Kevin Rudd PM 18-1-2010

C/o R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au
5 .
Cc: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, UK C/o R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au
His Royal Highness Prince Charles C/o R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au
His Royal Highness Prince William C/o R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au
Governor-General Q Bryce governor-general@gg.gov.au
10 Tony Abbott Leader of the opposition Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
Malcolm Turnbull MP Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au
.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
. Re: MONARCHY - NATIONALITY- etc
15 Kevin,
These days there is a lot of talking about how the youth of the day are lacking to show due
respect to their elders and the elderly , etc, but before we blame them we would do better to take
a closer look at ourself and consider that perhaps our own conduct may have given them the
wrong impressions to follow.
20 .
Below are quotations, some duplicated at times, which makes clear that as the High Court of
Australia itself made clear that the constitution must be interpreted as to the intentions of the
Framers of the constitution. Hence, as I being a CONSTITUTIONALIST now expose (again)
that despite of Sue v Hill ruling in fact her majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the British
25 Crown is and remains our queen in that person and title and any purported legislation
Commonwealth legislation to pursue otherwise is NULL AND VOID and without legal force..
And below I will also quote part of the 3 December 2002 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS that on 19 July 2006 was decided in favour of me in which I comprehensively
defeated the Commonwealth of Australia after a 5-year epic legal battle and as such I have by
30 this, and so by consent and unchallenged, the courts judgment to support my submission.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I very much pursue the RULE OF LAW as after all for
centuries people have died to protect our rights and this enabled the formation of the federation
now known as the Commonwealth of Australia by The Commonwealth of Australian
35 Constitution Act 1900 (UK), which constitution is still applicable, and as the Framers of the
Constitution made clear:
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
40 Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains
unwritten,
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
45 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can
reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also

18-1-2010 Page 1
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
And
5 QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about
to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about
to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
10 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
.
15 My position is therefore that there is no such system in place where a person born under the
British Crown somehow mysteriously becomes the subject of the purported queen of Australia
because no such Monarchy exists. Consider also “Calvin's Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377”
.
QUOTE
20 3. Where the King hath several kingdoms by several titles and descents, there also are the
ligeances 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.
END QUOTE
25 And
QUOTE
on the 5th day of Noy in the 3rd year of the reign of the King that now is, of England,
France, and Ireland, and of Scotland the thirty-ninth, at Edinburgh within his kingdom of
Scotland
30 END QUOTE
What was clear that the reports refer to different Kingdoms albeit relating to the same person,
where as the Commonwealth of Australia never was intended and neither could be a Kingdom,
etc, and as such neither can there be some artificial Queen of Australia and to give such a title I
view is an insult to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the British crown (UK). Indeed
35 the Framers of the Constitution made ongoing clear that it related to the British Crown and
British Empire.
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
40 Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible
government
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
45 Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this
Constitution is responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any
way that guarantee.
END QUOTE
And
50 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
55 have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
18-1-2010 Page 2
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the
5 provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the
people.
END QUOTE
.
http://www.geocities.com/englishreports/77ER377.html
10 QUOTE Calvin's Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377
3. Where the King hath several kingdoms by several titles and descents, there also are the
ligeances 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.
15 3. Leges. From the several and distinct laws of either kingdom, they did reason thus:
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 of
20 England cannot be a natural subject to the' King, as of his kingdom of England.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
25 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that
we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
END QUOTE
.
As much as a judgment cannot make a person a natural born subject of the British Crown if not
30 so born, likewise a judgment cannot make a natural born subject somehow to no longer be so.
.
http://www.geocities.com/englishreports/77ER377.html
Calvin's Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377
QUOTE
35 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 by
the sword, and that all be at his command, and under his obedience.
END QUOTE
And
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 be
considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the
45 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 the
King 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, none
born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are
50 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 a
subject 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 a
natural subject. And therefore if any of the King's ambassadors in foreign nations,
55 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
18-1-2010 Page 3
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 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 issue
there, 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)
5 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 their
birth they were under the ligeance and obedience, of another King) are aliens born, in
respect of the time of their birth.
10 END QUOTE
.
The point however is that the Commonwealth of Australia is not a country, a dominion, a
kingdom, empire, continent but is a “POLITICAL UNION” created by the federation of the
former colonies.
15 .
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
20 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
25 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.
30 END QUOTE
.
LEGAL RELATIONSHIP prior to federation (not being unification)
CHART 1
.
35 ******************
* *
*British Parliament*
* *
******************
40 Colonial Constitutions
(LEGISLATIVE POWERS X,Y & Z)
I I I I I I
---------------------------- I I I I I I--------------------------I
I I I I I I
45 I I -------- I I I I-------------I I
I I I I I I
********************** ******** ******* ***** ************ ***********
* * * * * * * * * * * *
*SA+ Northern Territory* *Victoria * *NSW * *WA* *Queensland* *Tasmania*
50 * P * * C * * C * * C* * C * * C *
********************** ********* ******* ***** ************ ***********
Note “P” stands for Province and “C” stands for Colony.
.
LEGAL RELATIONSHIP since the British parliament (so the British government) provided to
55 be accept the constitution of the EUROPEAN UNION to override its internal legislative
provisions, but not its constitutional acts, such as The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK);
18-1-2010 Page 4
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 CHART 6
.
********************************************************************
* *
5 *MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (INCLUDING THE UK)*
* *
********************************************************************
I
I
10 I
I
********************
* *
*EUROPEAN UNION*
15 * *
*********************
I I
I--------------------------------------------I I
I I
20 ****************** Commonwealth Constitution I
* * (LEGISLATIVE POWERS Z) I
*British Parliament*--------------------------------- --I I
* * I I
****************** I I----------------------I
25 Colonial/State Constitutions I I I
(LEGISLATIVE POWERS X & Y) I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
30 I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I ************************** I
I I I I I I * * I
I I I I I I *Commonwealth of Australia* I
I I I I I I * PU * I
35 I I I I I I ************************** I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I ********* ****** ***** I I
I I I I I I * * * * * * I I
I I I I I I * OTHER * *ACT* *NT* I I
40 I I I I I I ********** * T* * T* I I
I-------------------- I I I I I I--------------------------I ****** ***** I I
I I I I I I I I
I I --------I I I I-------------I I I I
I I I I I I I I
45 ***** ******** ******* ***** ************ *********** I I
* * * * * * * * * * * * I I
*SA* *Victoria* *NSW * *WA* *Queensland* *Tasmania* I I
* S* * S * * S * * S* * S * * S * I I
***** ******** ******* ***** ************ *********** I I
50 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I ----------------------------------I-----------I
I I I I I -----------------------------------------------------I-----------I
I I I I --------------------------------------------------------------------I-----------I
I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------I-----------I
55 I I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I-----------I
I -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------I-----------I
.
The brown colour of the “EUROPEAN UNION” indicates that any legislation provision enacted
by the EUROPEAN UNION is also legally applicable to the Commonwealth of Australia, any
60 State and/or Territory provided it doesn’t conflict with constitutional powers provided for in the
18-1-2010 Page 5
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). As such, while the EUROPEAN
UNION can bind ordinary English legislation to any laws the EUROPEAN UNION declares
within its constitutional powers it does not mean that the same is applicable to the
Commonwealth of Australia. This is because weight and measures for example was handed over
5 by the British to the EUROPEAN UNION but long after it already had handed over to the
Commonwealth of Australia its right for this. Because the Constitution is a “constitution act” the
EUROPEAN UNION cannot for this override and/or interfere with the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) legislative powers. It can however provide complimentary
powers and this means that any legislation of the EUROPEAN UNION can be applied within
10 the Commonwealth of Australia provided it is not attempting to override Commonwealth
legislation.
.
It does however mean that the States cannot refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth as to
avoid or circumvent the application, such as the Human rights provisions, because where any
15 reference of legislative powers occur after the EUROPEAN UNION already legislated upon a
subject that is applicable to the States/Territories then this cannot be avoided. As such, looking
upon EUROPEAN UNION legislation one must then consider when the legislation was put in
place and was this before or after a State referred its legislative powers to the commonwealth. If
the EUROPEAN UNION legislated prior to the State referring its legislative powers (within
20 section 51(xxxvii) then the EUROPEAN UNION legislation remains applicable.
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Of course they do not. We have many statutes here giving
25 remedies to the subject which, although assented to by the Queen, are by no means in force
in England. We are here establishing a Constitution truly under the Crown, but in many
respects vastly different from the English Constitution. I think this principle is a very
proper one. It ought to be affirmed, and put in the Constitution. It is not a matter of
procedure. It is the establishment of a right which will not exist unless the words are put in.
30 If you want to give the right, you have to put it in. If you leave it out, you negative the
right. If you only give the Parliament the power to establish the right, then you are, to
some extent, negativing the right. I do not know that it is worth while to have much
discussion about the question-Can the Parliament do this without express words? I quite
agree with Mr. Barton that it could not.

35 Mr. ISAACS.-You think Parliament could not?

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I think it has not the power.

Mr. ISAACS.-How is it done in Canada? How is it done elsewhere?

Sir JOHN FORREST.-Put it in the powers of the Parliament.

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-We spend time enough in discussing things here, and when every
40 one is agreed that this clause is not to be adopted in the form in which it is printed, but is
only to be a power of the Parliament, it is not worth while to discuss the question of
whether it is [start page 1665] absolutely necessary to put in the words. Where there is a
wide difference of opinion, it would be safer to do it. I agree with Mr. Barton that there is
no power, because sub-section (37) of clause 52 reads-
45 Any matters necessary for or incidental to the carrying into execution of the foregoing
powers, or of any other powers vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or Executive
Government of the Commonwealth, or in any department or officer thereof.

18-1-2010 Page 6
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 I venture to say that these are not necessary or incidental to the execution of any powers.
The Commonwealth will come into existence under this Constitution plus English law,
one of whose principles is that the Queen can do no wrong. That is the foundation on
which the Constitution is established.
5 END QUOTE
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual
10 right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and
protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the states. It must be
recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not
among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page
1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states.
15 END QUOTE
.
The former colonies now federated (not confederated) within the Constitution therefore were
now styled to be “States” and as such given Statehood. Once can compare this to the United
Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Germany, etc, all having statehood within their
20 “POLITICAL UNION” called the “EUROPEAN UNION”.
.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such
considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English
Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark
25 (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment
IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168
It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is
complimentary to British (constitution) law, as The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
30 Act 1900 (UK) is. Therefore, the Commonwealth of Australia being under a British constitution
Act then by this for so far the European Union Human Rights and other legislation is not
conflicting with the Constitution also bound to apply all and any Human Rights provisions and
more over any other European Union legislation, direction, etc. Again, as long as it doesn’t
conflict with constitutional powers provided in The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
35 Act 1900 (UK), and as such is complimentary to it.
The issue is if the Commonwealth of Australia was given any constitutional powers to legislate
as to have a Queen of Australia as some independent position, legally and politically, from the
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom and clearly there never was and can be
such legislative powers because as is set out above the commonwealth of Australia is nothing
40 more but a “POLITICAL UNION”.
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
45 Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
50 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
.
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
55 QUOTE

18-1-2010 Page 7
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 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
.
5 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
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
10 .
It is a “CIVIL RIGHT” of any person to choose what nationality he/she may desire.
As a matter of fact I moved from The Netherlands, being Dutch Born, to the Commonwealth of
Australia and by this became a subject of the British Crown for legal purposes to comply with
the constitution and any laws enacted within its provisions. And when I naturalised on 28 March
15 1994 I became a “British national”
.
Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
QUOTE
Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief
20 Justice Latham, "sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of
power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to
disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, but
such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not
valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is
25 invalid ab initio.
END QUOTE
.
Section 51(xix) provides for “naturalization”.
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
30 QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the
Commonwealth will seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of
the Commonwealth which will enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it
will be merely a dead letter. Is there any citizen of the Commonwealth who is not already a
35 citizen of the state? State citizenship is his birthright, and by virtue of it he is entitled to the
citizenship of the Commonwealth. When you have immigration, and allow different
people to come in who belong to nations not of the same blood as we are, they become
naturalized, and thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they
40 come here.

Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of
the states, and it is by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens
of the Commonwealth. Are you going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens
of the Commonwealth?
45 Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.

Mr. WALKER.-Is not a citizen of the state, ipso facto, a citizen of the
Commonwealth?
END QUOTE
And
50 QUOTE

18-1-2010 Page 8
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I shall have to oppose Dr. Quick's amendment, although
I would really go further than he intends. His object is to have a common citizenship, and
he proposes to define that in a proposed new clause, 120A, which reads as follows:-
All persons resident within the Commonwealth, being natural-born or naturalized
5 subjects of the Queen, and not under any disability imposed by the Parliament, shall be
citizens of the Commonwealth;

and he now wants to give power to Parliament to vary that subsequently.

Mr. ISAACS.-It is not clause 120A that he is proposing now.

Mr. HIGGINS.-It is his amendment in clause 52-to insert "Commonwealth citizenship"
10 as a new sub-section.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
15 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will
come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who
would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for
such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists,
20 but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but
one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship
meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say,
I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the
25 dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce
this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one
which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is
much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we
30 possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or
exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness.
As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not
want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be
prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an
35 argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth
Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen
of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
END QUOTE
And
40 QUOTE
we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British
Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that.
END QUOTE
And
45 QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.

Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and in doing that we give them power to make persons subjects
of the British Empire. Have we not done enough? We allow them to naturalize aliens.
That is a power which, with the consent of the Imperial authority, has been carried
18-1-2010 Page 9
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 into legislation by the various colonies, and, of course, we cannot do less for the
Commonwealth than we have done for the colonies.

Mr. KINGSTON.-Such legislation is only good within the limits of each state.
END QUOTE
5 .
It therefore must be clear that the Commonwealth within the provisions of the consyttitution
could only naturalize aliens “Yes; and in doing that we give them power to make persons
subjects of the British Empire.” And therefore the Federal Parliament cannot have any powers
to naturalize aliens to become a subject of a Queen of Australia because no Monarchy of
10 Australia existed or can exist.
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people
15 and the states on terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
QUOTE
20 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we
are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the
Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the
25 clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of
the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship,
and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the
scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a
30 colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.

END QUOTE
Again;
QUOTE
35 we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British
Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
40 QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able
to understand.
END QUOTE
45 .
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
50 Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-

18-1-2010 Page 10
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the
Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree
with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of
every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no word in it which
5 we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to come,
when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an
interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which
we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now
contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every
10 clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
15 When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution
should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we
consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any
alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly
have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the
20 people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident
that too much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
Thompson v Tolmie 27 U.S. 157 (1829) Page 27 U.S. 157, 169
25 QUOTE
When a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question that occurs in the
cause; and whether its decisions be correct or not, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded
as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and
orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no
30 bar to a recovery sought in opposition to them even prior to a reversal.'
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are
35 a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may
be rejected upon direct collateral attack.
END QUOTE
.
I did what I had to do and served the Commonwealth of Australia and all Attorney-Generals in
40 2002 a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and after a 5-year epic legal battle
comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia in court on 19 July 2006. As such the
court adjudicated in both cases and found in favour of me against the commonwealth of Australia
and while I am aware the court refused to hand down a reason of judgment to try to contain the
fall-out of its decision nevertheless there was no challenge whatsoever by the Commonwealth of
45 Australia upon any of the about 50 submissions on constitutional matters I had raised and as such
the Commonwealth of Australia is now bound to accept the courts verdict, in particular where it
never appealed the decision either, and had no cause to do so as it consented to the terms of the
orders!
.
50 Once the Commonwealth of Australia neglected to challenge any of my submissions and
consented to the Court handing down a decision against the Commonwealth of Australia then for
all purposes and intend the Commonwealth of Australia conceded that I was right on all
constitutional issues I had raised (and so extensively in the material before the court) as if it had
not it could have requested the court to hand down a reserved judgment limited to certain
18-1-2010 Page 11
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 matters. Again, the commonwealth of Australia didn’t whatsoever challenge any of my material
before the Court and as such conceded defeat and it is a bit rich now for the Commonwealth of
Australia then to rely upon what the Constitution Commission in its 1988 report may have
“assumed”, as the Commonwealth of Australia is bound by the courts decision!
5 .
Because of the publications of my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain
constitutional and other legal issues I am giving wide coverage to these issues and it is merely a
matter of time when someone is going to realise that he can use this to defeat the Commonwealth
of Australia!
10 .
QUOTE 7-1-2010 CORRESPONDENCE
Australian Government
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
ONE NATIONAL CIRCUIT
15 BARTON

Reference: c09/54418

Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
20 107 Graham Road
VIEWBANK VICTORIA 3084

Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka

25 Thank you for your email of 24 October 2009 to the Prime Minister regarding the
Commonwealth’s power to legislate over citizenship. I have been asked to reply on the
Prime Minister’s behalf. I apologise for the delay in doing so.

‘Australian citizenship’ is defined in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Ordinarily, the
30 Government does not disclose its legal advice, including on constitutional issues, I refer
you, however, to the following passage from paragraph 4,179 of the Final Report of the
Constitutional Commission, 1988:

While the Federal Parliament has not been granted an express power to make laws
35 with respect to nationality and citizenship, it has been assumed that the Parliament
does have such a power. The power is either implied in section 51(xix) [of the
Constitution] or is one of the implied national powers. Its exercise by the Federal
Parliament, by enactment of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948… has certainly not
been called into question in any case before the High Court of Australia.
40 Yours sincerely

Brendan MacDowell
A/g Assistant Secretary
Legal Policy Branch
45 7 January 2010
QUOTE 7-1-2010 CORRESPONDENCE
.
As is clear the Commonwealth of Australia in 1948 commenced to legislate as to “citizenship”
and no amount of alleged “legal advice’ in 1988 can somehow override the constitutional
50 provisions and limitations. Hence for that it isn’t relevant what the Constitutional Commission in
1988 may have concluded because when it comes to the constitution there is no power to twist or
infringe the true meaning of the constitution in that regard. Moreover it indicates to me a total
incompetence of the Constitution Commission if they “assumed” this legal position about

18-1-2010 Page 12
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 “citizenship” where if they had bothered to check the Hansard they would or should have been
aware they were totally wrong.
What this also underlines that despite my past correspondence about the failure of the
Constitution Policy Unit to appropriately advice regarding constitutional matters they
5 nevertheless continued to do so. What is the use of having such kind of legal advisors?
.
QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House
of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration)
Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and
10 painstaking consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the
consideration was sufficient in law.
END QUOTE
.
I have in the past time and time again raised this issue and now in the end it is finally conceded
15 that all the Commonwealth of Australia relies upon is that the Constitution Commission in 1988
“assumed” there was legislative powers.
Well, lets make it clear that every day people are losing court cases despite the legal advice they
were given they were in the right because when two opposing parties are litigating and each party
is given legal advise that they are legally right then in the end one of them discovers their
20 lawyers were wrong all along.
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.
25 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 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
30 the 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 the
Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or
35 diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am
willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading
inducement for joining the Union.
END QUOTE
40 .
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with
regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the
45 Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted
elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is
not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
END QUOTE
.
50 HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that
we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
END QUOTE
18-1-2010 Page 13
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 .
Again
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
QUOTE
5 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we
are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the
Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the
10 clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of
the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship,
and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the
scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a
15 colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
END QUOTE
Again;
QUOTE
we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British
20 Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.

25 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and in doing that we give them power to make persons subjects
of the British Empire. Have we not done enough? We allow them to naturalize aliens.
That is a power which, with the consent of the Imperial authority, has been carried
into legislation by the various colonies, and, of course, we cannot do less for the
Commonwealth than we have done for the colonies.
30 Mr. KINGSTON.-Such legislation is only good within the limits of each state.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
35 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving
that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy
from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts
through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people
having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any
40 one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of
the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is
no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a
different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your
45 Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under
this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution
he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily
determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the
guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us
50 have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work
can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the
critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for
18-1-2010 Page 14
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
 them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have
provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this
5 Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal
Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our
Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people,
which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall
10 any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their
own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as
the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no
citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those
15 who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are
bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this
kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions,
then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so
20 whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people
will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here,
which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext
of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states
25 from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things,
I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE
.
It should be therefore very clear that constitutionally not even s.128 referendum can dispose of
30 the British Crown and neither can any person natural born or naturalized under the British Crown
be robbed of their constitutional rights.
.
I have previously in my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional
and legal issues extensively addressed these and other issues and as such this correspondence is
35 not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all relevant details.
Sufficient to say that the High Court of Australia, where the judges adjudicating in Sue v Hill
were sworn in under their oath of judicial office under the British Crown and as such in that
regard neither could pretend some other kind of monarchy was to be adhered to. And, more over
no constitutional powers existed for the High Court of Australia to twist or infringe upon the
40 manner in which the constitution applied and/or applies.
.
For the above it should be recognised that we are under the British Crown and remain to
be so and that the Commonwealth of Australia acting as “agents” for the people will show
due and proper respect to any member of the British Crown and so all and any “subjects of
45 the British crown”. As Prime minister you are bound to serve us, the people, within the
provisions of the constitution, regardless if they may or may not suit your personal views. It
is this capacity that you were appointed and shall serve, and shall show due respect where
required!

50 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

18-1-2010 Page 15
PLEASE 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, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com