05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

1/22

- 1 -

This document was reproduced from INSPECTOR-RIKATI & There is no Government to go to war,

A book on CD About Legal Issues Confronting Australia (0-9580569-5-1 to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-5-3

p1 22-3-2014

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1stedition limited special numbered book on Data DVDISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI seriesby making a reservation, See alsoHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog atHttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MELBOURNE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY No. M of 2003

Affidavit

I, Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka of 107 Graham Road, Rosanna East (Viewbank),

Victoria, Pensioner, make oath and say as follows;

1. I am the Applicant in this matter.2. That this Application for Orders Nisi are made in the national interest of Australia,

and for this it is essential that this Court provide for orders that there be no orders forcost, as not to burden the Applicant in any way at all to prosecute the case, where the

Respondents each use taxpayers moneys for their cases regardless how wrong they

may have acted. It would therefore be a denial of a FAIR AND PROPERhearing, if

the Respondents could have unlimited litigation without personally liable to ordersfor cost, yet the Applicant could face orders for cost for doing no more but what is

required in law, as to place matters before this Honourable Court to deal withunlawful and unconstitutional matters.

3. The Applicant is seeking the relief as stated in the DRAFT ORDERS NISI, beingExhibit GHSH-1of this Affidavit, not as a way to seek to interfere with the rights ofa Federal Executive to deal with matters as provided for within the Constitutional

provisions, and subordinate legislation, but to pursue, that the (purported) Federal

Executive, and others acting on its behalf, conduct themselves in a manner which is

within the defined constitutional powers of the Commonwealth, and is prevented toplace the wellbeing and interest of Australians and others residing within the

Commonwealth of Australia at uncalled risk, and/or abuses legislative and/or other

powers, to unduly cause humane and other suffering, to any person, in breach of lawand/or beyond the constitutional powers provided for and/or any treaty existing and

applicable. As well as, such other reasons as is set out in the material placed before

this Honourable Court.

4. That the Applicant rely upon the following case law:Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court

A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume

the burden of endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are

obfuscated by their own advocacy

This affidavit was filed by the Applicant GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA

Of: 107 Graham Road, Rosanna East (Viewbank), In the State of Victoria, 3084
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.schorel-hlavka.com/

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

2/22

- 2 -



p2 22-3-2014



Phone number: 039457 70209

5. That due to the extreme urgency of this case, the Applicant seeks an urgent EXPARTEhearing, so as to enable Orders Nisi to be issued without delay!

6. That the Applicant filed on 18-2-2003 a DRAFT ORDER NISI supported by anabout 60 page Affidavit with about 700 pages of Exhibit material, by directions of

Hayne J this was not allowed by the Registrar to be acted upon, and it was send backby mail. The direction being that an application needed to be made for leave.

7. The Applicant is a person who has no formal education in the English language andneither was English his native language. Further, the Applicant had no formal

education in law. As such, the Applicant is conversing matters in a language he hasadapted with, and uses his expressions to his understanding, which may or may not be

correct.

8. The Applicant sought to file an application in the High Court of Australia on 1November 2001 for injunctions against the Commonwealth Electoral Commission as

to hold any federal election, upon the grounds that all writs were issued defective, andso were null and void.

9. The Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Australia, Melbourne office, on 1November 2001 advised the Applicant that in view of Section 383 of theCommonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the appropriate Court was the Federal Court of

Australia.

10.The Applicant filed on 2 November 2001 his case in the Federal Court of Australia,seeking injunctions, and the matter was heard that day before Finkelstein J. giving

certain directions and adjourning the matter to be heard on 7 November 2001,

pending service upon the Australian Government Solicitors for all Defendants. HisHonour acknowledged that the Applicant did not seek to contest the election as it had

not been held, but contested the validity of the writs.

11.On 7 November 2001 the matter was determined before Marshall J, that is that HisHonour refused to hear the matter upon basis that the Applicant sought to contest the

election by a backdoor manner. This, even so the case was one to seek injunctions!

His Honour dismissed the case upon the grounds that there was no legal jurisdictionand ordered cost, citing the matter was one for the Court of Disputed Returns after the

election having been held. This, even so case law (authorities) abundantly dictate that

the Court of Disputed returns cannot hear matters disputing general elections, and

certainly cannot issue injunctions of the kinds the Applicant sought prior to anelection being held.

12.The Applicant filed an appeal M114 of 2001 in the High Court of Australia bothagainst the judgment to dismiss and the Orders of cost. This appeal is still

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

3/22

- 3 -



p3 22-3-2014



outstanding. The Deputy Registrar has indicated on 11 February 2003 that in the next

few weeks she will attend to this appeal.

13.Since having filed the Appeal, the Applicant sought from the various governmentDepartment details/information but this was largely denied by all kinds of excuses,

and other delayed for 9 months or more. Even the request for the rules of the Gazettepublications has not been provided since 21-12-2001 FOI Act request! However, the

few documents that were provided (finally) proves that the proclamation dated 5October 2001 for the Prorogue of the Parliament and the dissolution of the House ofRepresentatives was not actual published on 8 October 2001 in Special Gazette s421,

but that not until 9 October 2001 3 copies of this Special Gazette S421 was

transferred to Canberra Info Shop for publication. Hence, there was no Prorogue of

the Parliament, or the Dissolution of the House of Representatives on 8 October 2001.Yet, the writs for the general Federal election, so also the writs for the Senate were all

issued on 8 October 2001 upon the incorrect basis that the Proclamation had been

published. They were all issues using the wording according to law, albeit, none

were! As such making each and every writ defective/null and void.

14.That the Special Gazette s421 neither was having the wording Governmentprinter or simular wording on it, as such was not a publication within the strictmeaning of Section 6 of the Act I nterpretation Act 1901.

15.That where the Proclamation was defective, as it cannot be applied backdated, thenthere never wasany prorogue of the Parliament, and/ or the dissolution of the house

of Representatives, and by this all members of the 39 thParliament failing to attend to

the October, November and December 2001 sittings by virtue of Section 20 and 38 of

the commonwealth of Australia Constitution were automatically no longer membersof Parliament, upon the expiry time of 2 months from the first day of sitting they

failed to attend to.

16.Albeit, the Governor-General on or about 14 December 20 appointed the (Howard)Federal executives, however, not being duly and properly elected their term expired

on or about 14 March 2002. The Governor-General has no constitutional powers to

appoint any person to be a member of the House of Representatives unless this personis duly and properly elected. This never occurred. Hence, there is no Commonwealth

Government or any 40th Parliament! As such, the Governor-General cannot be

advised by a non-existing Federal Executive as to make a declaration to go to war, asis required for any declaration of war. The framers made clear that 3-year limit was to

ensure that there be elections and after the 3 years all Government functions seized to

exist, unless there was a new Parliament. The always must be a Parliament called or

in session to maintain the laws of Australia and to have them executed.

17.All timetables in each writ issued, by the Governor-General and/or the Governors,were incorrect, in conflict of the relevant legislated applicable timetable. As such,each and every writ was defective, and so null and void. Despite Section 9 of the

Commonwealth of Australian Constituti on stipulating that the States decide the

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

4/22

- 4 -



p4 22-3-2014



times and places, the Australian Electoral Commission has been misleading the

Government, the Commonwealth and the public, by printing such as in the

Candidates handbooks) incorrect time tables for Senate elections and caused the writsby the Governors being defective issued. Also by this preventing electors to nominate

within the timetable provided by the relevant State legislation but denied by the

defective writs.

18.That unless elections are conducted in accordance with constitutional provisions andany legislation within constitutional provisions, there can be no deemed FAIR AND

PROPERelections and neither is any lawful elections held. The Australian Electoral

Commission cannot benefit of defective writs issued which where the product of its

deceptive conduct. Also, the Australian Electoral Commission has no powers to

conduct elections in breach of electoral legislated provisions, as such for this also thepurported 10 February 2001 election was null and void.

19.The Australian Electoral Commission and other Departments unduly obstructed theApplicant to obtain all relevant details/information within the provisions of theFREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, or otherwise, effectively obstructing the

Applicant to place before this Court all relevant material. The request to theAustralian government Solicitors to instruct their clients to cooperate and releasedetails/information was responded upon that they would not do so. The result being,

that the Australian Electoral Commission refused to disclose to the Applicant

important details, yet to the JSCEM (Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters)then provided details/information as to how it had prepared the writs for the

Governor-General, albeit not disclosing it had prepared defective writs!

20.Despite that Star Track Express, the company that does and did the transport ofSpecial Gazette S421 from the printers to the various Info Shops around Australia on

its website maintains all records, the Government refused through its Departments to

disclose all relevant details, as if most of the details do not exist. However, thiscompany guarantees to keep accurate records. Indeed, the computer records of the

Commonwealth purports that Special Gazette S421 was transferred to all Info Shops

to which S421 was send occurred on 9 October 2001, albeit the Perth consignment

document proves that albeit the Despatch Date on the consignment note shows itwas dated 9 October 2001. The document shows that it was actually printed on

08.17.33 am on 10 October 2001! The truth being that in some States there was no

publication of S421 on its own at all, such as in New South Wales, and the first copyactually published was on 18 October 2001, as part of government Notices Gazette

GN41. The Same with Tasmania on 22 October 2001.

The S421 was actually published in Victoria on 10 October 2001.

In overall, writs were issued for the House of Representatives, before the seats werevacant, and as such all writs were null and void.

WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374;

To bind the citizen by a law, the terms of which he has no means

of knowing, would be a mark of tyranny.

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

5/22

- 5 -



p5 22-3-2014



21.The Applicant refers to Exhibit GHSH-2being the Special Gazette S421 which onthe bar code shows it has the publication date 10/102001!

22.The Applicant refers to the Exhibit GHSH-3, being a document released by theCommonwealth under FOI Act, showing that the Special Gazette s421 containing the5 October dated Proclamation for prorogue the parliament and dissolving the house of

Representatives, was not actually transferred to Canberra until 9 October 2001 forpublication. As such, never could have been published on 8 October 2001.

23.The Applicant refers to his book on CD, INSPECTOR-RIKATI and theBANANA REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA, ISBN 0-9580569-3-5 which set out in

considerable details these matters, including containing relevant copies ofdocumentation obtained from the Commonwealth to prove his case.

24.The Applicant refers to his book on CD, INSPECTOR-RIKAT & there is nogovernment to go to war, ISBN 0-9580569-5-1 which has a copy of the entire 16-2-2003 Affidavit with its 24 Exhibits and the full text of the DRAFT ORDER NISI, as

was lodged by the Applicant on 18 February 2003, and refused by Hayne J on 19-2-2003 to be acted upon.

25.The Applicant by having published the entire case, as was lodged on 18 February2003 in the High Court of Australia, Melbourne Registry, then for itself can make ajudgment if it was just and appropriate, in the circumstances of an impending WAR,

and the killing of perhaps thousands if not millions of people, as well as the dangers

to Australian troops and all other Australians, if the conduct of Hayne J can be

deemed just and proper! The Applicant deliberately filed all matters as to ensure thatthe High Court of Australia could never argue that it had not been able to make any

appropriate orders unless it was litigated before the Court. A refusal by the Court to

consider the MERITSof the case, may be perceived by the general public in not avery favourable manner, where perhaps a war could have been prevented, had just the

High Court of Australia considered the MERITSof the case. The sheer volume of

what was filed ought not be a deterrent, as the High Court of Australia is on record

that the volume of the material ought not deny a party of proper consideration of the

MERITSof the case. It is for the trial judge to consider each and every part of the

material if it is or isnt relevant.

26.That the Applicant is faced that by his research, it is very clear to him that the HighCourt of Australia made numerous blunders in their judgments, and for this the

Applicant had no alternative but to file extensive material to support his claims

thereto. It now appears to the Applicant that on the one hand the High Court ofAustralia wants evidence for the Applicant to prove his case, while on the other hand

it doesnt like the volume of the material. The Court simply cant have it both ways.

The Applicants responsibility was to place his case before the High Court ofAustralia, this the Applicant did, and to the Applicant the High Court of Australia

has shown to be bias towards the Commonwealth, in refusing to consider the

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

6/22

- 6 -



p6 22-3-2014



MERITS of the case of the 18 February 2003 material, despite an eminent WAR

and thekilling of perhaps millions of civilians. The Applicants view is that in the

extreme circumstances there was simply no legal justification for Hayne J to madethe direction/order of 19-2-2003, as the Court had a duty to ensure that no matter the

sheer volume of the material, it shall ensure that the relief sought is not unduly

denied and by it perhaps unable to be obtained at all.In particular where the very case ballooned out, since 1 November 2001, where the

Applicant then sought to file his case in the High Court of Australia, then not theApplicant but the manner in which the Courts operate was the real culprit to causethis sheer volume of material the Applicant lodged on 18-2-2003!

27.That the Applicant was naturalized on 28 March 1994 in the offices of theImmigration Department, without any involvement of any State officer. Thecertificate issued purports that the Applicant was granted Australian citizenship on

28-2-1994. This obviously was sheer nonsense, as the Commonwealth never had

constitutional powers to define/declare citizenship. Obviously, the Applicant having

filed all the relevant extracts of the Hansardto prove his case, he expected that theHigh Court of Australia may likely refuse to deal with it, as it would expose the High

Court of Australia having made time and again incorrect judgments. As such, thedecision of Hayne J on 19-2-2003 not to allow the material lodged by the Applicanton 18-2-2003 to proceed and be considered upon its MERITS, was precisely what

the Applicant would expect if the High Court of Australia were bias.

The Applicant campaigned since 1992 about the invalid usage of the then CrossVesting Act, in fact was before the High Court of Australia in 1994 and 1995, yet

ended up no where. Yet, in HCA27 of 1997 Wakimcase, the High Court of Australia

then held it was unconstitutional! If just the High Court of Australia had bothered to

consider this very issue when the Applicant presented his cases.Likewise, the Applicant is contesting the validity of the Racial D iscrimination Act,

and numerous other decisions of the High Court of Australia, where it appears to the

Applicant that the High Court of Australia simply never understood/comprehendedwhat the true constitutional meanings were of certain sections of the Constitution. A

clear example is Section 51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth of Australia

Constitution, which is NOT AT ALL a section that permits the reference of

legislative powers of States to the Commonwealth without a Referendum. The samewith Section 51(xxvi) which was relating to alien coloured races only for

legislative purposes. The framers specifically decided that Section 51(xxvi) could

NOTbe used against the general community, hence the Racial DiscriminationAct is unconstitutional! This, as it is not an Act specifically against a specific race,

but one against the general community.

The Applicant thereby is faced that to expose the numerous errors of the High Court

of Australia, his material may be refused to be considered, as judges, so to say, dontlike to be exposed by a Litigant in person, yet, on the other hand demand that the

Applicant does place supportive material before the Court.

28. The above then leads to the fact that the Commonwealth is unconstitutionallydefining/declaring citizenship and using this to make unconstitutional assessments of

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

7/22

- 7 -



p7 22-3-2014



refugees/asylum seekers and keeping them captive in breach of the intentions of the

framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill 1898! The Applicants material

lodged on 18-2-2003 set out in considerable details that the framers specificallyrefused the Commonwealth to have any legislative powers to make criminal laws, but

would have all Commonwealth law to be enforced through the States Courts and

State local enforcement agencies. This, the framers made clear was to ensure that anyState who held that the Commonwealth law was tyrannical could then use JURY

NULLIFICATION to not convict a person accused of breach of Commonwealthlaw. Hence, the Commonwealth has absolutely no constitutional powers to enforce itsown laws, but relies upon the State Courts to do so. The imprisonment by the

Commonwealth of refugees/asylum seekers is a blot on Australia and more that the

High Court of Australia ongoing failed to interpret the intentions of the framers

appropriately and so to order the release of all and any refugee/asylum seeker held inCommonwealth Detention Centres or in the so called Pacific solution centres in

breach of Constitutional provisions. If it takes a Litigant in Personto point this out

to the High Court of Australia, then not the Litigant in person ought then to suffer a

denial of JUSTICE not to have his case heard upon the MERITSof the case, butrather the Court ought to ensure that it takes immediate appropriate action to rectify

any wrongdoing, it ought to have done on the first place.

29.That, the conduct of the Commonwealth to the refugees/asylum seekers has been notjust unconstitutional but all unlawful and by this jeopardizing the safety of all

Australians. After all, the BALIbombing is a clear example how an unconstitutionalHoward Government had plunged Australia in the spotlight of possible further

terrorist attacks. The Australian Federal Police having funded unlawful actions to

impede or otherwise unduly interfere with refugees/asylum seekers seeking to come

to Australia, including the sinking of boats containing refugees/asylum seekers.Likewise, the Commonwealth using the Defence Forces unlawfully forcing

refugees/asylum seekers in unseaworthy boats away from Australian waters,

resulting in the deaths of many.The Commonwealth of Australi a Constituti onis only as good as the High Court of

Australia is willing to enforce it, and by the directions of Hayne J of 19-2-2003 it

appears to the Applicant that unconstitutional and unlawful conduct, which may or

may not include plain murder, seems to triumph above proper enforcement of the

Commonwealth of Australia Constitutionas to the intentions of the framers.

The framers made clear that the Commonwealth had no constitutional powers to have

its forced entering States Territories without the specific request of a StateGovernment and so only in regard of domestic violence (riot), yet, we have ASIO

and the Australian Federal Police unconstitutionally invading States and terrorising

people in their own homes and then when the Applicant on 18 February 2003 placed

all material before the Court to prove his case, it seems that the sheer volume of thecase also may have caused it to be ignored, as it was refused to be considered.

30.The Applicant received from the Government a warning as to possible terroristattacks, and as such, the Commonwealth has made clear that the Applicant could be

subjected personally, as such making it very clear that the conduct of involvement in

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

8/22

- 8 -



p8 22-3-2014



the so called War against Terrorism and the Coalition of the willing makes it

to cause the personal involvement of the Applicant and his family. Therefore, the

Applicant has the RIGHTto approach this Court to seek Orders, which may diminishthis danger. The Coalition of the Willing, identifies those nations who in breach of

United Nations provisions are willing to unlawfully go to war against a sovereign

nation without lawful excuse or justification. By this places the lives of the Defenceforces unduly at risk also. Both, for harm and possible war tribunal charges.

31.That the possible WAR against Iraq would be unconstitutional and without legaljustification, as set out in the 16 February 2003 Affidavit that was lodged on 18

February 2003.

32. That the Applicant contests the validity of the Australian Act, being beyondconstitutional powers, therefore being ULTRA VIRES. The High Court of Australia

obviously never understood the true intentions of the framers, and in Sue v Hi llby

this made an incorrect decision, as to the validity of the Australian Act, and so also

about the rights of Heather Hill, who was in fact an Australian citizen from the timeshe commenced to reside in a State, without needing at all to apply for it.

33.Likewise, the High Court of Australia erred in law to decide the POCHI vMACPHEE (1982) 151 CLR 101 case. In that case, there was no constitutional

powers for the Minister to grant Australian citizenship, and by the laws governing

NSW it appears Mr Pochi was a citizen, and had the political rights of a citizen. Whatthe high Court of Australia misinterpreted was that Mr Pochi had no Australian

naturalization, however, the immigration Act referring to non-citizen therefore

could not have applied as such to Mr Pochi and to refugees/asylum seekers.

34.The same problem is with the children born to refugees/asylum seekers withinCommonwealth Detention centres or the so called pacific solution centres, they are

all Australians by birth, irrespective if their parents are or arent Australian nationals.This, as the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to determine nationality or

citizenship, it can only grant nationality to aliens. The Commonwealth has

absolutely no constitutional powers to determine if any person born within the

Commonwealth of Australia has Australian nationality! It is very sad indeed horrific,that the High Court of Australia, to the Applicant, appears to fail to understand the

difference of this. It appears obvious to the Applicant that the judges of the high

Court of Australia lacked proper consideration of the Hansard, such as that of 28-1-1898, and others, to get a real understanding what constitutional powers is about. For

this, the Applicant filed this massive volume of material so that even perhaps a child

could follow what the Applicant sought to explain to the High Court of Australia. It

is then regrettable that Hayne J didnt take the opportunity to correct matters, ratherthen to refuse to deal with matters upon its MERITS.

35.The Applicant understands that in the case of the child Shi Hai Chen the High Courtof Australia ordered the release of the child after it already spend 5 years, 5 months

and 20 days, since birth, in a Commonwealth Detention Centre, behind razor wire,

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

9/22

- 9 -



p9 22-3-2014



upon the basis that the child would face persecution in china as he was born outside

china that had a one-child policy, and was out of wedlock. This is a clear example of

an utter disgrace where a child that was born with Australian nationality suffered suchinhumane treatment, because no one appears to bother to check the real constitutional

provisions and the intentions of the framers. The child was born an Australian, as the

framers made clear, that any person born within the realm of the King was a

Subject of the King, regardless of the alienage of its parents . Therefore, if the

High Court of Australia had, so to say, done its job, and ordered the immediaterelease of the child upon the fact that the child was Australian born, then it could haveresulted to all children born within the Commonwealth of Australia to be released

from those, as the Applicant views them, torture concentration camps, named

Commonwealth Detention Centres.

As the Commonwealth never had any constitutional powers to declare/definecitizenship and neither could determine matters about people born within the

Commonwealth of Australia, neither prevent them to migrate out of Australia or to

return, then the failure by the High Court of Australia to enforce the proper

application of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, is to deprive theApplicant of having a competent Court of law to ensure that the Constitutional

provisions are appropriately complied with. Again, the product of it all being thatAustralia is in danger of terrorist attacks, where much if not most could have beenavoided had the High Court of Australia from onset ensured that the Commonwealth

would be required to act within constitutional provisions.

36.That the issue of citizenship also goes to the root of electors and so to the validityof any election. As the framers made clear in 1898 (see Hansard also) that the

political rights of a person was bound within the State citizenship, and the political

rights in the Commonwealth was within Australian citizenship, which could only beobtained AUTOMATICALLYby being a State citizen.

There is no constitutional powers by the Commonwealth to grant any person the right

to be an elector, without the person being a State elector. Again, the High Court ofAustralia erred in lawto hold that Section 41 of the Commonwealth of Australi ano

longer is relevant. The truth is, that the framers specifically made clear that Section

30 of the Commonwealth of Australian Constituti on was subject to Section 41.

They also indicated that, so to say, Section 41 was for the long haul!Again, a full and proper set out of these matters is contained in the 16 February 2003

sworn Affidavit, which was lodged with the High Court of Australia on 18 February

2003.

37.That there are numerous other issues that are unconstitutional, being it the GST, saleof Telstra, etc. Obviously, the High Court of Australia can continue to refuse to hear

the Applicants material upon its MERITS and/or decide that this Affidavit hasinsufficient material while on the other hand refusing the material that did set out all

relevant material. It would be, in the view of the Applicant, tantamount of a deliberate

conduct to obstruct the course of JUSTICE, as the Applicant having fulfilled his dutyon 18 February 2003 to place matters before the High Court of Australia has a

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

10/22

- 10 -



p10 22-3-2014



RIGHT to have a judgment based upon that material and not be subjected to have

material omitted only then to be denied relief sought for failing to present material.

The Applicant received back (through the mail) the original material filed on 18February 2003, but is unaware if the Court kept a copy of it. Nevertheless, that is a

problem for the High Court of Australia, as the Applicant did lodge the material and

it is the DUTY of the Court to consider it. The framers enshrined in theCommonwealth of Australia Constituti onthat the High Court of Australia would be

that appropriate Court to deal with constitutional issues. Albeit courts can make uptheir own Rules of the Court, there is no power with the High Court of Australia torefuse to entertain a case that is placed within its legal jurisdiction merely because it

may not like the sheer volume of the material. To even contemplate that the High

Court of Australia could willy nilly decided to consider cases or not would make a

mockery of Section 71 of the Commonwealth of Australia Consti tuti on. It wouldleave the High Court of Australia to be subject to the political motivations of judges

to refuse to consider certain cases for determination, merely if the cases were not

what they wanted to succeed, irrespective of the MERITSof the cases.

The High Court of Australia therefore itself is deemed by the Applicant, to haveacted unconstitutional as to deny the matters, as stated in the 18 February 2003

lodged case, to be DECIDED upon its MERITS.To an outsider, considering that the Applicant originally sought Orders from theHigh Court of Australia on 1 November 2001, it may well look like that, so to say,

the High Court of Australia effectively railroaded the case where it all along had

legal jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters.

38.This Affidavit is not and should not be seen to set out all relevant material, as to do sowould mean that the 16 February 2003 Affidavit would have to be filed again.

However, as the Applicant refers to his published material and to the entire contentof the 16 February 2003 sworn Affidavit that was lodged on 18 February 2003, then

all that material must be considered as to be part of this Affidavit.

39.The first principal for the High Court of Australia is to uphold the true intentions ofthe framers of the Commonwealth Constitution Bill 1898, irrespective if this means

to, so to say, eat the humble pie, and acknowledge that the High Court of Australia

time and again made errors in law, in previous decision, in the proper interpretation ofthe intention of the framers and so the true application of constitutional provisions

and limitations.

Each and every judge who fails to consider matters upon their MERITSwould ineffect fail his duty of office.

40. The Applicant seeks that the ORDERS as stated in the DRAFT ORDERS NISIareissued, to avoid any further delay in people to obtain their liberty and so theirfreedom, as well as to ensure that Australia no further will be plunged into a WAR,

with many thousands if not millions of innocent people to die.

41.The Applicant has been on a government benefit since 1986. Actually was severely indebt in 2000 by borrowing moneys to assist others through his special lifeline service

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

11/22

- 11 -



p11 22-3-2014



under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL. The Applicant is still, on a

government benefit, and for so far it may be relevant his wife has been for many

years retired. For this, considering the public interest the Applicant seeks that thiscourt provides orders that there be no orders for cost to deal with these matters or in

the alternative the Commonwealth shall pay all cost of litigation. This, as had the

Commonwealth acted constitutionally appropriate then none of this application wouldhave been required to be made. It ought not to be that lawbreaking Governments

could get away with it to use public money to seek to railroad a case (as occurredbefore Marshall J on 7 November 2001, when Mr Peter Hanks QCmade false andmisleading statements to the Federal Court of Australia, including substituting words

of an alleged quotation of an Authority, to pervert the course of justice and to cause a

miscarriage of justice. This all set out in the publications referred to above).

42.The Applicant is aware that this Court could yet again refuse to deal with mattersupon its MERITS, however, it ought to consider that if the Applicant in time is found

to be correct, that the purported 10 November 2001 Federal elections were

defective/null and void and therefore there was no constitutional elected government,then its failure to deal with matters since 1 November 2001 may be something that, so

to say, may hound the High Court of Australia, with many deaths of innocentcivilians that could most likely have been avoided had the high Court of Australia onthe first place considered matters upon its MERITS. It would have left an

UNCONSTITUTIONAL government to unconstitutionally wage war, to

unconstitutionally imprison even Australian born persons, to unconstitutionallyinvade States and so the property of its residents, etc.

43. The Applicant has forwarded copies of INSPECTOR-RIKATI and theBANANA REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA, Dictatorship and deaths by Stealth.

Preliminary Book on CD edition, to some of the following persons, HM Elizabeth

II, Prince Charles, Mr George W. Bush, President Saddam Hussein, Prime Minister

Tony Blair, and many others. Likewise, INSPECTOR-RIKATI & there is nogovernment to go to war. A book on CD About Legal Issues ConfrontingAustralia, is/will be published around the world, which contains copies of documents

filed in the High Court of Australia, including the directions of Hayne J of 19-2-2003.

As such, irrespective of what the high Court of Australia may rule, the public will beable to obtain copies of the material that was placed before the High Court of

Australia, time and again.

44.That as the State of Victoria by its constitution requires a person to be an Australiancitizen, in accordance with the Australi an Citi zenship Act 1948, to be a State elector,

and the State of Victoria has made clear it has no State citizenship, (as set out in the

16 February 2003 Affidavit) then there are no State citizens, hence no State electors,therefore there can be no Australian citizenship and so no Federal electors. This is the

sheer and utter mess that has been left, and while the Applicant realise that the High

Court of Australia may desire not to deal with matters, it likely will be that as with theCross Vesting Act, after years it will be found that it is unconstitutional and then the

harm could be far worse. There is no such thing as an Australian citizenship without

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

12/22

- 12 -



p12 22-3-2014



State citizenship, and there is no such thing as a Federal elector without being a State

elector. Past High Court of Australia rulings indicating otherwise simply were errors

in law. Every Australian has and always had DUAL citizenship, being a Statecitizenship and a Commonwealth citizenship. It is by virtue of citizenship, and no

other way, that a person obtains political rights. It is the State electoral enrolment that

determines their right to vote in Federal elections, not as is now unconstitutionallyenforced by the high Court of Australia that a person must be enrolled on a

Commonwealth Electoral Roll (merely because the Commonwealthunconstitutionally provided for this in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918).

45.The Applicant is aware that his numerous arguments are directly contrary to thenumerous judgments handed down by the High Court of Australia, however, despite

that the Applicant is not a lawyer nor had any formal education in the Englishlanguage, this does not mean that therefore the Applicant is wrong. Simply, the

Applicant not, so to say, brainwashed to read something different then what was truly

intended by the framers, therefore is open minded and can read the true intentions.

For example, Quick & Garran is used by lawyers as interpretation of citizenship.The Applicant however first read extensively the Hansard, and thereafter, even

without checking Quick and Garran, suspected that Quick and Garran likely wouldnever have published the defeat of Dr Quick in regard of wanting to give theCommonwealth the constitutional powers to determine/define citizenship. Upon this,

obtaining a part of Quick and Garran, the Applicant recognised that Dr Quick not

only had omitted to record that defeat, but had written citizenship in a way as topurport that citizenship in Australia was akin to American and/or Canadian

citizenship. There was absolutely no mention that the State specifically were only

entrusted to determine citizenship. Hence, the error by many lawyers not to realise

that while with the USA one obtain citizenship upon naturalization, in Australia,one can obtain citizenship without needing to be naturalized. And, that one has to

obtain State citizenship, without needing to make a formal application to the

Commonwealth, and then AUTOMATICALLYwould obtain Australian citizenship.The framers made clear there was no constitutional powers for the Commonwealth to

interfere with the Crown, hence the Australi an Act for this also remains ULTRAVIRES, and that any British subject upon arrival and settling in a state could

AUTOMATICALLYbe an State citizen, and so an Australian citizen and there wasnothing the Commonwealth could do to prevent a British born subject to be excluded

from sitting in Parliament. Hence, Heather Hill was wrongfully denied to be a

Senator! This, as constitutionally the Commonwealth has no powers to declare GreatBritain to be a foreign nation.

46.Likewise, the High Court of Australia seems to have misconceived the true intentionsof the framers, when interpreting Section 9 of the Commonwealth of AustraliaConstitution. It is not at all a section that give the Commonwealth all powers, such as

in Section 51 to override any State legislation, rather that Section 9 was a very limited

legislative power where State legislation prevails as to determining the manner ofelecting senators, other then that the Commonwealth can legislate for a broad-based

system. By this, the power was with the States but the conduct was with the

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

13/22

- 13 -



p13 22-3-2014



Commonwealth as to how to conduct elections. Has the same been applicable within

Section 51 then the Commonwealth would have had the overriding powers in every

extent, this the framers specifically didnt want to give the Commonwealth!

47.It are these and numerous other issues that the Applicant, being aware that he neededto file supportive evidence, did set out extensively in his 16 February 2003 swornAffidavit that was lodged on 18 February 2003 in the High Court of Australia. It be a

fruitless exercise for the Applicant to file the same material again, neither is this orought this to be needed, as after all, it is all available in publications referred to, and,the High Court of Australia can always obtain it all in electronic format on CD from

the Applicant.

48.The Applicant maintains that the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to goto war other then by the intentions of the framers, that is that it must do so if under

direct attack upon any State or in aid of the British fleet, where it is attacked.

However, where the Commonwealth has declared Great Brittain a foreign nation,

then it cannot have it both ways, so to say, eat the cake and have it. Deny Heather Hillbeing a Member of Parliament even so constitutionally entitled to be so, because of

its mischief to declare Great Brittain a foreign nation, while on the other hand seekingto ignore that it declared Great Brittain a foreign nation. As such, as long as the HighCourt of Australia maintains its position as to Heather Hill, then it must accept that

the only constitutional powers left to the Commonwealth is to engage in a military

conflict only where there is a direct attack upon a State of the Commonwealth ofAustralia. For this also, even if the elections had been constitutionally or otherwise

valid in law, the Commonwealth still could not go to war against Iraq. Any United

nation treaty (as the framers made very clear) would be ULTRA VIRES for so far

such treaty was beyond constitutional powers.

49.As for the release of refugees/asylum seekers, any FAIR MINDED PERSON whohad bothered, as the Applicant did, to read the Hansard of the ConstitutionalConvention Debates1891, 1897 and 1898, would be aware that all and any person

must be dealt with according to the laws of the States. As such, it is irrelevant if the

Immigration Actdoes or doesnt provide certain detention or administrative holdings,

as it is beyond constitutional powers and so ULTRA VIRES. Likewise, so theexercising of islands of the Migration Zone will be found to be unconstitutional. The

Commonwealth cannot extend or limit the Constitutional provisions as intended by

the framers. Neither can it legislate to the residents of States, residing on thoseislands, in such manner that it discriminate between that of other residents of the

same State and/or other States. As such, unless the Commonwealth were to exercise

the island Tasmania also, it would be found to be unconstitutional to merely

selectively exercise some islands. What ought to be held is that the Commonwealthby purportedly exercising certain islands, by this unduly prevent refugees/asylum

seekers to comply with the law to make an application for refugee status/asylum and

by this the provisions that a person must make an application no longer is to bedeemed enforceable. This means in effect that any person entering Australia as a

refugee/asylum seeker by boat and prevented effectively from making an application,

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

14/22

- 14 -



p14 22-3-2014



such as those held on the Tampa, must be deemed AUTOMATICALLY having

obtained the status of residents of Australia without any further disabilities. Those

refugees/asylum seekers that were forced (with or without military force), in breachof International law and/or Australian law in unseaworthy boats to leave Australian

waters, also must be deemed to have AUTOMATICALLY obtained resident status

in Australia, by them having been refused an opportunity then and there to makeapplications for refugee status/asylum. The onus being upon the Commonwealth to

provide people with an opportunity to make immediately an application and notcreate some kind of obstacle course to delay or prevent them making suchapplication. Holding people imprisoned in unseaworthy boats, for 9 days or more,

merely because of the Care Taking Prime Minister to make a political campaign

speech, hardly ought to be accepted to constitute proper constitutional powers. It ism

in breach of International conventions that were resulting from the Board in Inquiryof the Titanicdisaster!

50.The Applicant is a taxpayers and as such directly affected with the squandering oftaxpayers moneys on the so called pacific solution and other unconstitutionalconduct, and as such has every RIGHT (recognised or not by this Court) to seek

redress to prevent this squandering of public money, while on the other hand thedisabled and others are caused to pay more for medication and caused to be denied inpart or whole their entitlements to save a few dollars.

51.The Applicant, being an Australia, is as much subject to possible terrorist attacks andother conflict as any other Australian and as such has again a right to pursue that this

Court acts appropriately and without further delays. The Applicant having served in

the NATO, as part of the Dutch armed forces at the then Iron Curtain, and trained in

biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, has his concerns that any further delayby this Court to issue orders, may result that in the meantime an attack upon, say,

Melbourne could result to millions of deaths. It is therefore essential that this Court

understand the severity of its conduct to not have dealt with matters upon itsMERITSfrom onset, as well as the harm that can result in the meantime while this

Court may pursue unduly all kinds of technicalities, such as, using the wording

UPON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS to be used instead of GROUNDS

RELIED UPON, where in the end either version really was appropriate.

52.It ought to be stated that on 11 February 2003 the Applicant lodged an about 60 page16 February 2003 sworn Affidavit of about 80 pages of Annexure, however this thenwas not accepted by the Deputy Registrar, for filing purposes, (Albeit the original

was retained on Court file!) for that the Draft Order Nisi was held not to be correct.

The Deputy Registrar indicating that the Applicant had to split up the Commonwealth

in naming each person to which the relevant orders sought were applicable. There isno doubt that the directions of the Registrar in regard of naming each and every

person against whom an Order was sought was correct, and this isnt what is argued

against, rather that with already delays as result, surely the Court then ought to haveconsidered that the urgency of matters and considering the volume of material placed

before the Court, there ought to have been sufficient material to determine if the

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

15/22

- 15 -



p15 22-3-2014



orders sought were legally justified. Rightly or wrongly, it may appear that the High

Court of Australia was lazy in not wanting to deal with the volume of material that

was placed before the Court, irrespective of the MERITSof the case. It is not if theCourt has other engagements on Court business, it is rather that in the circumstances

prevailing, and the fact that since 1 November 2001 the Applicant sought originally to

have the High Court of Australia adjudicating upon the election matters issues, then,the Court simply ought to have accepted that its own conduct failing to deal with

matters from onset, resulted in an extensive case.

53.The Applicant could within seconds copy and past all material of the pastAffidavits, but it would only duplicate what already was placed before the Court. If

the Court failed to keep itself a copy of the material then it can always check the

electronic format, such as that having been published, as referred to above.

54.The Applicant has the view that it might be worthwhile for the Court to Order that theApplicant is provide PRO BONO with assistance of a lawyer (funded by the

Commonwealthnot being legal Aid that could be charged against the Applicant), asto present the case further before this Court, albeit the Applicant will maintain his

right to the carriage of the case. This may very well assist all parties as well as theCourt. It may also overcome some of resistance by the Court to accept what theApplicant states, if the same were to fall from the mouth of a lawyer. It is regrettable

that this perception is created, but it is unmistakably an impression that the Applicant

understands is shared with many person (including lawyers) that it got nothing to dowith the MERITS of the arguments but rather as to whom present them if one is

successful in Court.

55.Abraham LincolnStated the following on February 12, 1865:The people are the rightful masters of both

Congress and the Courts. Not to overthrowthe Constitution, but to overthrow the men

who pervert the Constitution."

56.That with a likely pending war with Iraq, the Applicant seeks this Court to deal withmatters as a matter of urgency, in that if the Applicant is found to be correct and

have legal justification in being granted the Orders sought to prevent any militaryinvolvement of Australia in any armed conflict with Iraq, in the so called

OPERATION BASTILLE, then it may result to the prevention of loss of lives

and/or any harm to any person involved, or caught, in any armed conflict.

57.That a lawyer for the defendant Judith McGillivray BA JBB (when attending tolegal proceedings with the Applicant on 4-12-2002) already had admitted to the

Applicant, that in her view, having read the case outstanding upon Appeal before the

High Court of Australia as M114 of 2001,there is MERITin the Appeal.

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

16/22

- 16 -



p16 22-3-2014



58.That the Applicant is not seeking the High Court of Australia to deal with whateverpolitical motives the government of the Day may pursue. The Applicant seeks this

Honourable Court to determine matters upon basis of law, and in this reflect thetrue intentions of the framers of the Commonwealth of Australi a Constitu tion! It is

not relevant if the Senate of the USA did or didnt approve a declaration of war

against Iraq, as their position is a constitutional different one, then that provided for inAustralia. Neither is the subject of these proceedings if the USA may or may not have

genuine reasons to go to war, as it would be beyond the scope of this litigation toaddress those matters appropriately, and neither appears to be relevant. Australiasposition as to going to war or not, must not be allowed to be dictated by some other

foreign nation. It must be based upon the constitutional provisions and limitations,

and other relevant legislative provisions, governing Australia!

Devika Hovell, director of the International Law Project at the University of NewSouth Wales, recently returned from a stint at the International Court of Justice at

The Hague and she lectures on the laws of war, Stated;

However in this case the situation, as it stands, the evidence as it stands,

suggests that force without UN authorisation would be neither legal nor

legitimate.

59.That as Australia is one of the founders of the United Nations, and claims to beentitled to act upon any resolution against any country, then the Applicant takes the

position, that by this Australia is also bound to act within the provisions of the United

NationsCharter, and for this cannot take any military action against any other nation

unless so with the sanction of the United Nations, or unless there is a direct military

attack upon the territories of the Commonwealth of Australia.

60.That on 5-2-2003 there was a vote of no confidencein the conduct of the purportedHoward Government in regard of with the conduct of deployment of Australian

troops for an impending war with Iraq. As such, the Parliament does NOTapprove ofthis deployment.

61.That failing any declaration of war having been actually published, the Applicanttakes the position that any deployment of Australian troops, (with or without approvalof the United Nations, indeed contrary to the intentions of the United Nations) is

unconstitutional, being without the approval of the Parliament.

62.Upon arrival at the Federal Court of Australia on 7 November 2001, for the hearing ofthe case, to pursue injunctions, and a CASE STATED, the Applicant found that

television crew were in the Court room, and during the subsequent hearing Marshall J

Stated; Dont steal my show., and This is my show..

63.That Marshall J never attended to the issue of CASE STATED, the Applicant hadbefore the Federal Court of Australia on 7 November 2001.

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

17/22

- 17 -



p17 22-3-2014



64.That at the 7 November 2001 hearing, before Marshall J of the Federal Court ofAustralia, 7 of the 8 Defendants were not appearing. At the time the evidence before

the Court was, by way of Affidavit, that in accordance with the 2 November 2002directions of Finkelstein J of the Federal Court of Australia, the Applicant had

served upon the Australian Government Solicitors for all 8 Defendants, being 7 1st

Defendants (the Governor-General and all Governors) and the 2ndDefendant (beingthe Commonwealth also for the Australian Electoral Commission). Mr Peter

Hanks QC for the Australian Electoral Commission did not inform the Court as towho represented the 1stDefendants, albeit not until 9 August 2002 (some more then 9months later) the Australian Government Solicitors then claimed that they had been

unable to obtain instructions of the Governor-General and had not advised the

Governors of the litigation.

65.The Applicant takes the position/submits, that the matters before Marshall J requiredthe representation of all Defendants, unless they specifically choose not to present

themselves) and as such the Australian Government Solicitors, via Mr Peter Hanks

QC deceived the Court, and the Applicant, and caused a miscarriage of justice.

66.That Applicant takes the position/submits that Mr Peter Hanks QC for theAustralian Government Solicitors representing the then 2nd Defendant, theCommonwealth, and the then newly created 3rd Defendant the Australian Electoral

Commission in a manner to conceal to the Court the true application of the various

electoral laws, substituted words in an Authority quoted as to make it appear that theJudgment relied upon was to support the argument presented by Mr Peter Hanks QC,

made various false and misleading Statements as to the application of judgments and

misleading the Court as to the application of and not otherwise as Stated in Section

353(1) with further conduct to pervert the course of justice and to cause a miscarriageof justice.

PAVLEKOVI C-SM ITH v AEC (1993) 115 ALR 641, Dawson J;If a challenge on justiciable grounds can be mounted to the validity of a general

election a question that I need not consider such a challenge cannot beentertained by the Court of disputed Returns. It may be that the High Court

has such a jurisdiction but that has not been decided; see the dicta of Gibbs CJ inMcKenzie v Commonwealth.

Schorel v Elms (1994)Unreported M2944X of 1989 SA27 of 1993Page 16 and 17: -

"Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done"

67.That Marshall J dismissed the case, upon the basis that there was no legal jurisdiction,with cost, albeit the Court had every legal jurisdiction to hear and determine

applications for injunctions, as sought by the Applicant. The Applicant simply held

his case had been wrongly decided, as the term and not otherwise (Section 351Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) had nothing to do with INJUNCTIONS, where

the Parliament specifically had inserted in Section 383 of the Commonwealth

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

18/22

- 18 -



p18 22-3-2014



Electoral Act 1918 the title; Federal Court of Australia, as being the appropriate

Court.

68.In the meantime, the Director of Public Prosecutions commenced a criminal trialagainst the Applicant, for not voting in the (purported) 2001 Federal election. The

Applicant opposed this in that a person cannot be compelled to vote in anunconstitutional/defective election. Also, that if there are no State citizens, then there

are no electors. The Applicant filing a Section 78B of the Judiciary ActNOTICEOF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS on 4 December 2001 in the MagistratesCourt at Heidelberg, this notice since was updated with further matters. When the

hearing was to commence before the Magistrates Court at Heidelberg on 4 December

2001 the Director of Public Prosecutions, through its lawyer Judith McGillivray BA,

LLB, made known that upon consideration of the appeal M114 of 2001 filed in theHigh Court of Australia, there were MERITS in the Appeal, and for this the

Magistrate ought to adjourn proceedings pending the decision of the High Court of

Australia in regard of all matters. The Magistrate so ordered, by consent.

69.Challenge to validity of electoral matters.Hansard 13-9-1897The Hon. N.J. BROWN (Tasmania)

A period, of course, is allowed for the elections to take place

before parliament is called together, and the object of this

amendment is to provide that, in the case of an irregularity

occurring, there may be an opportunity to cure that irregularity,

and to provide for another election before the parliament meets.And

Mr. WISE: I understand that the reason clause 50 was introduced was

because it was thought that where the rights of the electors were in any way

infringed, or came into question, the matter was one-for the courts. Clause 50 (then) is what is now Section 47It ought to be clear that the wording;

there may be an opportunity to cure that irregularity, and to

provide for another election before the parliament meets.was to provide that one doesnt first go through an election, only then afterwards

perhaps have the very people sitting in judgment in the houses being challenged. Itmust be done, prior to the election having been held.

Albeit, this was not possible prior to the first federal election in 1901, since then the

existence of the High Court of Australia provided for this legal avenue.

No elector or person aggrieved as to the manner in which some election process is

conducted ought to be frustrated by legal impairments to prevent an unconstitutionalelection to proceed, where this is not an impairment created by law, but one where

the fabrication of lack of legal jurisdiction is to prevent a matter to be heard upon its

MERITS, and so address the issue in dispute.

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

19/22

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

20/22

- 20 -



p20 22-3-2014



and for this he used gloves handling the samples, albeit other colleagues dont and

ridicule him for it. Also, that most men dont appropriately wash their hands before

using the toilet facilities and so may transfer the soil sample residue onto other bodyparts, by this during sexual intercourse this may transfer into a womans vagina.

The doctor is amazed, here a person not being a doctor just resolved the big mystery

what was causing his patient to be ill. It is the transfer of some the residue of the soilsamples into the womans vagina that is the real cause. The doctor contacted the

company, if he/she can check matters out, this they allow. It is found, that about 80percent of men dont wash their hand before using toilet facilities, and 70 percentdont after using the toilet facilities. Also, the soap used is not of a standards, that in

any event would remove the soil residue of the office workers hands. The company

then organise with the various office workers for the doctor to check their health

status, and it is found that not just the doctors patient has the problems, but in fact itis spread through the office, both female staff and the wifes of male staff.

It is then arranged, that strict hygienic standards be implemented to ensure that all

people coming in contact with soils samples, or cleaning the area wear protective

gloves. That all wash their hands prior to using the toilet facilities, using make-up,hairbrush, etc and so after doing so. Soon the rate of workers being absent due to

illnesses goes dramatically down and over time, all become cured.What this example indicates is that a doctor despite his/her extensive training mayjust do the wrong thing by not looking at matters as an outsider, as his friend (not

being a doctor did)!

The same is with the legal system. Judges and lawyers are looking uponconstitutional issues by what they were taught at law school and learned through

loosing or winning cases of judgements. The Applicant, is open minded and look

from matters as an outsider and so detect that judges/lawyers are all doing it wrong.

Judges/lawyers having read the anecdotes of Quick & Garran and other authoritiesdont bother, as like the Applicant, to read the Hansard records. As such, the

Applicant learns the Constitution as from the view of the framers, where as the

judges/lawyer learn it from the views expressed by others (rightly or wrongly).Unless judges/lawyers are willing to step back and go back to the original version

and ignore what they were taught or what was decided since, and having learned

what really was the intention of the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution

Bill1898, they will never know the better, and as like the doctor never find the realcause of the problems. As such, judges/lawyers will vilify the Applicant for being

wrong, not because he is, but their mental capacity doesnt allow them to think

outside the framework of how they were taught to think at law school.A clear example is the citizenship issue. Where the framers made it very clear that

this was denied for the Commonwealth to legislate about. The Hansard could not be

more plain about it, yet, the High Court of Australia (a clear example is the Pochi

case) hands down decision after decision without bothering to consider the trueintentions of the framers. As such, their decision make the Constitution to be ill. It is

the High Court of Australia who is to safeguard the Commonwealth of Australi an

Constitutionthat actually is not curing the ills of the Commonwealth of Austral ianConstitution, but rather is causing it to be ill defined.

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

21/22

- 21 -



p21 22-3-2014



As like the office worker not washing his/her hands before using toilet facilities,

judges of the High Court of Australia do not clear their mind of any contaminations

of past judgments, and commence each case upon the true intentions of the framers.They simply, so to say, as sheep, seem to follow legal precedents, rather then each

case determines matters upon the true issues as stated by the framers.

When then the Applicant comes around, judges and lawyers all cannot resist todeclare the Applicant some misguided person (idiot, or other words may also be

used at times), however, it is the Applicant who really is trying to bring sanity withinthe legal system by his down-to-earth open minded approach.The Applicant is not interested what Authorities state, if this is in conflict with what

the intentions was of the framers! Authorities are worth absolutely nothing unless

they truly reflect the proper application of law.

As like the workers in the office failing to wash their hands either before or after, orboth, using toilet facilities, likewise judges appears to fail to clear their minds of bias

and prejudgements and other contamination and generally merely assume that

judgements handed down previously were correct.

Hansard 2-3-1898

Mr. BARTON.-

. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and indefining 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.And;

If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases

with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be

enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the

principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks

and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the FederalParliament."

(Heather Hillwas and remained a Subject of the Queen, not being an alien!)

This statement was made in March 1898 shortly before the years of conventions

came to a close! Likewise, other legal issues have been wrongly decided by the HighCourt of Australia time and again. So to say, when will it learn to act hygienic?From the Applicants view, the contamination in the High Court of Australia is so

extensive, that it does take an about 800 page Affidavit to set it all out. Therefore, the16 February 2003 sworn Affidavit, lodged on 18 February 2003, was justified!

75.For the above stated I seek that this Court urgently provide the appropriate Orders forleave and the orders as sought by the Applicant in the DRAFT ORDERS NISI, as toalso avoid a possible onslaught of civilians, and avoiding any possible backlash upon

the Commonwealth and those residing within it.

Sworn at this 24thday of February Two Thousand and Three

8/12/2019 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

22/22

- 22 -



p22 22-3-2014

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

Before me

GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA

Applicant/Prosecutor

Filed by; Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka107 Graham Road,Rosanna East (Viewbank), Vic 2084

05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003

Documents

Transcript of 05-20030224-Affidavit-05 M32 of 2003