20160122-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council - APPEAL-15-2502 - Re Is Kidd The Hypocrite

Page 1
Mr Peter Kidd CJ
22-1-2016
Email: feedback@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Cc;
Buloke Shire Council (Councillors) buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au

Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au & attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
Elliott Stafford and Associated (EA&a) lawyers@elliottstafford.com.au
Mr Garry McIntosh, Associate to His Honour Mullaly J. judgemullaly.chambers@countycourt.vic.gov.au
Re: 20160122-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ County Court of VictoriaRe Buloke Shire Council -APPEAL-15-2502- Re Is Kidd the Hypocrite
Sir,
I came across the fierce advocate claim via email and also the issue about the issue of the
judiciary to be checked. This and other issues I will address. Both articles have been reproduced
below.
From: Attorney General's Office and The Rt Hon Jeremy Wright QC MP
QUOTE
I do not want this speech to be a historical overview of the rule of law but the English philosopher John
Locke made the point in 1690 that Wherever law ends, tyranny begins. The classic modern definition of the
Rule of Law and by modern I mean 1885 - comes from the jurist and constitutional theorist AV Dicey. I
wont read the whole of what he said but two parts of it are of particular importance to the success of the City
of London and its commercial and legal sectors. Firstly, Dicey said that the rule of law meant that no man is
punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law
established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land. He also said that when
we speak of the rule of law we mean not only that with us no man is above the law, but that here every
man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.
END QUOTE
This very much was reflected by the Framers of the Constitution and embedded in the
constitution, who held:
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
As such, if Ministers and their officials can be held legally accountable then I view lawyers
(including barristers) must be allowed to be held accountable. No such thing that one cannot sue
a Barrister or a barrister can avoid being held legally accountable for any wrongdoing at the bar
table. Yet it is all too often eventuating.
.
More over consider the following:

SCHOREL v. SCHOREL (1982) C 66117 of 1982 Unreported Transcript 11-3-82 and 12-3-82 before Emery SJ.
(In regard of the former husbands statements from the bar table earlier during the proceedings about matters on the
lists)
p1
22-1-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: Email admin@inspector-rikati.com
Page 2
QUOTE Page 115: (Emery SJ examine-in-chief Mr Schorel in the witness box)
You made or gave me some information while you were standing at the bar table just a little while
ago about the two lists of furniture that your wife produced this morning, exhibits A and B. What
you said from the bar table is true, is that right?- - - That is correct, your Honour.
Yes. Well, that makes it all evidence that you have given instead of just a statement.
END QUOTE
You may not be aware of this nor for that it seems any judicial officer of any court/tribunal but
there is no such thing as a lawyer claiming cost from the Bar table, as it is not evidence and as
such a lawyer would be required to enter the witness box to give evidence about any cost
claimed.
Some decades ago an opponent lawyer was making a statement from the Bar table and I
objected that it was a misuse and abuse of using the Barf table to try to give evidence and that
the court cannot consider what the lawyer was stating as purported evidence unless the lawyer
would give the evidence from the witness box. The judge agreed and invited the lawyer to either
forgo what she had been claiming or to enter the witness box.
The lawyer was sworn in and then confirmed what she had stated from the Bar table and was
about to leave the witness box when I objected to her leaving as I explained to the judge that I
was entitled to cross-examine the lawyer. The judge agreed. The lawyer tried to claim lawyerclient confidentiality but as I explained that if she fraudulently claimed cost then the lawyerclient confidentiality was out of the window. And as she had claimed cost regarding some
documents I had written then she should know the content of it and why then didnt she during
the hearing reveal relevant details such as the authorities I had quoted in my writings.
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
QUOTE
As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his
clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he
honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is
paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or
his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is
the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly
conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support
it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client
discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the
specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
END QUOTE
For example on 17 September 2015 Buloke Shire Council lawyer claimed about $1,600 cost
regarding my writings from the Bar table and yet never disclosing the authorities and at no time
was there any evidence from the witness box to confirm this. And while His Honour Mullaly J
claimed that there is no need for evidence during an ex parte (criminal) case to have orders
issued reality is that constitutionally it requires evidence.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE
Even for any so called De Novo hearing on appeal the aggrieved party is entitled and must be
made aware what legal justification existed for the court to have made the orders on 17
September 2015 (Magistrates Court of Victoria at St Arnaud)!
.
p2
22-1-2016
Page 3
QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780
As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes the appeal
(reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made in the lower
court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the
respondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the
absence of reason for the magistrates decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded
for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal process, there is the basic
ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to controvert
the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they lost. If they are given no reason they may be
entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice. In such a case not only
the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not mere ordinary trivial
work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of responsibility which administrations of the
summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail. [Baker
v Baker (1906) 95 LT 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and again in Cobb v Cobb (1900) p145] it
was stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is the duty of the
magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his decision, but to give the reasons for his
decision and to cause a note to be made of his reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required, but the reasons
which lead the magistrate to make his order must be explicitly stated.
END QUOTE
Since you became Chief Justice, did you ever bother to be hands-on and check how often judges
were granting orders for cost merely upon some lawyer making so to say a cockapoo story from
the bar table claiming cost without any shred of evidence from the witness box and so robbing
the other party of his/her right to contest the cost claim?
In my view before any lawyer can claim cost the lawyer should advise this prior to the hearing to
pursue orders for cost and then during the trail must be required to be willing to give evidence so
that the other party can cross-examine the lawyer as to his/her knowledge about the material, etc..
After all, if the lawyer were to claim cost but proves not to know a thing as to what was written
(And yes I caught out a barrister before an appeal court not knowing anything, as he admitted
this to the full court, himself.) After all if the lawyer conceals relevant Authorities from the Court
that was referred to by the other party then the cost claim might be deemed fraud, and then
lawyer-client confidentiality is gone. Then the other party can cross-examine the lawyer about
matters that ordinary are deemed lawyer-client confidential issues.
Are you some hypocrite who claims wanting to be (reportedly) some advocate for judges when
in fact ignoring the rot they are engaged in?
How many cases since you became Chief Justice violated this rule that one cannot give evidence
from the Bar table and so any lawyer claiming cost has to go into the witness box to give
evidence? Or is it just that the gross incompetence of the judiciary continues unabated? After all
it is such an cancerous modus operandi that well not even you can manage to
understand/comprehend what is legally appropriate?
But wait there is more!
.
Constitutionally the Judiciary is at the same level as the Government of the Day and the
Parliament. While it was claimed that the Judiciary no longer since 2014 has to report to the
government but instead now to the parliament, this underlines how incompetent the judiciary has
been all along.
HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
(2.) A judiciary, consisting of a federal supreme court, which shall constitute a high court of appeal
for Australia, under the direct authority of the Sovereign, whose decisions, as such, shall be final.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
p3
22-1-2016
Page 4
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
As such the judiciary is not the third arm of government as lawyers wrongly claim it is the 3 rd
arm of the constitution. To be the 3rd arm of the government implies bias towards the
government and this prevents the judiciary to be independent/impartial as required by both the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as well as by the 20-1-1901 in the
Victorian Gazette published letters Patent (impartial administration of justice!
Likewise so the State judiciary it is directly under the sovereign and not at all under the
Government, albeit an appeal to the High Court of Australia is provided for.
QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for
the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the
royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be
practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority
conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
such authority.
END QUOTE
More over:
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE
.
This means that the Colonial Constitution Act (Victoria) 1855 automatically upon federation was
amended by the power transfer from the colonies (now States) to the Commonwealth.
QUOTE
123 Alteration of limits of States
The Parliament of the Commonwealth may, with the consent of the Parliament of a State, and the approval of
the majority of the electors of the State voting upon the question, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the
limits of the State, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed on, and may, with the like consent,
make provision respecting the effect and operation of any increase or diminution or alteration of territory in
relation to any State affected.
END QUOTE
p4
22-1-2016
Page 5
It also means that the limited State constitutions can only be amended by a State referendum and
not otherwise, since federation commenced. Where no State referendum was held then the
purported amendments, including the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 are without
legal basis and as such ULTRA VIRES
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but
every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have
made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an 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 Constitution, and with all other
questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided,
first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is
the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be
twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting
independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the
constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be
above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of
saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve.
What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or
any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that
Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE
Section 51 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 has no provision

whatsoever for the States to legislate as to any of the subject matters stated in that section.
However, one again must look upon what the Framers of the constitution embedded as legal
principles in the constitution to learn what is applicable, such as the limited concurrent
legislative powers of the States prior to the Commonwealth legislating on a particular subject
matter.
.

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
p5
22-1-2016
Page 6
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the
power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE Mr. REID:
We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points
enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two
laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal
criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any
complication of the kind.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the
commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this
power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate
on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to
exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from
that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will
be exercised.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which
the words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether
we leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the
Federal Parliament will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have
exclusive power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed
legislation dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power
will have arisen.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
p6
22-1-2016
Page 7
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the Convention to an
apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not yet been made. The word
"exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on the coming into being of the
Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal Parliament, may mean, and I believe does
mean, that the power of the state to legislate ceases. On the question of whether the exclusive power
under this provision comes into being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the
attention of the leader of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive
power arises the moment an Act is passed. It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs duties
being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph saysBut this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have been imposed
by the Parliament.
It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at once, and the
position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this clause as it [start page 255]
stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to Chinese.
Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediately
on the establishment of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-There seems to be some doubt as to whether the exclusive power arises upon the
establishment of the Commonwealth or on the exercise of the power of legislation. The doubt seems to
be removed by clause 84. It is said that if we put this provision in clause 52 the exclusive power may be
postponed until legislation takes place. But may you not then have a concurrent power, and may not the
competence of the local Legislature to legislate in the matter be continued as long as the legislation is not in
contradiction of federal legislation?
Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point.
Mr. GLYNN.-Yes, and there is still a vagueness in the word "exclusive." If it is doubtful whether the
exclusive power commences with the foundation of the Commonwealth, and if it is possible that it may only
come into being on the passing of legislation, may it not still be said that on the passing of exclusive
legislation the power of the local Parliaments to legislate is extinguished, but that on the passing of
concurrent legislation that power does not cease?
Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I think that enough has now been said on this subject by honorable
members both sides of the chamber, and I have only a very few remarks to offer. It appears that if the
sub-section remains where it is state laws will be valid until federal legislation, but the states will not be
able to alter or improve those laws during the possibly long interval between federation and federal
legislation. Under these circumstances, as we leave to the states for an indefinite time the power of
maintaining the laws they have, we should grant to them the power of improving those laws. It would
recommend the Constitution more to a large number of persons if we put the sub-section in clause 52,
thus enabling each state to legislate on this matter until the Federal Parliament comes in and legislates
for all.
END QUOTE
Therefore, the moment the Commonwealth commented to legislate upon say land taxes and
created the Land Tax Office (forerunner of the ATO) on 11-11-1910 then all State land taxes
were ousted and all delegated state land taxation such as municipal/shire council rates (the High
court of Australia In Sydney Council v Commonwealth in 1904 were delegated s114 land
taxation powers) then were unconstitutional from then on. Likewise where the commonwealth
legislated as to weight and measures then all and any State legislation relating to weight and
measures became unconstitutional. Still you find that the judiciary will continue to enforce the
unconstitutional council rates and for example alleged speeding charges, this even so to my
p7
22-1-2016
Page 8
knowledge there is not a single speed detection unit certified by the commonwealth for this. It
makes absolutely no difference in law if the State did legislated in that regard because the State
simply lost its legislative powers the moment the commonwealth legislated on this subject
matter. If the commonwealth desires not to legislate as to speed detection units, perhaps because
it conflicts with it standards for imported motor vehicle variation, then the states cannot so to say
overrule the Commonwealth and go off on their own to nevertheless legislate on the subject
matter.
.
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE
As I indicated the judiciary is not under the government and neither accountable to the
parliament. Its independence is secured by the legal principles embedded in the constitution and
the States created within s106 of this constitution subject to this constitution then cannot
undermine this constitutional system.
.
It also means that as the State Parliaments are no longer sovereign Parliaments but now
constitutional Parliaments then none can amend the State constitutions as it can do no more but
to hold an s123 State referendum as to the boundaries of the States physical, jurisdictional, etc,
boundaries. What s128 is for the Commonwealth is s123 for the States. Just that people
generally never understood this.
.
I am often so to say clubbed with Quick and Garran and numerous other books written about the
constitution and even former High Court of Australia judgments but let us not forget that they
were written with a disregard to the Hansard Debates as the High Court of Australia until about
the 1980 (albeit wrongly) prevented the usage of the Hansard records.
The for example the meaning of Australian Citizenship:
Judicial officers who do not have Victorian Citizenship cannot be regarded as being the peers
of an accused/defendant, and as such cannot adjudicate in regard of those appearing before the
Victorian Courts.
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
p8
22-1-2016
Page 9
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
END QUOTE
ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 2

County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE
QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Attorney General
19-11-2002
Victoria
Fax 9651 0577
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
URGENT
Sir/Madam
Since 27-9-2002 I sought clarification about what, if any State citizenship I have
as to be able to obtain Australian citizenship, yet, in the recent 18 November 2002 response it
was stated;
As explained in my previous letter, citizenship is a matter for the Commonwealth,
not the States. You indicated that you were naturalized in 1994. As result of that, you
are an Australian citizen.
This utter ridiculous response was provided by RUVANI WICKS, Assistant Director, Civil
Branch of the Department of Justice.
Edmund Barton (later becoming the first Prime Minister of Australia and thereafter a judge of the
High Court of Australia) made very clear during the convention, that if it isnt in the
Constitution, then the Commonwealth had no legislative powers.
RUVANI WICKS refers me to the Commonwealth Government to sort out matters, however this
is clearly unacceptable, this, as the State of Victoria and not the Commonwealth deals or must
deal with State Citizenship!
Unless you can point out when there was a reference of legislative powers from the State of
Victoria to the Commonwealth approved within Section 128 of the Commonwealth constitution,
I view, there never was and still is no constitutional legislative powers by the Commonwealth to
determine State or any other citizenship!
At most, the Commonwealth, could determine citizenship as the local law for the Act and
Northern Territory through the parliaments governing those Territories (being Quasi States) as
they are not limited to constitutional provisions, however there never was any Constitutional
powers for the Commonwealth to grant citizenship to any resident of a State, neither determine
citizenship of a citizen of a State!
If your Department nevertheless maintains that the Commonwealth has the legislative powers to
determine citizenship of residents of the State of Victoria then please do set out in which
p9
22-1-2016
Page 10
Constitutional manner the Commonwealth had this power from on set, if any, and/or how it
obtained this legislative power since the formation of the Commonwealth!
If anything, the Department of justice ought to be well aware that unless it is done lawfully it is
ULTRA VIRES!
END QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General
No further reply was received by me upon this.
What was shown was that the Victorian government also had seemingly gone along to confuse
Australian citizenship with state citizenship! And that is the real problem. Somehow everyone,
other then me, seems to have lost reality as to what is applicable.
Likewise, other States seemed to have gone along, despite constitutionally the purported
Australian citizenship could never substitute the constitutional powers of the states to
legislate for State citizenship. No State citizenship then no Commonwealth citizenship and so no
electoral rights either! Yet, even this basic issue still seems to remain unresolved! Still, Section
245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 cannot be enforced unless the CDPP can show to
the Court that somehow I did obtain State citizenship (political rights) and so invoked Section
41 of the Constitution to obtain electoral rights in Commonwealth citizenship.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
It is a matter of fact that I was issued with a Certificate of Australian Citizenship No.
ME9401317C on the 28th day of March 1994. I do not believe that the Commonwealth Director
of Public Prosecutions contest the issue of this certificate.
The certificate states;
QUOTE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Australian citizenship Act 1948
Certificate of Australian Citizenship
GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL
Born on 7 th June 1947
having applied for a Certificate of Australian Citizenship, having satisfied the conditions
prescribed by the Australian Citizenship Act 19448 for the grant of such Certificate
and having undertaken to fulfil the responsibilities of a citizen.
I the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs,
Grant this Certificate of Australian citizenship to the abovenamed applicant who is
an Australian citizen on and after 28 th March 1994.
Issued by the authority
Of the Minister
For Immigration and
Ethnic Affairs.
END QUOTE
By marriage, on 28 March 2001, I became Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka

Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)
p10
22-1-2016
Page 11
Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state,
allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so, with
respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is
a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance and
citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of
compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie;
allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a
badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is
freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.
Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential
differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it
can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in
which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously
enforced, there are striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth,
and the homage, which, under every modification of government, must be paid to the
inherent rights of man.
And
These are tacit acknowledgments of the right of expatriation, vested in the individuals; for,
though they are instances of adopting, not of discharging, subjects; yet, if Great Britain
would (ex gratia) protect a Russian naturalized by service, in her fleet, it is obvious that
she cannot do so without recognizing his right of expatriation to be superior to the
Empress's right of allegiance. But it is not only in a negative way, that these deviations in
support of the general right appear. The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two
sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of
withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign.
And
The power of naturalizing has been vested in several of the state governments, and it
now exists in the general government; but the power to restrain or regulate the right
of emigration, is no where surrendered by the people; and it must be repeated, that,
what has not been given, ought not to be assumed. It may be said, however, that such
a power is necessary to the government, and that it is implied in the authority to
regulate the business of naturalization. In considering these positions, it must be
admitted, that although an individual has a right to expatriate himself, he has not a
right to seduce others from their country. Hence, those who forcibly, or seductively,
take away a citizen, commit an act, which [p*143] forms a fair object of municipal
police; and a conspiracy or combination, to leave a country, might, likewise be
properly guarded against. Such laws would not be an infraction of the natural right of
individuals; for, the natural rights of man are personal; he has no right to will for
others, and he does so, in effect, whenever he moves the mind of another to his
purpose, by fear, by fraud, or by persuasion.
And
But naturalization and expatriation are matters of internal police; and must depend
upon the municipal law, though they may be illustrated and explained by the
principles of general jurisprudence. It is true, that the judicial power extends to a
variety of objects; but the Supreme Court is only a branch of that power; and
depends on Congress for what portion it shall have, except in the cases of
ambassadors, &c. particularly designated in the constitution. The power of declaring
whether a citizen shall be entitled in any form to expatriate himself, or, if entitled, to
prescribe the form, is not given to the Supreme Court; and, yet, that power will be
exercised by the court, if they shall decide against the expatriation of Captain Talbot.
Let it not, after all, be understood, that the natural, loco-motive, right of a free citizen,
p11
22-1-2016
Page 12
is independent of every social obligation. In time of war, it would be treason to
migrate to any enemy's country and join his forces, under the pretext of expatriation.
1 Dall. Rep. 53, and, even in time of peace, it would be, reprehensible (say the writers
on the law of nature and nations) to desert a country labouring under great
calamities. So, if a man acting under the obligations of an oath of office, withdraws to
elude his responsibility, he changes his habitation, but not his citizenship. It is not,
however, private relations, but public relations; private responsibility, but public
responsibility; that can affect the right: for, where the reason of the law ceases, the
law itself must, also, cease. There is not a private relation, for which a man is not as
liable by local, as by natural, allegiance;--after, as well as before, his expatriation: He
must take care of his family, he must pay his debts, wherever he resides; and there is
no security in restraining emigration, as to those objects, since, with respect to them,
withdrawing is as effectual, as expatriating. Nor is it enough to impair the right of
expatriation, that other nations are at war; it must be the country of the emigrant. No nation
has a right to interfere in the interior police of another: the rights and duties of citizenship,
to be conferred, or released, are matter of interior police; and yet, if a foreign war could
affect [p*145] the question, every time that a fresh power entered into a war, a new
restraint would be imposed upon the natural rights of the citizens of a neutral country;
which, considering the constant warfare that afflicts the world, would amount to a
perpetual controul. But the true distinction appears to be this:--The citizens of the neutral
country may still exercise the right of expatriation, but the belligerent power is entitled to
say, "the act of joining our enemies, flagrante bello, shall not be a valid act of
expatriation." By this construction, the duty a nation owes to itself, the sacred rights of the
citizen, the law of nations, and the faith of treaties, will harmonize, though moving in
distinct and separate courses. To pursue the subject one step further: A man cannot owe
allegiance to two sovereigns. 1Bl. Com. He cannot be citizen of two republics. If a man
has a right to expatriate, and another nation has a right and disposition to adopt him,
it is a compact between the two parties, consummated by the oath of allegiance. A
man's last will, as to his citizenship, may be likened to his last will, as to his estate; it
supersedes every former disposition; and when either takes effect, the party, in one
case, is naturally dead, in the other, he is civilly dead;--but in both cases, as good
Christians and good republicans, it must be presumed that he rises to another, if not
to a better, life and country. An act of expatriation, likewise, is susceptible of various
kinds of proof. The Virginia law has selected one, when the state permits her citizens
to depart; but it is not, perhaps, either the most authentic, or the most conclusive that
the case admits. It may be done obscurely in a distant county court; and even after
the emigrant is released from Virginia, to what nation does he belong? He may have
entered no other country, nor incurred any obligation to any other sovereign. Not
being a citizen of Virginia, he cannot be deemed a citizen of the United States. Shall he
be called a citizen of the world; a human balloon, detached and buoyant in the
political atmosphere, gazed at wherever he passes, and settled wherever he touches?
But, on the other hand, the act of swearing allegiance to another sovereign, is
unequivocal and conclusive; extinguishing, at once, the claims of the deserted, and
creating the right of the adopted, country. Sir William Blackstone, therefore, considers it
as the strongest, though an ineffectual, effort to emancipate a British subject from his
natural allegiance; and the existing constitution of France declares it expressly to be a
criterion of expatriation. The same principle operates, when the naturalization law of the
United States provides, that the whole ceremony of initiation shall be performed in the
American courts; and if it is here considered as the proof of adoption, shall it not be
considered, also, as the test of expatriation? If America [p*146] makes citizens in that way,
shall we not allow to other nations, the privilege of the same process? In short, to admit
that Frenchmen may be made citizens by an oath of allegiance to America, is, virtually, to
p12
22-1-2016
Page 13
admit, that Americans may be expatriated by an oath of allegiance to France. After this
discussion of principles, forming a necessary basis for the facts in this case, it is insisted,
1st, That Talbot was a naturalized citizen of the French Republic at the time of receiving a
commission to command the privateer, and of capturing the Magdalena. He left this
country with the design to emigrate; and the act of expatriation must be presumed to be
regular, according to the laws of France, since it is certified by the municipality of Point a
Pitre, by the French Consul, and by the Governor of Guadaloupe. 2d, That Redick was
also, a naturalized citizen of the French Republic, when he purchased the vessel, and
received a commission to employ her as a privateer.
And
Ballard was a citizen of Virginia, and also of the United States.
Within the united States of America a person granted naturalization is also granted citizenship,
where as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) does not provide for this.
Section 51(xix) provides for naturalization.
As already extensively placed before the magistrates in previous proceedings (upon which I rely
before this Court also) some of the Colonies (now States) naturalized aliens and others didnt
however each and every Colony did have legislation in regard of citizenship and the rights to
franchise.
The Hansard records of the 2 March and 3 March 1898 Constitutional Convention Debates
made clear that naturalization powers would be transferred from the Colonies to the newly to
be formed Commonwealth of Australia, as it would be approved by the British Parliament but
CITIZENSHIP legislative powers would be retained by the States in the newly formed
Commonwealth of Australia.
Mr Quick proposed to give the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to
define/declare CITIZENSHIP but this was defeated/refused by the Delegates!
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.
Therefore, even if the amendment of Mr Quick had succeeded it still was not intended to give
any legislative powers to the commonwealth of australia to interfere with the rights of any person
as a British subject.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
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
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,
p13
22-1-2016
Page 14
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
colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I
see therefore nothing unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British
subjects, in proposing to place power in this Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament
to deal with the question of federal citizenship. An objection has been raised in various
quarters-as by the honorable and learned members (Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Wise)-to the
effect that we ought to define federal citizenship in the Constitution itself. I have
considered this matter very carefully, and it has seemed to me that it would be most
difficult and invidious, if not almost impossible, to frame a satisfactory definition. There is
in the Constitution of the United States of America a cast-iron definition of
citizenship, which has been found to be absolutely unworkable, because, among other
things, it says that a citizen of the United States shall be a natural-born or naturalized
citizen within the jurisdiction of the United States, and it has been found that that
excludes the children of citizens born outside the limits of this jurisdiction. That
shows the danger of attempting definitions, and although I have placed a proposed
clause defining federal citizenship upon the notice-paper, the subject, seems to me
surrounded with the greatest difficulty, and no doubt the honorable and learned
members (Mr. Wise, Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. Symon) would be the first to attack any
definition, and would be able to perforate it. In my opinion, it would be undesirable to
implant a cast-iron definition of citizenship in the Constitution, because it would be
better to leave the question more elastic, more open to consideration, and more
yielding to the advancing changes and requirements of the times.
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
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
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?
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

QUOTE
p14
22-1-2016
Page 15
The Hansard records of the 2 March and 3 March 1898 Constitutional Convention Debates
made clear that naturalization powers would be transferred from the Colonies to the newly to
be formed Commonwealth of Australia, as it would be approved by the British Parliament but
CITIZENSHIP legislative powers would be retained by the States in the newly formed
Commonwealth of Australia.
Mr Quick proposed to give the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to

define/declare CITIZENSHIP but this was defeated/refused by the Delegates!
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.
Therefore, even if the amendment of Mr Quick had succeeded it still was not intended to give
any legislative powers to the commonwealth of australia to interfere with the rights of any person
as a British subject.
END QUOTE
As such it was beyond the judicial powers of the High Court of Australia to determine otherwise
in Sue v Hill! And again none of the Attorney-Generals challenged any of my extensive
submissions! As such they are deemed to have accepted the correctness of my submissions!
QUOTE
For the record, it ought to be understood that my naturalization never involved any State official,
as it was done at 55 Kings Street, Melbourne at the then offices of the Immigration Department,
and as such unlike most other people my naturalization was purely conducted by Commonwealth
of Australia officers, who obviously lacked any constitutional powers to provide me with
franchise as that was a State matter. It can therefore neither be argued that somehow the state
of Victoria did provide me with franchise as it never did. It erroneously relied upon the
ULTRA VIRES Australian Citizenship Act 1948 as to somehow take it that I was granted
franchise where clearly this never could be so.
In the Moller v Board of Examiners for Legal Practitioners case it is clear that some oath of
alliance was required. Now, if there was some change of oath of alliance because of
purportedly the Commonwealth of Australia having become INDEPENDENT then at what time
was the oath of alliance taken by lawyers to practice at the Victorian Bar valid? And, when did
lawyers already have taken this oath of alliance to the British Monarch then make a new oath
of alliance to the purported Queen of Australia? Or is it that we have lawyers (including
judicial officers) where some have sworn an oath of alliance to the LEGAL FICTION of
Queen of Australia while others to the British monarch?
I take the position that it is not relevant what the High Court of Australia may purport to make
out of matters in the Sue v Hill case, as ultimately it is ULTRA VIRES where they are making
decisions that are in conflict to the intentions of the Framers (and so amended by the successful
referendums) as expressed in the Constitution.
I view it is beyond constitutional powers for the High Court of Australia to interfere with
constitutional provisions and as such we are and remain to be British nationals and ultimately it
will be up to the people to decide otherwise.
END QUOTE
p15
22-1-2016
Page 16

QUOTE
The term citizenship was not at all associated with nationality but rather covered any
subject of the Queen residing within the Commonwealth of Australia or for that the continent
Australia.
The terms Australian citizen, Australian citizens , Australian citizenship,
Commonwealth citizens, federal citizen, citizen of the Commonwealth were used ongoing
by the Framers of the Constitution, as shown below, and as such were terms not as to
nationality but in regard of citizenship as being a resident in the colonies (now States) and the
Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore any constitutionalist, as I am, is or should be aware that
the term Australian citizenship cannot be held to relate to nationality. Neither that there can be
an Australian nationality merely because some judges happen to desire to make such a
declaration as the proper powers to legislate for this is to follow the procedures within Section
128 of the Constitution.
13-02-1890 Re; Australian citizen
13-03-1891 Re; Australian citizens
Re; dual citizenship
26-03-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
30-03-1897 Re; federal citizen
Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
Re; Commonwealth citizenship
28-01-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
Re; Commonwealth citizens
Re; federal citizenship
p16
22-1-2016
Page 17

END QUOTE
Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
Mr. KINGSTON.-By its lessees or any one else. Pushed to a legitimate conclusion his argument would
amount to this: That the state might dictate as to the right with which each person could step ashore on to that
soil. I do not think the matter should be viewed solely with regard to our dealing with alien races, who will
chiefly come within the scope and purview of this sub-section. We ought to deal with the matter not on local
or provincial, but on broad Australian lines. I know that in this respect I differ a good deal from many with
whom I generally work in sympathy, but the view which I venture to propound is this-that if you do not
like these people you should keep them out, but if you do admit them you should treat them fairlyadmit them as citizens entitled to all the rights and privileges of Australian citizenship.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).Surely every person who has the suffrage-the right to vote within the Commonwealth-and who lives
within the Commonwealth, is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and entitled to all its privileges, including
the right to take part as the Commonwealth provides in the framing of the laws.
END QUOTE
We also have the utter and sheer nonsense that somehow the Parliament can rob the Supreme
Court of Victoria of its judicial powers by referring matters within s51(xxxvii) to the
commonwealth. As French J (as he was then known Now French CJ of the High court of
Australia) made clear that s51(xxxvii) does no more but to give the Commonwealth of Australia
the powers to accept a reference of powers, but it doesnt provide for the States to do so. It is
upon the State electors to approve by way of State referendum if any legislative powers (and so
associated judicial powers) can be transferred to the Commonwealth.
Likewise so about every purported reference of legislative powers!
How idiotic that a particular political party may desire to refer its entire legislative powers to the
commonwealth and the citizens of Victoria be denied any say in it.
Citizens are entitled to be judges under Victorian law and Common law and the parliament has
no legislative powers to deny this and transfer it willy nilly to the Commonwealth.
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the constitution shall be obeyed, because a
majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the constitution.
END QUOTE
.
As indicated above if there are no citizenship laws by the State then how can one then
determine who is or is not a citizen? How then can any judge be deemed to be a peer ass to
adjudicate?
Even the High Court of Australia is bound to hear and determine certain matter by common
law!
p17
22-1-2016
Page 18
QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which 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 to 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 for 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 the people.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
And then there is this proviso:
Provided that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in the High Court than according to the
rules of the common law.
END QUOTE
This relates to the common law of the States, as people would be tried by their peers in the
State the alleged offence eventuated!
.

QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
Yet, what we find is that generally lawyers do not understand/comprehend the true meaning and
application of the constitution and when appointed to the judiciary bring this to the judiciary.
.
When it comes to the judiciary then the chief Justice is like the President of the Upper House and
the Speaker in the Lower House the ultimate decision maker. A Premier has no power over the
Speaker and neither over the President and for that matter none either over the Chief Justice.
http://www.australasianlawyer.com.au/news/judges-escape-random-breath-testing-measures-210784.aspx
Judges escape random breath testing measures
QUOTE
The Victorian government has backed away from a plan to give the chief justice, chief judge and the
chief magistrate the power to randomly breath-test the judiciary.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The promise was also made to test MPs, but it is unclear whether or not this will go ahead, the government
saying the decision rests on speaker Telmo Languiller and Legislative Council president Bruce Atkinson.
END QUOTE
The Chief Justice is the ultimate person holding the power to decide if judges shall or shall not be
randomly or otherwise tested for alcohol/drugs, etc. He/she needs no permission from the
Parliament and/or the government to do so.
p18
22-1-2016
Page 19
The chief Justice is responsible for the judiciary and so is also responsible that the courts are
functioning appropriately. Meaning that the government cannot close down court venues, as it
ongoing has done, without the consent of the Chief Justice. And it also means the chief Justice
cannot tolerate a de facto court system like VCAT and the purported Infringement Court to
operate that undermines the judiciary and violates the legal principles embedded in the
constitution. This as the Chief Justice holds his/her position for no other reason but because the
constitution provides for a separation of powers for the judiciary and as such the chief Justice
cannot flaunt the constitution and so its embedded legal principles merely upon his/her wimps.
Yet the hypocorism of the Chief Justices are in my view ample.
After all consider the following also:
On 19 July 2006 I succeeded in both appeals in the country court of Victoria in which
proceedings I also on constitutional grounds challenged the validity of the county court of
Victoria as to adjudicate where it fails to be adhering to the separation of powers. By being
associated as Business Unit 19 with the Department of Justice using the same ABN.
How indeed can the county court of Victoria to be independent and impartial where it uses the
same business registration (ABN) as the Department of Justice, the Prostitution control
Commission, the Sheriffs Office, etc?
Indeed, as the Courts must be separate it shouldnt even use an ABN number as the
Commonwealth cannot tax the judiciary.
Either the sheriffs Office falls under the Courts or under the Government, not both!
It also means that the governments protection Services have no business to be in the courts.
It also means that those dealing with the courts computers must be independent from the
government, including those who maintain computers.
Take for example the ABN/CAN registration that Phillips J referred to as Unit 19 of the
Department of Justice It is a violation of the independence of the judiciary.
The moment one accepts for the government to tax the judiciary in any shape or form it
undermines the independence of the judiciary. As a matter of fact the authorities on record prove
that the commonwealth cannot tax a State government Department without its consent. As such
the same applies to the judiciary as constitutionally its independence is secured. As such the State
government cannot, nor so the Commonwealth, legislate to tax the judiciary because it then could
use this to interfere/undermine the independence/impartiality if the judiciary. Otherwise the
Government can pursue the Parliament to increase taxation on the judiciary as a way to get it to
fall in line with government policies with its rulings.
And as Phillips J made known that the government had access to its court computers. As such,
what stop the government to amend a reason of judgment to be hand down by a judge to be more
in favour of the government?
From The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
The corporatising of our courts Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria, March 24, 2005
QUOTE
As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system,
particularly the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what
they can and cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians,
but while I have been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's
independence.
END QUOTE
Clearly, the wording As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our
constitutional system indicates that this justice held there was a separation of powers within
state level.
p19
22-1-2016
Page 20
From The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/The-corporatising-of-our-courts/2005/03/23/1111525218521.html
QUOTE
The corporatising of our courts
Retirement speech of John K. Phillips, Supreme Court of Victoria
March 24, 2005
In his parting words from the Supreme Court bench, John D. Phillips warns of a dangerous erosion of the
court's independence.
For more than 14 years I have been sitting here, and it has been hard and unremitting, but exciting and
rewarding - emotionally, I hasten to add, before I am misunderstood. But for much of that time I have had to
bite my tongue.
I refer to policy matters rather than the debate within a particular case. For, during my time on the bench, and
especially as I grew more senior, I have watched with some concern a change emerge in the perception of this
court by others and some blurring of essential distinctions. I want to speak briefly of that now because I have
been unable to say much about it until now and when my resignation becomes effective, I fear that nobody
will listen.
As we all know, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional system, particularly
the independence of this court, which must, from time to time, tell the political arms what they can and
cannot do according to law. As a court we will rarely, if ever, be popular with politicians, but while I have
been sitting here, I have seen what appears to me to be some erosion of this court's independence.
One of the most public examples recently was the refusal of the executive to accept the decision on
remuneration handed down by the tribunal established by the Parliament for the very purpose of freeing both
Parliament and the executive from the invidiousness of the decision-making process over judicial salaries and
so ensuring the independence of which I am speaking.
Less well known was the refusal of earlier governments to allow that the court's own chief executive officer
be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and its insistence that that officer be appointed by and be ultimately
answerable to the Department of Justice, which is what happened.
That appears now, if I may say so, to have been but part of a movement towards this court's becoming
absorbed into that department, and it is that to which I want to draw attention in particular; for such a
movement must be reversed if this court is to have, and to keep, its proper role under the constitution.
This court is not some part of the public service and it must never be seen as such. Established as a court of
plenary jurisdiction and with supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts and tribunals, this court is the third
arm of government, co-equal in concept with Parliament and the executive. Its role, inter alia, is to control
and to limit those other arms according to law and to that end to stand between those other arms and the
citizen. Hence the emphasis on the court's independence, especially from the executive.
Yet within the Department of Justice this court is now identified and dealt with - would you believe - as
"Business Unit 19" within a section labelled "courts and tribunals", a section which indiscriminately includes
all three tiers of the court structure and VCAT.
This court is subject to direction on the raising of taxes in the form of court fees - in that these are prescribed
by departmental regulation, even if a part of those fees is redirected to the court by the department at its
discretion. The other day the department used a regulation to prescribe a procedure in this court, apparently in
disregard, if not in defiance, of the convention that such matters are for rules of court.
And perhaps most troubling of all: the judges' computers, which were provided by and through the
department, are but part of the departmental network. I do not say that departmental officers ordinarily avail
themselves of the access that that affords; one hopes the department has some controls in place. But access is
possible, and that seems to me altogether inappropriate when the state, in one form or another, is the major
litigant in this court, and sometimes on matters of critical import to the wider community.
Nobody is suggesting that the executive would ever seek to influence a judge's decision directly, otherwise
than by argument in open court, but what has been happening is more insidious. What is evolving is a
perception of the court as some sort of unit or functionary within the Department of Justice, a perception
which is inconsistent with this court's fundamental role and underlying independence.
Indeed I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court, despite its dominant role within the court structure and
its constitutional role vis-a-vis the other arms of government, is now seen by some in authority as no different
from a tribunal, nowadays the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in particular. That is simply not
the case; yet the distinction between a court and a tribunal has been steadily undermined over the years, and it
must be restored if the proper constitutional position is not 2to be subverted.
The basic distinction is easy enough. A court exercises judicial power and must be, and be seen to be,
impartial and so must be independent of all else. Accordingly, its judges are appointed once and for all, and
ideally, without hope of additional gain or reward from anyone, including any other arm of government.
Hence Parliament's creation of the specialist remuneration tribunal. In contrast to a court, a tribunal, properly
so called, exercises administrative functions but not judicial power, and many things flow from that. Such a
tribunal may be an arm of the executive; its members may be appointed for fixed terms, with the possibility
p20
22-1-2016
Page 21
of renewal at the discretion of the executive; and the need is not so great, to see that their remuneration is
fixed independently of the executive.
You will see, now, how far the distinction between court and tribunal has become blurred. While the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is staffed by a few judges, it consists mainly of members
appointed for fixed terms, capable of renewal at the discretion of the executive - and hence my alarm when,
in addition to its administrative work, that tribunal was given some judicial power to exercise, for the latter is
altogether inconsistent with such a form of tenure.
There is talk now of acting judges for this court, and again, because this is a court which is exercising judicial
power, such would be anathema. It is one thing to tolerate the occasional acting appointment to this court for
a limited time or purpose; it is altogether different to institutionalise such temporary appointments at the
discretion of the executive. Judges of a court properly so called must have security of tenure or, in a relatively
small community like this in Victoria, the whole system is put at risk. Our courts have been remarkably free
from any taint of bias or corruption; let it remain that way. A judge must be, and be seen to be, impartial
and so must eschew all other interests which might one day give rise to conflict or the appearance of
bias.
In my book, the judge must forgo the current cult of the individual: to adapt Edmund Burke, "individuals pass
like shadows, but the (institution) is fixed and stable". The judge is sometimes accused of remoteness but in
one sense that is no more than the reverse side of the commitment, the total commitment, which is demanded
of the appointee.
John D. Phillips is retiring as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. This is part of his farewell address to
the court.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
I am well aware that there is an implied bias by the County Court of Victoria where it shares the
same ABN business registration number as the Justice Department and the magistrates Court of
Victoria against which I appealed its conviction, and this also is a issue of concern to me.
To me it represents to be a STAR CHAMBER COURT which is outlaws under the, so called,
1640 STAR CHAMBER COURT Act and which is part of Victorian legislation, at least when I
last checked the Act Interpretation Act 1980 (Vic).
I refer back to the extensive set out on this matter that I placed on file in my ADDRESS TO
THE COURT filed for the 16 and 17 November 2005 proceedings held before the Magistrates
Court of Victoria at Heidelberg and now being DE NOVO before this Court. For example that
the County court of Victoria, the Magistrates Court of Victoria, the Justice the Department and
among many others the Prostitution Committee are all in the same business by sharing the
same ABN number.
Also to consider;
Title
COURTS AND TRIBUNALS LEGISLATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL
House
ASSEMBLY
Activity Second Reading
Members DEAN
Date
16 August 2000
Page
64
16 August 2000 ASSEMBLY
Page 64
COURTS AND TRIBUNALS LEGISLATION (FURTHER

AMENDMENT) BILL
Second reading
Debate resumed from 15 August; motion of Mr HULLS (Attorney-General).
p21
22-1-2016
Page 22
Dr DEAN (Berwick) -- Last night I made mention of a certain portion of the bill that
is perhaps gaining more interest than other sections. I noted that the AttorneyGeneral has spent most of his contribution to debate on the bill on that particular
point rather than the substance of the bill. That particular point is the removal of the
oath to the Queen from the two oaths of office given by lawyers prior to being
admitted to the Supreme Court.
Recapping, it was suggested that because England had done away with it, therefore
we should.
I noted that that was an interesting approach by the government. I also noted that
those states that do not have the oath to the Queen -- of course, South Australia,
Tasmania, Northern Territory and Queensland do have it -- have not seen fit to
introduce legislation to remove that oath of office. That is the nub of the point I wish
to make in the few minutes that I will talk on the bill.
There is absolutely no mention in the second-reading speech of any agreement by
the judiciary to the removal of the oath to the Queen.
Mr Hulls -- Don t disclose confidences!
Dr DEAN -- I know from the Attorney-General s past conduct that, while he would
not refer to any particular conversations, if he had the support of the judiciary he
would let everybody know that.
The question then arises of whether he has the support of the judiciary. My
information is that he does not. Therefore, although the opposition does not oppose
the bill it is of the view that it is inappropriate to go ahead with legislation to change
the procedures which have been set up and which are accepted by the courts,
particularly when those courts have not consented to the changes and may not wish
the introduction of legislation to make them. It is a total interference by the
legislature in the procedures of the courts.
It is astounding to take the step of introducing legislation and interfering with the
judicial process on such a small issue, presumably because of a political belief. To
not have the agreement of the judiciary is totally inappropriate. I could understand
if there were a major conflict between the legislature and the judiciary and we could
have it out; however, it is an issue not of major conflict but of political whim.
The fact is that many people still recognise that until Australia becomes a republic
the courts are the Queen s courts, and that therefore the Queen has a role to play;
and it may be traditional. I am happy to state my view that if the courts come to the
conclusion that some people they are admitting to practice may not wish to
Page 65
make a particular oath, I am very happy for the courts to abolish that oath. If they
as courts believe they wish to retain an oath I am not happy that the legislature
should step in and force them to change the situation.
On an issue as trivial as this it is a misunderstanding of the separation of powers to
allow the legislature to instruct the courts on how to go about their internal
procedures -- and this is an internal procedure. When one is admitted to practise as
a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court one goes before the Supreme Court
and the justices of the court arrive at the bench to listen to one take the oath of
admission. The bill means that the legislature has stepped into their court and said,
Because I, the Attorney-General, have a political view, I will step into your court and
tell you what you must do about this matter .
I was going to say it is incredibly naive -- I do not want to cast aspersions on
anyone -- but it is beyond belief that someone who has on many occasions
espoused separation of powers and the difference between the legislature and
judiciary would make such a slip. We have been told that the next step will be
legislation to tell courts how people who appear before them may dress. Whether
the profession or the judiciary decide they do or do not want people to wear wigs
when they appear before them, we are told that will be the Attorney-General s next
step. One has to ask, Where will it stop? .
Mr Hulls interjected.
Dr DEAN -- That is a cheap shot but it misses the principle.
I am in favour of the abolition of wigs, particularly in civil matters, but the difference
between me and the Attorney-General is that I will not and would not introduce
legislation, firstly, on such a trivial matter, and secondly, on a matter that tramples
p22
22-1-2016
Page 23
on the jurisdiction of the court. If the Attorney-General does not understand that
principle at all, what will be the next step? Perhaps the Attorney-General will come
to the view that there are other things about the courts he does not like and he will
introduce legislation on them? Perhaps a couple of the decisions they make will not
suit him and he will legislate on those. Once you open the door to legislation on the
internal workings of the courts, you are opening a door to a breach of the separation
of powers.
In my view, a Court of law must at all times remain a Court of the people (Queens Court) and
cannot have a business registration as then it no longer is a Court of the people. Neither do I
accept that the Commonwealth of Australia has any constitutional powers to force upon a State
Court to become a registered business entity being it for taxation or other purposes, as this
interferes with the sovereign rights of the States to have their own independent courts.
END QUOTE
Clearly, unconstitutionally the government and so the Parliament unconstitutionally interfered

with the oath. How can any judge who was appointed with an oath to the monarch accept that
others shall not make the same oath! To me this could constitute treason!
Because of the separation of powers the oath administered in the courts is a matter that the
judiciary must show to be that to their sovereign, the Monarch for the People!
.
Let us now look at with whom the County Court of Victoria is in a business partner with
and how the judiciary are listed as a State Government Entity this even so it never can be
as it is a separate entity for constitutional purposes. The same applies to the Supreme
Court of Victoria and others. As such on the material obtained below none of the courts are
independent/impartial and are therefore not fit and proper to serve as courts, and have
therefore neither any legal validity! The courts can only be part of the constitution and if
there is no provision in the constitution for separation of powers of the judiciary because
the Victorian Colonial Constitution Act 1855 was never amended by state referendum
approval upon federation to provide for this then there are no constitutionally valid courts
and so no judiciary!
QUOTE
http://www.abr.business.gov.au/EntityTypeDescription.aspx?Id=00041
Entity types
State Government Entity
A government entity is:
1. a department of State of the Commonwealth
2. a department of the Parliament
3. an executive agency, or statutory agency, within the meaning of the Public Service Act
1999
4. a department of State of a State or Territory
5. an organisation that:
o is not an entity, and
o is either established by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (whether under
a law or not) to carry on an enterprise or established for a public purpose by an
Australian law, and
p23
22-1-2016
Page 24
o
can be separately identified by reference to the nature of the activities carried on

through the organisation or the location of the organisation
whether or not the organisation is part of a department or branch described in paragraph

(a), (b), (c) or (d) or of another organisation of the kind described in this paragraph
About us
Contact us
http://www.abr.business.gov.au/SearchByName.aspx?SearchText=county+court+of+victoria
Active ABNs
All ABNs
Your search for county court of victoria found 41 matches. Current names with active
ABNs are listed below sorted by relevance. Use All ABNs tab to list cancelled
ABNs/names. Click on an ABN or refine your search.
Matching names
ABN
Name
Type
Location
32 790 228 959
COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
Other Name
3000 VIC
Active
http://www.abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=32790228959
Current details for ABN 32 790 228 959
Print
Email
Current details
Historical details
ABN details help

Entity name:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND REGULATION
ABN status:
Active from 01 Nov 1999
Entity type:
p24
22-1-2016
Page 25
Goods & Services Tax (GST):
Registered from 01 Jul 2000
Main business location:
VIC 3000
Trading name(s) help

Trading name
From
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
19 Sep 2002
IMES
02 Sep 2010
Infringement Management & Enforcement Services
02 Sep 2010
Sheriffs Office Victoria
02 Sep 2010
Residential Tenancies Bond Authority
21 Dec 2009
RTBA
21 Dec 2009
Coroners Court of Victoria
01 Nov 2009
Office of the Special Investigations Monitor
01 Nov 2009
Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
21 Nov 2007
Registrar of Births Deaths & Marriages Victoria
21 Dec 2006
Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages
21 Dec 2006
OESC
16 Aug 2006
Office of Emergency Services Commissioner
16 Aug 2006
CAV
02 Aug 2006
Consumer Affairs Victoria
02 Aug 2006
Enforcement Management
31 Jul 2006
Major Procurement Program Office
04 Jul 2006
MPPO
04 Jul 2006
Professional Standards Council
05 Jun 2006
BEST
08 May 2006
Bureau of Emergency Services Telecommunications
08 May 2006
p25
22-1-2016
Page 26
VCAT
16 Feb 2006
Dispute Settlement Centre
19 Dec 2005
Road Safety Enforcement Technology
08 Sep 2005
Victim Support Agency
09 Aug 2005
Corrections Victoria
08 Mar 2005
Sentencing Advisory Council
22 Sep 2004
JUDICIAL COLLEGE OF VICTORIA
27 May 2003
BOOKMAKER & BOOKMAKERS CLERK'S REGISTRATION COMMITTEE
01 May 2003
GAMBLING RESEARCH PANEL
01 May 2003
LIQUOR LICENSING VICTORIA
01 May 2003
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL
01 May 2003
TRADE MEASUREMENT VICTORIA
01 May 2003
THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
24 Jul 2002
PRIVACY VICTORIA
12 Jun 2002
OFFICE OF THE VICTORIAN PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
20 Apr 2002
VICTORIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION
10 Jul 2001
ADULT PAROLE BOARD VICTORIA
24 Mar 2000
ASSET CONFISCATION OFFICE
24 Mar 2000
BUSINESS LICENSING AUTHORITY
24 Mar 2000
CONSUMER CREDIT FUND
24 Mar 2000
COUNCIL AGAINST VIOLENCE
24 Mar 2000
24 Mar 2000
DONOR TISSUE BANK OF VICTORIA
24 Mar 2000
ESTATE AGENTS COUNCIL
24 Mar 2000
MAGISTRATES COURT VICTORIA
24 Mar 2000
MOTOR CAR TRADERS GUARANTEE FUND CLAIMS COMMITTEE
24 Mar 2000
p26
22-1-2016
Page 27
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE
24 Mar 2000
PROSTITUTION CONTROL ACT MINISTERIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
24 Mar 2000
SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
24 Mar 2000
VICTORIA STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE
24 Mar 2000
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
24 Mar 2000
VICTORIAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL AGAINST VIOLENCE
24 Mar 2000
VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR
24 Mar 2000
VICTORIAN INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC MEDICINE
24 Mar 2000
Deductible gift recipient status help

END QUOTE
Rather than having less business associates the courts now have more listed. As such since I
succeeded on 19 July 2006against the ABN rot nothing was done as to resolve this issue of a
failure of separation of powers.
If therefore the judiciary is so to say in bed with the government and Buloke Shire Council is
purportedly seeking to enforce State legislation using delegated powers then so to say the
judiciary are also in bed with Buloke Shire Council. And that I consider is darn bias.
.
No wonder His Honour Mullaly J claimed on 30 October 2015 that they didnt need evidence.
They are so to say bed partners!
http://www.abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbnHistory.aspx?abn=32790228959
QUOTE
Historical details for ABN 32 790 228 959
Print
Email
Current details
Historical details
ABN details help

Entity name
From
To
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND REGULATION
21 Jan 2015
(current)
STATE OF VICTORIA - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE &

REGULATION
01 Jan 2015
21 Jan 2015
STATE OF VICTORIA - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
18 Dec 2014
01 Jan 2015
p27
22-1-2016
Page 28
STATE OF VICTORIA - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
01 Nov 1999
18 Dec
2014
ABN Status
From
To
Active
01 Nov 1999
(current)
Goods & Services Tax (GST)
From
To
Registered
01 Jul 2000
(current)
Main business location
From
To
VIC 3000
23 Dec 2014
(current)
VIC 3000
18 Dec 2014
23 Dec
2014
VIC 3000
23 Sep 2014
18 Dec
2014
VIC 3000
18 Jan 2014
23 Sep 2014
VIC 3000
17 Apr 2007
18 Jan 2014
VIC 3000
24 Mar 2000
17 Apr 2007
Entity type
Business name(s) help

Business name
From
To
BUTTERFLY WHISPERS WORKSHOPS
22 Feb 2013
09 Apr 2013
PEEP-KING
08 Mar 2007
08 Mar 2010
AREM ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT
13 Jun 2006
13 Jun 2009
AREM PROPERTY INVESTMENT
13 Jun 2006
13 Jun 2009
GEELONG AND SURFCOAST LEAF PROTECTION
08 Aug 2005
08 Aug 2008
Trading name(s) help

Trading name
From
p28
22-1-2016
To
Page 29
19 Sep 2002
(current)
24 Mar 2000
09 Sep 2002
IMES
02 Sep 2010
(current)
Infringement Management & Enforcement Services
02 Sep 2010
(current)
Sheriffs Office Victoria
02 Sep 2010
(current)
Residential Tenancies Bond Authority
21 Dec 2009
(current)
RTBA
21 Dec 2009
(current)
Coroners Court of Victoria
01 Nov 2009
(current)
Office of the Special Investigations Monitor
01 Nov 2009
(current)
Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
21 Nov 2007
(current)
Registrar of Births Deaths & Marriages Victoria
21 Dec 2006
(current)
Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages
21 Dec 2006
(current)
OESC
16 Aug 2006
(current)
Office of Emergency Services Commissioner
16 Aug 2006
(current)
CAV
02 Aug 2006
(current)
Consumer Affairs Victoria
02 Aug 2006
(current)
Enforcement Management
31 Jul 2006
(current)
Major Procurement Program Office
04 Jul 2006
(current)
MPPO
04 Jul 2006
(current)
Professional Standards Council
05 Jun 2006
(current)
BEST
08 May 2006
(current)
Bureau of Emergency Services Telecommunications
08 May 2006
(current)
VCAT
16 Feb 2006
(current)
Dispute Settlement Centre
19 Dec 2005
(current)
Road Safety Enforcement Technology
08 Sep 2005
(current)
Victim Support Agency
09 Aug 2005
(current)
p29
22-1-2016
Page 30
Corrections Victoria
08 Mar 2005
(current)
Sentencing Advisory Council
22 Sep 2004
(current)
JUDICIAL COLLEGE OF VICTORIA
27 May 2003
(current)
BOOKMAKER & BOOKMAKERS CLERK'S REGISTRATION

COMMITTEE
01 May 2003
(current)
GAMBLING RESEARCH PANEL
01 May 2003
(current)
LIQUOR LICENSING VICTORIA
01 May 2003
(current)
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL
01 May 2003
(current)
TRADE MEASUREMENT VICTORIA
01 May 2003
(current)
THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
24 Jul 2002
(current)
PRIVACY VICTORIA
12 Jun 2002
(current)
OFFICE OF THE VICTORIAN PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
20 Apr 2002
(current)
VICTORIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION
10 Jul 2001
(current)
ADULT PAROLE BOARD VICTORIA
24 Mar 2000
(current)
ASSET CONFISCATION OFFICE
24 Mar 2000
(current)
BUSINESS LICENSING AUTHORITY
24 Mar 2000
(current)
CONSUMER CREDIT FUND
24 Mar 2000
(current)
COUNCIL AGAINST VIOLENCE
24 Mar 2000
(current)
24 Mar 2000
(current)
DONOR TISSUE BANK OF VICTORIA
24 Mar 2000
(current)
ESTATE AGENTS COUNCIL
24 Mar 2000
(current)
MAGISTRATES COURT VICTORIA
24 Mar 2000
(current)
MOTOR CAR TRADERS GUARANTEE FUND CLAIMS

COMMITTEE
24 Mar 2000
(current)
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE
24 Mar 2000
(current)
PROSTITUTION CONTROL ACT MINISTERIAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE
24 Mar 2000
(current)
SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
24 Mar 2000
(current)
p30
22-1-2016
Page 31
24 Mar 2000
(current)
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
24 Mar 2000
(current)
VICTORIAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL AGAINST VIOLENCE
24 Mar 2000
(current)
VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR
24 Mar 2000
(current)
VICTORIAN INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC MEDICINE
24 Mar 2000
(current)
Sherriffs Office Victoria
31 Jul 2006
02 Sep 2010
11 Apr 2000
05 Jun 2001
DEFENCE RESERVES RE-EMPLOYMENT BOARD
24 Mar 2000
13 Oct 2005
PATRIOTIC FUNDS COUNCIL OF VICTORIA
24 Mar 2000
13 Oct 2005
VICTIMS REFERRAL & ASSISTANCE SERVICE
24 Mar 2000
09 Aug
2005
CORE THE PUBLIC CORRECTIONAL ENTERPRISE
24 Mar 2000
28 Jul 2003
REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS DEATHS & MARRIAGES VICTORIA
24 Mar 2000
28 Jul 2003
REGISTRY OF BIRTHS DEATHS & MARRIAGES
24 Mar 2000
28 Jul 2003
Deductible gift recipient status help
Fund, authority or institution name
DGR
Item
From
To
STATE OF VICTORIA - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DONOR TISSUE BANK OF VICTORIA
Item 1
01 Jul 2000
10 Aug
2002
Item 1
01 Jul 2000
01 Nov
2005
ABN last updated: 14 Aug 2015

Record extracted: 20 Jan 2016
Disclaimer
The Registrar makes every reasonable effort to maintain current and accurate information on this site. The
Commissioner of Taxation advises that if you use ABN Lookup for information about another entity for
taxation purposes and that information turns out to be incorrect, in certain circumstances you will be
protected from liability. For more information see disclaimer.
p31
22-1-2016
Page 32
https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/bySearchId.jspx?searchId=16248
9072&searchIdType=BUSN&_adf.ctrl-state=fsifnub6z_4
View Details
Hide
all
details
Business
Names
BUTTERFLY
WHISPERS
WORKSHOPS
Business
Name
Summary
Business name:
Status:
Registration date:
Renewal date:
Cancelled date:
Cancellation under review:
Address for service of documents:
Principal place of business:
Holder(s) details:
Debtor representative(s):
Notified successor(s):
Regulator:
BUTTERFLY WHISPERS WORKSHOPS

Cancelled
22/02/2013
22/02/2016
9/04/2013
not applicable
not applicable
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Former State/Territory registration details

Former identifier:
Former State/Territory:
View
Summary
(PDF)
View Details
Business
Names
PEEPKING
Business
Name
Summary
PEEP-KING
Business name:
Cancelled
Status:
8/03/2007
Registration date:
8/03/2010
Renewal date:
8/03/2010
Cancelled date:
p32
22-1-2016
Hide
all
details
Page 33
Holder(s) details:
Regulator:
not applicable
not applicable

B1993278Y
Former identifier:
VIC
View
Summary
(PDF)
View Details
Hide
all
details
Business
Names
AREM
ENTERPRISE
INVESTMENT
Business
Name
Summary
Business name:
Status:
Registration date:
Renewal date:
Cancelled date:
Holder(s) details:
Regulator:
AREM ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT

Cancelled
13/06/2006
13/06/2009
13/06/2009
not applicable
not applicable

B1929451Z
Former identifier:
VIC
View
Summary
(PDF)
Business
Names
p33
22-1-2016
Hide
all
Page 34
details
AREM
PROPERTY
INVESTMENT
Business
Name
Summary
Business name:
Status:
Registration date:
Renewal date:
Cancelled date:
Holder(s) details:
Regulator:
AREM PROPERTY INVESTMENT

Cancelled
13/06/2006
13/06/2009
13/06/2009
not applicable
not applicable

B1929468T
Former identifier:
VIC
View
Summary
(PDF)
GEELONG
AND
SURFCOAST
LEAF
PROTECTION
Business
Name
Summary
Business name:
Status:
Registration date:
Renewal date:
Cancelled date:
Holder(s) details:
Regulator:
GEELONG AND SURFCOAST LEAF PROTECTION

Cancelled
8/08/2005
8/08/2008
8/08/2008
not applicable
not applicable

B1858583H
Former identifier:
VIC
END QUOTE
p34
22-1-2016
Page 35
It seems to me that for example the County Court of Victoria having been a business associate
with GEELONG AND SURFCOAST LEAF PROTECTION may underline how absurd this
was. Well it still is with the Prostitution Control Commission!
Now this is not about being a advocate about judges as the public simply could never accept that
judges should have any kind of business relationship with the Prostitution Control Committee,
unless it might relate to internal issues for services rendered to judges in a personal capacity, but
not obviously using tax payers monies and even then no direct business association should exist.
What I view seems to be misconceived by the judiciary is that they are not part of government.
This ill-conceived mentality must stop. They are there to adjudicate
.

(Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
You can be a fierce advocate as much as you like but wouldnt it be better if you first did your
job? As I indicated the judiciary (courts) are independent from the government as much as are
both Houses of the Parliament. Hence, the Government/Parliament cannot even tax the judiciary
unless it allows for this. The Government nor so the Parliament have no legislative/executive
powers within the Courts precinct without the judiciarys approval.
As such even if a fugitive were to be chased by authorities and runs into a court building then the
authorities have no power to enter let alone arrest this person as they would need the Chief
Justice approval.
There was this matter where a magistrate refused Victorian Police to enter the court room with
capsicum spray. The police made an issue of this and in the end the magistrate allowed for it.
Why? After all, the court must have its own security. In fact if a police officer were to use the
capsicum spray he may very well end up being sued as the police has no authority in the court
precincts. The sheriff rather than being a debt collector should be in the courts to safeguard
people there.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII)
QUOTE
Assault and Battery with Weapon: Means any actual, threatened, or perceived use of any weapons, by
any
representative of the "CANADA" corporation, against the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party or
his, that creates an atmosphere of fear for the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. This includes non
lethal weapons such as tazers, stun guns, mace, pepper spray, any chemical used to incapacitate, rubber
bullets, shock force weapons, electronic weapons,
or any other type of weapon that may be used to control
or to create fear. If a conflict arises about the events, the version told by the Naturel Man or Woman
Secured Party will be accepted as truth and will not be contested.
END QUOTE
The court should never allow police intimidation in a court room! They should not carry any
weapons. If they are allowed then so anyone else appearing before the court!
p35
22-1-2016
Page 36
In my view there is a badly needed overhaul of the judiciary and not to be a fierce advocate to
perhaps seek to justify judges unconstitutional/illegal conduct!
Let me be clear about it the federal judiciary is also failing to be as is constitutionally required
and we cannot have so to say a lap dog Governor-General for an alleged independent
Commonwealth of Australia because if the Commonwealth of Australia was to be independent
(Sue v Hill) then the governor-General is to be elected by the electors!
And most legislative enactments are not constitutionally validly enacted. But that I will not delve
into in details. After all you got an almighty problem even trying to understand/comprehend what
is constitutionally applicable to have a separation of powers with an independent/impartial
judiciary.
QUOTE
Victoria's County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd promises to be 'fierce advocate'
Jim <jim.sovereign@optusnet.com.au>
Today at 4:57 PM (20-1-2016)
To
Photos
1444025108783.jpg
1444025108783.jpg
Download All
Message body
When Chief Judge of the County Court, Peter Kidd, says: "I will be a fierce advocate for the judges of this
court.", does that imply he will protect and conceal judicial misconduct, abuse of power and corruption
because protecting the elite "boy's club" is more important than serving the highest interests of the Victorian
people, and the precarious integrity of the judiciary? I wonder who is pulling Mr. Kidd's puppet strings?
Jim
Victoria's County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd promises to be 'fierce advocate'
The Age
Steve Butcher
October 5, 2015
(Picture omitted)
Chief Judge Kidd flanked by his predecessor Michael Rozenes (L) and former Chief Judge Glenn Waldron.
Photo: supplied
The new Chief Judge of Victoria's County Court has promised to "fiercely" defend his fellow judges and take
the court's work directly to the community.
Chief Judge Peter Kidd on Monday delivered a pointed intention that the court "must explore new ways of
communicating our work to the public".
I will be a fierce advocate for the judges of this court.
Chief Judge Peter Kidd
He also reiterated a point made in defence of judges often criticised for being out of touch with public
sentiment that they engaged directly every year with hundreds of diverse people in "terribly dramatic
circumstances".
p36
22-1-2016
Page 37
(Picture omitted)
New Chief Judge Peter Kidd on the bench at his welcome with the Chief Justice of Victoria Marilyn Warren.
Photo: supplied
At his formal welcome and affirmation to office, Chief Judge Kidd said engaging openly and directly with
the community also recognised that the "justice this court dispenses is dispensed on behalf of the
community".
"I will be a fierce advocate for the judges of this court," he told the formal welcome, packed to standing room
with many of his new 60-odd colleagues, the senior judiciary, barristers and solicitors.
"I want to do what I can to ensure that the community better understands the judges of this court are intensely
connected to the community they serve.
"Every year through their work, judges of this court have contact with hundreds of ordinary members of the
community, from all walks of life, often in terribly dramatic circumstances."
He said that "today, more than ever, I think, in this brave new technological world" the County Court "must
explore new ways of communicating our work to the public".
It would, he believed, "enhance the public's understanding of the important work we do".
Chief Judge Kidd acknowledged the presence of his predecessor, Michael Rozenes, who made his first public
appearance since falling ill in April.
He told Mr Rozenes it was clear the court he had joined was an "efficient, progressive and modern" one that
was "imbued with your innovative spirit and values".
Mr Rozenes' appearance at the welcome uplifted the ceremony which followed the practice of speakers
reciting the appointed person's legal career laced with humorous insights.
Chief Judge Kidd's golf swing was a cross between Mr Gadget and Mr Bean, said James Peters QC, chairman
of the Victorian Bar, while Katie Miller, president of the Law Institute of Victoria, noted him as a "visual
thinker" with a penchant for "frenetic" presentations on whiteboards.
In his response, Chief Judge Kidd, 50, said while he would build on Mr Rozenes' legacy, a recent note from a
judge shook his confidence, likening the challenge of following in his predecessor's footsteps akin to tracing
coach Kevin Sheedy's at AFL club Essendon.
He acknowledged the many lawyers who had helped his career, particularly Justice Mark Weinberg of the
Court of Appeal, judge of the County Court Graeme Hicks and former Director of Public Prosecutions,
Jeremy Rapke QC.
Chief Judge Kidd conceded there were "controversies" in sentencing, but regarded them as a sign of a
"sophisticated legal culture which I had previously taken for granted".
The criminal justice system was, like every system, not perfect, but "despite that, I, we, will always strive to
ensure that the justice we dispense here is as good as it possibly can be".
With his family looking on, he revealed that his two daughters were naturally curious about his appointment
and what it meant, which his wife helpfully reckoned it would be like "chief in (the 1960s TV comedy) Get
Smart".
"The girls became very excited ... as I did," he added to roars of laughter.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorias-county-court-chief-judge-peter-kidd-promises-to-be-fierceadvocate-20151005-gk1dlj.html
p37
22-1-2016
Page 38
END QUOTE
QUOTE
People
David Rode <rodewinsone@hotmail.com>

Today at 9:49 AM
Message body
21 Jan 2016
The Victorian government has backed away from a plan to give the chief justice, chief judge and the
chief magistrate the power to randomly breath-test the judiciary.
According The Australian, the state government is now saying that the measures are unnecessary and
unreasonable.
The Judicial Commission of Victoria Bill 2015 tabled in Parliament in December, didnt spell out the specific
powers that allowed the random breath testing but did mention broad measures. Attorney-General Martin
Pakula said breath testing would come under the banner of medical examinations.
The Australian reported that he told 3AW on Wednesday that random breath tests were unnecessary and
unreasonable for judges.
The opposition has labelled the election promise as a media stunt.
With this latest policy U-turn, following so many bizarre wrong-turns and whacky frolics, it's clear that what
the Andrews government now needs more than anything else is a designated driver who can steer a steady
and responsible course for Victoria, shadow attorney-general John Pesutto said in a statement.
The promise was also made to test MPs, but it is unclear whether or not this will go ahead, the government
saying the decision rests on speaker Telmo Languiller and Legislative Council president Bruce Atkinson.
END QUOTE
While I am a senior citizen if I were to be requested as a constitutional consultant then my fees

would be $20,000.00 a day plus out of pocket expenses. I do not accept the GST to be
constitutionally valid! Obviously for me to accept such an offer would depend upon many issues,
and one being that the judiciary will accept to be and be seen to be independent/impartial as
constitutionally and by the Letters Patent required, as otherwise it is as is now a mere cover up.
So far I view you are a hypocrite and a fake as it appears to me you do not understand/
comprehend what you really are required to do. As such I am monies worth if I were to finally
ensure we have a proper court system with competent judges!
Perhaps those in prison may just revolt if they realise they were never properly lawfully
convicted? Dont push your luck as time may come they do realise it!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all
issues/details.
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
p38
22-1-2016

20160122-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council - APPEAL-15-2502 - Re Is Kidd The Hypocrite

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20160122-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Peter Kidd CJ County Court of Victoria-Re Buloke Shire Council - APPEAL-15-2502 - Re Is Kidd The Hypocrite

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

Buloke Shire Council (Councillors) buloke@buloke.vic.gov.au

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

More over consider the following:

Section 51 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 has no provision

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 2

QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General

ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 2

By marriage, on 28 March 2001, I became Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka

ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 2

Mr Quick proposed to give the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to

ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 2

Re; dual citizenship

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 2

16 August 2000 ASSEMBLY

COURTS AND TRIBUNALS LEGISLATION (FURTHER

Clearly, unconstitutionally the government and so the Parliament unconstitutionally interfered

can be separately identified by reference to the nature of the activities carried on

whether or not the organisation is part of a department or branch described in paragraph

32 790 228 959

COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

ABN details help

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND REGULATION

Active from 01 Nov 1999

State Government Entity

Goods & Services Tax (GST):

Registered from 01 Jul 2000

Main business location:

Trading name(s) help

Infringement Management & Enforcement Services

Sheriffs Office Victoria

Residential Tenancies Bond Authority

Coroners Court of Victoria

Office of the Special Investigations Monitor

Victorian Government Solicitor's Office

Registrar of Births Deaths & Marriages Victoria

Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages

Office of Emergency Services Commissioner

Consumer Affairs Victoria

Major Procurement Program Office

Professional Standards Council

Bureau of Emergency Services Telecommunications

Dispute Settlement Centre

Road Safety Enforcement Technology

Victim Support Agency

Sentencing Advisory Council

JUDICIAL COLLEGE OF VICTORIA

BOOKMAKER & BOOKMAKERS CLERK'S REGISTRATION COMMITTEE

GAMBLING RESEARCH PANEL

LIQUOR LICENSING VICTORIA

RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL

TRADE MEASUREMENT VICTORIA

THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

OFFICE OF THE VICTORIAN PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

VICTORIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION

ADULT PAROLE BOARD VICTORIA

ASSET CONFISCATION OFFICE