Dear Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka,

I believe that we have had this discussion previously:

1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to
safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people.
2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the
Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.

My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should
be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi).
Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to
savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which
can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)

With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers
of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does
NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.

If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take
place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is
what would happen, the International Community would ostracise
Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America,
leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without
the global community.

Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not
only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia,
they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome
Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)

Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the
Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help
White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.

My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:

After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth
enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely

1. Race Discrimination Act 1975
2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia

The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia:
Documentary
How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to
pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police
to harass and victimise australians

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyj_gWqdDWQ

Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is
"discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.

Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people
to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?

You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".

We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee
(chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights,
and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory"
laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the
intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their
corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way,
ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in
denying the existence of the Holocaust.

The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all,
they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined
"discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.

We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's
game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask
is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost
continuously being moved !

M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne
J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the
Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before
the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary.
Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of
ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it
say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court
application?

The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief
Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew
about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him
the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and
judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?

Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a
Corrupt, Racist White nation

Inquiry into Access to Justice.d.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZMGFlNzNjYzAtZjE5ZC00Y...

Letter to Mr Charles Pham.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNzY2YjNhNDYtZTkzYi00N...

Senate.Enquiries.update. 31July2009.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNTk3OGU2NGQtYTc2MS00Z...

The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are
applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their
friends they can save.

eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs
in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the
RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can
set up Nuclear dumps.

Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an
incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?

Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member
John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT
jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and
evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst
case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we
brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including
French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.

Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in
Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will
be tested in the High Court.

These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal
responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to
deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the
Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial
officers?

As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by
order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious
Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting
extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and
glad to see you using).

Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the
validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of
corrupt judicial officers and government officials.

If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will
test it out in the court of law in case

VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR
on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am
6th Floor (?)
Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building
305 William Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
Telephone       (03) 8600 3333

This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs
and they decided to sweep it under the carpet;
Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges
Inquiry into Access to Justice
They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites
want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in
excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying
out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of
Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.

This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing
discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act,
with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting
justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.

Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is
dead in Australia.

cheers

PHAM

administrator
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/

- Hide quoted text -
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka

    I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about
racism but what I found was;
    Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008)
    QUOTE
    HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that
racial discrimination is unlawful.
    END QUOTE
    .

    It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no
powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically
provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race
and so can discriminate!

    As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally
permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation
purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.

    Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against
any specific race and is entitled to do so.

    .

    What however is the problem is that a special legislation against
a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this
legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.

    .

    The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive
in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the
true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used
against Aboriginals.

    .

    As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions
of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth
is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general
community.

    While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial
Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within
external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
legislative powers within “external powers” were and could only be
derived of legislative powers already provided in the constitution. As
such, the commonwealth could not for example make some treaty about
education with a foreign country and then claim it now has legislative
powers to deal with education because it is not in principle a
legislative powers that was provided to the Commonwealth. The
legislative powers of the Racial discrimination Act cannot eventuate
merely because the commonwealth fancy to make some treaty with
whomever because of that principle were adopted then there was
absolutely no need for the Framers of the Constitution to provide
specific legislative powers within s.51 and s52 because all it needed
to do was to give it original powers in all matters.

    .

    The Framers of the Constitution for example specifically stated
that “environment” was to remain State legislative powers. Hence,
“external powers” cannot override the limitations and cannot by some
backdoor manner provide the Commonwealth with legislative powers it
was specifically denied by the Framers of the constitution.

    .

    Another example is that the Commonwealth has no legislative powers
to determine the nationality of a person born within the Commonwealth
of Australia as none of the s.51 subsections permit for this. The
Commonwealth can naturalise aliens but again you find no legislative
powers to determine the nationality of any child born within the
commonwealth of Australia as they are by the legal principles embedded
in the Constitution “subject of the British Crown.

    .

    It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the
Constitution are; “British subject”, “to make persons subjects of the
British Empire.”, “with the consent of the Imperial authority”, “What
is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to
say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the
Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.”, “we are all alike
subjects of the British Crown.”.

    It is beyond the Parliament and also the High Court of Australia
to alter the nationality of any subject of the Queen.

    The High Court of Australia is constituted by the constitution and
as such cannot override the legal principles embedded in the
constitution. As such, the Sue v Hill and the Tasmania Dam decisions
were without legal force as the High Court of Australia exceeded its
judicial powers.

    .

    Aboriginals supported the 1967 referendum to amend s.51(xxvi) so
they too could be discriminated against, precisely what the Framers of
the Constitution sought to prevent, and as such Aboriginals cannot now
complain about racial discrimination where they supported the
referendum for this.

    What however Aboriginals can complain about is that the Northern
Territory Intervention not being a law against all Aboriginals
(consider Hindmarsh case) then it is invalid in law. Either all
Aboriginals anywhere in the Commonwealth of Australia were subjected
to special legislation or none at all.

    .

    Likewise the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Act is
unconstitutional as it deals with more then one race!

    .

    Do keep in mind that the Framers of the Constitution made it very
clear that s.51(xxvi) was specifically to avoid any problems with
International law as they were aware that International law cannot
override constitutional provisions.

    .

    While it is a bit complicated to explain in this response you
would in my view have a better option to try to rely upon the European
Union’s Human Rights provisions provided it doesn’t conflict with
Commonwealth law, as it can only be applied as a complimentary
legislation. Again, to explain this is too lengthy for this response.

    .

    I am well aware that so to say various Federal government and also
the courts couldn’t give a hood about what is constitutionally
appropriate where it doesn’t serve their purposes, but still we need
to pursue matters within the context of the constitution. The
constitution doesn’t belong to the government or the courts but
belongs to the people!

    .

    HANSARD 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record
of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

    QUOTE    Mr. OCONNOR (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

    The following will also make clear that the Framers of the
Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles
embedded in the Constitution;

    HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record
of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

    QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-

    for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties
which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal
government shall take under its protection and secure to him.

    END QUOTE

    .

    HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

    QUOTE

    Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much
remains unwritten,

    END QUOTE

    And

    QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

    What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of
political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to
achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A
charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a
charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of
the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.

    END QUOTE

    And

    QUOTE

    Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this
Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new
charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna
Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of
nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of
the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the
peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the
barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be
given by the people of Australia to themselves.

    END QUOTE

    Again;

    QUOTE

    This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to
themselves.

    END QUOTE

    .

    I can understand the utter frustration you and others may endure
in your fight for JUSTICE but try to channel it through the right
processes and base your arguments upon what is constitutionally viable
and then I suggest you recommence whatever you pursue.

    .

    If for example you were to pursue the unconstitutionality of the
Northern Territory Intervention that it should also be applied
otherwise to other Aboriginals including lawyers who are living in
cities like Melbourne and Sydney, then you might get far more
attention as to have this unconstitutional legislation defeated. Do
you really think lawyers would want to be dispossessed of their rights
of property, etc, they more then likely may join your cause! Once you
succeed in that regard then you can build upon this succeed to tackle
other issues.

    .

    Gerrit

    .

    Mr g. H. Schorel-Hlavka

    .

    15-10-2009

    .

    .

    MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
    Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, GUARDIAN
    (OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
    107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
    Ph (International) 61394577209
    .
    Email; mayjusticealwaysprev...@schorel-hlavka.com
    h...@office-of-the-guardian.com (constitutional matters only)

    "CONSTITUTIONALIST" and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI®
series on certain constitutional and other legal issues.
    .
    EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON'T!

    .
    Website;
    http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
    Blog;
    http://profiles.yahoo.com/inspector_rikati

    "JUSTICE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER AND CLOUDED BY HIS/HER
SIGHT DEFICIENCY" .

    From: chas x <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
    To: eewr....@aph.gov.au; legcon....@aph.gov.au;
senator.h...@aph.gov.au; Julia.Gillard...@aph.gov.au;
Malcolm.Turnbull...@aph.gov.au; R.McClelland...@aph.gov.au;
laca.r...@aph.gov.au; j...@aph.gov.au; ewr.r...@aph.gov.au;
AOCC-Information-Process...@afp.gov.au; a...@ag.gov.au;
rob.hu...@parliament.vic.gov.au; corb...@act.gov.au;
minister.stirl...@nt.gov.au; reco...@justice.tas.gov.au;
attor...@ministerial.qld.gov.au;
off...@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au;
attorney-gene...@agd.sa.gov.au; jim-mcgi...@dpc.wa.gov.au;
lara.giddi...@dhhs.tas.gov.au; minister.por...@dpc.wa.gov.au;
senator.cros...@aph.gov.au; senator.barn...@aph.gov.au;
senator.farr...@aph.gov.au; senator.Fee...@aph.gov.au;
senator.fisc...@aph.gov.au; senator.lud...@aph.gov.au;
senator.Tr...@aph.gov.au; senator.marsh...@aph.gov.au;
senator.bob.br...@aph.gov.au; senator.Hanson-Yo...@aph.gov.au;
senator.mi...@aph.gov.au; senator.siew...@aph.gov.au;
senator.xenop...@aph.gov.au; Peter.Halla...@aph.gov.au;
complaintsi...@humanrights.gov.au
    Sent: Thu, 15 October, 2009 12:55:43 PM
    Subject: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission
conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial
discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed
near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters

    Dear ALL,

    This email contains snippet of how the Australian Human Rights
[sic] Commission

    1. conspire to pervert the Australian de facto Bill of Rights,
Australian Human Rights [sic] (and Equal Opportunity Commission) Act
1986

    (You will note that the Senate Committee for constitution and
legal affairs chaired by Barnett and Crossin have removed the Equal
Opportunity part, since our exposing their unlawful discrimination);

    2. covering up for their mates in the field of public health:
protected species if you are white and have friends who can pervert
the system;

    3. give false and inadequate information: Notice how Ms Jane
Thomson refuses to deal with human rights issues of healthcare as a
separation from unlawful discrimination (which becomes intertwined
when you consider the hippocratic oath); which is what they are paid
to do!

    4. she then tries to patronise us with the "you didnt mention your
race", which may be true but it was Burt who mentioned it initially.

    5, This is the reason why you NEVER EVER allow the Australian
Judiciary anywhere near the Bill of Rights, not least since M142 Pham
vs French & ors, their abuse of discretionary powers is legendary that
Kirby J called the High Court racist....arbitrary and prejudicial
extra-judicial determination of legal processes and abuse of the legal
principal.....Fight the Federal Attorney General's attempt to give the
Bill of Rights to the Judiciary to handle; the Victorian Bill of
Rights shows that unelected judges are NOT fit to handle the Human
Rights legal aspects.

    6. further complaints to the Human Rights [sic] Commission
regarding Senate Committee for constitution and legal affairs chaired
by Barnett and Crossin (which have been emailed previously), and the
Victorian Medical Board's covering up for Mr Burt, will be filed.

    (You will remember the 4 year old Aborigines girl who died after
being refused medical care by the Qld hospital)

    Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from
a
    Corrupt, Racist White nation

    Inquiry into Access to Justice.d.web.pdf

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZMGFlNzNjYzAtZjE5ZC00Y...

    Letter to Mr Charles Pham.web.pdf

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNzY2YjNhNDYtZTkzYi00N...

    Senate.Enquiries.update.
    31July2009.web.pdf

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNTk3OGU2NGQtYTc2MS00Z...

    7. there are subtle and not so subtle (if you know what to look
for) institutional, systemic unlawful racial discrimination, and human
rights violations, to health, to education, to employment, as
enshrined in ICCPR and ICERD and enforced/able under HREOCA1986;

    8. Its time for the International Criminal Court to look at abuse
of the legal system and legal principles from the Australian Judiciary
and system and parliament, in perverting justice and conspiring to
cause injury, arbitrary extra-judicial decisions, under the Crimes
against Humanity clause in the Rome statutes of the ICC.

    9. Remember that HREOCA1986 is as close to common law as you can
get whilst implementing ICCPR and ICERD, the 2 human rights treaties;

    10. Les Malezer (Aborigines "leader" and recipient of Human Rights
Medal 2008) was asked to enquire about racial discrimination in Geneva
at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. After having
arrived back in Australia, Les Malezer has gone silent and refusing to
return phone calls; it seems Robbie Thorpe is correct that these black
"leaders" get fat in selling out their own people.

    11. Robbie Thorpe and I will file a High Court challenge to the
australian Human rights [sic] commission's abuse of HREOCA1986 46PO as
a tool to violate ICCPR article 14.1, to coincide with

    STOP  TOXIC RACISM
    Richard Downs and Harry Nelson Indigenous Speaking Tour In
Melbourne
    PROTEST  MARCH – Friday 16 October 2009 @10:00 am
    @184 Gertrude Street Fitzroy-
    March to Parliament

    12. copy of complaint against Mr Burt follows:

    PHAM

    administrator
    http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
    iWitness: Judicial Corruption
    http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/