxviii) would in
my view be essential in favour of the accused that unless the person had a conviction against
him/her prior to seeking to return to the Commonwealth of Australia any later conviction
afterwards cannot be used. This is also important to consider that a person never having been
convicted could be denied entry as a suspected criminal and then legal proceedings are issued in
his/her absenteeism and then the person failing (really being prevented) to attend then gets ex
parte convicted without any evidence. At least going by what His Honour Mullaly J stated no
evidence is required for an ex parte (criminal) hearing for orders to be made.
In my view the cancellation of the passport of Mr Oliver Bridgeman would be unconstitutional if
he had no recorded conviction at the time of the cancellation.
Let us consider another issue. Australia may be at war with a certain country and then issue an
emergency order that all persons who are of the same race of the country it is at war with are to
be placed in detention. In my view the Federal Government could be deemed in a perpetual war
with Iraq, this because it without declaration of war nevertheless invaded a friendly country
and didnt declare any peace. If in fact Australian troops are involved in bombings in Syria then
it is the aggressor (I understand s24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth)) and it would then have no legal
basis to litigate against Mr Oliver Bridgeman or for that anyone else, as it fails to be itself a
model litigant. Again the County Court of Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction upheld on 19
July 2006 my both appeals unchallenged despite the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS in which the armed invasion into Iraq as a very critical issue extensively canvassed
by me then.
In the current matter of OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION I made as the Appellant and
relying upon constitutional issues then this is again a matter in which the County Court of
Victoria must be dealing with federal jurisdiction, in regard of which I previously provided
Authorities.
If every person (including the government) is indeed equal before the courts then why does the
courts allow ASIO to hide behind national security to prevent an accused to properly verify
any alleged evidence?
Below I quote various Authorities which if properly considered indicates that as I exposed in
previous statements/submissions the State Government is in violation with constitutional legal
embedded principles. How then can any court condone or seem to condone this, I wonder.
If indeed the Government is involved in billions of dollars being kept outside the consolidated
Revenue funds and so leave fraud, etc, to be rife and the courts ignore this then I for one cannot
trust the judiciary.
http://www.heineraffair.info/site_pages/legal_opinions.html
QUOTE
Legal Opinions Section 129 Criminal Code of Queensland
The opinion of Sir Harry Gibbs (former Chief Justice High Court of Australia)
"There can now be no doubt that the advice given to the Queensland Government and the view accepted by
the Criminal Justice Commission, that s.129 of the Queensland Criminal Code, read in the light of the
definition of "Judicial Proceedings" in s.119 of the Code, applies only when the Judicial Proceeding has
actually commenced, was erroneous. That was authoritatively recognized in 2004 by the decision of the
Queensland Court of Appeal in R v. Ensbey. It follows that if the evidence establishes beyond doubt that the
Queensland Cabinet on the 5th March, 1990 knew that legal proceedings were likely, and that the material
which it ordered to be shredded might be required in evidence in those proceedings, there is at least a prima
facie case that those members of the Cabinet who ordered the shredding were in breach of the law"
p28
15-3-2016
And still the Queensland Government refuses to take any action in this matter.
* (For details see Mr. Kevin Lindebergs article recently published in Volume 17 of The Samuel Griffith Societys book
Upholding the Australian Constitution. http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume17/v17contents.htm)
Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2003] HCA 72
9 December 2003
B99/2002
However, contrary to the submissions for the applicant, the result of such a consideration of his position is his
classification as an alien for the purposes of s 51(xix) of the Constitution. Much of the applicant's argument
proceeded from the premise that, because the expression "British subject" could be applied to him, he was not
an alien. That premise is flawed. First, "British subject" is not a constitutional expression; it is a statutory
expression. Secondly, and more fundamentally, if "British subject" was being used as a synonym for "subject
of the Queen", an expression which is found in the Constitution, that usage would assume that there was at
the time of federation, and there remains today, a constitutional and political unity between the UK and
Australia which 100 years of history denies.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitutional Convention Debates
Mr. BARTON.- I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are alike subjects of
the British Crown.
Mr. MUNRO:
. I am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to be proud of that
position.
Mr. HOLDER:
because I take it that the legal bonds which bind us to the mother-country, to the great British Empire,
Mr. BARTON:
The association of the Queen with the action of the commonwealth is distinct, and is firmly embedded in
the whole bill. If that is done, there can be no association of the idea of republicanism with this bill.
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.
Dr. QUICK.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.
Mr. BARTON.We are subjects in our constitutional relation to the empire, not citizens. "Citizens" is an undefined term, and
is not known to the Constitution. The word "subjects" expresses the relation between citizens of the empire
and the Crown.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Is a naturalized alien a subject?
Mr. BARTON.-He would be a citizen under the meaning of this clause.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Suppose you say "subject" without definition, would that include
naturalized aliens?
p29
15-3-2016
Mr. BARTON.-Yes. Dr. Quick's definition is: Persons resident in the Commonwealth, either natural-born
or naturalized subjects of the Queen, and if they are subject to no disabilities imposed by the Parliament they
shall be citizens of the Commonwealth. Why not use the word "subject," and avoid the necessity of this
definition?
And
Mr. OCONNOR.-Exactly. It has two meanings, but we are only dealing now with the one meaningthe general meaning. Mr. Isaacs' reference shows the danger that might be incurred by using the word
"citizen," because it might have the restrictive meaning the last decision imposes. All we mean now is a
member of the community or of the nation, and the accurate description of a member of the community
under our circumstances is a subject of the Queen resident within the Commonwealth."
Mr. SYMON.-A person for the time being under the law of the Commonwealth.
Mr. OCONNOR.-A person for the time being entitled to the benefits of the law of the
Commonwealth.
It appears to me that the Commonwealth of Australia has not by way of proclamation and
published in the Gazette a DECLARTION OF WAR naming Syria ( a friendly country)and
as such not the conduct of Mr Oliver Bridgeman but that of the Federal government (of bombing
in Syria) is to be placed in question.
Best Legal Minds Deliver Bad News to Beattie.
August 2007 Judges' Statement of Concern
The complete letter sent to Premier Beattie. 16.08.2007
The Hon Peter Beattie MLA
Queensland Premier
Executive Building
80 George Street
BRISBANE QLD 4000
Dear Premier
THE HEINER AFFAIR - A MATTER OF CONCERN
We, the undersigned legal practitioners formerly on the Bench, currently at the Bar or in legal practice,
seek to re-affirm our sworn duty to uphold the rule of law throughout the Commonwealth of Australia
and to indicate our deep concern about its undermining as the unresolved Heiner affair reveals.
We believe that it is the democratic right of every Australian to expect that the criminal law shall be
applied consistently, predictably and equally by law-enforcement authorities throughout the
Commonwealth of Australia in materially similar circumstances. We believe that any action by Executive
Government which may have breached the law ought not be immune from criminal prosecution where
and when the evidence satisfies the relevant provision.
To do otherwise, we suggest would undermine the rule of law and confidence in government. It would
tend to place Executive Government above the law.
At issue is the order by the Queensland Cabinet of 5 March 1990 to destroy the Heiner Inquiry
documents to prevent their use as evidence in an anticipated judicial proceeding, made worse because
the Queensland Government knew the evidence concerned abuse of children in a State youth detention
centre, including the alleged unresolved pack rape of an indigenous female child by other male inmates.
The affair exposes an unacceptable application of the criminal law by prima facie double standards by
Queensland law-enforcement authorities in initiating a successful proceedings against an Australian
citizen, namely Mr. Douglas Ensbey, but not against members of the Executive Government and certain
civil servants for similar destruction-of-evidence conduct. Compelling evidence suggests that the
erroneous interpretation of section 129 of the Criminal Code (Qld) used by those authorities to justify
p30
15-3-2016
the shredding of the Heiner Inquiry documents may have knowingly advantaged Executive Government
and certain civil servants.
This serious inconsistency in the administration of Queenslands Criminal Code touching on the
fundamental principle of respect for the administration of justice by proper preservation of evidence
concerns us because this principle is found in all jurisdictions within in the Commonwealth as it sustains
the rule of law generally.
The Queensland Court of Appeals binding September 2004 interpretation of section 129 in R v Ensbey;
ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 335 exposed the erroneous interpretation that the
(anticipated/imminent) judicial proceeding had to be on foot before section 129 could be triggered.
We are acquainted with the affair* and specifically note, and concur with, (the late) the Right
Honourable Sir Harry Gibbs GCMG, AC, KBE, as President of The Samuel Griffith Society, who advised
that the reported facts represent, at least, a prima facie offence under section 129 of the Criminal Code
(Qld) concerning destruction of evidence.
In respect of the erroneous interpretation of section 129 adopted by Queensland authorities, we also
concur with the earlier 2003 opinion of former Queensland Supreme and Appeal Court Justice, the Hon
James Thomas AM, that while many laws are indeed arguable, section 129 was never open to that
interpretation.
Section 129 of the Criminal Code (Qld) destruction of evidence provides that:
Any person who, knowing that any book, document, or other thing of any kind, is or may be required in
evidence in a judicial proceeding, wilfully destroys it or renders it illegible or undecipherable or
incapable of identification, with intent thereby to prevent it from being used in evidence, is guilty of a
misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for three years. (Underlining added).
It concerns us that such an erroneous view of section 129 was persisted with for well over a decade
despite the complainant, supported by eminent lawyers, pointing out the gravity of their error
consistently since 1990 when knowing its wording and intent were so unambiguous, with authoritative
case law available for citing dating back as far as 1891 in R v Vreones.
Evidence adduced also reveals that the Queensland Government and Office of Crown Law knew, at the
time, that the records would be discoverable under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Queensland once
the expected writ/plaint was filed or served. With this knowledge, the Queensland Government ordered
the destruction of these public records before the expected writ/plaint was filed or served to prevent
their use as evidence.
Such scandalizing of these disclosure/discovery Rules by the Executive also concerns us. So
fundamentally important is respect for these Rules that the Judiciarys independent constitutional
functionality depends on it.
Under the circumstances, we suggest that any claim of staleness or lack of public interest which
may be mounted now by Queensland authorities not to revisit this matter ought to fail. Neither the
facts, the law nor the public interest offer support in that regard. However, should such a claim be
mounted, we suggest that it would tend to be self-serving and undermine public confidence in the
administration of justice and in government itself knowing that the 2004 Ensbey conviction, taken by
the same Queensland Crown, did not occur until some 9 years after the relevant destruction-ofevidence incident.
This affair encompasses all the essential democratic ideals. The right to a fair trial without interference
by government and the right to impartial law-enforcement, to say nothing of respecting the rule of law
itself rest at its core. Respecting the doctrine of the separation of powers and our constitutional
monarchy system of democratic government are involved.
We believe that the issues at stake are too compelling to ignore.
We suggest that if the Heiner affair remains in its current unresolved state, it would give reasonable
cause for ordinary citizens, especially Queenslanders, to believe that there is one law for them, and
another for Executive Government and civil servants.
p31
15-3-2016
We find such a prospect unacceptable.
We urge the Queensland Government to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor as recommended by
the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its August 2004
Report (Volume Two - Recommendation 3) following its investigation into the affair as part of its
national inquiry into Crime in the community: victims, offenders and fear of crime.
Such an independent transparent process we believe will restore public confidence in the administration
of justice throughout the Commonwealth of Australia, more especially in Queensland.
Signatories to the letter;
The Hon Jack Lee AO QC Retired Chief Judge at Common Law Supreme Court of New South Wales
View bio
..
Dr Frank McGrath Retired Chief Judge Compensation Court of New South Wales
View bio
.
Alastair MacAdam, Senior Lecturer, Law Faculty, QUT Brisbane, and Barrister-at-law
View bio
..
The Hon R P Meagher QC - Retired Justice of the Supreme and Appeal Court of New South Wales
View Bio
The Hon Barry OKeefe AM QC,

Retired Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW, former ICAC Commissioner
View bio
Mr Alex Shand QC
View bio
.
The Hon David K Malcolm AC CitWA, former Chief Justice of Western Australia
View bio
Copies of the advice were sent to the following:
Her Excellency the Honourable Quentin Bryce AC, Governor of Queensland

The Hon Lawrence Springborg MLA, Leader of the Queensland Opposition
The Hon Paul de Jersey AC, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland
The President, Queensland Bar Association
The President, Queensland Law Society
Source the Daily Telegraph
The Rule of Law
p32
15-3-2016
The first two of the three aspects of the rule of law regularity as opposed to arbitrariness or unconfined
discretion, and equal subjection of all, the governors as well as the governed, to law, also reflect a view of the
nature of law. Judgments in the High Court of Australia contain numerous assertions of practical
conclusions said to be required by the principle of the rule of law. They include the following: that citizens
are equal before the law; and that the criminal law should operate uniformly in circumstances which are not
materially different
From: COURTS AND THE RULE OF LAW THE RULE OF LAW SERIES MR JUSTICE MURRAY
GLEESON CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE 7
NOVEMBER 2001
... A State cannot claim to be operating under the rule of law unless laws are administered fairly, rationally,
predictably, consistently and impartially. Improper external influences, including inducements and pressures, are
inconsistent with each of these objectives ...
Improper influence, whether political pressure or bias or corruption, distorts all of these objectives.
From: THE RULE OF LAW IN THE ASIAN REGION THE HONOURABLE J J SPIGELMAN AC CHIEF
JUSTICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL
CONFERENCE SYDNEY 20 MARCH 2003
Source: The Justice Project
END QUOTE
Oliver Bridgeman: Arrest warrant issued for Queensland ...

www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-03/oliver-bridgeman-syria.../7217628
Mar 2, 2016 - The Australian Federal Police (AFP) has issued an arrest warrant for Queensland
teenager Oliver Bridgeman, who says he has been in Syria doing aid work since May 2015. Two
AFP officers attended the Bridgeman family home in Toowoomba on Wednesday to inform his
parents about the ...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-03/oliver-bridgeman-syria-arrest-warrant-issuedtoowoomba/7217628
QUOTE
Oliver Bridgeman: Arrest warrant issued for Queensland teenager in Syria
Exclusive by the National Reporting Team's Mark Solomons
Updated 4 Mar 2016, 12:45amFri 4 Mar 2016, 12:45am
(image omitted)
Photo: The AFP suspects Oliver Bridgeman has supported terrorist groups in Syria. (Facebook)
Related Story: Toowoomba teen in Syria appeals against decision to cancel passport
Related Story: Government defends decision to cancel Queensland teen's passport
Map: Australia
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) has issued an arrest warrant for Queensland teenager Oliver Bridgeman, who says
he has been in Syria doing aid work since May 2015.
Two AFP officers attended the Bridgeman family home in Toowoomba on Wednesday to inform his parents about the
warrant.
The AFP confirmed it had obtained a warrant relating to "incursions into foreign countries with the intention of engaging
in hostile activities". The alleged offence carries a potential jail term of up to life imprisonment.
Last month the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) cancelled Mr Bridgeman's passport, just as his parents
were finalising plans to bring him back to Australia via Singapore.
The ABC has learned the Bridgemans and their lawyer, Alex Jones, had alerted AFP officers to their plan in early
February and had offered to bring Mr Bridgeman in for questioning once he was back in Australia.
Mr Jones from Bosscher Lawyers told the ABC Mr Bridgeman's parents were distraught.
p33
15-3-2016
"In their minds, it's just another example that they'd been lied to for the last 12 months after giving so much cooperation," he said.
Bosscher Lawyers issued a statement describing the Government's intervention as "a political stunt".
"It seems the government is doing everything possible to ensure Mr Bridgeman remains stranded in Syria," the firm said.
"Without government intervention, it is highly likely he would already be home. Mr Bridgeman had already indicated a
willingness to cooperate with authorities."
Assessment detailed no evidence of dealing with terrorists

The issuing of the warrant means AFP officers have additional powers to intercept Mr Bridgeman, 19, and he can be
flagged internationally as a wanted person.
Mr Bridgeman risks committing offences against Australian law if he is caught travelling without valid documents. He
could also face prosecution in foreign countries through which he travels.
The ABC has seen the security assessment sent to Mr Bridgeman that was used to justify the cancellation of his passport.
The recommendation that DFAT cancel the passport was signed by ASIO director-general Duncan Lewis on February 10
and was delivered to his parents on February 16.
The security assessment cites "open-source reporting" and "domestic liaison reporting by (Queensland police)".
Mr Bridgeman likely remains ideologically supportive of politically motivated violence and would be likely
to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia.
Security assessment from ASIO
"On the 15th and 16th of May 2015 Australian national print media reported Mr Bridgeman had travelled to Syria without
the knowledge of his parents and was suspected by the AFP of having joined a proscribed terrorist organisation," the
document stated.
The assessment referred to Facebook posts by Mr Bridgeman describing his aid work and a TV appearance by Mr
Bridgeman last year in which he was pictured doing aid work and saying he had built a "good relationship with different
rebel factions" in order to move safely around Syria and avoid kidnap.
Dutton defends cancellation of passport

No terrorist group is named in the security assessment and no evidence is included of Mr Bridgeman having had dealings
with any proscribed group.
"ASIO assesses that Mr Bridgeman travelled to Syria for the purpose of engaging in PMV [politically motivated
violence]," the document stated.
"Mr Bridgeman likely remains ideologically supportive of PMV and would be likely to engage in conduct that might
prejudice the security of Australia.
"ASIO assesses that, based on Mr Bridgeman's travel to Syria to engage in PMV, that if Mr Bridgeman continues to hold
an Australian travel document he would be likely to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia."
The Bridgeman's lawyers this week filed an appeal against the passport cancellation in the Administrative and Appeals
Tribunal on behalf of Mr Bridgeman.
The ABC understands that in such cases it is open to security services to provide a judge with further evidence that is not
disclosed to the defendant or their lawyers.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has defended the decision to cancel Mr Bridgeman's passport, saying: "People who go
off into conflict zones even if they're well intentioned ultimately can cause significant grief and stress for their own
families".
p34
15-3-2016
"This is something people should contemplate before they go not when they're in the middle of a conflict zone."
Topics: unrest-conflict-and-war, terrorism, security-intelligence, police, australia, syrian-arab-republic
First posted 3 Mar 2016, 4:00pmThu 3 Mar 2016, 4:00pm
END QUOTE
Conflict zones exist all around the world and it would be absurd if a person would be denied to
enter any conflict zone merely upon the assumption by ASIO as if it somehow has an authority
above the constitution. Anyone who were to travel to a conflict zone merely to visit relatives
could end up to be denied to return to the Commonwealth of Australia, for no other reason but
some secret assessment by ASIO regardless what the factual issue might be.
We should never again allow for this pre-emptive strike kind of decision making process and
certainly must not accept that the courts go along with this kind of nonsense.
What in my view is also of concern is that legal practitioners who speak out to what they
perceive to be a wrongdoing by the judiciary or lawyers can face to be denied to practice, where
as a person like myself can represent parties without any such fear that exposing the truth could
prevent me to do so. When I represented Mr Johnson QC I had no fear to speak out on matters,
and to expose what I held was inappropriate, but a legal practitioner could in my view likely have
been so to say railroaded.
http://www.heineraffair.info/site_pages/QCPCI_News_Pages/Brisbane%20lawyer%20Michael%20Bosscher%20fac
ing%20disciplinary%20proceedings.html
QUOTE
The Courier-Mail
Brisbane lawyer Michael Bosscher facing disciplinary proceedings
KAY DIBBEN
THE COURIER-MAIL
JUNE 25, 2014 9:27AM
PROMINENT Brisbane criminal lawyer Michael Bosscher is facing disciplinary proceedings for
tendering an inquiry document containing untrue scurrilous allegations against a judge.
Mr Bosscher failed to have the disciplinary proceedings brought against him kept out of the public eye,
after his application for a non-publication order was rejected.
The Legal Services Commission has applied to Queensland Civil and Administration Tribunal for Mr
Bosscher to be disciplined for professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct.
Mr Bosscher has denied the allegations against him, saying in tribunal submissions he did not endorse
any allegation or assert the truthfulness of any allegation in the document.
It concerns the document The Rofe QC Audit of the Heiner affair, which he tendered to the Child
Protection Commission of Inquiry, conducted by Chief Magistrate Tim Carmody.
The tendered document included an allegation of corruption against Court of Appeal Justice Cate
Holmes, when she was a barrister assisting the Forde Commission of Inquiry, the tribunal heard. It
was an inquiry into the abuse of children in Queensland institutions.
Counsel for the LSC alleged in submissions that Mr Bosscher tendered scurrilous allegations against
Justice Holmes ... without any precautions against inappropriate publication of that material.
p35
15-3-2016
It was likely to be prejudicial to, or diminish public confidence in, the administration of justice, by
enabling publication of untrue allegations about a member of the judiciary, the LSC submission said.
Mr Bosscher failed to exercise forensic judgment and could have chosen not to tender the report or
tendered it in redacted form, it is alleged.
He asked for a non-publication order on the LSCs disciplinary application, saying it could affect
Justice Holmess reputation, her office and the administration of justice.
But the LSC, after consulting Justice Holmes, refuted that argument.
Mr Bosscher also said in a submission the allegation against him would damage his professional
reputation and the commercial interests of his employer, Bosscher Lawyers.
He said he had acted in a number of high profile criminal cases and was involved in the trial of Brett
Peter Cowan. Cowan was found guilty of the murder of Sunshine Coast schoolboy Daniel Morcombe.
On June 12 QCAT President Justice David Thomas refused Mr Bosschers application, saying
publication of the disciplinary proceedings would bolster public confidence in the justice system.
It was consistent with the proper administration of justice, Justice Thomas said.
END QUOTE
Again
QUOTE
Mr Bosscher has denied the allegations against him, saying in tribunal submissions he did not endorse any allegation or assert the
truthfulness of any allegation in the document.
END QUOTE
QUOTE.
It was likely to be prejudicial to, or diminish public confidence in, the administration of justice, by enabling
publication of untrue allegations about a member of the judiciary, the LSC submission said.
END QUOTE
One has to ask then if the conduct of His Honour Mullaly J to claim no evidence was needed in a
(criminal) ex parte hearing is not undermining public confidence in the administration of justice?
.
One has to ask if a comment like You are a person who holds the law applies to everyone
but yourself without a shred of evidence being before the court to substantiate such a statement
is not undermining public confidence in the administration of justice?
.
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of everyone
to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
END QUOTE
No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:

LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335
QUOTE
But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned,
no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good
faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the
wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper
motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism,
and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a
cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of
ordinary man
p36
15-3-2016
END QUOTE
.
The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVENING NEWS (1880) N.S.W.
LR 211 AT 239.:
QUOTE
The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice of
sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day,
would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be
rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
END QUOTE
.
As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368

Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31
.
LEWIS v. JUDGE OGDEN [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682 Contempt of Court (Vict.)
QUOTE
11. However, mere discourtesy falls well short of insulting conduct, let alone wilfully insulting conduct
which is the hallmark of contempt
END QUOTE
QUOTE
16. The appellant's address continued with three examples in which it was suggested that the judge had
intervened to diminish the effect of points sought to be made by the appellant in his cross-examination
of Crown witnesses - his Honour had described one point as "pedantic" - and that he had attempted to
rescue witnesses from predicaments presented by their evidence. The evidence on which these
criticisms of the judge were based was not before us. Consequently we are unable to determine whether
the criticisms were well or ill-founded. (at p691)
20...namely that his Honour's attitude to Paul's case was adverse and unfair in the sense of being "onesided", we do not consider that the learned judge could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that the appellant's comments amounted to an insult. The appellant's conduct was extremely
discourteous, perhaps offensive, and deserving of rebuke by his Honour, but in our view it could not be
said to constitute contempt.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
21. In conclusion three comments should be made.
The first is to recall that the contempt power is exercised to vindicate the integrity of the court and of
its proceedings; it is rarely, if ever, exercised to vindicate the personal dignity of a judge (Ex parte
Fernandez (1861) 30 LJCP 321, at p 332 ; Reg. v. Castro; Skipworth's Case (1873) LR 9 QB 219, at p
232 ; Bellanto (1962) 63 SR (NSW), at pp 200, 202 ).
The second is that the summary power of punishing for contempt should be used sparingly and only in
serious cases (Shamdasani (1945) AC, at p 270 ; Izuora v. The Queen (1953) AC 327, at p 336 ).
The final comment is that the charge of contempt should specify the nature of the contempt, i.e., that it
consists of a wilful insult to the judge, and identify the alleged insult. (at p693)
22. In the result we would allow the appeal. (at p693)
p37
15-3-2016
ORDER
Appeal allowed.
END QUOTE
I for one never see any value to make criticism without being able to reasons why doing so.
However while as a Professional Advocate I have the immunity and protection as a solicitor
representing a party before the Supreme Court, I do not have the same restriction and hence can
speak out to any injustice, etc, that I view exist. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well
outside the reach of the Legal Service Commission, as they failed twice in an attempt to so to say
cut me down.
In my view is a serious denial of justice for a legal practitioner to be dealt with not by criminal
procedures but seemingly with civil procedures and denies thereby a proper right in defence.
What appears to me is that the Legal Service Commission is using its power to so to say shut
down any legal practitioner who so to say dares to criticise fellow lawyers or even judges and
the process is not even conducted before a court of law but before some tribunal. This while if
the same kind of allegations were made against me then it would fail as such because the burden
of proof is that of a criminal basis and not civil basis.
What I understand this amount to, from what legal practitioners provided me as to their views,
that legal practitioner are fearful to speak out as to any perceived injustices to their clients as it
may result in being suspended from practicing. As such it appears to me that for the sake of
protecting their own ability to earn an income they have to sacrifice their clients rights and
interest. To me this is a very serious matter. After all where a legal practitioner perceives a legal
injustice, based upon his/her comprehensive experiences as a legal practitioner but is so to say
muzzled by the threat of being suspended if speaking up then not only the client concerned but
also justice itself is the loser, because it means that rough lawyers/judges are left to roam around
rather than to be held legally accountable. As such people like me who have no such feat are left
to address the issues.
With Mr Oliver Bridgeman it appears from a television program shown on 60 Minutes 13-3-2016
that he has access to a laptop and communicate with his parents. As such, if such facilities are
available then why didnt the Government (so its enforcement bodies) provide for a video
hearing so Mr Oliver Bridgeman could have made statements, if he desired to do so, to the court
in regard of any arrest warrant application that was sought by the AFP?
And this might deemed to be a non-related case to these matters before this court involving
myself, nevertheless it is indicative that when it comes to fair and proper hearings too often
Governments and their enforcement agencies will I view rather pervert the course of justice to
get their orders than to risk a fair and proper hearing that may prevent them to succeed to obtain
the orders sought.
http://www.duhaime.org/LawMag/LawArticle-1264/Rule-of-Law-Attacked-By-Our-Own.aspx
QUOTE
Rule of Law Attacked ... By Our Own!
Categories: Legal Profession and Lawyers
The rule of law is the bedrock behind all of the comforts and security of modern life in free and democratic
states. It, and it alone, creates and sustains a safe and fair society to which flock wave after wave of
immigrants seeking sanctuary from anarchy.
But even this new religion, the rule of law, is subjected to constant threat. With an AK-47 firing shots into the
air, revolutionaries - when they deign explain to the victims why they are murderous - justify the damning of
the rule of law by calling it slow and plodding; as favouring the rich, and as favouring the political apparatus
of government over the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.
p38
15-3-2016
Travesty in Pakistan
On January 4, 2011, the rule of law suffered a horrific travesty.
Pakistan was recently in the throes of a constitutional crisis in which the Chief Justice and many lawyers
were imprisoned. Lawyers from around the world rally support their colleagues and the rule of law in
Pakistan (including this website: see our Nov. 2007 article, The Noose For Lady Justice? Pakistan Throws the
Baby Out With the Bath Water). In the aftermath of a worldwide swell of condemnation, the president of
Pakistan resigned and, it appeared, the standing of the rule of law in Pakistan had risen a notch.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is distinct from its historic motherland of India because it is Muslim and
has Islamic law. Islamic states are in whole or in part, theocracies, a form of government which, if history has
shown us anything, is often anathema to the rule of law. For example, the criminal law of Pakistan prohibits
and punishes blasphemy for which the punishment can be death.
First, Salmaan Taseer, the governor of the Province Punjab in Pakistan, was assassinated by his own
bodyguard.
Why?
Simply because the politician had publicly condemned a Pakistani court decision sentencing Ms Asia Bibi to
death for alleged blasphemy. In the heat of a 2009 neighbourhood dispute, Ms Bibi apparently disparaged
Muhammad. At the time of her alleged remarks, Mr. Muhammad, more properly Muhammad ibn 'Abdullh,
had been dead for 1,377 years.
The governor filed a petition to the court asking for mercy in regards to Ms Bibi.
Days later, his bodyguard Malik Mumtaz Qadri emptied his machine gun into his principal, killing him
instantly.
The flame of the rule of law then flickered in Pakistan. When Qadri was brought to court in Islamabad to face
murder charges for which he was adamantly confessing, the detail of sheriffs was almost overrun by Qadri
supporters who chanted with religious zeal. Qadri yelled back.
And then the horrific moment for the rule of law, as Declan Walsh reported from Islamabad for the Guardian
newspaper:
"Lawyers flung rose petals on (Taseer's) killer, Mumtaz Qadri, and celebrated him at street rallies.
That is not a typo; the story was reported by numerous news agencies. Lawyers (yes, lawyers) even managed
to break through the security guards and put a wreath of roses around his neck, some offering to defend him
for free out of sheer religious zealousness, while their orthodox religious leaders ordered Muslims to support
the murder or suffer the same fate as Taseer!
Made in Canada
Julian Assange, the exotic Australian mind behind Wikileaks, is presently in jail in England waiting for
extradition to Sweden where he faces sexual assault charges.
Assange's troubles are many not the least of which is the complete disclosure of thousands of pages of secret
diplomatic and military communiqus on his Wikileaks.org website.
His actions reveal the uncomfortable marriage between government's sponsorship of the rule of law and how
they conduct their international affairs; that while espousing transparency and open government on the one
hand, those same governments sustain and support international espionage networks. Even Canada has a spy
agency: Canadian Security and Intelligence Agency (website: www.csis-scrs.gc.ca). The primary target of
Assange's brainchild is the disclosure of whatever such spy agencies, or their military peers, harvest.
p39
15-3-2016
So far, so good. Like it or loathe it, Assange operates within states with a strong tradition of the rule of law
and freedom of expression. The biggest problem for Assange should simply be the reach of domestic treason
laws with exotic titles such as official secrets statutes.
Our made-in-Canada, rule of law OMG moment came from Tom Flanagan, a Ph. D.-educated (Duke
University) Canadian and a former chief of staff to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper. He teaches
political theory at the University of Calgary where, like everywhere else in Canada, the Criminal Code
applies and prohibits the encouragement of murder. Other than the kill and kidnap rights of marauding
aboriginals pre-colonization, there has never been an era in Canada where execution would precede trial.
But on November 30, 2010, Flanagan stated to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC):
"I think Assange should be assassinated.
"I think (American president Barack) Obama should get out a contract (on Julien Assange's life) and maybe
use a (unmanned military) drone or something.
"I wouldn't feel unhappy if Assange disappeared.
Flanagan tried to backpedal once his comments backfired and offered an apology in which, he showed moxie
in referring to the "due process of law".
But the Globe and Mail and Canadian Press report that when he received an email from Toronto resident
Janet Reymond chastising him for his remark on CBC. Ms Reymond wrote:
"So you are in favour of assassinating people that you disagree with.... Agree with us or get assassinated?
Apology?!
Flanagan shot back:
"Better be careful, we know where you live.
Almost as surprising, Flanagan still receives phone calls from Alberta media to comment as a political
authority. And he still teaches young adults at the University of Calgary.1
A Treasure
The rule of law is a treasure to be protected and upheld at all costs at all times.
As Justice Paris of the British Columbia Supreme Court wrote in 1952:
"Once our laws are flouted the whole fabric of our freedom is destroyed. We can then only revert to
conditions of the dark ages when the only law recognized was that of might.
To have shots fired at the rule of law by community leaders such as lawyers and university professors, is
disheartening but it reminds us of the constant vigilance we all must show and the responsibility we have, as
lawyers or as citizens to rise, proudly fly, uphold and protect the banner of the rule of law at all times,
everywhere, be it Calgary or Islamabad.
REFERENCES:
Barber, Mike, "Complaint filed over call to assassinate WikiLeaks founder", Vancouver Sun, December
6, 2010
Canadian Transport Co. v. Alsbury, [1952] 6 W.W.R. (N.S.) 473. Cited with approval in John v. Lee,
2009 BCSC 1157, at 18
p40
15-3-2016
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, 22
"Entre Nous", The Advocate Magazine, Vancouver, British Columbia, Vol. 69, March 2011, at pages
169-173.
Graveland, Bill, "Tom Flanagan threatened me over WikiLeaks comment, Toronto woman says",
Canadian Press, December 7, 2010
Note 1: According to the Vancouver Sun, British Columbia lawyer Gail Davidson has filed an official
police complaint against Flanagan for his assassination remarks.
Voice of America, January 6, 2011, Demonstrators Prevent Court Appearance of Alleged Pakistani
Assassin
Walsh, Declan, "Shahbaz Bhatti Funeral Tinged with Anger", The Guardian Newspaper, March 4, 2011
You Tube, YouTube - Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri in Court.flv, at youtube.com/watch?v=NUaz9VNVrs, viewed on March 25, 2011
You Tube, Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange's Assassination Call, at youtube.com/watch?v=b2GQ2Xhq1M; retrieved on March 27, 2011
Posted in Legal Profession and Lawyers
on March 27, 2011
by Lloyd Duhaime
END QUOTE
Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 No. 9426

consolidation incorporating amendments up to Act 1984 No. 10087
Laws applicable in the State of Victoria

Division 3Justice and Liberty
[1297] 25 Edward I (Magna Carta) c. XXIX
No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties or free customs, or be
outlawed or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful
judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any
man either justice or right.
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/speech-to-the-sydney-institute-magna-carta-and-the-rule-of-law-in-thedigit
Malcolm Turnbull
Speech to the Sydney Institute: Magna Carta and the Rule of Law in the Digital Age
QUOTE
7th July 2015 | 13 Comments | Podcasts, Speeches
Magna Carta and the Rule of Law in the Digital Age

Speech to the Sydney Institute
7 July 2015
Tonight I am going to talk about balancing security and individual liberty.
It is a balance our Government has, I believe, got right.
p41
15-3-2016
But in order to ensure we continue to do so, this conversation is one that should proceed in a considered
manner respectful of the views and experience of others.
And to better understand where we should go, we should not forget from where we came.
Eight hundred years ago, Englands most despised King affixed his seal to Englands most venerated
document.
As a peace treaty the Magna Carta failed - King John renounced it within a month, the civil war was
[1]
resumed and the rebellious barons effectively renounced it within a year when they offered the throne to
the French heir .
[2]
Most of its 63 chapters are long forgotten , but generations of Britons and their descendants in the New
[3]
Worlds of the Western and Southern Hemispheres drew from it the very distillation of the rule of law.
Most important of all is what became Chapter 29 in the 1297 restatement:
No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free
customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against
him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not
deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
Of course the authors of Magna Carta and its interpreters and promoters, like Coke and Selden, saw the
rule of law as protecting the subject from the power of a King.
But it was not long before the Magna Carta was invoked by philosophers such as John Locke and later
[4]
the founders of the American republic to protect the citizen not from the tyranny of kings - the
revolution had seen to that - but from the tyranny of the majority.
In 1791 the United States Constitutions Fifth Amendment emphatically cemented the supremacy of the
rule of law as administered by the courts of justice.
No person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without the due process of law
Carved in stone in congresses and courts, recited in State Constitutions, Magna Carta has been even
more celebrated in the United States than in the land in which it was written.
And by the time our Australian Constitution was being framed, a century or so later, these rights were
judged inalienable and inherent among the British people who formed our Commonwealth. In 1925,
federation father and by then High Court Justice Sir Isaac Isaacs described these values as the base of
the social structure of every British community growing from the Magna Carta which he described as
the groundwork of all our constitutions .
[5]
The Rule of Law
p42
15-3-2016
Australia is a democracy, now one of the worlds oldest. We are often described as a liberal democracy
and by that additional qualification is signified our commitment to the rule of law.
Some people imagine that a democracy is simply a society where the majority of the people get to
decide who runs the country. But a society where a majority can do whatever it likes is not a democracy
- it is a tyranny.
The notion that the majority entitles the government it appoints to rule as it pleases is as pernicious a
doctrine in our times as the divine right of Kings was in the time of King John or King Charles I.
The genius of a liberal democracy is that at the same time it empowers the majority, through the ballot
box, it also constrains that majority, or its government, through the rule of law.
END QUOTE
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/speech-to-the-sydney-institute-magna-carta-and-the-rule-of-law-in-thedigit
QUOTE
Democracy, Churchill said in a parliamentary debate in 1944, is no harlot to be picked up in

the street by a man with a tommy gun.
[6]
One of the most important elements of the rule of law is that citizens cannot be deprived of their
life, liberty or property without due process of law. That requires the decision of a court arrived
at after a fair and impartial hearing of both sides of the argument. This principle is reflected in
our own Constitution which provides in Chapter III that judicial power - the determination of
disputes between citizens and the State - can only be exercised by the Courts.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
And then there is this proviso:
Provided that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in the High Court than according
to the rules of the common law.
END QUOTE
QUOTE EMAIL
Re: see attachment 20151211-Schorel-Hlavka to Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria re. APPEAL-15-2502 re.
Request for information-details (FOI)-etc-Supplement-01
Jim <jim.sovereign@optusnet.com.au>
12/16/15 at 2:45 PM
To
Attachments
20151211-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria -Re APPEAL-15-2502Re Request
for information-details (FOI)-etc-Supplement-01.pdf
Message body
Gerrit,
Your attached letter of 189 pages is a heck of a lot of intense reading and I doubt the Premier will read it all,
if at all. He may get one of his subordinates to read and summarise its main points, which will be difficult as
your letter contains many interrelated points of law and issues.
p43
15-3-2016
Nonetheless the information in this one comprehensive letter is a damning indictment of Victoria's judiciary,
and the corrupt fines enforcement and management system.
It would be significantly more efficient and beneficial in the public interest if there was an established legal
mechanism that allowed Australian citizens with legitimate claims and complaints based on constitutional
issues, to simply email or mail their correspondence and scanned exhibits to the High Court for initial review
and consideration to decide if their claim or complaint had merit or standing.
The High Court could then issue a conditional preliminary judgement subject to appeal by the government
followed by a final judgement and court order. This simplified process would spare the common people the
enormous expense, stress and time consuming process of battling through the complex legal system to bring
important public interest issues to the attention of the High Court.
Of course I expect the state and federal governments and the legal industry would vehemently oppose the
cheap and efficient bypass of their beloved corrupt legal system; depriving many legal parasites their
opportunity to maximise profits by bleeding their clients dry of their money, and government would be
denied the ability to use all manner of legal tricks to have people's constitutional cases dismissed, railroaded,
stalled or drag on for years until the plaintiff/appellant can no longer afford the financial burden of continuing
litigation.
Jim
----- Original Message ----From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
To: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 12:25 AM
Subject: Fw: see attachment 20151211-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria -Re
APPEAL-15-2502Re Request for information-details (FOI)-etc-Supplement-01
I might as well so to say thrown in the entire furniture and the kitchen sink for questions!
The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/292899286/20151211-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Daniel-Andrews-PremierVictoria-Re-APPEAL-15-2502Re-Request-for-Information-Details-FOI-Etc-Supplement-01
Gerrit
Constitutionalist & Consultant
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN
(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 61394577209
.
Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless specifically
otherwise stated.
If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do is to consider the
content appropriately!
A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING CONCERNED
TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. < admin@inspector-rikati.com>
To: daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc: admin@inspector-rikati.com; martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au; attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Sent: Friday, 11 December 2015, 0:16
p44
15-3-2016
Subject: see attachment 20151211-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria -Re
APPEAL-15-2502Re Request for information-details (FOI)-etc-Supplement-01
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria
daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
11-12-2015
Cc: Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au

Ref; 20151211-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria -Re APPEAL-15-2502Re
Request for information-details (FOI)-etc-Supplement-01
Sir,
see attachment 20151211-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria -Re APPEAL-152502Re Request for information-details (FOI)-etc-Supplement-01
-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL107 Graham RoadViewbank
3084, Victoria, AustraliaAuthor of INSPECTOR-RIKATI books on certain constitutional and other legal
issues.THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE
DISABLED
1 Attachment
20151211-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria -Re APPEAL-15-2502Re Request
for information-details (FOI)-etc-Supplement-01 .pdf
END QUOTE EMAIL
QUOTE EMAIL RECEIVED 14-3-2016 Jim <jim.sovereign@optusnet.com.au>
People are naturally fearful of the courts with good reason particulary if they are a self-represented defendant
in a criminal matter. The typical defendant has little or no knowledge of law and the legal system, and when
they walk into court they are facing a complex and rigged game with at least three adversaries: the magistrate
or judge, a prosecutor, a police informant(s) and possibly additional witnesses.
Being in a court is a psychologically and emotionally stressful and intimidating experience for most people
outside of the legal system. For many self-represented defendants their first appearance in court is also their
first experience in public speaking in front of not only a magistrate and court staff, but also a typical court
room is full of solicitors and their clients, police officers and members of the public.
It's often an unnerving experience even when a self-represented defendant or litigant has their case prepared
and they think they are mentally ready to present their case. Feeling some fear, anxiety and trepidation is a
normal reaction to being in court. The challenge is in controlling and overcoming one's fear and using it as
positive motivation. Easier said than done but still possible.
END QUOTE EMAIL RECEIVED 14-3-2016
It should be understood that ASIO defies democracy, and so any court that accept that what
ASIO states as gospel under the banner of NATIONAL SECURITY to deny the target
person/victim of due process of law. Secrecy never can be involved with due process of law as
any such law is in violation with the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
About 13,900 results (0.88 seconds)
Search Results
ASIO surveillance in 'Persons of Interest' | The Monthly
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/.../asio-surveillance-persons-interes...
Documentary series charts the history of Australia's intelligence-gathering ... four-part documentary series Persons
of Interest (which screened on SBS One last ...
Persons Of Interest - The ASIO Files - Facebook
www.theaustralian.com.au/...asios.../story-fn9n8gph-1226794320039
Jan 4, 2014 - But creating a four-part documentary series based on ASIO's files has ... of Keenan's series Persons of
Interest screens on SBS on Tuesday.
Persons of Interest revives Cold War politics and the ASIO ...
p45
15-3-2016
theconversation.com/persons-of-interest-revives-cold-war-politics-and-th...
Jan 27, 2014 - The screening of the documentary series Persons of Interest on SBS, ... The role of the Australian
Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) has ...
ASIO 'spied on Indigenous activists to crush movement' - SBS
www.sbs.com.au/news/.../asio-spied-indigenous-activists-crush-movemen...
Jan 6, 2014 - Australia's domestic security agency, ASIO, spied on Indigenous activists in ... A four-part
documentary series to air on SBS ONE from Tuesday ...
Persons of Interest | MIFF | ASIO files | Gary Foley
www.smh.com.au Entertainment Movies
Aug 9, 2013 - It's in his ASIO file so he concedes somebody must have said something, ... Persons Of Interest Tuesday 7th January at 8.30pm on SBS. ... of the highlights of Haydn Keenan's four-part documentary series Persons
of Interest, ...
Spies count the cost - Sydney Morning Herald
www.smartstreetfilms.com.au/
Smart Street Films - Producers & Distributors of High Quality Australian Film and Television.
Persons of Interest? View the digitised ASIO files from the NAA
https://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/.../persons-of-interest-view-the-dig...
Jan 16, 2014 - The first two episodes of the SBS documentary Persons of Interest have ... people in Australia by
ASIO between the late 1940s and late 1970s.
https://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/persons-of-interest-view-the-digitised-asio-files-from-the-naa/
QUOTE
The first two episodes of the SBS documentary Persons of Interest have been aired, portraying to a wide audience
the level of surveillance undertaken against potential subversive people in Australia by ASIO between the late
1940s and late 1970s. The documentary, by Hadyn Keenan, uses a lot of recently opened ASIO files from the
National Archives of Australia, many of which were opened via Freedom of Information (FOI) request by the people
surveilled. Many of these files have also been digitised by the National Archives and are available for public
reading. Using the new features of the NAA website, I have posted the links to a few files relating to the people
discussed in Persons of Interest.
There are many files on the Milliss family that have been digitised. With all of the files I have linked to, I have only
linked to volume 1, but a search through the NAA catalogue will show that there are numerous files. Firstly, there
are the files of Bruce Milliss, the father of Roger and David, who was an ardent Communist Party of Australia
member and then became a supporter of Mao in the breakaway CPA (Marxist-Leninist). (Click on pic for link to
NAA file)
(IMAGE NOT REPRODUCED)
There are also numerous digitised files on Roger and David Milliss, although the file on Suse Milliss has not been
digitised.
There are also more than 15 files on founder of the Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist), Ted Hill, that
have been digitised, as well as one on the CPA (M-L) from 1968.
p46
15-3-2016
Bob Gould was another CPA member mentioned in the documentary whose files have been digitised.
There are many files on the CPA that have been digitised, but coinciding with the forthcoming episode of Persons of
Interest on the Aboriginal rights movement, here is a file on the CPAs work on Aboriginal rights.
ASIO kept tabs on the Aboriginal rights movement, particularly those involved in the founding of the Aboriginal
Tent Embassy in January 1972, including activist Gary Foley.
But nearly all social movements that arose in the 1960s and 1970s were surveilled, including the anti-Vietnam War
campaign and the Anti-Apartheid Movement.
Prominent activists from these campaigns and other movements/groups were surveilled, with massive files created
by the day-to-day following of these activists. A number of these have been digitised in recent years following FOI
requests. These include the Burgmann sisters, Meredith and Verity, who were involved in the Anti-Apartheid
Movement and the campaign against the Springboks in 1971, as well as Rick Kuhn, a leading member of the
Australian Trotskyist group, the International Socialists (following the Cliffite IS/SWP from the UK), and CPA
youth member (and future Professor) Ann Curthoys.
These are only a few of the many digitised ASIO files that people can access through the NAA catalogue. It is worth
having a search for other well-known activists. If the files has been digitised, you can view it on the NAAs new fileviewer, SODA.
Just type in the URL: http://soda.naa.gov.au/record/ [barcode of file] /1
Now have some fun!
4 COMMENTS
1.
(IMAGE NOT REPRODUCED)takver

January 16, 2014 at 10:26 pm
p47
15-3-2016
Cool, I applied for and received the ASIO file on my father (all 26 pages) about 14 years ago. Just went through it
again and it contains my birth notice that had been published in Tribune, the CPA newspaper, as well as a sheet with
handwritten registration details of my birth : parents names, when married, and my sibling (who was 4 years old)
perhaps these details were taken from my birth entry from the Registry of births, deaths and marriages.
So it appears I have been in ASIOs sights since I was born..just as well I engaged in radical student protest
activities in my youth in the 70s and 80s. I know the Police special Branch kept tabs on me as 15 years ago I applied
for and received my special branch file several index cards on my mostly pedestrian activities of attending
demonstrations, and being a registrant of premises for a left bookshop. Really? Enemy of the state?
The real joke is that they actually thought at any time my father or my self were a threat to the state? More like
active citizens with a strong moral compass. Oops, I forgot, they dont like citizens getting too active, it might be a
communist or anarchist plot to subvert society.
Must be time to request my own ASIO file to have a laugh at them trying to dig up dirt and document my life.
Here is a scan of my birth details page:
PS: you should also add anarchism to the tags on this page as well. (yes, there were anarchists around who were
under surveillance)
2.
(IMAGE NOT REPRODUCED)allison murchie

January 17, 2014 at 3:04 pm
I would like to look at other files, eg Jack Mundey how do i find the barcode for the file
3.
(IMAGE NOT REPRODUCED)hatfulofhistory

January 17, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Allison, you go to the Record Search page of the NAA:

http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/ and type in, for example, Jack Mundey
If you type this search term in, you get this:
http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/scripts/AutoSearch.asp?O=auto&K=Jack+Mundey
Click on the column digitised item, which will bring all digitised files to the top. Unfortunately, there are none for
Jack Mundey.
So using another search term, for example, Eric Aarons, you will see that there are several digitised files relating to
Eric Aarons. Clicking on the control symbol column will take you to an item listing page, with one sectio being the
barcode. For the 1957-1963 digitised file on Aarons, the control symbol to click is 152 and then the item listing
page shows that the barcode is 8194890.
p48
15-3-2016
The best way to view digitised files from the NAA is to go to their new pdf viewer http://soda.naa.gov.au. So type
in: http://soda.naa.gov.au/record/, then paste the barcode number, then add /1.
So for that Aarons file, the URL would be:
http://soda.naa.gov.au/record/8194890/1
You can then convert these files into pdf and print them/email them/whatever.
Hope this helps.
1.
(IMAGE NOT REPRODUCED)Allison Murchie

January 20, 2014 at 10:22 am
Thanks
Allison Murchie
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:24:09 +0000
To: murchie52@hotmail.com
END QUOTE
When His Honour Mullaly J as I understood it claimed that no evidence is required for ex parte
(criminal) hearing it much alerted me to that ex parte intervention orders are issued like candy,
in the tens of thousands, regardless that the other person (generally a broken down relationship)
may in the end to be totally innocent. As I understand it intervention orders are obtained ex parte
as a prerequisite of further litigation so as to effectively give the applicant a better legal standing.
For example when the applicant obtains an ex parte intervention order the target/victim then is
prevented to collect his/her personal belongings which may be critical documentation needed for
further litigation. In one case the applicant had obtained ex parte orders and subsequently denied
having in possession items of the other party. Yet years later the police notified the other person
(the victim) that a suitcase had been located with personal belonging and it was located on the
nature strip next to a garbage bin of the original applicant. As such the original applicant had
committed perjury, etc. the same Applicant had twice accused the other party of breaking and
entry and robbing jewellery. After this Applicant died, some years later, from cancer all alleged
jewellery was found to be in a safety deposit box in the name of the Applicant. And numerous
other incidents eventuated that the real victim requested my assistance and then over time it all
became exposed. Yet, I view the judiciary much is at fault for not dealing harshly enough with
people who pervert the course of justice and also allowing ex parte intervention orders so to say
be handed out like candy.
What has happened is that the protection of vulnerable persons has been hijacked to use the
system for fraudulent usage. I view that the judiciary lack of proper orders actually much may
contribute to ongoing protracted disputes afterwards.
As I understand it often ex parte intervention orders are applied for this even so the other party
could have attended if just notified of the proceedings. As such, the applicant (and often so
assisted by lawyers) are abusing the legal system to get an unfair advantage upon the other party
not because of any real need for an intervention order to allegedly protect the applicant (and any
other person) but to gain unfair advantage upon the other party.
In particular in custody orders this sets in train who in the end shall succeed in custody of any
children involved.
p49
15-3-2016
If however the courts were to clamp down on this kind of abuse and that anyone how is found to
deceptively/fraudulently had obtained intervention orders then will have this as an issue against
gaining custody then this already may reduce significantly ex parte intervention orders being
applied for.
Also, if in subsequent litigation the Applicant was found to have deceived the court then this
applicant should be charges for perverting the course of justice, etc, and not be left off lightly.
After all the credibility of the judiciary is in question when the judiciary fails to ensure its
integrity is upheld against wrongdoers.
A judge faced with a dilemma to issue or not to issue an ex parte intervention order may very
well chose the safe option to issue intervention orders but with a condition that both parties are to
provide written submission within 14 days as to why the intervention order is or is not justified.,
and what, if any other orders may be sought, etc. In this manner the other (aggrieved) party could
inform the court as to any inappropriate consequences that resulted from the intervention order,
such as the denial of personal documents, etc, and then the judge can issue complimentary orders
or even set aside the ex parte intervention order if this is deemed appropriate. The message that
needs to be given is that anyone who seeks an ex parte intervention order or for that any other
orders and use it for ulterior purposes will be held legally accountable.
No doubt smallminded members of the judiciary misconceiving my writings may have an issue
with it, but it would in my view better if they got some better education and stop the descent in
morality of society that courts are there to be used as a tool no matter how inappropriate this
might be, and that they must ensure to uphold the integrity of the judiciary by supervising any
orders they issue appropriately. Every judicial officer must accept responsibility to supervise
orders he/she issues and not ignore the consequences of any unreasonable orders that were issued
and the harm flowing from it.
I for one over about 4 decades have witnessed the horrific consequences of court orders issued
without being supervised appropriately by the court which issued them, and how orders are
issued predetermined, etc. I wouldnt trust any judicial officer and view I am well justified in this
considering the overwhelming experiences/knowledge I have in that regard. The courts need to
be revamped to concentrate in providing real justice, and as an independent/impartial judiciary
and so with placing its integrity beyond question. Until then, again, I wouldnt trust the judiciary!
Money ill-gotten should be cruelly expiated (make amends for wrong pay penalty).
I didnt seek to litigate and in fact opposed it but when despite of this opponents desire to litigate
then let canvass all relevant issues, including if not specifically how the judiciary appears to me
to be part of the gross injustice perpetrated against citizens. Never mind the volume of my
writings, just consider what it is about and how to overcome the disastrous failures by the
judiciary as to avoid any repeats. We may even see a fall of number of suicides (currently
reportedly 8 a day) where citizens gain confidence that the courts will return to the legal
principles embedded in the constitution. As many give me the understanding as long as they had
their day in court for a judge to listen to their version of matters that is what they desire, even if
the outcome may still be adverse to them. Never again should a judge as His Honour Mullaly J
did claiming not wanting to waste court time, when in fact it was this what caused it.
This ADDRESS TO THE COURT supplement 5 should be considered together with the
ADDRESS TO THE COURT (incorrectly referring to a 22-2-2006 hearing which was indicated
for 22-2-2016) ADDRESS TO THE COURT supplement 1 and ADDRESS TO THE
COURT supplement 2 and ADDRESS TO THE COURT supplement 3 & 4.
This written submission is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all relevant
issues and oral supplement may be made. After all it is unknown to me what, if any, other matter
may arise before the hearing is held.
Appellant/Objector
p50
15-3-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20160315-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council - APPEAL-15-2502-ADDRESS To The COURT-Supplement 5

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

20160315-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council - APPEAL-15-2502-ADDRESS To The COURT-Supplement 5

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Page 1 AP 2502 ADDRESS TO THE COURT Suppl 5, Hearing date 22-2-2016 (or alternative date if allocated)

ADDRESS TO THE COURT (Written submissions) Supplement 4

Elliott Stafford and Associated

Melinda Hampshire Melinda.Hampshire@courts.vic.gov.au , registry.ballarat@countycourt.vic.gov.au

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Clearly an intentional conduct to violate legal provisions can be subject to litigation in a

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

92 Trade within the Commonwealth to be free

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

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

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Port of Melbourne privatisation bill to go

Updated Wed at 6:24pmWed 9 Mar 2016, 6:24pm

(image not included)

State Government hopes to reap about $6 billion from privatising port

Bill expected to pass Upper House on Thursday

10pc of sale proceeds to improve regional transport infrastructure

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 II,L.C. 759

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Appeal 15-2502

(Buloke Shire Council) Prosecutors legal representatives ES&a Lawyers

Hearing date (22-2-2016?) Ballarat venue