091204-Tony Abbott - Various Issues

8/14/2019 091204-Tony Abbott - Various Issues

1/13

4-12-2009 Page 1PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website

Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. [email protected]

Tony Abbott MP [email protected]

.

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN5.

Re-Former WorkChoices elements, etc

.

Tony,

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I place constitutional matters before my private desires10and to give an example while I oppose racial discrimination I recognise that the Framers of the

Constitution specifically provided for a racist constitution as s.51(xxvi) is a clear example of this.

And in 1967 the electors upheld this racism by approving an amendment to include Aboriginalsin it also.

.15For the record it was held that s.51(xxvi) was to serve as the Framers of the Constitution held to

keep inferior coloured races out of the Commonwealth of Australia as much as possible and to

allow the Commonwealth of Australia to discriminate against such inferior coloured races but

it could not be used against the general public. The Framers of the constitution at the time very

much had also in mind the British nationals from India who they were concerned could swamp20Australia, if s.51(xxvi) was not to be included. The Framers of the Constitution also made clear

that no International Law could override the constitution, such as its racism.

I am not aware that there was ever any amendment proposed to all together remove by

amendment of the Constitution s.51(xxvi) of the constitution and again to the contrary in the1967 referendum the provisions were extended to now also include Aboriginals as an inferior25coloured race. Ok, I was not at the time residing in the Commonwealth of Australia and so dont

blame me for that stupidity, as I would label it.

.

I understand from media reports that you now propose to bring back certain parts of

WorkChoices and it seems to me you might just continue the musical chairs and the Liberal30Party soon be dumping you also, as they did with Malcolm Turnbull.

To be honest this WorkChoices issue never did personally affect me as to deny me anything

other that it would interfere with my constitutional rights to have legislation enacted that is and

must be within the constitutional framework.

.35Consider Sue v Hillfor example versus;Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.

Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the40

power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned

member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention isasked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not,

of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining

the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of45 the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution,

and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question ; it is a


2/13



question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the

Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or

diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am

willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I amnot prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading5

inducement for joining the Union.

END QUOTE

.Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE10

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded

the spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He hasenlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one

citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship.

That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again.15

We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be

recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution.

END QUOTE

.You find that the Framers of the Constitution specifically denied the Commonwealth of Australia20

to define what citizenship was to be about. Well, I invite you to show me where is the

constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of Australia for example to determine the

nationality of a child born in the Commonwealth of Australia? You will find that first of all

citizenship is different then nationality and that while the Commonwealth has legislativepowers as to naturalise ALIENS it has no legislative powers to declare/define the nationality of25

any child born within the Commonwealth of Australia!

See also my 30 September 2003 published book;

.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP

A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.30(ISBN 0-9580569-6-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0

.

As I pointed out in previous correspondence to you the High Court of Australia in 1975 issue

then held that the three month period referred to in the constitution is from the time the bill issubmitted into the House of Representative until the time it is submitted for the second time into35

the Senate, and this is clearly wrong, as I foreshadow I will set out in a future correspondence,

which already is to some 40 pages. Hey, dont blame me for being accurate in setting out

constitutional matters.

The same is with numerous other judgments of the High Court of Australia where it arrived toill-conceived decisions and one is the 14-11-2006 WorkChoices decision.40

.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)

A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 DecisionISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------45

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-B&W)

A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision

ISBN 978-0-9751760-7-8---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-Colour)50

A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision

ISBN 978-0-9751760-8-5

.


3/13



The CD version sets out in 076-Chapter 022A -failure of the case-etc in details why the High

Court of Australia had an ill-conceived judgement.

It exposes how the High Court of Australia took out of context what the Framers of the

Constitution actually had stated and worse how it concealed from its judgment relevantstatements to show that WorkChoices legislation was in fact unconstitutional.5

I have no alliance with any political party and as such I am free to expose any rot. If you are

embarking upon reviving any parts of WorkChoices that is unconstitutional then rest assured that

you more then likely are reintroducing the musical chair event and you soon be on the outer also.

.

Leadership must be including that a leader doesnt simply pursue whatever he may desire10but to first of all establish if what he desires is legally (constitutionally) appropriate.

.

To give you an example: I might desire my neighbours car and may lay claim I can look after it

better and bring up any excuse under the horizon to justify me to take possession of the motorvehicle but in the end if I am not lawfully permitted to do so then that is the basic criteria to stop15

me.

Likewise, you may desire for whatever reason to bring in certain elements of WorkChoices but in

the end I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and before you try to interfere with my constitution as

it belongs as much to me as anyone else you better be prepared to check out you are not relyingupon some dud judicial decision to discover later it will be overruled.20

.

I recall the then purported Cross Vesting Act where in 1994 Dawson J of the High Court of

Australia simply disregarded the constitutional validity of the legislation and made known it wasa law and was to be applied. Later the High Court of Australia against Mr Could likewise made

this decision albeit then holding it was constitutionally valid. Yet in Wakim HCA 27 of 1999 the25

High Court of Australia then reversed its previous decision and held that the then purported

Cross Vesting Act in fact was unconstitutional!

A major problem we have with the High Court of Australia is that as one judge (H) madeclear when he had to hand down a decision in an appeal case where there was a three for and

three against upholding the appeal, he didnt know the constitutional issue and so refrained from30handing down a decision. Meaning the appellant lost his case because a High Court of Australia

judge being paid to do a job simply seemed to know as much as one of my grandchildren knows

at birth about the constitutional issue. It is therefore clear that judges of the High Court ofAustralia without training wheels are so to say appointed and required to do a mans job for

which they have no proper training and experiences.35.

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)

QUOTE

Mr. CARRUTHERS:40

This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able

to understand.END QUOTE.

Now it seems to be extra ordinaire that judges of the High Court of Australia for over 1one45

hundred years never could detect certain rights in the constitution and then in 2006 suddenly

found WorkChoices legislative powers in the constitution. Well, this kind of FICTIONAL

interpretation never should flourish and as I understand it Mason CJ of the High Court of

Australia was fond to expand the constitution by judicial determination just that the Framers ofthe Constitution already had forewarned this couldnt be done.50Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-

But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the

Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree


4/13



with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of

every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no word in it which

we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to come,

when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and aninterpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which5

we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now

contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every

clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.

END QUOTE.10Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-

That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the positionwhich Mr. Barton has described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the

common law of England. This Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to15

be handed over not to a Convention similar to this, not to a small select body of

legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or rejection. It is

the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it,

and it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people,who have to understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for20

weal or woe during the whole time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot

have on the platform, when this Constitution is commended to the people, lawyers on

both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be appreciated by thepeople.

END QUOTE25.HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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:30 END QUOTE.

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes35on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."

END QUOTE

AndQUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no40

legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is

necessary or incidental to a power given.END QUOTE.

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates45

QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.END QUOTE.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates50QUOTE 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 QUOTE55


5/13



.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-

No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Housesof Parliament act capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if5

the Houses choose to agree to it-let the Houses do one thing one day and another the next,

and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but trust the Parliament." Of course; but

Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution. The Senate of to-

day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to theConstitution.10

END QUOTE

.

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

Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten15

Constitution of England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When

once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it.END QUOTE.

It is therefore clear that it is not that the States and the Commonwealth can get together as to by20

backdoor manner amend the constitution circumventing a referendum!Again:HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection25

of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:END QUOTE.

And that brings us back to the WorkChoices 14-11-2006 decision of the High Court of Australiaand I invite you to check this lengthy judgment and look at the following quotations, if you can30

find them that is!

.HANSARD 17-4-1897 Constitution ConventionQUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:

They both desire to retain for their Several States for all time the privilege of35

controlling industrial disputes within their own borders.END QUOTE

.HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-40The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it

occurs.END QUOTEAnd

QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-45We 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 QUOTEAnd

QUOTE50Mr. 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

AndQUOTE55

Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the

Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question.


6/13



END QUOTE

AndQUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-

The people of the various states make their own contracts amongst themselves, and if in

course of their contractual relations disagreements arise, and the state chooses to5legislate in respect of the subject-matter of them, it can do so.

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE10

Mr. SYMON.-Why should you interfere with the laws in the different colonies

affecting the relations of masters and servants, which are purely a matter of domestic

legislation? Why should you hand over that purely state function to the federalauthority?

END QUOTE15AndQUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-My honorable friend will hand that over to the Federal Parliament. I donot want to hand over to the Federal Parliament too many of these difficulties. This, in my

view, should be solved by the local authorities themselves. They are the people to deal with20

their own questions of industrialism. I do not want to enter into a discussion as to the

modes of carrying out this proposal; that will be a matter for the Federal Parliament if we

decide to introduce this power. But I will put to my honorable friend what is a practicalquestion in connexion with this power. Who is to decide as to when an industrial dispute

extends beyond the limits of a state? Who is to decide when a dispute originating in South25

Australia enters into the colony of Victoria, so that Victoria shall be put under some kind of

martial law?

Mr. ISAACS.-It is a question of fact, like anything else.

END QUOTEAnd30QUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-What relation has this to customs duties? The industrial life of the state is

considered by all of us (subject to this exception, it may be) a thing of purely domestic

concern. We do not want to interfere with the domestic life, or with industrial life, exceptin the last resort. If you are going to introduce such a thing as this it must be the Federal35

Ministry which will have to decide, subject to the Parliament, and you will introduce the

greatest complication and intensity of feeling that was ever seen.

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 QUOTE40.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 to45

point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid

if they had another motive.END QUOTE.

HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates50

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-


7/13



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 QUOTE5.HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringeson the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."10

END QUOTE

AndQUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no

legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is15

necessary or incidental to a power given.END QUOTE.

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE20

Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.END QUOTE.

HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Dr. QUICK (Victoria). -25

If under a Constitution in which no such words as these appear such legislation hasbeen carried, what further danger will arise from inserting the words in our

Constitution? I do not see, speaking in ordinary language, how the insertion of such

words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is necessarily a Christian

country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of Almighty30

God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also

by Jews, Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and arenot necessarily applicable only to Christians.

END QUOTE.35Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing

crime to the Commonwealth, but you do give power to the Commonwealth to makespecial laws as to alien races; and the moment you do that the power of making such laws40

does not remain in the hands of the states; and if you place in the hands of the

Commonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have described you should not

defeat that regulative power of the Commonwealth . I do not think that that applies at all,however, to any power of regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we

do not give any such power to the Commonwealth, whilst we do give the45Commonwealth power with regard to alien races; and having given that power, we

should take care not to take away an incident of it which it may be necessary for the

Commonwealth to use by way of regulation. I have had great hesitation about this matter,

but I think I shall be prevented from voting for the first part; and as to establishing anyreligion, that is so absolutely out of the question, so entirely not to be expected-50

Mr. SYMON.-It is part of the unwritten law of the Constitution that a religion shall not

be established.

END QUOTE.


8/13



Therefore, it must be clear that as I view it the High Court of Australia acted TREASONOUS to

the people of the Commonwealth of Australia and cannot be excused for having failed to provide

in its judgments the very quotations used above where this would have made clear its judgment

was ill-conceived..5

Now before someone was to jump on the bandwagon that I should be charge for placing the High

Court of Australia in disrepute let it be very clear that on 7-6-2006 I published also one of my

books titled;

.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI & What is the -Australian way of life- really?10A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights

ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3

.

This book contained the above material also and even more was filed as evidence in the litigationbetween the Commonwealth versus myself and on 19 July 2006 the court having been provided15

with all this material during a 5-year epic legal battle then upheld my cases against the

Commonwealth of Australia and for the record none of the Attorney-Generals or for that the

highly paid lawyers of the Commonwealth of Australia were able to challenge anything I had

stated, at least they never did and as such there was for the court on the one hand this material Ihad submitted and on the other hand nothing opposing my numerous constitutional and other20

submissions! What is therefore clear that the States (all having been served years earlier in 2002

with a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and the Commonwealth likewise were

so to say dumbfounded by the numerous constitutional issues I submitted and as one of theFederal Government lawyers made known to me that he never had known any person who knew

so much about the constitution and also was able to present it in court.25

.

Now consider yourself having just that journalistic itch and surely like hell you are not going to

have me one over you and you are determine to sort this out, well you will undoubtly find thatindeed I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth in both cases and so unchallenged. As

such on that basis where I have already succeeded in the courts upon the same then obviously I30cannot place the High Court of Australia in disrepute to show its incompetence and betrayal to

the people of Australia but rather it does so itself..

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE35

Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.

Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the

power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learnedmember (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is

asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not,40

of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joiningthe Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of

the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution,and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question ; it is a

question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the45Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or

diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am

willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I amnot prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading

inducement for joining the Union.50

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


9/13



QUOTE

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expandedthe spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has

enlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one

citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship.5

That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again.

We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be

recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution.END QUOTE

.10It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; British

subject, to make persons subjects of the British Empire., with the consent of the

Imperial authority, What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That

is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is thedual citizenship., we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. We have a High Court of15

Australia that appears to me being political motivated to try to alter the Constitution by stealth

by endorsing a substitute Constitution ! The question is if the judges of the High Court of

Australia committed TREASON?

.Again:20Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the25

power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned

member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is

asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not,

of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining

the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of30the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution,

and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question ; it is a

question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the

Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away ordiminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am35

willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am

not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading

inducement for joining the Union.

END QUOTE.40HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and thatwe are all alike subjects of the British Crown.

END QUOTE45

.

Well, find when there was an amendment to the constitution to change this?.In Macleod Lord Halsbury L.C. quoted (at p 458) the remarks of Parke B. in Jefferys v. Boosey (at p 926 of HLC (p

725 of ER)):50QUOTE

(T)he Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects, that is, persons

natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the Kingdom.END QUOTE


10/13



.

You find that Kirby J in the Sue v Hillcase correctly referred to the Calvin's Case 7 Coke

Report 1a, 77 ER 377 which also includes:QUOTE

4. And as to the fourth, it is less than a dream of a shadow, or a shadow of a dream: for it5hath been often said, natural legitimation respecteth actual obedience to the sovereign at

the time of the birth; for as the antenati remain aliens as to the Crown of England, because

they were born when there were several Kings of the several kingdoms, and the [7-Coke-27

b] uniting of the kingdoms by descent subsequent cannot make him a subject to that Crownto which he was alien at the time of his birth: so albeit the kingdoms (which Almighty God10of his infinite goodness and mercy divert) should by descent be divided, and governed by

several Kings; yet it was resolved, that all those that were born under one natural

obedience while the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural

born subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright,

cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by15

judgment of law a natural subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such amatter ex post facto.

END QUOTE

.

QUOTE203. Where the King hath several kingdoms by several titles and descents, there also are theligeances several: but the King hath these two kingdoms by several titles and descents;

therefore the ligeances are several. These three arguments are collected also from the

words of the plea before remembered.

3. Leges. From the several and distinct laws of either kingdom, they did reason thus:25

1. Every subject that is born out of the extent and reach of the laws of England,

cannot by judgment of those laws be a natural subject to the King, in respect of hiskingdom of England: but the plaintiff was born at Edinburgh, out of the extent and

reach of the laws of England; therefore the plaintiff by the judgment of the laws of

England cannot be a natural subject to the' King, as of his kingdom of England.30

END QUOTE.

QUOTE

By all which it is manifest, that the protection and government of the King is general over

all his dominions and kingdoms, as well in time of peace by justice, as in time of war by35

the sword, and that all be at his command, and under his obedience.END QUOTE

(Note that as the Commonwealth of Australia is only a POLITICAL UNION then the protection

of the dominion referred to is through the States, as effectively they remained to be the

dominions in their own rights.)40.QUOTE

3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1.That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his

birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be45

considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the

ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the

King of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though theKing f' England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France,

Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none50

born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are

subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times

ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make asubject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born,

but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a55


11/13



natural subject. And therefore if any of the King's ambassadors in foreign nations,

have children there of their wives, being English women, by the common laws of

England they are natural-born subjects, and yet they are born out-of the King's

dominions. But if enemies should come into any of the King's dominions, and surprise

any castle or fort, and [7-Coke-18 b] possess the same by hostility, and have issue5there, that issue is no subject to the King, though he be born within his dominions, for

that he was not born under the King's ligeance or obedience. But the time of his (a)

birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the King of

England, unless at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of

the King. And that is the reason that antenati in Scotland (for that at the time of their10birth they were under the ligeance and obedience, of another King) are aliens born, in

respect of the time of their birth.END QUOTE

.

We need to look again at this quotation:15QUOTE

1. Every subject that is born out of the extent and reach of the laws of England,

cannot by judgment of those laws be a natural subject to the King, in respect of his

kingdom of England: but the plaintiff was born at Edinburgh, out of the extent and

reach of the laws of England; therefore the plaintiff by the judgment of the laws of20England cannot be a natural subject to the' King, as of his kingdom of England.

END QUOTE

.

As such neither can a judgment deny any person born within the realm of the Queen to be

somehow no longer a British national.25

Meaning that all Australians by virtue of their birth in the Commonwealth of Australia are

ansd remain to be Subjects of the British Crown. Including your children!.

Consider then the migration laws that ALIENS are to be deported and your children obviously

do not hold visas then are you going to promote you and your children, and not to forget your30

wife all will be deported? After all isnt that already done to British nationals?.

There is a lot more to it all and you find that Australian citizenship is constitutionally not a

nationality at all!.35Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

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 the40

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby

established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the wordCommonwealth 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 is45

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 tobe 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 QUOTE50.

Then forget what republican and monarchist argue about because the Commonwealth of

Australia is constitutionally not a country at all but a POLITICAL UNION as like the


12/13



EUROPEAN UNION. And again, I did place this before the Courts and it was upheld by the

Court and as such I got a court decision to back it up!.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-5

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 officialsshall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any10private person would be.

END QUOTE

.

Meaning that anyone can sue the pants of those who act in defiance of constitutional limitations!

.15

I urge you to act wisely and to make it a policy that in future your members will not pursue anyproposed legislation upon the presumption it must be legal because it was done before but to

establish beyond doubt that indeed the legislation is valid. You might also find that the Alcopop

Bill was never validly passed by the Senate, but that is another issue.

.20Where the Commonwealth of Australia is nothing more but a POLITICAL UNION then itnever can have a monarchy in its own right and neither then can there be a Queen of Australia as

the Commonwealth of Australia is not a country! There is no such thing as a Monarchy without a

country, unless it is a disposed monarchy. One doesnt claim that the European Union is a

monarchy or a state as every member of the European Union retained its own statehood.25

The Dutch do not say they are European nationals and no longer Dutch. The Germans are notsaying they are European Nationals and no longer Germans, and on and on it goes.

.

As leader of Her Majestys Opposition you can but only honour one Queen and this is the

Queen embedded in the constitution and not some FICTITIOUS Queen. I can call a Ford motor30

car a Holden but guess what the darn thing doesnt change to become a Holden merely because Igive it a different name. Likewise the Queen is the Queen of the United Kingdom and giving her

a purported title of Queen of Australia isnt going to make her to be a Queen of Australia and

neither transform the POLITICAL UNION into some country. As the quotations above makes

clear every word is carefully put in place in the constitution and:35.Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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 of40any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any actwhich 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 thefreedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through theirrepresentatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of45securing 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 protectthe 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 of50freedom 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 theirwork difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for anExecutive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,55therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which willdetermine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt


13/13



with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states thatchoose 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 courtappointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its5provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of theConstitution. 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 -theGovernment 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 of10this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slowdegrees 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 atribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of15constitutional 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 donewell.

END QUOTE

.20AgainQUOTE

We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter ofthe 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 the25

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.END QUOTE

Where then the High Court of Australia lacks any judicial powers to amend or otherwise by30backdoor manner amend the application of the constitution then rest assure your job as

Opposition leader is to ensure you follow the true intentions of the Framers of the Constitution,

as amended by successful referendums! And WorkChoices, ETS and other unconstitutional

legislation must be repelled and opposed. As such ensure you will always consult with aCONSTITUTIONALIST who knows what he is talking about and can not just fabricate some35opinion that may suit your goals but one who is willing to tell the truth even if this conflicts with

your intentions, because are you not better of to be forewarned and avoid to humiliate yourself

later then to befall the same lot as in the ever musical chairs leadership dance, and you might also

find that many electors may support you merely because they finally find a credible person to

pursue what is constitutionally appropriate. Law degrees do not give intelligence because if that40were so then no legally represented party would ever lose a case in Court.

.

As I understand it many Australians wouldnt give a hood which political party they vote for as

long as the leader is one who will ensure that their constitutional rights are protected. With Kevin

Rudd during the 2007 election claiming to be a Federalist, I view his conduct has been generally45precisely opposite to this, more like a con-federalist.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant matters

but certainly may give you an indication that there is a lot wrong how the constitution is misused

and abuse time and time again as the cost of the rights of Australians and others.

.50Rest assured that I love the constitution!

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

Documents

091204-Tony Abbott - Various Issues