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.

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.