20190412-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 43-Ineligibility-Etc

z3
ISSUE: 20190412- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-
Supplement 43- Ineligibility-etc
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, I assume you are aware that PM Scott Morrison has called for a federal election?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, obviously the issue is who is really eligible to be candidates.
* What do you mean?
**#** Any person who is standing for reelection cannot be in a position of an Officer for Profit.
(Section 44 of the constitution)
* Is that meaning to include Ministers?
**#** Their position as care taking Ministers during an election is not affected by this as s44
specifically exclude them from this. However our constitution doesn’t recognize so called
SHADOW Ministers and as such they are all then invalid to be a Member of Parliament and so
also standing for re-election where their term expired.
* Don’t they use a convention?
**#** A convention cannot override constitutional restrained/prohibitions. Also as I have
explained in past writings, a Member of Parliament is not employed b but is ordinary paid an
allowance to compensate to some extent for the loss of income in private section. Any person
who as a Member of Parliament therefore was having superannuation provisions would now be
ineligible to hold a seat in the Parliament because it would be an Office for Profit.
* What about the President of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives?
**#** They are in the employment of the Parliament itself and as such are not regarded to be in
an Officer for Profit. The same with a chairman of a parliamentarian committee who is paid
additional for his work. This is not within s44 of the constitution. However, any person who was
a Member of Parliament in the House of Representatives on 11 April 2019 would seize to be so
once the Governor-General published in the Gazette a Proclamation that dissolved the House of
Representatives.
*.What about the Senate?
**#** With an ordinary federal election there is half of the senate seats vacant but those Senators
Are still Senators until their 3 year term expired, even so they are standing for re-election. The
other halve of the Senate seats remain to be valid until they have had their 6 years or there is a
DOUBLE DISSOLUTION. While the Parliament is prorogued there is ordinary always a senate
in existing. With the House of Representatives the writs issued for elections means that the
candidates who are successful and not offend Section 44 of the constitution when taking their
seat upon the return of the writs are then called to be the new House of Representatives. Take for
example Jenny Macklin, she retired and as from 11 April 2019 no longer is a Member of the
p1 12-4-2019 © 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
House of Representatives. Any Member of the House of Representatives who is not a Minister or
the Speaker therefore is technically unemployed. This to his credit when I wrote this in 2007 to
Kevin Rudd he then made known during the election campaign he was an unemployed former
diplomate. It also means that none of the former Members of the House of Representatives are
permitted to use the House of Representatives email address. To do so would violate s44.
Likewise they cannot use public monies to travel about to campaign not be paid any allowance as
it all stops the moment the Governor-General dissolved the House of Representatives. While
those in the Senate can still use their parliamentarian email address it would be prudent for them
not to do so for electoral issues. Technically any former Member of Parliament as on 12 April
2019 who uses the parliamentarian email address would be violating s44 of the constitution.
While Members of the House of Representatives may be care taking Ministers they should
refrain from using their parliamentarian email addresses but use only ministerial email addresses.
Ministers however cannot both claim a Ministers salary and also any allowance, as the Framers
of the constitution made clear they cannot have both.
*. Can they use parliamentarian privileges like postal services at cost of taxpayers?
**#** Not for electoral purposes. In fact neither are Senators allowed to do so who are standing
for re-election.
*.I recall Phil Cleary being ordered out when he was a teacher with the Victorian state
government.
**#** That was a gross error in judgement this is because the Framers of the Constitution has
originally several clauses and made clear that the final draft that became s44 was intended to
represent the various clauses the previously existed. And those clauses made clear that s44 was
not concerned with State employment but to avoid a conflict of interest or an Office of Profit
with the Commonwealth.
*.But aren’t the Framers of the Constitution long dead?
**#** This is a general error by most people. Because of Section 128 of the constitution
providing for a referendum to amend the constitution then whenever we as electors vote in a
referendum, regardless if we do or do not approve the proposal to amend the constitution then we
are also Framers of the Constitution.
*.If a referendum fails, is that then a prohibition?
**#** Not at all. It means the constitution was not amended and then it remains in force as was
before the referendum was held. There is this saying that a Parliament never can deny a
subsequent parliament its legislative powers and for this when a State desires to refer legislative
powers to the commonwealth then the state electors within a Section 123 of the constitution must
vote if they approve or veto the amendment to the constitution to transfer legislative powers to
the Commonwealth. This is also because when one transfer legislative powers from the state to
the Commonwealth then the judicial powers of the State Supreme Court is diminished also. The
commonwealth is legally entitled to deny any state Supreme Court federal jurisdiction and it
would be an act of terrorism of a state parliament to refer legislative power to the
Commonwealth without the consent of the state electors by state referendum.
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary

sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a Federal
Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government.
Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.
Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter of
the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is, the
same circumstances remain in part; but where you will have a tribunal constantly charged with the
maintenance of the Constitution against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by
Parliament, then it is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected
weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether
consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might
be dangerous to the Constitution itself.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
It is often claimed that for example the Victorian Parliament has all legislative powers (section
16 of the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975), however this clearly is utter and sheer
nonsense. Section 106 of the federal constitution clearly limits the State legislative e powers
SUBJECT TO THIS CONSTITUTION. Hence the original Victorian Colonial constitution
was in that regard subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and
so it’s embedded legal principles. It means that the nonsense by the Victorian Parliament to
legislate for municipal councils as a level of government to legislate as it may deem fit and
proper is utter and sheer nonsense.
*. Are you contemplating to stand as a candidate?
**#** I do not contemplate to do so as I view it is unconstitutional to demand a DEPOSIT and to
demand a person standing as an INDEPENDENT to collect some 100 or more signatures of
electors. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear any person whom is an elector is entitled
to become a Member of Parliament, if elected.
*.But isn’t the purpose to limit the number of candidates by demanding a DEPOSIT and
numerous signatures?
**#** Consider also the following:

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
Surely every person who has the suffrage-the right to vote within the Commonwealth-and who lives
within the Commonwealth, is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and entitled to all its privileges, including
the right to take part as the Commonwealth provides in the framing of the laws.
END QUOTE
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-
It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the constitution shall be obeyed, because a
majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the constitution.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one
which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
To demand that say a disabled person living in some remote part of the country wanting to stand
as an INDEPENDENT then should be forced to go through great expenses to collect (over) 100
signatures and also fork out a huge amount of moneys as a DEPOSIT is unconstitutional and
absurd. The quality of a person wanting to stand as a candidate might be born out after the person
becomes a candidate and able to present his intentions at meetings or whatever. We have far too
often a lot of rot in the Parliament as those who are so to say professional politicians are using
taxpayers monies, albeit unconstitutionally, to promote themselves. A person from remote
Australia may be far more competent as a Member of Parliament but is likely denied to become
one due to the unconstitutional legislative provisions for a DEPOSIT and 100 signatures.
Anyhow I boycott this federal election altogether as I will not vote, and there is absolutely
nothing they can do against me to force me to vote or to fine me!
*. Well you defeated them on 19 July 2006 about compulsory voting being unconstitutional in
both appeals but surely they ignore it all together.
**#** That is because people are often to weak to stand up for their constitutional rights as I did
and we also have in my view corrupt courts that more than likely people will be denied their
constitutional rights to decide to vote or not without incurring any penalty. Let us not forget that
at times parliamentarians abstain from voting in the Parliament! Why not apply the same
principle to ordinary electors?
*.What is your view about Premier Daniel Andrews about going on a demonstration in
Melbourne on 12 April 2019?
**#** Essentially, I view, that he was demonstrating against the State government. After all they
(the Victorian Parliament) albeit unconstitutionally referred legislative powers to the
Commonwealth and now he is protesting that he doesn’t like it. Well instead of burdening others
blocking the road with the demonstration all he could have done was to declare the reference of
legislative powers regarding industrial relations was unconstitutional and to the Victorian
Government will deal with the matter.
*. That simple?
**#** As the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention

QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
cannot get behind it.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
They both desire to retain for their Several States for all time the privilege of controlling industrial
disputes within their own borders.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-
We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That
would be an absolute impossibility in the different states.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place
where the contract was made.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they
are intimately allied to this question.
END QUOTE
.
Therefore considering Section 106 SUBJECT TO THIS CONSTITUTION then unless there
was a state referendum to approve the reference of legislative powers as to industrial relations to
the commonwealth there is no constitutional powers for the commonwealth to accept any
purported referral. Indeed French J (later French CJ of the High Court of Australia) made clear
that Subsection 51(xxxvii) was not a provision to authorise the State to refer legislative powers
but merely for the Commonwealth to accept it. The powers to refer legislative powers and y this
to diminish the Supreme Court judicial powers can only be found within Section 123 of the
constitution. The problem we have is a so called leader of the Opposition ill Shorten ignoring
what is constitutionally permissible and appropriate and then claims he is going to deal with it if
elected. Well he can be elected but not elected as Prime Minister because electors do not vote for
who shall be in government, as it is within the powers of the governor-General to decide who
shall be his advisors.

QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
(2.) A judiciary, consisting of a federal supreme court, which shall constitute a high court of appeal for
Australia, under the direct authority of the Sovereign, whose decisions, as such, shall be final.
(3.) An executive, consisting of a governor-general and such persons as may from time to time be appointed
as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend upon their
possessing the confidence of the house of representatives, expressed by the support of the majority.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
The resolutions conclude:
An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.
What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE
What we really have is 2 political criminal terrorism gangs preventing ordinary Australians to be
candidates within their means and then the 2 leaders are making it a battle between themselves.
This is not what our constitution stands for.
* Why terrorism?
**#** Because anyone who denies electors their constitutional rights for their own personal
gains is a terrorist.
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I know that my right honorable friend, judging probably from the time I am taking
now, thinks that in such a case I would take a long time, if I were in the Senate. I admit that his surmise is
quite right in my case. I admit there are persons on whom this terrorism could not be practised, or on
whom, if practised, it would probably not be effective. But I am thinking of persons of weaker minds and
wills, and I say that, as far as this Constitution is concerned, it is absolutely necessary to put some
provision in this Bill which will strengthen the Senate and prevent it being intimidated in the way
indicated. We have been frittering away the first principles of the Federal Constitution long enough.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The Hon. E. BARTON: If the definition of a point is a thing of no magnitude, it is not a point because it is
larger. These limitations having been put in all constitutions of the Australian colonies, and having worked
well, and prevented the entry of undesirable persons into parliament, they may well be continued in the
constitution we are now framing. They are not limitations of the freedom of the electors. It is scarcely to
be supposed that, except by inadvertence or accident, the electors would vote for such a person; but it is
quite possible that the electors of the commonwealth, not knowing that certain persons had taken the oath
of allegiance to a foreign power or had become attainted of some crime, or become bankrupt or insolvent-it
is quite on the cards that such persons would stand for election for the commonwealth parliament, and the
electors might choose them, not knowing who they were. That is not at all an improbable supposition. Such
a thing has happened, and it is a kind of thing which the electors are to be protected against, because it is a
state of things the electors themselves could not provide against. They might be taken in warily; they might
be caught in a trap. This is not merely a case of preserving the freedom of the electors, but of preventing
them from being imposed upon by persons who otherwise might creep into parliament, perhaps, in some
cases, persons who were insidious enemies of the commonwealth, and in other cases persons who had been
attainted of crime, or who were under other conditions of which they should rid themselves before they
offered themselves for election to any legislative assembly. I submit that on the whole it is very desirable to
avoid making the alteration suggested by the hon. member, Mr. Glynn; and while I am speaking, I think I
might say that, although it is far less objectionable, it would be desirable also not to accept the amendment
that has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of this colony.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
Surely every person who has the suffrage-the right to vote within the Commonwealth-and who lives
within the Commonwealth, is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and entitled to all its privileges, including
the right to take part as the Commonwealth provides in the framing of the laws.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
I stood my grounds in the courts and succeeded. Now the question is how many others will be
acting as a Sentry?
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
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!)


20190412-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 43-Ineligibility-Etc

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

20190412-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re The Theft of Our Democracy, Etc, & The Constitution-Supplement 43-Ineligibility-Etc

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

z3

p2 12-4-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention

HANSARD 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention

HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

The resolutions conclude:

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p7 12-4-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen