20180106-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re CIVIL RIGHTS & Is NSW Garry Burns A Homosexual Litigation Freak

ISSUE: 20180106- Re: CIVIL RIGHTS & is NSW Garry Burns a homosexual litigation freak, etc
& the constitution
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
This PRESS RELEASE is of some length, this is because of the subject matters canvassed.
Considering that I on 4 December 2002 obtained a court order such as objecting to the validity of
the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948, comprehensively defeated the AEC in AEC v
Schorel-Hlavka on 4 August 2005 as to the use of ‘averment’ and comprehensively on 19 July
2006 defeated the Commonwealth in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka in regard of ‘compulsory voting’,
let no one under estimate what I am on about.
I hold the view it is not OK to plunge people in an unconstitutional marriage and then let it go. If
it aren’t constitutionally permissible then it never existed. The harm to those who then engaged
int5o an unconstitutional marriage can be horrendous.
We need to ensure that it is constitutionally valid and well personally I view Prime Minister
Malcolm Turnbull is a clear example to show he lacks to understand and comprehend the true
meaning and application of the constitution. His reference to an ABS survey to get to a republic
this even so within our constitution there is no ability to create a republic seems to be ignored.
(See below)
I on 4 December 2002 obtained (by consent) in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka a court order regarding
my s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS in which I challenged the validity of
the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948. Regardless what the High Court of Australia may
have recently ruled in citizenship cases in the end as long as my case has not been heard and
determined the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is and remains to be NULL AND
VOID Ab Initio.
One has to question why not first deal with the b sic issue before dealing with matters pretending
the basic issues are not existing to worry about?
If as I maintain the amendment to the marriage Act is and remains to be unconstitutional then
who really is served with the benefits of this utter mesh? Well the very politicians who couldn’t
care less the harm they inflict upon a person’s constitutional rights, or even their personal health
as some set out below.
We wouldn’t have the utter mesh regarding terrorisms had politicians not unconstitutionally
invaded Iraq. It is not the constitution stupid that is at fault but the egoistic conduct of politicians,
state, territories and federal.
We saw with my prior warning on 15 July 2016 about placing automatic bollards into tram-
tracks that was ignored by all politicians and well 6 people subsequently died on 20 January 2017
that could have been avoided.
Iran is currently an example how dissatisfaction simmers and then suddenly it is so to say
the straw that breaks the camel’s back. And just consider what would be happening if all those
who engaged (some at huge financial cost) into marriage only to discover the politicians so to say
led them by the nose into an unconstitutional marriage?
As I understand it from others this NSW Garry Burns is a homosexual litigation freak who has
been for years litigating against people using the NCAT (NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal
p1 6 -1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
for spades of litigation against numerous people including Tess Corbett about her Victorian
election comments and instead of the N.S.W. Attorney-General having pursued for him to be
declared to be VEXATIOUS litigant, I understand the Attorney-General apparently was
supporting him in litigation.
In my view this requires a proper view about constitutional CIVIL RIGHTS. This is relevant to
all states/territories and the Commonwealth of Australia!
As I understand it Mr Garry Burns is a bankrupt and in my view therefore has NO LEGAL
STANDING a to institute legal proceedings against any person in his own right but can only
have litigation instituted on his behalf if the Administrator determines this is correct in law to do
so. In my view those who were taunted and otherwise harmed by this litigation madness in
NCAT should be entitled to sue Garry burns for damages.
However, as the NCAT cannot ‘decline” but must hear and determine the case at hand, which
was if NCAT did or didn’t have jurisdiction then clearly NCAT at least in my view is
incompetent to appropriately deal with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. Once an
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was made (orally or otherwise) then NCAT could not hear
and determine the case that was filed as the only thing it could hear and determine was the
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. And it must either uphold the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION or dismiss it. As such, it cannot decline to hear the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION nor sidestep to hear and determine the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. If
the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was to be upheld (as the orders appears to indicate) then
the formal orders should have been that the application filed by Garry Burns is dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction. Where is so to say an avalanche of such applications against various persons then
I view NCAT should have requested the Attorney-General to investigate the conduct of Garry
burns as to if the Supreme Court of N.S.W ought to declare Garry Burns to be a VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT. This where despite the original OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION Garry Burns
nevertheless as I understand it continue to file applications with a disregard to first have the
jurisdictional matter decided upon in a proper jurisdictional hearing. And if indeed, as I
understand it, Garry burns is a BANKRUPT then I view this all the more justify such orders
against Garry Burns to be declared a vexatious litigant lacking personal LEGAL STANDING
to institute legal proceedings other than by the appointed Administrator. After all, if Garry Burns
can needlessly litigate and face huge order of cost then this would directly impact upon the
bankruptcy.
I understand that Mr John Abbott from onset OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION of
NCAT and as such its orders below are a nullity, this because when NCAT was faced with an
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION than NCAT had to either dismiss or uphold the OBJECTION
TO JURISDICTION. In my view it also ought then to have allowed the objector to submit for
cost either any legal cost and/or punitive cost.
Let us not ignore the financial, emotional and mental harm caused by Garry Burns to litigate as
he did upon those who litigated against. There must be appropriate legal accountability for this
kind of conduct.
As I understand it Garry Burns would institute legal proceedings merely if he found someone
may have written something adverse to homosexuality and other gender issues. In my view this
may underline the gross incompetence by NCAT to appropriately consider the rights of those
subjected to Garry Burns applications where only now NCAT finally acknowledge it has no
jurisdiction. What about all those the NXCAT issued orders again in favour of Garry Burns? Is
NCAT going to set aside its own orders in that regard? What about Tess Corbett, are the orders
against her also vacated? What we had is a gross violation upon the FREEDOM OF SPEECH
rights that are embedded in our (federal) constitution! How many other tribunals have likewise as
NCAT made orders that were beyond their jurisdictions?

While below I reproduce a copy of the orders and reasons of Case number 2016/00378079,
identical orders and reasons were also issued in regard of Case number 2016/00378080, Case
number 2016/00378081 and Case number 2016/00378082.
QUOTE Case number 2016/00378079
NCAT
NSW Civil &
Administrative Tribunal
Administrative & Equal Opportunity Tribunal
Quote the number below for all enquiries
Case number 2016/00378079
Previous case number 1610316
John Abbott
I Piccolo Road
COOMERA QLD 4209
ORDER
Case title Garry Burns v John Abbott

Application under Discrimination Act 1977
On 14 December 2017 the following orders (and/or directions) were made:
1. The Tribunal declines to determine the application because its determination involves the exercise of
federal diversity jurisdiction. The Tribunal notes that the applicant states that he intends to apply to an
authorised court under s 34B of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (N.S.W.) to determine the
application.
A Britton, Principal Member

Issued: 14 December 2017
END QUOTE Case number 2016/00378079
QUOTE Case number 2016/00378079

NCAT
NSW Civil &
Administrative Tribunal
Administrative & Equal Opportunity Tribunal
Quote the number below for all enquiries
Case number 2016/00378079
Previous case number 1610316
John Abbott
I Piccolo Road
COOMERA QLD 4209
ORDER
Case title Garry Burns v John Abbott

Application under Discrimination Act 1977
We refer to the above application.
Then Tribunal has declined to determine the application as it seeks to invoke federal jurisdiction in that it involved a
matter between residents of different States.
You may have a right to commence proceedings in an authorised court under section 34Bof the civil and
Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
If you decide to take this course of action you will need to take this letter and a copy of the application to the
relevant court. You may not need to pay a fee to lodge your application at the Court.
If you need any assistance you may wish to contact Law access on 1300 888529 or www.lawaccess,nsw.gov.au
Registrar
END QUOTE Case number 2016/00378079
I understand that Garry Burns is a prolific litigant to take people to court about whatever
statement they may have made, such as Tess Corbett as a candidate in a Victorian election and I
view abused and misused the NCAT for this. I understand that not until Mr John Abbott and Mr
Bernard Gaynor objected to the jurisdiction of NCAT were ongoing orders issued against those
Garry Buns was litigating against. I understand that each time he was awarded $10,000.00. In my
view there needs to be a proper investigation if this eventuated as such not only in N.S.W but
also other State and Territories and this must be stopped.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I did make known to both Mr John Abbott and Mr Bernard
Gaynor from onset that in my view NCAT could not invoke any federal jurisdiction because it is
not a court invested with federal jurisdiction and a state tribunal is not a court and cannot be
invested with federal jurisdiction. It appears my views then expressed in 2016 have been
vindicated to be correct.
Obviously it should be of concern that Tess Corbett as a Victorian state citizen somehow was
ordered by NCAT to pay monies for doing what within our constitutional framework she was
permitted to stater.
We have our federal constitution the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
which (as set out in previous published PRESS RELEASES) was partly based upon the US of A
constitution which at that time had 14 amendments.
I understand Garry Burns is a homosexual who terrorise people about their usage of FREEDOM
OF SPEECH by instituting litigation against them where it relates to homosexual and other like
issues.
Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:
Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been
no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
END QUOTE
There is currently a 2012 case before the Supreme Court of the United Stated of America
regarding a baker refusing to sell a case to a homosexual couple. It should be understood that the
2013 case I commented upon regarding a lesbian couple has not as yet gone to the Supreme
Court. Also, that homosexual marriages to my understanding then was not legally accepted in all
American states.
As I stated:
https://www.infowars.com/court-upholds-135k-fine-for-bakers-who-refused-to-bake-gay-cake/
Court Upholds $135K Fine For Bakers Who Refused to Bake Gay Cake
Lawyers argue decision violates bakers’ First Amendment rights
Adan Salazar | Infowars.com - December 29, 2017 1467 Comments
QUOTE
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka •

In
my view refusing to sell an off the shelf cake cannot be excused. Having stated
this it is another matter for anyone to somehow force any person, professional
or not, to use his FREEDOM OF SPEECH which include artistic creativity, to
create a work of art. Artistic work cannot be forced upon a person to be
performed. Fancy demanding a cartoonist to create some picture against his
desire. If one or more persons desire some creativity from another person then
they just have to shop around till they can get someone willing to perform
his/her artistic talents. In my view a baker as with any other artist is
creating a work of art and should always have the liberty to person his rights
under the FREEDOM OF SPEECH and religious views as he/she desires. As such, if
a customer demands/request more than a cake from the shelf that is on display
and ask for creativity of the baker then I view a baker is well entitled to
refuse to engage his creativity.
Imagine
to have demands a composer to create a music that the requester/demander
desires! In my view a composer is entitled to refuse to create a composition
that he/she doesn't desire to provide. We all possess creativity, being it in
writing, painting, music or whatever and we as individuals can never be forced
to have this personal rights undermined by making it upon demand to others.
One
also has to ask can the baker demand that a person does not purchase anywhere
else but from his store item she/she sells. I do not think so. As such if the
potential customer has the freedom of choice then the baker likewise should
have that right. A store could refuse to sell spray paint if the shops staff
question the person’s motive to wanting to purchase the spray paint for
graffiti purposes.
A
pub/bar can refuse to sell alcohol drinks to a person if they hold the person
might be intoxicated, or whatever. There are stores that sells to 'trade only'
where unless you are a business you cannot purchase items from that store. In
my view the baker using religious grounds also means that anyone else who does
not have religious grounds likewise can refuse to create a work of art such as
a cake with a decoration.
. WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,
No.
76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
QUOTE
1.
The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v.
Seeger, supra, and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military
service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from
both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that
Congress used the words "by reason of religious training and belief"
to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized
worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2.
The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a
construction of that provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp.
354-356.
3.
Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by
exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic
belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To
comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include
those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical
source. Pp. 356-361.
4.
In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and
the longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the
Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its
coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded
from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.
END QUOTE
Insoo Kim G. H. Schorel-Hlavka • 14 hours ago
wow that was great! Thumbs up!
NW Watchdog G. H. Schorel-Hlavka • 2 days ago
Bingo
END QUOTE
Anyone who were to check the Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the
Debates of the National Australasian Convention) would find statements such as:
HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON: That is incident to the marriage law!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It comes from the marriage law, and ought to flow as a corollary. It is
a corollary as far as marriage is concerned.

[start page 1085]
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: It would not necessarily follow the law of husband and wife!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: We are only talking about parental rights; that is the right of the
parent over the child!
END QUOTE
HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
The Hon. J.H. GORDON (South Australia)[3.59]: I think we are quarrelling about terms and not about
substance. I believe that the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, agrees with almost everyone of us that as
regards parental rights and the custody and, guardianship of children so far as divorce is concerned,
power should be given to the commonwealth; but this clause goes much further and includes the whole
region of, parental rights and the custody and guardianship of children.
The Hon. E. BARTON: Put in the words "and in relation thereto" before "parental rights "!
The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That will cover the whole ground. All our acts relating to the custody and
guardianship of children have relation to parental rights.
Mr. SYMON: Suppose a child is deserted?
The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That suspends the parental custody; but the parental liability remains. I
think that the amendment suggested by the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, covers the whole
ground.
The Hon. E. BARTON: I move:
That the figures "24" be omitted with a view to the insertion of the words "and in relation thereto."
This will confine the operation of the subclause to the rights and obligations arising out of divorce
suits. The other matters to which attention has been directed will be considered by the Drafting Committee.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[4.3]: I would point out that if we are going to deal
with the service and process of writs in regard to this matter in one state when the parent resides in
another, it will be just as well for the Drafting Committee to consider the aspect of the case in relation
to deserted wives. If the amendment of the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, is carried, I think
we might leave the matter to the Drafting Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Sub-clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

END QUOTE
HANSARD Constitutional Convention 9 March 1891 [page 151]

QUOTE
Mr. RUTLEDGE: I think that in a matter of this kind we should proceed as far as possible
by familiar analogy, and, though perhaps the suggestion of the analogy may, in the minds
of some hon. members, be thought entirely inappropriate to an assemblage of this kind-
though the suggestion or the expression of the analogy may in some quarters create a smile-
yet it appears to me that in order to have a perfect system of federal government, we ought,
as far as possible, to preserve an analogy to that form of Government which prevails
in a model family. Now, in the case of a model family we know that the husband
represents the entire household.
An HON. MEMBER: In providing for the expenditure!
An HON. MEMBER: There is no federation there!
Mr. RUTLEDGE: The husband is supposed, in the natural order of things, to be the
representative of the entire household but, though he is a representative of the entire
household, we know that the wife also plays a very important part in the government of that
household. The wife comes very near to all those smaller constituent elements of the family
circle, which may, perhaps, by analogy be likened to the great family of states which will
exist in connection with this great federal constitution.
Colonel SMITH: She is the home ruler!
Mr. RUTLEDGE: It is the wife that knows all about the particular interests which affect
all the members of the family group: they come to her with their particular ideas, and they
look to her for the expression of their ideas and for the enforcement of their particular
claims.
Mr. MUNRO: Not for finding the income!
Mr. RUTLEDGE: With regard to that interjection, I say that he is a wise man who,
being the head of a household, puts all his financial projects into the crucible of the
sagacious mind of his wife, far more enlightened, far more discriminating than his own.
Colonel SMITH: With the power of veto!
Mr. RUTLEDGE: I say yes, with the power of veto. In this community many a man
owes a great deal to the advice of his wife and the veto which she has put upon his
proposals. We know that those strong headed men who think that all wisdom is embodied
in themselves, who do not take their wives into their confidence, who do not consult their
wives as to some particular speculation on which they desire to embark, are the men who
very frequently come to grief. But the men who do take, their wives into their confidence in
this way, and who do permit them to have a considerable voice in the management of
family affairs, even to putting a veto upon their own impulsive tendencies in regard to
financial proposals, are the men who go on very safe lines. No analogy is perfect; every
analogy will break down when you come to some particular modes of applying it; but I do
regard a great family of states, governed by a house of representatives and a senate, as
bearing a very considerable analogy to the constitution of a family; and I say the same rule
which prevails in the one ought to prevail in the other.
Sir THOMAS McILWRAITH: The wife initiates most of the money bills there!
Mr. RUTLEDGE: The wives do initiate a great many of the money bills, and I appeal to
the experience of a great many hon. gentlemen to know whether they have not been
saved very frequently from financial mistakes by consulting their wives in regard to
important steps which they proposed to take in the very serious affairs. of life.
END QUOTE
(Writers note; See also 9 March 1891 Page 151 & 152)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50
QUOTE

Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51].
END QUOTE
It should be clear the Framers of the Constitution never did rely upon homosexual let alone
other gender marriages.
My own research comes to the finding that reference to ‘gender’ and/or ‘transgender’ was not
used by the Framers of the Constitution but words such as ‘family model’, male, female, man,
woman and sex was recorded as used, such as in;
Hansard 23-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
PETITION.
Dr. COCKBURN presented the following petition, signed by the President and Secretary of the Women's
Christian Temperance Union of Australasia:-
To the President of the Federal Convention of Australasia, in Session assembled:
Sir-On behalf of the executive of the Women's Christian Temperance Union of Australasia, which numbers
about 8,000 women and has branches in every colony, we have the honor respectfully to forward the
following resolution, adopted on February 26th, 1897:-"That this executive, representing the Women's
Christian Temperance Union of Australasia, earnestly urges the Federal Convention of Australasia to secure
in the Federal Constitution the provision that all voting by electors for Federal Parliaments be upon the basis
of equal voting rights for both sexes."
We have the honor to be, Sir,.
Obediently yours,
E. W. NICHOLLS, President.
NORA B. HARRIS, Secretary.
Petition received and read.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
PETITION.
Mr. BRUNKER: I have the honor to present a petition from the Womanhood Suffrage League of New
South Wales.
The petition is respectfully worded, and ends with the following prayer:-
Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray-That your honorable Convention will so frame the Federal
Constitution of Australasia that the right to vote for representatives to the Federal Parliament shall be
possessed by women and men without any distinction or disqualification on the ground of sex.
I move that the petition be received and read.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

END QUOTE

QUOTE
The CLERK read the petition, which was as follows:
To the Hon. the President and the Members of the Federal Convention of Australia.
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania humbly showeth-
(1) That as Tasmanian inhabitants as a whole are represented at the Federal Convention solely by men, in
this both sexes heartily concur; and that as the majority of the Tasmanian women do not desire political
responsibility to be thrust upon them, we consider it unadvisable that Federated Australia should force adult
suffrage upon this colony, but that each colony should frame its own franchise,
(2) That as the interests of the female portion of the inhabitants of Tasmania are guarded both by men in our
local Houses of Parliament and at the Federal Convention, we are of the opinion that they are and can be
equally well represented by relations and male friends at the ballot box.
(3) We therefore respectfully pray that in your deliberations you will favorably consider this our petition;
and we ask that the blessing of Him who gave to man the sole right to rule may rest upon you in your great
work, and that this and all matters appertaining to the constitution of Federated Australia may be framed in
accordance with the righteous law of God. Righteousness alone can exalt our young nation.
Dr. QUICK: How many signatures has it?
The CLERK: Ninety-six.
Dr. QUICK: From the whole of Tasmania!
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. HOWE: Then I wish to speak. Mr. Holder has placed his case in a very fair manner indeed before this
Assembly. I might say that before Mr. Holder entered into the sphere of active politics in South Australia I
was an advocate of woman's suffrage. I could never bring myself to understand why women should not have
the same voice in connection with the laws of their country as the men. All the time I had the honor of having
a seat in this chamber I never hid myself behind a hedge when the question of woman's suffrage was
introduced, even when introduced in a questionable form. I believe in the principle, and although I may have
been in opposition to any Ministry who introduced the measure, no matter in what mode it came into the
chamber they have always found me voting in favor of it. I know that the policy of the South Australian
Government on the hustings in connection with the Convention election was adult suffrage, but I took an
opposite view. I told my constituents of South Australia that, while I believed in adult suffrage, and were I
resident in any of the other colonies which did not possess it I would fight for it as I had in South Australia,
but as I believed in States rights, which in other words is home rule, I had no right to place on the people of
the other colonies such a franchise, and to interfere with them in such a manner I designated as a piece of
impertinence. Mr. Holder has presented to our gaze a deplorable state of things, and asked why the woman
should not have the same right to vote in the making of the laws of the land as her husband who might be an
abandoned and worthless fellow; but an abandoned and worthless woman is as bad as any man, so in giving
the franchise to women we have increased the number of worthless voters; but the good women who are so
numerous will counteract the influence of the bad ones. I am about to contest an election, and I wish the
people of South Australia to understand my position, so that there shall be no mistake about my attitude. I
thoroughly believe in giving the franchise to the women of the State in which I live, but I would look upon
myself as unduly and unnecessarily interfering with the rights of other States by agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. FRASER: I am afraid if this motion is carried it will be handicapping Federation unduly, and we have
already handicapped it to an extent that it can hardly bear. If we agreed to it the people of the other colonies
would resent it-at all events I am sure Victoria would.
Mr. KINGSTON: Your popular House is in favor of it.
Mr. FRASER: That is possible, but it does not say that the women of that colony are in favor of it. I am an
old parliamentarian, and I can tell you that, as far as my judgment goes, the women do not favor it. Of course
there is always a section in favor of anything you like to propose, but that does not say that the majority do
so. I will not, however, argue the matter out here, as the proper [start page 720] place to do so in my own
colony. I have as much admiration for the women as any man-I mean in their proper places. If this question is
going to grow, give it time to grow. You do not want to force the growth of a plant unreasonably.
An HON. MEMBER: Asparagus.
Mr. FRASER: It has not grown in the United States; it has not grown even in your own colony. A lady
presented herself-a very estimable and eligible candidate stood for the Convention-but the people of South
Australia did not elect her. Her own sex voted against her, probably.
Mr. KINGSTON: Well?
Mr. FRASER: Well. I was in a town in New Zealand that had a lady mayoress.
Mr. BARTON: Onehunga.
Mr. FRASER: I had the pleasure of doing the honors to the Mayor of Onehunga. In New Zealand I do not
think there will be another lady mayoress. I am speaking now what is the opinion of all. I am not saying that
in disparagement of womankind. Far be it from me. But I say the people of South Australia have no right to
dictate to our colony as this amendment will he doing, and if it is carried it will handicap this Bill
unnecessarily. I would suggest to those who are anxious for Federation not to press this to a division. I will
have to vote against it, and I hope others will do the same who believe in woman suffrage in local politics,
but not in national matters. Let it grow as it ought to grow. It will grow in our colony if it is going to grow,
but if the example of South Australia and New Zealand is followed it will die. It has been in existence in a
very small way in the United States, where I have travelled frequently, and there is no desire for its extension.
Then why handicap this federal movement by a thing of this kind? It is not reasonable.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN: Federation will cure that!
The Hon. A. DEAKIN: Time will cure it. The new woman is not to be excluded from Western Australia
any more than from any other colony. There is no doubt that the sex inequality which at present exists will, in
course of time, be removed by purely [start page 52] natural causes. I understand that the Premier of Western
Australia signalised, amongst many other achievements, his visit to the mother country by importing a certain
number of females in order to make up for the deficiency which at present exists. Putting aside Western
Australia, as separated by its present circumstances, and having some familiarity as a visitor with the rest of
the colonies, it appears to me to be hard to lay the finger upon any particular cause in any particular colony
which would make any great difference in the consumption of dutiable goods in that colony. I assume that the
proportion of total abstainers and non-smokers is about the same in one colony as in another. Putting that
aside, regarding the circumstances of the life of the people, the manner in which they live, and the appearance
of their cities and country districts, I for one can discover nothing which should make any marked difference
in the consumption per head. It seems to me that the only variations which really exist in the consumption per
head throughout Australia arise from the fact that these are rapidly growing and expanding colonies, that all
their conditions are changing, and as all their conditions are changing with great rapidity from year to year,
necessarily there are some variations in consumption. But all these differences are temporary; they are all
local; they all tend to disappear; and the probability is that at no distant date they will disappear altogether.

Putting aside Western Australia, it appears to me that the consumption of dutiable goods would be about the
same all over Australia.
The Right Hon. G.H. REID: From the first?
The Hon. A. DEAKIN: Not quite from the first; it takes time. The settlement and the development of great
territories takes time, and during that time there will be, as I say, variations.
The Hon. E. BARTON: Will it take longer than five years?
The Hon. A. DEAKIN: It may; but I should doubt whether it would take a decade.
Mr. GLYNN: There is a great deal of difference between the proceeds from the liquor traffic in the
different colonies!
The Hon. A. DEAKIN: There is, because in one colony people may largely drink whiskey and in another
locally grown wine.
Mr. SOLOMON: It may be a question of climate. The hon. member wants a little experience of Western
Australian weather to know what thirst means!
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-I do not advocate that course, because to my mind the retention of the clause is of very great
importance. I look upon the clause as necessary to prevent the state Parliaments from being used as
instruments of nullification. Some assertion of that principle is desirable in the Constitution, though the
precise words of it are a matter of doubt and a matter of drafting. I would suggest that we should pass the
amendment of Mr. O'Connor on the committee undertaking to bring it up again for further consideration if
they think fit on the recommittal of the Bill.
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-I hope we will not do that. I think it is far more than a question of drafting. I
think, whatever course we take, we ought to try to have the matter explained as much as possible at the
present moment. If we pass the words which my learned friend (Mr. O'Connor) has suggested, we shall be
raising up adversaries of the Constitution on all hands. The phrase-"the equal protection of the laws" looks
very well, but what does it mean? It was part and parcel of the 14th amendment of the American
Constitution; it was introduced on account of the negro difficulty. It is not something separate from the other
portion, and of this Dr. Burgess says, at page 217 of the first volume of his work:-
The phrase "equal protection of the laws" has been defined by the court to mean exemption from
legal discrimination on account of race or colour. This provision would probably, therefore, not be held
to cover discriminations in legal standing made for other reasons; as, for example, on account of age or
sex, or mental, or even property qualifications. The court distinctly affirms that the history of the provision
shows it to have been made to meet only the unnatural discriminations springing from race and colour. If a
discrimination should arise from any previous condition of servitude, I think the court would regard this as
falling under the inhibition. The language of the provision implies this certainly, if it does not exactly express
it.
And the case itself, which was decided in 1879, shows perfectly clearly that it has no application to our
Australian circumstances. The head-note is-
1. The 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States, considered and held to be one of a series of
constitutional provisions having a common purpose, namely, to secure to a recently emancipated race, which
had been held in slavery through many generations, all the civil rights that the superior race enjoy, and to
give to it the protection of the general government, in the enjoyment of such rights, whenever they should be
denied by the states. Whether the amendment had other, and if so what, purposes, not decided.

[start page 687]
2. The amendment not only gave citizenship, and the privileges of citizenship, to persons of colour, but
denied to any state the power to withhold from them the equal protection of the laws, and invested Congress
with power, by appropriate legislation, to enforce its provisions.
3. The amendment, although prohibitory in terms, confers by necessary implication a positive immunity, or
right, most valuable to persons of the coloured race-the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against
them distinctively as coloured-exemption from discriminations, imposed by public authority, which imply
legal inferiority in civil society, lessen the security of their rights, and are steps towards reducing them to the
condition of a subject race.
Mr. HIGGINS.-It protects Chinamen too, I suppose, as well as negroes?
Mr. ISAACS.-It would protect Chinamen in the same way. As I said before, it prevents
discriminations on account of race or colour, whether those discriminations be by Parliament or by
administration. And in the case I referred to, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, it was held by the Supreme Court that the
ordinance of the San Francisco Legislature was void, and they went on to say further, even if a legislative
provision is fair and apparently equal on the face of it, if it is so administered as to introduce this
discrimination, it will be declared void.
Mr. HIGGINS.-The Act itself.
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; if it admits of that infringement, and if it is so interpreted by the Supreme Court of the
state as to mean that such a discrimination may be introduced, though not necessarily, it will be held to be
void. That will be found on page 220 of Baker's Annotated Notes on the Constitution of the United States. If
that is so, to put it in plain language, our factory legislation must be void. I put that one simple statement
before honorable members, and I would ask them how they can expect to get for this Constitution the support
of the workers of this colony or of any other colony, if they are told that all our factory legislation is to be
null and void, and that no such legislation is to be possible in the future?
Mr. KINGSTON.-That is the special clause relating to Chinese.
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
[start page 2500]
It has been said that we may marry in haste and repent at leisure, but we may also refuse in haste and repent
at leisure, none the less bitterly. If either sex insisted upon absolute perfection, there would be no marriages
either in haste or leisure. Moreover, it is not the acceptance of a new obligation that alone involves risk.
There is the risk of accepting a low ideal. The minor and the smaller success that belongs to a shrunken and
narrow federation can never be contrasted with the effort after a greater and nobler union, even if that be
attended by some measure of failure. Perfection is unattainable in any sphere. Even our national emblem-the
Southern Cross-is not perfect, nor perfectly proportioned, nor equal in all its members, and yet it shines
supreme in queenly brilliancy above all its sister constellations of the southern skies. Though we remember
the ideal, we shall surely not ignore the possible nor forget the actual. It is from the stand-point of the actual
that we must regard the Constitution which is placed before Australia to-day, and I think we need not fear the
result. Is the actual condition of Australia's politics and policies ideal? Do we run no risks as separate
communities? Are we faced by no dangers, financial or otherwise? Why are we here, if not in obedience to a
demand, widespread and born of a universal recognition of the fact that the condition of the colonies to-day is
not one with which the people of the colonies are or ought to be satisfied? When our critics urge that we
should show the merits and advantages of this Constitution, we must begin by deducting the demerits and the
disadvantages under which we now labour, and from which this Constitution offers us an escape. If our
present Constitutions were ideally satisfactory we should not be seeking a Federation. Of necessity in framing

a Constitution, we must, taking the largest view of the situation, allow for what we are avoiding as well as
reckon what we are hoping to gain.
END QUOTE
Again:
QUOTE
The phrase "equal protection of the laws" has been defined by the court to mean exemption from
legal discrimination on account of race or colour. This provision would probably, therefore, not be held
to cover discriminations in legal standing made for other reasons; as, for example, on account of age or
sex, or mental, or even property qualifications.
END QUOTE
In my view the Commonwealth cannot by backdoor manner obtain legislative powers that are not
provided for within constitutional context. Hence, unless there was a referendum that was
approving an amendment to the constitution it is clear from the Hansard records that marriage’ is
to be between ‘a man and a woman’. They didn’t debate about ‘deserted husband’ neither about
‘wife and wife’ or ‘husband and husband’ neither about ‘transgender’. Their various comments/
statements is all about the family unit when it comes to marriage:
HANSARD Constitutional Convention 9 March 1891 [page 151]
QUOTE
Mr. RUTLEDGE: I think that in a matter of this kind we should proceed as far as possible by familiar
analogy, and, though perhaps the suggestion of the analogy may, in the minds of some hon. members, be
thought entirely inappropriate to an assemblage of this kind-though the suggestion or the expression of the
analogy may in some quarters create a smile-yet it appears to me that in order to have a perfect system of
federal government, we ought, as far as possible, to preserve an analogy to that form of Government
which prevails in a model family. Now, in the case of a model family we know that the husband
represents the entire household.
END QUOTE
The following from the then judge of the High Court of Australia to my person:
Thu, 31 Oct 2002

QUOTE
Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
Thank you for your letter.
There is no bias, any more than there would be for a woman judge sitting in a case
involving women or a male judge in a rape case.
Your views on the Constitution appear to have overlooked s 51(xxxvii) of the
Constitution. If that power were not enough, and none of the other heads of power
sufficed, it is true that an amendment of the Constitution might be required.
Alternatively, there are cooperative schemes for parallel legislation. Ours is a
cooperative federation, as the Constitution itself envisaged.
Sincerely, Michael Kirby
END QUOTE
.
In my view those with their genderfluidity are morally bankrupt and mentally insane! My
constitutional rights of FREEDOM OF SPEECH is giving me and everyone else the right to
state our views without being subjected to having some homosexual prolific litigant taking
people to court about it.
Our constitution is based upon the principle that a marriage is between a man and a woman and
therefore I view the purported amendment to the Marriage Act is and remains to be
unconstitutional.

As for the ‘Ours is a cooperative federation, as the Constitution itself envisaged.’ It should
be clear that this is limited to the provisions of the constitution and as I have published in past
PRESS RELEASES the moment the commonwealth legislate upon any subject matter within s51
of the constitution it becomes an exclusive legislative powers and the States have to retire from
this, other than with taxation the subject matter is the matter of taxation. Such as since 11
November 1910 land taxation became a Commonwealth exclusive legislative power and
therefore as council rates a purported State delegated land taxation power became
unconstitutional. Our constitution doesn’t provide for a reversal of legislative powers from the
Commonwealth to the States. As French J (later French CJ of the High Court of Australia) made
clear s51(xxxvii) did no more but to accept any reference of legislative powers from the States,
but it doesn’t give the States the authorization to refer legislative powers. For a State to refer
legislative powers to the commonwealth then in effect this alters the jurisdictional boundary of
such a state and is liable to be seeking approval for such reference of legislative powers by s123
of the constitution of a referendum to approve this. Hence any purported referral of state
legislative power to the Commonwealth without a state referendum to approve this is and
remains to be null and void (AB INITIO) and all Commonwealth judicial decisions remain for
this also NULL AND VOID.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth
powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the
Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us.
END QUOTE
It is therefore clear that the Commonwealth has no position to do social experiments and all and
any purported marriages other than between a man and a woman will remain unconstitutional.
I have warned about this for some years.
If in the end this matter is appropriately judicially decided and it is then held that indeed the
purported amendment to the Marriage Act is NULL AND VOID (Ab Initio) then we will have a
huge number of people who will discover that the hast and trickery used for a ABS (Australian
Bureau of Statistics) survey was in the end not relevant.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/malcolm-turnbull-says-postal-survey-could-decide-
future-of-australian-republic/ar-BBHF5p9?ocid=spartanntp
Malcolm Turnbull says postal survey could decide future of Australian republic
This to me underlines that Malcolm Turnbull shows an utter distain/disrespect to the true
meaning and application of the constitution!
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
.
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
There is no constitutional provision that the High Court of Australia can directly or indirectly by
backdoor manner (such as in Sue v Hill) amend the constitution. It can only interpret the true
meaning and application of the constitution by what the Hansard reveals and it cannot somehow
amend the constitution as it is created by the constitution and not above it.
Hence I view the High Court of Australia has been treasonous against We, the People, to pursue
its own contemporary views which is I view unconstitutional to be enforced against citizens of
the Commonwealth of Australia.
As I made abundantly clear that my view is that what two adult persons do in their bedroom is
their privacy but it is another matter if they are so to say trying to shove it down my throat and/or
otherwise as a taxpayer I am ending up having to pay for the medical cost of homosexuals who
are attracting HIV or other illnesses due to their homosexual conduct, etc. Why indeed does the
Federal government pursue to charge extra taxes against those smoking lawfully cigarettes
whereas not doing the same engaging in homosexual conduct that I understand results to more
than 1,000 cases of HIV on a yearly basis. Surely if the issue is that smoking is a health hazard
then why not apply the same rhetoric against homosexuality?
Drs Baby dies from encephalitis after vaccination
https://www.facebook.com/VaXismVideos/videos/205070253363663/ 20171213-114
https://youtu.be/ccsFmmjja-w?list=PLHVzHmC8eh9N5haZlnNOrCfZuKqBzwPpQ 20170911-05
Re vaccinations and its harm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHTfJKEZX1U 20171213-123
Vaccine facts, damage and angry grandmothers around
VaxXed Tour: Dr Brain Hooker on "The Phone Calls" - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72BWlvalqhI
Feb 15, 2017 - Uploaded by VAXXED TV 20171213-124
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q3T-_esgk 20171213-169
Dr. Amy McGrath her latest video .... Please note she discusses "the Referendum to Ban the
Communist Party in 1951 " did not succeed in the referendum - they changed their name to "leftist".
For your perusal:
https://youtu.be/yfaAtdTgBGk 20171213-191
You Won’t Believe What They Admitted on the news in
Re 1971 vaccination knowing causing cancer
In my view those complicit is forcing/enforcing vaccination can be held legally accountable

for this even if they have long ago left the Parliament. In particular Ministers and their
officials!
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
https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=61502
QUOTE H. L. D’EMDEN v F. PEDDER – High Court of Australia
The Commonwealth and the States are, with respect to the matters which under the Constitution are within
the ambit of their respective legislative or executive authority, sovereign States, subject only to the
restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or
implied. Where, therefore, the Constitution makes a grant of legislative or executive power to the
Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is entitled to exercise that power in absolute freedom, and without any
interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.
.
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Nothing should be too easy. We have the power to alter the Constitution, but it
is a power that can only be exercised with great difficulty.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Yes, since then, as is pointed out in a little handbook which my honorable friend lent me.
But the question for us to consider is whether a court like the Federal High Court or the Privy Council would
ever come to such a conclusion. One would think it highly improbable. The real question that may arise under
this Constitution is whether the Commonwealth can make a law establishing or prohibiting the free exercise
of any religion. I take it that in the absence of a provision in the Constitution conferring that power
upon the Commonwealth it will be impossible for the Commonwealth to do so. For this reason I think
we need scarcely trouble ourselves to impose any restrictions. Under a Constitution like this, the
withholding of a power from the Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE

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

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our
own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above
Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution
we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
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

QUOTE Mr. WISE:
The power of the senate to deal with money bills is so clearly defined that I doubt if any ingenuity could
suggest the possibility of dispute arising between the two houses on that question. That at once removes one
of the most prolific sources of dispute between the two chambers in the past. Then as to the second class of
dispute arising from social differences, all through this discussion, not, I admit, in this house but outside, the
controversialists of one party ignore, or seem to ignore, the limitations of federal government. They forget
that this commonwealth can only deal with those matters that are expressly remitted to its jurisdiction;
and excluded from its jurisdiction are all matters that affect civil rights, all matters that affect
property, all matters, in a word, affecting the two great objects which stir the passions and affect the
interests of mankind. I fail entirely and I shall be glad if some alarmist will enlarge my views on this matter-
to perceive in this bill any question on which there is any possibility of a conflict between the states and the
people, except, in one respect, and I will define that in the largest possible way. In legislation affecting
commercial interests, or financial interests, it is possible to imagine that the states will be brought into
conflict as states with the concentrated majority of the populations of the two large states over a question of
trade. It is possible to imagine the same thing arising over a question of commerce, or over a question of
finance.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
I hope that I am at any rate acting in the spirit in which we all labour together, and that the result of our
labour will be to found a state of high and august aims, working by the eternal principles of justice and not
to the music of bullets, and affording an example of freedom, political morality, and just action to the
individual, the state and the nation which will one day be the envy of the world.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. WISE:
The power of the senate to deal with money bills is so clearly defined that I doubt if any ingenuity could
suggest the possibility of dispute arising between the two houses on that question. That at once removes one
of the most prolific sources of dispute between the two chambers in the past. Then as to the second class of
dispute arising from social differences, all through this discussion, not, I admit, in this house but outside, the
controversialists of one party ignore, or seem to ignore, the limitations of federal government. They forget
that this commonwealth can only deal with those matters that are expressly remitted to its jurisdiction;
and excluded from its jurisdiction are all matters that affect civil rights, all matters that affect
property, all matters, in a word, affecting the two great objects which stir the passions and affect the
interests of mankind. I fail entirely and I shall be glad if some alarmist will enlarge my views on this matter-
to perceive in this bill any question on which there is any possibility of a conflict between the states and the
people, except, in one respect, and I will define that in the largest possible way. In legislation affecting
commercial interests, or financial interests, it is possible to imagine that the states will be brought into
conflict as states with the concentrated majority of the populations of the two large states over a question of
trade. It is possible to imagine the same thing arising over a question of commerce, or over a question of
finance.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and also an
amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law prohibiting the
free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices which would otherwise
be strictly prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the "suttee," and
another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other barbarous cruelty, to the
devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice.
Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites
of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-
But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing
character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
Politicians can at their own desire ignore my writings but time for legal reckoning may just come
to haunt them for it, if this is not preceded by some revolt by the people fed up with how
politicians instead of providing for the ‘peace, order and good government’ rather are egoistic
and self-interested, and plunge the nation in ongoing harm.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)

20180106-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re CIVIL RIGHTS & Is NSW Garry Burns A Homosexual Litigation Freak

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

20180106-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re CIVIL RIGHTS & Is NSW Garry Burns A Homosexual Litigation Freak

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ISSUE: 20180106- Re: CIVIL RIGHTS & is NSW Garry Burns a homosexual litigation freak, etc

& the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

p2 6 -1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Case title Garry Burns v John Abbott

On 14 December 2017 the following orders (and/or directions) were made:

A Britton, Principal Member

QUOTE Case number 2016/00378079

Case title Garry Burns v John Abbott

We refer to the above application.

QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:

p4 6 -1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Insoo Kim G. H. Schorel-Hlavka • 14 hours ago

wow that was great! Thumbs up!

NW Watchdog G. H. Schorel-Hlavka • 2 days ago

Mr. SYMON: That is incident to the marriage law!

p6 6 -1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. SYMON: Suppose a child is deserted?

The Hon. E. BARTON: I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Sub-clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

HANSARD Constitutional Convention 9 March 1891 [page 151]

An HON. MEMBER: There is no federation there!

Colonel SMITH: She is the home ruler!

Mr. MUNRO: Not for finding the income!

Colonel SMITH: With the power of veto!

p8 6 -1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

To the President of the Federal Convention of Australasia, in Session assembled:

We have the honor to be, Sir,.

NORA B. HARRIS, Secretary.

Petition received and read.

Hansard 24-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

I move that the petition be received and read.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

p9 6 -1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

The CLERK read the petition, which was as follows:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania humbly showeth-

Dr. QUICK: How many signatures has it?

The CLERK: Ninety-six.

Dr. QUICK: From the whole of Tasmania!

Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

p10 6 -1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. KINGSTON: Your popular House is in favor of it.

An HON. MEMBER: Asparagus.

Mr. KINGSTON: Well?

Mr. BARTON: Onehunga.

Hansard 6-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. MCMILLAN: Federation will cure that!

p11 6 -1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

The Right Hon. G.H. REID: From the first?

The Hon. E. BARTON: Will it take longer than five years?

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p12 6 -1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. HIGGINS.-It protects Chinamen too, I suppose, as well as negroes?

Mr. HIGGINS.-The Act itself.

Mr. KINGSTON.-That is the special clause relating to Chinese.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

[start page 2500]

p13 6 -1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Thu, 31 Oct 2002

p14 6 -1-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.